I think Hammond would be a very poor choice. Incredibly uncharismatic figure who has done little except make a mess of the last Budget over NI contributions. Davis would be preferable but probably best in some ways to stick with May and then hand over to someone younger closer to the election. A parallel might be Enda Kenny/Leo Varadkar in Ireland. Kenny also lost lots of seats but scraped back into government. Stayed on a year or so before handing over to the next generation.
Yeah, I'm not understanding how anyone can think Hammond would be more of an electoral asset than May. He has similar levels of charisma and communication skills as her, and less gravitas.
On top of that, I also feel him not supporting gay marriage (and the same goes for Davis) will be a major black mark against him -- I get the sense that with the younger generations (by which I mean anyone under 40), supporting gay marriage is a basic test of whether someone is a decent humanbeing, rightly or wrongly. Similar to fox-hunting.
There is nothing wrong with fox-hunting. Hunting is a basic human activity stretching back thousands of years, and perfectly natural within the animal kingdom as well.
We live in a time, right now, where it is considered increasingly a black and white issue and it is politically incorrect to support it, despite not being one.
Generations gone by wouldn't understand that, and it's very possible that neither will future generations as well.
People also used to believe there was nothing wrong with bear-baiting, cockfighting, prizefighting, child chimneysweeps, burning witches and branding criminals on the cheek.
"'Fake news': Trump tweets glee as three CNN journalists resign over Russia story
Trump derides network’s ‘phony’ stories after three quit over piece on supposed investigation into meeting between Trump associate and Russian investor
The story was posted on the network’s website on Thursday and was removed, with all links disabled, on Friday night. CNN immediately apologised to Anthony Scaramucci, the Trump transition team member who was reported to be involved in the meeting."
What are we not going to ask for that we were previously?
What are they not going to offer that they otherwise would?
Another Brexiteer fantasy with no basis in objective fact...
Fantasies with no basis in objective fact? Like calling me a Brexiteer?
To answer your questions:
The 'how' part is partly because the EU27 now don't know whether the PM can make any compromise which she agrees stick.
Who do you think has the trickier job securing agreement to compromises - May or Barnier?
Barnier has the trickier job to compromise. But with a stronger hand he doesn't need to compromise so much, nor does it matter so much to him if there's no deal.
The way the UK has approached Brexit so far has made the job of the EU27 and its negotiators much, much easier than it needed to be. We have allowed ourselves to come across as confrontational, obstructive, poorly prepared and incompetent - largely because we have been all those things - meaning that internal pressures on the EU27 to reach out and do a deal are almost non-existent. A sensible UK government would have been conciliatory, amicable, constructive and thorough - permanently engaged with media outlets across the EU27 to explain the UK's positions and why they make sense not just for the UK, but for the whole of Europe. When you have a weak hand willy-waving threats really don't work - unless your only interest is in getting positive headlines from right wing newspapers at home.
That's all true. But I think we also need to credit the EU side for tabling detailed, thought through and mostly sensible, if "uncompromising", proposals. They are good at this stuff. Which incidentally suggests we will struggle to replicate the set of existing agreements with third countries shroud we leave the Customs Union.
Praising the EU27 for basic competence shows just how crap we have been :-)
Our big issue with trade deals from here on in will be that all the countries we sit to talk to will know we need agreements much more than they do because of what we have lost trade-wise by leaving the EU.
@Simon_Nixon: David Davis: "EU partnership will require new dispute resolution mechanism. It won't be ECJ but it will be supranational." #TimesCEOSummit
ECJ not in name, only. Maybe the EFTA Court. Why not use the of the shelf mechanism?
The best reason for Hammond to be PM is that toxic Theresa would be replaced. During the 1997-2010 period I repeatedly argued here that Gordon Brown was toxic and heading for certain defeat. With TMay this is not just speculation but based on her record - the chronic misjudgements and appalling campaigning skills. I think she's possibly worse than Gordon Brown.
That's an argument for replacing her in time for the next election, not necessarily for replacing her immediately.
If I were a Tory I'd replace her now. Three main reasons...
She has no authority, since everyone knows she is a goner (sooner or later) people don't have to take her seriously. They can wait it out. This is terrible for Brexit negotiations.
She is still as rubbish at politics as she was in the campaign. She will continue to cost you votes every day she stays. If a big event comes up, she will probably mishandle it and cost you votes.
In her heart of hearts she probably still believes she can fix this. She can't. She is likely to make decisions that are based on recovering her reputation.
If you ditch her now she can't take the heat for an economic slump or bad Brexit.
Most definitely she needs to be kept. There are other potential pitfalls on the road ahead such as Thanet South and Greenfell Inquiry. The more of these she can negotiate as leader then the clearer the path for her successor. I would hope she can last at least another year, preferably 2 years.
The longer she is in charge the more Corbynmania will wane and the fresher the anointed one will look going into the next election.
Yeah, you are just repeating EU propaganda. This is how they negotiate - leak to the press about how incompetent their opponents are etc - ask the Greeks how it works. The EU simply don't like anyone negotiating with them that might say no - they seem to be offended by the fact that the UK don't look like they will roll over on demand.
In fact, the EU have positioned themselves remarkably badly for these talks because they have overestimated their hand - something they do quite frequently. They should never have raised ECJ jurisdiction because they can't win on that. They should never have tried to force the Brexit bill up front, because they have zero legal basis for the bill. It would actually be in the EUs best interests to do this and trade at the same time, as they would at least have some basis to ask for concessions.
DD can call the EUs bluff on the Brexit bill in five seconds by offering to refer it to the ICJ IF there is a trade deal. Then, we get the trade deal and in all likelihood the EU never get any money as by law they are not entitled to anything.
The way the UK has approached Brexit so far has made the job of the EU27 and its negotiators much, much easier than it needed to be. We have allowed ourselves to come across as confrontational, obstructive, poorly prepared and incompetent - largely because we have been all those things - meaning that internal pressures on the EU27 to reach out and do a deal are almost non-existent. A sensible UK government would have been conciliatory, amicable, constructive and thorough - permanently engaged with media outlets across the EU27 to explain the UK's positions and why they make sense not just for the UK, but for the whole of Europe. When you have a weak hand willy-waving threats really don't work - unless your only interest is in getting positive headlines from right wing newspapers at home.
The EU27 want a mechanism that ensures the rights of EU citizens in the UK are not under the jurisdiction of the UK courts and are not subject to unilateral change once a Brexit deal is done. They have suggested the ECJ. The UK has come back with a counter-suggestion to ensure that the EU27 get what they want - a supra-national body to settle disputes relating to the final EU/UK agreement. In other words, they are going to achieve their objective. I am struggling to see how that is anything other than a win for them - if you choose to see things in such confrontational terms.
The ECJ is an EU body and a new supra-national body covering the UK and the EU wouldn't be.
I think Hammond would be a very poor choice. Incredibly uncharismatic figure who has done little except make a mess of the last Budget over NI contributions. Davis would be preferable but probably best in some ways to stick with May and then hand over to someone younger closer to the election. A parallel might be Enda Kenny/Leo Varadkar in Ireland. Kenny also lost lots of seats but scraped back into government. Stayed on a year or so before handing over to the next generation.
Yeah, I'm not understanding how anyone can think Hammond would be more of an electoral asset than May. He has similar levels of charisma and communication skills as her, and less gravitas.
On top of that, I also feel him not supporting gay marriage (and the same goes for Davis) will be a major black mark against him -- I get the sense that with the younger generations (by which I mean anyone under 40), supporting gay marriage is a basic test of whether someone is a decent humanbeing, rightly or wrongly. Similar to fox-hunting.
My presumption is that, if Hammond got it, it would be on the basis he would never face the electorate (outside local elections/by-elections). I think if he fancies a go at a General Election, one of the several figures in the same generation who fancies being PM would feel obliged to stand too because either Hammond has the best part of a decade as PM or hands over after defeat in 2022(ish). Neither is an attractive prospect for Johnson, Davis, or others. And, if it's contested, Hammond will struggle in the party in the country as he is a very, very grey man.
Hammond would, I think, purely be the Brexit PM, whose ultimate reputation would stand or fall on the long term, historical view of the success or failure of the 2019 deal for the UK. Is that as good as being a decade spanning, era defining PM? No, but was that ever going to be Hammond? Is it an important historical niche? Yes, 2017-19 will receive far more focus in the histories of post-war Britain than most 2 year periods.
So with the DUP deal in place it looks like there were won't be another election for a while. So the 2 key questions now are:
1) Will May survive? Parliament goes into recess on the 20th July so I feel that if May survives to then she'll probably hang on until the end of Brexit negotiations
2) Will the McDonnell amendment pass? If it passes then the left have secured the succession. As Corbyn is 70 in May 2019, he could well choose to stand down in a year or 2 and pass the baton on to someone with the same politics but without the baggage.
On the other hand if the amendment fails then Corbyn has to stay on (assuming the new intake isn't full of Corbynites). In this case it's not hard to see a renewed bout of infighting kicking off. I also wonder if in this scenario, the far left might start to look at the boundary review in a favourable light as a way of trying to replace some of the moderates.
Do any of our Labour commentators have a view on whether the amendment will pass?
if the Tories try to fight another election on "ooh, he was nice to the IRA in 1973" most people will just laugh.
That you have to shift his IRA loving all the way back to the 1970's when there is plenty of more recent material suggests you know its not quite as priced in as you'd like to portray.
So with the DUP deal in place it looks like there were won't be another election for a while. So the 2 key questions now are:
1) Will May survive? Parliament goes into recess on the 20th July so I feel that if May survives to then she'll probably hang on until the end of Brexit negotiations
2) Will the McDonnell amendment pass? If it passes then the left have secured the succession. As Corbyn is 70 in May 2019, he could well choose to stand down in a year or 2 and pass the baton on to someone with the same politics but without the baggage.
On the other hand if the amendment fails then Corbyn has to stay on (assuming the new intake isn't full of Corbynites). In this case it's not hard to see a renewed bout of infighting kicking off. I also wonder if in this scenario, the far left might start to look at the boundary review in a favourable light as a way of trying to replace some of the moderates.
Do any of our Labour commentators have a view on whether the amendment will pass?
...if the Tories try to fight another election on "ooh, he was nice to the IRA in 1973" most people will just laugh.
@Simon_Nixon: David Davis: "EU partnership will require new dispute resolution mechanism. It won't be ECJ but it will be supranational." #TimesCEOSummit
Yep - this is without doubt the case. And the UK will have to agree to be bound by it as both an arbiter of last resort and as a creator of case law. IN other words, we will continue to pool our sovereignty.
Nice try at trolling.
Almost all nations agree to an ISDR system to adjudicate on matters relating to trade treaties. This will be limited to the scope of the agreement, and it will not presume to legislate for us, nor extend its competence.
If you can't see the difference (of course you can) then I can't help you.
We will be negotiating more than a trade agreement. How many trade agreements deal with the rights of citizens already living in the relevant countries? The new body will look at specific cases and the way it decides those will affect how future cases of a similar kind will be treated in both the UK and the EU27.
The EU have raised the ECJ not to protect EU citizens, for which they care not a jot, but because they intend to try to force ECJ jurisdiction down the UKs throat for a trade deal.
If the EU do concede to the completely usual process of joint arbitration for international agreements in relation to this issue, the UK will be able to use this as a precedent for trade disputes. So the UK will get what they want. That is why the EU should never have raised it now when it is so obviously unnecessary.
BTW an arbitration panel will probably only exist in the case that the UK change their laws contrary to the eventual treaty. They will not be able to overrule the UKSC in respect of interpretation and enforcement of the law at it stands in relation to UK citizens. Casino_Royale is correct in setting out the limits of these kinds of bodies - they are not Supreme Courts.
The EU27 want a mechanism that ensures the rights of EU citizens in the UK are not under the jurisdiction of the UK courts and are not subject to unilateral change once a Brexit deal is done. They have suggested the ECJ. The UK has come back with a counter-suggestion to ensure that the EU27 get what they want - a supra-national body to settle disputes relating to the final EU/UK agreement. In other words, they are going to achieve their objective. I am struggling to see how that is anything other than a win for them - if you choose to see things in such confrontational terms.
So with the DUP deal in place it looks like there were won't be another election for a while. So the 2 key questions now are:
1) Will May survive? Parliament goes into recess on the 20th July so I feel that if May survives to then she'll probably hang on until the end of Brexit negotiations
2) Will the McDonnell amendment pass? If it passes then the left have secured the succession. As Corbyn is 70 in May 2019, he could well choose to stand down in a year or 2 and pass the baton on to someone with the same politics but without the baggage.
On the other hand if the amendment fails then Corbyn has to stay on (assuming the new intake isn't full of Corbynites). In this case it's not hard to see a renewed bout of infighting kicking off. I also wonder if in this scenario, the far left might start to look at the boundary review in a favourable light as a way of trying to replace some of the moderates.
Do any of our Labour commentators have a view on whether the amendment will pass?
I'm in favour of the McDonnell amendment and wrote an ingenious piece (well, I thought so) about why moderates should be keen:
if the Tories try to fight another election on "ooh, he was nice to the IRA in 1973" most people will just laugh.
That you have to shift his IRA loving all the way back to the 1970's when there is plenty of more recent material suggests you know its not quite as priced in as you'd like to portray.
This thread strongly makes the case for wealth rather than income taxes to encourage efficient use of ones total resources..............
My mother has owned her house for 47 years and done nothing but live in it. Her income is that of a pensioner.
What is this wealth of which you speak?
We don't know how large the house is, nor how much it is worth, but the wealth? Potentially vast compared to someone who hasn't owned a home over that period.
- The sum of the rent she hasn't paid in the last 22 years and any interest accrued on alternative investment of it, or pleasure gained in the spending of it - The larger amount of capital available to release if she chooses to move somewhere smaller / cheaper than would have been the case in a scenario of lower inflation - The ability to pay your building costs if in the future she and you decide to move her into a granny flat built as an extension to your property - A cash sum available through equity release or sale of the main property should she in the future want a higher standard of health or social care than the state is willing to provide (or indeed to spend a bit of capital going on cruises or whatever) - The eventual knowledge that her heirs will be significantly wealthier than the children of renters and social tenants, particularly relative to how much they would have been advantaged if prices hadn't risen so disproportionately
@Simon_Nixon: David Davis: "EU partnership will require new dispute resolution mechanism. It won't be ECJ but it will be supranational." #TimesCEOSummit
Yep - this is without doubt the case. And the UK will have to agree to be bound by it as both an arbiter of last resort and as a creator of case law. IN other words, we will continue to pool our sovereignty.
Is there a three-sided coin for Tyndall to flip between this new one coming, the CJEU, and the EFTA Court?
So with the DUP deal in place it looks like there were won't be another election for a while. So the 2 key questions now are:
1) Will May survive? Parliament goes into recess on the 20th July so I feel that if May survives to then she'll probably hang on until the end of Brexit negotiations
2) Will the McDonnell amendment pass? If it passes then the left have secured the succession. As Corbyn is 70 in May 2019, he could well choose to stand down in a year or 2 and pass the baton on to someone with the same politics but without the baggage.
On the other hand if the amendment fails then Corbyn has to stay on (assuming the new intake isn't full of Corbynites). In this case it's not hard to see a renewed bout of infighting kicking off. I also wonder if in this scenario, the far left might start to look at the boundary review in a favourable light as a way of trying to replace some of the moderates.
Do any of our Labour commentators have a view on whether the amendment will pass?
I'm in favour of the McDonnell amendment and wrote an ingenious piece (well, I thought so) about why moderates should be keen:
if the Tories try to fight another election on "ooh, he was nice to the IRA in 1973" most people will just laugh.
That you have to shift his IRA loving all the way back to the 1970's when there is plenty of more recent material suggests you know its not quite as priced in as you'd like to portray.
Disgusting from NP.
Supporting terrorists that want to kill us is all a bit "Meh"
Yeah, you are just repeating EU propaganda. This is how they negotiate - leak to the press about how incompetent their opponents are etc - ask the Greeks how it works. The EU simply don't like anyone negotiating with them that might say no - they seem to be offended by the fact that the UK don't look like they will roll over on demand.
In fact, the EU have positioned themselves remarkably badly for these talks because they have overestimated their hand - something they do quite frequently. They should never have raised ECJ jurisdiction because they can't win on that. They should never have tried to force the Brexit bill up front, because they have zero legal basis for the bill. It would actually be in the EUs best interests to do this and trade at the same time, as they would at least have some basis to ask for concessions.
DD can call the EUs bluff on the Brexit bill in five seconds by offering to refer it to the ICJ IF there is a trade deal. Then, we get the trade deal and in all likelihood the EU never get any money as by law they are not entitled to anything.
The way the UK has approached Brexit so far has made the job of the EU27 and its negotiators much, much easier than it needed to be. We have allowed ourselves to come across as confrontational, obstructive, poorly prepared and incompetent - largely because we have been all those things - meaning that internal pressures on the EU27 to reach out and do a deal are almost non-existent. A sensible UK government would have been conciliatory, amicable, constructive and thorough - permanently engaged with media outlets across the EU27 to explain the UK's positions and why they make sense not just for the UK, but for the whole of Europe. When you have a weak hand willy-waving threats really don't work - unless your only interest is in getting positive headlines from right wing newspapers at home.
The EU27 want a mechanism that ensures the rights of EU citizens in the UK are not under the jurisdiction of the UK courts and are not subject to unilateral change once a Brexit deal is done. They have suggested the ECJ. The UK has come back with a counter-suggestion to ensure that the EU27 get what they want - a supra-national body to settle disputes relating to the final EU/UK agreement. In other words, they are going to achieve their objective. I am struggling to see how that is anything other than a win for them - if you choose to see things in such confrontational terms.
The ECJ is an EU body and a new supra-national body covering the UK and the EU wouldn't be.
The EU have raised the ECJ not to protect EU citizens, for which they care not a jot, but because they intend to try to force ECJ jurisdiction down the UKs throat for a trade deal.
If the EU do concede to the completely usual process of joint arbitration for international agreements in relation to this issue, the UK will be able to use this as a precedent for trade disputes. So the UK will get what they want. That is why the EU should never have raised it now when it is so obviously unnecessary.
BTW an arbitration panel will probably only exist in the case that the UK change their laws contrary to the eventual treaty. They will not be able to overrule the UKSC in respect of interpretation and enforcement of the law at it stands in relation to UK citizens. Casino_Royale is correct in setting out the limits of these kinds of bodies - they are not Supreme Courts.
The EU27 want a mechanism that ensures the rights of EU citizens in the UK are not under the jurisdiction of the UK courts and are not subject to unilateral change once a Brexit deal is done. They have suggested the ECJ. The UK has come back with a counter-suggestion to ensure that the EU27 get what they want - a supra-national body to settle disputes relating to the final EU/UK agreement. In other words, they are going to achieve their objective. I am struggling to see how that is anything other than a win for them - if you choose to see things in such confrontational terms.
That's interesting. What's your basis for saying that the EU27 have no interest in protecting EU citizens?
Yeah, you are just repeating EU propaganda. This is how they negotiate - leak to the press about how incompetent their opponents are etc - ask the Greeks how it works. The EU simply don't like anyone negotiating with them that might say no - they seem to be offended by the fact that the UK don't look like they will roll over on demand.
In fact, the EU have positioned themselves remarkably badly for these talks because they have overestimated their hand - something they do quite frequently. They should never have raised ECJ jurisdiction because they can't win on that. They should never have tried to force the Brexit bill up front, because they have zero legal basis for the bill. It would actually be in the EUs best interests to do this and trade at the same time, as they would at least have some basis to ask for concessions.
DD can call the EUs bluff on the Brexit bill in five seconds by offering to refer it to the ICJ IF there is a trade deal. Then, we get the trade deal and in all likelihood the EU never get any money as by law they are not entitled to anything.
The way the UK has approached Brexit so far has made the job of the EU27 and its negotiators much, much easier than it needed to be. We have allowed ourselves to come across as confrontational, obstructive, poorly prepared and incompetent - largely because we have been all those things - meaning that internal pressures on the EU27 to reach out and do a deal are almost non-existent. A sensible UK government would have been conciliatory, amicable, constructive and thorough - permanently engaged with media outlets across the EU27 to explain the UK's positions and why they make sense not just for the UK, but for the whole of Europe. When you have a weak hand willy-waving threats really don't work - unless your only interest is in getting positive headlines from right wing newspapers at home.
The EU27 want a mechanism that ensures the rights of EU citizens in the UK are not under the jurisdiction of the UK courts and are not subject to unilateral change once a Brexit deal is done. They have suggested the ECJ. The UK has come back with a counter-suggestion to ensure that the EU27 get what they want - a supra-national body to settle disputes relating to the final EU/UK agreement. In other words, they are going to achieve their objective. I am struggling to see how that is anything other than a win for them - if you choose to see things in such confrontational terms.
The ECJ is an EU body and a new supra-national body covering the UK and the EU wouldn't be.
And we wouldn't be in control of it.
We'd be a damn sight more in control of it than of the ECJ...
Maybe because staying in the Customs Union means charging the EU Common External Tariff on all non-EU goods that pass the border, and since the UK has more trade with the RoW than the EU perhaps we don't want to do this? Or because we want to sign our own trade deals with the large portion of the World economy that the EU has been unable to secure?
For once I agree with Hammond - we need a separate customs agreement with the EU.
Yeah, you are just repeating EU propaganda. This is how they negotiate - leak to the press about how incompetent their opponents are etc - ask the Greeks how it works. The EU simply don't like anyone negotiating with them that might say no - they seem to be offended by the fact that the UK don't look like they will roll over on demand.
In fact, the EU have positioned th DD can call the EUs bluff on the Brexit bill in five seconds by offering to refer it to the ICJ IF there is a trade deal. Then, we get the trade deal and in all likelihood the EU never get any money as by law they are not entitled to anything.
The way the UK has approached Brexit so far has made the job of the EU27 and its negotiators much, much easier than it needed to be. We have allowed ourselves to come across as confrontational, obstructive, poorly prepared and incompetent - largely because we have been all those things - meaning that internal pressures on the EU27 to reach out and do a deal are almost non-existent. A sensible UK government would have been conciliatory, amicable, constructive and thorough - permanently engaged with media outlets across the EU27 to explain the UK's positions and why they make sense not just for the UK, but for the whole of Europe. When you have a weak hand willy-waving threats really don't work - unless your only interest is in getting positive headlines from right wing newspapers at home.
The EU27 want a mechanism that ensures the rights of EU citizens in the UK are not under the jurisdiction of the UK courts and are not subject to unilateral change once a Brexit deal is done. They have suggested the ECJ. The UK has come back with a counter-suggestion to ensure that the EU27 get what they want - a supra-national body to settle disputes relating to the final EU/UK agreement. In other words, they are going to achieve their objective. I am struggling to see how that is anything other than a win for them - if you choose to see things in such confrontational terms.
The ECJ is an EU body and a new supra-national body covering the UK and the EU wouldn't be.
And we wouldn't be in control of it.
We'd be a damn sight more in control of it than of the ECJ...
Yeah, you are just repeating EU propaganda. This is how they negotiate - leak to the press about how incompetent their opponents are etc - ask the Greeks how it works. The EU simply don't like anyone negotiating with them that might say no - they seem to be offended by the fact that the UK don't look like they will roll over on demand.
In fact, the EU have positioned themselves remarkably badly for these talks because they have overestimated their hand - something they do quite frequently. They should never have raised ECJ jurisdiction because they can't win on that. They should never have tried to force the Brexit bill up front, because they have zero legal basis for the bill. It would actually be in the EUs best interests to do this and trade at the same time, as they would at least have some basis to ask for concessions.
DD can call the EUs bluff on the Brexit bill in five seconds by offering to refer it to the ICJ IF there is a trade deal. Then, we get the trade deal and in all likelihood the EU never get any money as by law they are not entitled to anything.
The EU27 want a mechanism that ensures the rights of EU citizens in the UK are not under the jurisdiction of the UK courts and are not subject to unilateral change once a Brexit deal is done. They have suggested the ECJ. The UK has come back with a counter-suggestion to ensure that the EU27 get what they want - a supra-national body to settle disputes relating to the final EU/UK agreement. In other words, they are going to achieve their objective. I am struggling to see how that is anything other than a win for them - if you choose to see things in such confrontational terms.
The ECJ is an EU body and a new supra-national body covering the UK and the EU wouldn't be.
And we wouldn't be in control of it.
Yes, we'd be pooling our sovereignty. I am sure I have heard that somewhere before.
So with the DUP deal in place it looks like there were won't be another election for a while. So the 2 key questions now are:
1) Will May survive? Parliament goes into recess on the 20th July so I feel that if May survives to then she'll probably hang on until the end of Brexit negotiations
2) Will the McDonnell amendment pass? If it passes then the left have secured the succession. As Corbyn is 70 in May 2019, he could well choose to stand down in a year or 2 and pass the baton on to someone with the same politics but without the baggage.
On the other hand if the amendment fails then Corbyn has to stay on (assuming the new intake isn't full of Corbynites). In this case it's not hard to see a renewed bout of infighting kicking off. I also wonder if in this scenario, the far left might start to look at the boundary review in a favourable light as a way of trying to replace some of the moderates.
Do any of our Labour commentators have a view on whether the amendment will pass?
I'm in favour of the McDonnell amendment and wrote an ingenious piece (well, I thought so) about why moderates should be keen:
if the Tories try to fight another election on "ooh, he was nice to the IRA in 1973" most people will just laugh.
That you have to shift his IRA loving all the way back to the 1970's when there is plenty of more recent material suggests you know its not quite as priced in as you'd like to portray.
Disgusting from NP.
Probably substantively right that once a character assassination - whether well-founded or not - has been deployed and failed against a given individual, it is probably even less powerful at the second time of asking, in the absence of significant new information.
Yeah, you are just repeating EU propaganda. This is how they negotiate - leak to the press about how incompetent their opponents are etc - ask the Greeks how it works. The EU simply don't like anyone negotiating with them that might say no - they seem to be offended by the fact that the UK don't look like they will roll over on demand.
In fact, the EU have positioned th DD can call the EUs bluff on the Brexit bill in five seconds by offering to refer it to the ICJ IF there is a trade deal. Then, we get the trade deal and in all likelihood the EU never get any money as by law they are not entitled to anything.
The way the UK has approached Brexit so far has made the job of the EU27 and its negotiators much, much easier than it needed to be. We have allowed ourselves to come across as confrontational, obstructive, poorly prepared and incompetent - largely because we have been all those things - meaning that internal pressures on the EU27 to reach out and do a deal are almost non-existent. A sensible UK government would have been conciliatory, amicable, constructive and thorough - permanently engaged with media outlets across the EU27 to explain the UK's positions and why they make sense not just for the UK, but for the whole of Europe. When you have a weak hand willy-waving threats really don't work - unless your only interest is in getting positive headlines from right wing newspapers at home.
The EU27 want a mechanism that ensures the rights of EU citizens in the UK are not under the jurisdiction of the UK courts and are not subject to unilateral change once a Brexit deal is done. They have suggested the ECJ. The UK has come back with a counter-suggestion to ensure that the EU27 get what they want - a supra-national body to settle disputes relating to the final EU/UK agreement. In other words, they are going to achieve their objective. I am struggling to see how that is anything other than a win for them - if you choose to see things in such confrontational terms.
The ECJ is an EU body and a new supra-national body covering the UK and the EU wouldn't be.
And we wouldn't be in control of it.
We'd be a damn sight more in control of it than of the ECJ...
How so?
Because the ECJ is an EU body and a new supra-national body covering the UK and the EU wouldn't be...
So with the DUP deal in place it looks like there were won't be another election for a while. So the 2 key questions now are:
1) Will May survive? Parliament goes into recess on the 20th July so I feel that if May survives to then she'll probably hang on until the end of Brexit negotiations
2) Will the McDonnell amendment pass? If it passes then the left have secured the succession. As Corbyn is 70 in May 2019, he could well choose to stand down in a year or 2 and pass the baton on to someone with the same politics but without the baggage.
On the other hand if the amendment fails then Corbyn has to stay on (assuming the new intake isn't full of Corbynites). In this case it's not hard to see a renewed bout of infighting kicking off. I also wonder if in this scenario, the far left might start to look at the boundary review in a favourable light as a way of trying to replace some of the moderates.
Do any of our Labour commentators have a view on whether the amendment will pass?
I'm in favour of the McDonnell amendment and wrote an ingenious piece (well, I thought so) about why moderates should be keen:
if the Tories try to fight another election on "ooh, he was nice to the IRA in 1973" most people will just laugh.
That you have to shift his IRA loving all the way back to the 1970's when there is plenty of more recent material suggests you know its not quite as priced in as you'd like to portray.
Disgusting from NP.
Supporting terrorists that want to kill us is all a bit "Meh"
Labour in 2017.
How about a time limited amnesty for supporting ISIS ? We can all have a good meh at the 2017 attacks in the future.
In reality, of course, people do have alternatives - people who own most or all of their home in London could move to very many other places, both in this country or across the world, easily find a new property to meet all of their needs, and be left with a significant lump sum and greatly reduced need for income. Similarly people can move to smaller properties, rent, etc.
On the same basis, you can gain money from your car by selling it and buying a cheaper one. Perhaps there should be CGT on doing that, too?
It would be sensible to try and tackle the housing bubble by gradually and progressively moving taxation toward property wealth, balanced off by reductions in other taxation such as stamp duty.
My mother has owned the same house since 1970. At what point did she become wealthy? Does someone with a £1 million house and a £750k mortgage have more or less property wealth than someone in a £400k house with no mortgage? Why not also have taxes on the sum of people's savings?
The fixed taxes for owning a flat in New York are about ten times those in London.
Mortgage payments are tax deductible, however.
The simplest thing might just be a "You've Got A Bigger House Than Me And I Fucking Want It" tax. Its level could be determined by Momentum supporters driving around pointing at houses and thinking of a number. That's what all these ideas amount to; they are just wheezes to label inflation as profit so as to justify taking it off people who don't vote for you anyway.
Maybe because staying in the Customs Union means charging the EU Common External Tariff on all non-EU goods that pass the border, and since the UK has more trade with the RoW than the EU perhaps we don't want to do this? Or because we want to sign our own trade deals with the large portion of the World economy that the EU has been unable to secure?
For once I agree with Hammond - we need a separate customs agreement with the EU.
Yeah, you are just repeating EU propaganda. This is how they negotiate - leak to the press about how incompetent their opponents are etc - ask the Greeks how it works. The EU simply don't like anyone negotiating with them that might say no - they seem to be offended by the fact that the UK don't look like they will roll over on demand.
In fact, the EU have positioned themselves remarkably badly for these talks because they have overestimated their hand - something they do quite frequently. They should never have raised ECJ jurisdiction because they can't win on that. They should never have tried to force the Brexit bill up front, because they have zero legal basis for the bill. It would actually be in the EUs best interests to do this and trade at the same time, as they would at least have some basis to ask for concessions.
DD can call the EUs bluff on the Brexit bill in five seconds by offering to refer it to the ICJ IF there is a trade deal. Then, we get the trade deal and in all likelihood the EU never get any money as by law they are not entitled to anything.
The EU27 want a mechanism that ensures the rights of EU citizens in the UK are not under the jurisdiction of the UK courts and are not subject to unilateral change once a Brexit deal is done. They have suggested the ECJ. The UK has come back with a counter-suggestion to ensure that the EU27 get what they want - a supra-national body to settle disputes relating to the final EU/UK agreement. In other words, they are going to achieve their objective. I am struggling to see how that is anything other than a win for them - if you choose to see things in such confrontational terms.
The ECJ is an EU body and a new supra-national body covering the UK and the EU wouldn't be.
So what? The EU27 will get what they want: a non-UK mechanism to protect the interests of EU citizens and businesses in the UK. Of course, the UK will also get what it wants: it will not be the ECJ. Everybody wins. That's good, isn't it?
Yeah, you are just repeating EU propaganda. This is how they negotiate - leak to the press about how incompetent their opponents are etc - ask the Greeks how it works. The EU simply don't like anyone negotiating with them that might say no - they seem to be offended by the fact that the UK don't look like they will roll over on demand.
In fact, the EU have positioned th DD can call the EUs bluff on the Brexit bill in five seconds by offering to refer it to the ICJ IF there is a trade deal. Then, we get the trade deal and in all likelihood the EU never get any money as by law they are not entitled to anything.
The way the UK has approa deal are almost non-existent. A sensible UK government would have been conciliatory, amicable, constructive and thorough - permanently engaged with media outlets across the EU27 to explain the UK's positions and why they make sense not just for the UK, but for the whole of Europe. When you have a weak hand willy-waving threats really don't work - unless your only interest is in getting positive headlines from right wing newspapers at home.
The EU27 want a mechanism that ensures the rights of EU citizens in the UK are not under the jurisdiction of the UK courts and are not subject to unilateral change once a Brexit deal is done. They have suggested the ECJ. The UK has come back with a counter-suggestion to ensure that the EU27 get what they want - a supra-national body to settle disputes relating to the final EU/UK agreement. In other words, they are going to achieve their objective. I am struggling to see how that is anything other than a win for them - if you choose to see things in such confrontational terms.
The ECJ is an EU body and a new supra-national body covering the UK and the EU wouldn't be.
And we wouldn't be in control of it.
We'd be a damn sight more in control of it than of the ECJ...
How so?
Because the ECJ is an EU body and a new supra-national body covering the UK and the EU wouldn't be...
It would be opining on matters pertaining to the UK. It would sit above the UK and presumably (not read the detail) its decision would be final.
I don't get why being an EU body per se is less controllable.
Yeah, you are just repeating EU propaganda. This is how they negotiate - leak to the press about how incompetent their opponents are etc - ask the Greeks how it works. The EU simply don't like anyone negotiating with them that might say no - they seem to be offended by the fact that the UK don't look like they will roll over on demand.
In fact, the EU have positioned themselves remarkably badly for these talks because they have overestimated their hand - something they do quite frequently. They should never have raised ECJ jurisdiction because they can't win on that. They should never have tried to force the Brexit bill up front, because they have zero legal basis for the bill. It would actually be in the EUs best interests to do this and trade at the same time, as they would at least have some basis to ask for concessions.
DD can call the EUs bluff on the Brexit bill in five seconds by offering to refer it to the ICJ IF there is a trade deal. Then, we get the trade deal and in all likelihood the EU never get any money as by law they are not entitled to anything.
The way the UK has approached Brexit so far has made the job of the EU27 and its negotiators much, much easier than it needed to be. We have allowed ourselves to come across as confrontational, obstructive, poorly prepared and incompetent - largely because we have been all those things - meaning that internal pressures on the EU27 to reach out and do a deal are almost non-existent. A sensible UK government would have been conciliatory, amicable, constructive and thorough - permanently engaged with media outlets across the EU27 to explain the UK's positions and why they make sense not just for the UK, but for the whole of Europe. When you have a weak hand willy-waving threats really don't work - unless your only interest is in getting positive headlines from right wing newspapers at home.
The EU27 want a mechanism that ensures the rights of EU citizens in the UK are not under the jurisdiction of the UK courts and are not subject to unilateral change once a Brexit deal is done. They have suggested the ECJ. The UK has come back with a counter-suggestion to ensure that the EU27 get what they want - a supra-national body to settle disputes relating to the final EU/UK agreement. In other words, they are going to achieve their objective. I am struggling to see how that is anything other than a win for them - if you choose to see things in such confrontational terms.
The loss for the EU is simple - if they don't have ECJ control, then the agreement cannot be moved later by the use of case law. The ECJ is the legal tool of the EU to further integration, EFTA court for example, simply adjudicates the EEA agreement.
The behaviour of the EU elite in relation to Greece and the huge damage it has done to their citizens for the benefit of bankers? Or the devastation they caused throughout Southern Europe just so they could uphold their dream of the single currency? Forcing EU citizens to 'bail-into' banks against their interests and legal rights? Completely ignoring the views of the majority of EU citizens who want their own nations to set refugee and immigration policy?
EU citizen rights post-Brexit are just part of the game for them. Part of trying to extend EU law and policy over non-EU countries within Europe as they have done continually. The ECJ gambit adds nothing to the protection of these people, as the UK clearly don't have the slightest intention of reneging on a citizens rights deal that they are actually proposing.
@Simon_Nixon: David Davis: "EU partnership will require new dispute resolution mechanism. It won't be ECJ but it will be supranational." #TimesCEOSummit
Yep - this is without doubt the case. And the UK will have to agree to be bound by it as both an arbiter of last resort and as a creator of case law. IN other words, we will continue to pool our sovereignty.
Nice try at trolling.
Almost all nations agree to an ISDR system to adjudicate on matters relating to trade treaties. This will be limited to the scope of the agreement, and it will not presume to legislate for us, nor extend its competence.
If you can't see the difference (of course you can) then I can't help you.
Hmm accusing SO of trolling?
What's proposed isn't an ISDR type system. They are looking for a way where the EU doesn't have to change its behaviour in any way and will remain subject to EU law and the ECJ case law for everything that pertains to the relationship with the UK, while not formally subjecting the UK side of that relationship to a court that has no jurisdiction in the UK. Jurisdiction and sovereignty are big issues that can't be wished away. Nevertheless the circle has to squared. We need to find a way of implementing ECJ without being subject to it formally.
In reality, of course, people do have alternatives - people who own most or all of their home in London could move to very many other places, both in this country or across the world, easily find a new property to meet all of their needs, and be left with a significant lump sum and greatly reduced need for income. Similarly people can move to smaller properties, rent, etc.
On the same basis, you can gain money from your car by selling it and buying a cheaper one. Perhaps there should be CGT on doing that, too?
It would be sensible to try and tackle the housing bubble by gradually and progressively moving taxation toward property wealth, balanced off by reductions in other taxation such as stamp duty.
My mother has owned the same house since 1970. At what point did she become wealthy? Does someone with a £1 million house and a £750k mortgage have more or less property wealth than someone in a £400k house with no mortgage? Why not also have taxes on the sum of people's savings?
The fixed taxes for owning a flat in New York are about ten times those in London.
Mortgage payments are tax deductible, however.
The simplest thing might just be a "You've Got A Bigger House Than Me And I Fucking Want It" tax. Its level could be determined by Momentum supporters driving around pointing at houses and thinking of a number. That's what all these ideas amount to; they are just wheezes to label inflation as profit so as to justify taking it off people who don't vote for you anyway.
It is rare to sell a car for more than paid, therefore no CGT.
For CGT we just need proper taper relief.
Simpler still is to tax inheritance as income for the tax year in which the recipient gets the windfall.
I have an idea that a large amount of UK citizens living in the EU live in Ireland, who also have Irish passports or could apply for one. Another large amount will simply have holiday homes they see for one month a year. How many UK citizens really settled in the EU are there?
So with the DUP deal in place it looks like there were won't be another election for a while. So the 2 key questions now are:
1) Will May survive? Parliament goes into recess on the 20th July so I feel that if May survives to then she'll probably hang on until the end of Brexit negotiations
2) Will the McDonnell amendment pass? If it passes then the left have secured the succession. As Corbyn is 70 in May 2019, he could well choose to stand down in a year or 2 and pass the baton on to someone with the same politics but without the baggage.
On the other hand if the amendment fails then Corbyn has to stay on (assuming the new intake isn't full of Corbynites). In this case it's not hard to see a renewed bout of infighting kicking off. I also wonder if in this scenario, the far left might start to look at the boundary review in a favourable light as a way of trying to replace some of the moderates.
Do any of our Labour commentators have a view on whether the amendment will pass?
I'm in favour of the McDonnell amendment and wrote an ingenious piece (well, I thought so) about why moderates should be keen:
if the Tories try to fight another election on "ooh, he was nice to the IRA in 1973" most people will just laugh.
That you have to shift his IRA loving all the way back to the 1970's when there is plenty of more recent material suggests you know its not quite as priced in as you'd like to portray.
Disgusting from NP.
Supporting terrorists that want to kill us is all a bit "Meh"
Labour in 2017.
How about a time limited amnesty for supporting ISIS ? We can all have a good meh at the 2017 attacks in the future.
If Corbyn becomes PM, IS supporting types will be invited into "dialogue" that will result in compromise/positions of power.
People may scoff, but in 1985 you wouldn't have got a price on Martin McGuiness's death being anything other than a break dance party, instead our officials were reading teary eyed tributes
@JGForsyth: Hammond using a foreign trip to attack Boris shows how much tension there is in Tory top rank and why there can’t be a leadership coronation
100% correct. The ECJ is a political court, not a genuine independent legal body. Whatever agreement was made, if the ECJ were responsible they would re-interpret it to be whatever the EU Commission want it to be.
The loss for the EU is simple - if they don't have ECJ control, then the agreement cannot be moved later by the use of case law. The ECJ is the legal tool of the EU to further integration, EFTA court for example, simply adjudicates the EEA agreement.
In reality, of course, people do have alternatives - people who own most or all of their home in London could move to very many other places, both in this country or across the world, easily find a new property to meet all of their needs, and be left with a significant lump sum and greatly reduced need for income. Similarly people can move to smaller properties, rent, etc.
On the same basis, you can gain money from your car by selling it and buying a cheaper one. Perhaps there should be CGT on doing that, too?
It would be sensible to try and tackle the housing bubble by gradually and progressively moving taxation toward property wealth, balanced off by reductions in other taxation such as stamp duty.
My mother has owned the same house since 1970. At what point did she become wealthy? Does someone with a £1 million house and a £750k mortgage have more or less property wealth than someone in a £400k house with no mortgage? Why not also have taxes on the sum of people's savings?
The fixed taxes for owning a flat in New York are about ten times those in London.
Mortgage payments are tax deductible, however.
The simplest thing might just be a "You've Got A Bigger House Than Me And I Fucking Want It" tax. Its level could be determined by Momentum supporters driving around pointing at houses and thinking of a number. That's what all these ideas amount to; they are just wheezes to label inflation as profit so as to justify taking it off people who don't vote for you anyway.
It is rare to sell a car for more than paid, therefore no CGT.
For CGT we just need proper taper relief.
Simpler still is to tax inheritance as income for the tax year in which the recipient gets the windfall.
Cars, even classic cars, are not CGT taxable as they are classed as wasting asset with a useful life of less than 50 years. It's payable on business vehicles or cars not designed for road use like racing cars. So, for example, if you have the choice of owning a jaguar owned by The Queen or a painting done by her, both worth £1 million, the jaguar is the more tax efficient investment.
There is CGT on shares, but you can sell the Barclays shares every year and set the gains off against your annual CGT allowance. You can also transfer some into an ISA every year so that after 20 years you'd have all your gains in a tax free wrapper.
So while shares attract CGT, there are ways to manage its impact to nil.
I don't see the point of indexing. The best index would be no CGT at all. Consider the following farcical situation. Fred buys a wreck of a semi for £500k and spends £100k doing it up. It sells for £575k, so he is charged CGT on the £75k "gain" even though it owes him £600k.
Bob buys the other half of the semi, also a wreck, does nothing to it and a year later he also sells for £575k. His CGT bill is the same as Fred's.
Equitable, or stupid?
Why is Bob's semi worth £575k if he hasn't done it up? Surely Fred's is worth more if he has done something useful to it? I'm not sure these examples are all that helpful at this stage.
Anyway - you can argue that all capital gains tax should be zero or tat they should be zero on housing. I think you're totally wrong but it's arguable where the burden of taxation should fall.
What you can't argue is that capital gains don't exist at all - and the enormous increase in value of London property clearly is a case of an asset increasing far more than inflation.
It's worth that because general inflation has seen to it, alongside the fact that potential buyers don't like Fred's improvements, Bob is not in a chain, and Fred has spent so much on the house he has a broken-down Ford on the drive, whereas Bob has a new PCP Mercedes. First impressions count.
And of course I can argue that capital gains don't exist. You are confusing gain with inflation. If there were a gain, I could sell my house bought for £900k in 2012, sell it for £1.3 million and spend the £400k. I'd then be able to buy a similar house in a similar area for the 2012 price, because there's apparently been no inflation.
Please point to how I can do this. I'd love to have £400k of free money to spend.
Yeah, you are just repeating EU propaganda. This is how they negotiate - leak to the press about how incompetent their opponents are etc - ask the Greeks how it works. The EU simply don't like anyone negotiating with them that might say no - they seem to be offended by the fact that the UK don't look like they will roll over on demand.
In fact, the EU have positioned themselves remarkably badly for these talks because they have overestimated their hand - something they do quite frequently. They should never have raised ECJ jurisdiction because they can't win on that. They should never have tried to force the Brexit bill up front, because they have zero legal basis for the bill. It would actually be in the EUs best interests to do this and trade at the same time, as they would at least have some basis to ask for concessions.
DD can call the EUs bluff on the Brexit bill in five seconds by offering to refer it to the ICJ IF there is a trade deal. Then, we get the trade deal and in all likelihood the EU never get any money as by law they are not entitled to anything.
The EU27 want a mechanism that ensures the rights of EU citizens in the UK are not under the jurisdiction of the UK courts and are not subject to unilateral change once a Brexit deal is done. They have suggested the ECJ. The UK has come back with a counter-suggestion to ensure that the EU27 get what they want - a supra-national body to settle disputes relating to the final EU/UK agreement. In other words, they are going to achieve their objective. I am struggling to see how that is anything other than a win for them - if you choose to see things in such confrontational terms.
The ECJ is an EU body and a new supra-national body covering the UK and the EU wouldn't be.
So what?
The EU wants an EU body, we want an independent body.
Yeah, you are just repeating EU propaganda. This is how they negotiate - leak to the press about how incompetent their opponents are etc - ask the Greeks how it works. The EU simply don't like anyone negotiating with them that might say no - they seem to be offended by the fact that the UK don't look like they will roll over on demand.
In fact, the EU have positioned th DD can call the EUs bluff on the Brexit bill in five seconds by offering to refer it to the ICJ IF there is a trade deal. Then, we get the trade deal and in all likelihood the EU never get any money as by law they are not entitled to anything.
The way the UK has approa deal are almost non-existent. A sensible UK government would have been conciliatory, amicable, constructive and thorough - permanently engaged with media outlets across the EU27 to explain the UK's positions and why they make sense not just for the UK, but for the whole of Europe. When you have a weak hand willy-waving threats really don't work - unless your only interest is in getting positive headlines from right wing newspapers at home.
The EU27 want a mechanism that ensures the rights of EU citizens in the UK are not under the jurisdiction of the UK courts and are not subject to unilateral change once a Brexit deal is done. They have suggested the ECJ. The UK has come back with a counter-suggestion to ensure that the EU27 get what they want - a supra-national body to settle disputes relating to the final EU/UK agreement. In other words, they are going to achieve their objective. I am struggling to see how that is anything other than a win for them - if you choose to see things in such confrontational terms.
The ECJ is an EU body and a new supra-national body covering the UK and the EU wouldn't be.
And we wouldn't be in control of it.
We'd be a damn sight more in control of it than of the ECJ...
How so?
Because the ECJ is an EU body and a new supra-national body covering the UK and the EU wouldn't be...
It would be opining on matters pertaining to the UK. It would sit above the UK and presumably (not read the detail) its decision would be final.
I don't get why being an EU body per se is less controllable.
Yeah, you are just repeating EU propaganda. This is how they negotiate - leak to the press about how incompetent their opponents are etc - ask the Greeks how it works. The EU simply don't like anyone negotiating with them that might say no - they seem to be offended by the fact that the UK don't look like they will roll over on demand.
In fact, the EU have positioned th DD can call the EUs bluff on the Brexit bare not entitled to anything.
The way the UK has approa deal are almost non-existent. A sensible UK government would have been conciliatory, amicable, constructive and thorough - permanently engaged with media outlets across the EU27 to explain the UK's positions and why they make sense not just for the UK, but for the whole of Europe. When you have a weak hand willy-waving threats really don't work - unless your only interest is in getting positive headlines from right wing newspapers at home.
The EU27 want a mechanism that ensures the rights of EU citizens in the UK are not under the jurisdiction of the UK courts and are not subject to unilateral change once a Brexit deal is done. They have suggested the ECJ. The UK has come back with a counter-suggestion to ensure that the EU27 get what they want - a supra-national body to settle disputes relating to the final EU/UK agreement. In other words, they are going to achieve their objective. I am struggling to see how that is anything other than a win for them - if you choose to see things in such confrontational terms.
The ECJ is an EU body and a new supra-national body covering the UK and the EU wouldn't be.
And we wouldn't be in control of it.
We'd be a damn sight more in control of it than of the ECJ...
How so?
Because the ECJ is an EU body and a new supra-national body covering the UK and the EU wouldn't be...
It would be opining on matters pertaining to the UK. It would sit above the UK and presumably (not read the detail) its decision would be final.
I don't get why being an EU body per se is less controllable.
Because the EU itself will be a party.
Yes I see that; but it's back to Tyndall's preferred flavour of supranational body opining over us.
The academic theory behind Brexit was taking back control. If you leave the EU out of it for a moment (!), then we are ceding control to someone that is not us. How is that sovereignty-enhancing?
Yeah, you are just repeating EU propaganda. This is how they negotiate - leak to the press about how incompetent their opponents are etc - ask the Greeks how it works. The EU simply don't like anyone negotiating with them that might say no - they seem to be offended by the fact that the UK don't look like they will roll over on demand.
In fact, the EU have positioned themselves remarkably badly for these talks because they have overestimated their hand - something they do quite frequently. They should never have raised ECJ jurisdiction because they can't win on that. They should never have tried to force the Brexit bill up front, because they have zero legal basis for the bill. It would actually be in the EUs best interests to do this and trade at the same time, as they would at least have some basis to ask for concessions.
DD can call the EUs bluff on the Brexit bill in five seconds by offering to refer it to the ICJ IF there is a trade deal. Then, we get the trade deal and in all likelihood the EU never get any money as by law they are not entitled to anything.
The EU27 want a mechanism that ensures the rights of EU citizens in the UK are not under the jurisdiction of the UK courts and are not subject to unilateral change once a Brexit deal is done. They have suggested the ECJ. The UK has come back with a counter-suggestion to ensure that the EU27 get what they want - a supra-national body to settle disputes relating to the final EU/UK agreement. In other words, they are going to achieve their objective. I am struggling to see how that is anything other than a win for them - if you choose to see things in such confrontational terms.
The loss for the EU is simple - if they don't have ECJ control, then the agreement cannot be moved later by the use of case law. The ECJ is the legal tool of the EU to further integration, EFTA court for example, simply adjudicates the EEA agreement.
The ECJ interprets EU Treaties. The new body will interpret the EU/UK treaty. On that basis, it will be just as capable of creating case law as the ECJ. And assuming it is staffed by British and EU27 judges it will be composed of judges with a common background in EU law. Of course, right now the ECJ decides against individual EU member states and against the Commission on a regular basis. The idea that it is some kind of tool and not an entirely independent body is somewhat ludicrous.
@JGForsyth: Hammond using a foreign trip to attack Boris shows how much tension there is in Tory top rank and why there can’t be a leadership coronation
Hammond isn't in the Brexit team - he's just GO without the salary in roubles.
There is CGT on shares, but you can sell the Barclays shares every year and set the gains off against your annual CGT allowance. You can also transfer some into an ISA every year so that after 20 years you'd have all your gains in a tax free wrapper.
So while shares attract CGT, there are ways to manage its impact to nil.
I don't see the point of indexing. The best index would be no CGT at all. Consider the following farcical situation. Fred buys a wreck of a semi for £500k and spends £100k doing it up. It sells for £575k, so he is charged CGT on the £75k "gain" even though it owes him £600k.
Bob buys the other half of the semi, also a wreck, does nothing to it and a year later he also sells for £575k. His CGT bill is the same as Fred's.
Equitable, or stupid?
Why is Bob's semi worth £575k if he hasn't done it up? Surely Fred's is worth more if he has done something useful to it? I'm not sure these examples are all that helpful at this stage.
Anyway - you can argue that all capital gains tax should be zero or tat they should be zero on housing. I think you're totally wrong but it's arguable where the burden of taxation should fall.
What you can't argue is that capital gains don't exist at all - and the enormous increase in value of London property clearly is a case of an asset increasing far more than inflation.
It's worth that because general inflation has seen to it, alongside the fact that potential buyers don't like Fred's improvements, Bob is not in a chain, and Fred has spent so much on the house he has a broken-down Ford on the drive, whereas Bob has a new PCP Mercedes. First impressions count.
And of course I can argue that capital gains don't exist. You are confusing gain with inflation. If there were a gain, I could sell my house bought for £900k in 2012, sell it for £1.3 million and spend the £400k. I'd then be able to buy a similar house in a similar area for the 2012 price, because there's apparently been no inflation.
Please point to how I can do this. I'd love to have £400k of free money to spend.
Remortgage. Take your £400k and spend it on things that are not houses. Many have done it, and it works because house-price inflation has vastly outstripped almost everything else. Or forget houses and do the same with your Rembrandt paintings. If you've made a killing on Apple shares, say you bought at £1 and they are now £500, you can sell them and spend the money on round the world cruises. Of course, if you sell the Apple shares and want to spend the money on buying Apple shares, you've not made anything.
In reality, of course, people do have alternatives - people who own most or all of their home in London could move to very many other places, both in this country or across the world, easily find a new property to meet all of their needs, and be left with a significant lump sum and greatly reduced need for income. Similarly people can move to smaller properties, rent, etc.
On the same basis, you can gain money from your car by selling it and buying a cheaper one. Perhaps there should be CGT on doing that, too?
It would be sensible to try and tackle the housing bubble by gradually and progressively moving taxation toward property wealth, balanced off by reductions in other taxation such as stamp duty.
My mother has owned the same house since 1970. At what point did she become wealthy? Does someone with a £1 million house and a £750k mortgage have more or less property wealth than someone in a £400k house with no mortgage? Why not also have taxes on the sum of people's savings?
The fixed taxes for owning a flat in New York are about ten times those in London.
Mortgage payments are tax deductible, however.
The simplest thing might just be a "You've Got A Bigger House Than Me And I Fucking Want It" tax. Its level could be determined by Momentum supporters driving around pointing at houses and thinking of a number. That's what all these ideas amount to; they are just wheezes to label inflation as profit so as to justify taking it off people who don't vote for you anyway.
It is rare to sell a car for more than paid, therefore no CGT.
For CGT we just need proper taper relief.
Simpler still is to tax inheritance as income for the tax year in which the recipient gets the windfall.
If I buy a used car for £10,000 I could immediately sell it for £4,000. I'd then have a gain of £6,000 by the above logic.
The idea of taxing inheritance as income would result in higher tax on people in the south than the north, and different tax rates between beneficiaries of the same will. Lots of scope to fiddle that.
In the north you can inherit the average house tax free; in the south you have to sell it to pay the tax on it and what's left does not then buy a house.
Simplest of all is for the state to spend within its means.
@JGForsyth: Hammond using a foreign trip to attack Boris shows how much tension there is in Tory top rank and why there can’t be a leadership coronation
There is CGT on shares, but you can sell the Barclays shares every year and set the gains off against your annual CGT allowance. You can also transfer some into an ISA every year so that after 20 years you'd have all your gains in a tax free wrapper.
So while shares attract CGT, there are ways to manage its impact to nil.
I don't see the point of indexing. The best index would be no CGT at all. Consider the following farcical situation. Fred buys a wreck of a semi for £500k and spends £100k doing it up. It sells for £575k, so he is charged CGT on the £75k "gain" even though it owes him £600k.
Bob buys the other half of the semi, also a wreck, does nothing to it and a year later he also sells for £575k. His CGT bill is the same as Fred's.
Equitable, or stupid?
Why is Bob's semi worth £575k if he hasn't done it up? Surely Fred's is worth more if he has done something useful to it? I'm not sure these examples are all that helpful at this stage.
Anyway - you can argue that all capital gains tax should be zero or tat they should be zero on housing. I think you're totally wrong but it's arguable where the burden of taxation should fall.
What you can't argue is that capital gains don't exist at all - and the enormous increase in value of London property clearly is a case of an asset increasing far more than inflation.
It's worth that because general inflation has seen to it, alongside the fact that potential buyers don't like Fred's improvements, Bob is not in a chain, and Fred has spent so much on the house he has a broken-down Ford on the drive, whereas Bob has a new PCP Mercedes. First impressions count.
And of course I can argue that capital gains don't exist. You are confusing gain with inflation. If there were a gain, I could sell my house bought for £900k in 2012, sell it for £1.3 million and spend the £400k. I'd then be able to buy a similar house in a similar area for the 2012 price, because there's apparently been no inflation.
Please point to how I can do this. I'd love to have £400k of free money to spend.
Okay I don't understand the Fred and Bob thing but let's park that.
Let's say instead of going up, property prices in London had crashed.
Imagine your house was worth £50k now. Well you could sell it and then you could buy another one in London the same for £50k.
Are you really saying you wouldn't be any poorer if that had happened vs what has happened in reality?
The point is not that you can't buy the exact same thing for less...
The point is what has happened to the value of your asset against what has happened to other prices. That could be house prices on average or overall inflation which is a basket of prices.
In 2012 you could have bought 4 nice houses in Northampton, now you can buy 5 etc.
There is CGT on shares, but you can sell the Barclays shares every year and set the gains off against your annual CGT allowance. You can also transfer some into an ISA every year so that after 20 years you'd have all your gains in a tax free wrapper.
So while shares attract CGT, there are ways to manage its impact to nil.
I don't see the point of indexing. The best index would be no CGT at all. Consider the following farcical situation. Fred buys a wreck of a semi for £500k and spends £100k doing it up. It sells for £575k, so he is charged CGT on the £75k "gain" even though it owes him £600k.
Bob buys the other half of the semi, also a wreck, does nothing to it and a year later he also sells for £575k. His CGT bill is the same as Fred's.
Equitable, or stupid?
Why is Bob's semi worth £575k if he hasn't done it up? Surely Fred's is worth more if he has done something useful to it? I'm not sure these examples are all that helpful at this stage.
Anyway - you can argue that all capital gains tax should be zero or tat they should be zero on housing. I think you're totally wrong but it's arguable where the burden of taxation should fall.
What you can't argue is that capital gains don't exist at all - and the enormous increase in value of London property clearly is a case of an asset increasing far more than inflation.
It's worth that because general inflation has seen to it, alongside the fact that potential buyers don't like Fred's improvements, Bob is not in a chain, and Fred has spent so much on the house he has a broken-down Ford on the drive, whereas Bob has a new PCP Mercedes. First impressions count.
And of course I can argue that capital gains don't exist. You are confusing gain with inflation. If there were a gain, I could sell my house bought for £900k in 2012, sell it for £1.3 million and spend the £400k. I'd then be able to buy a similar house in a similar area for the 2012 price, because there's apparently been no inflation.
Please point to how I can do this. I'd love to have £400k of free money to spend.
Remortgage. Take your £400k and spend it on things that are not houses. Many have done it, and it works because house-price inflation has vastly outstripped almost everything else. Or forget houses and do the same with your Rembrandt paintings. If you've made a killing on Apple shares, say you bought at £1 and they are now £500, you can sell them and spend the money on round the world cruises. Of course, if you sell the Apple shares and want to spend the money on buying Apple shares, you've not made anything.
The loss for the EU is simple - if they don't have ECJ control, then the agreement cannot be moved later by the use of case law. The ECJ is the legal tool of the EU to further integration, EFTA court for example, simply adjudicates the EEA agreement.
The key point is that the EFTA Court interprets according to ECJ case law as it pertains to the international agreement. As an example, say the agreement covers product regulation. If the ECJ has already ruled a certain product is non-compliant, the EFTA Court will apply the same ruling explicitly by referring to ECJ case law. That original ruling may have been based on legislation brought in by the EU since the start of the agreement, which the other country may not have had any say over, and which it hasn't enacted into domestic law.
There is CGT on shares, but you can sell the Barclays shares every year and set the gains off against your annual CGT allowance. You can also transfer some into an ISA every year so that after 20 years you'd have all your gains in a tax free wrapper.
So while shares attract CGT, there are ways to manage its impact to nil.
I don't see the point of indexing. The best index would be no CGT at all. Consider the following farcical situation. Fred buys a wreck of a semi for £500k and spends £100k doing it up. It sells for £575k, so he is charged CGT on the £75k "gain" even though it owes him £600k.
Bob buys the other half of the semi, also a wreck, does nothing to it and a year later he also sells for £575k. His CGT bill is the same as Fred's.
Equitable, or stupid?
Why is Bob's semi worth £575k if he hasn't done it up? Surely Fred's is worth more if he has done something useful to it? I'm not sure these examples are all that helpful at this stage.
Anyway - you can argue that all capital gains tax should be zero or tat they should be zero on housing. I think you're totally wrong but it's arguable where the burden of taxation should fall.
What you can't argue is that capital gains don't exist at all - and the enormous increase in value of London property clearly is a case of an asset increasing far more than inflation.
It's worth that because general inflation has seen to it, alongside the fact that potential buyers don't like Fred's improvements, Bob is not in a chain, and Fred has spent so much on the house he has a broken-down Ford on the drive, whereas Bob has a new PCP Mercedes. First impressions count.
And of course I can argue that capital gains don't exist. You are confusing gain with inflation. If there were a gain, I could sell my house bought for £900k in 2012, sell it for £1.3 million and spend the £400k. I'd then be able to buy a similar house in a similar area for the 2012 price, because there's apparently been no inflation.
Please point to how I can do this. I'd love to have £400k of free money to spend.
Remortgage. Take your £400k and spend it on things that are not houses. Many have done it, and it works because house-price inflation has vastly outstripped almost everything else. Or forget houses and do the same with your Rembrandt paintings. If you've made a killing on Apple shares, say you bought at £1 and they are now £500, you can sell them and spend the money on round the world cruises. Of course, if you sell the Apple shares and want to spend the money on buying Apple shares, you've not made anything.
There is CGT on shares, but you can sell the Barclays shares every year and set the gains off against your annual CGT allowance. You can also transfer some into an ISA every year so that after 20 years you'd have all your gains in a tax free wrapper.
So while shares attract CGT, there are ways to manage its impact to nil.
I don't see the point of indexing. The best index would be no CGT at all. Consider the following farcical situation. Fred buys a wreck of a semi for £500k and spends £100k doing it up. It sells for £575k, so he is charged CGT on the £75k "gain" even though it owes him £600k.
Bob buys the other half of the semi, also a wreck, does nothing to it and a year later he also sells for £575k. His CGT bill is the same as Fred's.
Equitable, or stupid?
Why is Bob's semi worth £575k if he hasn't done it up? Surely Fred's is worth more if he has done something useful to it? I'm not sure these examples are all that helpful at this stage.
Anyway - you can argue that all capital gains tax should be zero or tat they should be zero on housing. I think you're totally wrong but it's arguable where the burden of taxation should fall.
What you can't argue is that capital gains don't exist at all - and the enormous increase in value of London property clearly is a case of an asset increasing far more than inflation.
And of course I can argue that capital gains don't exist. You are confusing gain with inflation. If there were a gain, I could sell my house bought for £900k in 2012, sell it for £1.3 million and spend the £400k. I'd then be able to buy a similar house in a similar area for the 2012 price, because there's apparently been no inflation.
Please point to how I can do this. I'd love to have £400k of free money to spend.
Okay I don't understand the Fred and Bob thing but let's park that.
Let's say instead of going up, property prices in London had crashed.
Imagine your house was worth £50k now. Well you could sell it and then you could buy another one in London the same for £50k.
Are you really saying you wouldn't be any poorer if that had happened vs what has happened in reality?
The point is not that you can't buy the exact same thing for less...
The point is what has happened to the value of your asset against what has happened to other prices. That could be house prices on average or overall inflation which is a basket of prices.
In 2012 you could have bought 4 nice houses in Northampton, now you can buy 5 etc.
May owes Davidson a few huge favours. Just about kept her alive as PM (for now) with Scottish gains, and has killed off the complication of an Indy referendum while Brexit negotiations are ongoing.
There is CGT on shares, but you can sell the Barclays shares every year and set the gains off against Bob buys the other half of the semi, also a wreck, does nothing to it and a year later he also sells for £575k. His CGT bill is the same as Fred's.
Equitable, or stupid?
Why is Bob's semi worth £575k if he hasn't done it up? Surely Fred's is worth more if he has done something useful to it? I'm not sure these examples are all that helpful at this stage.
Anyway - you can argue that all capital gains tax should be zero or tat they should be zero on housing. I think you're totally wrong but it's arguable where the burden of taxation should fall.
What you can't argue is that capital gains don't exist at all - and the enormous increase in value of London property clearly is a case of an asset increasing far more than inflation.
And of course I can argue that capital gains don't exist. You are confusing gain with inflation. If there were a gain, I could sell my house bought for £900k in 2012, sell it for £1.3 million and spend the £400k. I'd then be able to buy a similar house in a similar area for the 2012 price, because there's apparently been no inflation.
Please point to how I can do this. I'd love to have £400k of free money to spend.
Okay I don't understand the Fred and Bob thing but let's park that.
Let's say instead of going up, property prices in London had crashed.
Imagine your house was worth £50k now. Well you could sell it and then you could buy another one in London the same for £50k.
Are you really saying you wouldn't be any poorer if that had happened vs what has happened in reality?
The point is not that you can't buy the exact same thing for less...
The point is what has happened to the value of your asset against what has happened to other prices. That could be house prices on average or overall inflation which is a basket of prices.
In 2012 you could have bought 4 nice houses in Northampton, now you can buy 5 etc.
Yes I am because either way I own one house.
Lol. I think the absurdity of your position has been revealed.
When you come to sell your place you will either be buying a Ferrari, mansion in the bahamas and having a butler or you'll be taking the bus and living in a shared flat in *somewhere cheap I don't want to offend.
If you think you're equally wealthy under both scenarios you are very wrong my friend! But by all means believe what you wish.
Why is Bob's semi worth £575k if he hasn't done it up? Surely Fred's is worth more if he has done something useful to it? I'm not sure these examples are all that helpful at this stage.
Anyway - you can argue that all capital gains tax should be zero or tat they should be zero on housing. I think you're totally wrong but it's arguable where the burden of taxation should fall.
What you can't argue is that capital gains don't exist at all - and the enormous increase in value of London property clearly is a case of an asset increasing far more than inflation.
It's worth that because general inflation has seen to it, alongside the fact that potential buyers don't like Fred's improvements, Bob is not in a chain, and Fred has spent so much on the house he has a broken-down Ford on the drive, whereas Bob has a new PCP Mercedes. First impressions count.
And of course I can argue that capital gains don't exist. You are confusing gain with inflation. If there were a gain, I could sell my house bought for £900k in 2012, sell it for £1.3 million and spend the £400k. I'd then be able to buy a similar house in a similar area for the 2012 price, because there's apparently been no inflation.
Please point to how I can do this. I'd love to have £400k of free money to spend.
Okay I don't understand the Fred and Bob thing but let's park that.
Let's say instead of going up, property prices in London had crashed.
Imagine your house was worth £50k now. Well you could sell it and then you could buy another one in London the same for £50k.
Are you really saying you wouldn't be any poorer if that had happened vs what has happened in reality?
The point is not that you can't buy the exact same thing for less...
The point is what has happened to the value of your asset against what has happened to other prices. That could be house prices on average or overall inflation which is a basket of prices.
In 2012 you could have bought 4 nice houses in Northampton, now you can buy 5 etc.
And, at the end of the day, she can live it until the end, then the value of the property drops into her estate. There's the gain. Unless her children or other heirs absolutely have to live in a similar sized house in a similar location, they will inherit the benefit of the accumulated real price gain, noting that we are of course talking about the extra gained over and above inflation - inflation increases in anything just keep pace, hence using absolute figures to calculate the figure of £400k is too simplistic anyway.
And of course if the heirs have a home already, they can spend the cash on something else, and the gain becomes obvious.
Comments
Perhaps humanity is growing up?
Trump derides network’s ‘phony’ stories after three quit over piece on supposed investigation into meeting between Trump associate and Russian investor
The story was posted on the network’s website on Thursday and was removed, with all links disabled, on Friday night. CNN immediately apologised to Anthony Scaramucci, the Trump transition team member who was reported to be involved in the meeting."
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/27/three-cnn-journalists-resign-over-retracted-trump-russia-story
Our big issue with trade deals from here on in will be that all the countries we sit to talk to will know we need agreements much more than they do because of what we have lost trade-wise by leaving the EU.
The longer she is in charge the more Corbynmania will wane and the fresher the anointed one will look going into the next election.
Hammond would, I think, purely be the Brexit PM, whose ultimate reputation would stand or fall on the long term, historical view of the success or failure of the 2019 deal for the UK. Is that as good as being a decade spanning, era defining PM? No, but was that ever going to be Hammond? Is it an important historical niche? Yes, 2017-19 will receive far more focus in the histories of post-war Britain than most 2 year periods.
If the EU do concede to the completely usual process of joint arbitration for international agreements in relation to this issue, the UK will be able to use this as a precedent for trade disputes. So the UK will get what they want. That is why the EU should never have raised it now when it is so obviously unnecessary.
BTW an arbitration panel will probably only exist in the case that the UK change their laws contrary to the eventual treaty. They will not be able to overrule the UKSC in respect of interpretation and enforcement of the law at it stands in relation to UK citizens. Casino_Royale is correct in setting out the limits of these kinds of bodies - they are not Supreme Courts.
- The sum of the rent she hasn't paid in the last 22 years and any interest accrued on alternative investment of it, or pleasure gained in the spending of it
- The larger amount of capital available to release if she chooses to move somewhere smaller / cheaper than would have been the case in a scenario of lower inflation
- The ability to pay your building costs if in the future she and you decide to move her into a granny flat built as an extension to your property
- A cash sum available through equity release or sale of the main property should she in the future want a higher standard of health or social care than the state is willing to provide (or indeed to spend a bit of capital going on cruises or whatever)
- The eventual knowledge that her heirs will be significantly wealthier than the children of renters and social tenants, particularly relative to how much they would have been advantaged if prices hadn't risen so disproportionately
That wealth.
@faisalislam: So customs union not in transition? Asks @iainmartin1... @DavidDavisMP: "I wouldn't think so"
@JeremyCliffe: Hammond also strongly hints that he wants UK to stay in the single market and customs union during the post-Brexit "transition period".
For once I agree with Hammond - we need a separate customs agreement with the EU.
How about a time limited amnesty for supporting ISIS ? We can all have a good meh at the 2017 attacks in the future.
The simplest thing might just be a "You've Got A Bigger House Than Me And I Fucking Want It" tax. Its level could be determined by Momentum supporters driving around pointing at houses and thinking of a number. That's what all these ideas amount to; they are just wheezes to label inflation as profit so as to justify taking it off people who don't vote for you anyway.
I don't get why being an EU body per se is less controllable.
EU citizen rights post-Brexit are just part of the game for them. Part of trying to extend EU law and policy over non-EU countries within Europe as they have done continually. The ECJ gambit adds nothing to the protection of these people, as the UK clearly don't have the slightest intention of reneging on a citizens rights deal that they are actually proposing.
All the EU elite care about is power.
What's proposed isn't an ISDR type system. They are looking for a way where the EU doesn't have to change its behaviour in any way and will remain subject to EU law and the ECJ case law for everything that pertains to the relationship with the UK, while not formally subjecting the UK side of that relationship to a court that has no jurisdiction in the UK. Jurisdiction and sovereignty are big issues that can't be wished away. Nevertheless the circle has to squared. We need to find a way of implementing ECJ without being subject to it formally.
For CGT we just need proper taper relief.
Simpler still is to tax inheritance as income for the tax year in which the recipient gets the windfall.
People may scoff, but in 1985 you wouldn't have got a price on Martin McGuiness's death being anything other than a break dance party, instead our officials were reading teary eyed tributes
It's payable on business vehicles or cars not designed for road use like racing cars.
So, for example, if you have the choice of owning a jaguar owned by The Queen or a painting done by her, both worth £1 million, the jaguar is the more tax efficient investment.
And of course I can argue that capital gains don't exist. You are confusing gain with inflation. If there were a gain, I could sell my house bought for £900k in 2012, sell it for £1.3 million and spend the £400k. I'd then be able to buy a similar house in a similar area for the 2012 price, because there's apparently been no inflation.
Please point to how I can do this. I'd love to have £400k of free money to spend.
The academic theory behind Brexit was taking back control. If you leave the EU out of it for a moment (!), then we are ceding control to someone that is not us. How is that sovereignty-enhancing?
I'm not sure I'd be broadcasting that to the public...
The idea of taxing inheritance as income would result in higher tax on people in the south than the north, and different tax rates between beneficiaries of the same will. Lots of scope to fiddle that.
In the north you can inherit the average house tax free; in the south you have to sell it to pay the tax on it and what's left does not then buy a house.
Simplest of all is for the state to spend within its means.
Let's say instead of going up, property prices in London had crashed.
Imagine your house was worth £50k now.
Well you could sell it and then you could buy another one in London the same for £50k.
Are you really saying you wouldn't be any poorer if that had happened vs what has happened in reality?
The point is not that you can't buy the exact same thing for less...
The point is what has happened to the value of your asset against what has happened to other prices. That could be house prices on average or overall inflation which is a basket of prices.
In 2012 you could have bought 4 nice houses in Northampton, now you can buy 5 etc.
When you come to sell your place you will either be buying a Ferrari, mansion in the bahamas and having a butler or you'll be taking the bus and living in a shared flat in *somewhere cheap I don't want to offend.
If you think you're equally wealthy under both scenarios you are very wrong my friend!
But by all means believe what you wish.
And of course if the heirs have a home already, they can spend the cash on something else, and the gain becomes obvious.