£ sinking towards $1.275 and the FTSE taking off...
31 year low
So glad we Took Back Control...
We're asking the wrong question about the pound. What we should be asking is why it was overvalued for so long. British productivity hasn't improved significantly in years, and we've been printing money and shoving it into the system as fast as we can. This should be a recipe for Sterling devaluation on a large scale. What has kept it so high?
The answer is of course that everywhere else has been taking the same actions to shore up their economies and hence depress their currencies. To go down, something else has to go up.
But the "so high" observation looks a little sick against $1.275 the lowest since the depths of the early 1980s crisis. Eight years ago we reached $2 and back in late June $1.50.
Presumably the need to bolster sterling will therefore mean not only closing off QE as soon as possible but increasing interest rates as soon as possible as well.
Well back in January that's what Mr Carney said the BoE would do and it turns out he was lying!
Presumably the need to bolster sterling will therefore mean not only closing off QE as soon as possible but increasing interest rates as soon as possible as well.
Well back in January that's what Mr Carney said the BoE would do and it turns out he was lying!
No, so far things have played out pretty much as he said. Read what he said, not what self-interested politicians chose to suggest that he said.
Morning all. Are people here in favour of Gatwick, Heathrow, or Heathrow Hub, or any combination thereof? I'm liking the cut of Heathrow Hub's gib at the moment (probably meaning they won't get the gig).
Heathrow Hub is the extension of the current north runway? Do that and build runway 3, resulting in four effective runways. Require a plan to reduce overall noise impact from the airport to keep neighbours happy.
Yes. And it requires a lot less disturbance to communities. You'd think for that reason it would be T May's choice. But it also seems to have quite a good plan for surrounding transport infrastructure too. http://www.heathrowhub.com
Its interesting that there doesn't seem to be much made here of the distinction between the Heathrow and Heathrow Hub proposals.
£ sinking towards $1.275 and the FTSE taking off...
31 year low
So glad we Took Back Control...
I confess to a degree of ignorance on this. If sterling is falling and I accept that's good news for exporters, doesn't that mean we'll be paying more for our oil as it's priced in dollars and therefore isn't this just a precursor to the return of inflation ?
Presumably the need to bolster sterling will therefore mean not only closing off QE as soon as possible but increasing interest rates as soon as possible as well.
I'd also assumed much of the current FTSE rise is based on companies who trade in dollars anyway and it bears little resemblance (apart from as some macabre virility symbol) to the actual state of the UK economy.
Inflationary pressure remains very low overall.
However, we did establish yesterday that Brexit has pushed up the price of G & T's and holidays in Bangkok.
£ sinking towards $1.275 and the FTSE taking off...
31 year low
So glad we Took Back Control...
We're asking the wrong question about the pound. What we should be asking is why it was overvalued for so long. British productivity hasn't improved significantly in years, and we've been printing money and shoving it into the system as fast as we can. This should be a recipe for Sterling devaluation on a large scale. What has kept it so high?
The answer is of course that everywhere else has been taking the same actions to shore up their economies and hence depress their currencies. To go down, something else has to go up.
But the "so high" observation looks a little sick against $1.275 the lowest since the depths of the early 1980s crisis. Eight years ago we reached $2 and back in late June $1.50.
Yes - the so high comment was based on that long term $1.50ish value that we held until summer
The turnaround in Colorado polling is astonishing. Vindicates the Dems pulling out resources a while ago. The 'fake' undecided were all clearly Dems waiting for a reason to vote Dem.
Colorado is done. Clinton has also pulled significant resources from Virginia which is no surprise either. She is effectively closing down Trump's path to 270.
Nevada, North Carolina and Florida are trending her way too. Pennsylvania looking increasingly out of reach for Donald.
FOP or bust for Trump .... looking presently like a big bust which he normally loves, but not this one ..
Morning all. Are people here in favour of Gatwick, Heathrow, or Heathrow Hub, or any combination thereof? I'm liking the cut of Heathrow Hub's gib at the moment (probably meaning they won't get the gig).
Heathrow Hub is the extension of the current north runway? Do that and build runway 3, resulting in four effective runways. Require a plan to reduce overall noise impact from the airport to keep neighbours happy.
Yes. And it requires a lot less disturbance to communities. You'd think for that reason it would be T May's choice. But it also seems to have quite a good plan for surrounding transport infrastructure too. http://www.heathrowhub.com
Its interesting that there doesn't seem to be much made here of the distinction between the Heathrow and Heathrow Hub proposals.
Thank you for the responses everyone. I've never been a fan of QE and the financial methadone it represents has been hugely damaging.
I'd like to see the MPC send a strong signal at its next meeting that QE ends and interest rates move back up at least 0.25 if not a full 0.5%. We need to get back to a more normal and traditional monetary policy where interest rates are part of that policy.
I well remember $2.05 to the £ when I was in Vegas in 2007 and it was a grand time but whether we'll see that anytime soon seems debatable. As some on here have said, there are some hard questions facing the British economy in the next few years and the journey to the global trading utopia some on here seem to think will begin the instant we leave the EU may not be as smooth as imagined.
I thought Hammond's speech was vague and clearly he was positioning himself as a counterweight (so to speak) to Curly, Mo and Larry in terms of trying to reassure the financial markets. I suspect the Autumn Statement will be a much more interesting occasion in terms of trying to read the runes of the Government's approach once A50 is triggered.
Anyway if Global Britain is the theme of the Tory Conference then they really need to get on with it. We either intend to be open for business or we don't.
From the article: "The politicians are adamant that their meetings with the international community in the wake of the referendum suggest no adverse post-Brexit impact on the attitudes of global investors or multinational companies."
Reports of those meetings go like this: Ministers ask business people what they want from Brexit. Answer, the Single Market. Answer ignored then Minister lectures business people on the great opportunities of Brexit. Business people are slightly irritated at having to repeat the performance at several ministries because officials are not talking to each other.
Having the single market via EEA (EFTA) is fine in the short term. But the problem with the EEA is that there is a lot of non trade based legislation tacked to it (check the Annexes), because Norway encouraged that so that the rather Europhile political class could eventually take them into the EU.
Their voters however, have other ideas, and would like to see a loosening of the ties further (from what I understand of it). But rather like the UK for generations, they simply have a political class which give them no alternative to vote for.
As was agreed on here pre-Ref, EEA/EFTA was not a serious runner for an economy the size of the UK's.
On the other side of the coin, EEA/EFTA = ECJ so that won't be happening either. (ECJ on Single Market, EFTA court on EFTA obvs).
To be fair to the Guardian, it must come as a surprise when the huddled masses refuse to take the advice of their betters. When you are a cut above the ignorant and ill-formed, it is a noble sacrifice to give them your sage advice.
The same happened with the referendum. Pearls before swine.
£ sinking towards $1.275 and the FTSE taking off...
31 year low
So glad we Took Back Control...
I confess to a degree of ignorance on this. If sterling is falling and I accept that's good news for exporters, doesn't that mean we'll be paying more for our oil as it's priced in dollars and therefore isn't this just a precursor to the return of inflation ?
Presumably the need to bolster sterling will therefore mean not only closing off QE as soon as possible but increasing interest rates as soon as possible as well.
I'd also assumed much of the current FTSE rise is based on companies who trade in dollars anyway and it bears little resemblance (apart from as some macabre virility symbol) to the actual state of the UK economy.
It is entirely possible that we never see high inflation or interest rates again.
The world is awash with dosh, and not exactly floating in safe assets - this is the new normal.
Very hard to not want to cash out my Trump position given polls like this.
Clearly with two debates, the usual "October Surprise" and five weeks of campaigning there are opportunities for Trump. However they are also opportunities for Donald's position to worsen. It's Clinton's to lose.
New Nevada poll - Clinton +3 Hart Research. Awaiting link.
Morning all. Are people here in favour of Gatwick, Heathrow, or Heathrow Hub, or any combination thereof? I'm liking the cut of Heathrow Hub's gib at the moment (probably meaning they won't get the gig).
Two new runways at LHR, one new runway at LGW, with an airside Hyperloop running between them.
You're just baiting me, aren't you?
Okay, I've bitten.
Hyperloop: LOL!
You engineering types should be all for advancing technology!
Scientists are all for advancing technology.
Engineers love advancing technology, but are all too aware that they're the ones who need to deliver it.
I have grave doubts about Hyperloop, especially on Earth. Safety alone is a big issue that no enough attention has been paid to. The Germans proclaimed collisions impossible on their Maglev system, at least before 23 people died in a collision. The energies in a Hyperloop 'train' will be massive, and will need to be safely tamed and dissipated in all sorts of scenarios.
Hyperloop is worth investigating, but some of the fiscal and practical issues means it will probably end up like Maglev or hovercraft: a costly, niche transport system.
The turnaround in Colorado polling is astonishing. Vindicates the Dems pulling out resources a while ago. The 'fake' undecided were all clearly Dems waiting for a reason to vote Dem.
Colorado is done. Clinton has also pulled significant resources from Virginia which is no surprise either. She is effectively closing down Trump's path to 270.
Nevada, North Carolina and Florida are trending her way too. Pennsylvania looking increasingly out of reach for Donald.
FOP or bust for Trump .... looking presently like a big bust which he normally loves, but not this one ..
Will he quit in a fit of pique once he realises he's going to lose?
However, we did establish yesterday that Brexit has pushed up the price of G & T's and holidays in Bangkok.
As gentlemen of a certain maturity, nay vintage, you and I will remember the inflation of the 70s and even the double whammy of high inflation and high interest rates in 1989-92.
An entire generation has grown up not having experienced either and as with those market traders who had only known a bull market through the 2000s, when the Crash came, they were running round like headless chickens.
Fortunately, new buyers have had to live with an artificial floor on interest rates but those of us with trackers have seen our mortgage interest rates fall to 0.49% if not lower. In the same way, the incentive to save has never been there. An entire post-Crash economic culture has developed oblivious of the world before 2008.
To muse further on "inflationary pressures", traditional British "booms" were always wrecked by capacity issues. The south east would hit full employment and competition for staff would drive up wages, then costs and send inflation into the system bringing the economy to a shuddering halt.
The influx of cheap labour from the EU has changed that equation but if the post-EU settlement contains a commitment to return immigration control to the UK Government, it will be under pressure to turn off that labour tap so the dilemma will be between the political benefits of reducing immigration and the inflationary and economic disadvantages of that policy.
Morning all. Are people here in favour of Gatwick, Heathrow, or Heathrow Hub, or any combination thereof? I'm liking the cut of Heathrow Hub's gib at the moment (probably meaning they won't get the gig).
Heathrow Hub is the extension of the current north runway? Do that and build runway 3, resulting in four effective runways. Require a plan to reduce overall noise impact from the airport to keep neighbours happy.
Yes. And it requires a lot less disturbance to communities. You'd think for that reason it would be T May's choice. But it also seems to have quite a good plan for surrounding transport infrastructure too. http://www.heathrowhub.com
Its interesting that there doesn't seem to be much made here of the distinction between the Heathrow and Heathrow Hub proposals.
Have you read the Airports Commission final report, which goes thoroughly into the advantages and disadvantages of both Heathrow expansion and Heathrow Hub?
One thing that's clear about the Brexit vote. It's united the Conservative Party in a way that hasn't been possible in thirty years.
For now. Let's see how things develop. I get the feeling a few folk are keeping their heads down for now.
My impression is that there are few Conservatives who are truly gutted by the result. Most who voted Remain saw the EU as at best, the lesser of two evils, rather than something they were committed to.
One thing that's clear about the Brexit vote. It's united the Conservative Party in a way that hasn't been possible in thirty years.
For now. Let's see how things develop. I get the feeling a few folk are keeping their heads down for now.
My impression is that there are few Conservatives who are truly gutted by the result. Most who voted Remain saw the EU as at best, the lesser of two evils, rather than something they were committed to.
Brexit is fine. It's the path taken from now on that will cause the problems.
One thing that's clear about the Brexit vote. It's united the Conservative Party in a way that hasn't been possible in thirty years.
For now. Let's see how things develop. I get the feeling a few folk are keeping their heads down for now.
My impression is that there are few Conservatives who are truly gutted by the result. Most who voted Remain saw the EU as at best, the lesser of two evils, rather than something they were committed to.
The result is done and dusted. Brexit itself now has to be sorted. The potential for major disagreement is huge.
One thing that's clear about the Brexit vote. It's united the Conservative Party in a way that hasn't been possible in thirty years.
For now. Let's see how things develop. I get the feeling a few folk are keeping their heads down for now.
My impression is that there are few Conservatives who are truly gutted by the result. Most who voted Remain saw the EU as at best, the lesser of two evils, rather than something they were committed to.
Indeed. Clarke and Soubry are not representative of Conservatives generally.
£ sinking towards $1.275 and the FTSE taking off...
31 year low
So glad we Took Back Control...
I confess to a degree of ignorance on this. If sterling is falling and I accept that's good news for exporters, doesn't that mean we'll be paying more for our oil as it's priced in dollars and therefore isn't this just a precursor to the return of inflation ?
Presumably the need to bolster sterling will therefore mean not only closing off QE as soon as possible but increasing interest rates as soon as possible as well.
I'd also assumed much of the current FTSE rise is based on companies who trade in dollars anyway and it bears little resemblance (apart from as some macabre virility symbol) to the actual state of the UK economy.
Yes to pretty much all. However, with oil prices relatively low the absolute loss of weak Sterling is quite manageable. Chances are the inflation will be managed by passing it on through real terms wage cuts (especially at the top where there is a lot of fat to trim) and a bit of margin loss.
Bloomberg has published a graph showing that FTSE prices in $ terms have been broadly stable, with the rise mirroring the fall in the £. It's possible to argue that, though, that this is quite good news for companies - no big sell-off related to uncertainty.
Uncertainty will mainly hit private investment - Nissan's CEO saying that investment decisions will await clarity seems pretty much a no-brainer. So I'd think that, other things being equal, companies selling investment goods (including things like new computers) in B2B trade would be a sell, unless there are real reasons to expect them to be able to expand overseas instead. Consumer-facing companies should be OK for a while. Obviously higher import prices mean real wage cuts, though people may not link cause and effect and simply grumble that the supermarkets are ripping them off.
It stops our politicians sneaking laws in through the back door. That in itself is a massive improvement.
No
Yes. At the moment a politician who wants to pass a law which he can't get past the Commons can introduce it through the EU back door. After we Leave, he won't be able to.
Very hard to not want to cash out my Trump position given polls like this.
Your best hope is Trump does better in the second debate and gets given a win by a sympathetic media.
I think Trump is done. Having spent the last few months accusing Clinton of his own worst faults, the news cycle is beginning to get ahead of him rather than being set by him. The foundation thing might be what finally finishes him.
It stops our politicians sneaking laws in through the back door. That in itself is a massive improvement.
No
Yes. At the moment a politician who wants to pass a law which he can't get past the Commons can introduce it through the EU back door. After we Leave, he won't be able to.
One thing that's clear about the Brexit vote. It's united the Conservative Party in a way that hasn't been possible in thirty years.
Imagine the alternate reality where Remain won 52/48
I could imagine few positions worse than being Conservative Leader in that scenario.
An unassailable, undefeated PM?
Cameron would have been forced out almost as quickly as he resigned in the real timeline.
Maybe, but he would have quit having anchored the UK in the EU and defeated the bastards who had made the Tories unelectable.
Temporarily. A narrow victory in a rigged referendum wouldn't have been accepted. The nature of the rigging is easily forgotten now, but only because it failed.
Had REMAIN won, the Conservatives would have united behind the victorious Cameron and Osborne. Cameron would likely have re-shuffled elements of the Government after his victory and then gone on a tour of European capitals and then off to Washington to thank everyone for their help and support.
To give them their due, the Conservatives are generally pragmatic about referenda results. After votes to set up the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the London Mayoralty, all of which the Conservatives opposed, there has been no commitment to reverse these referenda results.
Though I'm no Conservative, it's an attitude that does the Party credit and something other parties would do well to copy.
Mr. Stodge, I'm not so sure that's true. There are some, shall we say, unrestrained persons amongst the PCP. Cameron's campaigning approach didn't endear him to his own side, and his days were already numbered.
Had REMAIN won, the Conservatives would have united behind the victorious Cameron and Osborne. Cameron would likely have re-shuffled elements of the Government after his victory and then gone on a tour of European capitals and then off to Washington to thank everyone for their help and support.
To give them their due, the Conservatives are generally pragmatic about referenda results. After votes to set up the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the London Mayoralty, all of which the Conservatives opposed, there has been no commitment to reverse these referenda results.
Though I'm no Conservative, it's an attitude that does the Party credit and something other parties would do well to copy.
I think Conservative voters in Eastern England would have been much less forgiving.
After votes to set up the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the London Mayoralty, all of which the Conservatives opposed, there has been no commitment to reverse these referenda results.
Let's be honest, devolution has worked out quite nicely for the Tories.
Yes. At the moment a politician who wants to pass a law which he can't get past the Commons can introduce it through the EU back door. After we Leave, he won't be able to.
He can get past the Commons with a statutory instrument. Which will be most of the new laws.
Yes. At the moment a politician who wants to pass a law which he can't get past the Commons can introduce it through the EU back door. After we Leave, he won't be able to.
He can get past the Commons with a statutory instrument. Which will be most of the new laws.
Apart from that, great point...
And it will be a Commons in which the executive is much more powerful than it is now anyway, thanks to the reduction in the number of MPs.
And it will be a Commons in which the executive is much more powerful than it is now anyway, thanks to the reduction in the number of MPs.
And it starts with Article 50.
As Dominic Grieve writes in The Times today, if the argument for Brexit is restoration of Parliamentary Sovereignty, why would you deny Parliament a vote on it?
Yes. At the moment a politician who wants to pass a law which he can't get past the Commons can introduce it through the EU back door. After we Leave, he won't be able to.
He can get past the Commons with a statutory instrument. Which will be most of the new laws.
Apart from that, great point...
And it will be a Commons in which the executive is much more powerful than it is now anyway, thanks to the reduction in the number of MPs.
I think someone said on here that a reduction in MPs should also come with a reduction in cabinet and junior minister positions.
Had REMAIN won, the Conservatives would have united behind the victorious Cameron and Osborne.
No chance.
If they'd won the right way, then yes. But after the way they conducted the campaign? Nah.
Yet Leave's campaign, which was equally risible, has received little panning from Conservatives since the result.
This thread just shows that hardcore Conservative leavers - the bedfellows of the bastards - care less for democracy than they pretend.
Indeed. I'm currently re-reading Edward Pearce's account of the passage of the1832 Reform Act and the speeches against it remind me forcibly of all these Tory Peebies...
One thing that's clear about the Brexit vote. It's united the Conservative Party in a way that hasn't been possible in thirty years.
For now. Let's see how things develop. I get the feeling a few folk are keeping their heads down for now.
My impression is that there are few Conservatives who are truly gutted by the result. Most who voted Remain saw the EU as at best, the lesser of two evils, rather than something they were committed to.
There are a few unhappy Cameroons on the backbenches: Nicky Morgan, Anna Soubry, George Osborne and Nick Herbert. But, interestingly, not Michael Gove.
Whether they have the courage and discipline to act as a disruptive blocking minority, as the BOO'ers did, is quite another matter.
Yes. At the moment a politician who wants to pass a law which he can't get past the Commons can introduce it through the EU back door. After we Leave, he won't be able to.
He can get past the Commons with a statutory instrument. Which will be most of the new laws.
Apart from that, great point...
Most new laws in future for the rest of time will be SIs? Well, that may be true. But since SIs need to fall within a specific Act.
And it will be a Commons in which the executive is much more powerful than it is now anyway, thanks to the reduction in the number of MPs.
And it starts with Article 50.
As Dominic Grieve writes in The Times today, if the argument for Brexit is restoration of Parliamentary Sovereignty, why would you deny Parliament a vote on it?
Yes. At the moment a politician who wants to pass a law which he can't get past the Commons can introduce it through the EU back door. After we Leave, he won't be able to.
He can get past the Commons with a statutory instrument. Which will be most of the new laws.
Apart from that, great point...
Most new laws in future for the rest of time will be SIs? Well, that may be true. But since SIs need to fall within a specific Act.
And need to be laid before both Houses, where they can be annulled by simple resolution (Statutory Instruments Act 1946, S5(1)), its complete scaremongering bollocks from Scott & Paste (again).
And it will be a Commons in which the executive is much more powerful than it is now anyway, thanks to the reduction in the number of MPs.
And it starts with Article 50.
As Dominic Grieve writes in The Times today, if the argument for Brexit is restoration of Parliamentary Sovereignty, why would you deny Parliament a vote on it?
Parliament could have voted against staging a referendum. Once Parliament voted in favour, they were deferring the decision to the voters as a whole.
And it will be a Commons in which the executive is much more powerful than it is now anyway, thanks to the reduction in the number of MPs.
And it starts with Article 50.
As Dominic Grieve writes in The Times today, if the argument for Brexit is restoration of Parliamentary Sovereignty, why would you deny Parliament a vote on it?
Because what is sovereign is not parliament, it is the Queen in Parliament, and things which are subject to the Royal Prerogative are subject to the Royal Prerogative. Grieve's argument is no stronger than saying: if a referendum was such a great way of deciding the brexit issue why would you deny people a referendum on the date to trigger article 50?:
And it will be a Commons in which the executive is much more powerful than it is now anyway, thanks to the reduction in the number of MPs.
And it starts with Article 50.
As Dominic Grieve writes in The Times today, if the argument for Brexit is restoration of Parliamentary Sovereignty, why would you deny Parliament a vote on it?
Parliament could have voted against staging a referendum. Once Parliament voted in favour, they were deferring the decision to the voters as a whole.
Not only that Parliament could have amended that act to include the requirement for A50 to need to be voted on by parliament had it so wished.... it didnt.
I see you haven't yet reached the final stage of acceptance of the referendum result. You're not alone but don't worry, it will happen.
In the meantime, you and any other Remainers who feel strongly could take a leaf out the Guardian's book and write to all seventeen million Leavers pointing out their stupidity.
I'm sure that will bring them to their senses immediately.
Had REMAIN won, the Conservatives would have united behind the victorious Cameron and Osborne.
No chance.
If they'd won the right way, then yes. But after the way they conducted the campaign? Nah.
Yet Leave's campaign, which was equally risible, has received little panning from Conservatives since the result.
This thread just shows that hardcore Conservative leavers - the bedfellows of the bastards - care less for democracy than they pretend.
The Leave campaign didn't flout the spending limits, for a start.
So lies are fine, as long as you win? Remainers have just as much reason to feel aggrieved about the way the leave campaigns were conducted as leavers have about remain's. Yet they have mostly shut up.
Had REMAIN won, the Conservatives would have united behind the victorious Cameron and Osborne.
No chance.
If they'd won the right way, then yes. But after the way they conducted the campaign? Nah.
Yet Leave's campaign, which was equally risible, has received little panning from Conservatives since the result.
This thread just shows that hardcore Conservative leavers - the bedfellows of the bastards - care less for democracy than they pretend.
The Leave campaign didn't flout the spending limits, for a start.
So lies are fine, as long as you win? Remainers have just as much reason to feel aggrieved about the way the leave campaigns were conducted as leavers have about remain's. Yet they have mostly shut up.
Do you think leave's means justify the end?
Mostly shut up ?!
Half the posts on this forums are Scott's crying about the referendum, and before his misfortune Mr Meeks was close in there as well.
So now you DON'T want Parliament to vote on things.
Make your bloody mind up...
Parliament voted to let the people decide. The people decided. If parliament gets another vote that comes across as a giant 'fuck you' to the people. If parliament didn't want to let the people decide it shouldn't have passed the referendum act. What parliament should get to debate is the terms of Brexit not the fact of it - but again, only as a mood music / feed into the real negotiations. Parliament is no place to conduct negotiation.
Had REMAIN won, the Conservatives would have united behind the victorious Cameron and Osborne. Cameron would likely have re-shuffled elements of the Government after his victory and then gone on a tour of European capitals and then off to Washington to thank everyone for their help and support.
To give them their due, the Conservatives are generally pragmatic about referenda results. After votes to set up the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the London Mayoralty, all of which the Conservatives opposed, there has been no commitment to reverse these referenda results.
Though I'm no Conservative, it's an attitude that does the Party credit and something other parties would do well to copy.
I don't think it would have been as smooth as that. Leaving the EU was a deep and burning desire for around a third of MPs, trumping anything else. A further third are naturally Eurosceptic but not bothered enough to do anything about it, at least not risk their career prospects by opposing the leadership. A sixth are Cameroons who back the EU but are still patriots and wouldn't have us sign up to the superstate or any kind of EU based military. The final sixth are the Soubrys and Clarks of rhe party, at least Ken had economic nouse, I don't see what Soubry brings to the party.
Reconciliation between the ultras and federalists is not going to be possible, but the federalists are a much smaller group and easier to ignore. If the federalists had won I don't see any position which would have brought the ultras back in from thr cold, especially after such a bruising campaign. A full third of the party, including a few big beasts, would have been in open revolt every single time an edict came down from the EU or ECJ that was disagreeable to the UK.
There was no party unity in remaining, not in the long term. In the short term everyone would have played happy families to beat Labour, but I don't think it would have lasted beyond 2020.
Turkey will end up in the EU if the EU lasts long enough. Erdogan was told his application would fail if he reintroduced the death penalty, implying that it wouldn't if he didn't. 350m was in the right order of magnitude, and 250m a week still looks quite a large sum of money.
So now you DON'T want Parliament to vote on things.
Make your bloody mind up...
Parliament voted to let the people decide. The people decided. If parliament gets another vote that comes across as a giant 'fuck you' to the people. If parliament didn't want to let the people decide it shouldn't have passed the referendum act. What parliament should get to debate is the terms of Brexit not the fact of it - but again, only as a mood music / feed into the real negotiations. Parliament is no place to conduct negotiation.
Some people here seem to fail to understand the difference between the Legislature and the Executive. The first (Parliament) passes laws, the second (Government) executes those laws. Parliament passed a law, the government is now carrying out that law, if parliament wanted the government to do something different, it should have passed a different law, its not really all the complicated.
Yes. At the moment a politician who wants to pass a law which he can't get past the Commons can introduce it through the EU back door. After we Leave, he won't be able to.
He can get past the Commons with a statutory instrument. Which will be most of the new laws.
Apart from that, great point...
And it will be a Commons in which the executive is much more powerful than it is now anyway, thanks to the reduction in the number of MPs.
I think someone said on here that a reduction in MPs should also come with a reduction in cabinet and junior minister positions.
It won't though, will it?
IN fact, now that we are leaving Europe an entire level of legislative power will be removed from the UK's decision-making process. With our population rising as well, the rationale for a reduction in the number of MPs may be much less compelling than it was. We need a strong legislative branch even more than we did before.
Had REMAIN won, the Conservatives would have united behind the victorious Cameron and Osborne.
No chance.
If they'd won the right way, then yes. But after the way they conducted the campaign? Nah.
Yet Leave's campaign, which was equally risible, has received little panning from Conservatives since the result.
This thread just shows that hardcore Conservative leavers - the bedfellows of the bastards - care less for democracy than they pretend.
The Leave campaign didn't flout the spending limits, for a start.
So lies are fine, as long as you win? Remainers have just as much reason to feel aggrieved about the way the leave campaigns were conducted as leavers have about remain's. Yet they have mostly shut up.
Do you think leave's means justify the end?
Lies during a campaign are inevitable and both sides were at it.
Flouting the campaign spending limits to rig the result aren't, and only one side was at it.
Had REMAIN won, the Conservatives would have united behind the victorious Cameron and Osborne.
No chance.
If they'd won the right way, then yes. But after the way they conducted the campaign? Nah.
Yet Leave's campaign, which was equally risible, has received little panning from Conservatives since the result.
This thread just shows that hardcore Conservative leavers - the bedfellows of the bastards - care less for democracy than they pretend.
The Leave campaign didn't flout the spending limits, for a start.
So lies are fine, as long as you win? Remainers have just as much reason to feel aggrieved about the way the leave campaigns were conducted as leavers have about remain's. Yet they have mostly shut up.
Do you think leave's means justify the end?
Mostly shut up ?!
Half the posts on this forums are Scott's crying about the referendum, and before his misfortune Mr Meeks was close in there as well.
Scott is not a Tory MP. And I think your posts probably equal his in both vehemence and attitude.
Had REMAIN won, the Conservatives would have united behind the victorious Cameron and Osborne.
No chance.
If they'd won the right way, then yes. But after the way they conducted the campaign? Nah.
The Conservative Party will always rally behind a winner irrespective of doubts or misgivings. In the same way, they will be ruthless against a loser, Margaret Thatcher, who had won three elections for the party, was unceremoniously ousted when it became clear she was an electoral liability.
John Major won an election but the party turned on him too as they did IDS.
Cameron won in 2015 and was lauded for that - had he won the Referendum as well, would the Party have seriously turned on him, No. With Corbyn opposite, Cameron would have been as impregnable as May is currently.
Had REMAIN won, the Conservatives would have united behind the victorious Cameron and Osborne.
No chance.
If they'd won the right way, then yes. But after the way they conducted the campaign? Nah.
Yet Leave's campaign, which was equally risible, has received little panning from Conservatives since the result.
This thread just shows that hardcore Conservative leavers - the bedfellows of the bastards - care less for democracy than they pretend.
The Leave campaign didn't flout the spending limits, for a start.
So lies are fine, as long as you win? Remainers have just as much reason to feel aggrieved about the way the leave campaigns were conducted as leavers have about remain's. Yet they have mostly shut up.
Do you think leave's means justify the end?
Lies during a campaign are inevitable and both sides were at it.
Flouting the campaign spending limits to rig the result aren't, and only one side was at it.
So lies are okay in your eyes. Cool. The means justify the end.
Comments
for a host of reasons....
But the "so high" observation looks a little sick against $1.275 the lowest since the depths of the early 1980s crisis. Eight years ago we reached $2 and back in late June $1.50.
Its interesting that there doesn't seem to be much made here of the distinction between the Heathrow and Heathrow Hub proposals.
However, we did establish yesterday that Brexit has pushed up the price of G & T's and holidays in Bangkok.
Nevada, North Carolina and Florida are trending her way too. Pennsylvania looking increasingly out of reach for Donald.
FOP or bust for Trump .... looking presently like a big bust which he normally loves, but not this one ..
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21591863-all-plans-expanding-airport-capacity-best-involves-moving-heathrow-westward-go
I'd like to see the MPC send a strong signal at its next meeting that QE ends and interest rates move back up at least 0.25 if not a full 0.5%. We need to get back to a more normal and traditional monetary policy where interest rates are part of that policy.
I well remember $2.05 to the £ when I was in Vegas in 2007 and it was a grand time but whether we'll see that anytime soon seems debatable. As some on here have said, there are some hard questions facing the British economy in the next few years and the journey to the global trading utopia some on here seem to think will begin the instant we leave the EU may not be as smooth as imagined.
I thought Hammond's speech was vague and clearly he was positioning himself as a counterweight (so to speak) to Curly, Mo and Larry in terms of trying to reassure the financial markets. I suspect the Autumn Statement will be a much more interesting occasion in terms of trying to read the runes of the Government's approach once A50 is triggered.
On the other side of the coin, EEA/EFTA = ECJ so that won't be happening either. (ECJ on Single Market, EFTA court on EFTA obvs).
The same happened with the referendum. Pearls before swine.
The world is awash with dosh, and not exactly floating in safe assets - this is the new normal.
It is why most Tory activists were Leavers - they could just imagine the carnage if it was close the other way. The party would have split.
New Nevada poll - Clinton +3 Hart Research. Awaiting link.
Engineers love advancing technology, but are all too aware that they're the ones who need to deliver it.
I have grave doubts about Hyperloop, especially on Earth. Safety alone is a big issue that no enough attention has been paid to. The Germans proclaimed collisions impossible on their Maglev system, at least before 23 people died in a collision. The energies in a Hyperloop 'train' will be massive, and will need to be safely tamed and dissipated in all sorts of scenarios.
Hyperloop is worth investigating, but some of the fiscal and practical issues means it will probably end up like Maglev or hovercraft: a costly, niche transport system.
An entire generation has grown up not having experienced either and as with those market traders who had only known a bull market through the 2000s, when the Crash came, they were running round like headless chickens.
Fortunately, new buyers have had to live with an artificial floor on interest rates but those of us with trackers have seen our mortgage interest rates fall to 0.49% if not lower. In the same way, the incentive to save has never been there. An entire post-Crash economic culture has developed oblivious of the world before 2008.
To muse further on "inflationary pressures", traditional British "booms" were always wrecked by capacity issues. The south east would hit full employment and competition for staff would drive up wages, then costs and send inflation into the system bringing the economy to a shuddering halt.
The influx of cheap labour from the EU has changed that equation but if the post-EU settlement contains a commitment to return immigration control to the UK Government, it will be under pressure to turn off that labour tap so the dilemma will be between the political benefits of reducing immigration and the inflationary and economic disadvantages of that policy.
Conclusions in section 13.8 onwards.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/airports-commission-final-report
Apparently most of the Brexit legislation will be by statutory instrument
Uncertainty will mainly hit private investment - Nissan's CEO saying that investment decisions will await clarity seems pretty much a no-brainer. So I'd think that, other things being equal, companies selling investment goods (including things like new computers) in B2B trade would be a sell, unless there are real reasons to expect them to be able to expand overseas instead. Consumer-facing companies should be OK for a while. Obviously higher import prices mean real wage cuts, though people may not link cause and effect and simply grumble that the supermarkets are ripping them off.
Having spent the last few months accusing Clinton of his own worst faults, the news cycle is beginning to get ahead of him rather than being set by him. The foundation thing might be what finally finishes him.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/783193789158481920
To give them their due, the Conservatives are generally pragmatic about referenda results. After votes to set up the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the London Mayoralty, all of which the Conservatives opposed, there has been no commitment to reverse these referenda results.
Though I'm no Conservative, it's an attitude that does the Party credit and something other parties would do well to copy.
Mr. Divvie, a political stunt indeed.
If they'd won the right way, then yes. But after the way they conducted the campaign? Nah.
Apart from that, great point...
This thread just shows that hardcore Conservative leavers - the bedfellows of the bastards - care less for democracy than they pretend.
As Dominic Grieve writes in The Times today, if the argument for Brexit is restoration of Parliamentary Sovereignty, why would you deny Parliament a vote on it?
Whether they have the courage and discipline to act as a disruptive blocking minority, as the BOO'ers did, is quite another matter.
£4300
Financial Armageddon
The punishment budget
Conflict in Western Europe
and the End of Western Civilisation
Make your bloody mind up...
Some truly epic flailing by ScottP today.
We no longer want Parliament to be bypassed.
Ok, let's have a Parliamentary vote on Article 50.
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I see you haven't yet reached the final stage of acceptance of the referendum result. You're not alone but don't worry, it will happen.
In the meantime, you and any other Remainers who feel strongly could take a leaf out the Guardian's book and write to all seventeen million Leavers pointing out their stupidity.
I'm sure that will bring them to their senses immediately.
Do you think leave's means justify the end?
Half the posts on this forums are Scott's crying about the referendum, and before his misfortune Mr Meeks was close in there as well.
Reconciliation between the ultras and federalists is not going to be possible, but the federalists are a much smaller group and easier to ignore. If the federalists had won I don't see any position which would have brought the ultras back in from thr cold, especially after such a bruising campaign. A full third of the party, including a few big beasts, would have been in open revolt every single time an edict came down from the EU or ECJ that was disagreeable to the UK.
There was no party unity in remaining, not in the long term. In the short term everyone would have played happy families to beat Labour, but I don't think it would have lasted beyond 2020.
*Does not include Article 50, or anything else the Brexiteers think might be problematic
Turkey will end up in the EU if the EU lasts long enough. Erdogan was told his application would fail if he reintroduced the death penalty, implying that it wouldn't if he didn't. 350m was in the right order of magnitude, and 250m a week still looks quite a large sum of money.
IN fact, now that we are leaving Europe an entire level of legislative power will be removed from the UK's decision-making process. With our population rising as well, the rationale for a reduction in the number of MPs may be much less compelling than it was. We need a strong legislative branch even more than we did before.
Flouting the campaign spending limits to rig the result aren't, and only one side was at it.
Still waiting for that interest rate rise. Be glad to get an increase, rather than cut, in my savings account.
John Major won an election but the party turned on him too as they did IDS.
Cameron won in 2015 and was lauded for that - had he won the Referendum as well, would the Party have seriously turned on him, No. With Corbyn opposite, Cameron would have been as impregnable as May is currently.
At least we know where we stand.