politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Get ready for another CON by-election defence if the Heathrow

rural_voter said:

OldKingCole said:

Sandpit said:

surbiton said:

JohnLilburne said:

SandyRentool said:

rcs1000 said:

SandyRentool said:

While a by-election would provide entertainment, and there could be further discomfort for TMay if LHR3 gets the go-ahead, this is much more important than a bit of political bickering.

Therefore, speaking from the greeny-red corner, I hope that the runway does not get built.

Speaking from the "wanting the best for the people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" corner, I hope it does get the go ahead.

We don't need it - we can already transit through Amsterdam or Paris perfectly well.

Given how long it takes to do anything in the UK, I would give the go-ahead to both Heathrow and Gatwick (in any case, why shouldn't airports compete with each other?) and also start feasibility studies on Boris Island or somesuch.

Boris Island ? Isn't that pretty close to Paris and Amsterdam ?

BI is a complete non-starter for a whole host of reasons:

Wrong side of London for customers
Cost, inc transport links.
Airspace close to AMS and CDG
Estuary birds (remember Sully?)
One very large sunken warship that's in the way (USS Montgomery)

The optimal clean-slate place for a new four-runway airport would be between the M1 and M40 just south of Bletchley, with new links to both motorways, the West Cost Main Line and HS2. It'll never happen either, so let's just get on with expanding LHR - and quickly!

And the Montgomery is full of rotting explosives.

I think the 'optimal' airport came moderately close to happening in about 1971 under the Heath government. I'm almost certain the site was in Bucks. Meanwhile a site in the Thames estuary was also considered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maplin_Sands

This is all seriously 'goes around, comes around'.

Despite being in the 'south', I'm closer in travel time to Manchester than Gatwick (train from Reading takes 75 mins., aargh) or Heathrow (bus needed from Reading), so please expand Manchester.

logical_song said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

logical_song said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The key question regarding Zac is whether he would stand as an independent or seek to be reselected as the Conservative candidate. The Sun article which Mike links to says that he'd stand as an independent, but it's unclear whether that is based on what Zac has said or is simply the journalist's assumption.

It is important to realise that the local party is unlikely to want anyone other than Zac, and certainly unlikely to want anyone who isn't as strongly anti-R3 as he is. That doesn't seem to leave any good options for CCHQ. Of the available options, fudging things so that he stands again as the Conservative candidate would be the least bad.

His platform would be 'Re-Elect me and I will be ignored by my Party. If you want to punish them for going ahead with runway 3 boot me out'

Since he (and indeed any other Richmond MP) wouldn't have the power to stop the runway, whoever is elected will be 'ignored', and rightly so - Richmond doesn't have a veto on transport policy; its views have no more weight than anyone else's. But he can honestly and reasonably say that he'll continue to do everything he can to oppose the new runway. Richmond voters will support him in that.

I agree with the first part of your first sentence.
From the point of view of an angry voter might they not want to punish the party that is building the new runway? Might they not think that re-electing a Conservative MP wouldn't be punishing that party at all?

rcs1000 said:

dugarbandier said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

dugarbandier said:

OldKingCole said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

Can someone explain Mr Clegg's thinking - how export tariffs affect domestic prices - or indeed import prices?

The price of chocolate, cheese and wine will increase sharply if Britain heads towards a so-called hard Brexit, according to Nick Clegg.

Speaking ahead of a Liberal Democrats food and drink Brexit impact report, he warned that Britain could only avoid tariffs on beef exports of 59%, chocolate at 38%, cheese at 40% and wine at 14%, with a soft Brexit.

http://news.sky.com/story/nick-clegg-chocolate-cheese-and-wine-to-be-hit-by-hard-brexit-10620761

Of course, Tusk has already explained that the alternative to 'Hard Brexit' is 'No Brexit'.....which evidently is what Mr Clegg is after.....

Britain could certainly unilaterally open its markets to imports from countries that charged tariffs on British exports. But does anyone think it would?

There are more sources of cheese, wine & chocolate than the EU.....

not decent ones that people want though

Nothing wrong with many Southern Hemisphere wines.

Free of the EU jackboot, you will be able to make yr camembert in Leicester and yr Toulouse sausage in Sutton Coldfield...

Except you wouldn't. This is the same as the Pol Roger "pints of champagne" story. The statute book won't magically revert back to New Year's Eve, 1972.

(I should have added an irony tag to that post)

I wasn't familiar with it. Was someone preventing the making of a 568.261ml bottle?

Must admit I am no expert. We do have Hokkaido camembert in Japan, however, so I assumed that this kind of thing might be possible

It's always been possible to make a 568.261ml bottle.

IanB2 said:

Chris said:

IanB2 said:

He doesn't seem to understand that there is a difference between finding the support but assuming it won't all turn out, and not finding it there at all.

Why on earth would you think he doesn't understand that?

Because he explicitly tries to translate the polling error seen in Brexit - which was due to the former - to the US, where if anything it is the other side's voters that are assumed to be less reliable in turning out.

CarlottaVance said:

OldKingCole said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

Can someone explain Mr Clegg's thinking - how export tariffs affect domestic prices - or indeed import prices?

The price of chocolate, cheese and wine will increase sharply if Britain heads towards a so-called hard Brexit, according to Nick Clegg.

Speaking ahead of a Liberal Democrats food and drink Brexit impact report, he warned that Britain could only avoid tariffs on beef exports of 59%, chocolate at 38%, cheese at 40% and wine at 14%, with a soft Brexit.

http://news.sky.com/story/nick-clegg-chocolate-cheese-and-wine-to-be-hit-by-hard-brexit-10620761

Of course, Tusk has already explained that the alternative to 'Hard Brexit' is 'No Brexit'.....which evidently is what Mr Clegg is after.....

Britain could certainly unilaterally open its markets to imports from countries that charged tariffs on British exports. But does anyone think it would?

There are more sources of cheese, wine & chocolate than the EU.....

not decent ones that people want though

Nothing wrong with many Southern Hemisphere wines.

Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Chile (even, whisper it quietly, Argentina if they're not being silly buggers...)

I think Malcolm's an old Tory snob!

Mortimer said:

Sandpit said:

Alistair said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

OldKingCole said:

Scott_P said:

This should find some support on here...

https://twitter.com/cllrholliday/status/787207171335479296

What did I post yesterday about jackboots?

They will have ironed the brownshirts as well, the junta is well down the road

Can you believe it?

They're assigning government busy bodies to check up on every single child in the country!

Like teachers?

Teachers, who should be working with parents to educate children, rather than against parents as glorified social workers snooping for the state, as if it were China or Soviet Russia.

Especially given the situation of Scottish education....

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

OldKingCole said:

Scott_P said:

This should find some support on here...

https://twitter.com/cllrholliday/status/787207171335479296

What did I post yesterday about jackboots?

They will have ironed the brownshirts as well, the junta is well down the road

Can you believe it?

They're assigning government busy bodies to check up on every single child in the country!

How oppressive can you get?

I suppose you could abolish all the local police forces and centralise them under one regime, the better to keep track of dissent.....

Of course, all the while you've got to keep going On and On and On and On and On and On On and On and On and On and On and On On and On and On and On and On and On....about how the problems you're failing to deal with after many years in government are someone else's fault.

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

rural_voter said:

OldKingCole said:

Sandpit said:

surbiton said:

JohnLilburne said:

SandyRentool said:

rcs1000 said:

SandyRentool said:

Given how long it takes to do anything in the UK, I would give the go-ahead to both Heathrow and Gatwick (in any case, why shouldn't airports compete with each other?) and also start feasibility studies on Boris Island or somesuch.

Boris Island ? Isn't that pretty close to Paris and Amsterdam ?

BI is a complete non-starter for a whole host of reasons:

Wrong side of London for customers
Cost, inc transport links.
Airspace close to AMS and CDG
Estuary birds (remember Sully?)
One very large sunken warship that's in the way (USS Montgomery)

The optimal clean-slate place for a new four-runway airport would be between the M1 and M40 just south of Bletchley, with new links to both motorways, the West Cost Main Line and HS2. It'll never happen either, so let's just get on with expanding LHR - and quickly!

And the Montgomery is full of rotting explosives.

I think the 'optimal' airport came moderately close to happening in about 1971 under the Heath government. I'm almost certain the site was in Bucks. Meanwhile a site in the Thames estuary was also considered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maplin_Sands

This is all seriously 'goes around, comes around'.

Despite being in the 'south', I'm closer in travel time to Manchester than Gatwick (train from Reading takes 75 mins., aargh) or Heathrow (bus needed from Reading), so please expand Manchester.

Bucks/Beds border, IIRC. Maplin Sands is pretty well Boris Island.

Maplin sands are on the north side of the Estuary beyond Southend. Boris Island was supposed to be on the south side somewhere near St Mary's Marsh, where I learned practice forced landings whilst training for my PPL. edit/ or a little further out into the estuary on the southern side, according to Wikipedia

Same problems apply to both though.

Yep. There's a long list of the pros and cons which looks comprehensive, as well as a map of the various possible locations, here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Estuary_Airport

Roger said:

Yesterday While flicking through several of the last threads I came accross one 'from a Bernie supporter...'. It was billed as 'an expose on Clinton's emails'. ALL ONE HOUR TWENTY MINUTES OF IT!

Foolishly I started listening...'Banks have to show more responsibility. They have to engage with the general public. They have to help small businesses etc etc'. Most of these revelations were followed by inanities like...WHAT..WHAT.....SHE WANTS TO MAKE US ADMIRE BANKERS!!!

Plato had posted this piece to show that Clinton was corrupt. It didn't. The quoted emails could have been written by Corbyn or even May. It's obvious that she had posted this ONE HOUR AND TWENTY MINUTE revelation without reading it. I realised that this was a pattern. Posts full of meaningless graffitti unedited and unread.

My point is this. The threads are now littered with what can only be described as the incoherent ramblings of an infatuated twelve year old. As I haven't been following PB for a while perhaps I'm the only person who was sucked in. But for any newcomers be warned. To avoid the pit I fell into see the word 'PLATO' and sail on past.

Floater said:

CarlottaVance said:

Sandpit said:

Floater said:

The Telegraph lets Shami (and /Corbyn) have it

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/10/17/the-chakrabarti-inquiry-was-not-worth-the-paper-it-was-written-o/

Ouch. What on Earth was she thinking, to get involved with Corbyn's mob?

What was Baroness Chakrabati thinking?

Hmm....tricky one.....

I also chuckle at Corbyn's idea that an independent enquiry could be done by a Labour supporter / member.

Nothing to see here, move along

Theuniondivvie said:

TonyE said:

Alistair said:

Gardenwalker said:

Very interesting to see that the SNP are now saying (FT, Times) that a soft Brexit won't trigger another ref.

God I love the smell of constitutional zugzwang in the morning.

They said that from the off, the language, when it came down to IndyRef trigger, was always about the single market rather than the EU per say

It's really a piece of sophistry - their desire for independence is not predicated on the manner of the Brexit deal. Their ability to win it is. The threat is hollow.

Always good to get informed, in depth analysis with all the extra PB insight and objectivity that distance provides.

saddo said:

Cyclefree said:

Sandpit said:

Floater said:

The Telegraph lets Shami (and /Corbyn) have it

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/10/17/the-chakrabarti-inquiry-was-not-worth-the-paper-it-was-written-o/

Ouch. What on Earth was she thinking, to get involved with Corbyn's mob?

She's a moron. Always was. What Lenin called a "useful idiot". In this case Corbyn's useful idiot. The big surprise is why anyone took her seriously. There was a very amusing and excoriating take down of her in the Times quite a few years back. I have a copy of it somewhere. Anyone reading that would not have been in the least bit surprised at her recent actions.

This one?

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/sathnamsanghera/article1825788.ece

Sample 1

Kirsty Young, the interviewer, did attempt to tackle Chakrabarti on this painful earnestness, and the latter’s defence appeared to be that a) she likes watching films; b) one of her favourite songs is Time after Time by Cyndi Lauper; and c) she is a parent. And when she added that “I hope I’m a reasonably rounded person” even she didn’t sound particularly convinced. Indeed, the interview itself was the most coherent argument yet made for the immediate reinstatement of Russell Brand. I’m a fairly liberal chap, and hearing about Liberty’s work should make me want to riot on the streets in support. Instead, when I hear Chakrabarti I feel like turning on Fox News and finding out about a paedophile whom I can hound out of his home.

Sample 2

I guess what I’m saying is that if you’re making an unpopular, repetitive, contrary but nonetheless important argument, it is essential that you are not any of those things yourself. People need to feel inspired, or at least feel as though they are making up their own minds. You can bore, nag or guilt-trip only so many people into supporting you

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, it is entirely possible that by Friday morning Mrs May's majority will be down to single figures.

As The Times pointed out she cannot rely on the DUP, given the realities of what a hard Brexit means for the six counties.

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, it is entirely possible that by Friday morning Mrs May's majority will be down to single figures.

As The Times pointed out she cannot rely on the DUP, given the realities of what a hard Brexit means for the six counties.

geoffw said:

SeanT said:

Gardenwalker said:

Very interesting to see that the SNP are now saying (FT, Times) that a soft Brexit won't trigger another ref.

God I love the smell of constitutional zugzwang in the morning.

Brexit completely screws sindependence. The Nats know it, hence the first signs of concealed infighting at their conference.

If it's hard Brexit then that's it. Scots won't be able to leave its biggest single market of all - the U.K. - only to find themselves clamouring to enter an inferior single market, the EU - and re-entrance to the EU is not easy or simple, see the Spanish talk of vetoes today.

If it's soft Brexit the Scots will breathe a huge sigh of relief and the appetite for another wrenching referendum and massive constitutional and political chaos will be zero. The vote would lose badly.

Add in the currency issues, oil, deficit, etc, and Independence in Scotland is likely finished for the foreseeable.

Indeed so, but how long will the SNats go on with the Sindy pretense before they are rumbled? It's the only thing that they have. Their record in office is hardly something to crow about. So they rely on pulling wool over people's eyes.

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, it is entirely possible that by Friday morning Mrs May's majority will be down to single figures.

As The Times pointed out she cannot rely on the DUP, given the realities of what a hard Brexit means for the six counties.

If push comes to shove she just goes to the country.

IanB2 said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The key question regarding Zac is whether he would stand as an independent or seek to be reselected as the Conservative candidate. The Sun article which Mike links to says that he'd stand as an independent, but it's unclear whether that is based on what Zac has said or is simply the journalist's assumption.

It is important to realise that the local party is unlikely to want anyone other than Zac, and certainly unlikely to want anyone who isn't as strongly anti-R3 as he is. That doesn't seem to leave any good options for CCHQ. Of the available options, fudging things so that he stands again as the Conservative candidate would be the least bad.

It would be much healthier for democracy if the 'wet' wing of the Tory from Osborne and Clarke to Goldsmith and TSE left and joined the Libdems.

It would stop the libdems tilting too far left and enable them to replace Labour as official opposition and perhaps one day even gain power.

The problem that the collapse of the old liberals has caused is that ambitious metropolitan liberals have for years joined the Tory party rather than the Libs/Libdems as there was no chance of getting into power in the Libs.

Now that Labour are imploding into irrelevance (the main reason being the discrediting of their philosophy, socialism, and the end of mass unskilled labour which gave rise to it), the only alternative to a one party Tory state is for the Libdems to be electable.

If Theresa May succeeds in eating into once solid Labour urban working class seats, it leaves the way forward to the Lib Dems to claim the wealthy urban seats as well as their traditional rural feifdoms.

But the Conservatives themselves would always prefer the opponent they have. FPTP+Labour is pretty much the perfect setup for the Tories.

HurstLlama said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

OldKingCole said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

Can someone explain Mr Clegg's thinking - how export tariffs affect domestic prices - or indeed import prices?

The price of chocolate, cheese and wine will increase sharply if Britain heads towards a so-called hard Brexit, according to Nick Clegg.

Speaking ahead of a Liberal Democrats food and drink Brexit impact report, he warned that Britain could only avoid tariffs on beef exports of 59%, chocolate at 38%, cheese at 40% and wine at 14%, with a soft Brexit.

http://news.sky.com/story/nick-clegg-chocolate-cheese-and-wine-to-be-hit-by-hard-brexit-10620761

Of course, Tusk has already explained that the alternative to 'Hard Brexit' is 'No Brexit'.....which evidently is what Mr Clegg is after.....

Britain could certainly unilaterally open its markets to imports from countries that charged tariffs on British exports. But does anyone think it would?

There are more sources of cheese, wine & chocolate than the EU.....

not decent ones that people want though

Nothing wrong with many Southern Hemisphere wines.

Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Chile (even, whisper it quietly, Argentina if they're not being silly buggers...)

I think Malcolm's an old Tory snob!

I was majoring on the chocolate and cheese there, I ma not a great lover of French wine but will drink it if needs must.

Sometimes life is just a bitch and we just have to drink the French stuff. Needs must when the Devil drives and all that. That said except, when actually in France, its donkey's years since I bought any French wine.

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, it is entirely possible that by Friday morning Mrs May's majority will be down to single figures.

As The Times pointed out she cannot rely on the DUP, given the realities of what a hard Brexit means for the six counties.

The DUP were very pro-Brexit pre-referendum iirc - mind you if the money runs down...

MarqueeMark said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

OldKingCole said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

Can someone explain Mr Clegg's thinking - how export tariffs affect domestic prices - or indeed import prices?

The price of chocolate, cheese and wine will increase sharply if Britain heads towards a so-called hard Brexit, according to Nick Clegg.

Speaking ahead of a Liberal Democrats food and drink Brexit impact report, he warned that Britain could only avoid tariffs on beef exports of 59%, chocolate at 38%, cheese at 40% and wine at 14%, with a soft Brexit.

http://news.sky.com/story/nick-clegg-chocolate-cheese-and-wine-to-be-hit-by-hard-brexit-10620761

Of course, Tusk has already explained that the alternative to 'Hard Brexit' is 'No Brexit'.....which evidently is what Mr Clegg is after.....

Britain could certainly unilaterally open its markets to imports from countries that charged tariffs on British exports. But does anyone think it would?

There are more sources of cheese, wine & chocolate than the EU.....

not decent ones that people want though

Nothing wrong with many Southern Hemisphere wines.

Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Chile (even, whisper it quietly, Argentina if they're not being silly buggers...)

I think Malcolm's an old Tory snob!

I was majoring on the chocolate and cheese there, I ma not a great lover of French wine but will drink it if needs must.

That is, if it's a free bar!

TheScreamingEagles said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, it is entirely possible that by Friday morning Mrs May's majority will be down to single figures.

As The Times pointed out she cannot rely on the DUP, given the realities of what a hard Brexit means for the six counties.

If push comes to shove she just goes to the country.

Explain how she does it with the fixed term parliament act.

taffys said:

''How short your memory is. There is no mandate for a Hard Brexit.''

There is a great video of Andrew Neil tearing a tory MP a new one for peddling precisely this fantasy. The remain campaign itself shouted from the rooftops with the government machine behind it that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market.

Voters were perfectly aware of the implications.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, it is entirely possible that by Friday morning Mrs May's majority will be down to single figures.

As The Times pointed out she cannot rely on the DUP, given the realities of what a hard Brexit means for the six counties.

If push comes to shove she just goes to the country.

Explain how she does it with the fixed term parliament act.

taffys said:

The latest remainer condescension, that the plebs will flock back to remain when their beer and bingo becomes more expensive, is perhaps the most nauseating.

Pro_Rata said:

Most leavers actually argued it would probably be snatched away from them in second referendum. They can't suddenly start choosing to take what what Remain said at face value now, when they didn't believe a word of it in voting the way they did.

"We have to hard Brexit, because Remain peddled the worst case of a hard Brexit in warning of the dangers". Errr, no.

taffys said:

''Er, LOL, no. Many voters didn't even know what the EU was or did when they voted to leave it, never mind being "perfectly aware" of the nuances between a soft EEA-style arrangement and a full blown departure as you claim.''

Here we go with the patronising 'voters are thick, let us decide' remainer bullsh8t that has become increasingly nauseating since remain got beat.

The latest remainer condescension, that the plebs will flock back to remain when their beer and bingo becomes more expensive, is perhaps the most nauseating.

Scott_P said:

taffys said:

The latest remainer condescension, that the plebs will flock back to remain when their beer and bingo becomes more expensive, is perhaps the most nauseating.

Yes, no chance of that...

https://twitter.com/harikunzru/status/787772136320536576

Indigo said:

Patrick said:

Has there ever been a case of a referendum asking for three choices rather than two? (genuine q)
I liked the joke the other day about Sindy2 asking if Scotland should be independent:
1. No - Stay in the UK
2. No - stay in the EU
3. Yes

Is it technically feasible to have anything other than a binary choice at referendum times

1. Remain
2. Leave because I want to trash the economy
3. Leave because I want to keep the immigrants out
4. Leave because I would rather do a deal with the Americans/Russians (delete as applicable)
5. Leave because I would rather decisions were taken by my British MP who has a safe seat and job for life in a parliament that fails miserably to represent my views
6. Leave because I didn't sleep very well and am not in a good mood today

Oh look! A landslide for remain, who would have thought it!

Jobabob said:

Scott_P said:

taffys said:

The latest remainer condescension, that the plebs will flock back to remain when their beer and bingo becomes more expensive, is perhaps the most nauseating.

Yes, no chance of that...

https://twitter.com/harikunzru/status/787772136320536576

Still narrow, but raises an interesting question.

What happens if public opinion moves decisively to remaining before we invoke Article 50? It could happen.

Jobabob said:

Scott_P said:

taffys said:

The latest remainer condescension, that the plebs will flock back to remain when their beer and bingo becomes more expensive, is perhaps the most nauseating.

Yes, no chance of that...

https://twitter.com/harikunzru/status/787772136320536576

Still narrow, but raises an interesting question.

What happens if public opinion moves decisively to remaining before we invoke Article 50? It could happen.

taffys said:

"We have to hard Brexit, because Remain peddled the worst case of a hard Brexit in warning of the dangers". Errr, no

Does that mean the remain case now appears to be this...?

When we said leave meant leaving the single market, we were lying. Or...er...you didn;t believe us. Or you were too stupid to understand. Or you had no idea what you were doing.

So there is no mandate to leave the single market.

PlatoSaid said:

Kevin Schofield
No 10: "The Prime Minister has full confidence in the Chancellor and the work he is doing." Oh dear.

Patrick said:

Jobabob said:

Patrick said:

Jobabob said:

Scott_P said:

taffys said:

The latest remainer condescension, that the plebs will flock back to remain when their beer and bingo becomes more expensive, is perhaps the most nauseating.

Yes, no chance of that...

https://twitter.com/harikunzru/status/787772136320536576

Still narrow, but raises an interesting question.

What happens if public opinion moves decisively to remaining before we invoke Article 50? It could happen.

This conveniently ignores the number of regretful Remain voters - of whom I have met many. I suspect their number now exceeds the regretful leavers.

Polling vs PB Leaver anecdote.

Do we have any regretful remainer polls? Or 'if we re-ran the referendum today' polls?

HurstLlama said:

malcolmg said:

HurstLlama said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

OldKingCole said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

Can someone explain Mr Clegg's thinking - how export tariffs affect domestic prices - or indeed import prices?

The price of chocolate, cheese and wine will increase sharply if Britain heads towards a so-called hard Brexit, according to Nick Clegg.

Speaking ahead of a Liberal Democrats food and drink Brexit impact report, he warned that Britain could only avoid tariffs on beef exports of 59%, chocolate at 38%, cheese at 40% and wine at 14%, with a soft Brexit.

http://news.sky.com/story/nick-clegg-chocolate-cheese-and-wine-to-be-hit-by-hard-brexit-10620761

Of course, Tusk has already explained that the alternative to 'Hard Brexit' is 'No Brexit'.....which evidently is what Mr Clegg is after.....

Britain could certainly unilaterally open its markets to imports from countries that charged tariffs on British exports. But does anyone think it would?

There are more sources of cheese, wine & chocolate than the EU.....

not decent ones that people want though

Nothing wrong with many Southern Hemisphere wines.

Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Chile (even, whisper it quietly, Argentina if they're not being silly buggers...)

I think Malcolm's an old Tory snob!

I was majoring on the chocolate and cheese there, I ma not a great lover of French wine but will drink it if needs must.

Sometimes life is just a bitch and we just have to drink the French stuff. Needs must when the Devil drives and all that. That said except, when actually in France, its donkey's years since I bought any French wine.

Same here Hurst , but I do like some of their cheeses. Though plenty of good UK ones as well so not a major issue.

I am very partial to Camembert, a very nice one of which (Normandy made from unpasteurised Normandy milk) can be obtained from Lidl at a very reasonable price. I am also keen on some of their beers and, some, Normandy cider. However, as you say there are good UK produced alternatives for all three products.*

*I can thoroughly recommend Silly Moo cider from Trenchmore Farm, Cowfold, West Sussex. Produced not far from me and I have only recently discovered it, don't know if they do mail order though.

http://www.trenchmore.co.uk/cowfold-cider/

IanB2 said:

Pro_Rata said:

taffys said:

''How short your memory is. There is no mandate for a Hard Brexit.''

There is a great video of Andrew Neil tearing a tory MP a new one for peddling precisely this fantasy. The remain campaign itself shouted from the rooftops with the government machine behind it that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market.

Voters were perfectly aware of the implications.

Most leavers actually argued it would probably be snatched away from them in second referendum. They can't suddenly start choosing to take what what Remain said at face value now, when they didn't believe a word of it in voting the way they did.

"We have to hard Brexit, because Remain peddled the worst case of a hard Brexit in warning of the dangers". Errr, no.

Exactly. On the same argument, had Remain won we would now be joining the Euro and rolling out the carpet for half of Turkey.

taffys said:

"We have to hard Brexit, because Remain peddled the worst case of a hard Brexit in warning of the dangers". Errr, no

Does that mean the remain case now appears to be this...?

When we said leave meant leaving the single market, we were lying. Or...er...you didn;t believe us. Or you were too stupid to understand. Or you had no idea what you were doing.

So there is no mandate to leave the single market.

HurstLlama said:

Sandpit said:

That's a very comprehensive wiki page, with all the pros and cons of the various sites proposed over the years.

After doing nothing but talk about it for a couple of decades, the cheapest, least objectionable way forward is to expand the existing airport at LHR - so everyone needs to stop talking and JFDI.

Cheapest and least objectionable for whom, Mr. Pit? Not the taxpayers or the users of the M25, that's for sure. The associated infrastructure costs, which fall on the public purse, are estimated at, from memory, about three times those of putting in a second runway at Gatwick.
Once work starts the M25, already subject to severe overload and pretty much permanent long delays is going to grind to a freaking halt. The knock on costs from non airport related businesses of having the motorway around the West side of London effective unusable for years are going to be huge.

rcs1000 said:

Patrick said:

Jobabob said:

Patrick said:

Jobabob said:

Scott_P said:

taffys said:

The latest remainer condescension, that the plebs will flock back to remain when their beer and bingo becomes more expensive, is perhaps the most nauseating.

Yes, no chance of that...

https://twitter.com/harikunzru/status/787772136320536576

Still narrow, but raises an interesting question.

What happens if public opinion moves decisively to remaining before we invoke Article 50? It could happen.

This conveniently ignores the number of regretful Remain voters - of whom I have met many. I suspect their number now exceeds the regretful leavers.

Polling vs PB Leaver anecdote.

Do we have any regretful remainer polls? Or 'if we re-ran the referendum today' polls?

I think if we reran the referendum tomorrow, it'd be 60:40 in favour of Leave.

Theuniondivvie said:

IanB2 said:

Pro_Rata said:

taffys said:

''How short your memory is. There is no mandate for a Hard Brexit.''

There is a great video of Andrew Neil tearing a tory MP a new one for peddling precisely this fantasy. The remain campaign itself shouted from the rooftops with the government machine behind it that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market.

Voters were perfectly aware of the implications.

Most leavers actually argued it would probably be snatched away from them in second referendum. They can't suddenly start choosing to take what what Remain said at face value now, when they didn't believe a word of it in voting the way they did.

"We have to hard Brexit, because Remain peddled the worst case of a hard Brexit in warning of the dangers". Errr, no.

Exactly. On the same argument, had Remain won we would now be joining the Euro and rolling out the carpet for half of Turkey.

But isn't that what would have happened? I'm sure that's what many of the more strident Leavers have been postulating, and I know what a balanced, cool view they have of things.

rcs1000 said:

taffys said:

''How short your memory is. There is no mandate for a Hard Brexit.''

There is a great video of Andrew Neil tearing a tory MP a new one for peddling precisely this fantasy. The remain campaign itself shouted from the rooftops with the government machine behind it that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market.

Voters were perfectly aware of the implications.

So wait, we should have listened to the Remain campaign for what happened post Brexit?
Not the Conservative manifesto from 2015?
Nor Daniel Hannan who said a narrow vote to Leave was not a vote for a large change in relationship?

I campaigned tirelessly on here before the referendum to include a supplementary question because I feared exactly this issue.

What is the mandate for the government, other than to leave the EU. There is is no explicit backing for what Leave is. And that's why I believe there should be a General Election sooner rather than later.