The ONS try very hard to hide the RPI figures. The one just issued is 3.9%.
That is high. This is probably a blip caused by the devaluation which will soon start to come out of the figures but it also means real wages will be falling for longer than was hoped.
It may take some months yet before the devaluation effect fully works through, so I wouldn't be surprised if inflation remains high (by recent standards) for a while.
In addition, if the Brexit talks go badly, sterling could fall again, although for the moment it seems to be recovering slightly.
That's not a gun to the PM's head, it's a gun to the UK's head.
This is exactly the scenario which could lead to a potentially catastrophic situation where we can't agree anything with the EU and crash out in utter chaos.
The election result really was the most disastrous in modern times.
Whilst I agree with that I am also somewhat relieved that May did not get a stonking majority. Her judgment is poor and I am not sure I would trust her not to do serious harm with it. At the risk of anthropomorphising the great British electorate perhaps the view that she needed a leash was the right one.
They didn't trust May with a majority, and they didn't trust Corbyn as Prime Minister.
It appears she's applied for British residency (which she doesn't have to) and has been rejected because the government is following the EU directive on health insurance which the UK has said it will drop.
On the Guardian story, while regrettable and unfortunate, what did the EU think would happen when it demanded superior rights for its citizens and oversight of those rights via extraterritorial jurisdiction?
Lol - let's wait to see the howls of outrage form Glenn/Observer/Meeks, etc.
That's not a gun to the PM's head, it's a gun to the UK's head.
This is exactly the scenario which could lead to a potentially catastrophic situation where we can't agree anything with the EU and crash out in utter chaos.
The election result really was the most disastrous in modern times.
Whilst I agree with that I am also somewhat relieved that May did not get a stonking majority. Her judgment is poor and I am not sure I would trust her not to do serious harm with it. At the risk of anthropomorphising the great British electorate perhaps the view that she needed a leash was the right one.
They didn't trust May with a majority, and they didn't trust Corbyn as Prime Minister.
Sound judgment indeed. A strong government negotiating Brexit would have got us a better and cheaper deal but perhaps the price of an uncontrolled May was too high.
That's not a gun to the PM's head, it's a gun to the UK's head.
This is exactly the scenario which could lead to a potentially catastrophic situation where we can't agree anything with the EU and crash out in utter chaos.
The election result really was the most disastrous in modern times.
Whilst I agree with that I am also somewhat relieved that May did not get a stonking majority. Her judgment is poor and I am not sure I would trust her not to do serious harm with it. At the risk of anthropomorphising the great British electorate perhaps the view that she needed a leash was the right one.
They didn't trust May with a majority, and they didn't trust Corbyn as Prime Minister.
Sound judgment indeed. A strong government negotiating Brexit would have got us a better and cheaper deal but perhaps the price of an uncontrolled May was too high.
Anyone know what date is her 'Major Speech'? The one that is so important that the next round of talks are delayed?
The ONS try very hard to hide the RPI figures. The one just issued is 3.9%.
That is high. This is probably a blip caused by the devaluation which will soon start to come out of the figures but it also means real wages will be falling for longer than was hoped.
It may take some months yet before the devaluation effect fully works through, so I wouldn't be surprised if inflation remains high (by recent standards) for a while.
In addition, if the Brexit talks go badly, sterling could fall again, although for the moment it seems to be recovering slightly.
Sterling has been doing ok against most currencies for a while now. It is just that the Euro has been exceptionally strong.
The ONS try very hard to hide the RPI figures. The one just issued is 3.9%.
The ONS are obliged to publish RPI (it's the only statistic whose publication is a statutory requirement). But the ONS regard RPI as seriously flawed and not to be used whenever there is an option.
I was sorely tempted to become a three-quidder ... but I pulled out at the last minute on a point of principle.
That principle being never to willingly give so much as a penny to the sodding Labour Party!
We seem to get experiences like yours on here.However none from the Conservatives who paid Labour to vote for Corbyn and I can assure you there were many on here boasting about their exploits.
The Bill is absolutely necessary and therefore should have been allowed a second reading. The process set out in the bill requires scrutiny and further thought. That is what the Committee stage is for. I expect the powers to amend legislation will be restricted to specific purposes and subject to limitations as to scope.
What the Bill is highlighting quite well is the hypocrisy of those who were content for the EU to regulate all these areas and change the laws of this country using QMV regardless of the views of our elected officials but somehow think it is appalling that Ministers who are completely accountable to Parliament in a minority government should be able to do something similar. Its bordering on the pathetic. But there is still work to do.
The issue is an objective one so accusations of hypocrisy are inappropriate. Constitutions exist in major part to put constraints on the power of the executive. That we don't have a proper constitution and are also unprotected in other circumstances is neither here nor there. Nothing like the EU Withdrawal Bill has been attempted before and certainly never on this massive scale. It can't be a copy and paste job because EU law depends on the system of regulation that will disappear after we leave.
Strictly speaking, EU law is enacted in this country through treaties that are voted on on parliament, although I accept this is pretty much a rubber stamp. In practice however EU is law is arrived at in a much more rigorous way than the EU Withdrawal law will be, as it has to go through lots of hoops to get enacted. Also EU law is almost invariably arrived at through consensus and not QMV
You are making exactly the same mistake as the more loony Brexiteers made before the referendum: assuming that the UK can unilaterally choose between a range of options, none of which are actually on offer.
Brexit means one thing and one thing only: whatever is agreed (if anything) between the UK government and the EU27 in the negotiations. There is no other possibility, other than utter chaos where either the UK parliament or the EU parliament reject the deal. In that case, as Michel Barnier keeps reminding us, the fallback position isn't 'no change', it's complete and disastrous chaos as the Article 50 deadline cuts in and we are left in legal limbo with no trade deal at all.
This really shouldn't need explaining, but the degree of delusion is quite remarkable.
It's rare I agree with you, Richard, but that's where I am as well. The foolish notion being perpetrated by Tim Farron and now Vince Cable that somehow by voting down any A50 Treaty we can reset the clock to 22/6/16 makes me angry as a LD member and LEAVE voter.
I do think if the clock is running down and an agreement needs a few more days the A50 time can and would be extended but I think by days or a month at most.
That said, it has to be hoped the prospect of the cliff edge exercises minds more than Cameron calling an In-Out referendum did. His "nuclear" option backfired in that it didn't provoke the agreement he wanted, his bluff was called and we all know the outcome. If the EU didn't, couldn't or wouldn't do a deal then, will they do so now ?
MY concern is whether our Government really wants a deal or do they want to crash out the EU as a badge of honour so they can call an election and blame the "perfidious Europeans" ?
That's not a gun to the PM's head, it's a gun to the UK's head.
This is exactly the scenario which could lead to a potentially catastrophic situation where we can't agree anything with the EU and crash out in utter chaos.
The election result really was the most disastrous in modern times.
"Brexit means Brexit means whatever Theresa and Daily Mail want it to mean" ... was not what the country voted for last June.
She didn't have a mandate for it before the election, which is why the election was called.
She doesn't have a mandate for it now.
Trying to pretend she does by fiddling with democracy is a disaster for the tory party and the country. It's shameful.
You are making exactly the same mistake as the more loony Brexiteers made before the referendum: assuming that the UK can unilaterally choose between a range of options, none of which are actually on offer.
Brexit means one thing and one thing only: whatever is agreed (if anything) between the UK government and the EU27 in the negotiations. There is no other possibility, other than utter chaos where either the UK parliament or the EU parliament reject the deal. In that case, as Michel Barnier keeps reminding us, the fallback position isn't 'no change', it's complete and disastrous chaos as the Article 50 deadline cuts in and we are left in legal limbo with no trade deal at all.
This really shouldn't need explaining, but the degree of delusion is quite remarkable.
They will come crawling back as we are the fifth/sixth/seventh ( delete were appropriate) largest economy in the world and they wouldn't dare go against British pluck.
You are making exactly the same mistake as the more loony Brexiteers made before the referendum: assuming that the UK can unilaterally choose between a range of options, none of which are actually on offer.
Brexit means one thing and one thing only: whatever is agreed (if anything) between the UK government and the EU27 in the negotiations. There is no other possibility, other than utter chaos where either the UK parliament or the EU parliament reject the deal. In that case, as Michel Barnier keeps reminding us, the fallback position isn't 'no change', it's complete and disastrous chaos as the Article 50 deadline cuts in and we are left in legal limbo with no trade deal at all.
This really shouldn't need explaining, but the degree of delusion is quite remarkable.
It's rare I agree with you, Richard, but that's where I am as well. The foolish notion being perpetrated by Tim Farron and now Vince Cable that somehow by voting down any A50 Treaty we can reset the clock to 22/6/16 makes me angry as a LD member and LEAVE voter.
I do think if the clock is running down and an agreement needs a few more days the A50 time can and would be extended but I think by days or a month at most.
That said, it has to be hoped the prospect of the cliff edge exercises minds more than Cameron calling an In-Out referendum did. His "nuclear" option backfired in that it didn't provoke the agreement he wanted, his bluff was called and we all know the outcome. If the EU didn't, couldn't or wouldn't do a deal then, will they do so now ?
MY concern is whether our Government really wants a deal or do they want to crash out the EU as a badge of honour so they can call an election and blame the "perfidious Europeans" ?
Former would be Labour/Lib Dems choice. Latter, Tories choice, so they can pump up the nationalism and jingoism
Corbyn is expected to become prime minister...........Corbyn will no doubt continue to defy expectations.
Corbyn's apologists continue to delude themselves. Corbyn's 40% was brought about by piling up votes in seats that Labour already held. He won about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010. He was also helped by those who held their nose and voted Labour despite Corbyn in order to stop Theresa May's hard Brexit. And by the kamikaze Tory election campaign.
I have voted Labour at every election for 40 years -including 2017. I continue to believe that Corbyn is a disaster. Things could turn out very differently at the next election. Even if I am wrong and he became PM, that could be even worse for Labour as a Corbyn government would toxify Labour for a generation. To those who say that Corbyn has not destroyed the Labour party, I say "give him a chance".
That's not a gun to the PM's head, it's a gun to the UK's head.
This is exactly the scenario which could lead to a potentially catastrophic situation where we can't agree anything with the EU and crash out in utter chaos.
The election result really was the most disastrous in modern times.
"Brexit means Brexit means whatever Theresa and Daily Mail want it to mean" ... was not what the country voted for last June.
She didn't have a mandate for it before the election, which is why the election was called.
She doesn't have a mandate for it now.
Trying to pretend she does by fiddling with democracy is a disaster for the tory party and the country. It's shameful.
You are making exactly the same mistake as the more loony Brexiteers made before the referendum: assuming that the UK can unilaterally choose between a range of options, none of which are actually on offer.
Brexit means one thing and one thing only: whatever is agreed (if anything) between the UK government and the EU27 in the negotiations. There is no other possibility, other than utter chaos where either the UK parliament or the EU parliament reject the deal. In that case, as Michel Barnier keeps reminding us, the fallback position isn't 'no change', it's complete and disastrous chaos as the Article 50 deadline cuts in and we are left in legal limbo with no trade deal at all.
This really shouldn't need explaining, but the degree of delusion is quite remarkable.
"A border between Britain and the EU can only be achieved by Britain leaving Ireland.
"Britain cannot have its cake and eat it. They must put their border elsewhere, and they must propose and facilitate whatever it takes to enable both parts of this island to remain within the EU.
"In voting for Brexit, they effectively voted to leave Ireland. There is no other way forward."
Corbyn is expected to become prime minister...........Corbyn will no doubt continue to defy expectations.
Corbyn's apologists continue to delude themselves. Corbyn's 40% was brought about by piling up votes in seats that Labour already held. He won about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010. He was also helped by those who held their nose and voted Labour despite Corbyn in order to stop Theresa May's hard Brexit. And by the kamikaze Tory election campaign.
I have voted Labour at every election for 40 years -including 2017. I continue to believe that Corbyn is a disaster. Things could turn out very differently at the next election. Even if I am wrong and he became PM, that could be even worse for Labour as a Corbyn government would toxify Labour for a generation. To those who say that Corbyn has not destroyed the Labour party, I say "give him a chance".
But that's not what a lot of the seats showed. They cut the Tory majorities in a lot of places they didn't win, and got back some seats in Scotland. And yes, he didn't do as well as Brown, but he did better than Ed Milliband ( and with a lot less of press with him and a wing of his own party against him)
Is this CPI figure the one used for any benefit/pension/DWP upgrades in April? Or is that next month's figure?
September
Thanks. Another CPI figure of around 2.9% is going to be financial headache for Hammond.
In theory there is 0.3% that will disappear next month (the difference between the 1% CPI in August 2016 and the 1.3% CPI in September 2016). I suspect however that petrol and food prices will result in the September 2017 figure being at least 2.9% if not 3%...
That 0.25% rate cut last July did nobody any favours...
Is this CPI figure the one used for any benefit/pension/DWP upgrades in April? Or is that next month's figure?
September
Thanks. Another CPI figure of around 2.9% is going to be financial headache for Hammond.
In theory there is 0.3% that will disappear next month (the difference between the 1% CPI in August 2016 and the 1.3% CPI in September 2016). I suspect however that petrol and food prices will result in the September 2017 figure being at least 2.9% if not 3%...
That 0.25% rate cut last July did nobody any favours...
That's not a gun to the PM's head, it's a gun to the UK's head.
This is exactly the scenario which could lead to a potentially catastrophic situation where we can't agree anything with the EU and crash out in utter chaos.
The election result really was the most disastrous in modern times.
Whilst I agree with that I am also somewhat relieved that May did not get a stonking majority. Her judgment is poor and I am not sure I would trust her not to do serious harm with it. At the risk of anthropomorphising the great British electorate perhaps the view that she needed a leash was the right one.
They didn't trust May with a majority, and they didn't trust Corbyn as Prime Minister.
Sound judgment indeed. A strong government negotiating Brexit would have got us a better and cheaper deal but perhaps the price of an uncontrolled May was too high.
Anyone know what date is her 'Major Speech'? The one that is so important that the next round of talks are delayed?
Will it be a damp squib?
Everything else she has done has been a damp squib since she got into No. 10.
Corbyn is expected to become prime minister...........Corbyn will no doubt continue to defy expectations.
Corbyn's apologists continue to delude themselves. Corbyn's 40% was brought about by piling up votes in seats that Labour already held. He won about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010. He was also helped by those who held their nose and voted Labour despite Corbyn in order to stop Theresa May's hard Brexit. And by the kamikaze Tory election campaign.
I have voted Labour at every election for 40 years -including 2017. I continue to believe that Corbyn is a disaster. Things could turn out very differently at the next election. Even if I am wrong and he became PM, that could be even worse for Labour as a Corbyn government would toxify Labour for a generation. To those who say that Corbyn has not destroyed the Labour party, I say "give him a chance".
But that's not what a lot of the seats showed. They cut the Tory majorities in a lot of places they didn't win, and got back some seats in Scotland. And yes, he didn't do as well as Brown, but he did better than Ed Milliband ( and with a lot less of press with him and a wing of his own party against him)
This far out it seems to me pointless predicting. I spent most of last year predicting a Labour catastrophe and was completely wrong.
Who knows what the mood of the electorate will be in four years time.
Having said that at the moment I think the Tories have a mountain to climb to stop Corbyn, given his appeal to the under 50s, the slow tick of demographics and the fact that they will appear very clapped out and tired as a government by 2020.
The UK would like to offer a future relationship that is deeper than any current third country partnership and that reflects our shared interests, values and the importance of a strong and prosperous Europe. This future partnership should be unprecedented in its breadth, taking in cooperation on foreign policy, defence and security, and development, and in the degree of engagement that we envisage.
You are making exactly the same mistake as the more loony Brexiteers made before the referendum: assuming that the UK can unilaterally choose between a range of options, none of which are actually on offer.
Brexit means one thing and one thing only: whatever is agreed (if anything) between the UK government and the EU27 in the negotiations. There is no other possibility, other than utter chaos where either the UK parliament or the EU parliament reject the deal. In that case, as Michel Barnier keeps reminding us, the fallback position isn't 'no change', it's complete and disastrous chaos as the Article 50 deadline cuts in and we are left in legal limbo with no trade deal at all.
This really shouldn't need explaining, but the degree of delusion is quite remarkable.
It's rare I agree with you, Richard, but that's where I am as well. The foolish notion being perpetrated by Tim Farron and now Vince Cable that somehow by voting down any A50 Treaty we can reset the clock to 22/6/16 makes me angry as a LD member and LEAVE voter.
I do think if the clock is running down and an agreement needs a few more days the A50 time can and would be extended but I think by days or a month at most.
That said, it has to be hoped the prospect of the cliff edge exercises minds more than Cameron calling an In-Out referendum did. His "nuclear" option backfired in that it didn't provoke the agreement he wanted, his bluff was called and we all know the outcome. If the EU didn't, couldn't or wouldn't do a deal then, will they do so now ?
MY concern is whether our Government really wants a deal or do they want to crash out the EU as a badge of honour so they can call an election and blame the "perfidious Europeans" ?
That's not a gun to the PM's head, it's a gun to the UK's head.
This is exactly the scenario which could lead to a potentially catastrophic situation where we can't agree anything with the EU and crash out in utter chaos.
The election result really was the most disastrous in modern times.
Whilst I agree with that I am also somewhat relieved that May did not get a stonking majority. Her judgment is poor and I am not sure I would trust her not to do serious harm with it. At the risk of anthropomorphising the great British electorate perhaps the view that she needed a leash was the right one.
They didn't trust May with a majority, and they didn't trust Corbyn as Prime Minister.
Sound judgment indeed. A strong government negotiating Brexit would have got us a better and cheaper deal but perhaps the price of an uncontrolled May was too high.
Anyone know what date is her 'Major Speech'? The one that is so important that the next round of talks are delayed?
Will it be a damp squib?
Everything else she has done has been a damp squib since she got into No. 10.
You are making exactly the same mistake as the more loony Brexiteers made before the referendum: assuming that the UK can unilaterally choose between a range of options, none of which are actually on offer.
Brexit means one thing and one thing only: whatever is agreed (if anything) between the UK government and the EU27 in the negotiations. There is no other possibility, other than utter chaos where either the UK parliament or the EU parliament reject the deal. In that case, as Michel Barnier keeps reminding us, the fallback position isn't 'no change', it's complete and disastrous chaos as the Article 50 deadline cuts in and we are left in legal limbo with no trade deal at all.
This really shouldn't need explaining, but the degree of delusion is quite remarkable.
It's rare I agree with you, Richard, but that's where I am as well. The foolish notion being perpetrated by Tim Farron and now Vince Cable that somehow by voting down any A50 Treaty we can reset the clock to 22/6/16 makes me angry as a LD member and LEAVE voter.
I do think if the clock is running down and an agreement needs a few more days the A50 time can and would be extended but I think by days or a month at most.
That said, it has to be hoped the prospect of the cliff edge exercises minds more than Cameron calling an In-Out referendum did. His "nuclear" option backfired in that it didn't provoke the agreement he wanted, his bluff was called and we all know the outcome. If the EU didn't, couldn't or wouldn't do a deal then, will they do so now ?
MY concern is whether our Government really wants a deal or do they want to crash out the EU as a badge of honour so they can call an election and blame the "perfidious Europeans" ?
The only circumstances under which the Withdrawal Bill should not come into force is if A50 were to be revoked by mutual consent and legislation to that effect of the UK parliament.
It seems that some politicians do not understand A50. It is a notice to quit, rather like resigning a job or contracting to sell a house. A wise person arranges another job and another house at the same time, but if he does not do that he is out of his house and his job regardless. A50 operates independently of any 'withdrawal deal'.
Corbyn is expected to become prime minister...........Corbyn will no doubt continue to defy expectations.
Corbyn's apologists continue to delude themselves. Corbyn's 40% was brought about by piling up votes in seats that Labour already held. He won about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010. He was also helped by those who held their nose and voted Labour despite Corbyn in order to stop Theresa May's hard Brexit. And by the kamikaze Tory election campaign.
I have voted Labour at every election for 40 years -including 2017. I continue to believe that Corbyn is a disaster. Things could turn out very differently at the next election. Even if I am wrong and he became PM, that could be even worse for Labour as a Corbyn government would toxify Labour for a generation. To those who say that Corbyn has not destroyed the Labour party, I say "give him a chance".
But that's not what a lot of the seats showed. They cut the Tory majorities in a lot of places they didn't win, and got back some seats in Scotland. And yes, he didn't do as well as Brown, but he did better than Ed Milliband ( and with a lot less of press with him and a wing of his own party against him)
And he lost seats and had Labour majorities cut too. Winning seats in Scotland makes no difference at all since the SNP would support a Labour government. Corbyn won fewer seats than Kinnock did in 1992. Labour will have to win twice as many seats next time to form a government with majority than in 2017, and the Tories will have a new leader, will have learned from their 2017 mistakes, have a more attractive manifesto, and I suspect a lot of people who abstained in 2017 or who voted Labour believing Corbyn would not be PM will come out next time to stop a Corbyn government. Corbyn will be under the disadvantage of being expected to win -just as Kinnock was in 1992. I suspect there will be another 10pm moment and that a lot of Corbynista tears will be shed. Such a moment would be good for Labour in the long run since a one term Corbyn government would put the Tories in for a generation.
"A border between Britain and the EU can only be achieved by Britain leaving Ireland.
"Britain cannot have its cake and eat it. They must put their border elsewhere, and they must propose and facilitate whatever it takes to enable both parts of this island to remain within the EU.
"In voting for Brexit, they effectively voted to leave Ireland. There is no other way forward."
That would be an opinion piece by Fergus Finlay, long time supporter of unification?
Corbyn is expected to become prime minister...........Corbyn will no doubt continue to defy expectations.
Corbyn's apologists continue to delude themselves. Corbyn's 40% was brought about by piling up votes in seats that Labour already held. He won about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010. He was also helped by those who held their nose and voted Labour despite Corbyn in order to stop Theresa May's hard Brexit. And by the kamikaze Tory election campaign.
I have voted Labour at every election for 40 years -including 2017. I continue to believe that Corbyn is a disaster. Things could turn out very differently at the next election. Even if I am wrong and he became PM, that could be even worse for Labour as a Corbyn government would toxify Labour for a generation. To those who say that Corbyn has not destroyed the Labour party, I say "give him a chance".
But that's not what a lot of the seats showed. They cut the Tory majorities in a lot of places they didn't win, and got back some seats in Scotland. And yes, he didn't do as well as Brown, but he did better than Ed Milliband ( and with a lot less of press with him and a wing of his own party against him)
And he lost seats and had Labour majorities cut too. Winning seats in Scotland makes no difference at all since the SNP would support a Labour government. Corbyn won fewer seats than Kinnock did in 1992. Labour will have to win twice as many seats next time to form a government with majority than in 2017, and the Tories will have a new leader, will have learned from their 2017 mistakes, have a more attractive manifesto, and I suspect a lot of people who abstained in 2017 or who voted Labour believing Corbyn would not be PM will come out next time to stop a Corbyn government. Corbyn will be under the disadvantage of being expected to win -just as Kinnock was in 1992. I suspect there will be another 10pm moment and that a lot of Corbynista tears will be shed. Such a moment would be good for Labour in the long run since a one term Corbyn government would put the Tories in for a generation.
The Tories only have to lose around 20 seats to anyone and a Jeremy Corbyn led coalition becomes a realistic option.
So it is entirely possible Corbyn becomes PM with 280 MPs whilst the Tories are on 300 MPs.
"A border between Britain and the EU can only be achieved by Britain leaving Ireland.
"Britain cannot have its cake and eat it. They must put their border elsewhere, and they must propose and facilitate whatever it takes to enable both parts of this island to remain within the EU.
"In voting for Brexit, they effectively voted to leave Ireland. There is no other way forward."
That would be an opinion piece by Fergus Finlay, long time supporter of unification?
You are making exactly the same mistake as the more loony Brexiteers made before the referendum: assuming that the UK can unilaterally choose between a range of options, none of which are actually on offer.
Brexit means one thing and one thing only: whatever is agreed (if anything) between the UK government and the EU27 in the negotiations. There is no other possibility, other than utter chaos where either the UK parliament or the EU parliament reject the deal. In that case, as Michel Barnier keeps reminding us, the fallback position isn't 'no change', it's complete and disastrous chaos as the Article 50 deadline cuts in and we are left in legal limbo with no trade deal at all.
This really shouldn't need explaining, but the degree of delusion is quite remarkable.
It's rare I agree with you, Richard, but that's where I am as well. The foolish notion being perpetrated by Tim Farron and now Vince Cable that somehow by voting down any A50 Treaty we can reset the clock to 22/6/16 makes me angry as a LD member and LEAVE voter.
I do think if the clock is running down and an agreement needs a few more days the A50 time can and would be extended but I think by days or a month at most.
That said, it has to be hoped the prospect of the cliff edge exercises minds more than Cameron calling an In-Out referendum did. His "nuclear" option backfired in that it didn't provoke the agreement he wanted, his bluff was called and we all know the outcome. If the EU didn't, couldn't or wouldn't do a deal then, will they do so now ?
MY concern is whether our Government really wants a deal or do they want to crash out the EU as a badge of honour so they can call an election and blame the "perfidious Europeans" ?
British negotiators have argued that issues like the Irish border are inextricably linked to both sides’ future relationship, and that making progress on one necessitates making progress on the other. The U.K. isn’t exactly wrong, said Steven Peers, a professor of law at the University of Essex. “The sequencing makes things actually technically very awkward,” he told me. “There are things we can’t discuss in advance of knowing what's going to happen in the future. It’s just not feasible to do that.”
British negotiators have argued that issues like the Irish border are inextricably linked to both sides’ future relationship, and that making progress on one necessitates making progress on the other. The U.K. isn’t exactly wrong, said Steven Peers, a professor of law at the University of Essex. “The sequencing makes things actually technically very awkward,” he told me. “There are things we can’t discuss in advance of knowing what's going to happen in the future. It’s just not feasible to do that.”
Then it's up to the UK to start defining the future, starting with the principle that only a differentiated solution for Northern Ireland can hope to satisfy the political and technical constraints that exist.
Corbyn is expected to become prime minister...........Corbyn will no doubt continue to defy expectations.
Corbyn's apologists continue to delude themselves. Corbyn's 40% was brought about by piling up votes in seats that Labour already held. He won about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010. He was also helped by those who held their nose and voted Labour despite Corbyn in order to stop Theresa May's hard Brexit. And by the kamikaze Tory election campaign.
I have voted Labour at every election for 40 years -including 2017. I continue to believe that Corbyn is a disaster. Things could turn out very differently at the next election. Even if I am wrong and he became PM, that could be even worse for Labour as a Corbyn government would toxify Labour for a generation. To those who say that Corbyn has not destroyed the Labour party, I say "give him a chance".
But that's not what a lot of the seats showed. They cut the Tory majorities in a lot of places they didn't win, and got back some seats in Scotland. And yes, he didn't do as well as Brown, but he did better than Ed Milliband ( and with a lot less of press with him and a wing of his own party against him)
And he lost seats and had Labour majorities cut too. Winning seats in Scotland makes no difference at all since the SNP would support a Labour government. Corbyn won fewer seats than Kinnock did in 1992. Labour will have to win twice as many seats next time to form a government with majority than in 2017, and the Tories will have a new leader, will have learned from their 2017 mistakes, have a more attractive manifesto, and I suspect a lot of people who abstained in 2017 or who voted Labour believing Corbyn would not be PM will come out next time to stop a Corbyn government. Corbyn will be under the disadvantage of being expected to win -just as Kinnock was in 1992. I suspect there will be another 10pm moment and that a lot of Corbynista tears will be shed. Such a moment would be good for Labour in the long run since a one term Corbyn government would put the Tories in for a generation.
The Tories only have to lose around 20 seats to anyone and a Jeremy Corbyn led coalition becomes a realistic option.
So it is entirely possible Corbyn becomes PM with 280 MPs whilst the Tories are on 300 MPs.
The Tories also only need to win 10 seats for an overall majority
The UK would like to offer a future relationship that is deeper than any current third country partnership and that reflects our shared interests, values and the importance of a strong and prosperous Europe. This future partnership should be unprecedented in its breadth, taking in cooperation on foreign policy, defence and security, and development, and in the degree of engagement that we envisage.
I'm sure the EU 27 foreign ministers will be delighted to have to deal with Boris in an unprecedentedly broad way...
Anyway, security cooperation is meant to be the UKs trump card in these negotiations so lets see what happens.
"A border between Britain and the EU can only be achieved by Britain leaving Ireland.
"Britain cannot have its cake and eat it. They must put their border elsewhere, and they must propose and facilitate whatever it takes to enable both parts of this island to remain within the EU.
"In voting for Brexit, they effectively voted to leave Ireland. There is no other way forward."
That would be an opinion piece by Fergus Finlay, long time supporter of unification?
Does that make him wrong?
He (and you) are motivated by a very great deal of wishful thinking. You hope that Brexit will mean the end of the United Kingdom, even though the voters wish otherwise.
You are making exactly the same mistake as the more loony Brexiteers made before the referendum: assuming that the UK can unilaterally choose between a range of options, none of which are actually on offer.
Brexit means one thing and one thing only: whatever is agreed (if anything) between the UK government and the EU27 in the negotiations. There is no other possibility, other than utter chaos where either the UK parliament or the EU parliament reject the deal. In that case, as Michel Barnier keeps reminding us, the fallback position isn't 'no change', it's complete and disastrous chaos as the Article 50 deadline cuts in and we are left in legal limbo with no trade deal at all.
This really shouldn't need explaining, but the degree of delusion is quite remarkable.
It's rare I agree with you, Richard, but that's where I am as well. The foolish notion being perpetrated by Tim Farron and now Vince Cable that somehow by voting down any A50 Treaty we can reset the clock to 22/6/16 makes me angry as a LD member and LEAVE voter.
I do think if the clock is running down and an agreement needs a few more days the A50 time can and would be extended but I think by days or a month at most.
That said, it has to be hoped the prospect of the cliff edge exercises minds more than Cameron calling an In-Out referendum did. His "nuclear" option backfired in that it didn't provoke the agreement he wanted, his bluff was called and we all know the outcome. If the EU didn't, couldn't or wouldn't do a deal then, will they do so now ?
MY concern is whether our Government really wants a deal or do they want to crash out the EU as a badge of honour so they can call an election and blame the "perfidious Europeans" ?
British negotiators have argued that issues like the Irish border are inextricably linked to both sides’ future relationship, and that making progress on one necessitates making progress on the other. The U.K. isn’t exactly wrong, said Steven Peers, a professor of law at the University of Essex. “The sequencing makes things actually technically very awkward,” he told me. “There are things we can’t discuss in advance of knowing what's going to happen in the future. It’s just not feasible to do that.”
That's nice. But the UK can be technically right all it wants and still not achieve anything.
You are making exactly the same mistake as the more loony Brexiteers made before the referendum: assuming that the UK can unilaterally choose between a range of options, none of which are actually on offer.
.. This really shouldn't need explaining, but the degree of delusion is quite remarkable.
It's rare I agree with you, Richard, but that's where I am as well. The foolish notion being perpetrated by Tim Farron and now Vince Cable that somehow by voting down any A50 Treaty we can reset the clock to 22/6/16 makes me angry as a LD member and LEAVE voter.
I do think if the clock is running down and an agreement needs a few more days the A50 time can and would be extended but I think by days or a month at most.
That said, it has to be hoped the prospect of the cliff edge exercises minds more than Cameron calling an In-Out referendum did. His "nuclear" option backfired in that it didn't provoke the agreement he wanted, his bluff was called and we all know the outcome. If the EU didn't, couldn't or wouldn't do a deal then, will they do so now ?
MY concern is whether our Government really wants a deal or do they want to crash out the EU as a badge of honour so they can call an election and blame the "perfidious Europeans" ?
British negotiators have argued that issues like the Irish border are inextricably linked to both sides’ future relationship, and that making progress on one necessitates making progress on the other. The U.K. isn’t exactly wrong, said Steven Peers, a professor of law at the University of Essex. “The sequencing makes things actually technically very awkward,” he told me. “There are things we can’t discuss in advance of knowing what's going to happen in the future. It’s just not feasible to do that.”
Yes, so what ? Had we made this point at the outset of negotiations, publicly put forward some concrete proposals for our bottom lines that we were prepared to accept without a trade deal, and then said let's talk, we might be getting somewhere. As it is, the clock is running down, and we're going to be in a place where we might be forced to do the first stage deal just to escape chaos if we can't speed things up. Saying 'it's those nasty Europeans fault for being unreasonable' doesn't help a great deal.
And is unlikely to gain many votes at the next election.
Corbyn is expected to become prime minister...........Corbyn will no doubt continue to defy expectations.
Corbyn's apologists continue to delude themselves. Corbyn's 40% was brought about by piling up votes in seats that Labour already held. He won about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010. He was also helped by those who held their nose and voted Labour despite Corbyn in order to stop Theresa May's hard Brexit. And by the kamikaze Tory election campaign.
I have voted Labour at every election for 40 years -including 2017. I continue to believe that Corbyn is a disaster. Things could turn out very differently at the next election. Even if I am wrong and he became PM, that could be even worse for Labour as a Corbyn government would toxify Labour for a generation. To those who say that Corbyn has not destroyed the Labour party, I say "give him a chance".
But that's not what a lot of the seats showed. They cut the Tory majorities in a lot of places they didn't win, and got back some seats in Scotland. And yes, he didn't do as well as Brown, but he did better than Ed Milliband ( and with a lot less of press with him and a wing of his own party against him)
And he lost seats and had Labour majorities cut too. Winning seats in Scotland makes no difference at all since the SNP would support a Labour government. Corbyn won fewer seats than Kinnock did in 1992. Labour will have to win twice as many seats next time to form a government with majority than in 2017, and the Tories will have a new leader, will have learned from their 2017 mistakes, have a more attractive manifesto, and I suspect a lot of people who abstained in 2017 or who voted Labour believing Corbyn would not be PM will come out next time to stop a Corbyn government. Corbyn will be under the disadvantage of being expected to win -just as Kinnock was in 1992. I suspect there will be another 10pm moment and that a lot of Corbynista tears will be shed. Such a moment would be good for Labour in the long run since a one term Corbyn government would put the Tories in for a generation.
The Tories only have to lose around 20 seats to anyone and a Jeremy Corbyn led coalition becomes a realistic option.
So it is entirely possible Corbyn becomes PM with 280 MPs whilst the Tories are on 300 MPs.
The Tories also only need to win 10 seats for an overall majority
Once the main governing party starts losing seats, it is generally down hill from then on.
The UK would like to offer a future relationship that is deeper than any current third country partnership and that reflects our shared interests, values and the importance of a strong and prosperous Europe. This future partnership should be unprecedented in its breadth, taking in cooperation on foreign policy, defence and security, and development, and in the degree of engagement that we envisage.
I'm sure the EU 27 foreign ministers will be delighted to have to deal with Boris in an unprecedentedly broad way...
Anyway, security cooperation is meant to be the UKs trump card in these negotiations so lets see what happens.
Again, what is in there that we couldn't have said months ago ?
You are making exactly the same mistake as the more loony Brexiteers made before the referendum: assuming that the UK can unilaterally choose between a range of options, none of which are actually on offer.
Brexit means one thing and one thing only: whatever is agreed (if anything) between the UK government and the EU27 in the negotiations. There is no other possibility, other than utter chaos where either the UK parliament or the EU parliament reject the deal. In that case, as Michel Barnier keeps reminding us, the fallback position isn't 'no change', it's complete and disastrous chaos as the Article 50 deadline cuts in and we are left in legal limbo with no trade deal at all.
This really shouldn't need explaining, but the degree of delusion is quite remarkable.
It's rare I agree with you, Richard, but that's where I am as well. The foolish notion being perpetrated by Tim Farron and now Vince Cable that somehow by voting down any A50 Treaty we can reset the clock to 22/6/16 makes me angry as a LD member and LEAVE voter.
I do think if the clock is running down and an agreement needs a few more days the A50 time can and would be extended but I think by days or a month at most.
That said, it has to be hoped the prospect of the cliff edge exercises minds more than Cameron calling an In-Out referendum did. His "nuclear" option backfired in that it didn't provoke the agreement he wanted, his bluff was called and we all know the outcome. If the EU didn't, couldn't or wouldn't do a deal then, will they do so now ?
MY concern is whether our Government really wants a deal or do they want to crash out the EU as a badge of honour so they can call an election and blame the "perfidious Europeans" ?
The only circumstances under which the Withdrawal Bill should not come into force is if A50 were to be revoked by mutual consent and legislation to that effect of the UK parliament.
It seems that some politicians do not understand A50. It is a notice to quit, rather like resigning a job or contracting to sell a house. A wise person arranges another job and another house at the same time, but if he does not do that he is out of his house and his job regardless. A50 operates independently of any 'withdrawal deal'.
Theresa should have done the Article 50 thing only when a robust deal had been finally hammered out. Alas, she was haunted by the ghost of Farage screaming 'Betrayal' and fired it off in panic. That might turn out to be the most tragic blunder of them all.
"A border between Britain and the EU can only be achieved by Britain leaving Ireland.
"Britain cannot have its cake and eat it. They must put their border elsewhere, and they must propose and facilitate whatever it takes to enable both parts of this island to remain within the EU.
"In voting for Brexit, they effectively voted to leave Ireland. There is no other way forward."
That would be an opinion piece by Fergus Finlay, long time supporter of unification?
Does that make him wrong?
Not necessarily, but you should make clear the difference between opinion and fact when you post third party articles
"A border between Britain and the EU can only be achieved by Britain leaving Ireland.
"Britain cannot have its cake and eat it. They must put their border elsewhere, and they must propose and facilitate whatever it takes to enable both parts of this island to remain within the EU.
"In voting for Brexit, they effectively voted to leave Ireland. There is no other way forward."
That would be an opinion piece by Fergus Finlay, long time supporter of unification?
Does that make him wrong?
He isn't 'wrong' but he isn't an oracle of all wisdom either. Equally one could argue that Ireland should leave the EU and form a free trade area with the UK. Border problem solved.
You are making exactly the same mistake as the more loony Brexiteers made before the referendum: assuming that the UK can unilaterally choose between a range of options, none of which are actually on offer.
Brexit means one thing and one thing only: whatever is agreed (if anything) between the UK government and the EU27 in the negotiations. There is no other possibility, other than utter chaos where either the UK parliament or the EU parliament reject the deal. In that case, as Michel Barnier keeps reminding us, the fallback position isn't 'no change', it's complete and disastrous chaos as the Article 50 deadline cuts in and we are left in legal limbo with no trade deal at all.
This really shouldn't need explaining, but the degree of delusion is quite remarkable.
It's rare I agree with you, Richard, but that's where I am as well. The foolish notion being perpetrated by Tim Farron and now Vince Cable that somehow by voting down any A50 Treaty we can reset the clock to 22/6/16 makes me angry as a LD member and LEAVE voter.
I do think if the clock is running down and an agreement needs a few more days the A50 time can and would be extended but I think by days or a month at most.
That said, it has to be hoped the prospect of the cliff edge exercises minds more than Cameron calling an In-Out referendum did. His "nuclear" option backfired in that it didn't provoke the agreement he wanted, his bluff was called and we all know the outcome. If the EU didn't, couldn't or wouldn't do a deal then, will they do so now ?
MY concern is whether our Government really wants a deal or do they want to crash out the EU as a badge of honour so they can call an election and blame the "perfidious Europeans" ?
The only circumstances under which the Withdrawal Bill should not come into force is if A50 were to be revoked by mutual consent and legislation to that effect of the UK parliament.
It seems that some politicians do not understand A50. It is a notice to quit, rather like resigning a job or contracting to sell a house. A wise person arranges another job and another house at the same time, but if he does not do that he is out of his house and his job regardless. A50 operates independently of any 'withdrawal deal'.
Theresa should have done the Article 50 thing only when a robust deal had been finally hammered out. Alas, she was haunted by the ghost of Farage screaming 'Betrayal' and fired it off in panic. That might turn out to be the most tragic blunder of them all.
She tried - it would have been the sensible approach for all sides to get a fair deal - but the EU said no.
Corbyn is expected to become prime minister...........Corbyn will no doubt continue to defy expectations.
Corbyn's apologists continue to delude themselves. Corbyn's 40% was brought about by piling up votes in seats that Labour already held. He won about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010. He was also helped by those who held their nose and voted Labour despite Corbyn in order to stop Theresa May's hard Brexit. And by the kamikaze Tory election campaign.
I have voted Labour at every election for 40 years -including 2017. I continue to believe that Corbyn is a disaster. Things could turn out very differently at the next election. Even if I am wrong and he became PM, that could be even worse for Labour as a Corbyn government would toxify Labour for a generation. To those who say that Corbyn has not destroyed the Labour party, I say "give him a chance".
But that's not what a lot of the seats showed. They cut the Tory majorities in a lot of places they didn't win, and got back some seats in Scotland. And yes, he didn't do as well as Brown, but he did better than Ed Milliband ( and with a lot less of press with him and a wing of his own party against him)
And he lost seats and had Labour majorities cut too. Winning seats in Scotland makes no difference at all since the SNP would support a Labour government. Corbyn won fewer seats than Kinnock did in 1992. Labour will have to win twice as many seats next time to form a government with majority than in 2017, and the Tories will have a new leader, will have learned from their ation.
The Tories only have to lose around 20 seats to anyone and a Jeremy Corbyn led coalition becomes a realistic option.
So it is entirely possible Corbyn becomes PM with 280 MPs whilst the Tories are on 300 MPs.
The Tories also only need to win 10 seats for an overall majority
Once the main governing party starts losing seats, it is generally down hill from then on.
No leader since Heath has lost his first general election and then won his second as Corbyn will have to and he only lasted a term. Of course the Tories also increased their voteshare in 2017 even though they lost seats
Corbyn is expected to become prime minister...........Corbyn will no doubt continue to defy expectations.
Corbyn's apologists continue to delude themselves. Corbyn's 40% was brought about by piling up votes in seats that Labour already held. He won about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010. He was also helped by those who held their nose and voted Labour despite Corbyn in order to stop Theresa May's hard Brexit. And by the kamikaze Tory election campaign.
I have voted Labour at every election for 40 years -including 2017. I continue to believe that Corbyn is a disaster. Things could turn out very differently at the next election. Even if I am wrong and he became PM, that could be even worse for Labour as a Corbyn government would toxify Labour for a generation. To those who say that Corbyn has not destroyed the Labour party, I say "give him a chance".
But that's not what a lot of the seats showed. They cut the Tory majorities in a lot of places they didn't win, and got back some seats in Scotland. And yes, he didn't do as well as Brown, but he did better than Ed Milliband ( and with a lot less of press with him and a wing of his own party against him)
He actually did a bit better than Brown who only managed 258 seats to Corbyn's 262. Moreover, Corbyn performed much better in England & Wales than Brown did in 2010 in that Brown's total included over 40 seats from Scotland.
The UK would like to offer a future relationship that is deeper than any current third country partnership and that reflects our shared interests, values and the importance of a strong and prosperous Europe. This future partnership should be unprecedented in its breadth, taking in cooperation on foreign policy, defence and security, and development, and in the degree of engagement that we envisage.
The UK would like to offer a future relationship that is deeper than any current third country partnership.......
You are making exactly the same mistake as the more loony Brexiteers made before the referendum: assuming that the UK can unilaterally choose between a range of options, none of which are actually on offer.
Brexit means one thing and one thing only: whatever is agreed (if anything) between the UK government and the EU27 in the negotiations. There is no other possibility, other than utter chaos where either the UK parliament or the EU parliament reject the deal. In that case, as Michel Barnier keeps reminding us, the fallback position isn't 'no change', it's complete and disastrous chaos as the Article 50 deadline cuts in and we are left in legal limbo with no trade deal at all.
This really shouldn't need explaining, but the degree of delusion is quite remarkable.
It's rare I agree with you, Richard, but that's where I am as well. The foolish notion being perpetrated by Tim Farron and now Vince Cable that somehow by voting down any A50 Treaty we can reset the clock to 22/6/16 makes me angry as a LD member and LEAVE voter.
I do think if the clock is running down and an agreement needs a few more days the A50 time can and would be extended but I think by days or a month at most.
That said, it has to be hoped the prospect of the cliff edge exercises minds more than Cameron calling an In-Out referendum did. His "nuclear" option backfired in that it didn't provoke the agreement he wanted, his bluff was called and we all know the outcome. If the EU didn't, couldn't or wouldn't do a deal then, will they do so now ?
MY concern is whether our Government really wants a deal or do they want to crash out the EU as a badge of honour so they can call an election and blame the "perfidious Europeans" ?
The only circumstances under which the Withdrawal Bill should not come into force is if A50 were to be revoked by mutual consent and legislation to that effect of the UK parliament.
It seems that some politicians do not understand A50. It is a notice to quit, rather like resigning a job or contracting to sell a house. A wise person arranges another job and another house at the same time, but if he does not do that he is out of his house and his job regardless. A50 operates independently of any 'withdrawal deal'.
Theresa should have done the Article 50 thing only when a robust deal had been finally hammered out. Alas, she was haunted by the ghost of Farage screaming 'Betrayal' and fired it off in panic. That might turn out to be the most tragic blunder of them all.
She tried - it would have been the sensible approach for all sides to get a fair deal - but the EU said no.
Corbyn is expected to become prime minister...........Corbyn will no doubt continue to defy expectations.
Corbyn's apologists continue to delude themselves. Corbyn's 40% was brought about by piling up votes in seats that Labour already held. He won about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010. He was also helped by those who held their nose and voted Labour despite Corbyn in order to stop Theresa May's hard Brexit. And by the kamikaze Tory election campaign.
I have voted Labour at every election for 40 years -including 2017. I continue to believe that Corbyn is a disaster. Things could turn out very differently at the next election. Even if I am wrong and he became PM, that could be even worse for Labour as a Corbyn government would toxify Labour for a generation. To those who say that Corbyn has not destroyed the Labour party, I say "give him a chance".
But that's not what a lot of the seats showed. They cut the Tory majorities in a lot of places they didn't win, and got back some seats in Scotland. And yes, he didn't do as well as Brown, but he did better than Ed Milliband ( and with a lot less of press with him and a wing of his own party against him)
And he lost seats and had Labour majorities cut too. Winning seats in Scotland makes no difference at all since the SNP would support a Labour government. Corbyn won fewer seats than Kinnock did in 1992. Labour will have to win twice as many seats next time to form a government with majority than in 2017, and the Tories will have a new leader, will have learned from their ation.
The Tories only have to lose around 20 seats to anyone and a Jeremy Corbyn led coalition becomes a realistic option.
So it is entirely possible Corbyn becomes PM with 280 MPs whilst the Tories are on 300 MPs.
The Tories also only need to win 10 seats for an overall majority
Once the main governing party starts losing seats, it is generally down hill from then on.
No leader since Heath has lost his first general election and then won his second as Corbyn will have to and he only lasted a term. Of course the Tories also increased their voteshare in 2017 even though they lost seats
You are making exactly the same mistake as the more loony Brexiteers made before the referendum: assuming that the UK can unilaterally choose between a range of options, none of which are actually on offer.
.. This really shouldn't need explaining, but the degree of delusion is quite remarkable.
It's rare I agree with you, Richard, but that's where I am as well. The foolish notion being perpetrated by Tim Farron and now Vince Cable that somehow by voting down any A50 Treaty we can reset the clock to 22/6/16 makes me angry as a LD member and LEAVE voter.
I do think if the clock is running down and an agreement needs a few more days the A50 time can and would be extended but I think by days or a month at most.
That said, it has to be hoped the prospect of the cliff edge exercises minds more than Cameron calling an In-Out referendum did. His "nuclear" option backfired in that it didn't provoke the agreement he wanted, his bluff was called and we all know the outcome. If the EU didn't, couldn't or wouldn't do a deal then, will they do so now ?
MY concern is whether our Government really wants a deal or do they want to crash out the EU as a badge of honour so they can call an election and blame the "perfidious Europeans" ?
British negotiators have argued that issues like the Irish border are inextricably linked to both sides’ future relationship, and that making progress on one necessitates making progress on the other. The U.K. isn’t exactly wrong, said Steven Peers, a professor of law at the University of Essex. “The sequencing makes things actually technically very awkward,” he told me. “There are things we can’t discuss in advance of knowing what's going to happen in the future. It’s just not feasible to do that.”
Saying 'it's those nasty Europeans fault for being unreasonable' doesn't help a great deal.
And is unlikely to gain many votes at the next election.
You are, I suspect, mistaken, when it comes to votes.
You are making exactly the same mistake as the more loony Brexiteers made before the referendum: assuming that the UK can unilaterally choose between a range of options, none of which are actually on offer.
Brexit means one thing and one thing only: whatever is agreed (if anything) between the UK government and the EU27 in the negotiations. There is no other possibility, other than utter chaos where either the UK parliament or the EU parliament reject the deal. In that case, as Michel Barnier keeps reminding us, the fallback position isn't 'no change', it's complete and disastrous chaos as the Article 50 deadline cuts in and we are left in legal limbo with no trade deal at all.
This really shouldn't need explaining, but the degree of delusion is quite remarkable.
It's rare I agree with you, Richard, but that's where I am as well. The foolish notion being perpetrated by Tim Farron and now Vince Cable that somehow by voting down any A50 Treaty we can reset the clock to 22/6/16 makes me angry as a LD member and LEAVE voter.
I do think if the clock is running down and an agreement needs a few more days the A50 time can and would be extended but I think by days or a month at most.
That said, it has to be hoped the prospect of the cliff edge exercises minds more than Cameron calling an In-Out referendum did. His "nuclear" option backfired in that it didn't provoke the agreement he wanted, his bluff was called and we all know the outcome. If the EU didn't, couldn't or wouldn't do a deal then, will they do so now ?
MY concern is whether our Government really wants a deal or do they want to crash out the EU as a badge of honour so they can call an election and blame the "perfidious Europeans" ?
The only circumstances under which the Withdrawal Bill should not come into force is if A50 were to be revoked by mutual consent and legislation to that effect of the UK parliament.
It seems that some politicians do not understand A50. It is a notice to quit, rather like resigning a job or contracting to sell a house. A wise person arranges another job and another house at the same time, but if he does not do that he is out of his house and his job regardless. A50 operates independently of any 'withdrawal deal'.
Theresa should have done the Article 50 thing only when a robust deal had been finally hammered out. Alas, she was haunted by the ghost of Farage screaming 'Betrayal' and fired it off in panic. That might turn out to be the most tragic blunder of them all.
She tried - it would have been the sensible approach for all sides to get a fair deal - but the EU said no.
You are making exactly the same mistake as the more loony Brexiteers made before the referendum: assuming that the UK can unilaterally choose between a range of options, none of which are actually on offer.
Brexit means one thing and one thing only: whatever is agreed (if anything) between the UK government and the EU27 in the negotiations. There is no other possibility, other than utter chaos where either the UK parliament or the EU parliament reject the deal. In that case, as Michel Barnier keeps reminding us, the fallback position isn't 'no change', it's complete and disastrous chaos as the Article 50 deadline cuts in and we are left in legal limbo with no trade deal at all.
This really shouldn't need explaining, but the degree of delusion is quite remarkable.
It's rare I agree with you, Richard, but that's where I am as well. The foolish notion being perpetrated by Tim Farron and now Vince Cable that somehow by voting down any A50 Treaty we can reset the clock to 22/6/16 makes me angry as a LD member and LEAVE voter.
I do think if the clock is running down and an agreement needs a few more days the A50 time can and would be extended but I think by days or a month at most.
That said, it has to be hoped the prospect of the cliff edge exercises minds more than Cameron calling an In-Out referendum did. His "nuclear" option backfired in that it didn't provoke the agreement he wanted, his bluff was called and we all know the outcome. If the EU didn't, couldn't or wouldn't do a deal then, will they do so now ?
MY concern is whether our Government really wants a deal or do they want to crash out the EU as a badge of honour so they can call an election and blame the "perfidious Europeans" ?
The only circumstances under which the Withdrawal Bill should not come into force is if A50 were to be revoked by mutual consent and legislation to that effect of the UK parliament.
It seems that some politicians do not understand A50. It is a notice to quit, rather like resigning a job or contracting to sell a house. A wise person arranges another job and another house at the same time, but if he does not do that he is out of his house and his job regardless. A50 operates independently of any 'withdrawal deal'.
Theresa should have done the Article 50 thing only when a robust deal had been finally hammered out. Alas, she was haunted by the ghost of Farage screaming 'Betrayal' and fired it off in panic. That might turn out to be the most tragic blunder of them all.
The EU specifically said no negotiations without Art 50 if I recall correctly.
The UK would like to offer a future relationship that is deeper than any current third country partnership and that reflects our shared interests, values and the importance of a strong and prosperous Europe. This future partnership should be unprecedented in its breadth, taking in cooperation on foreign policy, defence and security, and development, and in the degree of engagement that we envisage.
The UK would like to offer a future relationship that is deeper than any current third country partnership.......
emphasis added
Yes, the UK 'would like to' leave without any consequences for its economic or diplomatic position in the world.
"A border between Britain and the EU can only be achieved by Britain leaving Ireland.
"Britain cannot have its cake and eat it. They must put their border elsewhere, and they must propose and facilitate whatever it takes to enable both parts of this island to remain within the EU.
"In voting for Brexit, they effectively voted to leave Ireland. There is no other way forward."
That would be an opinion piece by Fergus Finlay, long time supporter of unification?
Corbyn is expected to become prime minister...........Corbyn will no doubt continue to defy expectations.
Corbyn's apologists continue to delude themselves. Corbyn's 40% was brought about by piling up votes in seats that Labour already held. He won about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010. He was also helped by those who held their nose and voted Labour despite Corbyn in order to stop Theresa May's hard Brexit. And by the kamikaze Tory election campaign.
I have voted Labour at every election for 40 years -including 2017. I continue to believe that Corbyn is a disaster. Things could turn out very differently at the next election. Even if I am wrong and he became PM, that could be even worse for Labour as a Corbyn government would toxify Labour for a generation. To those who say that Corbyn has not destroyed the Labour party, I say "give him a chance".
But that's not what a lot of the seats showed. They cut the Tory majorities in a lot of places they didn't win, and got back some seats in Scotland. And yes, he didn't do as well as Brown, but he did better than Ed Milliband ( and with a lot less of press with him and a wing of his own party against him)
And he lost seats and had Labour majorities cut too. Winning seats in Scotland makes no difference at all since the SNP would support a Labour government. Corbyn won fewer seats than Kinnock did in 1992. Labour will have to win twice as many seats next time to form a government with majority than in 2017, and the Tories will have a new leader, will have learned from their ation.
The Tories only have to lose around 20 seats to anyone and a Jeremy Corbyn led coalition becomes a realistic option.
So it is entirely possible Corbyn becomes PM with 280 MPs whilst the Tories are on 300 MPs.
The Tories also only need to win 10 seats for an overall majority
Once the main governing party starts losing seats, it is generally down hill from then on.
No leader since Heath has lost his first general election and then won his second as Corbyn will have to and he only lasted a term. Of course the Tories also increased their voteshare in 2017 even though they lost seats
Corbyn is expected to become prime minister...........Corbyn will no doubt continue to defy expectations.
Corbyn's apologists continue to delude themselves. Corbyn's 40% was brought about by piling up votes in seats that Labour already held. He won about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010. He was also helped by those who held their nose and voted Labour despite Corbyn in order to stop Theresa May's hard Brexit. And by the kamikaze Tory election campaign.
I have voted Labour at every election for 40 years -including 2017. I continue to believe that Corbyn is a disaster. Things could turn out very differently at the next election. Even if I am wrong and he became PM, that could be even worse for Labour as a Corbyn government would toxify Labour for a generation. To those who say that Corbyn has not destroyed the Labour party, I say "give him a chance".
But that's not what a lot of the seats showed. They cut the Tory majorities in a lot of places they didn't win, and got back some seats in Scotland. And yes, he didn't do as well as Brown, but he did better than Ed Milliband ( and with a lot less of press with him and a wing of his own party against him)
And he lost seats and had Labour majorities cut too. Winning seats in Scotland makes no difference at all since the SNP would support a Labour government. Corbyn won fewer seats than Kinnock did in 1992. Labour will have to win twice as many seats next time to form a government with majority than in 2017, and the Tories will have a new leader, will have learned from their ation.
The Tories only have to lose around 20 seats to anyone and a Jeremy Corbyn led coalition becomes a realistic option.
So it is entirely possible Corbyn becomes PM with 280 MPs whilst the Tories are on 300 MPs.
The Tories also only need to win 10 seats for an overall majority
Once the main governing party starts losing seats, it is generally down hill from then on.
No leader since Heath has lost his first general election and then won his second as Corbyn will have to and he only lasted a term. Of course the Tories also increased their voteshare in 2017 even though they lost seats
That was by piling up votes in their safe seats. Yo can't criticise Corbyn for doing that and ignore May for doing the same!
Corbyn is expected to become prime minister...........Corbyn will no doubt continue to defy expectations.
Corbyn's apologists continue to delude themselves. Corbyn's 40% was brought about by piling up votes in seats that Labour already held. He won about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010. He was also helped by those who held their nose and voted Labour despite Corbyn in order to stop Theresa May's hard Brexit. And by the kamikaze Tory election campaign.
I have voted Labour at every election for 40 years -including 2017. I continue to believe that Corbyn is a disaster. Things could turn out very differently at the next election. Even if I am wrong and he became PM, that could be even worse for Labour as a Corbyn government would toxify Labour for a generation. To those who say that Corbyn has not destroyed the Labour party, I say "give him a chance".
But that's not what a lot of the seats showed. They cut the Tory majorities in a lot of places they didn't win, and got back some seats in Scotland. And yes, he didn't do as well as Brown, but he did better than Ed Milliband ( and with a lot less of press with him and a wing of his own party against him)
And he lost seats and had Labour majorities cut too. Winning seats in Scotland makes no difference at all since the SNP would support a Labour government. Corbyn won fewer seats than Kinnock did in 1992. Labour will have to win twice as many seats next time to form a government with majority than in 2017, and the Tories will have a new leader, will have learned from their 2017 mistakes, have a more attractive manifesto, and I suspect a lot of people who abstained in 2017 or who voted Labour believing Corbyn would not be PM will come out next time to stop a Corbyn government. Corbyn will be under the disadvantage of being expected to win -just as Kinnock was in 1992. I suspect there will be another 10pm moment and that a lot of Corbynista tears will be shed. Such a moment would be good for Labour in the long run since a one term Corbyn government would put the Tories in for a generation.
The Tories only have to lose around 20 seats to anyone and a Jeremy Corbyn led coalition becomes a realistic option.
So it is entirely possible Corbyn becomes PM with 280 MPs whilst the Tories are on 300 MPs.
The Tories also only need to win 10 seats for an overall majority
Once the main governing party starts losing seats, it is generally down hill from then on.
Indeed. But the consensus has been wrong about the past three gen elections. Who knows really. We live in interesting times.
Corbyn is expected to become prime minister...........Corbyn will no doubt continue to defy expectations.
Corbyn's apologists continue to delude themselves. Corbyn's 40% was brought about by piling up votes in seats that Labour already held. He won about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010. He was also helped by those who held their nose and voted Labour despite Corbyn in order to stop Theresa May's hard Brexit. And by the kamikaze Tory election campaign.
I have voted Labour at every election for 40 years -including 2017. I continue to believe that Corbyn is a disaster. Things could turn out very differently at the next election. Even if I am wrong and he became PM, that could be even worse for Labour as a Corbyn government would toxify Labour for a generation. To those who say that Corbyn has not destroyed the Labour party, I say "give him a chance".
But that's not what a lot of the seats showed. They cut the Tory majorities in a lot of places they didn't win, and got back some seats in Scotland. And yes, he didn't do as well as Brown, but he did better than Ed Milliband ( and with a lot less of press with him and a wing of his own party against him)
He actually did a bit better than Brown who only managed 258 seats to Corbyn's 262. Moreover, Corbyn performed much better in England & Wales than Brown did in 2010 in that Brown's total included over 40 seats from Scotland.
The Tories though got 318 seats to 306 in 2010, 2017 was not as good for the Tories as 2015 in terms of seats but better than 2010
You are making exactly the same mistake as the more loony Brexiteers made before the referendum: assuming that the UK can unilaterally choose between a range of options, none of which are actually on offer.
This really shouldn't need explaining, but the degree of delusion is quite remarkable.
The only circumstances under which the Withdrawal Bill should not come into force is if A50 were to be revoked by mutual consent and legislation to that effect of the UK parliament.
It seems that some politicians do not understand A50. It is a notice to quit, rather like resigning a job or contracting to sell a house. A wise person arranges another job and another house at the same time, but if he does not do that he is out of his house and his job regardless. A50 operates independently of any 'withdrawal deal'.
Theresa should have done the Article 50 thing only when a robust deal had been finally hammered out. Alas, she was haunted by the ghost of Farage screaming 'Betrayal' and fired it off in panic. That might turn out to be the most tragic blunder of them all.
The EU specifically said no negotiations without Art 50 if I recall correctly.
Mutti certainly did:
German chancellor Angela Merkel has ruled out starting informal talks with London about the UK’s exit from the EU before Britain formally asks the bloc to begin official negotiations.
“Before Great Britain sends this notice, there are no informal discussions about exit procedures. The sequencing must be observed,” said Steffen Seibert, the chancellor’s spokesman, writes Stefan Wagstyl in Berlin.
Corbyn is expected to become prime minister...........Corbyn will no doubt continue to defy expectations.
Corbyn's apologists continue to delude themselves. Corbyn's 40% was brought about by piling up votes in seats that Labour already held. He won about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010. He was also helped by those who held their nose and voted Labour despite Corbyn in order to stop Theresa May's hard Brexit. And by the kamikaze Tory election campaign.
I have voted Labour at every election for 40 years -including 2017. I continue to believe that Corbyn is a disaster. Things could turn out very differently at the next election. Even if I am wrong and he became PM, that could be even worse for Labour as a Corbyn government would toxify Labour for a generation. To those who say that Corbyn has not destroyed the Labour party, I say "give him a chance".
But that's not what a lot of the seats showed. They cut the Tory majorities in a lot of places they didn't win, and got back some seats in Scotland. And yes, he didn't do as well as Brown, but he did better than Ed Milliband ( and with a lot less of press with him and a wing of his own party against him)
And he lost seats and had Labour majorities cut too. Winning seats in Scotland makes no difference at all since the SNP would support a Labour government. Corbyn won fewer seats than Kinnock did in 1992. Labour will have to win twice as many seats next time to form a government with majority than in 2017, and the Tories will have a new leader, will have learned from their 2017 mistakes, have a more attractive manifesto, and I suspect a lot of people who abstained in 2017 or who voted Labour believing Corbyn would not be PM will come out next time to stop a Corbyn government. Corbyn will be under the disadvantage of being expected to win -just as Kinnock was in 1992. I suspect there will be another 10pm moment and that a lot of Corbynista tears will be shed. Such a moment would be good for Labour in the long run since a one term Corbyn government would put the Tories in for a generation.
Will the Tories be in a stronger position post Brexit than they were earlier this year? I find that VERY hard to believe tbh
Corbyn is expected to become prime minister...........Corbyn will no doubt continue to defy expectations.
Corbyn's apologists continue to delude themselves. Corbyn's 40% was brought about by piling up votes in seats that Labour already held. He won about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010. He was also helped by those who held their nose and voted Labour despite Corbyn in order to stop Theresa May's hard Brexit. And by the kamikaze Tory election campaign.
I have voted Labour at every election for 40 years -including 2017. I continue to believe that Corbyn is a disaster. Things could turn out very differently at the next election. Even if I am wrong and he became PM, that could be even worse for Labour as a Corbyn government would toxify Labour for a generation. To those who say that Corbyn has not destroyed the Labour party, I say "give him a chance".
But that's not what a lot of the seats showed. They cut the Tory majorities in a lot of places they didn't win, and got back some seats in Scotland. And yes, he didn't do as well as Brown, but he did better than Ed Milliband ( and with a lot less of press with him and a wing of his own party against him)
And he lost seats and had Labour majorities cut too. Winning seats in Scotland makes no difference at all since the SNP would support a Labour government. Corbyn won fewer seats than Kinnock did in 1992. Labour will have to win twice as many seats next time to form a government with majority than in 2017, and the Tories will have a new leader, will have learned from their ation.
The Tories only have to lose around 20 seats to anyone and a Jeremy Corbyn led coalition becomes a realistic option.
So it is entirely possible Corbyn becomes PM with 280 MPs whilst the Tories are on 300 MPs.
The Tories also only need to win 10 seats for an overall majority
Once the main governing party starts losing seats, it is generally down hill from then on.
No leader since Heath has lost his first general election and then won his second as Corbyn will have to and he only lasted a term. Of course the Tories also increased their voteshare in 2017 even though they lost seats
That was by piling up votes in their safe seats. Yo can't criticise Corbyn for doing that and ignore May for doing the same!
Corbyn is expected to become prime minister...........Corbyn will no doubt continue to defy expectations.
Corbyn's apologists continue to delude themselves. Corbyn's 40% was brought about by piling up votes in seats that Labour already held. He won about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010. He was also helped by those who held their nose and voted Labour despite Corbyn in order to stop Theresa May's hard Brexit. And by the kamikaze Tory election campaign.
I have voted Labour at every election for 40 years -including 2017. I continue to believe that Corbyn is a disaster. Things could turn out very differently at the next election. Even if I am wrong and he became PM, that could be even worse for Labour as a Corbyn government would toxify Labour for a generation. To those who say that Corbyn has not destroyed the Labour party, I say "give him a chance".
But that's not what a lot of the seats showed. They cut the Tory majorities in a lot of places they didn't win, and got back some seats in Scotland. And yes, he didn't do as well as Brown, but he did better than Ed Milliband ( and with a lot less of press with him and a wing of his own party against him)
And he lost seats and had Labour majorities cut too. Winning seats in Scotland makes no difference at all since the SNP would support a Labour government. Corbyn won fewer seats than Kinnock did in 1992. Labour will have to win twice as many seats next time to form a government with majority than in 2017, and the Tories will have a new leader, will have learned from their 2017 mistakes, have a more attractive manifesto, and I suspect a lot of people who abstained in 2017 or who voted Labour believing Corbyn would not be PM will come out next time to stop a Corbyn government. Corbyn will be under the disadvantage of being expected to win -just as Kinnock was in 1992. I suspect there will be another 10pm moment and that a lot of Corbynista tears will be shed. Such a moment would be good for Labour in the long run since a one term Corbyn government would put the Tories in for a generation.
Will the Tories be in a stronger position post Brexit than they were earlier this year? I find that VERY hard to believe tbh
Will Corbyn if he abandons the commitment to end free movement and the Tories abandon the dementia tax, lots of unknowables next time
Is this CPI figure the one used for any benefit/pension/DWP upgrades in April? Or is that next month's figure?
September
Thanks. Another CPI figure of around 2.9% is going to be financial headache for Hammond.
In theory there is 0.3% that will disappear next month (the difference between the 1% CPI in August 2016 and the 1.3% CPI in September 2016). I suspect however that petrol and food prices will result in the September 2017 figure being at least 2.9% if not 3%...
That 0.25% rate cut last July did nobody any favours...
Unless you had a mortgage.
Not really unless you were on a tracker rate fixed sometime before 2009 - in which case you were sorted anyway.
I suspect the mortgage savings were less than £50 a month and inflation will have destroyed those "transitory" savings now
I'm still of the belief that Labour lost the election BECAUSE of Corbyn. The Tory campaign was a shambles, the Tory leader was a shambles, the Tory government was a shambles ...and still Labour lost
I'm still of the belief that Labour lost the election BECAUSE of Corbyn. The Tory campaign was a shambles, the Tory leader was a shambles, the Tory government was a shambles ...and still Labour lost
I'm not sure Andy Burnham would have inspired the same level of surge, although, clearly, he'd have adopted a much firmer position on Brexit, and there still would have been one.
Corbyn is expected to become prime minister...........Corbyn will no doubt continue to defy expectations.
Corbyn's apologists continue to delude themselves. Corbyn's 40% was brought about by piling up votes in seats that Labour already held. He won about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010. He was also helped by those who held their nose and voted Labour despite Corbyn in order to stop Theresa May's hard Brexit. And by the kamikaze Tory election campaign.
I have voted Labour at every election for 40 years -including 2017. I continue to believe that Corbyn is a disaster. Things could turn out very differently at the next election. Even if I am wrong and he became PM, that could be even worse for Labour as a Corbyn government would toxify Labour for a generation. To those who say that Corbyn has not destroyed the Labour party, I say "give him a chance".
But that's not what a lot of the seats showed. They cut the Tory majorities in a lot of places they didn't win, and got back some seats in Scotland. And yes, he didn't do as well as Brown, but he did better than Ed Milliband ( and with a lot less of press with him and a wing of his own party against him)
He actually did a bit better than Brown who only managed 258 seats to Corbyn's 262. Moreover, Corbyn performed much better in England & Wales than Brown did in 2010 in that Brown's total included over 40 seats from Scotland.
The Tories though got 318 seats to 306 in 2010, 2017 was not as good for the Tories as 2015 in terms of seats but better than 2010
My reading of last night's vote is that the Brexit bills should pass 3rd reading by about 320 votes to 300 votes, but HMG will be vulnerable to 315-310 type defeats on amendment votes during report/committee stage.
An extraordinary moment in modern Spanish history. The chief of the Catalonian police has been told by the Spanish public prosecutor's office to prevent the independence referendum called for 1st October because it has been declared illegal by Spain's constitutional court. If he refuses, the rule of law in Spain has broken down and Catalonia's regional authorities are essentially in a state of open insurrection. This could get extremely nasty.
You are making exactly the same mistake as the more loony Brexiteers made before the referendum: assuming that the UK can unilaterally choose between a range of options, none of which are actually on offer.
This really shouldn't need explaining, but the degree of delusion is quite remarkable.
The only circumstances under which the Withdrawal Bill should not come into force is if A50 were to be revoked by mutual consent and legislation to that effect of the UK parliament.
It seems that some politicians do not understand A50. It is a notice to quit, rather like resigning a job or contracting to sell a house. A wise person arranges another job and another house at the same time, but if he does not do that he is out of his house and his job regardless. A50 operates independently of any 'withdrawal deal'.
Theresa should have done the Article 50 thing only when a robust deal had been finally hammered out. Alas, she was haunted by the ghost of Farage screaming 'Betrayal' and fired it off in panic. That might turn out to be the most tragic blunder of them all.
The EU specifically said no negotiations without Art 50 if I recall correctly.
Mutti certainly did:
German chancellor Angela Merkel has ruled out starting informal talks with London about the UK’s exit from the EU before Britain formally asks the bloc to begin official negotiations.
“Before Great Britain sends this notice, there are no informal discussions about exit procedures. The sequencing must be observed,” said Steffen Seibert, the chancellor’s spokesman, writes Stefan Wagstyl in Berlin.
Ah, so it was Boris who was advocating a delay to the Aricle 50 triggering, but Theresa was bullied into it. We should have listened to Boris and stuck to our guns. Weak, weak, weak!
I'm still of the belief that Labour lost the election BECAUSE of Corbyn. The Tory campaign was a shambles, the Tory leader was a shambles, the Tory government was a shambles ...and still Labour lost
It is all beside the point because there would have been no election without Corbyn.
If Burnham had been in charge, May would not have risked it.
I'm still of the belief that Labour lost the election BECAUSE of Corbyn. The Tory campaign was a shambles, the Tory leader was a shambles, the Tory government was a shambles ...and still Labour lost
I'm not sure Andy Burnham would have inspired the same level of surge, although, clearly, he'd have adopted a much firmer position on Brexit, and there still would have been one.
If Andy Burnham, or indeed anyone other than Corbyn, had been leader of the Labour Party at the time of the referendum, then Remain would have won. The failure of Labour to campaign for Remain in any meaningful way was the single biggest factor in shifting the result to Leave, IMO.
Corbyn is expected to become prime minister...........Corbyn will no doubt continue to defy expectations.
Corbyn's apologists continue to delude themselves. Corbyn's 40% was brought about by piling up votes in seats that Labour already held. He won about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010. He was also helped by those who held their nose and voted Labour despite Corbyn in order to stop Theresa May's hard Brexit. And by the kamikaze Tory election campaign.
I have voted Labour at every election for 40 years -including 2017. I continue to believe that Corbyn is a disaster. Things could turn out very differently at the next election. Even if I am wrong and he became PM, that could be even worse for Labour as a Corbyn government would toxify Labour for a generation. To those who say that Corbyn has not destroyed the Labour party, I say "give him a chance".
But that's not what a lot of the seats showed. They cut the Tory majorities in a lot of places they didn't win, and got back some seats in Scotland. And yes, he didn't do as well as Brown, but he did better than Ed Milliband ( and with a lot less of press with him and a wing of his own party against him)
And he lost seats and had Labour majorities cut too. Winning seats in Scotland makes no difference at all since the SNP would support a Labour government. Corbyn won fewer seats than Kinnock did in 1992. Labour will have to win twice as many seats next time to form a government with majority than in 2017, and the Tories will have a new leader, will have learned from their 2017 mistakes, have a more attractive manifesto, and I suspect a lot of people who abstained in 2017 or who voted Labour believing Corbyn would not be PM will come out next time to stop a Corbyn government. Corbyn will be under the disadvantage of being expected to win -just as Kinnock was in 1992. I suspect there will be another 10pm moment and that a lot of Corbynista tears will be shed. Such a moment would be good for Labour in the long run since a one term Corbyn government would put the Tories in for a generation.
The Tories only have to lose around 20 seats to anyone and a Jeremy Corbyn led coalition becomes a realistic option.
So it is entirely possible Corbyn becomes PM with 280 MPs whilst the Tories are on 300 MPs.
The Tories also only need to win 10 seats for an overall majority
Once the main governing party starts losing seats, it is generally down hill from then on.
But, GE2017 proved wrong a lot of our assumptions on polling.
An extraordinary moment in modern Spanish history. The chief of the Catalonian police has been told by the Spanish public prosecutor's office to prevent the independence referendum called for 1st October because it has been declared illegal by Spain's constitutional court. If he refuses, the rule of law in Spain has broken down and Catalonia's regional authorities are essentially in a state of open insurrection. This could get extremely nasty.
The UK would like to offer a future relationship that is deeper than any current third country partnership and that reflects our shared interests, values and the importance of a strong and prosperous Europe. This future partnership should be unprecedented in its breadth, taking in cooperation on foreign policy, defence and security, and development, and in the degree of engagement that we envisage.
You need to decide if your line of attack is based on Brexit-in-name-only, or the UK marching off into the sunset by itself.
You are making exactly the same mistake as the more loony Brexiteers made before the referendum: assuming that the UK can unilaterally choose between a range of options, none of which are actually on offer.
This really shouldn't need explaining, but the degree of delusion is quite remarkable.
It's rare I agree with you, Richard, but that's where I am as well. The foolish notion being perpetrated by Tim Farron and now Vince Cable that somehow by voting down any A50 Treaty we can reset the clock to 22/6/16 makes me angry as a LD member and LEAVE voter.
I do think if the clock is running down and an agreement needs a few more days the A50 time can and would be extended but I think by days or a month at most.
That said, it has to be hoped the prospect of the cliff edge exercises minds more than Cameron calling an In-Out referendum did. His "nuclear" option backfired in that it didn't provoke the agreement he wanted, his bluff was called and we all know the outcome. If the EU didn't, couldn't or wouldn't do a deal then, will they do so now ?
MY concern is whether our Government really wants a deal or do they want to crash out the EU as a badge of honour so they can call an election and blame the "perfidious Europeans" ?
British negotiators have argued that issues like the Irish border are inextricably linked to both sides’ future relationship, and that making progress on one necessitates making progress on the other. The U.K. isn’t exactly wrong, said Steven Peers, a professor of law at the University of Essex. “The sequencing makes things actually technically very awkward,” he told me. “There are things we can’t discuss in advance of knowing what's going to happen in the future. It’s just not feasible to do that.”
I'm increasingly of the view that the EU isn't really interested in negotiating.
When it says the UK needs to "get serious" about negotiations, what it means is the UK accepting its terms and timetable wholesale, no questions asked, and being grateful for it.
An extraordinary moment in modern Spanish history. The chief of the Catalonian police has been told by the Spanish public prosecutor's office to prevent the independence referendum called for 1st October because it has been declared illegal by Spain's constitutional court. If he refuses, the rule of law in Spain has broken down and Catalonia's regional authorities are essentially in a state of open insurrection. This could get extremely nasty.
Unless they've already squared him that's a very foolish call to make.
That's not a gun to the PM's head, it's a gun to the UK's head.
This is exactly the scenario which could lead to a potentially catastrophic situation where we can't agree anything with the EU and crash out in utter chaos.
The election result really was the most disastrous in modern times.
Whilst I agree with that I am also somewhat relieved that May did not get a stonking majority. Her judgment is poor and I am not sure I would trust her not to do serious harm with it. At the risk of anthropomorphising the great British electorate perhaps the view that she needed a leash was the right one.
They didn't trust May with a majority, and they didn't trust Corbyn as Prime Minister.
A view shared on here by some posters before the election and, if I what I read is true, a couple of cabinet ministers.
An extraordinary moment in modern Spanish history. The chief of the Catalonian police has been told by the Spanish public prosecutor's office to prevent the independence referendum called for 1st October because it has been declared illegal by Spain's constitutional court. If he refuses, the rule of law in Spain has broken down and Catalonia's regional authorities are essentially in a state of open insurrection. This could get extremely nasty.
Unless they've already squared him that's a very foolish call to make.
I hope the SNP are grateful they got their referendum then but I doubt it.
Quebec and Scotland having referendums helped deal with the independence issue more effectively than banning them would have as Spain is trying to do.
You are making exactly the same mistake as the more loony Brexiteers made before the referendum: assuming that the UK can unilaterally choose between a range of options, none of which are actually on offer.
This really shouldn't need explaining, but the degree of delusion is quite remarkable.
It's rare I agree with you, Richard, but that's where I am as well. The foolish notion being perpetrated by Tim Farron and now Vince Cable that somehow by voting down any A50 Treaty we can reset the clock to 22/6/16 makes me angry as a LD member and LEAVE voter.
I do think if the clock is running down and an agreement needs a few more days the A50 time can and would be extended but I think by days or a month at most.
That said, it has to be hoped the prospect of the cliff edge exercises minds more than Cameron calling an In-Out referendum did. His "nuclear" option backfired in that it didn't provoke the agreement he wanted, his bluff was called and we all know the outcome. If the EU didn't, couldn't or wouldn't do a deal then, will they do so now ?
MY concern is whether our Government really wants a deal or do they want to crash out the EU as a badge of honour so they can call an election and blame the "perfidious Europeans" ?
British negotiators have argued that issues like the Irish border are inextricably linked to both sides’ future relationship, and that making progress on one necessitates making progress on the other. The U.K. isn’t exactly wrong, said Steven Peers, a professor of law at the University of Essex. “The sequencing makes things actually technically very awkward,” he told me. “There are things we can’t discuss in advance of knowing what's going to happen in the future. It’s just not feasible to do that.”
I'm increasingly of the view that the EU isn't really interested in negotiating.
When it says the UK needs to "get serious" about negotiations, what it means is the UK accepting its terms and timetable wholesale, no questions asked, and being grateful for it.
The EU is negotiating how it always negotiates: bureaucratically. Since that suits it tactically, it doesn't see any reason to mix it up.
Why Leavers thought that the EU was going to be flexible and accommodating, goodness only knows.
I'm still of the belief that Labour lost the election BECAUSE of Corbyn. The Tory campaign was a shambles, the Tory leader was a shambles, the Tory government was a shambles ...and still Labour lost
I'm not sure Andy Burnham would have inspired the same level of surge, although, clearly, he'd have adopted a much firmer position on Brexit, and there still would have been one.
If Andy Burnham, or indeed anyone other than Corbyn, had been leader of the Labour Party at the time of the referendum, then Remain would have won. The failure of Labour to campaign for Remain in any meaningful way was the single biggest factor in shifting the result to Leave, IMO.
It was immigration and sovereignty which lost it for Remain not lacking Andy Burnham as a key spokesman
Leaving aside the bonkers insinuation by the Guardian that there is something improper about the UK government seeking to protect jobs in Belfast, this article is rather interesting:
Comments
In addition, if the Brexit talks go badly, sterling could fall again, although for the moment it seems to be recovering slightly.
◾Ian Austin (Labour)
◾Kevin Barron (Labour)
◾David Crausby (Labour)
◾Caroline Flint (Labour)
◾Yvonne Fovargue (Labour)
◾David Hanson (Labour),
◾Helen Jones (Labour)
◾Kevan Jones (Labour)
◾Ged Killen (Labour)
◾Madeleine Moon (Labour)
◾John Spellar (Labour)
◾Anna Turley (Labour)
◾Derek Twigg (Labour).
◾Sir David Amess (Conservative)
◾Nick Boles (Conservative)
◾Ken Clarke (Conservative)
◾Johnny Mercer (Conservative)
◾Gary Streeter (Conservative)
* Mhairi Black ( SNP)
Will it be a damp squib?
That principle being never to willingly give so much as a penny to the sodding Labour Party!
https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/907502373165248512
exploits.
Strictly speaking, EU law is enacted in this country through treaties that are voted on on parliament, although I accept this is pretty much a rubber stamp. In practice however EU is law is arrived at in a much more rigorous way than the EU Withdrawal law will be, as it has to go through lots of hoops to get enacted. Also EU law is almost invariably arrived at through consensus and not QMV
I do think if the clock is running down and an agreement needs a few more days the A50 time can and would be extended but I think by days or a month at most.
That said, it has to be hoped the prospect of the cliff edge exercises minds more than Cameron calling an In-Out referendum did. His "nuclear" option backfired in that it didn't provoke the agreement he wanted, his bluff was called and we all know the outcome. If the EU didn't, couldn't or wouldn't do a deal then, will they do so now ?
MY concern is whether our Government really wants a deal or do they want to crash out the EU as a badge of honour so they can call an election and blame the "perfidious Europeans" ?
RULE BRITTANIA!
Corbyn's apologists continue to delude themselves. Corbyn's 40% was brought about by piling up votes in seats that Labour already held. He won about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010. He was also helped by those who held their nose and voted Labour despite Corbyn in order to stop Theresa May's hard Brexit. And by the kamikaze Tory election campaign.
I have voted Labour at every election for 40 years -including 2017. I continue to believe that Corbyn is a disaster. Things could turn out very differently at the next election. Even if I am wrong and he became PM, that could be even worse for Labour as a Corbyn government would toxify Labour for a generation. To those who say that Corbyn has not destroyed the Labour party, I say "give him a chance".
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/907564556427382784
"A border between Britain and the EU can only be achieved by Britain leaving Ireland.
"Britain cannot have its cake and eat it. They must put their border elsewhere, and they must propose and facilitate whatever it takes to enable both parts of this island to remain within the EU.
"In voting for Brexit, they effectively voted to leave Ireland. There is no other way forward."
And when train fares go up by RPI in January that's going to cause another outcry.
That 0.25% rate cut last July did nobody any favours...
Who knows what the mood of the electorate will be in four years time.
Having said that at the moment I think the Tories have a mountain to climb to stop Corbyn, given his appeal to the under 50s, the slow tick of demographics and the fact that they will appear very clapped out and tired as a government by 2020.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/643924/Foreign_policy__defence_and_development_paper.pdf
The UK would like to offer a future relationship that is deeper than any current third country partnership and that reflects our shared interests, values and the importance of a strong and prosperous Europe. This future partnership should be unprecedented in its breadth, taking in cooperation on foreign policy, defence and security, and development, and in the degree of engagement that we envisage.
Outside observers are beginning to think the same...
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/09/what-happens-if-brexit-negotiations-dont-work/538548/
It seems that some politicians do not understand A50. It is a notice to quit, rather like resigning a job or contracting to sell a house. A wise person arranges another job and another house at the same time, but if he does not do that he is out of his house and his job regardless. A50 operates independently of any 'withdrawal deal'.
So it is entirely possible Corbyn becomes PM with 280 MPs whilst the Tories are on 300 MPs.
I'm sure the EU 27 foreign ministers will be delighted to have to deal with Boris in an unprecedentedly broad way...
Anyway, security cooperation is meant to be the UKs trump card in these negotiations so lets see what happens.
Had we made this point at the outset of negotiations, publicly put forward some concrete proposals for our bottom lines that we were prepared to accept without a trade deal, and then said let's talk, we might be getting somewhere.
As it is, the clock is running down, and we're going to be in a place where we might be forced to do the first stage deal just to escape chaos if we can't speed things up.
Saying 'it's those nasty Europeans fault for being unreasonable' doesn't help a great deal.
And is unlikely to gain many votes at the next election.
emphasis added
How unsporting of them.
German chancellor Angela Merkel has ruled out starting informal talks with London about the UK’s exit from the EU before Britain formally asks the bloc to begin official negotiations.
“Before Great Britain sends this notice, there are no informal discussions about exit procedures. The sequencing must be observed,” said Steffen Seibert, the chancellor’s spokesman, writes Stefan Wagstyl in Berlin.
https://www.ft.com/content/a6b93d3e-2c03-3ede-9b85-5579442f1677
I suspect the mortgage savings were less than £50 a month and inflation will have destroyed those "transitory" savings now
If Burnham had been in charge, May would not have risked it.
When it says the UK needs to "get serious" about negotiations, what it means is the UK accepting its terms and timetable wholesale, no questions asked, and being grateful for it.
Quebec and Scotland having referendums helped deal with the independence issue more effectively than banning them would have as Spain is trying to do.
Why Leavers thought that the EU was going to be flexible and accommodating, goodness only knows.