politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Taking the 3/1 on no Brexit deal being reached before the 1st

Bromptonaut said:

Sandpit said:

View_From_Cumbria said:

CarlottaVance said:

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

We'll know more when we see the EU's reaction to the citizens rights proposals when the UK publishes those tomorrow. If they continue to insist on EU citizens (and their immediate decedents) rights being superior to UK citizens, with extra-territorial jurisdiction for the ECJ we'll know they're not serious in reaching a compromise.

which saw her lose David Cameron’s majority

Of course, if Cameron had actually thought he'd get a majority he'd have hedged his referendum promise - or did he think he'd simply "carry the country with him"?

Whose hubris was more destructive, Cameron's or May's? Discuss.

Don't blame Cameron for the mess that faces the country.

I do blame Cameron for:

1) Pretending the pile of poo he got from Brussels was a 'great deal'
2) Campaigning for the above when he could have 'stood above it' then
3) Cutting & running when he lost. A democrat would have said 'The people have decided, time to get on with implementing their decision' instead of retiring from the fray. He could have made clear that he would stand down once Brexit was agreed.

In comparison all May has done is hurt the Tory Party, which will recover, and herself, fatally.

Because he didn't do 2 he couldn't avoid doing 3. That was his big mistake.

Quite. His 'Emporer's New Clothes' act on his renegotiations and Osborne's talk of 'Punishment Budget' meant they were toast if they'd lost. If Cameron had spoken calmly about the balance of probabilities suggesting the deal was a good one and we should remain - instead of unleashing the forces of Hell - then he might have been able to stay on as PM.

He should not have embarked on a pointless renegotiation that was always bound to fail. He should have had the courage to make the positive case for the status quo, which is far superior to anything the EU will now deign to give us.

I was in favour of Brexit, but you're right that Cameron would have been better off with no renegotiation rather than trying to sell the turd he got from Brussels as if it were gold. Those campaigning to remain should have been positive, the talk of the end of the world if we left, and getting foreign leaders like Obama involved only piled up for votes for the Leave side. People in general hate politicians.

foxinsoxuk said:

I have said all along that hard Brexit is nailed on, and we should plan on that basis. Some major Kent lorry parks with massive customs recruitment for example.

In the medium term our economy will realign itself to a hard Brexit scenario. The various cross-border industries will go and be replaced, we will become more self-sufficient because we will have to be.

It's the short term where it gets interesting. Slam the borders shut in March 2019 because we crash out with no deal (well, there will be a deal, not necessarily one that May can get through the Commons) and the problem wont be Kent lorry parks. It will be hunger. This nation cannot feed itself, even less so as agriculture stops when our "bollocks to hard work I'm going to win the X-factor" generation refuse to pick fruit (which is why Boston became "overrun" with foreigners in the first place)

Hard Brexit means supermarket shelves going empty within a week. Means riots. Means the political end of whomever is the government at the time.

williamglenn said:

freetochoose said:

TOPPING said:

freetochoose said:

surbiton said:

freetochoose said:

foxinsoxuk said:

freetochoose said:

foxinsoxuk said:

freetochoose said:

If we look at the behaviour of the EU post Brexit I'm genuinely amazed that people on here still want to be a part of it. Actually I don't believe they do, their position is so entrenched they could never admit what a fetid organisation the EU is.

On the contrary what we see in the EU is strong and stable government, with vision and an increasingly strong economy.

It would be too dangerous for our democracy to ignore the referendum result though.

More misnomers.

Some countries within the EU are doing well, others aren't - why do we need to pay to trade with countries such as Greece?

Free trade is always the best option.

Which is why Single Market Membership is in our interest. We should be part of the team writing the rules.

Brexit will be the single most self destructive act on British influence since Suez.

If you're writing rules its not free trade.

With that logic, any free trade agreement is also not free trade.

On the contrary, free trade is free trade, buy and sell from who you want.

Why do you object to that?

Free trade is not a free for all.

Why not?

Because the world doesn't work like that and becoming the North Korea of libertarianism won't convince anyone else to accommodate us.

If you witness the ridiculous posturing between our clueless politicians and the equally useless ones at the EU its easy to see why so many countries are in debt. Politicians should get out of the way and let people buy and sell things. People create wealth, not governments.

Sandpit said:

I was in favour of Brexit, but you're right that Cameron would have been better off with no renegotiation rather than trying to sell the turd he got from Brussels as if it were gold. Those campaigning to remain should have been positive, the talk of the end of the world if we left, and getting foreign leaders like Obama involved only piled up for votes for the Leave side. People in general hate politicians.

"Those campaigning to remain should have been positive"

Before the referendum people were asking for positive things about the EU. I gave a reply about a very small area that I knew fairly well, along with relevant links and supporting information.

How did the Europhobes take this? Did they say "Well, that might be right, but it's a small area and would be outweighed by the advantages of leaving?" or some other positive reply?

No, they went into full denial mode, started throwing insults, and put their fingers in their ears. One poster repeatedly argued that I was wrong, then admitted he couldn't even be arsed to read the links.

TOPPING said:

freetochoose said:

TOPPING said:

freetochoose said:

TOPPING said:

freetochoose said:

surbiton said:

freetochoose said:

foxinsoxuk said:

freetochoose said:

foxinsoxuk said:

freetochoose said:

If we look at the behaviour of the EU post Brexit I'm genuinely amazed that people on here still want to be a part of it. Actually I don't believe they do, their position is so entrenched they could never admit what a fetid organisation the EU is.

On the contrary what we see in the EU is strong and stable government, with vision and an increasingly strong economy.

It would be too dangerous for our democracy to ignore the referendum result though.

More misnomers.

Some countries within the EU are doing well, others aren't - why do we need to pay to trade with countries such as Greece?

Free trade is always the best option.

Which is why Single Market Membership is in our interest. We should be part of the team writing the rules.

Brexit will be the single most self destructive act on British influence since Suez.

If you're writing rules its not free trade.

With that logic, any free trade agreement is also not free trade.

On the contrary, free trade is free trade, buy and sell from who you want.

Why do you object to that?

Free trade is not a free for all.

Why not?

Country A has regulations specifying, say, one type of widget safety standard. Country B has regulations specifying a different standard. As it stands, neither country's widget manufacturers can sell to the other country.

A free trade agreement would include a mutually agreed set of widget safety standards so there could be, er, free trade in widgets.

So Country A makes widgets and sells them to Country B.

Only if they conform to Country B's standards. Not quite taking back control.

Why do you mention control?

Country B has asked Country A to make widgets, if they say no then Country B is approached.

I'm certain you understand this, you're just obfuscating. Its no different to walking past the fish and chip shop because you fancy a kebab.

freetochoose said:

williamglenn said:

freetochoose said:

TOPPING said:

freetochoose said:

surbiton said:

freetochoose said:

foxinsoxuk said:

freetochoose said:

foxinsoxuk said:

freetochoose said:

If we look at the behaviour of the EU post Brexit I'm genuinely amazed that people on here still want to be a part of it. Actually I don't believe they do, their position is so entrenched they could never admit what a fetid organisation the EU is.

On the contrary what we see in the EU is strong and stable government, with vision and an increasingly strong economy.

It would be too dangerous for our democracy to ignore the referendum result though.

More misnomers.

Some countries within the EU are doing well, others aren't - why do we need to pay to trade with countries such as Greece?

Free trade is always the best option.

Which is why Single Market Membership is in our interest. We should be part of the team writing the rules.

Brexit will be the single most self destructive act on British influence since Suez.

If you're writing rules its not free trade.

With that logic, any free trade agreement is also not free trade.

On the contrary, free trade is free trade, buy and sell from who you want.

Why do you object to that?

Free trade is not a free for all.

Why not?

Because the world doesn't work like that and becoming the North Korea of libertarianism won't convince anyone else to accommodate us.

If you witness the ridiculous posturing between our clueless politicians and the equally useless ones at the EU its easy to see why so many countries are in debt. Politicians should get out of the way and let people buy and sell things. People create wealth, not governments.

Unilateral political disarmament is even more utopian than the CND approach to global security.

freetochoose said:

williamglenn said:

freetochoose said:

TOPPING said:

freetochoose said:

surbiton said:

freetochoose said:

foxinsoxuk said:

freetochoose said:

foxinsoxuk said:

freetochoose said:

If we look at the behaviour of the EU post Brexit I'm genuinely amazed that people on here still want to be a part of it. Actually I don't believe they do, their position is so entrenched they could never admit what a fetid organisation the EU is.

On the contrary what we see in the EU is strong and stable government, with vision and an increasingly strong economy.

It would be too dangerous for our democracy to ignore the referendum result though.

More misnomers.

Some countries within the EU are doing well, others aren't - why do we need to pay to trade with countries such as Greece?

Free trade is always the best option.

Which is why Single Market Membership is in our interest. We should be part of the team writing the rules.

Brexit will be the single most self destructive act on British influence since Suez.

If you're writing rules its not free trade.

With that logic, any free trade agreement is also not free trade.

On the contrary, free trade is free trade, buy and sell from who you want.

Why do you object to that?

Free trade is not a free for all.

Why not?

Because the world doesn't work like that and becoming the North Korea of libertarianism won't convince anyone else to accommodate us.

If you witness the ridiculous posturing between our clueless politicians and the equally useless ones at the EU its easy to see why so many countries are in debt. Politicians should get out of the way and let people buy and sell things. People create wealth, not governments.

The present idea the EU is succeeding economically completely ignores their dreadful youth employment rates

Good morning all. I see The Sunday Telegraph has a #Priti4Leader story on the front page.

OK, not just her being touted, but in the top three.

freetochoose said:

williamglenn said:

freetochoose said:

williamglenn said:

freetochoose said:

TOPPING said:

freetochoose said:

surbiton said:

freetochoose said:

foxinsoxuk said:

freetochoose said:

foxinsoxuk said:

freetochoose said:

If we look at the behaviour of the EU post Brexit I'm genuinely amazed that people on here still want to be a part of it. Actually I don't believe they do, their position is so entrenched they could never admit what a fetid organisation the EU is.

On the contrary what we see in the EU is strong and stable government, with vision and an increasingly strong economy.

It would be too dangerous for our democracy to ignore the referendum result though.

More misnomers.

Some countries within the EU are doing well, others aren't - why do we need to pay to trade with countries such as Greece?

Free trade is always the best option.

Which is why Single Market Membership is in our interest. We should be part of the team writing the rules.

Brexit will be the single most self destructive act on British influence since Suez.

If you're writing rules its not free trade.

With that logic, any free trade agreement is also not free trade.

On the contrary, free trade is free trade, buy and sell from who you want.

Why do you object to that?

Free trade is not a free for all.

Why not?

Because the world doesn't work like that and becoming the North Korea of libertarianism won't convince anyone else to accommodate us.

If you witness the ridiculous posturing between our clueless politicians and the equally useless ones at the EU its easy to see why so many countries are in debt. Politicians should get out of the way and let people buy and sell things. People create wealth, not governments.

Unilateral political disarmament is even more utopian than the CND approach to global security.

Eh?

I was attempting to say in a pithy way that you have your head in the clouds and need to engage with the real world, not the world as you imagine it.

williamglenn said:

freetochoose said:

williamglenn said:

freetochoose said:

williamglenn said:

freetochoose said:

TOPPING said:

freetochoose said:

surbiton said:

freetochoose said:

foxinsoxuk said:

freetochoose said:

foxinsoxuk said:

freetochoose said:

If we look at the behaviour of the EU post Brexit I'm genuinely amazed that people on here still want to be a part of it. Actually I don't believe they do, their position is so entrenched they could never admit what a fetid organisation the EU is.

On the contrary what we see in the EU is strong and stable government, with vision and an increasingly strong economy.

It would be too dangerous for our democracy to ignore the referendum result though.

More misnomers.

Some countries within the EU are doing well, others aren't - why do we need to pay to trade with countries such as Greece?

Free trade is always the best option.

Which is why Single Market Membership is in our interest. We should be part of the team writing the rules.

Brexit will be the single most self destructive act on British influence since Suez.

If you're writing rules its not free trade.

With that logic, any free trade agreement is also not free trade.

On the contrary, free trade is free trade, buy and sell from who you want.

Why do you object to that?

Free trade is not a free for all.

Why not?

Because the world doesn't work like that and becoming the North Korea of libertarianism won't convince anyone else to accommodate us.

If you witness the ridiculous posturing between our clueless politicians and the equally useless ones at the EU its easy to see why so many countries are in debt. Politicians should get out of the way and let people buy and sell things. People create wealth, not governments.

Unilateral political disarmament is even more utopian than the CND approach to global security.

Eh?

I was attempting to say in a pithy way that you have your head in the clouds and need to engage with the real world, not the world as you imagine it.

Well I'll say in a less than pithy way fuck off you patronising twat.

freetochoose said:

@rochdale says:

"Hard Brexit means supermarket shelves going empty within a week. Means riots. Means the political end of whomever is the government at the time."

Do you really, honestly, sincerely believe this?

I think if you read the whole post you’d be more sympathetic. We’ve already had hiccups over the supply of various food items. And IIRC, Marmite.
What RP, not an alarmist poster, is suggesting is the short term postion while we ‘adjust’.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jessop, I can't recall that (it was some time ago) and hope I wasn't one of those simply saying you were wrong. However, the campaigning from political heavyweights was almost entirely skewed to the negative. Perhaps if they'd taken a leaf from your book, and put the doom to the back of the queue, they would have won.

As an aside, I'm not delighted at how things are going. But remaining in would be even worse. A Remain vote would have been taken as a green light for ever more 'Europe'.

Ultimately, we face a decision. To be slowly integrated into a country called the EU, or to be an independent and separate nation.

If the economics without the politics had been available, it would've won by a landslide. But that was never on offer.

To be fair, I don't think you were.

But it indicates why things skewed towards the negative. The opponents were also being exceptionally negative. They won, and I see that negativity as largely being the reason why we've ended up in the mess we're in.

OldKingCole said:

freetochoose said:

@rochdale says:

"Hard Brexit means supermarket shelves going empty within a week. Means riots. Means the political end of whomever is the government at the time."

Do you really, honestly, sincerely believe this?

I think if you read the whole post you’d be more sympathetic. We’ve already had hiccups over the supply of various food items. And IIRC, Marmite.
What RP, not an alarmist poster, is suggesting is the short term postion while we ‘adjust’.

Sympathetic is not the word that springs to mind.

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

freetochoose said:

TOPPING said:

freetochoose said:

TOPPING said:

freetochoose said:

surbiton said:

freetochoose said:

foxinsoxuk said:

freetochoose said:

foxinsoxuk said:

freetochoose said:

If we look at the behaviour of the EU post Brexit I'm genuinely amazed that people on here still want to be a part of it. Actually I don't believe they do, their position is so entrenched they could never admit what a fetid organisation the EU is.

On the contrary what we see in the EU is strong and stable government, with vision and an increasingly strong economy.

It would be too dangerous for our democracy to ignore the referendum result though.

More misnomers.

Some countries within the EU are doing well, others aren't - why do we need to pay to trade with countries such as Greece?

Free trade is always the best option.

Which is why Single Market Membership is in our interest. We should be part of the team writing the rules.

Brexit will be the single most self destructive act on British influence since Suez.

If you're writing rules its not free trade.

With that logic, any free trade agreement is also not free trade.

On the contrary, free trade is free trade, buy and sell from who you want.

Why do you object to that?

Free trade is not a free for all.

Why not?

Country A has regulations specifying, say, one type of widget safety standard. Country B has regulations specifying a different standard. As it stands, neither country's widget manufacturers can sell to the other country.

A free trade agreement would include a mutually agreed set of widget safety standards so there could be, er, free trade in widgets.

So Country A makes widgets and sells them to Country B.

Only if they conform to Country B's standards. Not quite taking back control.

The reality is that third party W makes country A and country B confirm to the same widget standards.

Yes true. But Google EU Car Regulations. Plenty there to see. So in reality the EU will set the standards and we will follow them.

@TOPPING

No it doesn't need a common approach, it is impossible to buck the market.

Think of the average High St food outlets, you are free to choose burgers, pizzas, Indian etc etc these outlets don't need a common approach they need a product that sells at the right price.

Its called free trade, we need a universal approach not one restricted by bureaucrats.

freetochoose said:

OldKingCole said:

freetochoose said:

@rochdale says:

"Hard Brexit means supermarket shelves going empty within a week. Means riots. Means the political end of whomever is the government at the time."

Do you really, honestly, sincerely believe this?

I think if you read the whole post you’d be more sympathetic. We’ve already had hiccups over the supply of various food items. And IIRC, Marmite.
What RP, not an alarmist poster, is suggesting is the short term postion while we ‘adjust’.

Sympathetic is not the word that springs to mind.

I spent my early years in a time of scarcity and difficulty; I don’t want to spend my final ones in similar circumstances. Nor do I want to see my grandchildren and great-grandchildren (although I don’t have any of the latter yet) in such circumstances.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Marr to Debbie Abrahams, shadow work and pensions secretary says Corbyn wants 16 and 17 years old to be paid £10 per hour when they currently earn £4.05 per hour and it will bankrupt many small businesses. Debbie Abrahams answer 'we will make sure small businesses are compensated'

How long can labour get away with this economic nonsense. Also Marr soft balled his interview

They will get away with it until May (or whoever) has the bollox and nous to debate it.

I share your despair.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Marr to Debbie Abrahams, shadow work and pensions secretary says Corbyn wants 16 and 17 years old to be paid £10 per hour when they currently earn £4.05 per hour and it will bankrupt many small businesses. Debbie Abrahams answer 'we will make sure small businesses are compensated'

How long can labour get away with this economic nonsense. Also Marr soft balled his interview

Didn't see the interview but 'what Corbyn wants' is not always the same as what was in the manifesto. All it says on the subject is....

"Raise the Minimum Wage to the level of the Living Wage (expected to be at least £10 per hour by 2020) – for all workers aged 18 or over, so that work pays."

freetochoose said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Marr to Debbie Abrahams, shadow work and pensions secretary says Corbyn wants 16 and 17 years old to be paid £10 per hour when they currently earn £4.05 per hour and it will bankrupt many small businesses. Debbie Abrahams answer 'we will make sure small businesses are compensated'

How long can labour get away with this economic nonsense. Also Marr soft balled his interview

They will get away with it until May (or whoever) has the bollox and nous to debate it.

I share your despair.

It is beyond May to be fair but it is not relevant until or unless a GE becomes likely at which time the conservatives will have a new leader, Vince Cable likely leader of the Lib Dems will talke Corbyn economics apart, and no one shares his view of 26% corporation tax including the SNP

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Marr to Debbie Abrahams, shadow work and pensions secretary says Corbyn wants 16 and 17 years old to be paid £10 per hour when they currently earn £4.05 per hour and it will bankrupt many small businesses. Debbie Abrahams answer 'we will make sure small businesses are compensated'

How long can labour get away with this economic nonsense. Also Marr soft balled his interview

It's clever politics. Jezza appeals to the "equality of value of work" vote whilst being sympathetic to small business with an appropriate and timely compensation in a phased transition.

Superficially what's not to like. It's enough politically for an opposition party.

Miss Vance, Lib Dems could still have opportunity, but I fear it'll be less under Cable's daft leftism than it would've been under Lamb's realism or Swinson's fresher face.

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Marr to Debbie Abrahams, shadow work and pensions secretary says Corbyn wants 16 and 17 years old to be paid £10 per hour when they currently earn £4.05 per hour and it will bankrupt many small businesses. Debbie Abrahams answer 'we will make sure small businesses are compensated'

How long can labour get away with this economic nonsense. Also Marr soft balled his interview

Didn't see the interview but 'what Corbyn wants' is not always the same as what was in the manifesto. All it says on the subject is....

"Raise the Minimum Wage to the level of the Living Wage (expected to be at least £10 per hour by 2020) – for all workers aged 18 or over, so that work pays."

Corbyn announced the policy yesterday to pay 16 and 17 year olds £10 per hour

Absolute certainty of massive lost jobs and opportunities for young people, why employ a teenager when you can get an older more experiencec worker at the same price.

williamglenn said:

freetochoose said:

williamglenn said:

freetochoose said:

williamglenn said:

freetochoose said:

TOPPING said:

freetochoose said:

surbiton said:

freetochoose said:

foxinsoxuk said:

freetochoose said:

foxinsoxuk said:

freetochoose said:

If we look at the behaviour of the EU post Brexit I'm genuinely amazed that people on here still want to be a part of it. Actually I don't believe they do, their position is so entrenched they could never admit what a fetid organisation the EU is.

On the contrary what we see in the EU is strong and stable government, with vision and an increasingly strong economy.

It would be too dangerous for our democracy to ignore the referendum result though.

More misnomers.

Some countries within the EU are doing well, others aren't - why do we need to pay to trade with countries such as Greece?

Free trade is always the best option.

Which is why Single Market Membership is in our interest. We should be part of the team writing the rules.

Brexit will be the single most self destructive act on British influence since Suez.

If you're writing rules its not free trade.

With that logic, any free trade agreement is also not free trade.

On the contrary, free trade is free trade, buy and sell from who you want.

Why do you object to that?

Free trade is not a free for all.

Why not?

Because the world doesn't work like that and becoming the North Korea of libertarianism won't convince anyone else to accommodate us.

If you witness the ridiculous posturing between our clueless politicians and the equally useless ones at the EU its easy to see why so many countries are in debt. Politicians should get out of the way and let people buy and sell things. People create wealth, not governments.

Unilateral political disarmament is even more utopian than the CND approach to global security.

Eh?

I was attempting to say in a pithy way that you have your head in the clouds and need to engage with the real world, not the world as you imagine it.

I think you're going to need more boot polish for your pot and kettle, and more stones for your glass house....

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Yes true. But Google EU Car Regulations. Plenty there to see. So in reality the EU will set the standards and we will follow them.

Funny that, if you google something including the word EU then you get something that talks about EU standards.

Now try googling the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Working Party 29 and the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations. And you will see that many of those 'EU' Car regulations were actually set by bodies above the EU level and simply adopted by the EU and its member states along with the US, Canada, Japan and South Korea amongst many other countries.

Yes I'm sure. When's our referendum to leave the UN?

Project for Nigel after 2019?

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Yes true. But Google EU Car Regulations. Plenty there to see. So in reality the EU will set the standards and we will follow them.

Funny that, if you google something including the word EU then you get something that talks about EU standards.

Now try googling the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Working Party 29 and the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations. And you will see that many of those 'EU' Car regulations were actually set by bodies above the EU level and simply adopted by the EU and its member states along with the US, Canada, Japan and South Korea amongst many other countries.

Yes I'm sure. When's our referendum to leave the UN?

Has the UN, inter alia, enforced a common currency, without fiscal transfers, on German vassal states? Has it enforced huge youth unemployment in Spain?

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Yes true. But Google EU Car Regulations. Plenty there to see. So in reality the EU will set the standards and we will follow them.

Funny that, if you google something including the word EU then you get something that talks about EU standards.

Now try googling the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Working Party 29 and the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations. And you will see that many of those 'EU' Car regulations were actually set by bodies above the EU level and simply adopted by the EU and its member states along with the US, Canada, Japan and South Korea amongst many other countries.

Yes I'm sure. When's our referendum to leave the UN?

We don't need to. They are not seeking to create a single state and undermine the authority of our own Parliament. They are not seeking to reinterpret our own national laws. If you cannot see the difference between organisations like the UN and NATO and those like the EU then you are truly lost.

Now, back to your false claims that it is the EU that will set standards for car manufacture and we will have to follow them.

JackW said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Con at 41% is remarkable considering the avalanche of bad press

That's before an election Tory election campaign though !! .... where on recent form the Conservative will have a manifesto with the compulsory euthanasia of the over 70's, enforced fox hunting from year 4 year old in schools, all Chief Constables to cut their police forces by half and BREXIT negotiations to be led by the former CEO of Kensington and Chelsea Council ....

What could be possibly go wrong ?

You are on good form this morning Jack

Big_G_NorthWales said:

JackW said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Marr to Debbie Abrahams, shadow work and pensions secretary says Corbyn wants 16 and 17 years old to be paid £10 per hour when they currently earn £4.05 per hour and it will bankrupt many small businesses. Debbie Abrahams answer 'we will make sure small businesses are compensated'

How long can labour get away with this economic nonsense. Also Marr soft balled his interview

It's clever politics. Jezza appeals to the "equality of value of work" vote whilst being sympathetic to small business with an appropriate and timely compensation in a phased transition.

Superficially what's not to like. It's enough politically for an opposition party.

So Jack who pays the compensation and at what cost

The story from Jezza will be big corporations, tax cheats, the indulged rich and other easy targets and they will bear the cost. It will all sound plausible and entirely consistent with the Labour narrative of economic justice and an end of austerity.

OchEye said:

JackW said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Con at 41% is remarkable considering the avalanche of bad press

That's before an election Tory election campaign though !! .... where on recent form the Conservative will have a manifesto with the compulsory euthanasia of the over 70's, enforced fox hunting from year 4 year old in schools, all Chief Constables to cut their police forces by half and BREXIT negotiations to be led by the former CEO of Kensington and Chelsea Council ....

What could be possibly go wrong ?

+1

+2

https://twitter.com/jameschappers/status/878900633776119808
Answers on a Post Card.....

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Marr to Debbie Abrahams, shadow work and pensions secretary says Corbyn wants 16 and 17 years old to be paid £10 per hour when they currently earn £4.05 per hour and it will bankrupt many small businesses. Debbie Abrahams answer 'we will make sure small businesses are compensated'

How long can labour get away with this economic nonsense. Also Marr soft balled his interview

Didn't see the interview but 'what Corbyn wants' is not always the same as what was in the manifesto. All it says on the subject is....

"Raise the Minimum Wage to the level of the Living Wage (expected to be at least £10 per hour by 2020) – for all workers aged 18 or over, so that work pays."

Corbyn announced the policy yesterday to pay 16 and 17 year olds £10 per hour

Absolute certainty of massive lost jobs and opportunities for young people, why employ a teenager when you can get an older more experiencec worker at the same price.

Ah right, wasn't aware of that... the Independent and Telegraph both report it as:

Speaking at a Unison conference in Brighton, Mr Corbyn was asked by one delegate whether 16-year-olds should also be paid Labour’s living wage. In response, Mr Corbyn said: 'You’re absolutely right.'

It sounds like an off-the-cuff remark - I am not defending it but hardly counts as Labour agreed policy.

Do you agree that it is economically illiterate

Indeed. Why pay someone enough to live on when instead we can sell them debt and repackage it as an "asset" to sell on. Marvellous.

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Marr to Debbie Abrahams, shadow work and pensions secretary says Corbyn wants 16 and 17 years old to be paid £10 per hour when they currently earn £4.05 per hour and it will bankrupt many small businesses. Debbie Abrahams answer 'we will make sure small businesses are compensated'

How long can labour get away with this economic nonsense. Also Marr soft balled his interview

Didn't see the interview but 'what Corbyn wants' is not always the same as what was in the manifesto. All it says on the subject is....

"Raise the Minimum Wage to the level of the Living Wage (expected to be at least £10 per hour by 2020) – for all workers aged 18 or over, so that work pays."

Corbyn announced the policy yesterday to pay 16 and 17 year olds £10 per hour

Absolute certainty of massive lost jobs and opportunities for young people, why employ a teenager when you can get an older more experiencec worker at the same price.

Ah right, wasn't aware of that... the Independent and Telegraph both report it as:

Speaking at a Unison conference in Brighton, Mr Corbyn was asked by one delegate whether 16-year-olds should also be paid Labour’s living wage. In response, Mr Corbyn said: 'You’re absolutely right.'

It sounds like an off-the-cuff remark - I am not defending it but hardly counts as Labour agreed policy.

Do you agree that it is economically illiterate

Indeed. Why pay someone enough to live on when instead we can sell them debt and repackage it as an "asset" to sell on. Marvellous.

You do know it is 16 and 17 year olds we are talking about and have you ever run a small business

RochdalePioneers said:

OldKingCole said:

freetochoose said:

@rochdale says:

"Hard Brexit means supermarket shelves going empty within a week. Means riots. Means the political end of whomever is the government at the time."

Do you really, honestly, sincerely believe this?

I think if you read the whole post you’d be more sympathetic. We’ve already had hiccups over the supply of various food items. And IIRC, Marmite.
What RP, not an alarmist poster, is suggesting is the short term postion while we ‘adjust’.

I'm not sure if posters are aware how much of our food, even "produced in the UK" food is imported. If we fall out of the EU with no deal then that means full customs checks required on everything that comes in and out - we will be wanting to impose tariffs in exchange for the export tariffs imposed on us. We know what ferry disruption at Calais does to Kent. And thats just one port. Think about all ports, think about how long it takes to check a truck, think about the efficiency of our austerity cut Border Force at the best of times never mind faced with an avalanche of demand.

It would be utter utter chaos with little getting through in either direction, at least at first. And knowing the food supply chain that means big shortages very quickly. And we know what hangry people tend to do. And don't say "it won't happen" because I'm assured by our Prime Minister that no deal is better than a good deal, that tariffs are fine. To impose tariffs you need customs and a restored border.

So either we waive the customs checks inbound and border controls - which will have the Daily Mail howling- or we impose them, Waitrose runs out of meat, and the Daily Mail starts howling. Make sure you stock up on non-perishable items beforehand.

Indeed. I live in Essex, near the A12. The arrival of a ferry at Harwich..... much less important that Felixstowe ........ means lots of identifiably European lorries heading London-wards.

Incidentally we came back from the Canaries via Stansted last weekend. There were lots of ‘electronic’ passport terminals to be seen, but few of them open, so substantial queues at those that were available.

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Yes true. But Google EU Car Regulations. Plenty there to see. So in reality the EU will set the standards and we will follow them.

Funny that, if you google something including the word EU then you get something that talks about EU standards.

Now try googling the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Working Party 29 and the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations. And you will see that many of those 'EU' Car regulations were actually set by bodies above the EU level and simply adopted by the EU and its member states along with the US, Canada, Japan and South Korea amongst many other countries.

Yes I'm sure. When's our referendum to leave the UN?

We don't need to. They are not seeking to create a single state and undermine the authority of our own Parliament. They are not seeking to reinterpret our own national laws. If you cannot see the difference between organisations like the UN and NATO and those like the EU then you are truly lost.

Now, back to your false claims that it is the EU that will set standards for car manufacture and we will have to follow them.

You're a funny old sausage, Richard.

Supranational Body A defining rules and standards for us: Bad.
Supranational Body B defining rules and standards for us: Good.

Supranational Court A opining on a common set of externally-defined rules for us: Bad.
Supranational Court B opining on a common set of externally-defined rules for us: Good.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Marr to Debbie Abrahams, shadow work and pensions secretary says Corbyn wants 16 and 17 years old to be paid £10 per hour when they currently earn £4.05 per hour and it will bankrupt many small businesses. Debbie Abrahams answer 'we will make sure small businesses are compensated'

How long can labour get away with this economic nonsense. Also Marr soft balled his interview

Didn't see the interview but 'what Corbyn wants' is not always the same as what was in the manifesto. All it says on the subject is....

"Raise the Minimum Wage to the level of the Living Wage (expected to be at least £10 per hour by 2020) – for all workers aged 18 or over, so that work pays."

Corbyn announced the policy yesterday to pay 16 and 17 year olds £10 per hour

Absolute certainty of massive lost jobs and opportunities for young people, why employ a teenager when you can get an older more experiencec worker at the same price.

Ah right, wasn't aware of that... the Independent and Telegraph both report it as:

Speaking at a Unison conference in Brighton, Mr Corbyn was asked by one delegate whether 16-year-olds should also be paid Labour’s living wage. In response, Mr Corbyn said: 'You’re absolutely right.'

It sounds like an off-the-cuff remark - I am not defending it but hardly counts as Labour agreed policy.

Do you agree that it is economically illiterate

No, not at all. The great thing economically about the minimum wage (aside from just making low-paid people's lives a bit better) is that the money goes straight back into the economy, boosting demand and growth and it reduces the need for the state to subsidise the low-paid (or rather low-paying employers) through benefits.

I well remember all the doommongers predicting the end of the world back in 1998 when it was introduced. The scare stories were all nonsense of course and within 2 years the tories had become backers. It will be the same for extending down to 16 year olds. Just needs to be phased in properly.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Marr to Debbie Abrahams, shadow work and pensions secretary says Corbyn wants 16 and 17 years old to be paid £10 per hour when they currently earn £4.05 per hour and it will bankrupt many small businesses. Debbie Abrahams answer 'we will make sure small businesses are compensated'

How long can labour get away with this economic nonsense. Also Marr soft balled his interview

Didn't see the interview but 'what Corbyn wants' is not always the same as what was in the manifesto. All it says on the subject is....

"Raise the Minimum Wage to the level of the Living Wage (expected to be at least £10 per hour by 2020) – for all workers aged 18 or over, so that work pays."

Corbyn announced the policy yesterday to pay 16 and 17 year olds £10 per hour

Absolute certainty of massive lost jobs and opportunities for young people, why employ a teenager when you can get an older more experiencec worker at the same price.

Ah right, wasn't aware of that... the Independent and Telegraph both report it as:

Speaking at a Unison conference in Brighton, Mr Corbyn was asked by one delegate whether 16-year-olds should also be paid Labour’s living wage. In response, Mr Corbyn said: 'You’re absolutely right.'

It sounds like an off-the-cuff remark - I am not defending it but hardly counts as Labour agreed policy.

Do you agree that it is economically illiterate

Indeed. Why pay someone enough to live on when instead we can sell them debt and repackage it as an "asset" to sell on. Marvellous.

You do know it is 16 and 17 year olds we are talking about and have you ever run a small business

Just as a good example, when I was 16 I earned a pittance. £25 a day IIRC. But it was fun, great pocket money and, most importantly, served as an apprenticeship. I now run a business in exactly the same sector, employing 3 people and grossing more than 5 times the sales of where I first worked.

I'm thinking about taking on a part time 'young me', who could well go on to do the same. I wouldn't be able to pay him/her £10 an hour. So under Corbyn's govt, he/she would not get such an experience.

Scrapheap_as_was said:

I'd rather see Mark Reckless as next Tory leader than Boris.

The treacherous pig-dog? Really?

Scrapheap_as_was said:

I'd rather see Mark Reckless as next Tory leader than Boris.

I fear a PB nuclear weapon in the shape of a red shoe is heading in your direction in ....

1 .. 2 .. 3 ..

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Ken Clarke on Sophie - a wise head

Now he would give the tories a chance in the next GE... fortunately for Labour, the tories would never elect him as leader!

Seems like a very sound bet on the face of it.

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Marr to Debbie Abrahams, shadow work and pensions secretary says Corbyn wants 16 and 17 years old to be paid £10 per hour when they currently earn £4.05 per hour and it will bankrupt many small businesses. Debbie Abrahams answer 'we will make sure small businesses are compensated'

How long can labour get away with this economic nonsense. Also Marr soft balled his interview

Didn't see the interview but 'what Corbyn wants' is not always the same as what was in the manifesto. All it says on the subject is....

"Raise the Minimum Wage to the level of the Living Wage (expected to be at least £10 per hour by 2020) – for all workers aged 18 or over, so that work pays."

Corbyn announced the policy yesterday to pay 16 and 17 year olds £10 per hour

Absolute certainty of massive lost jobs and opportunities for young people, why employ a teenager when you can get an older more experiencec worker at the same price.

Ah right, wasn't aware of that... the Independent and Telegraph both report it as:

Speaking at a Unison conference in Brighton, Mr Corbyn was asked by one delegate whether 16-year-olds should also be paid Labour’s living wage. In response, Mr Corbyn said: 'You’re absolutely right.'

It sounds like an off-the-cuff remark - I am not defending it but hardly counts as Labour agreed policy.

Do you agree that it is economically illiterate

No, not at all. The great thing economically about the minimum wage (aside from just making low-paid people's lives a bit better) is that the money goes straight back into the economy, boosting demand and growth and it reduces the need for the state to subsidise the low-paid (or rather low-paying employers) through benefits.

I well remember all the doommongers predicting the end of the world back in 1998 when it was introduced. The scare stories were all nonsense of course and within 2 years the tories had become backers. It will be the same for extending down to 16 year olds. Just needs to be phased in properly.

In my CAB days one of the ‘selling points’ for grants from the local Council was that any extra benefits we obtained for clients went straight into the local economy.

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Yes true. But Google EU Car Regulations. Plenty there to see. So in reality the EU will set the standards and we will follow them.

Funny that, if you google something including the word EU then you get something that talks about EU standards.

Now try googling the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Working Party 29 and the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations. And you will see that many of those 'EU' Car regulations were actually set by bodies above the EU level and simply adopted by the EU and its member states along with the US, Canada, Japan and South Korea amongst many other countries.

Yes I'm sure. When's our referendum to leave the UN?

We don't need to. They are not seeking to create a single state and undermine the authority of our own Parliament. They are not seeking to reinterpret our own national laws. If you cannot see the difference between organisations like the UN and NATO and those like the EU then you are truly lost.

Now, back to your false claims that it is the EU that will set standards for car manufacture and we will have to follow them.

You're a funny old sausage, Richard.

Supranational Body A defining rules and standards for us: Bad.
Supranational Body B defining rules and standards for us: Good.

Supranational Court A opining on a common set of externally-defined rules for us: Bad.
Supranational Court B opining on a common set of externally-defined rules for us: Good.

Not in the least.

Supranational Body B defines rules and standards on a very specific and limited set of criteria. We could and should be able to take part in setting those criteria and those rules. Unfortunately we can't because we are members of Supranational body A which does it all for us even when it is not in our interests.

Supranational Body A not only prevents us taking part in those discussions and decisions, it also makes decisions for us on a vast range of other areas which are normally the reserve of individual nations. So it limits our influence whilst at the same time intruding into areas it should have no right to be involved in.

Like I say, the fact you can't see the difference shows just how blinkered you are.

Don't get me started on the supranational Body that tells us we have to go to war...

We have moved from No Deal is Better than a Bad Deal to No Deal is Better than a Punishment Deal, so the language of the pointless, willy-waving rhetoric is changing - which is progress of a sort, I suppose.

Of course, in the real world what serves our interests best is to never walk away from the negotiating table under any circumstances. As the party with the most to lose from any breakdown in talks we have to play our hand very carefully. For us, a No Deal is catastrophic. It is not just tariffs or delays at customs - it is the UK ceasing to be a member of any international agreement in which we participate as an EU member state. There are hundreds of these and suddenly being outside them will not be inconvenient, but immediately and hugely damaging.

However, as Richard Nabavi pointed out yesterday, the risk is not all one way: there are downsides for the EU27 as well. If we walk away from a deal, that allows them to tell their voting populations that it is all the UK's fault, that it was the UK who refused to negotiate. If, however, we politely refuse conditions, explain why and then insist we still want to talk to find a solution, the onus then moves to the EU27 governments to explain to their voters why it is the EU27 that will not compromise on certain issues. And, as we all know, when you are explaining, you are losing.

If we walk away the German government does not have to explain to its motor manufacturers why no deal is possible - it's the UK's fault. Likewise, the Italian government is off the hook with the Prosecco industry, the French with the agricultural industry, and so on. But if it is the EU27 that is being seen to be preventing a deal, things change; that's when the domestic pressure comes into play and that's when we get some leverage.

Obviously, we have a weak hand, the EU27 has much more in its arsenal; but if we are smart, if we stop willy-waving for domestic newspaper consumption, there is some advantage for us to gain and at least some concessions to win. What we have to remember is that this is not a business negotiation where both sides return to the status quo if it does not work out; instead, it is a time-limited window in which to do a deal while an unstoppable clock ticks down. The UK has to make the most of every single second of that time because if the alarm goes and nothing has been sorted out we are the biggest losers by far.

OldKingCole said:

JackW said:

MikeSmithson said:

GideonWise said:

So plenty of talk about 'Spreadsheet Phil' being lined up to replace TMay this morning.

From everything we know about Hammond, this moniker is a decent characterisation of him. So Tory ministers think another reclusive, tedious automaton is just what the nation needs to replace the current one. They deserve to be crushed by the revolutionaries if that is the case.

Essentially just about anybody is better than the MayBot.

Two months ago today Panelbase had CON 22% ahead. Today LAB has 5% lead.

Mike without reference to any betting slip and financial gain .. are you hostile to St Vince of the Cable as Smithson Jnr ?

Given that Vince is a Knight of the Realm a Doctor of Philosophy and, IIRC, a Privy Councillor, what is the correct form of address?

The Rt Hon Dr Sir sounds clumsy.

In person : Sir Vince(nt)

Cable's first name is John as is Paddy Ashdown but both by common usage are known otherwise.

In writing :

The Rt Hon Sir Vince Cable KBE PC PhD MP

Crown honours precede all others, followed by crown appointments, academic qualification and status as an MP.

surbiton said:

I knew it myself, but Prof. Bogdanor's lecture shown on BBC Parliament yesterday confirmed it that Britain has virtually no leverage in its negotiations with the EU.

Twenty years of failure in EU negotiations by Blair, Brown and Cameron show that Britain has no leverage in its negotiations with the EU while it is a member of the EU.

What happens in the future is yet to be seen.

Mr. Glenn, I'm not convinced that giving away monetary policy to an external organisation counts as gaining influence.

Thatcher succeeded because she dug her heels in. Blair failed because he threw away half the rebate for a promise that never happened.

williamglenn said:

I see the negotating strategy is on track:

https://twitter.com/bbc_joe_lynam/status/878895499138420737

And the UK threatening to walk out lets Merkel off the hook completely. If we want a deal, the UK government must be seen as completely transparent, constructive and amicable by the populations of the EU27 countries. The Tories have to stop chasing positive headlines in the right wing English press and start looking for them in newspapers across Europe. We have to show European voters that it is not us who are saying No, it is the EU27. Unilateral action on the rights of EU citizens here would be an excellent start.

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

We'll know more when we see the EU's reaction to the citizens rights proposals when the UK publishes those tomorrow. If they continue to insist on EU citizens (and their immediate decedents) rights being superior to UK citizens, with extra-territorial jurisdiction for the ECJ we'll know they're not serious in reaching a compromise.

which saw her lose David Cameron’s majority

Of course, if Cameron had actually thought he'd get a majority he'd have hedged his referendum promise - or did he think he'd simply "carry the country with him"?

Whose hubris was more destructive, Cameron's or May's? Discuss.

How could he hedge the referendum promise? Remember the hysterics from the EUphobic so-called 'Conservatives' on here that he hadn't held a referendum in the 2010-5 parliament?

Don't blame Cameron for the mess that faces the country. Blame the 'bastards' who have brought down several Conservative leaders - some of them good - in their one-eyed zealous obsession with the EU.

And each time let Labour in.

The 'bastards' who brought down Thatcher were indeed obsessed with the EU - Howe, Heseltine, Clarke, Major.

Its ironic that it was their obsession with membership of the ERM which brought down the Conservative government and let Labour in.

Some of them subsequently undermined the following Conservative leaders with their support for joining the Euro.

Now if you want to talk about Cameron's downfall I'd start with six years of lies about "paying down Britain's debts", "halved the bill" and "no ifs or buts" promises on immigration.