Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Don’t EU want me?

SystemSystem Posts: 11,707
edited September 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Don’t EU want me?

YouGov have released some pan-European polling when it comes to how some of our EU allies would view us remaining in the EU.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Options
    philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    edited September 2017
    Morning. Looks like a first.

    In the chart at the top should it read Don't Care rather than Don't Know?
  • Options
    OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469
    Last thread - 2 comments?
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,956
    Third, like Remain.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,074
    philiph said:

    Morning. Looks like a first.

    In the chart at the top should it read Don't Care rather than Don't Know?

    Or "who? Never heard of them"
  • Options
    Interesting timing to May's new Brexit speech. Just days before the German Federal election. She'll have to be careful it's not seen as a relaunch which always slightly smacks of weakness born of the need for the relaunch. Which of course it is. Brexit needs relaunching as the sky expectations of many leave voters are going to be disappointed and the loss of the majority has set the tone for negotiations to-date. Will May use the speech to fundamentally recast what Brexit now is or will it just be a reformulation of Cake and Eat it to see her through party conference ? The news the September round of negotiations has been delayed to accommodate it suggests the EC is taking it seriously. Though as the party currently with the former hand the EC benefits from any delay. The sense that Britain is still even now negotiating with it's self is palpable.

    And even if May pulls it off and recalibrates Brexit will it last for more than a few days ? Merkel will either be re-elected and then show her hand or God Forbid falls leading to at best hiatus or at worst chaos. How can we escape the dynamic of having used our Nuclear option in Leaving we're now a large wealthy but third party outsider. We've taken what the EU wants, us staying, off the table and negotiations reflect that.

    On a different topic this is good on disaster relief. Here after Grenfell charities appealed for similar donations to stop.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/best-intentions-when-disaster-relief-brings-anything-but-relief/
  • Options
    Ally_BAlly_B Posts: 185
    OchEye said:

    Last thread - 2 comments?

    Shirley shome mishtake?
  • Options
    "You were working as a Eurocrat in a plush Brussels office
    When I met you..."

    (The waitress in the cocktail bar would probably come from Latvia these days)
  • Options
    On topic if there is a final offer from the EU it will follow not proceed a change in UK public opinion. If we fold and need a sop to pretend to angry leave voters in the end we got a renegotiation better than Cameron's. But as yet there is no polling to suggest such a shift in public opinion has taken place. Interestingly one of the very first things EUCO did in response to the referendum result was void Cameron's renegotiation package. Not only have the EU not improved their offer they took their rejected offer off the table. Even if their was some amazing new offer it just begs the question of how we decide weather to take it or reject it. If they offered us a Cure for Cancer the debate would still be Parliamentary Approval vs 2nd Referendum. How on earth would another Referendum Act get through a hung parliament ?

    Helpfully more than enough EU leaders have sad A50 is revocable in practice. The Door is being left open but they aren't running after us. A second offer will only come after a change in UK public opinion not precede it.
  • Options
    RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    On topic if there is a final offer from the EU it will follow not proceed a change in UK public opinion. If we fold and need a sop to pretend to angry leave voters in the end we got a renegotiation better than Cameron's. But as yet there is no polling to suggest such a shift in public opinion has taken place. Interestingly one of the very first things EUCO did in response to the referendum result was void Cameron's renegotiation package. Not only have the EU not improved their offer they took their rejected offer off the table. Even if their was some amazing new offer it just begs the question of how we decide weather to take it or reject it. If they offered us a Cure for Cancer the debate would still be Parliamentary Approval vs 2nd Referendum. How on earth would another Referendum Act get through a hung parliament ?

    Helpfully more than enough EU leaders have sad A50 is revocable in practice. The Door is being left open but they aren't running after us. A second offer will only come after a change in UK public opinion not precede it.

    If you wanted to make an offer you'd have to know what the leavers object to about EU membership. Is there any clarity on that? I can't explain it.
  • Options
    OchEye said:

    Last thread - 2 comments?

    Probably for the best. If Lib Dem peers, who lack a mandate on two critical counts, blocked Brexit legislation, there would be the biggest constitutional crisis since - well, pick your date. 1689, possibly.

    What the polling TSE quotes does show is not, I think, that there's any appetite for the UK to remain (there may be in theory but not, as YS notes, with public opinion as it is). What there may be is scope to lever Barnier via the Council into a more flexible position. There are a lot of countries in the EU that don't bear Britain ill will for ducking out on a project that their own citizens aren't entirely enamoured with. To a much greater extent than the EU itself, these have ongoing and wide-ranging activities for which they'll want a cooperative relationship with a powerful neighbour and ally.
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,956

    OchEye said:

    Last thread - 2 comments?

    Probably for the best. If Lib Dem peers, who lack a mandate on two critical counts, blocked Brexit legislation, there would be the biggest constitutional crisis since - well, pick your date. 1689, possibly.

    What the polling TSE quotes does show is not, I think, that there's any appetite for the UK to remain (there may be in theory but not, as YS notes, with public opinion as it is). What there may be is scope to lever Barnier via the Council into a more flexible position. There are a lot of countries in the EU that don't bear Britain ill will for ducking out on a project that their own citizens aren't entirely enamoured with. To a much greater extent than the EU itself, these have ongoing and wide-ranging activities for which they'll want a cooperative relationship with a powerful neighbour and ally.
    Absolutely, on both counts.

    LDs peers blocking Brexit bills would be hilarious, and easily bypassed. It would be a show of weakness, rather than strength.
  • Options
    Mortimer said:

    OchEye said:

    Last thread - 2 comments?

    Probably for the best. If Lib Dem peers, who lack a mandate on two critical counts, blocked Brexit legislation, there would be the biggest constitutional crisis since - well, pick your date. 1689, possibly.

    What the polling TSE quotes does show is not, I think, that there's any appetite for the UK to remain (there may be in theory but not, as YS notes, with public opinion as it is). What there may be is scope to lever Barnier via the Council into a more flexible position. There are a lot of countries in the EU that don't bear Britain ill will for ducking out on a project that their own citizens aren't entirely enamoured with. To a much greater extent than the EU itself, these have ongoing and wide-ranging activities for which they'll want a cooperative relationship with a powerful neighbour and ally.
    Absolutely, on both counts.

    LDs peers blocking Brexit bills would be hilarious, and easily bypassed. It would be a show of weakness, rather than strength.
    Assuming that Labour was on board with such an arch-Remain strategy (which is doubtful in terms of the scenario but necessary in order for the bill to be blocked), how would it be easily bypassed?
  • Options

    OchEye said:

    Last thread - 2 comments?

    Probably for the best. If Lib Dem peers, who lack a mandate on two critical counts, blocked Brexit legislation, there would be the biggest constitutional crisis since - well, pick your date. 1689, possibly.

    What the polling TSE quotes does show is not, I think, that there's any appetite for the UK to remain (there may be in theory but not, as YS notes, with public opinion as it is). What there may be is scope to lever Barnier via the Council into a more flexible position. There are a lot of countries in the EU that don't bear Britain ill will for ducking out on a project that their own citizens aren't entirely enamoured with. To a much greater extent than the EU itself, these have ongoing and wide-ranging activities for which they'll want a cooperative relationship with a powerful neighbour and ally.

    It's entirely unscientific, but I have not met or spoken to anyone from any EU member state who bears any ill-will to the UK over Brexit. Mostly they are bemused and amused, if they talk about Brexit at all. I'd guess the general attitude is that if the Brits want to harm themselves let them get on with it. Could be different in Ireland, I guess - but it's clear the Irish would choose the EU over the UK every day of the week. And who could blame them?

  • Options

    Mortimer said:

    OchEye said:

    Last thread - 2 comments?

    Probably for the best. If Lib Dem peers, who lack a mandate on two critical counts, blocked Brexit legislation, there would be the biggest constitutional crisis since - well, pick your date. 1689, possibly.

    What the polling TSE quotes does show is not, I think, that there's any appetite for the UK to remain (there may be in theory but not, as YS notes, with public opinion as it is). What there may be is scope to lever Barnier via the Council into a more flexible position. There are a lot of countries in the EU that don't bear Britain ill will for ducking out on a project that their own citizens aren't entirely enamoured with. To a much greater extent than the EU itself, these have ongoing and wide-ranging activities for which they'll want a cooperative relationship with a powerful neighbour and ally.
    Absolutely, on both counts.

    LDs peers blocking Brexit bills would be hilarious, and easily bypassed. It would be a show of weakness, rather than strength.
    Assuming that Labour was on board with such an arch-Remain strategy (which is doubtful in terms of the scenario but necessary in order for the bill to be blocked), how would it be easily bypassed?
    There are more ways than straight defeat for the House of Lords to give the government almighty headaches. Time is critical, so in practice the House of Lords' power to delay assumes a much greater significance than usual. This has been barely commented on and Mike's thread is probably the most significant of the last month.
  • Options

    Mortimer said:

    OchEye said:

    Last thread - 2 comments?

    Probably for the best. If Lib Dem peers, who lack a mandate on two critical counts, blocked Brexit legislation, there would be the biggest constitutional crisis since - well, pick your date. 1689, possibly.

    What the polling TSE quotes does show is not, I think, that there's any appetite for the UK to remain (there may be in theory but not, as YS notes, with public opinion as it is). What there may be is scope to lever Barnier via the Council into a more flexible position. There are a lot of countries in the EU that don't bear Britain ill will for ducking out on a project that their own citizens aren't entirely enamoured with. To a much greater extent than the EU itself, these have ongoing and wide-ranging activities for which they'll want a cooperative relationship with a powerful neighbour and ally.
    Absolutely, on both counts.

    LDs peers blocking Brexit bills would be hilarious, and easily bypassed. It would be a show of weakness, rather than strength.
    Assuming that Labour was on board with such an arch-Remain strategy (which is doubtful in terms of the scenario but necessary in order for the bill to be blocked), how would it be easily bypassed?
    There are more ways than straight defeat for the House of Lords to give the government almighty headaches. Time is critical, so in practice the House of Lords' power to delay assumes a much greater significance than usual. This has been barely commented on and Mike's thread is probably the most significant of the last month.

    May's decision to trigger Article 50 before properly understanding how the negotiation process would work and without having a clear negotiation strategy in place is looking increasingly ridiculous. It seems she actually did not realise what she was doing.

  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,956

    Mortimer said:

    OchEye said:

    Last thread - 2 comments?

    Probably for the best. If Lib Dem peers, who lack a mandate on two critical counts, blocked Brexit legislation, there would be the biggest constitutional crisis since - well, pick your date. 1689, possibly.

    What the polling TSE quotes does show is not, I think, that there's any appetite for the UK to remain (there may be in theory but not, as YS notes, with public opinion as it is). What there may be is scope to lever Barnier via the Council into a more flexible position. There are a lot of countries in the EU that don't bear Britain ill will for ducking out on a project that their own citizens aren't entirely enamoured with. To a much greater extent than the EU itself, these have ongoing and wide-ranging activities for which they'll want a cooperative relationship with a powerful neighbour and ally.
    Absolutely, on both counts.

    LDs peers blocking Brexit bills would be hilarious, and easily bypassed. It would be a show of weakness, rather than strength.
    Assuming that Labour was on board with such an arch-Remain strategy (which is doubtful in terms of the scenario but necessary in order for the bill to be blocked), how would it be easily bypassed?
    Threat of creation of many Lords. The way threatened Lords' opposition has always been bypassed.
  • Options
    The Lord's powers of delay have been increased by the government opting for a two year session to consider Brexit Bills. The Parliament Act allows the Commons to overrule a Lords veto in the next session. Sally a year away at most but now after Brexit. The government could of course change it's mind and prorogue early to start a new session. But that might cost a Billion or two for Northern Ireland with another Queen's Speech.

    I think David Herdson is right. An unelected house with an appetite for self preservation won't block Brexit legislation. But if it did the two year session actually extends the Lord's delaying powers. The handsome and erudite Mr Meeks is also correct. There are a 101 ways the Lord's can slow things down without rejecting a Bill.

    But all roads lead to Rome. Brexit is very easily reversed if voters change their minds. But the Buggers haven't. If they did all the technical problems about staying would vanish. It's a legal problem that would be quickly sorted. But there is no sign for a shift in public opinion. If Brexit becomes unpopular it will be stopped. So far it hasn't.
  • Options

    Mortimer said:

    OchEye said:

    Last thread - 2 comments?

    Probably for the best. If Lib Dem peers, who lack a mandate on two critical counts, blocked Brexit legislation, there would be the biggest constitutional crisis since - well, pick your date. 1689, possibly.

    What the polling TSE quotes does show is not, I think, that there's any appetite for the UK to remain (there may be in theory but not, as YS notes, with public opinion as it is). What there may be is scope to lever Barnier via the Council into a more flexible position. There are a lot of countries in the EU that don't bear Britain ill will for ducking out on a project that their own citizens aren't entirely enamoured with. To a much greater extent than the EU itself, these have ongoing and wide-ranging activities for which they'll want a cooperative relationship with a powerful neighbour and ally.
    Absolutely, on both counts.

    LDs peers blocking Brexit bills would be hilarious, and easily bypassed. It would be a show of weakness, rather than strength.
    Assuming that Labour was on board with such an arch-Remain strategy (which is doubtful in terms of the scenario but necessary in order for the bill to be blocked), how would it be easily bypassed?
    There are more ways than straight defeat for the House of Lords to give the government almighty headaches. Time is critical, so in practice the House of Lords' power to delay assumes a much greater significance than usual. This has been barely commented on and Mike's thread is probably the most significant of the last month.
    Indeed. That's the point. In theory, not only could the Lords block any Brexit bill but it could also block any other bill that sought to bypass the Lords' decision by changing the rules. In time, the Parliament Act could be used but as you say, that can't happen immediately and so the year's delay the Lords is empowered to impose assumes a critical nature when the Brexit deadline is set and can't be unilaterally amended.

    In reality, Labour peers would probably cave in in short order if push came to shove and even Lib Dem ones might baulk at the constitutional impertinence of an overrepresented element of an unelected House imposing its views against an established referendum outcome.

    Besides, if it really did come down to it, the government would have the nuclear option of the creation of hundreds of new peers.
  • Options

    Mortimer said:

    OchEye said:

    Last thread - 2 comments?

    Probably for the best. If Lib Dem peers, who lack a mandate on two critical counts, blocked Brexit legislation, there would be the biggest constitutional crisis since - well, pick your date. 1689, possibly.

    What the polling TSE quotes does show is not, I think, that there's any appetite for the UK to remain (there may be in theory but not, as YS notes, with public opinion as it is). What there may be is scope to lever Barnier via the Council into a more flexible position. There are a lot of countries in the EU that don't bear Britain ill will for ducking out on a project that their own citizens aren't entirely enamoured with. To a much greater extent than the EU itself, these have ongoing and wide-ranging activities for which they'll want a cooperative relationship with a powerful neighbour and ally.
    Absolutely, on both counts.

    LDs peers blocking Brexit bills would be hilarious, and easily bypassed. It would be a show of weakness, rather than strength.
    Assuming that Labour was on board with such an arch-Remain strategy (which is doubtful in terms of the scenario but necessary in order for the bill to be blocked), how would it be easily bypassed?
    There are more ways than straight defeat for the House of Lords to give the government almighty headaches. Time is critical, so in practice the House of Lords' power to delay assumes a much greater significance than usual. This has been barely commented on and Mike's thread is probably the most significant of the last month.
    Indeed. That's the point. In theory, not only could the Lords block any Brexit bill but it could also block any other bill that sought to bypass the Lords' decision by changing the rules. In time, the Parliament Act could be used but as you say, that can't happen immediately and so the year's delay the Lords is empowered to impose assumes a critical nature when the Brexit deadline is set and can't be unilaterally amended.

    In reality, Labour peers would probably cave in in short order if push came to shove and even Lib Dem ones might baulk at the constitutional impertinence of an overrepresented element of an unelected House imposing its views against an established referendum outcome.

    Besides, if it really did come down to it, the government would have the nuclear option of the creation of hundreds of new peers.
    Labour peers can amend as well as block. I expect they will.
  • Options
    The government is negotiating Brexit with the Tory right, not the EU27. Pretty much sums it up:
    https://infacts.org/may-must-negotiate-eu-not-tory-brexiters/amp/
  • Options

    Mortimer said:

    OchEye said:

    Last thread - 2 comments?

    Probably for the best. If Lib Dem peers, who lack a mandate on two critical counts, blocked Brexit legislation, there would be the biggest constitutional crisis since - well, pick your date. 1689, possibly.

    What the polling TSE quotes does show is not, I think, that there's any appetite for the UK to remain (there may be in theory but not, as YS notes, with public opinion as it is). What there may be is scope to lever Barnier via the Council into a more flexible position. There are a lot of countries in the EU that don't bear Britain ill will for ducking out on a project that their own citizens aren't entirely enamoured with. To a much greater extent than the EU itself, these have ongoing and wide-ranging activities for which they'll want a cooperative relationship with a powerful neighbour and ally.
    Absolutely, on both counts.

    LDs peers blocking Brexit bills would be hilarious, and easily bypassed. It would be a show of weakness, rather than strength.
    Assuming that Labour was on board with such an arch-Remain strategy (which is doubtful in terms of the scenario but necessary in order for the bill to be blocked), how would it be easily bypassed?
    There are more ways than straight defeat for the House of Lords to give the government almighty headaches. Time is critical, so in practice the House of Lords' power to delay assumes a much greater significance than usual. This has been barely commented on and Mike's thread is probably the most significant of the last month.

    May's decision to trigger Article 50 before properly understanding how the negotiation process would work and without having a clear negotiation strategy in place is looking increasingly ridiculous. It seems she actually did not realise what she was doing.

    I think that's a little unfair. No-one knew how the process would work until A50 was triggered because the EU refused to say (as was its right). In terms of strategy, May laid out her objectives in her Lancaster House speech. You could say that these were unrealistic and over-ambitious (though that's a better failing than Cameron's opposite one of asking for too little), but not, I think, that she didn't have a plan.
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,956

    Mortimer said:

    OchEye said:

    Last thread - 2 comments?

    Probably for the best. If Lib Dem peers, who lack a mandate on two critical counts, blocked Brexit legislation, there would be the biggest constitutional crisis since - well, pick your date. 1689, possibly.

    What the polling TSE quotes does show is not, I think, that there's any appetite for the UK to remain (there may be in theory but not, as YS notes, with public opinion as it is). What there may be is scope to lever Barnier via the Council into a more flexible position. There are a lot of countries in the EU that don't bear Britain ill will for ducking out on a project that their own citizens aren't entirely enamoured with. To a much greater extent than the EU itself, these have ongoing and wide-ranging activities for which they'll want a cooperative relationship with a powerful neighbour and ally.
    Absolutely, on both counts.

    LDs peers blocking Brexit bills would be hilarious, and easily bypassed. It would be a show of weakness, rather than strength.
    Assuming that Labour was on board with such an arch-Remain strategy (which is doubtful in terms of the scenario but necessary in order for the bill to be blocked), how would it be easily bypassed?
    There are more ways than straight defeat for the House of Lords to give the government almighty headaches. Time is critical, so in practice the House of Lords' power to delay assumes a much greater significance than usual. This has been barely commented on and Mike's thread is probably the most significant of the last month.
    Indeed. That's the point. In theory, not only could the Lords block any Brexit bill but it could also block any other bill that sought to bypass the Lords' decision by changing the rules. In time, the Parliament Act could be used but as you say, that can't happen immediately and so the year's delay the Lords is empowered to impose assumes a critical nature when the Brexit deadline is set and can't be unilaterally amended.

    In reality, Labour peers would probably cave in in short order if push came to shove and even Lib Dem ones might baulk at the constitutional impertinence of an overrepresented element of an unelected House imposing its views against an established referendum outcome.

    Besides, if it really did come down to it, the government would have the nuclear option of the creation of hundreds of new peers.
    Labour peers can amend as well as block. I expect they will.
    Indeed. Though I'd doubt if any of those will make it on to the statute book.
  • Options

    The Lord's powers of delay have been increased by the government opting for a two year session to consider Brexit Bills. The Parliament Act allows the Commons to overrule a Lords veto in the next session. Sally a year away at most but now after Brexit. The government could of course change it's mind and prorogue early to start a new session. But that might cost a Billion or two for Northern Ireland with another Queen's Speech.

    I think David Herdson is right. An unelected house with an appetite for self preservation won't block Brexit legislation. But if it did the two year session actually extends the Lord's delaying powers. The handsome and erudite Mr Meeks is also correct. There are a 101 ways the Lord's can slow things down without rejecting a Bill.

    But all roads lead to Rome. Brexit is very easily reversed if voters change their minds. But the Buggers haven't. If they did all the technical problems about staying would vanish. It's a legal problem that would be quickly sorted. But there is no sign for a shift in public opinion. If Brexit becomes unpopular it will be stopped. So far it hasn't.

    This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/brexit-sets-britain-on-a-stable-path-of-relative-decline-1.3209436?mode=amp
  • Options
    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    OchEye said:

    Last thread - 2 comments?

    Probably for the best. If Lib Dem peers, who lack a mandate on two critical counts, blocked Brexit legislation, there would be the biggest constitutional crisis since - well, pick your date. 1689, possibly.

    What the polling TSE quotes does show is not, I think, that there's any appetite for the UK to remain (there may be in theory but not, as YS notes, with public opinion as it is). What there may be is scope to lever Barnier via the Council into a more flexible position. There are a lot of countries in the EU that don't bear Britain ill will for ducking out on a project that their own citizens aren't entirely enamoured with. To a much greater extent than the EU itself, these have ongoing and wide-ranging activities for which they'll want a cooperative relationship with a powerful neighbour and ally.
    Absolutely, on both counts.

    LDs peers blocking Brexit bills would be hilarious, and easily bypassed. It would be a show of weakness, rather than strength.
    Assuming that Labour was on board with such an arch-Remain strategy (which is doubtful in terms of the scenario but necessary in order for the bill to be blocked), how would it be easily bypassed?
    Threat of creation of many Lords. The way threatened Lords' opposition has always been bypassed.
    Yes, that's the final option but it's such a blunt instrument that it could only be threatened after all other possibilities had been exhausted.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    edited September 2017
    Mortimer said:



    Assuming that Labour was on board with such an arch-Remain strategy (which is doubtful in terms of the scenario but necessary in order for the bill to be blocked), how would it be easily bypassed?

    There are more ways than straight defeat for the House of Lords to give the government almighty headaches. Time is critical, so in practice the House of Lords' power to delay assumes a much greater significance than usual. This has been barely commented on and Mike's thread is probably the most significant of the last month.
    Indeed. That's the point. In theory, not only could the Lords block any Brexit bill but it could also block any other bill that sought to bypass the Lords' decision by changing the rules. In time, the Parliament Act could be used but as you say, that can't happen immediately and so the year's delay the Lords is empowered to impose assumes a critical nature when the Brexit deadline is set and can't be unilaterally amended.

    In reality, Labour peers would probably cave in in short order if push came to shove and even Lib Dem ones might baulk at the constitutional impertinence of an overrepresented element of an unelected House imposing its views against an established referendum outcome.

    Besides, if it really did come down to it, the government would have the nuclear option of the creation of hundreds of new peers.
    Labour peers can amend as well as block. I expect they will.
    Indeed. Though I'd doubt if any of those will make it on to the statute book.
    If the choice is between an amended bill and no bill in time, the government will have some hard choices.
  • Options

    Mortimer said:

    OchEye said:

    Last thread - 2 comments?

    Probably for the best. If Lib Dem peers, who lack a mandate on two critical counts, blocked Brexit legislation, there would be the biggest constitutional crisis since - well, pick your date. 1689, possibly.

    What the polling TSE quotes does show is not, I think, that there's any appetite for the UK to remain (there may be in theory but not, as YS notes, with public opinion as it is). What there may be is scope to lever Barnier via the Council into a more flexible position. There are a lot of countries in the EU that don't bear Britain ill will for ducking out on a project that their own citizens aren't entirely enamoured with. To a much greater extent than the EU itself, these have ongoing and wide-ranging activities for which they'll want a cooperative relationship with a powerful neighbour and ally.
    Absolutely, on both counts.

    LDs peers blocking Brexit bills would be hilarious, and easily bypassed. It would be a show of weakness, rather than strength.
    Assuming that Labour was on board with such an arch-Remain strategy (which is doubtful in terms of the scenario but necessary in order for the bill to be blocked), how would it be easily bypassed?
    There are more ways than straight defeat for the House of Lords to give the government almighty headaches. Time is critical, so in practice the House of Lords' power to delay assumes a much greater significance than usual. This has been barely commented on and Mike's thread is probably the most significant of the last month.
    Agree - though it's not quite as black & white as OGH presents it:

    Ultimately, therefore, the Salisbury convention — and, more pertinently, the constitutional principle that animates it — will inform the House of Lords’ approach to Bills implementing manifesto commitments during a hung Parliament. And the Lords could entirely properly take the view that such commitments lack the special status that they enjoy when there is a majority government. At the end of the day, however, such evaluations of constitutional principle will form no more than one part of a much larger political calculus.

    https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2017/06/10/does-the-salisbury-convention-apply-during-a-hung-parliament/
  • Options

    Mortimer said:

    OchEye said:

    Last thread - 2 comments?

    Probably for the best. If Lib Dem peers, who lack a mandate on two critical counts, blocked Brexit legislation, there would be the biggest constitutional crisis since - well, pick your date. 1689, possibly.

    What the polling TSE quotes does show is not, I think, that there's any appetite for the UK to remain (there may be in theory but not, as YS notes, with public opinion as it is). What there may be is scope to lever Barnier via the Council into a more flexible position. There are a lot of countries in the EU that don't bear Britain ill will for ducking out on a project that their own citizens aren't entirely enamoured with. To a much greater extent than the EU itself, these have ongoing and wide-ranging activities for which they'll want a cooperative relationship with a powerful neighbour and ally.
    Absolutely, on both counts.

    LDs peers blocking Brexit bills would be hilarious, and easily bypassed. It would be a show of weakness, rather than strength.
    Assuming that Labour was on board with such an arch-Remain strategy (which is doubtful in terms of the scenario but necessary in order for the bill to be blocked), how would it be easily bypassed?
    There are more ways than straight defeat for the House of Lords to give the government almighty headaches. Time is critical, so in practice the House of Lords' power to delay assumes a much greater significance than usual. This has been barely commented on and Mike's thread is probably the most significant of the last month.

    May's decision to trigger Article 50 before properly understanding how the negotiation process would work and without having a clear negotiation strategy in place is looking increasingly ridiculous. It seems she actually did not realise what she was doing.

    I think that's a little unfair. No-one knew how the process would work until A50 was triggered because the EU refused to say (as was its right). In terms of strategy, May laid out her objectives in her Lancaster House speech. You could say that these were unrealistic and over-ambitious (though that's a better failing than Cameron's opposite one of asking for too little), but not, I think, that she didn't have a plan.

    The EU refused to negotiate Brexit before we triggered A50. That is not the same as refusing to say how they would seek to timetable the negotiations.

    There was clearly no negotiation strategy in place. No decision had been made on a transitional deal, for example.

  • Options
    philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704

    Mortimer said:



    Assuming that Labour was on board with such an arch-Remain strategy (which is doubtful in terms of the scenario but necessary in order for the bill to be blocked), how would it be easily bypassed?

    There are more ways than straight defeat for the House of Lords to give the government almighty headaches. Time is critical, so in practice the House of Lords' power to delay assumes a much greater significance than usual. This has been barely commented on and Mike's thread is probably the most significant of the last month.
    Indeed. That's the point. In theory, not only could the Lords block any Brexit bill but it could also block any other bill that sought to bypass the Lords' decision by changing the rules. In time, the Parliament Act could be used but as you say, that can't happen immediately and so the year's delay the Lords is empowered to impose assumes a critical nature when the Brexit deadline is set and can't be unilaterally amended.

    In reality, Labour peers would probably cave in in short order if push came to shove and even Lib Dem ones might baulk at the constitutional impertinence of an overrepresented element of an unelected House imposing its views against an established referendum outcome.

    Besides, if it really did come down to it, the government would have the nuclear option of the creation of hundreds of new peers.
    Labour peers can amend as well as block. I expect they will.
    Indeed. Though I'd doubt if any of those will make it on to the statute book.
    If the choice is between an amended bill and no bill in time, the government will have some hard choices.
    As will opposition parties.

  • Options

    Mortimer said:

    OchEye said:

    Last thread - 2 comments?

    Probably for the best. If Lib Dem peers, who lack a mandate on two critical counts, blocked Brexit legislation, there would be the biggest constitutional crisis since - well, pick your date. 1689, possibly.

    What the polling TSE quotes does show is not, I think, that there's any appetite for the UK to remain (there may be in theory but not, as YS notes, with public opinion as it is). What there may be is scope to lever Barnier via the Council into a more flexible position. There are a lot of countries in the EU that don't bear Britain ill will for ducking out on a project that their own citizens aren't entirely enamoured with. To a much greater extent than the EU itself, these have ongoing and wide-ranging activities for which they'll want a cooperative relationship with a powerful neighbour and ally.
    Absolutely, on both counts.

    LDs peers blocking Brexit bills would be hilarious, and easily bypassed. It would be a show of weakness, rather than strength.
    Assuming that Labour was on board with such an arch-Remain strategy (which is doubtful in terms of the scenario but necessary in order for the bill to be blocked), how would it be easily bypassed?
    There are more ways than straight defeat for the House of Lords to give the government almighty headaches. Time is critical, so in practice the House of Lords' power to delay assumes a much greater significance than usual. This has been barely commented on and Mike's thread is probably the most significant of the last month.
    Indeed. That's the point. In theory, not only could the Lords block any Brexit bill but it could also block any other bill that sought to bypass the Lords' decision by changing the rules. In time, the Parliament Act could be used but as you say, that can't happen immediately and so the year's delay the Lords is empowered to impose assumes a critical nature when the Brexit deadline is set and can't be unilaterally amended.

    In reality, Labour peers would probably cave in in short order if push came to shove and even Lib Dem ones might baulk at the constitutional impertinence of an overrepresented element of an unelected House imposing its views against an established referendum outcome.

    Besides, if it really did come down to it, the government would have the nuclear option of the creation of hundreds of new peers.
    Labour peers can amend as well as block. I expect they will.
    They can and probably will. I could well see more ping-pong than at a table tennis convention.
  • Options

    Mortimer said:

    OchEye said:

    Last thread - 2 comments?

    Probably for the best. If Lib Dem peers, who lack a mandate on two critical counts, blocked Brexit legislation, there would be the biggest constitutional crisis since - well, pick your date. 1689, possibly.

    What the polling TSE quotes does show is not, I think, that there's any appetite for the UK to remain (there may be in theory but not, as YS notes, with public opinion as it is). What there may be is scope to lever Barnier via the Council into a more flexible position. There are a lot of countries in the EU that don't bear Britain ill will for ducking out on a project that their own citizens aren't entirely enamoured with. To a much greater extent than the EU itself, these have ongoing and wide-ranging activities for which they'll want a cooperative relationship with a powerful neighbour and ally.
    Absolutely, on both counts.

    LDs peers blocking Brexit bills would be hilarious, and easily bypassed. It would be a show of weakness, rather than strength.
    Assuming that Labour was on board with such an arch-Remain strategy (which is doubtful in terms of the scenario but necessary in order for the bill to be blocked), how would it be easily bypassed?
    There are more ways than straight defeat for the House of Lords to give the government almighty headaches. Time is critical, so in practice the House of Lords' power to delay assumes a much greater significance than usual. This has been barely commented on and Mike's thread is probably the most significant of the last month.
    Agree - though it's not quite as black & white as OGH presents it:

    Ultimately, therefore, the Salisbury convention — and, more pertinently, the constitutional principle that animates it — will inform the House of Lords’ approach to Bills implementing manifesto commitments during a hung Parliament. And the Lords could entirely properly take the view that such commitments lack the special status that they enjoy when there is a majority government. At the end of the day, however, such evaluations of constitutional principle will form no more than one part of a much larger political calculus.

    https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2017/06/10/does-the-salisbury-convention-apply-during-a-hung-parliament/
    The Lib Dems don't follow the Salisbury Convention.

    I'm very doubtful whether Labour peers will take a view of it that relieves the pressure on a minority Conservative government.
  • Options

    The government is negotiating Brexit with the Tory right, not the EU27. Pretty much sums it up:
    https://infacts.org/may-must-negotiate-eu-not-tory-brexiters/amp/

    I think that's the long and short of it. I've taken a months long break from reading anything on the topic. I've come back and nothing has fundamentally changed. The government is still negotiating with it's self. We can't negotiate with the EU27 untill we know what we want. We still don't and cock is ticking. Ideally voters would have spotted the ongoing car crash and have started to get cold feet. But they haven't. We have an irresistible force. Brexit must happen. And an immovable object. Brexit means to many differing and undeliverable things to too many people. As soon as the government chooses the House of Cards might collapse.

    I'm heading back to a media blackout on the topic until we decide what we want. Nothing is going to change till then.
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,956
    I'm relaxed about Brexit. The optics of an unelected chamber overturning the public's voice in a referendum would be too awful for the establishment, even those fond of the EU, to contemplate.

    Suspect that 'the Lords will stop/stymie Brexit' will be another of the Remainers' pipe dreams. Like the significance of Mrs May's leadership, Gina Miller's court case and James Chapman's Tweets...
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,956

    The government is negotiating Brexit with the Tory right, not the EU27. Pretty much sums it up:
    https://infacts.org/may-must-negotiate-eu-not-tory-brexiters/amp/

    I think that's the long and short of it. I've taken a months long break from reading anything on the topic. I've come back and nothing has fundamentally changed. The government is still negotiating with it's self. We can't negotiate with the EU27 untill we know what we want. We still don't and cock is ticking. Ideally voters would have spotted the ongoing car crash and have started to get cold feet. But they haven't. We have an irresistible force. Brexit must happen. And an immovable object. Brexit means to many differing and undeliverable things to too many people. As soon as the government chooses the House of Cards might collapse.

    I'm heading back to a media blackout on the topic until we decide what we want. Nothing is going to change till then.
    You clearly missed all the position papers in your media blackout :)
  • Options



    Assuming that Labour was on board with such an arch-Remain strategy (which is doubtful in terms of the scenario but necessary in order for the bill to be blocked), how would it be easily bypassed?

    There are more ways than straight defeat for the House of Lords to give the government almighty headaches. Time is critical, so in practice the House of Lords' power to delay assumes a much greater significance than usual. This has been barely commented on and Mike's thread is probably the most significant of the last month.
    Indeed. That's the point. In theory, not only could the Lords block any Brexit bill but it could also block any other bill that sought to bypass the Lords' decision by changing the rules. In time, the Parliament Act could be used but as you say, that can't happen immediately and so the year's delay the Lords is empowered to impose assumes a critical nature when the Brexit deadline is set and can't be unilaterally amended.

    In reality, Labour peers would probably cave in in short order if push came to shove and even Lib Dem ones might baulk at the constitutional impertinence of an overrepresented element of an unelected House imposing its views against an established referendum outcome.

    Besides, if it really did come down to it, the government would have the nuclear option of the creation of hundreds of new peers.
    Labour peers can amend as well as block. I expect they will.
    They can and probably will. I could well see more ping-pong than at a table tennis convention.
    The government could lose some of the pings as well as some of the pongs. That's an expected problem with no majority and a fractious party of government.
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    Mr Eagles,

    In the song, Mr Oakey (the EU) comes over as a crazed stalker, and as the song (UK) goes on to say ... "But now I think it's time I lived my life on my own."

    An excellent choice of lyrics.
  • Options
    Good morning, everyone.

    Interesting figures, though I wonder what the other countries think. Is there a financially normal group (which I'd guess would include the Netherlands too) and Club Med split? What do the Visegrad countries think?

    France probably thinks it'll get more influence, but that's only true if it splits from the Franco-German axis to become leader of Club Med spendthrifts.
  • Options
    That's a great piece Southam and sums it up. There will be documentaries made for the 20th Anniversary of Brexit in 2039 comparing leave voting areas of the north of England and the now richer areas of Poland. We aren't evolved to notice yet alone respond to very long term threats.
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    Mr Submarine,

    "We can't negotiate with the EU27 untill we know what we want."

    We can't negotiate with the EU27 until we pay a large unexplained bill, according to Monsieur Barnier. We know what we want - the best financial deal commensurate with leaving the EU.

  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,956

    That's a great piece Southam and sums it up. There will be documentaries made for the 20th Anniversary of Brexit in 2039 comparing leave voting areas of the north of England and the now richer areas of Poland. We aren't evolved to notice yet alone respond to very long term threats.

    Top drama, but remember tha vast swathes of the South voted Leave. The denialism clearly continues apace.
  • Options
    On topic, I don't really see the point of this polling. It's not going to alter the course of events knowing that the German in the street would prefer Britain to stay in the EU.
  • Options



    Assuming that Labour was on board with such an arch-Remain strategy (which is doubtful in terms of the scenario but necessary in order for the bill to be blocked), how would it be easily bypassed?

    There are more ways than straight defeat for the House of Lords to give the government almighty headaches. Time is critical, so in practice the House of Lords' power to delay assumes a much greater significance than usual. This has been barely commented on and Mike's thread is probably the most significant of the last month.
    Indeed. That's the point. In theory, not only could the Lords block any Brexit bill but it could also block any other bill that sought to bypass the Lords' decision by changing the rules. In time, the Parliament Act could be used but as you say, that can't happen immediately and so the year's delay the Lords is empowered to impose assumes a critical nature when the Brexit deadline is set and can't be unilaterally amended.

    In reality, Labour peers would probably cave in in short order if push came to shove and even Lib Dem ones might baulk at the constitutional impertinence of an overrepresented element of an unelected House imposing its views against an established referendum outcome.

    Besides, if it really did come down to it, the government would have the nuclear option of the creation of hundreds of new peers.
    Labour peers can amend as well as block. I expect they will.
    They can and probably will. I could well see more ping-pong than at a table tennis convention.
    The government could lose some of the pings as well as some of the pongs. That's an expected problem with no majority and a fractious party of government.
    That is probably true and will depend on the merits of the amendments. But then good amendments are worth keeping.
  • Options



    Assuming that Labour was on board with such an arch-Remain strategy (which is doubtful in terms of the scenario but necessary in order for the bill to be blocked), how would it be easily bypassed?

    There are more ways than straight defeat for the House of Lords to give the government almighty headaches. Time is critical, so in practice the House of Lords' power to delay assumes a much greater significance than usual. This has been barely commented on and Mike's thread is probably the most significant of the last month.
    Indeed. That's the point. In theory, not only could the Lords block any Brexit bill but it could also block any other bill that sought to bypass the Lords' decision by changing the rules. In time, the Parliament Act could be used but as you say, that can't happen immediately and so the year's delay the Lords is empowered to impose assumes a critical nature when the Brexit deadline is set and can't be unilaterally amended.

    In reality, Labour peers would probably cave in in short order if push came to shove and even Lib Dem ones might baulk at the constitutional impertinence of an overrepresented element of an unelected House imposing its views against an established referendum outcome.

    Besides, if it really did come down to it, the government would have the nuclear option of the creation of hundreds of new peers.
    Labour peers can amend as well as block. I expect they will.
    They can and probably will. I could well see more ping-pong than at a table tennis convention.
    The government could lose some of the pings as well as some of the pongs. That's an expected problem with no majority and a fractious party of government.
    That is probably true and will depend on the merits of the amendments. But then good amendments are worth keeping.
    I expect Henry VIII will be the biggest flashpoint.
  • Options
    philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704

    That's a great piece Southam and sums it up. There will be documentaries made for the 20th Anniversary of Brexit in 2039 comparing leave voting areas of the north of England and the now richer areas of Poland. We aren't evolved to notice yet alone respond to very long term threats.

    It would be nigh on a disaster for humanity if there were not considerably increased riches for Poland, but to mention Indonesia, India, Russia Bolivia and hopefully Venezuela to name a few random nations.

    There will be a closing of the gap began richer and poorer populations. That is a good thing, not bad.
  • Options
    MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,237

    The Lord's powers of delay have been increased by the government opting for a two year session to consider Brexit Bills. The Parliament Act allows the Commons to overrule a Lords veto in the next session. Sally a year away at most but now after Brexit. The government could of course change it's mind and prorogue early to start a new session. But that might cost a Billion or two for Northern Ireland with another Queen's Speech.

    I think David Herdson is right. An unelected house with an appetite for self preservation won't block Brexit legislation. But if it did the two year session actually extends the Lord's delaying powers. The handsome and erudite Mr Meeks is also correct. There are a 101 ways the Lord's can slow things down without rejecting a Bill.

    But all roads lead to Rome. Brexit is very easily reversed if voters change their minds. But the Buggers haven't. If they did all the technical problems about staying would vanish. It's a legal problem that would be quickly sorted. But there is no sign for a shift in public opinion. If Brexit becomes unpopular it will be stopped. So far it hasn't.

    The biggest factor in Brexit (and certainly the one which tipped the balance to a very narrow majority for out) was 30 plus years of increasingly shrill grooming by the tabloid press. Which Government did little to counter, as it was easy to scapegoat Europe for problems largely of a domestic root.

    Ironically, it's the same deliberate hollowing out of public service that Government was desperate to conceal that is contributing to the sabotage of the Brexiters dream.

    http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/09/05/the-poverty-of-brexit/





  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,125
    Mortimer said:

    I'm relaxed about Brexit. The optics of an unelected chamber overturning the public's voice in a referendum would be too awful for the establishment, even those fond of the EU, to contemplate.

    Suspect that 'the Lords will stop/stymie Brexit' will be another of the Remainers' pipe dreams. Like the significance of Mrs May's leadership, Gina Miller's court case and James Chapman's Tweets...

    Yes - isn't there a huge public Bremain demo led by him this w/e?
  • Options

    The Lord's powers of delay have been increased by the government opting for a two year session to consider Brexit Bills. The Parliament Act allows the Commons to overrule a Lords veto in the next session. Sally a year away at most but now after Brexit. The government could of course change it's mind and prorogue early to start a new session. But that might cost a Billion or two for Northern Ireland with another Queen's Speech.

    I think David Herdson is right. An unelected house with an appetite for self preservation won't block Brexit legislation. But if it did the two year session actually extends the Lord's delaying powers. The handsome and erudite Mr Meeks is also correct. There are a 101 ways the Lord's can slow things down without rejecting a Bill.

    But all roads lead to Rome. Brexit is very easily reversed if voters change their minds. But the Buggers haven't. If they did all the technical problems about staying would vanish. It's a legal problem that would be quickly sorted. But there is no sign for a shift in public opinion. If Brexit becomes unpopular it will be stopped. So far it hasn't.

    The biggest factor in Brexit (and certainly the one which tipped the balance to a very narrow majority for out) was 30 plus years of increasingly shrill grooming by the tabloid press. Which Government did little to counter, as it was easy to scapegoat Europe for problems largely of a domestic root.

    Ironically, it's the same deliberate hollowing out of public service that Government was desperate to conceal that is contributing to the sabotage of the Brexiters dream.

    http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/09/05/the-poverty-of-brexit/

    Richard Murphy? Nothing like a bit of comedy in the morning! His "thoughts" on GERS have been comedic gold!
  • Options

    Mortimer said:



    Probably for the best. If Lib Dem peers, who lack a mandate on two critical counts, blocked Brexit legislation, there would be the biggest constitutional crisis since - well, pick your date. 1689, possibly.

    What the polling TSE quotes does show is not, I think, that there's any appetite for the UK to remain (there may be in theory but not, as YS notes, with public opinion as it is). What there may be is scope to lever Barnier via the Council into a more flexible position. There are a lot of countries in the EU that don't bear Britain ill will for ducking out on a project that their own citizens aren't entirely enamoured with. To a much greater extent than the EU itself, these have ongoing and wide-ranging activities for which they'll want a cooperative relationship with a powerful neighbour and ally.

    Absolutely, on both counts.

    LDs peers blocking Brexit bills would be hilarious, and easily bypassed. It would be a show of weakness, rather than strength.
    Assuming that Labour was on board with such an arch-Remain strategy (which is doubtful in terms of the scenario but necessary in order for the bill to be blocked), how would it be easily bypassed?
    There are more ways than straight defeat for the House of Lords to give the government almighty headaches. Time is critical, so in practice the House of Lords' power to delay assumes a much greater significance than usual. This has been barely commented on and Mike's thread is probably the most significant of the last month.
    Agree - though it's not quite as black & white as OGH presents it:

    Ultimately, therefore, the Salisbury convention — and, more pertinently, the constitutional principle that animates it — will inform the House of Lords’ approach to Bills implementing manifesto commitments during a hung Parliament. And the Lords could entirely properly take the view that such commitments lack the special status that they enjoy when there is a majority government. At the end of the day, however, such evaluations of constitutional principle will form no more than one part of a much larger political calculus.

    https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2017/06/10/does-the-salisbury-convention-apply-during-a-hung-parliament/
    The Lib Dems don't follow the Salisbury Convention.

    I'm very doubtful whether Labour peers will take a view of it that relieves the pressure on a minority Conservative government.
    The Salisbury Convention is best viewed as the codification of a practical political reality and, as such, is only ever as valid as the political situation makes it.
  • Options
    MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,237
    edited September 2017

    The Lord's powers of delay have been increased by the government opting for a two year session to consider Brexit Bills. The Parliament Act allows the Commons to overrule a Lords veto in the next session. Sally a year away at most but now after Brexit. The government could of course change it's mind and prorogue early to start a new session. But that might cost a Billion or two for Northern Ireland with another Queen's Speech.

    I think David Herdson is right. An unelected house with an appetite for self preservation won't block Brexit legislation. But if it did the two year session actually extends the Lord's delaying powers. The handsome and erudite Mr Meeks is also correct. There are a 101 ways the Lord's can slow things down without rejecting a Bill.

    But all roads lead to Rome. Brexit is very easily reversed if voters change their minds. But the Buggers haven't. If they did all the technical problems about staying would vanish. It's a legal problem that would be quickly sorted. But there is no sign for a shift in public opinion. If Brexit becomes unpopular it will be stopped. So far it hasn't.

    The biggest factor in Brexit (and certainly the one which tipped the balance to a very narrow majority for out) was 30 plus years of increasingly shrill grooming by the tabloid press. Which Government did little to counter, as it was easy to scapegoat Europe for problems largely of a domestic root.

    Ironically, it's the same deliberate hollowing out of public service that Government was desperate to conceal that is contributing to the sabotage of the Brexiters dream.

    http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/09/05/the-poverty-of-brexit/

    Richard Murphy? Nothing like a bit of comedy in the morning! His "thoughts" on GERS have been comedic gold!
    Why don't you read the article Carlotta? Unlike you, it's not really partisan. Just self evident truth.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,175
    edited September 2017
    De Gaulle of course vetoed the UK's first attempt to enter the EEC in the early 1960s so it is not surprising the French have no particular desire to keep us in the EU now (being even more supportive of Brexit than we are).

    The Swedes and Danes are still very much hoping Brexit is reversed as besides them we are the only other Western European nation in the EU but not in the Eurozone
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,950
    And there we were, thinking it was going to be a subtle music pun!
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,175
    edited September 2017
    philiph said:

    That's a great piece Southam and sums it up. There will be documentaries made for the 20th Anniversary of Brexit in 2039 comparing leave voting areas of the north of England and the now richer areas of Poland. We aren't evolved to notice yet alone respond to very long term threats.

    It would be nigh on a disaster for humanity if there were not considerably increased riches for Poland, but to mention Indonesia, India, Russia Bolivia and hopefully Venezuela to name a few random nations.

    There will be a closing of the gap began richer and poorer populations. That is a good thing, not bad.
    Though with the biggest global population growth in Africa it is needed there even more, hence Bojo bigging up trading opportunities with Nigeria on his visit there last week
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,029
    CD13 said:

    Mr Submarine,

    "We can't negotiate with the EU27 untill we know what we want."

    We can't negotiate with the EU27 until we pay a large unexplained bill, according to Monsieur Barnier. We know what we want - the best financial deal commensurate with leaving the EU.

    I think the point is that we don't know in what form our future relationship with the EU will be and we really need to know what type of future relationship we are aiming for...

    I suspect in reality the pragmatic one of seeing where we end up is probably the sane one but it does rather increase the element of doubt people are feeling...
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/brexit-sets-britain-on-a-stable-path-of-relative-decline-1.3209436?mode=amp

    https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/904787023680163840
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,369

    On topic, I don't really see the point of this polling. It's not going to alter the course of events knowing that the German in the street would prefer Britain to stay in the EU.

    It means that France is under no particular public pressure to compromise with us.

    In general, I think the public on the Continent don't care that much - it's seen as an eccentric British decision but primarily an issue for us. Businesses are more concerned, but a shopkeeper in Toulouse or a programmer in Copenhagen have more pressing concerns. That's why it didn't come up in the German leaders' debate.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Mortimer said:

    OchEye said:

    Last thread - 2 comments?

    Probably for the best. If Lib Dem peers, who lack a mandate on two critical counts, blocked Brexit legislation, there would be the biggest constitutional crisis since - well, pick your date. 1689, possibly.

    What the polling TSE quotes does show is not, I think, that there's any appetite for the UK to remain (there may be in theory but not, as YS notes, with public opinion as it is). What there may be is scope to lever Barnier via the Council into a more flexible position. There are a lot of countries in the EU that don't bear Britain ill will for ducking out on a project that their own citizens aren't entirely enamoured with. To a much greater extent than the EU itself, these have ongoing and wide-ranging activities for which they'll want a cooperative relationship with a powerful neighbour and ally.
    Absolutely, on both counts.

    LDs peers blocking Brexit bills would be hilarious, and easily bypassed. It would be a show of weakness, rather than strength.
    I'd also point out that Mike continues to retail the falsehood that it was Tory backbenchers that stopped HoL reform. In fact Clegg threw his toys out of the pram when he realised he wouldn't get his preferred (undemocratic) structure rammed through without adequate scrutiny
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Mortimer said:

    OchEye said:

    Last thread - 2 comments?

    Probably for the best. If Lib Dem peers, who lack a mandate on two critical counts, blocked Brexit legislation, there would be the biggest constitutional crisis since - well, pick your date. 1689, possibly.

    What the polling TSE quotes does show is not, I think, that there's any appetite for the UK to remain (there may be in theory but not, as YS notes, with public opinion as it is). What there may be is scope to lever Barnier via the Council into a more flexible position. There are a lot of countries in the EU that don't bear Britain ill will for ducking out on a project that their own citizens aren't entirely enamoured with. To a much greater extent than the EU itself, these have ongoing and wide-ranging activities for which they'll want a cooperative relationship with a powerful neighbour and ally.
    Absolutely, on both counts.

    LDs peers blocking Brexit bills would be hilarious, and easily bypassed. It would be a show of weakness, rather than strength.
    Assuming that Labour was on board with such an arch-Remain strategy (which is doubtful in terms of the scenario but necessary in order for the bill to be blocked), how would it be easily bypassed?
    There are more ways than straight defeat for the House of Lords to give the government almighty headaches. Time is critical, so in practice the House of Lords' power to delay assumes a much greater significance than usual. This has been barely commented on and Mike's thread is probably the most significant of the last month.

    May's decision to trigger Article 50 before properly understanding how the negotiation process would work and without having a clear negotiation strategy in place is looking increasingly ridiculous. It seems she actually did not realise what she was doing.

    How do you know she doesn't have a negotiation strategy?
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,029
    HYUFD said:

    philiph said:

    That's a great piece Southam and sums it up. There will be documentaries made for the 20th Anniversary of Brexit in 2039 comparing leave voting areas of the north of England and the now richer areas of Poland. We aren't evolved to notice yet alone respond to very long term threats.

    It would be nigh on a disaster for humanity if there were not considerably increased riches for Poland, but to mention Indonesia, India, Russia Bolivia and hopefully Venezuela to name a few random nations.

    There will be a closing of the gap began richer and poorer populations. That is a good thing, not bad.
    Though with the biggest global population growth in Africa it is needed there even more, hence Bojo bigging up trading opportunities with Nigeria on his visit there last week
    We definitely do need to do something about providing a reason for people to stay in Africa. Currently the life plan for most people is to earn / raise enough money to escape where they live and head for a better life in Europe. Unless we provide people with a good reason to stay at home (or at least create cities in Africa worth migrating to and staying at) the migrants arriving in Italy and Spain will never end...
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,078
    Charles said:

    Mortimer said:

    OchEye said:

    Last thread - 2 comments?

    Probably for the best. If Lib Dem peers, who lack a mandate on two critical counts, blocked Brexit legislation, there would be the biggest constitutional crisis since - well, pick your date. 1689, possibly.

    What the polling TSE quotes does show is not, I think, that there's any appetite for the UK to remain (there may be in theory but not, as YS notes, with public opinion as it is). What there may be is scope to lever Barnier via the Council into a more flexible position. There are a lot of countries in the EU that don't bear Britain ill will for ducking out on a project that their own citizens aren't entirely enamoured with. To a much greater extent than the EU itself, these have ongoing and wide-ranging activities for which they'll want a cooperative relationship with a powerful neighbour and ally.
    Absolutely, on both counts.

    LDs peers blocking Brexit bills would be hilarious, and easily bypassed. It would be a show of weakness, rather than strength.
    Assuming that Labour was on board with such an arch-Remain strategy (which is doubtful in terms of the scenario but necessary in order for the bill to be blocked), how would it be easily bypassed?
    There are more ways than straight defeat for the House of Lords to give the government almighty headaches. Time is critical, so in practice the House of Lords' power to delay assumes a much greater significance than usual. This has been barely commented on and Mike's thread is probably the most significant of the last month.

    May's decision to trigger Article 50 before properly understanding how the negotiation process would work and without having a clear negotiation strategy in place is looking increasingly ridiculous. It seems she actually did not realise what she was doing.

    How do you know she doesn't have a negotiation strategy?
    By their fruits ye shall know them!
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,175
    edited September 2017
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758



    Assuming that Labour was on board with such an arch-Remain strategy (which is doubtful in terms of the scenario but necessary in order for the bill to be blocked), how would it be easily bypassed?

    There are more ways than straight defeat for the House of Lords to give the government almighty headaches. Time is critical, so in practice the House of Lords' power to delay assumes a much greater significance than usual. This has been barely commented on and Mike's thread is probably the most significant of the last month.
    Indeed. That's the point. In theory, not only could the Lords block any Brexit bill but it could also block any other bill that sought to bypass the Lords' decision by changing the rules. In time, the Parliament Act could be used but as you say, that can't happen immediately and so the year's delay the Lords is empowered to impose assumes a critical nature when the Brexit deadline is set and can't be unilaterally amended.

    In reality, Labour peers would probably cave in in short order if push came to shove and even Lib Dem ones might baulk at the constitutional impertinence of an overrepresented element of an unelected House imposing its views against an established referendum outcome.

    Besides, if it really did come down to it, the government would have the nuclear option of the creation of hundreds of new peers.
    Labour peers can amend as well as block. I expect they will.
    They can and probably will. I could well see more ping-pong than at a table tennis convention.
    The government could lose some of the pings as well as some of the pongs. That's an expected problem with no majority and a fractious party of government.
    That is probably true and will depend on the merits of the amendments. But then good amendments are worth keeping.
    I expect Henry VIII will be the biggest flashpoint.
    I don't see why people are so het up on those. Clearly they are too widely drawn at the moment, but equally there is the need for some simple mechanism for basic textual amendments. And the government has included a sunset clause. I am sure some simple changes (e.g. a committee of senior parliamentarians which has the right to demand debates on a percentage of them) would make it work well
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,950
    HYUFD said:

    philiph said:

    That's a great piece Southam and sums it up. There will be documentaries made for the 20th Anniversary of Brexit in 2039 comparing leave voting areas of the north of England and the now richer areas of Poland. We aren't evolved to notice yet alone respond to very long term threats.

    It would be nigh on a disaster for humanity if there were not considerably increased riches for Poland, but to mention Indonesia, India, Russia Bolivia and hopefully Venezuela to name a few random nations.

    There will be a closing of the gap began richer and poorer populations. That is a good thing, not bad.
    Though with the biggest global population growth in Africa it is needed there even more, hence Bojo bigging up trading opportunities with Nigeria on his visit there last week
    And the PM in Japan last week. The govt is taking future trade seriously, and especially in Africa there's a great opportunity to replace aid with trade in the medium term, away from EU quotas and tariffs especially on agriculture.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,950
    Slightly off topic, but a great talk at the Royal Institution about science and gambling, including a bit (32'30") about how politicians are a little like racehorses.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=658xlubwnDc
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    eek said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr Submarine,

    "We can't negotiate with the EU27 untill we know what we want."

    We can't negotiate with the EU27 until we pay a large unexplained bill, according to Monsieur Barnier. We know what we want - the best financial deal commensurate with leaving the EU.

    I think the point is that we don't know in what form our future relationship with the EU will be and we really need to know what type of future relationship we are aiming for...

    I suspect in reality the pragmatic one of seeing where we end up is probably the sane one but it does rather increase the element of doubt people are feeling...
    We are aiming for a close and friendly relationship with our neighbours (in values as well as geography) in which we collaborate across a wide sphere of activities.

    But - and this is the difference for the irredentist ultramontanes amongst us - we chose when to collaborate as opposed to being required to collaborate on terms that don't suit us
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,078
    Sandpit said:

    Slightly off topic, but a great talk at the Royal Institution about science and gambling, including a bit (32'30") about how politicians are a little like racehorses.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=658xlubwnDc

    Those lectures are great.
  • Options
    EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,956
    edited September 2017

    The government is negotiating Brexit with the Tory right, not the EU27. Pretty much sums it up:
    https://infacts.org/may-must-negotiate-eu-not-tory-brexiters/amp/

    I think that's the long and short of it. I've taken a months long break from reading anything on the topic. I've come back and nothing has fundamentally changed. The government is still negotiating with it's self. We can't negotiate with the EU27 untill we know what we want. We still don't and cock is ticking. Ideally voters would have spotted the ongoing car crash and have started to get cold feet. But they haven't. We have an irresistible force. Brexit must happen. And an immovable object. Brexit means to many differing and undeliverable things to too many people. As soon as the government chooses the House of Cards might collapse.

    I'm heading back to a media blackout on the topic until we decide what we want. Nothing is going to change till then.
    Oo er. At least you didn't add the L into 'ticking'!
  • Options
    Essexit said:

    The government is negotiating Brexit with the Tory right, not the EU27. Pretty much sums it up:
    https://infacts.org/may-must-negotiate-eu-not-tory-brexiters/amp/

    I think that's the long and short of it. I've taken a months long break from reading anything on the topic. I've come back and nothing has fundamentally changed. The government is still negotiating with it's self. We can't negotiate with the EU27 untill we know what we want. We still don't and cock is ticking. Ideally voters would have spotted the ongoing car crash and have started to get cold feet. But they haven't. We have an irresistible force. Brexit must happen. And an immovable object. Brexit means to many differing and undeliverable things to too many people. As soon as the government chooses the House of Cards might collapse.

    I'm heading back to a media blackout on the topic until we decide what we want. Nothing is going to change till then.
    Oo er. At least you didn't add the L into 'ticking'!
    Ha ! I'll be back in a month when hopefully something meaningful will have happened Brexit wise. In meantime I need to workout a spell checker ! I hope everyone is well !!!
  • Options

    and cock is ticking

    Aye, David Davis did look as if he was about to go off on his recent media performances.

  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,950
    edited September 2017

    Essexit said:

    The government is negotiating Brexit with the Tory right, not the EU27. Pretty much sums it up:
    https://infacts.org/may-must-negotiate-eu-not-tory-brexiters/amp/

    I think that's the long and short of it. I've taken a months long break from reading anything on the topic. I've come back and nothing has fundamentally changed. The government is still negotiating with it's self. We can't negotiate with the EU27 untill we know what we want. We still don't and cock is ticking. Ideally voters would have spotted the ongoing car crash and have started to get cold feet. But they haven't. We have an irresistible force. Brexit must happen. And an immovable object. Brexit means to many differing and undeliverable things to too many people. As soon as the government chooses the House of Cards might collapse.

    I'm heading back to a media blackout on the topic until we decide what we want. Nothing is going to change till then.
    Oo er. At least you didn't add the L into 'ticking'!
    Ha ! I'll be back in a month when hopefully something meaningful will have happened Brexit wise. In meantime I need to workout a spell checker ! I hope everyone is well !!!
    Agree with you on the machinations and spin of the whole process getting very boring, even politically aware people are just switching off until we see positive results from the negotiations.

    That said, a very good exchange between @david_herdson and @AlastairMeeks downthread this morning.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,950

    Sandpit said:

    Slightly off topic, but a great talk at the Royal Institution about science and gambling, including a bit (32'30") about how politicians are a little like racehorses.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=658xlubwnDc

    Those lectures are great.
    Yes, this one arrived at the front of the watch queue this morning, after a few months. I love the history and interaction between science and gambling.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,997
    philiph said:

    That's a great piece Southam and sums it up. There will be documentaries made for the 20th Anniversary of Brexit in 2039 comparing leave voting areas of the north of England and the now richer areas of Poland. We aren't evolved to notice yet alone respond to very long term threats.

    It would be nigh on a disaster for humanity if there were not considerably increased riches for Poland, but to mention Indonesia, India, Russia Bolivia and hopefully Venezuela to name a few random nations.

    There will be a closing of the gap began richer and poorer populations. That is a good thing, not bad.
    Getting richer at a slightly slower rate than others is not the worst of fates.
  • Options
    Those into videogames might like to read my first impressions of Pillars of Eternity (PS4): http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/pillars-of-eternity-ps4-first.html
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,408
    The Danish and Swedish ones are interesting. The EU is going to become an increasingly difficult place for those countries not in the Euro when they lose the protection that the UK was giving to them. I suspect that some of those who are indifferent think that the UK has been the major drag on further integration for the last 25 years (which it has, ever since Maastricht) and that there will now be an opportunity to greatly accelerate the project.

    Which is another reason that I think that this is for keeps. The option of returning to an EU which looks even slightly like the present one simply will not exist within a decade or so. Re-joining will involve a program that would make William Glenn feel dizzy. Join the Euro, have your budget approved in Brussels, make cuts to match some Teutonic (or possibly Club Med) borrowing target regardless of local needs, join Schengen, accept that the EU institutions are now the most influential and that national level politics is strictly local. Things will have to be pretty bad for that to look like an option, way worse than Ganesh is talking about.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,175
    Scott_P said:

    This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/brexit-sets-britain-on-a-stable-path-of-relative-decline-1.3209436?mode=amp

    https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/904787023680163840
    Tell that to Switzerland and Norway, both outside the EU but also richer than the UK, France and Germany
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,175
    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    philiph said:

    That's a great piece Southam and sums it up. There will be documentaries made for the 20th Anniversary of Brexit in 2039 comparing leave voting areas of the north of England and the now richer areas of Poland. We aren't evolved to notice yet alone respond to very long term threats.

    It would be nigh on a disaster for humanity if there were not considerably increased riches for Poland, but to mention Indonesia, India, Russia Bolivia and hopefully Venezuela to name a few random nations.

    There will be a closing of the gap began richer and poorer populations. That is a good thing, not bad.
    Though with the biggest global population growth in Africa it is needed there even more, hence Bojo bigging up trading opportunities with Nigeria on his visit there last week
    We definitely do need to do something about providing a reason for people to stay in Africa. Currently the life plan for most people is to earn / raise enough money to escape where they live and head for a better life in Europe. Unless we provide people with a good reason to stay at home (or at least create cities in Africa worth migrating to and staying at) the migrants arriving in Italy and Spain will never end...
    Agreed
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,175
    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    philiph said:

    That's a great piece Southam and sums it up. There will be documentaries made for the 20th Anniversary of Brexit in 2039 comparing leave voting areas of the north of England and the now richer areas of Poland. We aren't evolved to notice yet alone respond to very long term threats.

    It would be nigh on a disaster for humanity if there were not considerably increased riches for Poland, but to mention Indonesia, India, Russia Bolivia and hopefully Venezuela to name a few random nations.

    There will be a closing of the gap began richer and poorer populations. That is a good thing, not bad.
    Though with the biggest global population growth in Africa it is needed there even more, hence Bojo bigging up trading opportunities with Nigeria on his visit there last week
    And the PM in Japan last week. The govt is taking future trade seriously, and especially in Africa there's a great opportunity to replace aid with trade in the medium term, away from EU quotas and tariffs especially on agriculture.
    Exactly
  • Options

    That's a great piece Southam and sums it up. There will be documentaries made for the 20th Anniversary of Brexit in 2039 comparing leave voting areas of the north of England and the now richer areas of Poland. We aren't evolved to notice yet alone respond to very long term threats.

    If none of that happens, will you be disappointed?
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    The Danish and Swedish ones are interesting. The EU is going to become an increasingly difficult place for those countries not in the Euro when they lose the protection that the UK was giving to them. I suspect that some of those who are indifferent think that the UK has been the major drag on further integration for the last 25 years (which it has, ever since Maastricht) and that there will now be an opportunity to greatly accelerate the project.

    Which is another reason that I think that this is for keeps. The option of returning to an EU which looks even slightly like the present one simply will not exist within a decade or so. Re-joining will involve a program that would make William Glenn feel dizzy. Join the Euro, have your budget approved in Brussels, make cuts to match some Teutonic (or possibly Club Med) borrowing target regardless of local needs, join Schengen, accept that the EU institutions are now the most influential and that national level politics is strictly local. Things will have to be pretty bad for that to look like an option, way worse than Ganesh is talking about.

    It will be an EU even more dominated by Germany than it is now.

    It's not impossible in the long-term that the Scandinavians also Leave and join us in EFTA, or similar.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,950
    edited September 2017

    That's a great piece Southam and sums it up. There will be documentaries made for the 20th Anniversary of Brexit in 2039 comparing leave voting areas of the north of England and the now richer areas of Poland. We aren't evolved to notice yet alone respond to very long term threats.

    If none of that happens, will you be disappointed?
    I like the assumption that Poland will still be happily in the EU in 2039. That could turn out to be a very big assumption indeed.
  • Options
    Scott_P said:

    This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/brexit-sets-britain-on-a-stable-path-of-relative-decline-1.3209436?mode=amp

    https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/904787023680163840
    The yearning for British failure among some Remainers is very revealing.

    Lets look at some economic facts:

    When did the UK last have a trade surplus month ? 1998
    When did UK industrial output peak ? 2000
    When did UK government debt as a % of GDP start increasing ? 2002
    When did home ownerships level start falling in the UK ? 2003

    When did declinism begin ?
  • Options
    Apologies, Mike's piece will be going up this afternoon.

    The handover didn't go smoothly this time.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,609
    edited September 2017

    and cock is ticking

    Aye, David Davis did look as if he was about to go off on his recent media performances.

    How are you and your fellow Scots this morning?

    I'm assuming cheering at English goals/victory must have been very disorienting.
  • Options
    OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,924

    The government is negotiating Brexit with the Tory right, not the EU27. Pretty much sums it up:
    https://infacts.org/may-must-negotiate-eu-not-tory-brexiters/amp/

    Spot on and therein lies the root of our problems. Brexit is still being fought out as an internal Tory party struggle while the rest of the UK and EU watch on with mounting disbelief.

    One hopes that eventually a form of Brexit will be found that suits the Tory party - whether that is before 2019 or whether it is then acceptable to the EU is an entirely different matter.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,369

    DavidL said:

    The Danish and Swedish ones are interesting. The EU is going to become an increasingly difficult place for those countries not in the Euro when they lose the protection that the UK was giving to them. I suspect that some of those who are indifferent think that the UK has been the major drag on further integration for the last 25 years (which it has, ever since Maastricht) and that there will now be an opportunity to greatly accelerate the project.

    Which is another reason that I think that this is for keeps. The option of returning to an EU which looks even slightly like the present one simply will not exist within a decade or so. Re-joining will involve a program that would make William Glenn feel dizzy. Join the Euro, have your budget approved in Brussels, make cuts to match some Teutonic (or possibly Club Med) borrowing target regardless of local needs, join Schengen, accept that the EU institutions are now the most influential and that national level politics is strictly local. Things will have to be pretty bad for that to look like an option, way worse than Ganesh is talking about.

    It will be an EU even more dominated by Germany than it is now.

    It's not impossible in the long-term that the Scandinavians also Leave and join us in EFTA, or similar.
    IMO this misreads the figures. The Scandinavians like the Brits, feel they have lots in common with us, and are sorry to see us go; the French are more equivocal and more irritated by our political rivalry. But there is no significant interest in leaving the EU in any of these countries, or much interest in slowing down the project.

    The attitude is as though your brother, who has lived next door for many years, is thinking of emigrating. If you get on well, you'll be sorry to see him go, but the thought that his presence is useful to you is a fairly minor consideration.
  • Options

    Scott_P said:

    This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/brexit-sets-britain-on-a-stable-path-of-relative-decline-1.3209436?mode=amp

    https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/904787023680163840
    The yearning for British failure among some Remainers is very revealing.

    Lets look at some economic facts:

    When did the UK last have a trade surplus month ? 1998
    When did UK industrial output peak ? 2000
    When did UK government debt as a % of GDP start increasing ? 2002
    When did home ownerships level start falling in the UK ? 2003

    When did declinism begin ?
    When Tony Blair was elected.
  • Options

    Scott_P said:

    This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/brexit-sets-britain-on-a-stable-path-of-relative-decline-1.3209436?mode=amp

    https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/904787023680163840
    The yearning for British failure among some Remainers is very revealing.

    Lets look at some economic facts:

    When did the UK last have a trade surplus month ? 1998
    When did UK industrial output peak ? 2000
    When did UK government debt as a % of GDP start increasing ? 2002
    When did home ownerships level start falling in the UK ? 2003

    When did declinism begin ?
    And one more:

    When did UK productivity start its stagnation ? 2006

    Declinism was a cause of the Leave vote, not a consequence.
  • Options
    F1: still no word, yet, on McLaren but it is expected soon.

    On engine penalties, Force India is in favour of the current system. The fact their car is immensely reliable and has the best engine may not be irrelevant.

    At the last race, only two drivers actually started in the positions in which they qualified. Some got grid penalties and actually moved forward.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,369
    The first German post-debate polls show little change (NB INSA tends to show higher AfD and lower CDU figures than the others for some reason).

    The AfD have picked up a bit after a long period of internal quarrels, but are still not considered "salonfaehig" (people you'd be prepared to sit in a room with). Essentially Merkel is likely to have a choice between a coalition with FDP (free-market liberals, close to business) and Greens (relatively centrist compared with other countires, and more environmental than radical), the continuation of the grand coalition with the social democrats (unlikely as the SPD recognise the problems of being a junior partner) or a minority government with the FDP (viable as the AfD and the left will almost enver vote together, but unusual in Germany.

    http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
  • Options
    Mr. Richard, yes, but the metropolitan types had a party/government/country that was of like mind. For the first time in a long while, they've been on the losing side of an argument, and pride prefers to find fault with those who disagree than acknowledge grievances may have been genuine.

    Mr. Palmer, any long-term prospect of the AfD gaining popularity, do you think, or will they just be a protest vote party?
  • Options

    DavidL said:

    The Danish and Swedish ones are interesting. The EU is going to become an increasingly difficult place for those countries not in the Euro when they lose the protection that the UK was giving to them. I suspect that some of those who are indifferent think that the UK has been the major drag on further integration for the last 25 years (which it has, ever since Maastricht) and that there will now be an opportunity to greatly accelerate the project.

    Which is another reason that I think that this is for keeps. The option of returning to an EU which looks even slightly like the present one simply will not exist within a decade or so. Re-joining will involve a program that would make William Glenn feel dizzy. Join the Euro, have your budget approved in Brussels, make cuts to match some Teutonic (or possibly Club Med) borrowing target regardless of local needs, join Schengen, accept that the EU institutions are now the most influential and that national level politics is strictly local. Things will have to be pretty bad for that to look like an option, way worse than Ganesh is talking about.

    It will be an EU even more dominated by Germany than it is now.

    It's not impossible in the long-term that the Scandinavians also Leave and join us in EFTA, or similar.
    IMO this misreads the figures. The Scandinavians like the Brits, feel they have lots in common with us, and are sorry to see us go; the French are more equivocal and more irritated by our political rivalry. But there is no significant interest in leaving the EU in any of these countries, or much interest in slowing down the project.

    The attitude is as though your brother, who has lived next door for many years, is thinking of emigrating. If you get on well, you'll be sorry to see him go, but the thought that his presence is useful to you is a fairly minor consideration.
    Please, can we leave the tortured analogies at home?

    Like I said, long-term (i.e. not yet) but there's no doubt the Scandinavians have a distinctive and more independent identity as Nordic nations than many of the states on the main continent of Europe.

    I disagree with your comment on there being "not much interest in slowing down The Project". Scandinavians do not want to be part of a fundamental part of it - the Euro.
  • Options

    and cock is ticking

    Aye, David Davis did look as if he was about to go off on his recent media performances.

    How are you and your fellow Scots this morning?

    I'm assuming cheering at English goals/victory must have been very disorienting.
    Not at all, we're always happy to give our fellow inhabitants of this island a hearty cheer at the fitba.
    We also have always been at war with Eastasia.
  • Options
    Sandpit said:

    That's a great piece Southam and sums it up. There will be documentaries made for the 20th Anniversary of Brexit in 2039 comparing leave voting areas of the north of England and the now richer areas of Poland. We aren't evolved to notice yet alone respond to very long term threats.

    If none of that happens, will you be disappointed?
    I like the assumption that Poland will still be happily in the EU in 2039. That could turn out to be a very big assumption indeed.
    I think Poland will be, for what it's worth, for similar reasons to France - both East and West, they see themselves as restraining influences on Germany.

    In the long-term, again, I could see Poland being a bigger and more successful player than countries like Italy and Spain, and perhaps even France.

    Poland has an entrepreneurial pro-business nature, and takes its armed forces seriously.
  • Options

    Scott_P said:

    This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/brexit-sets-britain-on-a-stable-path-of-relative-decline-1.3209436?mode=amp

    https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/904787023680163840
    The yearning for British failure among some Remainers is very revealing.

    Lets look at some economic facts:

    When did the UK last have a trade surplus month ? 1998
    When did UK industrial output peak ? 2000
    When did UK government debt as a % of GDP start increasing ? 2002
    When did home ownerships level start falling in the UK ? 2003

    When did declinism begin ?
    When Tony Blair was elected.
    All that these stats tell you is that Brexit is, at best, a distraction from dealing with the real, long term problems in the country.
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    Scott_P said:

    This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/brexit-sets-britain-on-a-stable-path-of-relative-decline-1.3209436?mode=amp

    https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/904787023680163840
    Tell that to Switzerland and Norway, both outside the EU but also richer than the UK, France and Germany
    It's one of those irregular verbs:

    Your independence is a great success.
    Our sovereignty is a disaster.
    We are doomed.
    I told you so.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,369
    Norwegian elections coming up. Secure-looking centre-right lead:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Norwegian_parliamentary_election,_2017
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,405

    Scott_P said:

    This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/brexit-sets-britain-on-a-stable-path-of-relative-decline-1.3209436?mode=amp

    https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/904787023680163840
    The yearning for British failure among some Remainers is very revealing.

    Lets look at some economic facts:

    When did the UK last have a trade surplus month ? 1998
    When did UK industrial output peak ? 2000
    When did UK government debt as a % of GDP start increasing ? 2002
    When did home ownerships level start falling in the UK ? 2003

    When did declinism begin ?
    And one more:

    When did UK productivity start its stagnation ? 2006

    Declinism was a cause of the Leave vote, not a consequence.
    And do you think Leaving will halt it?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,408

    and cock is ticking

    Aye, David Davis did look as if he was about to go off on his recent media performances.

    How are you and your fellow Scots this morning?

    I'm assuming cheering at English goals/victory must have been very disorienting.
    Not at all. Especially with Rashford scoring the winner. What's not to like?
  • Options
    YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    Don't EU want me ? Not sure if The Human League do.
  • Options

    The

    This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/brexit-sets-britain-on-a-stable-path-of-relative-decline-1.3209436?mode=amp
    That Janan Ganesh article (for it is he) is fascinating.

    First, he admits that the "immediate shock" stuff that pro-Europeans and neutrals predicted did not come to pass. Then, he conflates current slower growth in the UK compared to the eurozone (entirely understandable whilst firms and businesses hold off investment pending knowledge of the final deal and trading arrangements) with an imagined future of wonders and riches had we remained. In fact, he uses those very words: imagined future.

    Has he imagined a future where Britain thrives? Where it deepens and strengthens its global trading relationships, adopts a more flexible approach to regulation and has a well-structured immigration policy focussed on attracting the best talent from around the world?

    Nope. He is counting all of the (imagined) lost opportunities, and discounting any new ones.

    He then hopes for a crisis in 2019 to reverse the decision again.

    His evidence base for this seems to be the period from 1945 to c.1975, before the UK joined the EEC. But the world was very different then. The UK was gradually shedding the sterling zone and its empire, trimming its heavy military spending, and becoming a post industrial society. Furthermore, the Western world utterly dominated the global economy, and the EEC formed a very big part of it.

    It is true to say that the UK will gradually experience relative decline (as it has for over 100 years) relative to the rest of the world going forwards. So will the EU.

    In 20 years I expect no difference in our overall relative level of wealth compared to other large EU countries, and, in fact, I think it may even be better.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,405

    The

    This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/brexit-sets-britain-on-a-stable-path-of-relative-decline-1.3209436?mode=amp
    That Janan Ganesh article (for it is he) is fascinating.

    SNIP

    In 20 years I expect no difference in our overall relative level of wealth compared to other large EU countries, and, in fact, I think it may even be better.
    That is because it seems that you are economically illiterate.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,408
    TOPPING said:

    Scott_P said:

    This very good article pretty much explains why I voted Remain and why there is unlikely to be a substantial shift in public opinion for a number of years:

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/brexit-sets-britain-on-a-stable-path-of-relative-decline-1.3209436?mode=amp

    https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/904787023680163840
    The yearning for British failure among some Remainers is very revealing.

    Lets look at some economic facts:

    When did the UK last have a trade surplus month ? 1998
    When did UK industrial output peak ? 2000
    When did UK government debt as a % of GDP start increasing ? 2002
    When did home ownerships level start falling in the UK ? 2003

    When did declinism begin ?
    And one more:

    When did UK productivity start its stagnation ? 2006

    Declinism was a cause of the Leave vote, not a consequence.
    And do you think Leaving will halt it?
    It gives us opportunities to address it. Whether we seize those opportunities or let them slide through our fingers is very much up to us and those we elect. The last point may be a problem of course. Are there any adults in the room?
This discussion has been closed.