Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The music stops. Who would grab the chair if Jeremy Corbyn ste

1235»

Comments

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 59,431
    Patrick said:

    Precisely. But that puts Scotland on a par with Panama and the USD. Panama has amazingly strong banks and a severely strict banking code - exactly because it has no lender of last resort. If a Panamanian bank gets in trouble their depositors are going to lose everything. Panama is also a tax haven. I think Scotland can chosee the Pound or it can choose socialism. But not both.
    Or Hong Kong and the US Dollar... (Sort of)
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,860
    If you read it, it's non European countries. She includes Russia so the UK will count too.

    It's interesting that she's shifting to a form of European nationalism.
  • JobabobJobabob Posts: 3,807
    @SouthamObserver

    Great post.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 59,431
    Pulpstar said:

    Surely the scots just have a Scottish pound, with a mysterious currency peg of 1.00000; until they apply to join the Euro.
    If accepted then they must adopt the euro.

    It's more of a theoretical must join, as there are no mechanisms to compel a country to join once they are EU members.
  • JobabobJobabob Posts: 3,807
    Pulpstar said:

    Surely the scots just have a Scottish pound, with a mysterious currency peg of 1.00000; until they apply to join the Euro.
    If accepted then they must adopt the euro.

    Yes they could do that.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Surely the scots just have a Scottish pound, with a mysterious currency peg of 1.00000; until they apply to join the Euro.
    If accepted then they must adopt the euro.

    So they'd be 'independent' but their interest rates would be set in London to suit rUK needs!
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    rcs1000 said:

    No it doesn't. The reaties explicitly recognise the Common Travel Area
    I am not sure CTA is mentioned in the treaties as such its usually discussed as being opt outs for the UK and Ireland.

    The Treaty of Amsterdam established the Schengen Area, for example doesn't mention the CTA at all, but gives explicit opt outs for the UK and Ireland, that treaty does not mention the Republic of Scotland, so they will be in Schengen if they are in the EU.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,860
    Patrick said:

    So they'd be 'independent' but their interest rates would be set in London to suit rUK needs!
    Lot's of small countries have prospered with currency pegs and de facto lack of control of the currency.
  • Mr. 1000, I've written an article about coins and money in history, and part of it touches on (earlier) financial matters of a comparable nature. Devaluation, inflation etc. It's pretty interesting [although, as usual, I do ramble a bit].

    I had been about to post it today, but with Journeys out in five days I'm doing a small series of interviews with some of the other contributors.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,860

    I am not sure CTA is mentioned in the treaties as such its usually discussed as being opt outs for the UK and Ireland.

    The Treaty of Amsterdam established the Schengen Area, for example doesn't mention the CTA at all, but gives explicit opt outs for the UK and Ireland, that treaty does not mention the Republic of Scotland, so they will be in Schengen if they are in the EU.
    The Scottish accession treaty could write them into the opt out if it was the mutually preferred option.
  • Mr. Glenn, don't they usually have either dinky financial sectors or massive currency reserves in case of woe, though?

    Mr. Pulpstar, indeed, although that would mean no lender of last resort, right?

    Mr. Topping, hmm. I'm not sure I quite see how that works.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,572
    Pulpstar said:

    Surely the scots just have a Scottish pound, with a mysterious currency peg of 1.00000; until they apply to join the Euro.
    If accepted then they must adopt the euro.

    Would they still get to produce their own funny money banknotes?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,116

    At the very least there will be enough letters on Graham Brady's desk to subject her to a challenge which having given away FoM she will probably lose, because:

    About half of the 52% care a lot about it though, and there will be a general election within a year of the final deal being done, if she ditches freedom of movement and is very lucky they will stay at home and she will lose her majority.
    Every poll shows a majority of Tory voters back hard Brexit. If May failed to impose free movement controls she would lose far more voters to UKIP than she would to the LDs if she does go ahead and impose them and leave the single market
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852

    The Scottish accession treaty could write them into the opt out if it was the mutually preferred option.
    Absolutely, but the original claim was no treaties would need to be amended.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,235

    Lot's of small countries have prospered with currency pegs and de facto lack of control of the currency.
    Interest rates are all much of a muchness around zero anyway.

    BoE interest rate Great Britain 0.250 %
    ECB interest rate Europe 0.000 %
    American interest rate (Fed) 0.75 %
    BOJ -0.1%
    Switzerland -.75%

  • isam said:

    Haha I only said it so you'd say that!!! Cheers!

    (and it's "your")
    Thanks for the correction.

    I'm glad that you're now gradually getting the distinction between a campaign that rejects racism & xenophobia to win, and one that's content to use those (and any other) elements.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,724
    HYUFD said:

    Every poll shows a majority of Tory voters back hard Brexit. If May failed to impose free movement controls she would lose far more voters to UKIP than she would to the LDs if she does go ahead and impose them and leave the single market
    Why would Tory hard Brexit voters be any different from Tory soft Brexit voters? In grown up politics land there is nowhere else to go, not UKIP on the one hand, nor the LDs on the other.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,724


    Mr. Topping, hmm. I'm not sure I quite see how that works.

    You'll just have to trust me, then Morris.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,349
    edited February 2017
    isam said:

    Yes, if you are a nationalist I think that trumps money. In my own life I would rather be self employed and free than in someone else's pay with them telling when I can go on holiday etc
    ...even if the money was better if I were employed, being the point obviously!
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    HYUFD said:

    Every poll shows a majority of Tory voters back hard Brexit. If May failed to impose free movement controls she would lose far more voters to UKIP than she would to the LDs if she does go ahead and impose them and leave the single market
    I agree. I was just being circumspect to avoid the usual morons making fatuous comments about 100 UKIP MPs.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,116

    Watching that bbc2 last night it was clear in places like France and Italy the solutions that you can choose from is bigger ever closer EU protectism or outsider 5* / FN pitch of bigger national protectionist government. neither of which is going to be attractive to ultra free market city trading firms.
    The U.S. is also heading for protectionism, Switzerland is probably the most attractive prospect for financiers at the moment
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,860

    Absolutely, but the original claim was no treaties would need to be amended.
    Well any accession treaty amends the existing ones to the extent that it increases the number of signatories so you get into the realm of semantics quite quickly.
  • Douglas Carswell and the Daily Express have latched onto the point I made a while back on here about the Unified Patent Court agreement and the jurisdiction of the ECJ:

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/765411/brexit-plan-european-treaty-britain-trade-deals-negotiations-douglas-carswell

    More info on the UPC and UK ratification here:

    http://www.iam-media.com/Blog/Detail.aspx?g=abd6bd67-38ed-4e9d-a8f2-ae23d262b028
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited February 2017

    Lot's of small countries have prospered with currency pegs and de facto lack of control of the currency.
    I'm not saying it's not an option. I am saying the SNP will need to be open about it. 'We'll keep the Pound' sounds like a currency union and would cause huge upset when Angus Average realises it's a Panama option instead that is being peddled.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,860
    Pulpstar said:

    Interest rates are all much of a muchness around zero anyway.
    How did that apostrophe get into my post! :) Oh dear...
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    TOPPING said:

    Why would Tory hard Brexit voters be any different from Tory soft Brexit voters? In grown up politics land there is nowhere else to go, not UKIP on the one hand, nor the LDs on the other.
    So you missed UKIP polling in the high teens before Cameron went for the referendum ? I am not saying voting for them make sense, but it certainly will happen if May tries to tiptoe away from strong immigration control. If she smashed the hopes of those people you can bet the kippers will be over 20%, that probably won't get them many seats, but it will knock the Tory majority for six.
  • I am not sure CTA is mentioned in the treaties as such its usually discussed as being opt outs for the UK and Ireland.

    The Treaty of Amsterdam established the Schengen Area, for example doesn't mention the CTA at all, but gives explicit opt outs for the UK and Ireland, that treaty does not mention the Republic of Scotland, so they will be in Schengen if they are in the EU.
    Actually the Treaty of Amsterdam does explicitly mention the Common Travel Area but in connection with just the UK and Ireland explicitly too. Interestingly while the UK has an unconditional opt-out of Schengen, Ireland's opt-out is conditional on it continuing to maintain the Common Travel Area. If we were to opt to abolish the Common Travel Area as part of Brexit then oddly enough technically we would be compelling the Irish to join Schengen.

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Amsterdam/Protocol_on_the_application_of_certain_aspects_of_Article_7a_of_the_Treaty_establishing_the_European_Community_to_the_United_Kingdom_and_to_Ireland
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,724

    So you missed UKIP polling in the high teens before Cameron went for the referendum ? I am not saying voting for them make sense, but it certainly will happen if May tries to tiptoe away from strong immigration control. If she smashed the hopes of those people you can bet the kippers will be over 20%, that probably won't get them many seats, but it will knock the Tory majority for six.
    Yebbut so what? With Labour collapsing they will still walk the next election. Protest all they want but what would a Kipper vote actually achieve? We will have Brexited, and it wouldn't be the ideal flavour for a lot of euroloons, but so what?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,116
    rcs1000 said:

    Why does that mean Border controls at Berwick? There are no border controls between Switzerland and - for example - Germany, and Switzerland is not part of the Single Market.
    Switzerland does not yet have the free movement controls May wants though it has now at leastimposed a requirement that local workers get preference
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,116

    Not if he needs 15% of MPs to back him.

    More than that backed Corbyn in the no confidence vote
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,651

    Given that breast-feeding has contraceptive effects, isn't that vertical integration rather than a conflict of interests?
    That's a myth.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Surely the scots just have a Scottish pound, with a mysterious currency peg of 1.00000;....

    Sure they could, or at least they could try.

    However, given the financial challenges facing an independent Scotland, the markets would immediately see that shorting the Scottish Pound against Sterling would be a one-way bet.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,116
    edited February 2017
    TOPPING said:

    Yebbut so what? With Labour collapsing they will still walk the next election. Protest all they want but what would a Kipper vote actually achieve? We will have Brexited, and it wouldn't be the ideal flavour for a lot of euroloons, but so what?
    UKIP could pick up say 10 to 15 seats in Kent, Essex, the north and Midlands in such a scenario giving them the possibility of the balance of power if the Tories lose their majority but are still the largest party
  • HYUFD said:

    More than that backed Corbyn in the no confidence vote

    I will bet you whatever sum of money you wish that John McDonnell would not get 15% of Labour MPs and MEPs to nominate him for a leadership contest in the event of Jeremy Corbyn standing down.

  • Would they still get to produce their own funny money banknotes?
    Well Disneyland can print Mickey Dollars ...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,116
    TOPPING said:

    Why would Tory hard Brexit voters be any different from Tory soft Brexit voters? In grown up politics land there is nowhere else to go, not UKIP on the one hand, nor the LDs on the other.
    There is when Labour won't win anyway and one of the main reasons you vote Tory is immigration control
  • I will bet you whatever sum of money you wish that John McDonnell would not get 15% of Labour MPs and MEPs to nominate him for a leadership contest in the event of Jeremy Corbyn standing down.

    The way for Corbyn to step down while guaranteeing his choice of candidate gets nominated is to step down AFTER his challenger is nominated. Since he remains on the ballot until after a challenger is nominated, he can run without a nomination if the PLP refuses to put his anointed successor on the ballot - but if his chosen one is nominated he can step down and leave it to the members to decide.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,116

    I agree. I was just being circumspect to avoid the usual morons making fatuous comments about 100 UKIP MPs.
    That is too high yes
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,639

    The way for Corbyn to step down while guaranteeing his choice of candidate gets nominated is to step down AFTER his challenger is nominated. Since he remains on the ballot until after a challenger is nominated, he can run without a nomination if the PLP refuses to put his anointed successor on the ballot - but if his chosen one is nominated he can step down and leave it to the members to decide.
    That's clever. Is it definitely within the rules?
  • am I missing something? This has one signature.
  • The way for Corbyn to step down while guaranteeing his choice of candidate gets nominated is to step down AFTER his challenger is nominated. Since he remains on the ballot until after a challenger is nominated, he can run without a nomination if the PLP refuses to put his anointed successor on the ballot - but if his chosen one is nominated he can step down and leave it to the members to decide.
    Interesting idea.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,116

    I will bet you whatever sum of money you wish that John McDonnell would not get 15% of Labour MPs and MEPs to nominate him for a leadership contest in the event of Jeremy Corbyn standing down.

    As PT states Corbyn will not even consider standing down before the next general election until he knows an ally has the necessary nominations
  • am I missing something? This has one signature.
    I think it's sarcasm.

    Though Parliament is in recess currently isn't it? So the numbers can't rise right now so that's absurd.
  • HYUFD said:

    As PT states Corbyn will not even consider standing down before the next general election until he knows an ally has the necessary nominations
    The armchair Corbynista army may be split if Lewis continues onwards and McD and co decide they want someone else e.g. Rebecca whats her name.
  • NEW THREAD
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    edited February 2017
    To all those posters using Panama as a currency example for IndyScotland, it might be best to choose another country other than Panama given that it was Darien Scheme that played a huge part in Scotland seeking the Act of Union and sorting out the Scottish national debt.....

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    Could not agree more. Why would England want to make life as tough as possible for a country with which we have shared a history for hundreds of years and with which we have such close ties in every area imaginable? I would love the Union to stay together, but we have to face facts: England and Scotland are drifting apart - just as England drifted away from the EU. We asked for the EU to reform, it said no, so we voted to leave. There is maybe an opportunity for a constitutional convention here to grasp the nettle that the EU 27 would not grasp, but the chances of that happening are low. In which case, sad as it is, it is probably best for us to go our separate ways with as much good grace and goodwill as possible. Basically, every reason that Leavers gave for the UK to leave the EU apply to Scotland leaving the Union.

    Absolutely. It would be more economically harmful, but the same principle applies. As long as we got to keep the Union Jack, I'm good :). I don't see this idea that national cohesion is some kind of virility symbol. I wouldn't mind a United Ireland either - that's for the NI unionists to fight, I've no rooted objection to it.
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852

    Actually the Treaty of Amsterdam does explicitly mention the Common Travel Area but in connection with just the UK and Ireland explicitly too. Interestingly while the UK has an unconditional opt-out of Schengen, Ireland's opt-out is conditional on it continuing to maintain the Common Travel Area. If we were to opt to abolish the Common Travel Area as part of Brexit then oddly enough technically we would be compelling the Irish to join Schengen.

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Amsterdam/Protocol_on_the_application_of_certain_aspects_of_Article_7a_of_the_Treaty_establishing_the_European_Community_to_the_United_Kingdom_and_to_Ireland

    Indeed. It survives in basically that form in the current consolidated (ie after taking all the amending treaties into account) version of TEU/TFEU.

    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:12012E/TXT

    Protocol 20:

    Article 2

    The United Kingdom and Ireland may continue to make arrangements between themselves relating to the movement of persons between their territories ("the Common Travel Area"), while fully respecting the rights of persons referred to in Article 1, first paragraph, point (a) of this Protocol. Accordingly, as long as they maintain such arrangements, the provisions of Article 1 of this Protocol shall apply to Ireland under the same terms and conditions as for the United Kingdom. Nothing in Articles 26 and 77 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in any other provision of that Treaty or of the Treaty on European Union or in any measure adopted under them, shall affect any such arrangements.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,860
    Wolfgang Schaeuble has accused Martin Schultz of copying Trump's campaign rhetoric.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,116

    The armchair Corbynista army may be split if Lewis continues onwards and McD and co decide they want someone else e.g. Rebecca whats her name.
    Lewis backed Trident and has burnt his bridges with Corbyn and is no longer a Corbynista
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 2,108
    Patrick said:

    Fully agree - but I suspect the empathy would evaporate the moment a newly independent Scotland refused to take on its share of the UK's debt.
    Share the £ = share (servicing) the National Debt. Seems simple enough. Otherwise the indyScot theoretical deficit will be reduced by a third.
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 2,108

    Unless, for example, one or more of the member states had secessionists they wished to discourage.....anyone spring to mind?
    Spain has always been careful to separate the constitutional route (Scotland) which it can accept from the unconstitutional route (Catalonia, Kosovo etc.).
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 2,108

    You first...
    Most of it will be a repeat of the Indy white paper - didn't you get as far as page 216?
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    edited February 2017
    rcs1000 said:

    No it doesn't. The reaties explicitly recognise the Common Travel Area
    As others have mentioned, only in regards to how it affects EU law with respect to the UK and Ireland ONLY.
  • sarissa said:

    Share the £ = share (servicing) the National Debt. Seems simple enough. Otherwise the indyScot theoretical deficit will be reduced by a third.
    If Scotland tried to somehow enforce a curency union on an unwilling England and at the same walk away from £100bn+ of debt I think we'd be seeing a diamond hard Scexit. That'd be a 'hostile act' and the rUK would respond accordingly.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,107
    Patrick said:

    If Scotland tried to somehow enforce a curency union on an unwilling England and at the same walk away from £100bn+ of debt I think we'd be seeing a diamond hard Scexit. That'd be a 'hostile act' and the rUK would respond accordingly.
    LOL, the old ones are the best ones
This discussion has been closed.