If, as now seems entirely likely, Labour splits to become Labour (hard left nutjobs) and Another Party (with the MPs and voters) I view the Another Party as being all but indistinguishable from the LibDems. Might these folk simply cross the floor and create a moderate centre left union, essentially reuniting the SDP and 'real' / non-loony Labour? That might give the Tories a serious run for their money.
Yeah, exciting week, but let's not make it a drama that it isn't.
The people have spoken, the EU will be left. Following this a trade deal will be reached which the people will either accept or reject.
Your last line is ambiguous to me - are you in the camp the deal needs voting on, or the people will accept or reject it through a GE vote after the fact?
Referendum seems best option, but not to revisit last week
Deal needs to be voted on but it's a binary choice, leave with deal or leave with nothing. It's leave either way, there's no going back on that.
.
A post that shows just how scared Leave are that the country has changed its mind.........
Part of me wishes the country would change its mind... but the polling indicates that it hasn't, yet.
We're out, I think, barring some black swan. I am 90% certain it will be into EEA. We just have to ensure France doesn't screw our banks. Which will be hard, but we have cards to play as well - e.g. Eastern Europe and Scandinavia will be much keener to help us than Paris, and all the countries have a say.
Before 9am "Alastair Meeks on the political and economic crises of breathtaking proportions"
After 5pm. UK stock markets up, some above pre Brexit level
Crisis. what fecking crisis?
This is pointless on both sides, the effects of Brexit, for good or ill, are going to take months if not years to become apparent.
Not what Remainers were saying Friday - Monday.
I certainly wasn't. I think anyone trying to draw economic conclusions less than a week after the vote could look very very foolish a few months from now (in either direction).
I think that's a pragmatic way of looking at it. All I would add is when I said that in April that potential deal flow was down, I was told look at PMIs, everything's fine. I know of a number of deals that were pulled on Friday. It's easy to dismiss these as froth and not the real economy and I'd concede that there's a point there. But these are confidence straws in the wind.
Equally, financial institutions (and I use that in the widest sense of the phrase) are making relocation plans. Perhaps they won't move now but our reputation for stability has been damaged. People can say good riddance, but London's tax receipts are some way above the population. It subsidises the country financially, if not perhaps morally. Choices have consequences.
I've asked on here, which specific regulations hinder competition and flexibility. I get bluster. There are bright people who post here and if they could say, I'd have more confidence about next steps. As it is I don't. To borrow a line from someone wittier than me, we were standing on a cliff top and decided to take a giant pace forward. Let's hope there's a parachute. And that someone's willing to pull the ripcord because base jumping kills....
For me the vote has always been about getting out of the political union and out from under the yoke of the ECJ. The ability to form our own trade agreements with non-EU nations is a bonus as well.
I'm sure we're heading for the EEA, the leavers backing immigration curbs have either been rebuffed or backed out of supporting the two main candidates, it means the stars are aligning for moving to the EEA, which is more suitable for us since we want no part of the political union. The EEA actually is the economic partnership we were sold on originally and the one being sold by the Remain camp just now.
I think that's a pragmatic way of looking at it. All I would add is when I said that in April that potential deal flow was down, I was told look at PMIs, everything's fine. I know of a number of deals that were pulled on Friday. It's easy to dismiss these as froth and not the real economy and I'd concede that there's a point there. But these are confidence straws in the wind.
Equally, financial institutions (and I use that in the widest sense of the phrase) are making relocation plans. Perhaps they won't move now but our reputation for stability has been damaged. People can say good riddance, but London's tax receipts are some way above the population. It subsidises the country financially, if not perhaps morally. Choices have consequences.
I've asked on here, which specific regulations hinder competition and flexibility. I get bluster. There are bright people who post here and if they could say, I'd have more confidence about next steps. As it is I don't. To borrow a line from someone wittier than me, we were standing on a cliff top and decided to take a giant pace forward. Let's hope there's a parachute. And that someone's willing to pull the ripcord because base jumping kills....
Thanks matt.
I think both sides do themselves no favours. All is not well, but all is not completely broken either.
Businesses hate uncertainty, we've just given them a lashing great big dose of it, and then our politicians have just gone off to have handbags at dawn. Not particularly edifying (I identified this as my biggest risk, so: gutted). We've also significantly increased overall business risk.
I've never worked in the City, so I can't help on the regulatory piece, sorry. My only position is to try and keep a balanced narrative, take a medium-term view and look at the data, not the froth (sorry for using the same term as you!).
We can't just dismiss people's concerns and worries, so I do take your overall point.
If, as now seems entirely likely, Labour splits to become Labour (hard left nutjobs) and Another Party (with the MPs and voters) I view the Another Party as being all but indistinguishable from the LibDems. Might these folk simply cross the floor and create a moderate centre left union, essentially reuniting the SDP and 'real' / non-loony Labour? That might give the Tories a serious run for their money.
It would just be current Labour minus 30% of their voters and also the brand name which is one of their main assets. I guess they'd gain 8 Lib Dem MPs.
I think that's a pragmatic way of looking at it. All I would add is when I said that in April that potential deal flow was down, I was told look at PMIs, everything's fine. I know of a number of deals that were pulled on Friday. It's easy to dismiss these as froth and not the real economy and I'd concede that there's a point there. But these are confidence straws in the wind.
Equally, financial institutions (and I use that in the widest sense of the phrase) are making relocation plans. Perhaps they won't move now but our reputation for stability has been damaged. People can say good riddance, but London's tax receipts are some way above the population. It subsidises the country financially, if not perhaps morally. Choices have consequences.
I've asked on here, which specific regulations hinder competition and flexibility. I get bluster. There are bright people who post here and if they could say, I'd have more confidence about next steps. As it is I don't. To borrow a line from someone wittier than me, we were standing on a cliff top and decided to take a giant pace forward. Let's hope there's a parachute. And that someone's willing to pull the ripcord because base jumping kills....
Yes, we are definitely going to take a hit. And it won't be pretty. Question is, how big.
Ten years of misery with an economy permanently shrivelled by 15%? Not worth it.
Three years of stagnancy followed a bounceback, trend growth up, and the fecking EU question finally settled - Worth it.
As I've said before, Iceland is a fascinating example of how a shattered economy can quickly recover. Right now it has 3.5% GDP growth, 4% unemployment, and its GDP per capita has overtaken ours again, returning to trend.
If we can boast similar stats in eight years we'll have made the right choice. IF.
It's generally easier for smaller nations to recover than larger ones because policy changes have an almost immediate effect.
Corbyn & maomentum trying to hold the labour party hostage.
They really are a fucking disgrace. Nick will you condemn this?
What is wrong with you cant you read what has been said about this before Coyle sent his E Mail before you post.
John McDonnell MP ✔ @johnmcdonnellMP Please don't protest outside MPs offices.Staff feel threatened.Instead attend rallies & join party to have your say if you haven't already.
You need a chill pill mate. Do you really think Guido has the interest of LAB at heart?
I think that's a pragmatic way of looking at it. All I would add is when I said that in April that potential deal flow was down, I was told look at PMIs, everything's fine. I know of a number of deals that were pulled on Friday. It's easy to dismiss these as froth and not the real economy and I'd concede that there's a point there. But these are confidence straws in the wind.
Equally, financial institutions (and I use that in the widest sense of the phrase) are making relocation plans. Perhaps they won't move now but our reputation for stability has been damaged. People can say good riddance, but London's tax receipts are some way above the population. It subsidises the country financially, if not perhaps morally. Choices have consequences.
I've asked on here, which specific regulations hinder competition and flexibility. I get bluster. There are bright people who post here and if they could say, I'd have more confidence about next steps. As it is I don't. To borrow a line from someone wittier than me, we were standing on a cliff top and decided to take a giant pace forward. Let's hope there's a parachute. And that someone's willing to pull the ripcord because base jumping kills....
For me the vote has always been about getting out of the political union and out from under the yoke of the ECJ. The ability to form our own trade agreements with non-EU nations is a bonus as well.
I'm sure we're heading for the EEA, the leavers backing immigration curbs have either been rebuffed or backed out of supporting the two main candidates, it means the stars are aligning for moving to the EEA, which is more suitable for us since we want no part of the political union. The EEA actually is the economic partnership we were sold on originally and the one being sold by the Remain camp just now.
I don't doubt that there's an argument there but which ECJ judgments have you a particular objection to. Is it Factortame (#vs) or is there more? I just struggle with the yoke part I guess as I have no doubt that yoke coils equally, if you are a politician apply to the SC.
Edit: FAOD this isn't aimed at you but I've been waiting for a leaver to focus in on a number of recent cases which imply that the ECJ can intervene in domestic fiscal measures. That they haven't surprised me as they are good evidence of overreach, albeit that they are more nuanced than at first glance, "fair tax shares" and that sort of thing. Instead one gets Daily Mailesque bs.
I think that's a pragmatic way of looking at it. All I would add is when I said that in April that potential deal flow was down, I was told look at PMIs, everything's fine. I know of a number of deals that were pulled on Friday. It's easy to dismiss these as froth and not the real economy and I'd concede that there's a point there. But these are confidence straws in the wind.
Equally, financial institutions (and I use that in the widest sense of the phrase) are making relocation plans. Perhaps they won't move now but our reputation for stability has been damaged. People can say good riddance, but London's tax receipts are some way above the population. It subsidises the country financially, if not perhaps morally. Choices have consequences.
I've asked on here, which specific regulations hinder competition and flexibility. I get bluster. There are bright people who post here and if they could say, I'd have more confidence about next steps. As it is I don't. To borrow a line from someone wittier than me, we were standing on a cliff top and decided to take a giant pace forward. Let's hope there's a parachute. And that someone's willing to pull the ripcord because base jumping kills....
For me the vote has always been about getting out of the political union and out from under the yoke of the ECJ. The ability to form our own trade agreements with non-EU nations is a bonus as well.
I'm sure we're heading for the EEA, the leavers backing immigration curbs have either been rebuffed or backed out of supporting the two main candidates, it means the stars are aligning for moving to the EEA, which is more suitable for us since we want no part of the political union. The EEA actually is the economic partnership we were sold on originally and the one being sold by the Remain camp just now.
You speak a lot of sense Max, let us hope this is indeed the outcome.
So the future of the UK for the next couple of generations is in the hands of the Tory membership in Little-Snoring-in-the-Marsh average age 70+. What could possibly go wrong?
isn't it marvellous to have our sovereignty back so that a small group of mainly superannuated OAP's can "take back control" and decide the direction of the country for the next couple of generations. (I'm an OAP so believe me I know how totally out of touch with the modern world most are).
OAP's are in touch. They voted with the majority for Brexit.
i understand May will appoint either Boris or Gove Minister for Brexit
So when it all goes tits up they still get the blame, and she can swoop in and sign the deal they should have done all along.
Liking it so far...
Genius!
Yes, this is May's to lose. Boris is just too combustible. He'd have been a great PM in a time of confidence and expansion, he'd have made us laugh and done surprising and good things, and told great jokes.
But... this is nerve wracking. Tedious managerial competence is required. May did pretty well in probably the worst job in politics, Home Sec. She doesn't rock my coracle with her charisma but it's rocky enough, anyway.
Her number 1 priority at the Home Office was to get net migration down to the tens of thousands. How did she do?
I think that's a pragmatic way of looking at it. All I would add is when I said that in April that potential deal flow was down, I was told look at PMIs, everything's fine. I know of a number of deals that were pulled on Friday. It's easy to dismiss these as froth and not the real economy and I'd concede that there's a point there. But these are confidence straws in the wind.
Equally, financial institutions (and I use that in the widest sense of the phrase) are making relocation plans. Perhaps they won't move now but our reputation for stability has been damaged. People can say good riddance, but London's tax receipts are some way above the population. It subsidises the country financially, if not perhaps morally. Choices have consequences.
I've asked on here, which specific regulations hinder competition and flexibility. I get bluster. There are bright people who post here and if they could say, I'd have more confidence about next steps. As it is I don't. To borrow a line from someone wittier than me, we were standing on a cliff top and decided to take a giant pace forward. Let's hope there's a parachute. And that someone's willing to pull the ripcord because base jumping kills....
Yes, we are definitely going to take a hit. And it won't be pretty. Question is, how big.
Ten years of misery with an economy permanently shrivelled by 15%? Not worth it.
Three years of stagnancy followed a bounceback, trend growth up, and the fecking EU question finally settled - Worth it.
As I've said before, Iceland is a fascinating example of how a shattered economy can quickly recover. Right now it has 3.5% GDP growth, 4% unemployment, and its GDP per capita has overtaken ours again, returning to trend.
If we can boast similar stats in eight years we'll have made the right choice. IF.
It's generally easier for smaller nations to recover than larger ones because policy changes have an almost immediate effect.
Sure, but the UK recovered equally quickly under Thatcherism. It was just seven years from the Winter of Discontent to us becoming the fastest growing nation in Europe.
While I'm feeling mellow and optimistic, if we do use our tough times to drive through reforms that we've been too fat, dumb and happy to attempt before, that would be rather lovely. Not likely given our current batch of political pygmies.
If I ruled the world, the Triple lock would be gone, wealthy pensioners would forfeit the state pension and all other benefits (probably only save three and fourpence, but it would show willing) and there'd be carrot AND stick to get people to downsize. That would only be the start of my Reign of Terror.
''Yes, this is May's to lose. Boris is just too combustible. He'd have been a great PM in a time of confidence and expansion, he'd have made us laugh and done surprising and good things, and told great jokes.''
Gove is the Kingmaker. Where he goes, I reckon the party will go.
i understand May will appoint either Boris or Gove Minister for Brexit
So when it all goes tits up they still get the blame, and she can swoop in and sign the deal they should have done all along.
Liking it so far...
Genius!
Yes, this is May's to lose. Boris is just too combustible. He'd have been a great PM in a time of confidence and expansion, he'd have made us laugh and done surprising and good things, and told great jokes.
But... this is nerve wracking. Tedious managerial competence is required. May did pretty well in probably the worst job in politics, Home Sec. She doesn't rock my coracle with her charisma but it's rocky enough, anyway.
Her number 1 priority at the Home Office was to get net migration down to the tens of thousands. How did she do?
Corbyn & maomentum trying to hold the labour party hostage.
They really are a fucking disgrace. Nick will you condemn this?
What is wrong with you cant you read what has been said about this before Coyle sent his E Mail before you post.
John McDonnell MP ✔ @johnmcdonnellMP Please don't protest outside MPs offices.Staff feel threatened.Instead attend rallies & join party to have your say if you haven't already.
You need a chill pill mate. Do you really think Guido has the interest of LAB at heart?
Shadow Cabinet source: Owen Smith thinking of running for leadership. Met with Eagle. Eagle will not now declare.
Shows how much damage Corbyn is doing by sticking around. Labour need to be free to have an open contest where they can genuinely concentrate on finding the best person for the job. Not just scrabbling around trying to find a candidate prepared to risk everything only to potentially lose to him because of his massive inbuilt advantage due to the system.
PLP provoked the crisis it was clearly planned but didnt reckon on Corbyns loyalty to members.
AE is proof they have completely fooked up here putting Lab into what is likely to be terminal decline.
They were desperate to avoid the democracy of Labs system and thought that a coup would be accepted.
Completely unacceptable in a democratic socialist party i am afraid
A crisis doesn't occur in a vacuum or rather this crisis occurred because there is a vacuum at the heart of the leadership of the Labour Party.
The Labour Party should be in the business of winning elections to implement policy and not a personality cult or left wing pressure group at the fringes of the body politic.
Michael Foot .. Jeremy Corbyn .. Rinse and Repeat ..
If you don't understand that message you are doomed to the margins and hand the Conservatives a free pass that they are more than happy to accept.
I think that's a pragmatic way of looking at it. All I would add is when I said that in April that potential deal flow was down, I was told look at PMIs, everything's fine. I know of a number of deals that were pulled on Friday. It's easy to dismiss these as froth and not the real economy and I'd concede that there's a point there. But these are confidence straws in the wind.
Equally, financial institutions (and I use that in the widest sense of the phrase) are making relocation plans. Perhaps they won't move now but our reputation for stability has been damaged. People can say good riddance, but London's tax receipts are some way above the population. It subsidises the country financially, if not perhaps morally. Choices have consequences.
I've asked on here, which specific regulations hinder competition and flexibility. I get bluster. There are bright people who post here and if they could say, I'd have more confidence about next steps. As it is I don't. To borrow a line from someone wittier than me, we were standing on a cliff top and decided to take a giant pace forward. Let's hope there's a parachute. And that someone's willing to pull the ripcord because base jumping kills....
Yes, we are definitely going to take a hit. And it won't be pretty. Question is, how big.
Ten years of misery with an economy shrivelled by 15%? Not worth it.
Three years of stagnancy followed a bounceback, trend growth up, and the fecking EU question finally settled - Worth it.
As I've said before, Iceland is a fascinating example of how a shattered economy can quickly recover. Right now it has 3.5% GDP growth, 4% unemployment, and its GDP per capita has overtaken ours again, returning to trend.
If we can boast similar stats in eight years we'll have made the right choice. IF.
It's generally easier for smaller nations to recover than larger ones because policy changes have an almost immediate effect.
Sure, but the UK recovered equally quickly under Thatcherism. It was just seven years from the Winter of Discontent to us becoming the fastest growing nation in Europe.
While I'm feeling mellow and optimistic, if we do use our tough times to drive through reforms that we've been too fat, dumb and happy to attempt before, that would be rather lovely. Not likely given our current batch of political pygmies.
If I ruled the world, the Triple lock would be gone, wealthy pensioners would forfeit the state pension and all other benefits (probably only save three and fourpence, but it would show willing) and there'd be carrot AND stick to get people to downsize. That would only be the start of my Reign of Terror.
i understand May will appoint either Boris or Gove Minister for Brexit
So when it all goes tits up they still get the blame, and she can swoop in and sign the deal they should have done all along.
Liking it so far...
Genius!
Yes, this is May's to lose. Boris is just too combustible. He'd have been a great PM in a time of confidence and expansion, he'd have made us laugh and done surprising and good things, and told great jokes.
But... this is nerve wracking. Tedious managerial competence is required. May did pretty well in probably the worst job in politics, Home Sec. She doesn't rock my coracle with her charisma but it's rocky enough, anyway.
Her number 1 priority at the Home Office was to get net migration down to the tens of thousands. How did she do?
Was that her personal priority?
If she thought it was bollocks, she should have resigned. By staying at the Home Office, she committed herself to the promise/target/aspiration.
So the answer is yes: Norway and Liechtenstein and Iceland each would have a veto over our access to the single market if we are EEA members.
Oh, but they've never used it. Well d'oh...the UK has never been a part of the EEA before...
Doesn't make your case necessarily any weaker but in this new, post-Project Fear honest debate we're all having about it, you should at least acknowledge that element of the EEA route.
Um. No. They would have a veto over us joining EFTA. That is it. Unless you feel we should be able to force our way in?
And we are currently part of the EEA. So long as we join EFTA upon t]leaving the EU that will remain the case.
My preference is for EFTA/EEA. If we don't get it then we will have to sort out a separate FTA. It is rather too late for you to worry about it now as it doesn't change the fact that we have voted to leave the EU and whether or not we become a member of EFTA will not change that basic - rather glorious - fact.
Stop diverting, Richard. This is what the EEA agreement is:
The objective of the EEA Agreement is to create a homogenous European Economic Area. All relevant EU legislation in the field of the Single Market is integrated into the EEA Agreement so that it applies throughout the whole of the EEA, ensuring uniform application of laws relating to the Single Market.
Edit: pithier description of the EEA Agreement.
Article 102, paragraphs 3-6 are the ones you are after.
If there is no agreement on an issue within the "Contracting Parties" (ie EU + EEA states) then the issue is suspended.
But you yourself agreed they have the power of veto but have never used it. Apart from Norway, as you say.
i fucking e, other EEA members have a veto over our access to the single market.
I've asked on here, which specific regulations hinder competition and flexibility. I get bluster. There are bright people who post here and if they could say, I'd have more confidence about next steps.
Shadow Cabinet source: Owen Smith thinking of running for leadership. Met with Eagle. Eagle will not now declare.
Shows how much damage Corbyn is doing by sticking around. Labour need to be free to have an open contest where they can genuinely concentrate on finding the best person for the job. Not just scrabbling around trying to find a candidate prepared to risk everything only to potentially lose to him because of his massive inbuilt advantage due to the system.
What is wrong with the most democratic way of electing a leader one man one vote (i think women get half a vote) could be wrong on that last point though,
I think that's a pragmatic way of looking at it. All I would add is when I said that in April that potential deal flow was down, I was told look at PMIs, everything's fine. I know of a number of deals that were pulled on Friday. It's easy to dismiss these as froth and not the real economy and I'd concede that there's a point there. But these are confidence straws in the wind.
Equally, financial institutions (and I use that in the widest sense of the phrase) are making relocation plans. Perhaps they won't move now but our reputation for stability has been damaged. People can say good riddance, but London's tax receipts are some way above the population. It subsidises the country financially, if not perhaps morally. Choices have consequences.
I've asked on here, which specific regulations hinder competition and flexibility. I get bluster. There are bright people who post here and if they could say, I'd have more confidence about next steps. As it is I don't. To borrow a line from someone wittier than me, we were standing on a cliff top and decided to take a giant pace forward. Let's hope there's a parachute. And that someone's willing to pull the ripcord because base jumping kills....
Yes, we are definitely going to take a hit. And it won't be pretty. Question is, how big.
Ten years of misery with an economy permanently shrivelled by 15%? Not worth it.
Three years of stagnancy followed a bounceback, trend growth up, and the fecking EU question finally settled - Worth it.
As I've said before, Iceland is a fascinating example of how a shattered economy can quickly recover. Right now it has 3.5% GDP growth, 4% unemployment, and its GDP per capita has overtaken ours again, returning to trend.
If we can boast similar stats in eight years we'll have made the right choice. IF.
It's generally easier for smaller nations to recover than larger ones because policy changes have an almost immediate effect.
Sure, but the UK recovered equally quickly under Thatcherism. It was just seven years from the Winter of Discontent to us becoming the fastest growing nation in Europe.
Though it was the Thatcher years that accelerated the already existing trend of deindustrialisation. The concentration on London and the South East and financial services in particular is how the economy recovered, with post industrial areas becoming backwaters. They have just had their revenge by voting Leave to bugger the bankers and the Metropolis. They may even be about to elect the former Mayor of the city to preside over its demise.
Be careful who you are nasty to on the way up, you are certain to meet them again on the way down.
So the answer is yes: Norway and Liechtenstein and Iceland each would have a veto over our access to the single market if we are EEA members.
Oh, but they've never used it. Well d'oh...the UK has never been a part of the EEA before...
Doesn't make your case necessarily any weaker but in this new, post-Project Fear honest debate we're all having about it, you should at least acknowledge that element of the EEA route.
Um. No. They would have a veto over us joining EFTA. That is it. Unless you feel we should be able to force our way in?
And we are currently part of the EEA. So long as we join EFTA upon t]leaving the EU that will remain the case.
My preference is for EFTA/EEA. If we don't get it then we will have to sort out a separate FTA. It is rather too late for you to worry about it now as it doesn't change the fact that we have voted to leave the EU and whether or not we become a member of EFTA will not change that basic - rather glorious - fact.
Stop diverting, Richard. This is what the EEA agreement is:
The EEA Agreement provides for the inclusion of EU legislation covering the four freedoms — the free movement of goods, services, persons and capital — throughout the 31 EEA States. In addition, the Agreement covers cooperation in other important areas such as research and development, education, social policy, the environment, consumer protection, tourism and culture, collectively known as “flanking and horizontal” policies. The Agreement guarantees equal rights and obligations within the Internal Market for citizens and economic operators in the EEA.
Article 102, paragraphs 3-6 are the ones you are after, Richard.
If there is no agreement on an issue within the "Contracting Parties" (ie EU + EEA states) then the issue is suspended.
But you yourself agreed they have the power of veto but have never used it. Apart from Norway, as you say.
i fucking e, other EEA members have a veto over our access to the single market.
The current EFTA members have a veto over us joining EFTA. That I have said all along. No one anywhere has denied that. Of course the fact that they are already saying they would welcome us is something that seems to have passed you by.
If we join EFTA they have no veto over our membership of the EEA because we are already in.
You really do seem to be getting desperate to make something an issue where none exists.
Edit: And please don't bother quoting bits of the EEA Agreement at me as if it is something new. I doubt you had even seen a copy of it before this week whereas I have been studying it and quoting it for the last decade.
I don't doubt that there's an argument there but which ECJ judgments have you a particular objection to. Is it Factortame (#vs) or is there more? I just struggle with the yoke part I guess as I have no doubt that yoke coils equally, if you are a politician apply to the SC.
Edit: FAOD this isn't aimed at you but I've been waiting for a leaver to focus in on a number of recent cases which imply that the ECJ can intervene in domestic fiscal measures. That they haven't surprised me as they are good evidence of overreach, albeit that they are more nuanced than at first glance, "fair tax shares" and that sort of thing. Instead one gets Daily Mailesque bs.
There was a recent one which blocked detention of illegal immigrants pending deportation. Nations now have to give illegal immigrants a month with which to leave voluntarily before being able to detain them. The ECHR didn't rule on this, the ECJ ruled on this with the charter of fundamental rights, which we are now party to despite our "red lines".
'Experts warning of Brexit triggering global economic crisis comes true as....er.....Dow rises 280 points, back into positive territory for the year.
This is all irrelevant. In the short run markets go down with uncertainty and vice versa.
Whether there is an economic downturn will take several months to become clear - and indeed arguably won't actually be decided until after Brexit actually happens, which is years away.
PLP provoked the crisis it was clearly planned but didnt reckon on Corbyns loyalty to members.
AE is proof they have completely fooked up here putting Lab into what is likely to be terminal decline.
They were desperate to avoid the democracy of Labs system and thought that a coup would be accepted.
Completely unacceptable in a democratic socialist party i am afraid
A crisis doesn't occur in a vacuum or rather this crisis occurred because there is a vacuum at the heart of the leadership of the Labour Party.
The Labour Party should be in the business of winning elections to implement policy and not a personality cult or left wing pressure group at the fringes of the body politic.
Michael Foot .. Jeremy Corbyn .. Rinse and Repeat ..
If you don't understand that message you are doomed to the margins and hand the Conservatives a free pass that they are more than happy to accept.
i understand May will appoint either Boris or Gove Minister for Brexit
So when it all goes tits up they still get the blame, and she can swoop in and sign the deal they should have done all along.
Liking it so far...
Genius!
Yes, this is May's to lose. Boris is just too combustible. He'd have been a great PM in a time of confidence and expansion, he'd have made us laugh and done surprising and good things, and told great jokes.
But... this is nerve wracking. Tedious managerial competence is required. May did pretty well in probably the worst job in politics, Home Sec. She doesn't rock my coracle with her charisma but it's rocky enough, anyway.
We have a choice between a 60-year-old calm headed woman with bags of experience and a passion for country walks or a bone idle testosterone-fuelled professional clown who betrayed his party, prime minister and former mayoral territory.
I've asked on here, which specific regulations hinder competition and flexibility. I get bluster. There are bright people who post here and if they could say, I'd have more confidence about next steps.
If, as now seems entirely likely, Labour splits to become Labour (hard left nutjobs) and Another Party (with the MPs and voters) I view the Another Party as being all but indistinguishable from the LibDems. Might these folk simply cross the floor and create a moderate centre left union, essentially reuniting the SDP and 'real' / non-loony Labour? That might give the Tories a serious run for their money.
May as ever, distancing herself from any commitment to or linkage with anything.
She really could be the British Merkel.
You say that like it's a good thing.
She was one of the most popular Chancellors in German history - til she so bizarrely screwed up with the Syrian refugees.
I don't think she's a genius but she is solid and effective and that would do fine for the UK.
It wasn't bizarre if you consider the backstory.
The fall of East Germany wasn't really the Berlin Wall, but the opening of the Czech/Austrian (?) border for a weekend - and the column of East Germans who took the opportunity to flee to the West.
Very difficult for an East German who saw that to turn away people flooding to a better life.
PLP provoked the crisis it was clearly planned but didnt reckon on Corbyns loyalty to members.
AE is proof they have completely fooked up here putting Lab into what is likely to be terminal decline.
They were desperate to avoid the democracy of Labs system and thought that a coup would be accepted.
Completely unacceptable in a democratic socialist party i am afraid
A crisis doesn't occur in a vacuum or rather this crisis occurred because there is a vacuum at the heart of the leadership of the Labour Party.
The Labour Party should be in the business of winning elections to implement policy and not a personality cult or left wing pressure group at the fringes of the body politic.
Michael Foot .. Jeremy Corbyn .. Rinse and Repeat ..
If you don't understand that message you are doomed to the margins and hand the Conservatives a free pass that they are more than happy to accept.
If, as now seems entirely likely, Labour splits to become Labour (hard left nutjobs) and Another Party (with the MPs and voters) I view the Another Party as being all but indistinguishable from the LibDems. Might these folk simply cross the floor and create a moderate centre left union, essentially reuniting the SDP and 'real' / non-loony Labour? That might give the Tories a serious run for their money.
It would just be current Labour minus 30% of their voters and also the brand name which is one of their main assets. I guess they'd gain 8 Lib Dem MPs.
I doubt the LibDems would welcome a bunch of authoritarian centralising Tory-light machine politicians from Labour's right wing. It took the Liberals years to absorb the last lot.
"French President Francois Hollande has said that Britain's vote to leave the EU should not affect a deal to stop migrants crossing the Channel, which led to many being stuck at camps in Calais."
"French President Francois Hollande has said that Britain's vote to leave the EU should not affect a deal to stop migrants crossing the Channel, which led to many being stuck at camps in Calais."
Well they'd lose the multi million pound bung we send them.
If the markets are looking perkier, could it be because the grownups are increasingly looking like UK's future course? EEA + financial passport + free movement didn't feel like the destination on Friday, but now it feels at least possible. Nigel has been dumped, and Boris seems... sidelined...
OK, it's tough on anyone who voted leave to cut migration, but there aren't many of those, are there?
While I'm feeling mellow and optimistic, if we do use our tough times to drive through reforms that we've been too fat, dumb and happy to attempt before, that would be rather lovely. Not likely given our current batch of political pygmies.
If I ruled the world, the Triple lock would be gone, wealthy pensioners would forfeit the state pension and all other benefits (probably only save three and fourpence, but it would show willing) and there'd be carrot AND stick to get people to downsize. That would only be the start of my Reign of Terror.
My first move would be to change MPs pensions into a direct contribution scheme.
That would give you the moral authority to reform public sector pensions in the same way
(although it might alienate people who you need to vote for your legislation...)
PLP provoked the crisis it was clearly planned but didnt reckon on Corbyns loyalty to members.
AE is proof they have completely fooked up here putting Lab into what is likely to be terminal decline.
They were desperate to avoid the democracy of Labs system and thought that a coup would be accepted.
Completely unacceptable in a democratic socialist party i am afraid
A crisis doesn't occur in a vacuum or rather this crisis occurred because there is a vacuum at the heart of the leadership of the Labour Party.
The Labour Party should be in the business of winning elections to implement policy and not a personality cult or left wing pressure group at the fringes of the body politic.
Michael Foot .. Jeremy Corbyn .. Rinse and Repeat ..
If you don't understand that message you are doomed to the margins and hand the Conservatives a free pass that they are more than happy to accept.
Will there be a Labour leader ARSE
Waits for joke
Waits for Charlie Falconer ....
There has to be a joke in Lab electing someone called Owen too.
I believe in Owen!!! must ave been all that borrowin
i understand May will appoint either Boris or Gove Minister for Brexit
So when it all goes tits up they still get the blame, and she can swoop in and sign the deal they should have done all along.
Liking it so far...
Genius!
Yes, this is May's to lose. Boris is just too combustible. He'd have been a great PM in a time of confidence and expansion, he'd have made us laugh and done surprising and good things, and told great jokes.
But... this is nerve wracking. Tedious managerial competence is required. May did pretty well in probably the worst job in politics, Home Sec. She doesn't rock my coracle with her charisma but it's rocky enough, anyway.
We have a choice between a 60-year-old calm headed woman with bags of experience and a passion for country walks or a bone idle testosterone-fuelled professional clown who betrayed his party, prime minister and former mayoral territory.
Now let me think.
May has been the Conservatives' best choice since Cameron said he was standing down. What's changed is that now every sensible person wants the Conservatives to make the best choice, regardless of which party they support, because the stakes are so high for all of us.
Shadow Cabinet source: Owen Smith thinking of running for leadership. Met with Eagle. Eagle will not now declare.
Shows how much damage Corbyn is doing by sticking around. Labour need to be free to have an open contest where they can genuinely concentrate on finding the best person for the job. Not just scrabbling around trying to find a candidate prepared to risk everything only to potentially lose to him because of his massive inbuilt advantage due to the system.
It's a WW1 trenches style system. If/when Labour gets someone sensible in charge the rules will have to be changed. Quite possibly back to the PLP selection system of the 1980s.
If the markets are looking perkier, could it be because the grownups are increasingly looking like UK's future course? EEA + financial passport + free movement didn't feel like the destination on Friday, but now it feels at least possible. Nigel has been dumped, and Boris seems... sidelined...
OK, it's tough on anyone who voted leave to cut migration, but there aren't many of those, are there?
I'd guess at about half of the leave vote was driven primarily by immigration, my sister who voted on it would accept EEA and free movement identical to now to stay in the single market despite her earlier stance. The hardcore aren't going to be more than half of leave voters, which is probably the ceiling for UKIP support outside the EU.
I think that's a pragmatic way of looking at it. All I would add is when I said that in April that potential deal flow was down, I was told look at PMIs, everything's fine. I know of a number of deals that were pulled on Friday. It's easy to dismiss these as froth and not the real economy and I'd concede that there's a point there. But these are confidence straws in the wind.
Equally, financial institutions (and I use that in the widest sense of the phrase) are making relocation plans. Perhaps they won't move now but our reputation for stability has been damaged. People can say good riddance, but London's tax receipts are some way above the population. It subsidises the country financially, if not perhaps morally. Choices have consequences.
Yes, we are definitely going to take a hit. And it won't be pretty. Question is, how big.
Ten years of misery with an economy shrivelled by 15%? Not worth it.
Three years of stagnancy followed a bounceback, trend growth up, and the fecking EU question finally settled - Worth it.
As I've said before, Iceland is a fascinating example of how a shattered economy can quickly recover. Right now it has 3.5% GDP growth, 4% unemployment, and its GDP per capita has overtaken ours again, returning to trend.
If we can boast similar stats in eight years we'll have made the right choice. IF.
It's generally easier for smaller nations to recover than larger ones because policy changes have an almost immediate effect.
Sure, but the UK recovered equally quickly under Thatcherism. It was just seven years from the Winter of Discontent to us becoming the fastest growing nation in Europe.
While I'm feeling mellow and optimistic, if we do use our tough times to drive through reforms that we've been too fat, dumb and happy to attempt before, that would be rather lovely. Not likely given our current batch of political pygmies.
If I ruled the world, the Triple lock would be gone, wealthy pensioners would forfeit the state pension and all other benefits (probably only save three and fourpence, but it would show willing) and there'd be carrot AND stick to get people to downsize. That would only be the start of my Reign of Terror.
Ah - a supporter of the bedroom tax then.
That only applies to social housing right? If so, not a supporter. My downsizing measure would only apply to homeowners. Got to get older people moving.
So the answer is yes: Norway and Liechtenstein and Iceland each would have a veto over our access to the single market if we are EEA members.
Oh, but they've never used it. Well d'oh...the UK has never been a part of the EEA before...
Doesn't make your case necessarily any weaker but in this new, post-Project Fear honest debate we're all having about it, you should at least acknowledge that element of the EEA route.
Um. No. They woul
Stop diverting, Richard. This is what the EEA agreement is:
Article 102, paragraphs 3-6 are the ones you are after, Richard.
If there is no agreement on an issue within the "Contracting Parties" (ie EU + EEA states) then the issue is suspended.
But you yourself agreed they have the power of veto but have never used it. Apart from Norway, as you say.
i fucking e, other EEA members have a veto over our access to the single market.
The current EFTA members have a veto over us joining EFTA. That I have said all along. No one anywhere has denied that. Of course the fact that they are already saying they would welcome us is something that seems to have passed you by.
If we join EFTA they have no veto over our membership of the EEA because we are already in.
You really do seem to be getting desperate to make something an issue where none exists.
Edit: And please don't bother quoting bits of the EEA Agreement at me as if it is something new. I doubt you had even seen a copy of it before this week whereas I have been studying it and quoting it for the last decade.
Here's an expert on the matter:
"All EFTA members have a veto over the expansion of the EEA agreement (hence the Norwegian refusal to allow it to include oil and gas legislation)"
You said that Richard.
All EFTA members but only three (soon to be four?) who care about the EEA Agreement - Norway (the example you cited), Liechtenstein, and Iceland.
So if any of those non-EU EEA/EFTA members object to an expansion of the EEA Agreement which would otherwise benefit the UK, they would veto it.
And vice versa.
So much time studying the agreement..so little understanding.
Actually you do of course understand it as you gave me the example of Norway using the veto. It's just that you are in denial about it. You should try to lose the blog/chatroom mentality where you insult people and refuse to accept a point. It does you no favours.
Just when you think somebody is going to put an end to their farce, we just get more farce. The England football team are looking like the 1970s Brazil team.compared to labour party.
PLP provoked the crisis it was clearly planned but didnt reckon on Corbyns loyalty to members.
AE is proof they have completely fooked up here putting Lab into what is likely to be terminal decline.
They were desperate to avoid the democracy of Labs system and thought that a coup would be accepted.
Completely unacceptable in a democratic socialist party i am afraid
A crisis doesn't occur in a vacuum or rather this crisis occurred because there is a vacuum at the heart of the leadership of the Labour Party.
The Labour Party should be in the business of winning elections to implement policy and not a personality cult or left wing pressure group at the fringes of the body politic.
Michael Foot .. Jeremy Corbyn .. Rinse and Repeat ..
If you don't understand that message you are doomed to the margins and hand the Conservatives a free pass that they are more than happy to accept.
Will there be a Labour leader ARSE
Waits for joke
Heres a Boom Tish in advance
You might do the forum the courtesy of tackling Jack's points...?
i understand May will appoint either Boris or Gove Minister for Brexit
So when it all goes tits up they still get the blame, and she can swoop in and sign the deal they should have done all along.
Liking it so far...
Genius!
Yes, this is May's to lose. Boris is just too combustible. He'd have been a great PM in a time of confidence and expansion, he'd have made us laugh and done surprising and good things, and told great jokes.
But... this is nerve wracking. Tedious managerial competence is required. May did pretty well in probably the worst job in politics, Home Sec. She doesn't rock my coracle with her charisma but it's rocky enough, anyway.
We have a choice between a 60-year-old calm headed woman with bags of experience and a passion for country walks or a bone idle testosterone-fuelled professional clown who betrayed his party, prime minister and former mayoral territory.
Now let me think.
Mays biggest challenge is squaring the circle between backing remain and being a Brexit PM.
I have no doubt she'll have come up with an explanation/argument. The challenge will be whether the Eurosceptic membership accepts it.
That's not a criticism, it's a comment. Her whole candidacy succeeds or falls on getting that tone right.
So the answer is yes: Norway and Liechtenstein and Iceland each would have a veto over our access to the single market if we are EEA members.
Oh, but they've never used it. Well d'oh...the UK has never been a part of the EEA before...
Doesn't make your case necessarily any weaker but in this new, post-Project Fear honest debate we're all having about it, you should at least acknowledge that element of the EEA route.
Um. No. They woul
Stop diverting, Richard. This is what the EEA agreement is:
Article 102, paragraphs 3-6 are the ones you are after, Richard.
If there is no agreement on an issue within the "Contracting Parties" (ie EU + EEA states) then the issue is suspended.
But you yourself agreed they have the power of veto but have never used it. Apart from Norway, as you say.
i fucking e, other EEA members have a veto over our access to the single market.
The current EFTA members have a veto over us joining EFTA. That I have said all along. No one anywhere has denied that. Of course the fact that they are already saying they would welcome us is something that seems to have passed you by.
If we join EFTA they have no veto over our membership of the EEA because we are already in.
You really do seem to be getting desperate to make something an issue where none exists.
Edit: And please don't bother quoting bits of the EEA Agreement at me as if it is something new. I doubt you had even seen a copy of it before this week whereas I have been studying it and quoting it for the last decade.
Here's an expert on the matter:
"All EFTA members have a veto over the expansion of the EEA agreement (hence the Norwegian refusal to allow it to include oil and gas legislation)"
You said that Richard.
All EFTA members but only three (soon to be four?) who care about the EEA Agreement - Norway (the example you cited), Liechtenstein, and Iceland.
So if any of those non-EU EEA/EFTA members object to an expansion of the EEA Agreement which would otherwise benefit the UK, they would veto it.
And vice versa.
So much time studying the agreement..so little understanding.
Actually you do of course understand it as you gave me the example of Norway using the veto. It's just that you are in denial about it. You should try to lose the blog/chatroom mentality where you insult people and refuse to accept a point. It does you no favours.
I believe it is possible to unilaterally take up any vetoed regulations or legislation and the EU would consider it settled.
i understand May will appoint either Boris or Gove Minister for Brexit
So when it all goes tits up they still get the blame, and she can swoop in and sign the deal they should have done all along.
Liking it so far...
Genius!
Yes, this is May's to lose. Boris is just too combustible. He'd have been a great PM in a time of confidence and expansion, he'd have made us laugh and done surprising and good things, and told great jokes.
But... this is nerve wracking. Tedious managerial competence is required. May did pretty well in probably the worst job in politics, Home Sec. She doesn't rock my coracle with her charisma but it's rocky enough, anyway.
We have a choice between a 60-year-old calm headed woman with bags of experience and a passion for country walks or a bone idle testosterone-fuelled professional clown who betrayed his party, prime minister and former mayoral territory.
Now let me think.
Mays biggest challenge is squaring the circle between backing remain and being a Brexit PM.
I have no doubt she'll have come up with an explanation/argument. The challenge will be whether the Eurosceptic membership accepts it.
That's not a criticism, it's a comment. Her whole candidacy succeeds or falls on getting that tone right.
I think her first speech will be critical. I assume she is going to give one tomorrow?
I've asked on here, which specific regulations hinder competition and flexibility. I get bluster. There are bright people who post here and if they could say, I'd have more confidence about next steps.
MIFID 2
You don't understand MiFID II, Charles.
No shame there.
Bits of it are good. Bits of it are crap.
All of it written by people who don't understand (or care about the City), despite Kay's best efforts to get the EU to see sense.
They should have all stayed away from PMQs today. Corbyn asking questions with only 40 people behind him would have spelled out the situation better than 1000 words.
Comments
AE is proof they have completely fooked up here putting Lab into what is likely to be terminal decline.
They were desperate to avoid the democracy of Labs system and thought that a coup would be accepted.
Completely unacceptable in a democratic socialist party i am afraid
But this suggests that the tide is turning back to Remain (not enough yet, but getting there)
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-bregret-leave-petition-second-remain-latest-will-we-leave-a7105116.html?amp?client=safari#
I certainly wasn't. I think anyone trying to draw economic conclusions less than a week after the vote could look very very foolish a few months from now (in either direction).
When Cameron threatened WW3, I didn't realise he meant it was the Labour Party that would annihilate itself.
I'm sure we're heading for the EEA, the leavers backing immigration curbs have either been rebuffed or backed out of supporting the two main candidates, it means the stars are aligning for moving to the EEA, which is more suitable for us since we want no part of the political union. The EEA actually is the economic partnership we were sold on originally and the one being sold by the Remain camp just now.
I think both sides do themselves no favours. All is not well, but all is not completely broken either.
Businesses hate uncertainty, we've just given them a lashing great big dose of it, and then our politicians have just gone off to have handbags at dawn. Not particularly edifying (I identified this as my biggest risk, so: gutted). We've also significantly increased overall business risk.
I've never worked in the City, so I can't help on the regulatory piece, sorry. My only position is to try and keep a balanced narrative, take a medium-term view and look at the data, not the froth (sorry for using the same term as you!).
We can't just dismiss people's concerns and worries, so I do take your overall point.
John McDonnell MP ✔ @johnmcdonnellMP
Please don't protest outside MPs offices.Staff feel threatened.Instead attend rallies & join party to have your say if you haven't already.
You need a chill pill mate. Do you really think Guido has the interest of LAB at heart?
May as ever, distancing herself from any commitment to or linkage with anything.
You say that like it's a good thing.
Edit: FAOD this isn't aimed at you but I've been waiting for a leaver to focus in on a number of recent cases which imply that the ECJ can intervene in domestic fiscal measures. That they haven't surprised me as they are good evidence of overreach, albeit that they are more nuanced than at first glance, "fair tax shares" and that sort of thing. Instead one gets Daily Mailesque bs.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m2 minutes ago
Shadow Cabinet source: Owen Smith thinking of running for leadership. Met with Eagle. Eagle will not now declare.
If I ruled the world, the Triple lock would be gone, wealthy pensioners would forfeit the state pension and all other benefits (probably only save three and fourpence, but it would show willing) and there'd be carrot AND stick to get people to downsize. That would only be the start of my Reign of Terror.
Gove is the Kingmaker. Where he goes, I reckon the party will go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2D8MB5s8Jg
The Labour Party should be in the business of winning elections to implement policy and not a personality cult or left wing pressure group at the fringes of the body politic.
Michael Foot .. Jeremy Corbyn .. Rinse and Repeat ..
If you don't understand that message you are doomed to the margins and hand the Conservatives a free pass that they are more than happy to accept.
The objective of the EEA Agreement is to create a homogenous European Economic Area. All relevant EU legislation in the field of the Single Market is integrated into the EEA Agreement so that it applies throughout the whole of the EEA, ensuring uniform application of laws relating to the Single Market.
Edit: pithier description of the EEA Agreement.
Article 102, paragraphs 3-6 are the ones you are after.
If there is no agreement on an issue within the "Contracting Parties" (ie EU + EEA states) then the issue is suspended.
But you yourself agreed they have the power of veto but have never used it. Apart from Norway, as you say.
i fucking e, other EEA members have a veto over our access to the single market.
brewery piss up cancelled
Be careful who you are nasty to on the way up, you are certain to meet them again on the way down.
If we join EFTA they have no veto over our membership of the EEA because we are already in.
You really do seem to be getting desperate to make something an issue where none exists.
Edit: And please don't bother quoting bits of the EEA Agreement at me as if it is something new. I doubt you had even seen a copy of it before this week whereas I have been studying it and quoting it for the last decade.
Whether there is an economic downturn will take several months to become clear - and indeed arguably won't actually be decided until after Brexit actually happens, which is years away.
Waits for joke
Heres a Boom Tish in advance
Now let me think.
Tell that to all your remainer friends wailing about downward market moves since last Thursday.
I am with Jezza still on that.
Disappointed Lewis or Burnham couldnt be persuaded
No shame there.
The fall of East Germany wasn't really the Berlin Wall, but the opening of the Czech/Austrian (?) border for a weekend - and the column of East Germans who took the opportunity to flee to the West.
Very difficult for an East German who saw that to turn away people flooding to a better life.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/748247637137166336
"French President Francois Hollande has said that Britain's vote to leave the EU should not affect a deal to stop migrants crossing the Channel, which led to many being stuck at camps in Calais."
OK, it's tough on anyone who voted leave to cut migration, but there aren't many of those, are there?
That would give you the moral authority to reform public sector pensions in the same way
(although it might alienate people who you need to vote for your legislation...)
I believe in Owen!!! must ave been all that borrowin
Call the funeral director !!!!!!!!!
Just for today .....
Good Night all .......
I know these people are totally fking useless but some of us have MONEY ON THIS FFS!
I actually think AE is even worse.
"All EFTA members have a veto over the expansion of the EEA agreement (hence the Norwegian refusal to allow it to include oil and gas legislation)"
You said that Richard.
All EFTA members but only three (soon to be four?) who care about the EEA Agreement - Norway (the example you cited), Liechtenstein, and Iceland.
So if any of those non-EU EEA/EFTA members object to an expansion of the EEA Agreement which would otherwise benefit the UK, they would veto it.
And vice versa.
So much time studying the agreement..so little understanding.
Actually you do of course understand it as you gave me the example of Norway using the veto. It's just that you are in denial about it. You should try to lose the blog/chatroom mentality where you insult people and refuse to accept a point. It does you no favours.
I have no doubt she'll have come up with an explanation/argument. The challenge will be whether the Eurosceptic membership accepts it.
That's not a criticism, it's a comment. Her whole candidacy succeeds or falls on getting that tone right.
Jezza is going to be king of all he survey's very shortly.
All of it written by people who don't understand (or care about the City), despite Kay's best efforts to get the EU to see sense.
No shame here.
Boris has won two elections and one referendum on pretty unpromising ground and always against the odds.
May has won nothing, ever.
Corbyn 90%
Eagle 10%
They are awaiting the decision of Chuckie Falconer.