At the least this dinner anecdote reinforces the impression of a government that is utterly disorganised in its approach to Brexit. Not so much "strong and stable". More "heedless and chaotic"
Whatever you think of the EU demands, they are clear about what they want, focused on getting their goals and have planned for them rigourously
What utter nonsense. The EU 'goals' for a deal are as delusional and unattainable as ours; and their rhetoric almost as disobliging. I have some hope that the temperature will cool a bit after the elections in France, here and Germany, but that seems far from certain.
I think cool heads will prevail - what we see now is pre-election posturing all over the place - it's fun to watch how some of the 'remain' faction are sucking it up in the hope that the British public will, as a result, embrace Starmer/Corbyn and unite the nation around staying in the EU.
That would be a good outcome for our country. Staying in the EU trumps all flavours of Brexit - that is palpably obvious.
Also utterly obvious that boat has sailed, however regrettable some of us might find that.
Not obvious. Alan Sked founded the Anti-Federalist League in 1991 and stood in the 1992 GE and twice in by-elections in 1993. Then it changed into Ukip and had candidates in 1997 (when it also had competition from another out-of-Europe party, the Referendum party). A Back into Europe Party now wouldn't look any more quixotic than Sked did then, so where is it? Jack Monroe is standing for the National Health Action Party, the OMRLP has named 12 candidates, even outright comedy acts like the Labour party are having a go. But no sign of a Back into Europe Party. The Remainers stick by the creed which stood them in such good stead in the referendum, that you get political results by sitting on your arse addressing snidey remarks to the twittersphere.
We were talking about staying in Europe - not a three decade project to get back in. And you don't seem beyond snidely remarks yourself, FWIW.
One minor quibble about the excellent thread header, this bit ought to read "The context of this election is that Brexit negotiations are about to begin and Theresa May is overwhelmingly the most trusted figure >>out of the two on offer<< to represent Britain at those negotiations..."</p>
True, but also irrelevant. A bit like walking into a greasy spoon cafe and finding that tea and coffee are the best drinks on offer: you might fancy a glass of Champagne, but you're not expecting to find it and you're not going to get it, either. So scarcely any point in lamenting its absence.
Short-sighted, stupid, reckless and likely to cause a completely avoidable catastrophe for everybody. But very typical of the way the EU approaches matters.
I think the reason May is so far ahead and people want her to be the one doing the negotiating is that she seems genuinely up for walking. 'No deal is better than as bad deal'.
TBH I think the reason people prefer May is as I describe immediately above. But her electoral coalition isn't going to hold together for very long if she isn't prepared to walk. Personally I would rather we didn't have to, but the European Union is not a rational actor: its monomaniacal obsession with the preservation and furthering of its political project trumps all else, and renders it pitiless, deaf and blind to all forms of protest, rational argument, cruelty and human suffering. Virtually all of the damage that has been done to the Eurozone periphery by its disastrous single currency experiment is entirely its fault, but it doesn't care one iota. Individuals, communities and whole nations destroyed by its blunders are treated variously as having brought their fate down upon their own heads, as sacrifices made to a higher cause, or, simply, as collateral damage.
Thus, if it calculates that trying to browbeat and humiliate Britain will be more beneficial than a co-operative approach in terms of advancing the cause of "ever closer union" between the remaining states, then that is the path it will choose. We should be ready to be treated as an enemy rather than a friend, and to respond accordingly.
Roger
In what way is the single currency experiment disasterous? It seems to be overwhelmingly popular. Even the Greeks didn't want to leave. Do you know of any Eurozone country that does or is it that they just don't know what's good for them?
What I want to know is why Juncker is still in place? The not-so-sharp minds of PB have been repeatedly claiming his days are numbered, and yet...
Of course they're mainly the types that have been predicting the collapse of the Euro & the EU thrice weekly for years, so I suppose I should have known.
Is there a mechanism for removing a commission president before their term expires? Genuine question...
May has turned BREXIT into a shite episode of deal or no deal where all the boxes have negative sums and you turned all offers down to be left with the last box to open that has the biggest negative sum of all.
At least we got to tell the Banker of Brussels to piss off with his condescending not-really-an-offer.
I bet you loved the seventies - Labour Governments, and being told what we could and couldn't do by the IMF...
You are left with the last box.
Open it TM
Oh dear it's the minus £100Bn box
You think TM had any hand in choosing the boxes that were dispensed with along the way?
And if you look carefully at the bottom of the box, what's this, hidden away? Ah yes - the right to run our own country, free from the leaden, deadening hand of Brussels, to decide who comes in and out of our borders, to decide who we can trade with. And the right to vote the buggers out of office if we don't like how they do the above.
In the next decade, there'll be many in the EU wishing they had opened that box.
If I were TM I would choose the soft BREXIT box with the minus £10 Bn in it but you know she will be too busy saying strong and stable over and over again to even notice that offer.
MAY: We want a positive approach based on our shared understanding that 2+2=5. EU: It really isn't. It's 4. MAY: Wibble... But we need to respect the will of the British people. AND I will soon be the personification of that will, backed by a huge majority. EU: Good for you, but 2+2 still equals 4. MAY: Please don't tell anyone about this JUNCKER: *starts texting*
@ProfChalmers: This bit of the FAZ report on the May-Juncker dinner is fascinating, because there are some similarities between Brexit and the JHA opt-out. twitter.com/jeremycliffe/s…
@ProfChalmers: The JHA optout lacked any convincing rationale, was a solution to problems that didn't actually exist, and was accompanied by dire warnings.
@ProfChalmers: But in the end, it was more or less made to work, and life went on.
@ProfChalmers: So it's understandable that May might think "I got through the JHA optout intact; Brexit is just a big version of that, I can do this."
@ProfChalmers: Two obvious problems. First, they're not really comparable. The rights and obligations created by EU law overall are far more complex.
@ProfChalmers: Secondly, the scale is immeasurably different. Brexit is to the JHA optout as a blogpost is to the Library of Alexandria.
@ProfChalmers: I don't think it would have been absurd for May to have thought this way initially. It would be absurd for her to still think it now.
@ProfChalmers: What this shows, once again, is that the problem is not just Brexit: it's a failure to acknowledge how complex and difficult Brexit is.
@ProfChalmers: And in that context, an election is just displacement activity, like a student tidying their room in denial of tomorrow's essay deadline.
@ProfChalmers: Incidentally, I think the JHA optout took about eighteen months from notification to taking effect. But yeah, we can do Brexit in two years.
@ProfChalmers: @LucyHunterB "Let's tear this partnership up, because our partners are so awful. Also, negotiating our exit with them will be really easy."
All built on the premises that TMay is stupid, that Professor Chalmers is not, and that Prof Chalmers can see inside Mrs May's head. 1 and 3 are false, which suggests that 2 is as well.
But TMay IS stupid. She has proved that in spades. Be afraid folks, very afriad!
Dr. Foxinsox, you're doing Charlie Kennedy a disservice. As for comparing Juncker with Churchill, one might be tempted to ask if you've been on the sauce yourself.
Not yet! Only tea so far, but I will have a drink later to celebrate International Labour Day. A great intitiative by a Labour government to make it a bank holiday.
Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains!
Mr. B, aye, just a bit irksome (one more DNF would've done it).
Anyway, although I only backed with smaller stakes, my pre-weekend bet on Force India to double score at 3 meant I ended up down about a pound overall, so not too bad (the Raikkonen to win each way obviously failed, but I think it was value nevertheless, at 13).
@ProfChalmers: This bit of the FAZ report on the May-Juncker dinner is fascinating, because there are some similarities between Brexit and the JHA opt-out. twitter.com/jeremycliffe/s…
@ProfChalmers: The JHA optout lacked any convincing rationale, was a solution to problems that didn't actually exist, and was accompanied by dire warnings.
@ProfChalmers: But in the end, it was more or less made to work, and life went on.
@ProfChalmers: So it's understandable that May might think "I got through the JHA optout intact; Brexit is just a big version of that, I can do this."
@ProfChalmers: Two obvious problems. First, they're not really comparable. The rights and obligations created by EU law overall are far more complex.
@ProfChalmers: Secondly, the scale is immeasurably different. Brexit is to the JHA optout as a blogpost is to the Library of Alexandria.
@ProfChalmers: I don't think it would have been absurd for May to have thought this way initially. It would be absurd for her to still think it now.
@ProfChalmers: What this shows, once again, is that the problem is not just Brexit: it's a failure to acknowledge how complex and difficult Brexit is.
@ProfChalmers: And in that context, an election is just displacement activity, like a student tidying their room in denial of tomorrow's essay deadline.
@ProfChalmers: Incidentally, I think the JHA optout took about eighteen months from notification to taking effect. But yeah, we can do Brexit in two years.
@ProfChalmers: @LucyHunterB "Let's tear this partnership up, because our partners are so awful. Also, negotiating our exit with them will be really easy."
All built on the premises that TMay is stupid, that Professor Chalmers is not, and that Prof Chalmers can see inside Mrs May's head. 1 and 3 are false, which suggests that 2 is as well.
But TMay IS stupid. She has proved that in spades. Be afraid folks, very afriad!
Dr. Foxinsox, you're doing Charlie Kennedy a disservice. As for comparing Juncker with Churchill, one might be tempted to ask if you've been on the sauce yourself.
Not yet! Only tea so far, but I will have a drink later to celebrate International Labour Day. A great intitiative by a Labour government to make it a bank holiday.
Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains!
I prefer the pagan festival with nubile young ladies performing fertility rituals. I'm sure mr. M. D agrees
@ProfChalmers: This bit of the FAZ report on the May-Juncker dinner is fascinating, because there are some similarities between Brexit and the JHA opt-out. twitter.com/jeremycliffe/s…
@ProfChalmers: The JHA optout lacked any convincing rationale, was a solution to problems that didn't actually exist, and was accompanied by dire warnings.
@ProfChalmers: But in the end, it was more or less made to work, and life went on.
@ProfChalmers: So it's understandable that May might think "I got through the JHA optout intact; Brexit is just a big version of that, I can do this."
@ProfChalmers: Two obvious problems. First, they're not really comparable. The rights and obligations created by EU law overall are far more complex.
@ProfChalmers: Secondly, the scale is immeasurably different. Brexit is to the JHA optout as a blogpost is to the Library of Alexandria.
@ProfChalmers: I don't think it would have been absurd for May to have thought this way initially. It would be absurd for her to still think it now.
@ProfChalmers: What this shows, once again, is that the problem is not just Brexit: it's a failure to acknowledge how complex and difficult Brexit is.
@ProfChalmers: And in that context, an election is just displacement activity, like a student tidying their room in denial of tomorrow's essay deadline.
@ProfChalmers: Incidentally, I think the JHA optout took about eighteen months from notification to taking effect. But yeah, we can do Brexit in two years.
@ProfChalmers: @LucyHunterB "Let's tear this partnership up, because our partners are so awful. Also, negotiating our exit with them will be really easy."
All built on the premises that TMay is stupid, that Professor Chalmers is not, and that Prof Chalmers can see inside Mrs May's head. 1 and 3 are false, which suggests that 2 is as well.
But TMay IS stupid. She has proved that in spades. Be afraid folks, very afriad!
Constant repetition of untruths doesn't make it true.
@ProfChalmers: This bit of the FAZ report on the May-Juncker dinner is fascinating, because there are some similarities between Brexit and the JHA opt-out. twitter.com/jeremycliffe/s…
@ProfChalmers: The JHA optout lacked any convincing rationale, was a solution to problems that didn't actually exist, and was accompanied by dire warnings.
@ProfChalmers: But in the end, it was more or less made to work, and life went on.
@ProfChalmers: So it's understandable that May might think "I got through the JHA optout intact; Brexit is just a big version of that, I can do this."
@ProfChalmers: Two obvious problems. First, they're not really comparable. The rights and obligations created by EU law overall are far more complex.
@ProfChalmers: Secondly, the scale is immeasurably different. Brexit is to the JHA optout as a blogpost is to the Library of Alexandria.
@ProfChalmers: I don't think it would have been absurd for May to have thought this way initially. It would be absurd for her to still think it now.
@ProfChalmers: What this shows, once again, is that the problem is not just Brexit: it's a failure to acknowledge how complex and difficult Brexit is.
@ProfChalmers: And in that context, an election is just displacement activity, like a student tidying their room in denial of tomorrow's essay deadline.
@ProfChalmers: Incidentally, I think the JHA optout took about eighteen months from notification to taking effect. But yeah, we can do Brexit in two years.
@ProfChalmers: @LucyHunterB "Let's tear this partnership up, because our partners are so awful. Also, negotiating our exit with them will be really easy."
All built on the premises that TMay is stupid, that Professor Chalmers is not, and that Prof Chalmers can see inside Mrs May's head. 1 and 3 are false, which suggests that 2 is as well.
But TMay IS stupid. She has proved that in spades. Be afraid folks, very afriad!
By doing what?
Whipping up rhetoric, "no deal is better than a bad deal" etc.
So would any of those Leavers who a year ago were raucously arguing that a Brexit deal would be negotiated speedily and painlessly like to reconsider this morning?
What I want to know is why Juncker is still in place? The not-so-sharp minds of PB have been repeatedly claiming his days are numbered, and yet...
Of course they're mainly the types that have been predicting the collapse of the Euro & the EU thrice weekly for years, so I suppose I should have known.
Is there a mechanism for removing a commission president before their term expires? Genuine question...
"[Juncker] told Deutschlandfunk he feared that Brexit will drive the remaining 27 EU countries against each other “without much effort”.
“The other 27 don’t know it yet but the British know very well how they’ll manage it. You promise country A one thing, country B one thing and country C another and at the end there’s no European front left,” Juncker said, according to a transcript of the interview.
EU member states are becoming even more divided over opinions that “are not necessarily compatible,” he said, referencing Hungary and Poland.
“Do the Hungarians or the Poles want exactly the same thing as the Germans or the French? I have huge doubts. You have to create a fundamental consensus again. That’s a job for the next two or three years.
“While we’re negotiating with the British, we have to agree on the definitive visions for this continent if we want to avoid an apocalyptic mood,” Juncker said."
That could all have come from a PB Leaver in a fit of optimism. We've got them on the run.
His term expires in 2019 and he won't seek another, seems to be the position.
@ProfChalmers: This bit of the FAZ report on the May-Juncker dinner is fascinating, because there are some similarities between Brexit and the JHA opt-out. twitter.com/jeremycliffe/s…
@ProfChalmers: The JHA optout lacked any convincing rationale, was a solution to problems that didn't actually exist, and was accompanied by dire warnings.
@ProfChalmers: But in the end, it was more or less made to work, and life went on.
@ProfChalmers: So it's understandable that May might think "I got through the JHA optout intact; Brexit is just a big version of that, I can do this."
@ProfChalmers: Two obvious problems. First, they're not really comparable. The rights and obligations created by EU law overall are far more complex.
@ProfChalmers: Secondly, the scale is immeasurably different. Brexit is to the JHA optout as a blogpost is to the Library of Alexandria.
@ProfChalmers: I don't think it would have been absurd for May to have thought this way initially. It would be absurd for her to still think it now.
@ProfChalmers: What this shows, once again, is that the problem is not just Brexit: it's a failure to acknowledge how complex and difficult Brexit is.
@ProfChalmers: And in that context, an election is just displacement activity, like a student tidying their room in denial of tomorrow's essay deadline.
@ProfChalmers: Incidentally, I think the JHA optout took about eighteen months from notification to taking effect. But yeah, we can do Brexit in two years.
@ProfChalmers: @LucyHunterB "Let's tear this partnership up, because our partners are so awful. Also, negotiating our exit with them will be really easy."
All built on the premises that TMay is stupid, that Professor Chalmers is not, and that Prof Chalmers can see inside Mrs May's head. 1 and 3 are false, which suggests that 2 is as well.
But TMay IS stupid. She has proved that in spades. Be afraid folks, very afriad!
Constant repetition of untruths doesn't make it true.
So would any of those Leavers who a year ago were raucously arguing that a Brexit deal would be negotiated speedily and painlessly like to reconsider this morning?
LOL
The new mantra is that "no deal" will be "be negotiated speedily and painlessly", and they are fine with that
What I want to know is why Juncker is still in place? The not-so-sharp minds of PB have been repeatedly claiming his days are numbered, and yet...
Of course they're mainly the types that have been predicting the collapse of the Euro & the EU thrice weekly for years, so I suppose I should have known.
Juncker isn't that important. He is a hired hand who represents the consensus views of the EU membership. There's a faction in the UK that needs a bogeyman so he will do. The fact is the EU is the collective body for all the important countries in Europe. If we don't deal with it, we have no meaningful relationship with the continent we happen to a part of. And it complicates relationships elsewhere. At some point that fact will impinge into the British consciousness, but there could be a lot of pain and grief first.
Of course if the EU collapses as a result of its contradictions, we will be in a much stronger position. The EU seems determined not to collapse, which is a ratonal aim to have IMO
@ProfChalmers: This bit of the FAZ report on the May-Juncker dinner is fascinating, because there are some similarities between Brexit and the JHA opt-out. twitter.com/jeremycliffe/s…
@ProfChalmers: The JHA optout lacked any convincing rationale, was a solution to problems that didn't actually exist, and was accompanied by dire warnings.
@ProfChalmers: But in the end, it was more or less made to work, and life went on.
@ProfChalmers: So it's understandable that May might think "I got through the JHA optout intact; Brexit is just a big version of that, I can do this."
@ProfChalmers: Two obvious problems. First, they're not really comparable. The rights and obligations created by EU law overall are far more complex.
@ProfChalmers: Secondly, the scale is immeasurably different. Brexit is to the JHA optout as a blogpost is to the Library of Alexandria.
@ProfChalmers: I don't think it would have been absurd for May to have thought this way initially. It would be absurd for her to still think it now.
@ProfChalmers: What this shows, once again, is that the problem is not just Brexit: it's a failure to acknowledge how complex and difficult Brexit is.
@ProfChalmers: And in that context, an election is just displacement activity, like a student tidying their room in denial of tomorrow's essay deadline.
@ProfChalmers: Incidentally, I think the JHA optout took about eighteen months from notification to taking effect. But yeah, we can do Brexit in two years.
@ProfChalmers: @LucyHunterB "Let's tear this partnership up, because our partners are so awful. Also, negotiating our exit with them will be really easy."
All built on the premises that TMay is stupid, that Professor Chalmers is not, and that Prof Chalmers can see inside Mrs May's head. 1 and 3 are false, which suggests that 2 is as well.
But TMay IS stupid. She has proved that in spades. Be afraid folks, very afriad!
What is the name of the law that states when calling someone else stupid you end up making a typo?
During the referendum every missive from the commission seemed to add support to the leave camp, after a while i began to think it was deliberately stupid.
Constant repetition of untruths doesn't make it true.
Like every time Tezza says "No deal is better than a bad deal"
Is that really an untruth though? A deal saying we have to pay the EU our entire GDP every year would certainly be worse than no deal.
Isn't this akin to a divorce where both parties start off by saying "we want this to work out well for the children" before descending into acrimony, bitterness and (the point of this metaphor) *endless legal bills*
'No deal' is us walking away in a huff because we're not prepared to pay the child maintenance like some feckless Dad. And we know how well those things turn out...
I'd rather pay some big negotiated £30bn chunk now quite frankly...
Lovely Bank Holiday morning here in Llandudno. Visitors from across the World are attending our Victorian Extravaganza and the extraordinary Transport Festival with the most amazing collection of vintage vehicles of all shapes and sizes.
So in this spirit I thought I would check up on PB and sadly see an angry polarised debate between remainers and leavers which is continuing from yesterday.
I firmly believe that a deal will be done, probably a fudge, but I hope post the 8th June we can just let Theresa May get on with Brexit and see how it evolves. No amount of fury is going to predict the final destination but I do think it is highly unlikely that we shall end up staying in the EU.
In a separate report today Spain is suffering a big economic hit with ex pats not investing in property and some returning home. It is projected they will lose between 3 - 4 billion annually and they are desparate to come to an arrangement with the UK
Why are the EU briefing so heavily against Mrs May? Could it be that they don't want her to win the GE? Or at least, not to have a large majority?
I'm sure Mr Starmer would be much more acceptable to them. Why do you think that is?
Leavers should have no fear of Starmer in charge of the negotiations. The deal he is looking for matches the most popular outcome: immigration control with Single market membership.
Morning all and thank you for the comments on my thread header yesterday.
It's been said before but bears repeating that immigration control with single market membership is simply not on offer from the EU. Had it been the referendum result would likely have been different.
It seems daft to me that the rest of the EU was not prepared to be a bit more flexible on this. Britain being a member of the single market is a benefit to them also (even if the relative weight of that advantage is different) but we are where we are. Even if Labour were led by Starmer he would not be able to get such a deal.
My bold
Even if it is de facto in force now! The collapse of Schengen has been amazing in its speed
Schengen always allowed suspension in case of emergency. The EU has demonstrated admirable flexibility and pragmatism with Schengen.
I don't think the EU had anything to do with it. I think it was imposed by individual states and the EU had to agree to protect the image of Schengen
Schengen is just about whether internal EU borders are systematically policed. It has nothing to do with whether EU citizens have the right to cross those borders. Suspending Schengen does not suspend free movement.
@ProfChalmers: This bit of the FAZ report on the May-Juncker dinner is fascinating, because there are some similarities between Brexit and the JHA opt-out. twitter.com/jeremycliffe/s…
@ProfChalmers: The JHA optout lacked any convincing rationale, was a solution to problems that didn't actually exist, and was accompanied by dire warnings.
@ProfChalmers: But in the end, it was more or less made to work, and life went on.
@ProfChalmers: So it's understandable that May might think "I got through the JHA optout intact; Brexit is just a big version of that, I can do this."
@ProfChalmers: Two obvious problems. First, they're not really comparable. The rights and obligations created by EU law overall are far more complex.
@ProfChalmers: Secondly, the scale is immeasurably different. Brexit is to the JHA optout as a blogpost is to the Library of Alexandria.
@ProfChalmers: I don't think it would have been absurd for May to have thought this way initially. It would be absurd for her to still think it now.
@ProfChalmers: What this shows, once again, is that the problem is not just Brexit: it's a failure to acknowledge how complex and difficult Brexit is.
@ProfChalmers: And in that context, an election is just displacement activity, like a student tidying their room in denial of tomorrow's essay deadline.
@ProfChalmers: Incidentally, I think the JHA optout took about eighteen months from notification to taking effect. But yeah, we can do Brexit in two years.
@ProfChalmers: @LucyHunterB "Let's tear this partnership up, because our partners are so awful. Also, negotiating our exit with them will be really easy."
All built on the premises that TMay is stupid, that Professor Chalmers is not, and that Prof Chalmers can see inside Mrs May's head. 1 and 3 are false, which suggests that 2 is as well.
But TMay IS stupid. She has proved that in spades. Be afraid folks, very afriad!
Simply because you (and the other bitter Enders) don't like her, does not make her stupid. So far, she's run rings round her political opponents.
Well it makes sense. If you're sure that May will win the 2017 election, you want to maximise the chance that she faces Corbyn in 2022.
I wonder how many of the same people that tried to move betting markets to 'change the narrative' are suddenly signing up to online pollsters, especially the most prolific ones.
@ProfChalmers: This bit of the FAZ report on the May-Juncker dinner is fascinating, because there are some similarities between Brexit and the JHA opt-out. twitter.com/jeremycliffe/s…
@ProfChalmers: The JHA optout lacked any convincing rationale, was a solution to problems that didn't actually exist, and was accompanied by dire warnings.
@ProfChalmers: But in the end, it was more or less made to work, and life went on.
@ProfChalmers: So it's understandable that May might think "I got through the JHA optout intact; Brexit is just a big version of that, I can do this."
@ProfChalmers: Two obvious problems. First, they're not really comparable. The rights and obligations created by EU law overall are far more complex.
@ProfChalmers: Secondly, the scale is immeasurably different. Brexit is to the JHA optout as a blogpost is to the Library of Alexandria.
@ProfChalmers: I don't think it would have been absurd for May to have thought this way initially. It would be absurd for her to still think it now.
@ProfChalmers: What this shows, once again, is that the problem is not just Brexit: it's a failure to acknowledge how complex and difficult Brexit is.
@ProfChalmers: And in that context, an election is just displacement activity, like a student tidying their room in denial of tomorrow's essay deadline.
@ProfChalmers: Incidentally, I think the JHA optout took about eighteen months from notification to taking effect. But yeah, we can do Brexit in two years.
@ProfChalmers: @LucyHunterB "Let's tear this partnership up, because our partners are so awful. Also, negotiating our exit with them will be really easy."
All built on the premises that TMay is stupid, that Professor Chalmers is not, and that Prof Chalmers can see inside Mrs May's head. 1 and 3 are false, which suggests that 2 is as well.
But TMay IS stupid. She has proved that in spades. Be afraid folks, very afriad!
By doing what?
Whipping up rhetoric, "no deal is better than a bad deal" etc.
Tory leaders have been tilting at windmills since Thatcher. Particularly with regard to the EU. It seems to strike a chord with a particular right wing psyche
@ProfChalmers: This bit of the FAZ report on the May-Juncker dinner is fascinating, because there are some similarities between Brexit and the JHA opt-out. twitter.com/jeremycliffe/s…
@ProfChalmers: The JHA optout lacked any convincing rationale, was a solution to problems that didn't actually exist, and was accompanied by dire warnings.
@ProfChalmers: But in the end, it was more or less made to work, and life went on.
@ProfChalmers: So it's understandable that May might think "I got through the JHA optout intact; Brexit is just a big version of that, I can do this."
@ProfChalmers: Two obvious problems. First, they're not really comparable. The rights and obligations created by EU law overall are far more complex.
@ProfChalmers: Secondly, the scale is immeasurably different. Brexit is to the JHA optout as a blogpost is to the Library of Alexandria.
@ProfChalmers: I don't think it would have been absurd for May to have thought this way initially. It would be absurd for her to still think it now.
@ProfChalmers: What this shows, once again, is that the problem is not just Brexit: it's a failure to acknowledge how complex and difficult Brexit is.
@ProfChalmers: And in that context, an election is just displacement activity, like a student tidying their room in denial of tomorrow's essay deadline.
@ProfChalmers: Incidentally, I think the JHA optout took about eighteen months from notification to taking effect. But yeah, we can do Brexit in two years.
@ProfChalmers: @LucyHunterB "Let's tear this partnership up, because our partners are so awful. Also, negotiating our exit with them will be really easy."
All built on the premises that TMay is stupid, that Professor Chalmers is not, and that Prof Chalmers can see inside Mrs May's head. 1 and 3 are false, which suggests that 2 is as well.
But TMay IS stupid. She has proved that in spades. Be afraid folks, very afriad!
Simply because you (and the other bitter Enders) don't like her, does not make her stupid. So far, she's run rings round her political opponents.
My fear is that Theresa May will act in her best interests rather than the country's. A bad deal is worse than no deal for her, that's for sure.
Constant repetition of untruths doesn't make it true.
Like every time Tezza says "No deal is better than a bad deal"
Is that really an untruth though? A deal saying we have to pay the EU our entire GDP every year would certainly be worse than no deal.
Isn't this akin to a divorce where both parties start off by saying "we want this to work out well for the children" before descending into acrimony, bitterness and (the point of this metaphor) *endless legal bills*
'No deal' is us walking away in a huff because we're not prepared to pay the child maintenance like some feckless Dad. And we know how well those things turn out...
I'd rather pay some big negotiated £30bn chunk now quite frankly...
If the demands are reasonable and backed up with legal agreements and such, i think we should pay. If they are just punishment payments well above what is in agreements because of vindictiveness i am not so happy for us to pay.
@ProfChalmers: This bit of the FAZ report on the May-Juncker dinner is fascinating, because there are some similarities between Brexit and the JHA opt-out. twitter.com/jeremycliffe/s…
@ProfChalmers: The JHA optout lacked any convincing rationale, was a solution to problems that didn't actually exist, and was accompanied by dire warnings.
@ProfChalmers: But in the end, it was more or less made to work, and life went on.
@ProfChalmers: So it's understandable that May might think "I got through the JHA optout intact; Brexit is just a big version of that, I can do this."
@ProfChalmers: Two obvious problems. First, they're not really comparable. The rights and obligations created by EU law overall are far more complex.
@ProfChalmers: Secondly, the scale is immeasurably different. Brexit is to the JHA optout as a blogpost is to the Library of Alexandria.
@ProfChalmers: I don't think it would have been absurd for May to have thought this way initially. It would be absurd for her to still think it now.
@ProfChalmers: What this shows, once again, is that the problem is not just Brexit: it's a failure to acknowledge how complex and difficult Brexit is.
@ProfChalmers: And in that context, an election is just displacement activity, like a student tidying their room in denial of tomorrow's essay deadline.
@ProfChalmers: Incidentally, I think the JHA optout took about eighteen months from notification to taking effect. But yeah, we can do Brexit in two years.
@ProfChalmers: @LucyHunterB "Let's tear this partnership up, because our partners are so awful. Also, negotiating our exit with them will be really easy."
All built on the premises that TMay is stupid, that Professor Chalmers is not, and that Prof Chalmers can see inside Mrs May's head. 1 and 3 are false, which suggests that 2 is as well.
But TMay IS stupid. She has proved that in spades. Be afraid folks, very afriad!
By doing what?
By not agreeing with a number of leftish posters on here. They are convinced of their intellectual and moral superiority and failure to agree is de facto evidence of stupidity.
Lovely Bank Holiday morning here in Llandudno. Visitors from across the World are attending our Victorian Extravaganza and the extraordinary Transport Festival with the most amazing collection of vintage vehicles of all shapes and sizes.
So in this spirit I thought I would check up on PB and sadly see an angry polarised debate between remainers and leavers which is continuing from yesterday.
I firmly believe that a deal will be done, probably a fudge, but I hope post the 8th June we can just let Theresa May get on with Brexit and see how it evolves. No amount of fury is going to predict the final destination but I do think it is highly unlikely that we shall end up staying in the EU.
In a separate report today Spain is suffering a big economic hit with ex pats not investing in property and some returning home. It is projected they will lose between 3 - 4 billion annually and they are desparate to come to an arrangement with the UK
Lovely here in Devon, we have had 2 inches of rain in 24 hours after none for a month, and still bucketing down. Sub-optimal for tourists, I suppose.
I am afraid only death will silence the rejoicing of the Remainers over how Leave fell into their cunning trap last June. Masterly inactivity is the ticket.
@ProfChalmers: This bit of the FAZ report on the May-Juncker dinner is fascinating, because there are some similarities between Brexit and the JHA opt-out. twitter.com/jeremycliffe/s…
@ProfChalmers: The JHA optout lacked any convincing rationale, was a solution to problems that didn't actually exist, and was accompanied by dire warnings.
@ProfChalmers: But in the end, it was more or less made to work, and life went on.
@ProfChalmers: So it's understandable that May might think "I got through the JHA optout intact; Brexit is just a big version of that, I can do this."
@ProfChalmers: Two obvious problems. First, they're not really comparable. The rights and obligations created by EU law overall are far more complex.
@ProfChalmers: Secondly, the scale is immeasurably different. Brexit is to the JHA optout as a blogpost is to the Library of Alexandria.
@ProfChalmers: I don't think it would have been absurd for May to have thought this way initially. It would be absurd for her to still think it now.
@ProfChalmers: What this shows, once again, is that the problem is not just Brexit: it's a failure to acknowledge how complex and difficult Brexit is.
@ProfChalmers: And in that context, an election is just displacement activity, like a student tidying their room in denial of tomorrow's essay deadline.
@ProfChalmers: Incidentally, I think the JHA optout took about eighteen months from notification to taking effect. But yeah, we can do Brexit in two years.
@ProfChalmers: @LucyHunterB "Let's tear this partnership up, because our partners are so awful. Also, negotiating our exit with them will be really easy."
All built on the premises that TMay is stupid, that Professor Chalmers is not, and that Prof Chalmers can see inside Mrs May's head. 1 and 3 are false, which suggests that 2 is as well.
But TMay IS stupid. She has proved that in spades. Be afraid folks, very afriad!
By doing what?
Whipping up rhetoric, "no deal is better than a bad deal" etc.
Tory leaders have been tilting at windmills since Thatcher. Particularly with regard to the EU. It seems to strike a chord with a particular right wing psyche
Left wing leaders, meanwhile have been giving away our windmills and replacing our own millers with cheaper labour from the East. And you wonder why Labour is collapsing in the heartlands...
In what way is the single currency experiment disasterous? It seems to be overwhelmingly popular. Even the Greeks didn't want to leave. Do you know of any Eurozone country that does or is it that they just don't know what's good for them?
I think the argument is that it's a bit like the Prisoners' Dilemma: while leaving the Euro would be good for the economy as a whole, each individual Greek's savings would suddenly take a big hit. People only vote for things that are going to make them significantly poorer if they really don't like the alternative.
Well it makes sense. If you're sure that May will win the 2017 election, you want to maximise the chance that she faces Corbyn in 2022.
That *She* faces Corbyn, Robert?
2022 will be post-Brexit. Think she can surive that? Think any Leader could?
Easily. There will be no apocalypse. Even if it's hard Brexit. Everyone will just get on with their lives.
On Black Wednesday everyone got on with their lives and there was no apocalypse, but it was still politically fatal. The failure of Brexit would be Black Wednesday on steroids.
Well it makes sense. If you're sure that May will win the 2017 election, you want to maximise the chance that she faces Corbyn in 2022.
That *She* faces Corbyn, Robert?
2022 will be post-Brexit. Think she can surive that? Think any Leader could?
Easily. There will be no apocalypse. Even if it's hard Brexit. Everyone will just get on with their lives.
Of course they will. People never give up, They carry on. But if it is a hard, cliff-edge Brexit an awful lot of well-paid manufacturing jobs are going to be lost, taxes are going to go up and public services are going to be cut further. On top of that, a lot of peripheral stuff - such as cheap foreign holidays - that add to people's quality of life are not going to be on tap anymore.
@ProfChalmers: This bit of the FAZ report on the May-Juncker dinner is fascinating, because there are some similarities between Brexit and the JHA opt-out. twitter.com/jeremycliffe/s…
@ProfChalmers: The JHA optout lacked any convincing rationale, was a solution to problems that didn't actually exist, and was accompanied by dire warnings.
@ProfChalmers: But in the end, it was more or less made to work, and life went on.
@ProfChalmers: So it's understandable that May might think "I got through the JHA optout intact; Brexit is just a big version of that, I can do this."
@ProfChalmers: Two obvious problems. First, they're not really comparable. The rights and obligations created by EU law overall are far more complex.
@ProfChalmers: Secondly, the scale is immeasurably different. Brexit is to the JHA optout as a blogpost is to the Library of Alexandria.
@ProfChalmers: I don't think it would have been absurd for May to have thought this way initially. It would be absurd for her to still think it now.
@ProfChalmers: What this shows, once again, is that the problem is not just Brexit: it's a failure to acknowledge how complex and difficult Brexit is.
@ProfChalmers: And in that context, an election is just displacement activity, like a student tidying their room in denial of tomorrow's essay deadline.
@ProfChalmers: Incidentally, I think the JHA optout took about eighteen months from notification to taking effect. But yeah, we can do Brexit in two years.
@ProfChalmers: @LucyHunterB "Let's tear this partnership up, because our partners are so awful. Also, negotiating our exit with them will be really easy."
All built on the premises that TMay is stupid, that Professor Chalmers is not, and that Prof Chalmers can see inside Mrs May's head. 1 and 3 are false, which suggests that 2 is as well.
But TMay IS stupid. She has proved that in spades. Be afraid folks, very afriad!
By doing what?
By not agreeing with a number of leftish posters on here. They are convinced of their intellectual and moral superiority and failure to agree is de facto evidence of stupidity.
For some reason in modern politics the people you support are morally upright, clever and witty leaders whilst you're opponents are thick, morally repugnant and on the take. This is not true for everyone of course, but it seems to happen a lot more than it should for grown ups.
In what way is the single currency experiment disasterous? It seems to be overwhelmingly popular. Even the Greeks didn't want to leave. Do you know of any Eurozone country that does or is it that they just don't know what's good for them?
I think the argument is that it's a bit like the Prisoners' Dilemma: while leaving the Euro would be good for the economy as a whole, each individual Greek's savings would suddenly take a big hit. People only vote for things that are going to make them significantly poorer if they really don't like the alternative.
Let's not forget in 1999 when the Euro was introduced, £1=€1.41. Today £1=1.19.
It is the pound which has depreciated, as it always does. The Euro is absolutely fine. Only in the minds of swivel-eyed anti EU people is it a problem.
Sterling is the weak currency because UK has the weaker economy.
@ProfChalmers: This bit of the FAZ report on the May-Juncker dinner is fascinating, because there are some similarities between Brexit and the JHA opt-out. twitter.com/jeremycliffe/s…
@ProfChalmers: The JHA optout lacked any convincing rationale, was a solution to problems that didn't actually exist, and was accompanied by dire warnings.
@ProfChalmers: But in the end, it was more or less made to work, and life went on.
@ProfChalmers: So it's understandable that May might think "I got through the JHA optout intact; Brexit is just a big version of that, I can do this."
@ProfChalmers: Two obvious problems. First, they're not really comparable. The rights and obligations created by EU law overall are far more complex.
@ProfChalmers: Secondly, the scale is immeasurably different. Brexit is to the JHA optout as a blogpost is to the Library of Alexandria.
@ProfChalmers: I don't think it would have been absurd for May to have thought this way initially. It would be absurd for her to still think it now.
@ProfChalmers: What this shows, once again, is that the problem is not just Brexit: it's a failure to acknowledge how complex and difficult Brexit is.
@ProfChalmers: And in that context, an election is just displacement activity, like a student tidying their room in denial of tomorrow's essay deadline.
@ProfChalmers: Incidentally, I think the JHA optout took about eighteen months from notification to taking effect. But yeah, we can do Brexit in two years.
@ProfChalmers: @LucyHunterB "Let's tear this partnership up, because our partners are so awful. Also, negotiating our exit with them will be really easy."
All built on the premises that TMay is stupid, that Professor Chalmers is not, and that Prof Chalmers can see inside Mrs May's head. 1 and 3 are false, which suggests that 2 is as well.
But TMay IS stupid. She has proved that in spades. Be afraid folks, very afriad!
Simply because you (and the other bitter Enders) don't like her, does not make her stupid. So far, she's run rings round her political opponents.
She is not stupid. She has a mediocre, inflexible mind that is far in advance of the ones possessed by Jeremy Corbyn and Andrea Leadsom.
In what way is the single currency experiment disasterous? It seems to be overwhelmingly popular. Even the Greeks didn't want to leave. Do you know of any Eurozone country that does or is it that they just don't know what's good for them?
I think the argument is that it's a bit like the Prisoners' Dilemma: while leaving the Euro would be good for the economy as a whole, each individual Greek's savings would suddenly take a big hit. People only vote for things that are going to make them significantly poorer if they really don't like the alternative.
Let's not forget in 1999 when the Euro was introduced, £1=€1.41. Today £1=1.19.
It is the pound which has depreciated, as it always does. The Euro is absolutely fine. Only in the minds of swivel-eyed anti EU people is it a problem.
Sterling is the weak currency because UK has the weaker economy.
Or, quite possibly, Sterling was over-valued at the start because people assumed the Euro would collapse within a year? Which, at the time, they did in spades.
So would any of those Leavers who a year ago were raucously arguing that a Brexit deal would be negotiated speedily and painlessly like to reconsider this morning?
What we are surely looking at now is endless years of transitional arrangements. The cliff-edge is one that all sides will want to avoid, even if it will hurt us a whole lot more than it hurts them.
Well it makes sense. If you're sure that May will win the 2017 election, you want to maximise the chance that she faces Corbyn in 2022.
That *She* faces Corbyn, Robert?
2022 will be post-Brexit. Think she can surive that? Think any Leader could?
Easily. There will be no apocalypse. Even if it's hard Brexit. Everyone will just get on with their lives.
Of course they will. People never give up, They carry on. But if it is a hard, cliff-edge Brexit an awful lot of well-paid manufacturing jobs are going to be lost, taxes are going to go up and public services are going to be cut further. On top of that, a lot of peripheral stuff - such as cheap foreign holidays - that add to people's quality of life are not going to be on tap anymore.
@ProfChalmers: This bit of the FAZ report on the May-Juncker dinner is fascinating, because there are some similarities between Brexit and the JHA opt-out. twitter.com/jeremycliffe/s…
@ProfChalmers: The JHA optout lacked any convincing rationale, was a solution to problems that didn't actually exist, and was accompanied by dire warnings.
@ProfChalmers: But in the end, it was more or less made to work, and life went on.
@ProfChalmers: So it's understandable that May might think "I got through the JHA optout intact; Brexit is just a big version of that, I can do this."
@ProfChalmers: Two obvious problems. First, they're not really comparable. The rights and obligations created by EU law overall are far more complex.
@ProfChalmers: Secondly, the scale is immeasurably different. Brexit is to the JHA optout as a blogpost is to the Library of Alexandria.
@ProfChalmers: I don't think it would have been absurd for May to have thought this way initially. It would be absurd for her to still think it now.
@ProfChalmers: What this shows, once again, is that the problem is not just Brexit: it's a failure to acknowledge how complex and difficult Brexit is.
@ProfChalmers: And in that context, an election is just displacement activity, like a student tidying their room in denial of tomorrow's essay deadline.
@ProfChalmers: Incidentally, I think the JHA optout took about eighteen months from notification to taking effect. But yeah, we can do Brexit in two years.
@ProfChalmers: @LucyHunterB "Let's tear this partnership up, because our partners are so awful. Also, negotiating our exit with them will be really easy."
All built on the premises that TMay is stupid, that Professor Chalmers is not, and that Prof Chalmers can see inside Mrs May's head. 1 and 3 are false, which suggests that 2 is as well.
But TMay IS stupid. She has proved that in spades. Be afraid folks, very afriad!
By doing what?
Whipping up rhetoric, "no deal is better than a bad deal" etc.
Tory leaders have been tilting at windmills since Thatcher. Particularly with regard to the EU. It seems to strike a chord with a particular right wing psyche
Left wing leaders, meanwhile have been giving away our windmills and replacing our own millers with cheaper labour from the East. And you wonder why Labour is collapsing in the heartlands...
We will wait for the results. At the moment Labour is polling more or less the same as in 2015.
So would any of those Leavers who a year ago were raucously arguing that a Brexit deal would be negotiated speedily and painlessly like to reconsider this morning?
What we are surely looking at now is endless years of transitional arrangements. The cliff-edge is one that all sides will want to avoid, even if it will hurt us a whole lot more than it hurts them.
I think you are far too optimistic. This has the feel of July 1914, where everyone knew that a complete breakdown was in no one's interests but no one wanted to avoid it enough to stop it.
I'm an arch-Remainer, but this Juncker dinner story is a beat up. He claims he pulled out copies of the Croatian accession treaty and Canadian FTA to demonstrate how complex an agreement would be.
Who brings international trade agreements to a dinner?
He was making a point to someone who seems to think you can negotiate a broad and deep FTA in a few months without any groundwork being put in first, rather than a decade or so of grinding negotiations. Mrs May's reaction, I am guessing, wasn't "Of course I know that. Why don't you teach your grandmother to suck eggs?"
Has ever a trade negotiation started with regulatory frameworks in such perfect alignment? That's got to shave time some time off.
The quick options are minimal change or minimal agreement. If we don't go for the first we get the second.
The best precis of the negotiations dilemma that I have seen.
For me, the most shocking thing about the recent revelations is that a lot of the wealthy right-wingers who led the Leave camp were not lying. Instead, it turns out they were and extremely thick. We can call this the Boris camp. The smaller Gove camp was smart enough to understand but thought that Leave was a price worth paying, essentially because for them there was (and is) no price. Sadly, it is the thick team that is now going to be negotiating the Brexit deal.
With regard to this Thursday's round of voting - something oft remarked upon but just as quickly forgotten, as frantic over-analysis takes place the day after.
Why local elections are not useful indicators of national votes
..."In 1983 and 1987 Margaret Thatcher called an election immediately after the local elections (general election campaigns were shorter then), meaning then – as now – we got local elections in May and a general election a month later. This is the comparison between the projected vote shares coming out of the local elections and the actual general election results just a month later:
1983
Local election: Con 39%, Lab 36%, Lib/SDP 20% General election: Con 44%, Lab 28%, Lib/SDP 26%
1987
Local election: Con 38%, Lab 32%, Lib/SDP 27% General election: Con 43%, Lab 32%, Lib/SDP 23%
"The shares of the vote were, once again, radically different. In 1983 the Tories squeaked a three point lead in the local elections, but crushed Labour by sixteen points in the general election four weeks later. The eleven point Tory lead in the 1987 general election was almost double the six point lead they got in the locals just a month before.
"All of this isn’t to say that the local elections won't give us anything useful. They will provide some vital information about the pattern of support and where parties are performing particularly strongly or weakly. In particular I'll be looking to see if there is a bigger swing between Labour and the Conservatives in areas that voted Leave at the EU referendum and to what degree the Liberal Democrat recovery is concentrated in Remain areas and in areas of previous Lib Dem strength.
"However, don’t just assume that the projected overall shares of the vote at this week’s votes are going to be repeated in next month’s election: people vote differently for different reasons at different sorts of election."
FWIW, one would imagine that the Conservatives will be very pleased if Labour avoids a calamity on Thursday. Even though local elections clearly aren't an accurate predictor of the General Election result, the media will go for the big headlines and a lower than expected gap between the Tories and Labour is bound to be interpreted as evidence that the General Election race is a lot more competitive than had previously been assumed, This should assist the Tory GOTV drive next month.
So would any of those Leavers who a year ago were raucously arguing that a Brexit deal would be negotiated speedily and painlessly like to reconsider this morning?
What we are surely looking at now is endless years of transitional arrangements. The cliff-edge is one that all sides will want to avoid, even if it will hurt us a whole lot more than it hurts them.
Correct. We will be "in the EU" probably for 5 - 8 years. The government is preparing the people already by hinting there will be no change in freedom of movement for some years.
@ProfChalmers: This bit of the FAZ report on the May-Juncker dinner is fascinating, because there are some similarities between Brexit and the JHA opt-out. twitter.com/jeremycliffe/s…
@ProfChalmers: The JHA optout lacked any convincing rationale, was a solution to problems that didn't actually exist, and was accompanied by dire warnings.
@ProfChalmers: But in the end, it was more or less made to work, and life went on.
@ProfChalmers: So it's understandable that May might think "I got through the JHA optout intact; Brexit is just a big version of that, I can do this."
@ProfChalmers: Two obvious problems. First, they're not really comparable. The rights and obligations created by EU law overall are far more complex.
@ProfChalmers: Secondly, the scale is immeasurably different. Brexit is to the JHA optout as a blogpost is to the Library of Alexandria.
@ProfChalmers: I don't think it would have been absurd for May to have thought this way initially. It would be absurd for her to still think it now.
@ProfChalmers: What this shows, once again, is that the problem is not just Brexit: it's a failure to acknowledge how complex and difficult Brexit is.
@ProfChalmers: And in that context, an election is just displacement activity, like a student tidying their room in denial of tomorrow's essay deadline.
@ProfChalmers: Incidentally, I think the JHA optout took about eighteen months from notification to taking effect. But yeah, we can do Brexit in two years.
@ProfChalmers: @LucyHunterB "Let's tear this partnership up, because our partners are so awful. Also, negotiating our exit with them will be really easy."
All built on the premises that TMay is stupid, that Professor Chalmers is not, and that Prof Chalmers can see inside Mrs May's head. 1 and 3 are false, which suggests that 2 is as well.
But TMay IS stupid. She has proved that in spades. Be afraid folks, very afriad!
Simply because you (and the other bitter Enders) don't like her, does not make her stupid. So far, she's run rings round her political opponents.
My fear is that Theresa May will act in her best interests rather than the country's. A bad deal is worse than no deal for her, that's for sure.
No need to worry, the Conservative party has always put country ahead of party.
In what way is the single currency experiment disasterous? It seems to be overwhelmingly popular. Even the Greeks didn't want to leave. Do you know of any Eurozone country that does or is it that they just don't know what's good for them?
I think the argument is that it's a bit like the Prisoners' Dilemma: while leaving the Euro would be good for the economy as a whole, each individual Greek's savings would suddenly take a big hit. People only vote for things that are going to make them significantly poorer if they really don't like the alternative.
Let's not forget in 1999 when the Euro was introduced, £1=€1.41. Today £1=1.19.
It is the pound which has depreciated, as it always does. The Euro is absolutely fine. Only in the minds of swivel-eyed anti EU people is it a problem.
Sterling is the weak currency because UK has the weaker economy.
Or, quite possibly, Sterling was over-valued at the start because people assumed the Euro would collapse within a year? Which, at the time, they did in spades.
Go back another 40 years whether against the DEM, USD whatever. Sterling is always falling.
In what way is the single currency experiment disasterous? It seems to be overwhelmingly popular. Even the Greeks didn't want to leave. Do you know of any Eurozone country that does or is it that they just don't know what's good for them?
I think the argument is that it's a bit like the Prisoners' Dilemma: while leaving the Euro would be good for the economy as a whole, each individual Greek's savings would suddenly take a big hit. People only vote for things that are going to make them significantly poorer if they really don't like the alternative.
Let's not forget in 1999 when the Euro was introduced, £1=€1.41. Today £1=1.19.
It is the pound which has depreciated, as it always does. The Euro is absolutely fine. Only in the minds of swivel-eyed anti EU people is it a problem.
Sterling is the weak currency because UK has the weaker economy.
The Euro was meant to promote economic integration and boost prosperity across the EZ. What it did in much of the EZ was to generate a wild boom in property prices, followed by a wild bust. The upshot is that unemployment, especially youth unemployment, is now very high in the Club Med countries.
Why are the EU briefing so heavily against Mrs May? Could it be that they don't want her to win the GE? Or at least, not to have a large majority?
I'm sure Mr Starmer would be much more acceptable to them. Why do you think that is?
Leavers should have no fear of Starmer in charge of the negotiations. The deal he is looking for matches the most popular outcome: immigration control with Single market membership.
Morning all and thank you for the comments on my thread header yesterday.
It's been said before but bears repeating that immigration control with single market membership is simply not on offer from the EU. Had it been the referendum result would likely have been different.
It seems daft to me that the rest of the EU was not prepared to be a bit more flexible on this. Britain being a member of the single market is a benefit to them also (even if the relative weight of that advantage is different) but we are where we are. Even if Labour were led by Starmer he would not be able to get such a deal.
My bold
Even if it is de facto in force now! The collapse of Schengen has been amazing in its speed
Schengen always allowed suspension in case of emergency. The EU has demonstrated admirable flexibility and pragmatism with Schengen.
I don't think the EU had anything to do with it. I think it was imposed by individual states and the EU had to agree to protect the image of Schengen
Schengen is just about whether internal EU borders are systematically policed. It has nothing to do with whether EU citizens have the right to cross those borders. Suspending Schengen does not suspend free movement.
The simple act of policing borders infers some sort of control with the power to refuse entry. Why else do it?
Well it makes sense. If you're sure that May will win the 2017 election, you want to maximise the chance that she faces Corbyn in 2022.
That *She* faces Corbyn, Robert?
2022 will be post-Brexit. Think she can surive that? Think any Leader could?
Easily. There will be no apocalypse. Even if it's hard Brexit. Everyone will just get on with their lives.
On Black Wednesday everyone got on with their lives and there was no apocalypse, but it was still politically fatal. The failure of Brexit would be Black Wednesday on steroids.
Black Wednesday frightened a lot of people with mortgages: I remember some colleagues at school in shock as they tried to work out what would happen.
A Conservative Party tearing itself apart over Europe for most of the rest of the Parliament probably did more harm. This is probably the main reason May called the election: if she gets a big enough majority she can do what Major couldn't and ignore the hardliners.
Incidentally one of the things that put me right off Blair was the way he approached the Maastricht vote, emphasising the discomfort of the government over what he wanted for the country, and I think his current intervention is massively hypocritical. I have little time for Corbyn, but it didn't seem to even occur to him to play games over Parliamentary votes.
So would any of those Leavers who a year ago were raucously arguing that a Brexit deal would be negotiated speedily and painlessly like to reconsider this morning?
What we are surely looking at now is endless years of transitional arrangements. The cliff-edge is one that all sides will want to avoid, even if it will hurt us a whole lot more than it hurts them.
I think you are far too optimistic. This has the feel of July 1914, where everyone knew that a complete breakdown was in no one's interests but no one wanted to avoid it enough to stop it.
I continue to believe (hope) that there are some rational players in all of this. Merkel is rational, Macron looks like he probably is, Rajoy in Spain is. We can probably also count on the Northern European bloc, too. The Italians probably have enough of their own worries not to take much notice of Brexit. The issue will boil down to just how afraid of the right wing Brexit press May is. Will she put the fear of bad headlines ahead of what is undoubtedly the national interest?
In what way is the single currency experiment disasterous? It seems to be overwhelmingly popular. Even the Greeks didn't want to leave. Do you know of any Eurozone country that does or is it that they just don't know what's good for them?
I think the argument is that it's a bit like the Prisoners' Dilemma: while leaving the Euro would be good for the economy as a whole, each individual Greek's savings would suddenly take a big hit. People only vote for things that are going to make them significantly poorer if they really don't like the alternative.
Let's not forget in 1999 when the Euro was introduced, £1=€1.41. Today £1=1.19.
It is the pound which has depreciated, as it always does. The Euro is absolutely fine. Only in the minds of swivel-eyed anti EU people is it a problem.
Sterling is the weak currency because UK has the weaker economy.
Or, quite possibly, Sterling was over-valued at the start because people assumed the Euro would collapse within a year? Which, at the time, they did in spades.
Go back another 40 years whether against the DEM, USD whatever. Sterling is always falling.
Then why hasn't it fallen past them yet if it has been doing it for that (which of course it has)? The US has had a bigger, more important economic role in the world since the 20's yet the £ is still worth more. Could it just be that things are more complicated than simply "the £ is falling because we are rubbish"?
In what way is the single currency experiment disasterous? It seems to be overwhelmingly popular. Even the Greeks didn't want to leave. Do you know of any Eurozone country that does or is it that they just don't know what's good for them?
I think the argument is that it's a bit like the Prisoners' Dilemma: while leaving the Euro would be good for the economy as a whole, each individual Greek's savings would suddenly take a big hit. People only vote for things that are going to make them significantly poorer if they really don't like the alternative.
Let's not forget in 1999 when the Euro was introduced, £1=€1.41. Today £1=1.19.
It is the pound which has depreciated, as it always does. The Euro is absolutely fine. Only in the minds of swivel-eyed anti EU people is it a problem.
Sterling is the weak currency because UK has the weaker economy.
But isn't that precisely the point the "swivel-eyed anti EU people" are making? That the Euro is a strong currency to match a strong German economy, but what weaker economies like Greece badly need is devaluation.
Yes, such devaluation would hit Greek pensioners rather badly... but it's Greek 18-40 year olds who are really suffering just now (in large part because of political decisions made to lavish benefits on their parents and grandparents).
Of course, many of the anti-EU folk fail to move on to say that the post-Brexit vote devaluation of the pound is an important reason why the economy has been surprisingly resilient since June (although it does now look to be dipping a little). But it has indeed made savers less well off, and is feeding through into inflation.
Well it makes sense. If you're sure that May will win the 2017 election, you want to maximise the chance that she faces Corbyn in 2022.
That *She* faces Corbyn, Robert?
2022 will be post-Brexit. Think she can surive that? Think any Leader could?
Easily. There will be no apocalypse. Even if it's hard Brexit. Everyone will just get on with their lives.
On Black Wednesday everyone got on with their lives and there was no apocalypse, but it was still politically fatal. The failure of Brexit would be Black Wednesday on steroids.
Black Wednesday was extremely good for this country.
In what way is the single currency experiment disasterous? It seems to be overwhelmingly popular. Even the Greeks didn't want to leave. Do you know of any Eurozone country that does or is it that they just don't know what's good for them?
I think the argument is that it's a bit like the Prisoners' Dilemma: while leaving the Euro would be good for the economy as a whole, each individual Greek's savings would suddenly take a big hit. People only vote for things that are going to make them significantly poorer if they really don't like the alternative.
Let's not forget in 1999 when the Euro was introduced, £1=€1.41. Today £1=1.19.
It is the pound which has depreciated, as it always does. The Euro is absolutely fine. Only in the minds of swivel-eyed anti EU people is it a problem.
Sterling is the weak currency because UK has the weaker economy.
Or, quite possibly, Sterling was over-valued at the start because people assumed the Euro would collapse within a year? Which, at the time, they did in spades.
Go back another 40 years whether against the DEM, USD whatever. Sterling is always falling.
Then why hasn't it fallen past them yet if it has been doing it for that (which of course it has)? The US has had a bigger, more important economic role in the world since the 20's yet the £ is still worth more. Could it just be that things are more complicated than simply "the £ is falling because we are rubbish"?
In what way is the single currency experiment disasterous? It seems to be overwhelmingly popular. Even the Greeks didn't want to leave. Do you know of any Eurozone country that does or is it that they just don't know what's good for them?
I think the argument is that it's a bit like the Prisoners' Dilemma: while leaving the Euro would be good for the economy as a whole, each individual Greek's savings would suddenly take a big hit. People only vote for things that are going to make them significantly poorer if they really don't like the alternative.
Let's not forget in 1999 when the Euro was introduced, £1=€1.41. Today £1=1.19.
It is the pound which has depreciated, as it always does. The Euro is absolutely fine. Only in the minds of swivel-eyed anti EU people is it a problem.
Sterling is the weak currency because UK has the weaker economy.
But isn't that precisely the point the "swivel-eyed anti EU people" are making? That the Euro is a strong currency to match a strong German economy, but what weaker economies like Greece badly need is devaluation.
Yes, such devaluation would hit Greek pensioners rather badly... but it's Greek 18-40 year olds who are really suffering just now (in large part because of political decisions made to lavish benefits on their parents and grandparents).
Of course, many of the anti-EU folk fail to move on to say that the post-Brexit vote devaluation of the pound is an important reason why the economy has been surprisingly resilient since June (although it does now look to be dipping a little). But it has indeed made savers less well off, and is feeding through into inflation.
A fall in £ value is a short term fillip only, other changes need to be made to make it long term. It's who is willing to make them.
For me, the most shocking thing about the recent revelations is that a lot of the wealthy right-wingers who led the Leave camp were not lying. Instead, it turns out they were and extremely thick.
That is a kind perspective. I thought that they were just closet racists wanting to scrape the last vestiges of Johnny Foreigner out of their lives.
Has anybody seen the Kensington poll ? What has been publicised is that against a fictional Stop Brexit Alliance , the Tories would win by 4%. But even without SBA , the Tories would win by 17% with Labour second.
I've got to praise the Lib Dems I thought Labour would easily win the 2017 Ed Stone Award for the stupidest stunt of the general election campaign, but Tim Farron the Eurosceptic may prove to be unbeatable.
What I want to know is why Juncker is still in place? The not-so-sharp minds of PB have been repeatedly claiming his days are numbered, and yet...
Of course they're mainly the types that have been predicting the collapse of the Euro & the EU thrice weekly for years, so I suppose I should have known.
Is there a mechanism for removing a commission president before their term expires? Genuine question...
"[Juncker] told Deutschlandfunk he feared that Brexit will drive the remaining 27 EU countries against each other “without much effort”.
“The other 27 don’t know it yet but the British know very well how they’ll manage it. You promise country A one thing, country B one thing and country C another and at the end there’s no European front left,” Juncker said, according to a transcript of the interview.
EU member states are becoming even more divided over opinions that “are not necessarily compatible,” he said, referencing Hungary and Poland.
“Do the Hungarians or the Poles want exactly the same thing as the Germans or the French? I have huge doubts. You have to create a fundamental consensus again. That’s a job for the next two or three years.
“While we’re negotiating with the British, we have to agree on the definitive visions for this continent if we want to avoid an apocalyptic mood,” Juncker said."
That could all have come from a PB Leaver in a fit of optimism. We've got them on the run.
His term expires in 2019 and he won't seek another, seems to be the position.
Hang on! Is Juncker a drunken fool, or an accurate and perceptive analyst of European politics?
Though fortunately his fears were either false, or have been addressed. The EU27 position for the negotiations was unanimously agreed, without rancour.
It may well be that the effect of Brexit is for us to be sitting outside while sensible folk like Macron, Merkel, Tusk and Juncker help evolve the EU into a more attractive consensus that better deals with the ills of globalisation. Which is why ultimately there will be a strong rejoin movement here. We may well improve the EU by leaving it.
With regard to this Thursday's round of voting - something oft remarked upon but just as quickly forgotten, as frantic over-analysis takes place the day after.
Why local elections are not useful indicators of national votes
..."In 1983 and 1987 Margaret Thatcher called an election immediately after the local elections (general election campaigns were shorter then), meaning then – as now – we got local elections in May and a general election a month later. This is the comparison between the projected vote shares coming out of the local elections and the actual general election results just a month later:
1983
Local election: Con 39%, Lab 36%, Lib/SDP 20% General election: Con 44%, Lab 28%, Lib/SDP 26%
1987
Local election: Con 38%, Lab 32%, Lib/SDP 27% General election: Con 43%, Lab 32%, Lib/SDP 23%
"The shares of the vote were, once again, radically different. In 1983 the Tories squeaked a three point lead in the local elections, but crushed Labour by sixteen points in the general election four weeks later. The eleven point Tory lead in the 1987 general election was almost double the six point lead they got in the locals just a month before.
"All of this isn’t to say that the local elections won't give us anything useful. They will provide some vital information about the pattern of support and where parties are performing particularly strongly or weakly. In particular I'll be looking to see if there is a bigger swing between Labour and the Conservatives in areas that voted Leave at the EU referendum and to what degree the Liberal Democrat recovery is concentrated in Remain areas and in areas of previous Lib Dem strength.
"However, don’t just assume that the projected overall shares of the vote at this week’s votes are going to be repeated in next month’s election: people vote differently for different reasons at different sorts of election."
FWIW, one would imagine that the Conservatives will be very pleased if Labour avoids a calamity on Thursday. Even though local elections clearly aren't an accurate predictor of the General Election result, the media will go for the big headlines and a lower than expected gap between the Tories and Labour is bound to be interpreted as evidence that the General Election race is a lot more competitive than had previously been assumed, This should assist the Tory GOTV drive next month.
In what way is the single currency experiment disasterous? It seems to be overwhelmingly popular. Even the Greeks didn't want to leave. Do you know of any Eurozone country that does or is it that they just don't know what's good for them?
I think the argument is that it's a bit like the Prisoners' Dilemma: while leaving the Euro would be good for the economy as a whole, each individual Greek's savings would suddenly take a big hit. People only vote for things that are going to make them significantly poorer if they really don't like the alternative.
Let's not forget in 1999 when the Euro was introduced, £1=€1.41. Today £1=1.19.
It is the pound which has depreciated, as it always does. The Euro is absolutely fine. Only in the minds of swivel-eyed anti EU people is it a problem.
Sterling is the weak currency because UK has the weaker economy.
But isn't that precisely the point the "swivel-eyed anti EU people" are making? That the Euro is a strong currency to match a strong German economy, but what weaker economies like Greece badly need is devaluation.
Yes, such devaluation would hit Greek pensioners rather badly... but it's Greek 18-40 year olds who are really suffering just now (in large part because of political decisions made to lavish benefits on their parents and grandparents).
Of course, many of the anti-EU folk fail to move on to say that the post-Brexit vote devaluation of the pound is an important reason why the economy has been surprisingly resilient since June (although it does now look to be dipping a little). But it has indeed made savers less well off, and is feeding through into inflation.
A fall in £ value is a short term fillip only, other changes need to be made to make it long term. It's who is willing to make them.
Oh I agree... but in the long term we're all dead. I'm not advocating continual devaluation as the sole plank of economic policy, just noting it's a very useful short term tool for dealing with adverse shocks.
Has anybody seen the Kensington poll ? What has been publicised is that against a fictional Stop Brexit Alliance , the Tories would win by 4%. But even without SBA , the Tories would win by 17% with Labour second.
In GE2015, Con won by 21.2%
They should have done it with SBA replacing Labour and LDs, also.
Incidentally one of the things that put me right off Blair was the way he approached the Maastricht vote, emphasising the discomfort of the government over what he wanted for the country, and I think his current intervention is massively hypocritical. I have little time for Corbyn, but it didn't seem to even occur to him to play games over Parliamentary votes.
In what way is the single currency experiment disasterous? It seems to be overwhelmingly popular. Even the Greeks didn't want to leave. Do you know of any Eurozone country that does or is it that they just don't know what's good for them?
I think the argument is that it's a bit like the Prisoners' Dilemma: while leaving the Euro would be good for the economy as a whole, each individual Greek's savings would suddenly take a big hit. People only vote for things that are going to make them significantly poorer if they really don't like the alternative.
Let's not forget in 1999 when the Euro was introduced, £1=€1.41. Today £1=1.19.
It is the pound which has depreciated, as it always does. The Euro is absolutely fine. Only in the minds of swivel-eyed anti EU people is it a problem.
Sterling is the weak currency because UK has the weaker economy.
Or, quite possibly, Sterling was over-valued at the start because people assumed the Euro would collapse within a year? Which, at the time, they did in spades.
Don't forget we were back to £1=€1.49 in 2007 and hit €1.44 back in 2015... And I seem to remember a lot of conversations in 2015 regarding the Euro falling apart....
On topic, Brexit is an odd issue as it has terrific salience (everyone agrees it's important) but the voters who are mainly making it the determinant of their votes are mostly Conservatives and UKIP. That's giving the Tories a comfortable lead, because half the Kippers are rallying round her. To retain that bedrock, she needs to avoid looking weak (hence the bellicose pronouncements) and keep the issue in the foreground (which may be harder).
The LibDem argument for a full reversal appeals to many Remainers but isn't in my experience cutting through, though it may be different in seats where the LibDems are the main challengers or the sitting MP. In Labour and Labour-challenging seats, this group of voters overlaps heavily with sophisticated tactical voters, and Starmer has done enough to persuade them that Labour would be a better alternative than the Tories on Brexit, and/or they want to vote tactically anti-Tory for other reasons. And Labour voters are generally voting on other grounds, such as simply stopping a Tory landslide, which they fear for all sorts of reasons.
In what way is the single currency experiment disasterous? It seems to be overwhelmingly popular. Even the Greeks didn't want to leave. Do you know of any Eurozone country that does or is it that they just don't know what's good for them?
I think the argument is that it's a bit like the Prisoners' Dilemma: while leaving the Euro would be good for the economy as a whole, each individual Greek's savings would suddenly take a big hit. People only vote for things that are going to make them significantly poorer if they really don't like the alternative.
Let's not forget in 1999 when the Euro was introduced, £1=€1.41. Today £1=1.19.
It is the pound which has depreciated, as it always does. The Euro is absolutely fine. Only in the minds of swivel-eyed anti EU people is it a problem.
Sterling is the weak currency because UK has the weaker economy.
But isn't that precisely the point the "swivel-eyed anti EU people" are making? That the Euro is a strong currency to match a strong German economy, but what weaker economies like Greece badly need is devaluation.
Yes, such devaluation would hit Greek pensioners rather badly... but it's Greek 18-40 year olds who are really suffering just now (in large part because of political decisions made to lavish benefits on their parents and grandparents).
Of course, many of the anti-EU folk fail to move on to say that the post-Brexit vote devaluation of the pound is an important reason why the economy has been surprisingly resilient since June (although it does now look to be dipping a little). But it has indeed made savers less well off, and is feeding through into inflation.
Well it makes sense. If you're sure that May will win the 2017 election, you want to maximise the chance that she faces Corbyn in 2022.
That *She* faces Corbyn, Robert?
2022 will be post-Brexit. Think she can surive that? Think any Leader could?
Easily. There will be no apocalypse. Even if it's hard Brexit. Everyone will just get on with their lives.
On Black Wednesday everyone got on with their lives and there was no apocalypse, but it was still politically fatal. The failure of Brexit would be Black Wednesday on steroids.
Black Wednesday was extremely good for this country.
Possibly, but it was politically fatal for the government.
MAY: We want a positive approach based on our shared understanding that 2+2=5. EU: It really isn't. It's 4. MAY: Wibble... But we need to respect the will of the British people. AND I will soon be the personification of that will, backed by a huge majority. EU: Good for you, but 2+2 still equals 4. MAY: Please don't tell anyone about this JUNCKER: *starts texting*
MAY "Lets make BREXIT a success" JUNCKER "You can't - it's got to be a failure"
And here's the problem. The UK and EU objectives are mutually incompatible.
Incidentally one of the things that put me right off Blair was the way he approached the Maastricht vote, emphasising the discomfort of the government over what he wanted for the country, and I think his current intervention is massively hypocritical. I have little time for Corbyn, but it didn't seem to even occur to him to play games over Parliamentary votes.
Are you confusing Blair with John Smith?
Oops. Why did you have to spoil a perfectly good argument with facts? I still don't like Blair though...
There's an English newspaper on the Riviera which I looked through the other day. It's wall to wall Brexit. There are some seriously worried ex pats. The biggest concern seems to be a reciprocal medical arrangement with the NHS which they seem to think will cost them each about £2500 per annum to replace.
It occured to me that the complexities of Brexit are just huge and no one has so far even scratched the surface. We are facing years of upheaval.
In what way is the single currency experiment disasterous? It seems to be overwhelmingly popular. Even the Greeks didn't want to leave. Do you know of any Eurozone country that does or is it that they just don't know what's good for them?
I think the argument is that it's a bit like the Prisoners' Dilemma: while leaving the Euro would be good for the economy as a whole, each individual Greek's savings would suddenly take a big hit. People only vote for things that are going to make them significantly poorer if they really don't like the alternative.
Let's not forget in 1999 when the Euro was introduced, £1=€1.41. Today £1=1.19.
It is the pound which has depreciated, as it always does. The Euro is absolutely fine. Only in the minds of swivel-eyed anti EU people is it a problem.
Sterling is the weak currency because UK has the weaker economy.
But isn't that precisely the point the "swivel-eyed anti EU people" are making? That the Euro is a strong currency to match a strong German economy, but what weaker economies like Greece badly need is devaluation.
Yes, such devaluation would hit Greek pensioners rather badly... but it's Greek 18-40 year olds who are really suffering just now (in large part because of political decisions made to lavish benefits on their parents and grandparents).
Of course, many of the anti-EU folk fail to move on to say that the post-Brexit vote devaluation of the pound is an important reason why the economy has been surprisingly resilient since June (although it does now look to be dipping a little). But it has indeed made savers less well off, and is feeding through into inflation.
And yet Germany is the world's largest exporter.
Because they've got an undervalued currency while most of the Eurozone has an overvalued one.
What I want to know is why Juncker is still in place? The not-so-sharp minds of PB have been repeatedly claiming his days are numbered, and yet...
Of course they're mainly the types that have been predicting the collapse of the Euro & the EU thrice weekly for years, so I suppose I should have known.
Is there a mechanism for removing a commission president before their term expires? Genuine question...
"[Juncker] told Deutschlandfunk he feared that Brexit will drive the remaining 27 EU countries against each other “without much effort”.
“The other 27 don’t know it yet but the British know very well how they’ll manage it. You promise country A one thing, country B one thing and country C another and at the end there’s no European front left,” Juncker said, according to a transcript of the interview.
EU member states are becoming even more divided over opinions that “are not necessarily compatible,” he said, referencing Hungary and Poland.
“Do the Hungarians or the Poles want exactly the same thing as the Germans or the French? I have huge doubts. You have to create a fundamental consensus again. That’s a job for the next two or three years.
“While we’re negotiating with the British, we have to agree on the definitive visions for this continent if we want to avoid an apocalyptic mood,” Juncker said."
That could all have come from a PB Leaver in a fit of optimism. We've got them on the run.
His term expires in 2019 and he won't seek another, seems to be the position.
Hang on! Is Juncker a drunken fool, or an accurate and perceptive analyst of European politics?
Though fortunately his fears were either false, or have been addressed. The EU27 position for the negotiations was unanimously agreed, without rancour.
It may well be that the effect of Brexit is for us to be sitting outside while sensible folk like Macron, Merkel, Tusk and Juncker help evolve the EU into a more attractive consensus that better deals with the ills of globalisation. Which is why ultimately there will be a strong rejoin movement here. We may well improve the EU by leaving it.
Thinking about the forthcoming negootiations with the European Union, what attitude do you think other European countries will end up taking?
They will probably negotiate constructively to find a deal that works for both Britain and the EU : 30
They will probably obstruct a good deal to punish Britain and discourage other countries from leaving 47
A view pretty uniformly held across all age groups and demographics.
YouGov missed out the most likely outcome.
They will probably negotiate in a transparent way in accordance with established protocols, mistakenly assuming the UK will do likewise.
If Brexit finally forces the EU to be transparent and act with a modicum of integrity, then some good will have come of it.
Re Juncker's remarks on the previous thread, I would take them with a large ladleful of salt. First of all, he was almost certainly very drunk at the time and has no very clear idea of what was said - only general impressions. Secondly, as has been repeatedly pointed out to me by others, he is an irrelevant cipher. It seems to me quite possible Davis, who is well known for having an odd sense of humour and erratic personality, was winding him up (with the connivance of the others, all of whom of course rightly regard Juncker as both an idiot and a nasty piece of work). I don't think this really signifies anything other than the huge level of mistrust between the two sides, which is of course yet another reason to expect no deal.
However, I did find it ironic Juncker was in a panic saying to Merkel the UK would negotiate in bad faith, given he was the one who said the EU would refuse to honour any agreement it had with David Cameron.
When in doubt, play the man not the ball.
Frothers are getting desperate, best they can come up with is shout he is a drunk. Used as standard on here by many who lack the ability to debate, they get confused and mix up intelligent people with themselves.
I've got to praise the Lib Dems I thought Labour would easily win the 2017 Ed Stone Award for the stupidest stunt of the general election campaign, but Tim Farron the Eurosceptic may prove to be unbeatable.
Maybe we can count Eurosceptic Farron as an entry for the Brass Neck award? To Labour's credit, they have released a 20-point plan with 18 points.
There's an English newspaper on the Riviera which I looked through the other day. It's wall to wall Brexit. There are some seriously worried ex pats. The biggest concern seems to be a reciprocal medical arrangement with the NHS which they seem to think will cost them each about £2500 per annum to replace.
It occured to me that the complexities of Brexit are just huge and no one has so far even scratched the surface. We are facing years of upheaval.
I do hope the Lib Dems try that on the doorstep....
In what way is the single currency experiment disasterous? It seems to be overwhelmingly popular. Even the Greeks didn't want to leave. Do you know of any Eurozone country that does or is it that they just don't know what's good for them?
I think the argument is that it's a bit like the Prisoners' Dilemma: while leaving the Euro would be good for the economy as a whole, each individual Greek's savings would suddenly take a big hit. People only vote for things that are going to make them significantly poorer if they really don't like the alternative.
Let's not forget in 1999 when the Euro was introduced, £1=€1.41. Today £1=1.19.
It is the pound which has depreciated, as it always does. The Euro is absolutely fine. Only in the minds of swivel-eyed anti EU people is it a problem.
Sterling is the weak currency because UK has the weaker economy.
Or, quite possibly, Sterling was over-valued at the start because people assumed the Euro would collapse within a year? Which, at the time, they did in spades.
Don't forget we were back to £1=€1.49 in 2007 and hit €1.44 back in 2015... And I seem to remember a lot of conversations in 2015 regarding the Euro falling apart....
I missed the 2015 jump I have to say. Every time the Euro sneezes the Pound gets the wind up, then it balances out to a more reasonable level it seems. Which is how it should be.
On topic, Brexit is an odd issue as it has terrific salience (everyone agrees it's important) but the voters who are mainly making it the determinant of their votes are mostly Conservatives and UKIP. That's giving the Tories a comfortable lead, because half the Kippers are rallying round her. To retain that bedrock, she needs to avoid looking weak (hence the bellicose pronouncements) and keep the issue in the foreground (which may be harder).
The LibDem argument for a full reversal appeals to many Remainers but isn't in my experience cutting through, though it may be different in seats where the LibDems are the main challengers or the sitting MP. In Labour and Labour-challenging seats, this group of voters overlaps heavily with sophisticated tactical voters, and Starmer has done enough to persuade them that Labour would be a better alternative than the Tories on Brexit, and/or they want to vote tactically anti-Tory for other reasons. And Labour voters are generally voting on other grounds, such as simply stopping a Tory landslide, which they fear for all sorts of reasons.
Have Broxtowe Labour Party picked a candidate yet?
Has anybody seen the Kensington poll ? What has been publicised is that against a fictional Stop Brexit Alliance , the Tories would win by 4%. But even without SBA , the Tories would win by 17% with Labour second.
In GE2015, Con won by 21.2%
We have commented on it. It's not good news for Labour if their best results are in Remain seats, and their worst are in Leave seats.
On topic, Brexit is an odd issue as it has terrific salience (everyone agrees it's important) but the voters who are mainly making it the determinant of their votes are mostly Conservatives and UKIP. That's giving the Tories a comfortable lead, because half the Kippers are rallying round her. To retain that bedrock, she needs to avoid looking weak (hence the bellicose pronouncements) and keep the issue in the foreground (which may be harder).
The LibDem argument for a full reversal appeals to many Remainers but isn't in my experience cutting through, though it may be different in seats where the LibDems are the main challengers or the sitting MP. In Labour and Labour-challenging seats, this group of voters overlaps heavily with sophisticated tactical voters, and Starmer has done enough to persuade them that Labour would be a better alternative than the Tories on Brexit, and/or they want to vote tactically anti-Tory for other reasons. And Labour voters are generally voting on other grounds, such as simply stopping a Tory landslide, which they fear for all sorts of reasons.
I don't think Starmer's Brexit position differs from the LD or SNP position in any conseqiential matter. This is a very real spur to tactical voting, and interesting to see it being advocated officially by progressive parties. If I were in Broxtowe I would vote Labour, if in an LD/Con marginal then I would expect Labour or Green voters to do the same.
So would any of those Leavers who a year ago were raucously arguing that a Brexit deal would be negotiated speedily and painlessly like to reconsider this morning?
What we are surely looking at now is endless years of transitional arrangements. The cliff-edge is one that all sides will want to avoid, even if it will hurt us a whole lot more than it hurts them.
I think you are far too optimistic. This has the feel of July 1914, where everyone knew that a complete breakdown was in no one's interests but no one wanted to avoid it enough to stop it.
Your history is slightly different to mine regarding that period. The issue there was a set of agreements that countries felt duty bound to follow attached to an ultimatum the Austro-Hungarian government knew was unacceptable. It was the unwillingness of that Government to compromise at all that was the problem....
Comments
Thus, if it calculates that trying to browbeat and humiliate Britain will be more beneficial than a co-operative approach in terms of advancing the cause of "ever closer union" between the remaining states, then that is the path it will choose. We should be ready to be treated as an enemy rather than a friend, and to respond accordingly.
Roger
In what way is the single currency experiment disasterous? It seems to be overwhelmingly popular. Even the Greeks didn't want to leave. Do you know of any Eurozone country that does or is it that they just don't know what's good for them?
MAY: We want a positive approach based on our shared understanding that 2+2=5.
EU: It really isn't. It's 4.
MAY: Wibble... But we need to respect the will of the British people. AND I will soon be the personification of that will, backed by a huge majority.
EU: Good for you, but 2+2 still equals 4.
MAY: Please don't tell anyone about this
JUNCKER: *starts texting*
Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains!
Anyway, although I only backed with smaller stakes, my pre-weekend bet on Force India to double score at 3 meant I ended up down about a pound overall, so not too bad (the Raikkonen to win each way obviously failed, but I think it was value nevertheless, at 13).
"[Juncker] told Deutschlandfunk he feared that Brexit will drive the remaining 27 EU countries against each other “without much effort”.
“The other 27 don’t know it yet but the British know very well how they’ll manage it. You promise country A one thing, country B one thing and country C another and at the end there’s no European front left,” Juncker said, according to a transcript of the interview.
EU member states are becoming even more divided over opinions that “are not necessarily compatible,” he said, referencing Hungary and Poland.
“Do the Hungarians or the Poles want exactly the same thing as the Germans or the French? I have huge doubts. You have to create a fundamental consensus again. That’s a job for the next two or three years.
“While we’re negotiating with the British, we have to agree on the definitive visions for this continent if we want to avoid an apocalyptic mood,” Juncker said."
That could all have come from a PB Leaver in a fit of optimism. We've got them on the run.
His term expires in 2019 and he won't seek another, seems to be the position.
8% of 2015 Tories to vote for Corbyn.
The new mantra is that "no deal" will be "be negotiated speedily and painlessly", and they are fine with that
Of course if the EU collapses as a result of its contradictions, we will be in a much stronger position. The EU seems determined not to collapse, which is a ratonal aim to have IMO
'No deal' is us walking away in a huff because we're not prepared to pay the child maintenance like some feckless Dad. And we know how well those things turn out...
I'd rather pay some big negotiated £30bn chunk now quite frankly...
So in this spirit I thought I would check up on PB and sadly see an angry polarised debate between remainers and leavers which is continuing from yesterday.
I firmly believe that a deal will be done, probably a fudge, but I hope post the 8th June we can just let Theresa May get on with Brexit and see how it evolves. No amount of fury is going to predict the final destination but I do think it is highly unlikely that we shall end up staying in the EU.
In a separate report today Spain is suffering a big economic hit with ex pats not investing in property and some returning home. It is projected they will lose between 3 - 4 billion annually and they are desparate to come to an arrangement with the UK
2022 will be post-Brexit. Think she can surive that? Think any Leader could?
I am afraid only death will silence the rejoicing of the Remainers over how Leave fell into their cunning trap last June. Masterly inactivity is the ticket.
I think the argument is that it's a bit like the Prisoners' Dilemma: while leaving the Euro would be good for the economy as a whole, each individual Greek's savings would suddenly take a big hit. People only vote for things that are going to make them significantly poorer if they really don't like the alternative.
This is not true for everyone of course, but it seems to happen a lot more than it should for grown ups.
It is the pound which has depreciated, as it always does. The Euro is absolutely fine. Only in the minds of swivel-eyed anti EU people is it a problem.
Sterling is the weak currency because UK has the weaker economy.
With regard to this Thursday's round of voting - something oft remarked upon but just as quickly forgotten, as frantic over-analysis takes place the day after.
Why local elections are not useful indicators of national votes
..."In 1983 and 1987 Margaret Thatcher called an election immediately after the local elections (general election campaigns were shorter then), meaning then – as now – we got local elections in May and a general election a month later. This is the comparison between the projected vote shares coming out of the local elections and the actual general election results just a month later:
1983
Local election: Con 39%, Lab 36%, Lib/SDP 20%
General election: Con 44%, Lab 28%, Lib/SDP 26%
1987
Local election: Con 38%, Lab 32%, Lib/SDP 27%
General election: Con 43%, Lab 32%, Lib/SDP 23%
"The shares of the vote were, once again, radically different. In 1983 the Tories squeaked a three point lead in the local elections, but crushed Labour by sixteen points in the general election four weeks later. The eleven point Tory lead in the 1987 general election was almost double the six point lead they got in the locals just a month before.
"All of this isn’t to say that the local elections won't give us anything useful. They will provide some vital information about the pattern of support and where parties are performing particularly strongly or weakly. In particular I'll be looking to see if there is a bigger swing between Labour and the Conservatives in areas that voted Leave at the EU referendum and to what degree the Liberal Democrat recovery is concentrated in Remain areas and in areas of previous Lib Dem strength.
"However, don’t just assume that the projected overall shares of the vote at this week’s votes are going to be repeated in next month’s election: people vote differently for different reasons at different sorts of election."
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/01/why-local-elections-are-not-useful-indicators-nati/
FWIW, one would imagine that the Conservatives will be very pleased if Labour avoids a calamity on Thursday. Even though local elections clearly aren't an accurate predictor of the General Election result, the media will go for the big headlines and a lower than expected gap between the Tories and Labour is bound to be interpreted as evidence that the General Election race is a lot more competitive than had previously been assumed, This should assist the Tory GOTV drive next month.
Frankly, it is sensible.
A Conservative Party tearing itself apart over Europe for most of the rest of the Parliament probably did more harm. This is probably the main reason May called the election: if she gets a big enough majority she can do what Major couldn't and ignore the hardliners.
Incidentally one of the things that put me right off Blair was the way he approached the Maastricht vote, emphasising the discomfort of the government over what he wanted for the country, and I think his current intervention is massively hypocritical. I have little time for Corbyn, but it didn't seem to even occur to him to play games over Parliamentary votes.
Yes, such devaluation would hit Greek pensioners rather badly... but it's Greek 18-40 year olds who are really suffering just now (in large part because of political decisions made to lavish benefits on their parents and grandparents).
Of course, many of the anti-EU folk fail to move on to say that the post-Brexit vote devaluation of the pound is an important reason why the economy has been surprisingly resilient since June (although it does now look to be dipping a little). But it has indeed made savers less well off, and is feeding through into inflation.
In GE2015, Con won by 21.2%
Though fortunately his fears were either false, or have been addressed. The EU27 position for the negotiations was unanimously agreed, without rancour.
It may well be that the effect of Brexit is for us to be sitting outside while sensible folk like Macron, Merkel, Tusk and Juncker help evolve the EU into a more attractive consensus that better deals with the ills of globalisation. Which is why ultimately there will be a strong rejoin movement here. We may well improve the EU by leaving it.
The LibDem argument for a full reversal appeals to many Remainers but isn't in my experience cutting through, though it may be different in seats where the LibDems are the main challengers or the sitting MP. In Labour and Labour-challenging seats, this group of voters overlaps heavily with sophisticated tactical voters, and Starmer has done enough to persuade them that Labour would be a better alternative than the Tories on Brexit, and/or they want to vote tactically anti-Tory for other reasons. And Labour voters are generally voting on other grounds, such as simply stopping a Tory landslide, which they fear for all sorts of reasons.
JUNCKER "You can't - it's got to be a failure"
And here's the problem. The UK and EU objectives are mutually incompatible.
It occured to me that the complexities of Brexit are just huge and no one has so far even scratched the surface. We are facing years of upheaval.
+1
PS: not directing this at ydoethur.
The Brexiteers have been saying all along that it will be simple, and beneficial.
Now that some of them are realising the scale of the challenge, their response is not to moderate their language or thinking, but to double down.
"If it's really hard, we'll just walk away"
On the previous thread I see SeanT was cheering a drop in GDP of 5-10%
There would be riots, and the people wielding the pitchforks would not be coming for those who said Brexit was a bad idea...