politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Those thinking the leave EU vote was wrong take biggest lead y
Options
Comments
-
Corbyn is not even leading enough for a majority now, let alone once the Tories get a new leaderHHemmelig said:
More likely - they will avoid that by giving Labour a majority.HYUFD said:
Foster is at least a Unionist and if the Tories get a small majority next time as they did in 2015 English voters can avoid having either Sturgeon or Foster holding the purse stringsBarnesian said:
Ha ha! I don't think that would work as well in the new circumstances. Perhaps a poster of Arlene Foster with Theresa May in her pocket?HYUFD said:
So the Tories can dust down the 2015 posters and put Corbyn in Sturgeon's pocket instead!Barnesian said:
Baxtering that, plus using my GB EMA (exponential moving average) for all parties gives:TheScreamingEagles said:
It is a full blown Scottish poll, not a subsample.Theuniondivvie said:Assume this isn't a subsample going by the self congratulatory capering beneath the tweet.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/918813102682071040
In Scotland, 8 SNP gains (5 from Con and 3 from LD incl Jo Swinson)
In GB, Con lose 37 (incl Amber Rudd and Zac Godsmith), Lab gain 31, LD lose net 1, PC lose, SNP gain 8.
Overall, Labour 33 short of a majority. (SNP on 43 and LDs on 11)0 -
I agree with that 100%. Both in terms of letting hard left politics dictate his child's education, and going so far as to divorce his wife over such an issue. Being a good husband and father is about willingness to compromise in the best interest of the family and Corbyn demonstrates utter failure on that. Suggesting also that he would make a very bad PM.Richard_Tyndall said:
I don't think divorce per se really registers as a problem with the public given that the current divorce rate is about 40%. I think the circumstances of the divorce might be of some bearing though.SandraMc said:Regarding earlier debate about divorced Prime Ministers, Mrs. Thatcher married a divorcee.
As an example I have a very low opinion of Corbyn (outside of his politics) because he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a better school. To me such behaviour is so outrageous that it makes me think very poorly of him as a man.0 -
It's only down to Tory voters that we're not there already, and the Tories are giving them every reason to become demoralised about the whole thing.rcs1000 said:Wake me up when there's a 20 point lead - 60:40 - for Remain.
0 -
https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/918864212281065473Morris_Dancer said:The 'enemy' line seems odd to me.
Over the top. It'll annoy some people without persuading others.
I don't think it was a terribly clever thing to say.0 -
Isn't that like saying that it's only down to leave voters that we aren't already there?williamglenn said:
It's only down to Tory voters that we're not there already, and the Tories are giving them every reason to become demoralised about the whole thing.rcs1000 said:Wake me up when there's a 20 point lead - 60:40 - for Remain.
0 -
We cannot agree that process in advance since it is already bound up in the Lisbon Treaty. The EU would have to open new treaty talks and amend the Lisbon Treaty (which again would require unanimity) to put such a process in place.rkrkrk said:
This is a plausible albeit unlikely scenario I think.Richard_Tyndall said:
Much easier technically yes. But politically we would still be faced with the need to get 27 countries to agree an accession treaty - bearing in mind that every time one of these treaties comes up the countries use it as an excuse to try and tack on other concessions for themselves. And the Lisbon Treaty dictates that under those circumstances we would be signing up to the Euro and Schengen as well.
It's March 2020. Britain has Brexited, but continues to apply all EU law and make payments into the EU budget. Public opinion in the UK has turned against Brexit and the government wants to change its mind on Brexit.
The EU countries can choose between us leaving the CU, SM, various trade disruption, filling a hole of debatable size in their budgets, losing the right for their citizens to come and live and work in Britain etc.
OR
Just go back to how things were.
I think they might well choose option 2.
If one country starts tacking on concessions, they all will, and then it won't happen. And they should know that. My suggestion is that we agree the process for this accession in advance as far as possible so that we can fast track the legal side of it.
Given the timescales involved and the fact that there are a number of countries who would be quite happy to block such a change unless they got their own concessions (for example Hungary and Poland on migration) there is no chance at all of the process taking less than several years. It would also be subject to referendums in several countries due to their local laws.0 -
Once we leave and sign up a few trade deals - we would then be in the position of having to cancel them to come back into the EU.
Not going to happen.
0 -
If you want some light relief, here's a ramble about medieval taxes: http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/medieval-taxation.html0
-
Would you personally object to being part of Schengen? I thought you were a big fan of the Norway-EU relationship, which includes membership of Schengen.Richard_Tyndall said:
Much easier technically yes. But politically we would still be faced with the need to get 27 countries to agree an accession treaty - bearing in mind that every time one of these treaties comes up the countries use it as an excuse to try and tack on other concessions for themselves. And the Lisbon Treaty dictates that under those circumstances we would be signing up to the Euro and Schengen as well.rkrkrk said:
Yes I agree on the transition deal - sorry if my post wasn't clear. The idea I was trying to express is that if we are still in SM, CU, subject to EU rules... from that position (even if technically Brexited) - it would be much easier to rejoin. Much harder if there is a no deal Brexit.Richard_Tyndall said:
Just dealing with a few of those points as the others, though I may not agree with them, are at least plausible.
The Transition deal is NOT buying time as far as leaving the EU is concerned. It only extends the period after we have left where we remain in the Single Market etc. If she wants to buy time for further dealing with Brexit then the only way that can be done is to apply for an extension to the negotiations under Article 50 and secure the agreement of all 27 other countries. Otherwise come March 2019 we are out.
You are wrong about the opt outs I am afraid. They were not liked by the other EU countries nor the Commission whilst we were still a member and they certainly won't be looking to reapply them if we rejoin. There is a requirement under the Lisbon Treaty for all new members to sign up to the Euro and Schengen and there is nota cat in hells chance of them agreeing to the rebate given how much they have moaned about it before.
Basically if we want to rejoin we will need a new accession and our opt outs will not have a cat in hells chance of staying.
On the opt-outs, I think if tomorrow you offered the EU the chance for Britain to stay in as we are they would all say yes. The opt-outs will still continue to apply during the transition period I presume. So just continue them and keep things simple.
On the rebate - perhaps it would go, perhaps it would be reduced. Doesn't seem insurmountable to me.
Though a Remainer I'd be content with a Richard Tyndall Brexit, as a sensible compromise which both technically satisfied the vote to Leave and didn't cause chaos to the economy and millions of ordinary immigrants and expats. The problem is that given immigration was such a centrepiece of the Leave campaign I just can't see it flying.0 -
How might we judge the success of Brexit negotiations?
https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/9188653787171962880 -
It was only down to Tory and UKIP voters that we voted Leave in the first placewilliamglenn said:
It's only down to Tory voters that we're not there already, and the Tories are giving them every reason to become demoralised about the whole thing.rcs1000 said:Wake me up when there's a 20 point lead - 60:40 - for Remain.
0 -
Mr Glenn why so bothered about what people think? You made it perfectly clear in the last thread, as far as I could see, that people’s thoughts are of secondary concern.williamglenn said:
It's only down to Tory voters that we're not there already, and the Tories are giving them every reason to become demoralised about the whole thing.rcs1000 said:Wake me up when there's a 20 point lead - 60:40 - for Remain.
0 -
If all the countries of the EU and the UK want something to happen - then a way can be found.Richard_Tyndall said:
We cannot agree that process in advance since it is already bound up in the Lisbon Treaty. The EU would have to open new treaty talks and amend the Lisbon Treaty (which again would require unanimity) to put such a process in place.
Given the timescales involved and the fact that there are a number of countries who would be quite happy to block such a change unless they got their own concessions (for example Hungary and Poland on migration) there is no chance at all of the process taking less than several years. It would also be subject to referendums in several countries due to their local laws.
But I accept it's probably much more difficult than I originally thought.0 -
Friends and partners - Denmark? What about the other 26?TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
@RobDotHutton: It's pretty clear to everyone who Philip Hammond's enemies are, and he doesn't meet any of them at EU summits.0
-
More than made up for by UKIP voters the Tories gained until the dementia tax sent swing voters to LabourPulpstar said:
Hmm I think the Tories got more of those than one might think. The problem was losing droves of middle class remoaners.RobD said:
Whatever happens, to win a stable majority, the Conservatives are going to have win more votes from people who backed a Remain vote in 2016.williamglenn said:More analysis from Stephen Bush - https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2017/10/brexit-far-bigger-problem-conservative-party-realises
Brexit is a far bigger problem than the Conservative Party realises
As a result of Brexit, many people who voted Tory in 2015 did not vote for them in 2017, and won't in 2022 either.
Is that really true? I thought a reason for the Tories not winning a majority was that they didn't get enough of the ex-Kippers?0 -
How many cock ups is Hammond to be indulged for ?0
-
Seems like he's his own worst enemy.Scott_P said:@RobDotHutton: It's pretty clear to everyone who Philip Hammond's enemies are, and he doesn't meet any of them at EU summits.
0 -
If it points, however vaguely, towards ever closer union the EU can be flexible, imaginative, responsive, to a huge degree. Why they will even arrange extra votes for you to bring extra clarity (they like that word - to them it’s synonymous with surrender) to your view.rkrkrk said:
If all the countries of the EU and the UK want something to happen - then a way can be found.Richard_Tyndall said:
We cannot agree that process in advance since it is already bound up in the Lisbon Treaty. The EU would have to open new treaty talks and amend the Lisbon Treaty (which again would require unanimity) to put such a process in place.
Given the timescales involved and the fact that there are a number of countries who would be quite happy to block such a change unless they got their own concessions (for example Hungary and Poland on migration) there is no chance at all of the process taking less than several years. It would also be subject to referendums in several countries due to their local laws.
But I accept it's probably much more difficult than I originally thought.
Show any hint of moving away from the true path of closer union and you will be cast out as a heretic. There shall be no flexibility or imagination.0 -
What needs to be taken into account is something I said about the ECJ the other day. People in the UK mistakenly view it as a political court. It is not. It gives that appearance sometimes because its remit is to uphold the treaties and to interpret law accordingly. If the Lisbon Treaty says that all new members need to sign up for the Euro and Schengen then the only way around that is to have a new treaty that supersedes Lisbon.rkrkrk said:
If all the countries of the EU and the UK want something to happen - then a way can be found.Richard_Tyndall said:
We cannot agree that process in advance since it is already bound up in the Lisbon Treaty. The EU would have to open new treaty talks and amend the Lisbon Treaty (which again would require unanimity) to put such a process in place.
Given the timescales involved and the fact that there are a number of countries who would be quite happy to block such a change unless they got their own concessions (for example Hungary and Poland on migration) there is no chance at all of the process taking less than several years. It would also be subject to referendums in several countries due to their local laws.
But I accept it's probably much more difficult than I originally thought.
I am reminded of the 4 year lifespan problem that Roy Batty and Tyrell discuss in Bladerunner. No matter which way you approach it there are still basic fundamental issues that prevent things happening the way you might like no matter how much both sides want it to happen. And to be honest in this case I am sure that most countries will be looking to their own vested interest not that of the community.0 -
Yep - all those concessions given to the UK that no-one else got.HYUFD said:
It is also exactly how the EU has treated the UKSouthamObserver said:
This is exactly how the Conservative government has treated the EU since 23rd June 2016 (and before that, of course), so it's hardly a surprise.williamglenn said:
0 -
You are whistling in the wind. A new leader won't benefit the Tories at the next GE any more than Redwood would have improved their performance in 1997. Brexit chaos + a recession due = things can only get worse for the Tories, whoever is leader. And it will give the coming hard left government someone to blame for the failure of their policies for quite a few years.HYUFD said:
Corbyn is not even leading enough for a majority now, let alone once the Tories get a new leaderHHemmelig said:
More likely - they will avoid that by giving Labour a majority.HYUFD said:
Foster is at least a Unionist and if the Tories get a small majority next time as they did in 2015 English voters can avoid having either Sturgeon or Foster holding the purse stringsBarnesian said:
Ha ha! I don't think that would work as well in the new circumstances. Perhaps a poster of Arlene Foster with Theresa May in her pocket?HYUFD said:
So the Tories can dust down the 2015 posters and put Corbyn in Sturgeon's pocket instead!Barnesian said:
Baxtering that, plus using my GB EMA (exponential moving average) for all parties gives:TheScreamingEagles said:
It is a full blown Scottish poll, not a subsample.Theuniondivvie said:Assume this isn't a subsample going by the self congratulatory capering beneath the tweet.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/918813102682071040
In Scotland, 8 SNP gains (5 from Con and 3 from LD incl Jo Swinson)
In GB, Con lose 37 (incl Amber Rudd and Zac Godsmith), Lab gain 31, LD lose net 1, PC lose, SNP gain 8.
Overall, Labour 33 short of a majority. (SNP on 43 and LDs on 11)0 -
0
-
I remember when coalition with the LDs was going to put the Cons out of office for a generation (and not a Sturgeon generation).HHemmelig said:
You are whistling in the wind. A new leader won't benefit the Tories at the next GE any more than Redwood would have improved their performance in 1997. Brexit chaos + a recession due = things can only get worse for the Tories, whoever is leader. And it will give the coming hard left government someone to blame for the failure of their policies for quite a few years.HYUFD said:
Corbyn is not even leading enough for a majority now, let alone once the Tories get a new leaderHHemmelig said:
More likely - they will avoid that by giving Labour a majority.HYUFD said:
Foster is at least a Unionist and if the Tories get a small majority next time as they did in 2015 English voters can avoid having either Sturgeon or Foster holding the purse stringsBarnesian said:
Ha ha! I don't think that would work as well in the new circumstances. Perhaps a poster of Arlene Foster with Theresa May in her pocket?HYUFD said:
So the Tories can dust down the 2015 posters and put Corbyn in Sturgeon's pocket instead!Barnesian said:
Baxtering that, plus using my GB EMA (exponential moving average) for all parties gives:TheScreamingEagles said:
It is a full blown Scottish poll, not a subsample.Theuniondivvie said:Assume this isn't a subsample going by the self congratulatory capering beneath the tweet.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/918813102682071040
In Scotland, 8 SNP gains (5 from Con and 3 from LD incl Jo Swinson)
In GB, Con lose 37 (incl Amber Rudd and Zac Godsmith), Lab gain 31, LD lose net 1, PC lose, SNP gain 8.
Overall, Labour 33 short of a majority. (SNP on 43 and LDs on 11)0 -
I am in favour of freedom of movement - of the right of people to move, work and settle where they like - but I think Schengen is flawed. The benefits gained from having no borders are to some extent negated or overtaken by the problems of dealing with criminality, terrorism etc. So I am very happy with law abiding citizens moving around without government interference or being held up, but I do think that in some circumstances borders themselves are a good thing. I think some of the other EU countries are starting to see that as well given how easily terrorists are able to move around the Continent.HHemmelig said:
Would you personally object to being part of Schengen? I thought you were a big fan of the Norway-EU relationship, which includes membership of Schengen.
Though a Remainer I'd be content with a Richard Tyndall Brexit, as a sensible compromise which both technically satisfied the vote to Leave and didn't cause chaos to the economy and millions of ordinary immigrants and expats. The problem is that given immigration was such a centrepiece of the Leave campaign I just can't see it flying.
The thing is of course that you can still have freedom of movement etc without Schengen.0 -
The Tories will fight the next election on Labour's tax rises as they should have done last time and as they won in 1992 despite a recession and when Kinnock expected to win and as the New Zealand Nationals recently beat their Labour party despite being in power for 9 years and trailing in the polls for much of the campaignHHemmelig said:
You are whistling in the wind. A new leader won't benefit the Tories at the next GE any more than Redwood would have improved their performance in 1997. Brexit chaos + a recession due = things can only get worse for the Tories, whoever is leader. And it will give the coming hard left government someone to blame for the failure of their policies for quite a few years.HYUFD said:
Corbyn is not even leading enough for a majority now, let alone once the Tories get a new leaderHHemmelig said:
More likely - they will avoid that by giving Labour a majority.HYUFD said:
Foster is at least a Unionist and if the Tories get a small majority next time as they did in 2015 English voters can avoid having either Sturgeon or Foster holding the purse stringsBarnesian said:
Ha ha! I don't think that would work as well in the new circumstances. Perhaps a poster of Arlene Foster with Theresa May in her pocket?HYUFD said:
So the Tories can dust down the 2015 posters and put Corbyn in Sturgeon's pocket instead!Barnesian said:
Baxtering that, plus using my GB EMA (exponential moving average) for all parties gives:TheScreamingEagles said:
It is a full blown Scottish poll, not a subsample.Theuniondivvie said:Assume this isn't a subsample going by the self congratulatory capering beneath the tweet.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/918813102682071040
In Scotland, 8 SNP gains (5 from Con and 3 from LD incl Jo Swinson)
In GB, Con lose 37 (incl Amber Rudd and Zac Godsmith), Lab gain 31, LD lose net 1, PC lose, SNP gain 8.
Overall, Labour 33 short of a majority. (SNP on 43 and LDs on 11)
0 -
A lot of us moderates disagree with the extreme Brexiteers but we equally see a lot of extremists on the other side. Rather than take sides in the extremist wars and be used as cannon fodder, we would rather just engage and elevate other moderates.AlastairMeeks said:
That's the point. Their instinct is to back up the loonies, not to protect the sane.Tissue_Price said:
I don't think the moderates want to pour fuel on the fire.AlastairMeeks said:
Some well-known Leave supporters are quite unhinged. So much is unremarkable. What is quite remarkable is that Leave supporters who aspire to moderate status feel no need to dissociate themselves from such crazed views.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
No concessions on immigration despite Blair agreeing to free movement without transition controls in 2004 unlike most EU nations. The UK had therefore controls still 'banked' effectivelySouthamObserver said:
Yep - all those concessions given to the UK that no-one else got.HYUFD said:
It is also exactly how the EU has treated the UKSouthamObserver said:
This is exactly how the Conservative government has treated the EU since 23rd June 2016 (and before that, of course), so it's hardly a surprise.williamglenn said:
Denmark and Sweden are still not in the Euro either, nor are many Eastern European nations. Ireland is not in Schengen too0 -
The distinction between “Freedom of Movement” in the specific EU sense, and passport controls at borders, is lost on a number of commentators and even politicians.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am in favour of freedom of movement - of the right of people to move, work and settle where they like - but I think Schengen is flawed. The benefits gained from having no borders are to some extent negated or overtaken by the problems of dealing with criminality, terrorism etc. So I am very happy with law abiding citizens moving around without government interference or being held up, but I do think that in some circumstances borders themselves are a good thing. I think some of the other EU countries are starting to see that as well given how easily terrorists are able to move around the Continent.HHemmelig said:
Would you personally object to being part of Schengen? I thought you were a big fan of the Norway-EU relationship, which includes membership of Schengen.
Though a Remainer I'd be content with a Richard Tyndall Brexit, as a sensible compromise which both technically satisfied the vote to Leave and didn't cause chaos to the economy and millions of ordinary immigrants and expats. The problem is that given immigration was such a centrepiece of the Leave campaign I just can't see it flying.
The thing is of course that you can still have freedom of movement etc without Schengen.
FoM is basically the right to be issued an NI number and to register as living in a different country - a residence ‘visa’ rather than a visit ‘visa’, not anything to do with physically being allowed to move around between countries.0 -
Thanks for comprehensive replyRichard_Tyndall said:
I am in favour of freedom of movement - of the right of people to move, work and settle where they like - but I think Schengen is flawed. The benefits gained from having no borders are to some extent negated or overtaken by the problems of dealing with criminality, terrorism etc. So I am very happy with law abiding citizens moving around without government interference or being held up, but I do think that in some circumstances borders themselves are a good thing. I think some of the other EU countries are starting to see that as well given how easily terrorists are able to move around the Continent.HHemmelig said:
Would you personally object to being part of Schengen? I thought you were a big fan of the Norway-EU relationship, which includes membership of Schengen.
Though a Remainer I'd be content with a Richard Tyndall Brexit, as a sensible compromise which both technically satisfied the vote to Leave and didn't cause chaos to the economy and millions of ordinary immigrants and expats. The problem is that given immigration was such a centrepiece of the Leave campaign I just can't see it flying.
The thing is of course that you can still have freedom of movement etc without Schengen.0 -
The Tories have ceased to be a conservative party. the hard Brexiteers have become latter day Leninists, determined to destroy the existing system in order - they hope - that a new and better one will rise in its place. Against this background Corbyn & Co can seem quite moderate.HHemmelig said:
You are whistling in the wind. A new leader won't benefit the Tories at the next GE any more than Redwood would have improved their performance in 1997. Brexit chaos + a recession due = things can only get worse for the Tories, whoever is leader. And it will give the coming hard left government someone to blame for the failure of their policies for quite a few years.HYUFD said:
Corbyn is not even leading enough for a majority now, let alone once the Tories get a new leaderHHemmelig said:
More likely - they will avoid that by giving Labour a majority.HYUFD said:
Foster is at least a Unionist and if the Tories get a small majority next time as they did in 2015 English voters can avoid having either Sturgeon or Foster holding the purse stringsBarnesian said:
Ha ha! I don't think that would work as well in the new circumstances. Perhaps a poster of Arlene Foster with Theresa May in her pocket?HYUFD said:
So the Tories can dust down the 2015 posters and put Corbyn in Sturgeon's pocket instead!Barnesian said:
Baxtering that, plus using my GB EMA (exponential moving average) for all parties gives:TheScreamingEagles said:
It is a full blown Scottish poll, not a subsample.Theuniondivvie said:Assume this isn't a subsample going by the self congratulatory capering beneath the tweet.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/918813102682071040
In Scotland, 8 SNP gains (5 from Con and 3 from LD incl Jo Swinson)
In GB, Con lose 37 (incl Amber Rudd and Zac Godsmith), Lab gain 31, LD lose net 1, PC lose, SNP gain 8.
Overall, Labour 33 short of a majority. (SNP on 43 and LDs on 11)0 -
Things fall into two categories: those where the treaties would need to be changed, and those where they would not.RobD said:Do they talk about the price they’d extract for membership? Kiss goodbye to the pound sterling, and the rebate!
I think if we changed our mind today (which we're not going to do), then they would probably accept it, and we would wave goodbye to the rebate (which is not in the treaties).
But I don't believe for a second the EU would be able to go through the complicated process of getting a new treaty signed by all 28 member states to get us in to the Euro. Firstly, because new treaties are always a can of worms. Secondly, because us joining the Euro would guarantee that Frankfurt would never be the centre of European finance. Thirdly, because they have enough trouble keeping the Euro together already.0 -
If you can't stand up and condemn nutjobs who think that Britain is at war with the EU and who think that Philip Hammond is a traitor, you haven't earned the right to call yourself a moderate.Elliot said:
A lot of us moderates disagree with the extreme Brexiteers but we equally see a lot of extremists on the other side. Rather than take sides in the extremist wars and be used as cannon fodder, we would rather just engage and elevate other moderates.AlastairMeeks said:
That's the point. Their instinct is to back up the loonies, not to protect the sane.Tissue_Price said:
I don't think the moderates want to pour fuel on the fire.AlastairMeeks said:
Some well-known Leave supporters are quite unhinged. So much is unremarkable. What is quite remarkable is that Leave supporters who aspire to moderate status feel no need to dissociate themselves from such crazed views.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
HYUFD said:
No concessions on immigration despite Blair agreeing to free movement without transition controls in 2004 unlike most EU nations. The UK had therefore controls still 'banked' effectivelySouthamObserver said:
Yep - all those concessions given to the UK that no-one else got.HYUFD said:
It is also exactly how the EU has treated the UKSouthamObserver said:
This is exactly how the Conservative government has treated the EU since 23rd June 2016 (and before that, of course), so it's hardly a surprise.williamglenn said:
The Blair government giving up on part of the rebate for nothing in return and opening up full immigration without controls is a large reason why the UK voted for Brexit in 2016. Actions have consequences.
0 -
Donny getting ready to talk about ripping up the Iran deal...
Brace yourselves!0 -
They are idiots but there's not much point in concentrating on them. You just give them the oxygen of publicity. It's the same reason I ignore many of your more visceral posts.AlastairMeeks said:
If you can't stand up and condemn nutjobs who think that Britain is at war with the EU and who think that Philip Hammond is a traitor, you haven't earned the right to call yourself a moderate.Elliot said:
A lot of us moderates disagree with the extreme Brexiteers but we equally see a lot of extremists on the other side. Rather than take sides in the extremist wars and be used as cannon fodder, we would rather just engage and elevate other moderates.AlastairMeeks said:
That's the point. Their instinct is to back up the loonies, not to protect the sane.Tissue_Price said:
I don't think the moderates want to pour fuel on the fire.AlastairMeeks said:
Some well-known Leave supporters are quite unhinged. So much is unremarkable. What is quite remarkable is that Leave supporters who aspire to moderate status feel no need to dissociate themselves from such crazed views.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
This confusion annoys the shit out of me.Sandpit said:
The distinction between “Freedom of Movement” in the specific EU sense, and passport controls at borders, is lost on a number of commentators and even politicians.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am in favour of freedom of movement - of the right of people to move, work and settle where they like - but I think Schengen is flawed. The benefits gained from having no borders are to some extent negated or overtaken by the problems of dealing with criminality, terrorism etc. So I am very happy with law abiding citizens moving around without government interference or being held up, but I do think that in some circumstances borders themselves are a good thing. I think some of the other EU countries are starting to see that as well given how easily terrorists are able to move around the Continent.HHemmelig said:
Would you personally object to being part of Schengen? I thought you were a big fan of the Norway-EU relationship, which includes membership of Schengen.
Though a Remainer I'd be content with a Richard Tyndall Brexit, as a sensible compromise which both technically satisfied the vote to Leave and didn't cause chaos to the economy and millions of ordinary immigrants and expats. The problem is that given immigration was such a centrepiece of the Leave campaign I just can't see it flying.
The thing is of course that you can still have freedom of movement etc without Schengen.
FoM is basically the right to be issued an NI number and to register as living in a different country - a residence ‘visa’ rather than a visit ‘visa’, not anything to do with physically being allowed to move around between countries.
Switzerland, for example, voted by referendum to join Schengen and abolish passport controls. (And Schengen is popular there because people go in and out Switzerland all the time, and passport controls waste a lot of time for a lot of people.)
But Switzerland also voted by referendum to limit the number of people allowed to work in the country.
They are happy with no passport checks. (Or rather they think the economic costs outweigh the loss of control.) But they don't want unfettered immigration. Just because you cross the border from France to Switzerland without a passport does not mean you are able to live or work in Switzerland.
(And, indeed, the Swiss actually have some very sensible policies that make it almost impossible for illegal immigrants to work or live in the country.)0 -
There is a lot of point in concentrating on them. These are the people who are setting the tone and mood music of negotiations.Elliot said:
They are idiots but there's not much point in concentrating on them. You just give them the oxygen of publicity. It's the same reason I ignore many of your more visceral posts.AlastairMeeks said:
If you can't stand up and condemn nutjobs who think that Britain is at war with the EU and who think that Philip Hammond is a traitor, you haven't earned the right to call yourself a moderate.Elliot said:
A lot of us moderates disagree with the extreme Brexiteers but we equally see a lot of extremists on the other side. Rather than take sides in the extremist wars and be used as cannon fodder, we would rather just engage and elevate other moderates.AlastairMeeks said:
That's the point. Their instinct is to back up the loonies, not to protect the sane.Tissue_Price said:
I don't think the moderates want to pour fuel on the fire.AlastairMeeks said:
Some well-known Leave supporters are quite unhinged. So much is unremarkable. What is quite remarkable is that Leave supporters who aspire to moderate status feel no need to dissociate themselves from such crazed views.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
If by "hard Brexit" you mean any Brexit which ends outside the single market, this is ridiculous. There could obviously be a tough transition but the ultimate destination of being a nation state without political union is a tried and tested one. Far left socialism is also tried and tested, but with universally dire results.anothernick said:
The Tories have ceased to be a conservative party. the hard Brexiteers have become latter day Leninists, determined to destroy the existing system in order - they hope - that a new and better one will rise in its place. Against this background Corbyn & Co can seem quite moderate.HHemmelig said:
You are whistling in the wind. A new leader won't benefit the Tories at the next GE any more than Redwood would have improved their performance in 1997. Brexit chaos + a recession due = things can only get worse for the Tories, whoever is leader. And it will give the coming hard left government someone to blame for the failure of their policies for quite a few years.HYUFD said:
Corbyn is not even leading enough for a majority now, let alone once the Tories get a new leaderHHemmelig said:
More likely - they will avoid that by giving Labour a majority.HYUFD said:
Foster is at least a Unionist and if the Tories get a small majority next time as they did in 2015 English voters can avoid having either Sturgeon or Foster holding the purse stringsBarnesian said:
Ha ha! I don't think that would work as well in the new circumstances. Perhaps a poster of Arlene Foster with Theresa May in her pocket?HYUFD said:
So the Tories can dust down the 2015 posters and put Corbyn in Sturgeon's pocket instead!Barnesian said:
Baxtering that, plus using my GB EMA (exponential moving average) for all parties gives:TheScreamingEagles said:
It is a full blown Scottish poll, not a subsample.Theuniondivvie said:Assume this isn't a subsample going by the self congratulatory capering beneath the tweet.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/918813102682071040
In Scotland, 8 SNP gains (5 from Con and 3 from LD incl Jo Swinson)
In GB, Con lose 37 (incl Amber Rudd and Zac Godsmith), Lab gain 31, LD lose net 1, PC lose, SNP gain 8.
Overall, Labour 33 short of a majority. (SNP on 43 and LDs on 11)0 -
AgreedMarkHopkins said:HYUFD said:
No concessions on immigration despite Blair agreeing to free movement without transition controls in 2004 unlike most EU nations. The UK had therefore controls still 'banked' effectivelySouthamObserver said:
Yep - all those concessions given to the UK that no-one else got.HYUFD said:
It is also exactly how the EU has treated the UKSouthamObserver said:
This is exactly how the Conservative government has treated the EU since 23rd June 2016 (and before that, of course), so it's hardly a surprise.williamglenn said:
The Blair government giving up on part of the rebate for nothing in return and opening up full immigration without controls is a large reason why the UK voted for Brexit in 2016. Actions have consequences.0 -
Absolutely. And add to that Gordon’s sneaking in the back door to sign Lisbon having reneged on a promised referendum.MarkHopkins said:HYUFD said:
No concessions on immigration despite Blair agreeing to free movement without transition controls in 2004 unlike most EU nations. The UK had therefore controls still 'banked' effectivelySouthamObserver said:
Yep - all those concessions given to the UK that no-one else got.HYUFD said:
It is also exactly how the EU has treated the UKSouthamObserver said:
This is exactly how the Conservative government has treated the EU since 23rd June 2016 (and before that, of course), so it's hardly a surprise.williamglenn said:
The Blair government giving up on part of the rebate for nothing in return and opening up full immigration without controls is a large reason why the UK voted for Brexit in 2016. Actions have consequences.0 -
Juncker's position here is very reasonable. Paying for our commitments under the last budget agreements (the buying a round analogy) is a fair enough position. What is unreasonable is paying for things we haven't agreed to already like unfunded liabilities. Or demand an EU court to have ongoing jurisdiction but no reciprocity.Sandpit said:J-C Drunker obviously had something in his breakfast tea today:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jRpXH4XjG5I0 -
They are only setting the tone because people keep on elevating what they are saying. May and Davis are speaking in very conciliatory and positive tones. They are the ones we should focus on.AlastairMeeks said:
There is a lot of point in concentrating on them. These are the people who are setting the tone and mood music of negotiations.Elliot said:
They are idiots but there's not much point in concentrating on them. You just give them the oxygen of publicity. It's the same reason I ignore many of your more visceral posts.AlastairMeeks said:
If you can't stand up and condemn nutjobs who think that Britain is at war with the EU and who think that Philip Hammond is a traitor, you haven't earned the right to call yourself a moderate.Elliot said:
A lot of us moderates disagree with the extreme Brexiteers but we equally see a lot of extremists on the other side. Rather than take sides in the extremist wars and be used as cannon fodder, we would rather just engage and elevate other moderates.AlastairMeeks said:
That's the point. Their instinct is to back up the loonies, not to protect the sane.Tissue_Price said:
I don't think the moderates want to pour fuel on the fire.AlastairMeeks said:
Some well-known Leave supporters are quite unhinged. So much is unremarkable. What is quite remarkable is that Leave supporters who aspire to moderate status feel no need to dissociate themselves from such crazed views.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
-
Nut jobs like Hammond who call the EU "the enemy" ?AlastairMeeks said:
If you can't stand up and condemn nutjobs who think that Britain is at war with the EU and who think that Philip Hammond is a traitor, you haven't earned the right to call yourself a moderate.Elliot said:
A lot of us moderates disagree with the extreme Brexiteers but we equally see a lot of extremists on the other side. Rather than take sides in the extremist wars and be used as cannon fodder, we would rather just engage and elevate other moderates.AlastairMeeks said:
That's the point. Their instinct is to back up the loonies, not to protect the sane.Tissue_Price said:
I don't think the moderates want to pour fuel on the fire.AlastairMeeks said:
Some well-known Leave supporters are quite unhinged. So much is unremarkable. What is quite remarkable is that Leave supporters who aspire to moderate status feel no need to dissociate themselves from such crazed views.TheScreamingEagles said:
0 -
Glad its not just me then. It happens so often I’m starting to feel it must be deliberate, especially in the heat of the discussions about the NI border.rcs1000 said:
This confusion annoys the shit out of me.Sandpit said:
The distinction between “Freedom of Movement” in the specific EU sense, and passport controls at borders, is lost on a number of commentators and even politicians.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am in favour of freedom of movement - of the right of people to move, work and settle where they like - but I think Schengen is flawed. The benefits gained from having no borders are to some extent negated or overtaken by the problems of dealing with criminality, terrorism etc. So I am very happy with law abiding citizens moving around without government interference or being held up, but I do think that in some circumstances borders themselves are a good thing. I think some of the other EU countries are starting to see that as well given how easily terrorists are able to move around the Continent.HHemmelig said:
Would you personally object to being part of Schengen? I thought you were a big fan of the Norway-EU relationship, which includes membership of Schengen.
Though a Remainer I'd be content with a Richard Tyndall Brexit, as a sensible compromise which both technically satisfied the vote to Leave and didn't cause chaos to the economy and millions of ordinary immigrants and expats. The problem is that given immigration was such a centrepiece of the Leave campaign I just can't see it flying.
The thing is of course that you can still have freedom of movement etc without Schengen.
FoM is basically the right to be issued an NI number and to register as living in a different country - a residence ‘visa’ rather than a visit ‘visa’, not anything to do with physically being allowed to move around between countries.
Echoes of similar “confusion” between debt and deficit in the aftermath of the last recession, which were equally annoying coming from people who should have known a lot better.0 -
Contemptible. Time and again those who claim to be moderate Leavers find themselves incapable of criticising even the most outrageous statements that senior Leavers make. No wonder they are floundering so badly.Elliot said:
They are only setting the tone because people keep on elevating what they are saying. May and Davis are speaking in very conciliatory and positive tones. They are the ones we should focus on.AlastairMeeks said:
There is a lot of point in concentrating on them. These are the people who are setting the tone and mood music of negotiations.Elliot said:
They are idiots but there's not much point in concentrating on them. You just give them the oxygen of publicity. It's the same reason I ignore many of your more visceral posts.AlastairMeeks said:
If you can't stand up and condemn nutjobs who think that Britain is at war with the EU and who think that Philip Hammond is a traitor, you haven't earned the right to call yourself a moderate.Elliot said:
A lot of us moderates disagree with the extreme Brexiteers but we equally see a lot of extremists on the other side. Rather than take sides in the extremist wars and be used as cannon fodder, we would rather just engage and elevate other moderates.AlastairMeeks said:
That's the point. Their instinct is to back up the loonies, not to protect the sane.Tissue_Price said:
I don't think the moderates want to pour fuel on the fire.AlastairMeeks said:
Some well-known Leave supporters are quite unhinged. So much is unremarkable. What is quite remarkable is that Leave supporters who aspire to moderate status feel no need to dissociate themselves from such crazed views.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
By "hard Brexit" I mean the cliff edge that looms ever closer. I'm not sure any other form of Brexit is now possible - the nutjobs on the Tory backbenches have almost succeeded in their aim of closing off all other options.Elliot said:
If by "hard Brexit" you mean any Brexit which ends outside the single market, this is ridiculous. There could obviously be a tough transition but the ultimate destination of being a nation state without political union is a tried and tested one. Far left socialism is also tried and tested, but with universally dire results.anothernick said:
The Tories have ceased to be a conservative party. the hard Brexiteers have become latter day Leninists, determined to destroy the existing system in order - they hope - that a new and better one will rise in its place. Against this background Corbyn & Co can seem quite moderate.HHemmelig said:
You are whistling in the wind. A new leader won't benefit the Tories at the next GE any more than Redwood would have improved their performance in 1997. Brexit chaos + a recession due = things can only get worse for the Tories, whoever is leader. And it will give the coming hard left government someone to blame for the failure of their policies for quite a few years.HYUFD said:
Corbyn is not even leading enough for a majority now, let alone once the Tories get a new leaderHHemmelig said:
More likely - they will avoid that by giving Labour a majority.HYUFD said:
Foster is at least a Unionist and if the Tories get a small majority next time as they did in 2015 English voters can avoid having either Sturgeon or Foster holding the purse stringsBarnesian said:
Ha ha! I don't think that would work as well in the new circumstances. Perhaps a poster of Arlene Foster with Theresa May in her pocket?HYUFD said:
So the Tories can dust down the 2015 posters and put Corbyn in Sturgeon's pocket instead!Barnesian said:
Baxtering that, plus using my GB EMA (exponential moving average) for all parties gives:TheScreamingEagles said:
It is a full blown Scottish poll, not a subsample.Theuniondivvie said:Assume this isn't a subsample going by the self congratulatory capering beneath the tweet.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/918813102682071040
In Scotland, 8 SNP gains (5 from Con and 3 from LD incl Jo Swinson)
In GB, Con lose 37 (incl Amber Rudd and Zac Godsmith), Lab gain 31, LD lose net 1, PC lose, SNP gain 8.
Overall, Labour 33 short of a majority. (SNP on 43 and LDs on 11)0 -
-
Indeed. We’re not being asked to stand our round as we leave, we’re being asked to leave a blank cheque behind the bar when the landlord has already suggested an all night lock-in.Elliot said:
Juncker's position here is very reasonable. Paying for our commitments under the last budget agreements (the buying a round analogy) is a fair enough position. What is unreasonable is paying for things we haven't agreed to already like unfunded liabilities. Or demand an EU court to have ongoing jurisdiction but no reciprocity.Sandpit said:J-C Drunker obviously had something in his breakfast tea today:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jRpXH4XjG5I0 -
@SkyNewsBreak: Downing St sources have reiterated PM's support of Chancellor Philip Hammond following his comment on the European Union being the "enemy"
So that's all good...0 -
Mr. Hopkins, indeed.
Mr. Sandpit, it's faintly ridiculous that the EU is demanding we pay up, but don't actually say how much, or for what.0 -
0
-
Then joining the Euro is clearly in the British national interest, all things being equal?rcs1000 said:Secondly, because us joining the Euro would guarantee that Frankfurt would never be the centre of European finance.
0 -
-
Mr. P, shots fired? Surely 'shots ordered'? 0
-
Another day, another loads of remainers calling anyone with a different opinion "nutjobs".
And they wonder why they lost the referendum.0 -
Buying a round , I would not consider 28.Six would be my preferred number.Elliot said:
Juncker's position here is very reasonable. Paying for our commitments under the last budget agreements (the buying a round analogy) is a fair enough position. What is unreasonable is paying for things we haven't agreed to already like unfunded liabilities. Or demand an EU court to have ongoing jurisdiction but no reciprocity.Sandpit said:J-C Drunker obviously had something in his breakfast tea today:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jRpXH4XjG5I0 -
Exactly. That is why it is perfectly reasonable to be in favour of freedom of movement but opposed to Schengen.Sandpit said:
The distinction between “Freedom of Movement” in the specific EU sense, and passport controls at borders, is lost on a number of commentators and even politicians.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am in favour of freedom of movement - of the right of people to move, work and settle where they like - but I think Schengen is flawed. The benefits gained from having no borders are to some extent negated or overtaken by the problems of dealing with criminality, terrorism etc. So I am very happy with law abiding citizens moving around without government interference or being held up, but I do think that in some circumstances borders themselves are a good thing. I think some of the other EU countries are starting to see that as well given how easily terrorists are able to move around the Continent.HHemmelig said:
Would you personally object to being part of Schengen? I thought you were a big fan of the Norway-EU relationship, which includes membership of Schengen.
Though a Remainer I'd be content with a Richard Tyndall Brexit, as a sensible compromise which both technically satisfied the vote to Leave and didn't cause chaos to the economy and millions of ordinary immigrants and expats. The problem is that given immigration was such a centrepiece of the Leave campaign I just can't see it flying.
The thing is of course that you can still have freedom of movement etc without Schengen.
FoM is basically the right to be issued an NI number and to register as living in a different country - a residence ‘visa’ rather than a visit ‘visa’, not anything to do with physically being allowed to move around between countries.0 -
If you think that Britain is at war with the EU or you think that Philip Hammond is a traitor, you should only be trusted with plastic cutlery. These are actively dangerous beliefs and have no place in political debate.CopperSulphate said:Another day, another loads of remainers calling anyone with a different opinion "nutjobs".
And they wonder why they lost the referendum.
Only a year ago, an MP was murdered because a nutjob believed her to be a traitor.0 -
Or indeed, the other way around, in the case of Switzerland.Richard_Tyndall said:
Exactly. That is why it is perfectly reasonable to be in favour of freedom of movement but opposed to Schengen.Sandpit said:
The distinction between “Freedom of Movement” in the specific EU sense, and passport controls at borders, is lost on a number of commentators and even politicians.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am in favour of freedom of movement - of the right of people to move, work and settle where they like - but I think Schengen is flawed. The benefits gained from having no borders are to some extent negated or overtaken by the problems of dealing with criminality, terrorism etc. So I am very happy with law abiding citizens moving around without government interference or being held up, but I do think that in some circumstances borders themselves are a good thing. I think some of the other EU countries are starting to see that as well given how easily terrorists are able to move around the Continent.HHemmelig said:
Would you personally object to being part of Schengen? I thought you were a big fan of the Norway-EU relationship, which includes membership of Schengen.
Though a Remainer I'd be content with a Richard Tyndall Brexit, as a sensible compromise which both technically satisfied the vote to Leave and didn't cause chaos to the economy and millions of ordinary immigrants and expats. The problem is that given immigration was such a centrepiece of the Leave campaign I just can't see it flying.
The thing is of course that you can still have freedom of movement etc without Schengen.
FoM is basically the right to be issued an NI number and to register as living in a different country - a residence ‘visa’ rather than a visit ‘visa’, not anything to do with physically being allowed to move around between countries.
They are two separate things, each with their advantages and disadvantages.0 -
In practice the only real inconvenience of not being in Schengen is for those non-EU citizens resident in either the UK/Ireland or the Schengen zone who need visas to travel to the other bit of the EU.Richard_Tyndall said:
Exactly. That is why it is perfectly reasonable to be in favour of freedom of movement but opposed to Schengen.Sandpit said:
The distinction between “Freedom of Movement” in the specific EU sense, and passport controls at borders, is lost on a number of commentators and even politicians.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am in favour of freedom of movement - of the right of people to move, work and settle where they like - but I think Schengen is flawed. The benefits gained from having no borders are to some extent negated or overtaken by the problems of dealing with criminality, terrorism etc. So I am very happy with law abiding citizens moving around without government interference or being held up, but I do think that in some circumstances borders themselves are a good thing. I think some of the other EU countries are starting to see that as well given how easily terrorists are able to move around the Continent.HHemmelig said:
Would you personally object to being part of Schengen? I thought you were a big fan of the Norway-EU relationship, which includes membership of Schengen.
Though a Remainer I'd be content with a Richard Tyndall Brexit, as a sensible compromise which both technically satisfied the vote to Leave and didn't cause chaos to the economy and millions of ordinary immigrants and expats. The problem is that given immigration was such a centrepiece of the Leave campaign I just can't see it flying.
The thing is of course that you can still have freedom of movement etc without Schengen.
FoM is basically the right to be issued an NI number and to register as living in a different country - a residence ‘visa’ rather than a visit ‘visa’, not anything to do with physically being allowed to move around between countries.0 -
Obviously because of us being an island it is not quite the same as for other countries as there is already some delay and inconvenience when travelling to the rest of Europe. But if I was living in France or Germany I would definitely prefer Schengen on one level. It is just that it does seem to remove a very useful and important set of checks against the free movement of criminals and weapons which is why I think it is flawed.williamglenn said:
In practice the only real inconvenience of not being in Schengen is for those non-EU citizens resident in either the UK/Ireland or the Schengen zone who need visas to travel to the other bit of the EU.Richard_Tyndall said:
Exactly. That is why it is perfectly reasonable to be in favour of freedom of movement but opposed to Schengen.Sandpit said:
The distinction between “Freedom of Movement” in the specific EU sense, and passport controls at borders, is lost on a number of commentators and even politicians.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am in favour of freedom of movement - of the right of people to move, work and settle where they like - but I think Schengen is flawed. The benefits gained from having no borders are to some extent negated or overtaken by the problems of dealing with criminality, terrorism etc. So I am very happy with law abiding citizens moving around without government interference or being held up, but I do think that in some circumstances borders themselves are a good thing. I think some of the other EU countries are starting to see that as well given how easily terrorists are able to move around the Continent.HHemmelig said:
Would you personally object to being part of Schengen? I thought you were a big fan of the Norway-EU relationship, which includes membership of Schengen.
Though a Remainer I'd be content with a Richard Tyndall Brexit, as a sensible compromise which both technically satisfied the vote to Leave and didn't cause chaos to the economy and millions of ordinary immigrants and expats. The problem is that given immigration was such a centrepiece of the Leave campaign I just can't see it flying.
The thing is of course that you can still have freedom of movement etc without Schengen.
FoM is basically the right to be issued an NI number and to register as living in a different country - a residence ‘visa’ rather than a visit ‘visa’, not anything to do with physically being allowed to move around between countries.0 -
Hammond calling the EU the enemy is now the lead story on Spiegel Online.
http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/brexit-philip-hammond-bezeichnet-eu-als-den-feind-a-1172862.html0 -
-
That’s one example. Another issue is that any country within the Schengen zone can object to a visa, even if it’s not where you’re actually going.williamglenn said:
In practice the only real inconvenience of not being in Schengen is for those non-EU citizens resident in either the UK/Ireland or the Schengen zone who need visas to travel to the other bit of the EU.Richard_Tyndall said:
Exactly. That is why it is perfectly reasonable to be in favour of freedom of movement but opposed to Schengen.Sandpit said:
The distinction between “Freedom of Movement” in the specific EU sense, and passport controls at borders, is lost on a number of commentators and even politicians.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am in favour of freedom of movement - of the right of people to move, work and settle where they like - but I think Schengen is flawed. The benefits gained from having no borders are to some extent negated or overtaken by the problems of dealing with criminality, terrorism etc. So I am very happy with law abiding citizens moving around without government interference or being held up, but I do think that in some circumstances borders themselves are a good thing. I think some of the other EU countries are starting to see that as well given how easily terrorists are able to move around the Continent.HHemmelig said:
Would you personally object to being part of Schengen? I thought you were a big fan of the Norway-EU relationship, which includes membership of Schengen.
Though a Remainer I'd be content with a Richard Tyndall Brexit, as a sensible compromise which both technically satisfied the vote to Leave and didn't cause chaos to the economy and millions of ordinary immigrants and expats. The problem is that given immigration was such a centrepiece of the Leave campaign I just can't see it flying.
The thing is of course that you can still have freedom of movement etc without Schengen.
FoM is basically the right to be issued an NI number and to register as living in a different country - a residence ‘visa’ rather than a visit ‘visa’, not anything to do with physically being allowed to move around between countries.
Anecdote: had dinner last night with Jordanian businessman, based in Dubai, who was recently refused a Schengen visa despite his return flight being booked and going to meet with a quango in one country. He doesn’t know who objected, except that it wasn’t the country he was planning to visit. Annoying for him and his customer. Anyone with a Syrain passport, even if resident in Dubai, now finds it impossible to travel to Schengen countries - but UK is still fine for them.0 -
But they are now. They certainly are not our friends.Scott_P said:@SkyNewsBreak: Downing St sources have reiterated PM's support of Chancellor Philip Hammond following his comment on the European Union being the "enemy"
So that's all good...0 -
If and only if those deals give us more advantageous terms than the EU has with markets where we have a considerable trade surplus. A couple of those would be enough to constitute a successful Brexit. But I have a feeling they might not be that easy to come by.TGOHF said:
Once we leave and sign up a few trade deals - we would then be in the position of having to cancel them to come back into the EU.
Not going to happen.
0 -
There's nothing for it, we'll have to deploy Boris to smooth over ruffled Euro-feathers.0
-
That’s a surprising list of countries, that’s changed rapidly in the last few years as the oil price has come down.Recidivist said:
If and only if those deals give us more advantageous terms than the EU has with markets where we have a considerable trade surplus. A couple of those would be enough to constitute a successful Brexit. But I have a feeling they might not be that easy to come by.TGOHF said:
Once we leave and sign up a few trade deals - we would then be in the position of having to cancel them to come back into the EU.
Not going to happen.
In 2016, United Kingdom incurred the highest trade surpluses with the following countries:
United Arab Emirates: US$7.4 billion (country-specific trade surplus in 2016)
Ireland: $5.3 billion
Saudi Arabia: $4.2 billion
Singapore: $3.8 billion
United States: $1.3 billion
Hong Kong: $1.1 billion
Macedonia: $832.3 million
Egypt: $780.3 million
Qatar: $688.9 million
Oman: $539.3 million
http://www.worldstopexports.com/united-kingdoms-top-import-partners/
Without spending all night drilling into the data, I’d say that to those countries the surpluses will be in oil & gas services, financial services, construction services & equipment, and motor vehicles.0 -
The current lot are putting ideology before country.
Indefensible.
The time has come for a strong and stable labour government in the national interest.
Ooooooh Jeremy Corbyn.0 -
Donny rips up the nuclear deal:dixiedean said:Donny getting ready to talk about ripping up the Iran deal...
Brace yourselves!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41613314
Oh, f**k.0 -
I'm unsure a Labour party obsessed (and funded by) unions, and who want to nationalise everything they can think of, is in any way non-ideological or is interested in the national interest ...Pong said:The current lot are putting ideology before country.
Indefensible.
The time has come for a strong and stable labour government in the national interest.0 -
I'll put you down as undecided.JosiasJessop said:
I'm unsure a Labour party obsessed (and funded by) unions, and who want to nationalise everything they can think of, is in any way non-ideological or is interested in the national interest ...Pong said:The current lot are putting ideology before country.
Indefensible.
The time has come for a strong and stable labour government in the national interest.0 -
Surely a lot of those surpluses are our gun-running to Middle East absolutists, on top of the other things that you mention.Sandpit said:
That’s a surprising list of countries, that’s changed rapidly in the last few years as the oil price has come down.Recidivist said:
If and only if those deals give us more advantageous terms than the EU has with markets where we have a considerable trade surplus. A couple of those would be enough to constitute a successful Brexit. But I have a feeling they might not be that easy to come by.TGOHF said:
Once we leave and sign up a few trade deals - we would then be in the position of having to cancel them to come back into the EU.
Not going to happen.
In 2016, United Kingdom incurred the highest trade surpluses with the following countries:
United Arab Emirates: US$7.4 billion (country-specific trade surplus in 2016)
Ireland: $5.3 billion
Saudi Arabia: $4.2 billion
Singapore: $3.8 billion
United States: $1.3 billion
Hong Kong: $1.1 billion
Macedonia: $832.3 million
Egypt: $780.3 million
Qatar: $688.9 million
Oman: $539.3 million
http://www.worldstopexports.com/united-kingdoms-top-import-partners/
Without spending all night drilling into the data, I’d say that to those countries the surpluses will be in oil & gas services, financial services, construction services & equipment, and motor vehicles.0 -
This is clearly talking points that bear no connection to the actual negotiation positions. The UK has been concessionary, both increasing the amount they have been willing to pay and coming up with an innovative legal proposal on citizens' rights. Meanwhile the EU has said "no concessions" on any of the three sticking points, including one which is completely unreasonable, and won't talk about other issues.anothernick said:Elliot said:anothernick said:
By "hard Brexit" I mean the cliff edge that looms ever closer. I'm not sure any other form of Brexit is now possible - the nutjobs on the Tory backbenches have almost succeeded in their aim of closing off all other options.HHemmelig said:
If by "hard Brexit" you mean any Brexit which ends outside the single market, this is ridiculous. There could obviously be a tough transition but the ultimate destination of being a nation state without political union is a tried and tested one. Far left socialism is also tried and tested, but with universally dire results.HYUFD said:
The Tories have ceased to be a conservative party. the hard Brexiteers have become latter day Leninists, determined to destroy the existing system in order - they hope - that a new and better one will rise in its place. Against this background Corbyn & Co can seem quite moderate.HHemmelig said:
Corbyn is not even leading enough for a majority now, let alone once the Tories get a new leaderHYUFD said:
More likely - they will avoid that by giving Labour a majority.Barnesian said:
Ha ha! I don't think that would work as well in the new circumstances. Perhaps a poster of Arlene Foster with Theresa May in her pocket?HYUFD said:
So the Tories can dust down the 2015 posters and put Corbyn in Sturgeon's pocket instead!Barnesian said:
11)TheScreamingEagles said:
It is a full blown Scottish poll, not a subsample.Theuniondivvie said:Assume this isn't a subsample going by the self congratulatory capering beneath the tweet.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/9188131026820710400 -
With the current shower of incompetents in all parties at a national level, I'll be forced to vote even more than usual by local candidate. Shame there isn't usually a raving loony party candidate around here...Pong said:
I'll put you down as undecided.JosiasJessop said:
I'm unsure a Labour party obsessed (and funded by) unions, and who want to nationalise everything they can think of, is in any way non-ideological or is interested in the national interest ...Pong said:The current lot are putting ideology before country.
Indefensible.
The time has come for a strong and stable labour government in the national interest.0 -
In fairness UAE, Singapore, USA, and SArabia from that list are good markets for our engineering products- all nothing to do with arms I’m pleased to say. I’m sure we are not untypical.foxinsoxuk said:
Surely a lot of those surpluses are our gun-running to Middle East absolutists, on top of the other things that you mention.Sandpit said:
That’s a surprising list of countries, that’s changed rapidly in the last few years as the oil price has come down.Recidivist said:
If and only if those deals give us more advantageous terms than the EU has with markets where we have a considerable trade surplus. A couple of those would be enough to constitute a successful Brexit. But I have a feeling they might not be that easy to come by.TGOHF said:
Once we leave and sign up a few trade deals - we would then be in the position of having to cancel them to come back into the EU.
Not going to happen.
In 2016, United Kingdom incurred the highest trade surpluses with the following countries:
United Arab Emirates: US$7.4 billion (country-specific trade surplus in 2016)
Ireland: $5.3 billion
Saudi Arabia: $4.2 billion
Singapore: $3.8 billion
United States: $1.3 billion
Hong Kong: $1.1 billion
Macedonia: $832.3 million
Egypt: $780.3 million
Qatar: $688.9 million
Oman: $539.3 million
http://www.worldstopexports.com/united-kingdoms-top-import-partners/
Without spending all night drilling into the data, I’d say that to those countries the surpluses will be in oil & gas services, financial services, construction services & equipment, and motor vehicles.0 -
Well the BAe Systems and RAF marketing departments are currently touring nine red Hawks around the region, if that’s what you meanfoxinsoxuk said:
Surely a lot of those surpluses are our gun-running to Middle East absolutists, on top of the other things that you mention.Sandpit said:
That’s a surprising list of countries, that’s changed rapidly in the last few years as the oil price has come down.Recidivist said:
If and only if those deals give us more advantageous terms than the EU has with markets where we have a considerable trade surplus. A couple of those would be enough to constitute a successful Brexit. But I have a feeling they might not be that easy to come by.TGOHF said:
Once we leave and sign up a few trade deals - we would then be in the position of having to cancel them to come back into the EU.
Not going to happen.
In 2016, United Kingdom incurred the highest trade surpluses with the following countries:
United Arab Emirates: US$7.4 billion (country-specific trade surplus in 2016)
Ireland: $5.3 billion
Saudi Arabia: $4.2 billion
Singapore: $3.8 billion
United States: $1.3 billion
Hong Kong: $1.1 billion
Macedonia: $832.3 million
Egypt: $780.3 million
Qatar: $688.9 million
Oman: $539.3 million
http://www.worldstopexports.com/united-kingdoms-top-import-partners/
Without spending all night drilling into the data, I’d say that to those countries the surpluses will be in oil & gas services, financial services, construction services & equipment, and motor vehicles.
More Jaguars, McLarens, JCBs and oil diggers though - and lots of financial services.0 -
-
Bomb sales to Saudi are booming too.Sandpit said:
Well the BAe Systems and RAF marketing departments are currently touring nine red Hawks around the region, if that’s what you meanfoxinsoxuk said:
Surely a lot of those surpluses are our gun-running to Middle East absolutists, on top of the other things that you mention.Sandpit said:
That’s a surprising list of countries, that’s changed rapidly in the last few years as the oil price has come down.Recidivist said:
If and only if those deals give us more advantageous terms than the EU has with markets where we have a considerable trade surplus. A couple of those would be enough to constitute a successful Brexit. But I have a feeling they might not be that easy to come by.TGOHF said:
Once we leave and sign up a few trade deals - we would then be in the position of having to cancel them to come back into the EU.
Not going to happen.
In 2016, United Kingdom incurred the highest trade surpluses with the following countries:
United Arab Emirates: US$7.4 billion (country-specific trade surplus in 2016)
Ireland: $5.3 billion
Saudi Arabia: $4.2 billion
Singapore: $3.8 billion
United States: $1.3 billion
Hong Kong: $1.1 billion
Macedonia: $832.3 million
Egypt: $780.3 million
Qatar: $688.9 million
Oman: $539.3 million
http://www.worldstopexports.com/united-kingdoms-top-import-partners/
Without spending all night drilling into the data, I’d say that to those countries the surpluses will be in oil & gas services, financial services, construction services & equipment, and motor vehicles.
More Jaguars, McLarens, JCBs and oil diggers though - and lots of financial services.0 -
Sandpit, you're forgetting all the Cadbury's ...Sandpit said:
Well the BAe Systems and RAF marketing departments are currently touring nine red Hawks around the region, if that’s what you meanfoxinsoxuk said:
Surely a lot of those surpluses are our gun-running to Middle East absolutists, on top of the other things that you mention.Sandpit said:
That’s a surprising list of countries, that’s changed rapidly in the last few years as the oil price has come down.Recidivist said:
If and only if those deals give us more advantageous terms than the EU has with markets where we have a considerable trade surplus. A couple of those would be enough to constitute a successful Brexit. But I have a feeling they might not be that easy to come by.TGOHF said:
Once we leave and sign up a few trade deals - we would then be in the position of having to cancel them to come back into the EU.
Not going to happen.
In 2016, United Kingdom incurred the highest trade surpluses with the following countries:
United Arab Emirates: US$7.4 billion (country-specific trade surplus in 2016)
Ireland: $5.3 billion
Saudi Arabia: $4.2 billion
Singapore: $3.8 billion
United States: $1.3 billion
Hong Kong: $1.1 billion
Macedonia: $832.3 million
Egypt: $780.3 million
Qatar: $688.9 million
Oman: $539.3 million
http://www.worldstopexports.com/united-kingdoms-top-import-partners/
Without spending all night drilling into the data, I’d say that to those countries the surpluses will be in oil & gas services, financial services, construction services & equipment, and motor vehicles.
More Jaguars, McLarens, JCBs and oil diggers though - and lots of financial services.0 -
Ah yes, although I think my wife single handedly accounts for a measurable amount of the UAE’s chocolate sales!MTimT said:
Sandpit, you're forgetting all the Cadbury's ...Sandpit said:
Well the BAe Systems and RAF marketing departments are currently touring nine red Hawks around the region, if that’s what you meanfoxinsoxuk said:
Surely a lot of those surpluses are our gun-running to Middle East absolutists, on top of the other things that you mention.Sandpit said:
That’s a surprising list of countries, that’s changed rapidly in the last few years as the oil price has come down.Recidivist said:
If and only if those deals give us more advantageous terms than the EU has with markets where we have a considerable trade surplus. A couple of those would be enough to constitute a successful Brexit. But I have a feeling they might not be that easy to come by.TGOHF said:
Once we leave and sign up a few trade deals - we would then be in the position of having to cancel them to come back into the EU.
Not going to happen.
In 2016, United Kingdom incurred the highest trade surpluses with the following countries:
United Arab Emirates: US$7.4 billion (country-specific trade surplus in 2016)
Ireland: $5.3 billion
Saudi Arabia: $4.2 billion
Singapore: $3.8 billion
United States: $1.3 billion
Hong Kong: $1.1 billion
Macedonia: $832.3 million
Egypt: $780.3 million
Qatar: $688.9 million
Oman: $539.3 million
http://www.worldstopexports.com/united-kingdoms-top-import-partners/
Without spending all night drilling into the data, I’d say that to those countries the surpluses will be in oil & gas services, financial services, construction services & equipment, and motor vehicles.
More Jaguars, McLarens, JCBs and oil diggers though - and lots of financial services.
And the visitors from the US, who can’t get the proper stuff there any more.
0 -
47% think democracy is wrong?
0 -
If you continually have to find the most extreme statements of people you disagree with then it shows how weak your argument actually is.AlastairMeeks said:
If you think that Britain is at war with the EU or you think that Philip Hammond is a traitor, you should only be trusted with plastic cutlery. These are actively dangerous beliefs and have no place in political debate.CopperSulphate said:Another day, another loads of remainers calling anyone with a different opinion "nutjobs".
And they wonder why they lost the referendum.
Only a year ago, an MP was murdered because a nutjob believed her to be a traitor.0 -
Yes, we don't mind paying for the last round... but funding Juncker's bar tab for the next decade is well beyond what should be expected of anyone.Elliot said:
Juncker's position here is very reasonable. Paying for our commitments under the last budget agreements (the buying a round analogy) is a fair enough position. What is unreasonable is paying for things we haven't agreed to already like unfunded liabilities. Or demand an EU court to have ongoing jurisdiction but no reciprocity.Sandpit said:J-C Drunker obviously had something in his breakfast tea today:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jRpXH4XjG5I
0 -
Surely demonstrating this level of political ineptitude establishes that Hammond fully deserves his place in this cabinet?0
-
With Hammond accused of being a traitor by some, and talk of Theresa May acquiring "Henry VIII" powers, I bet he's hoping the Tower of London has got central heating by now.0
-
In the hard- Brexiteer's mind he envisions a misty eyed post-Brexit world of rolling hills, red telephone kiosks and half-timbered Morris Minors.
I see empty factories, grounded aircraft and tumbleweed rolling through the City of London.
Both might be extreme views, but at least mine has at least a grain of possibility about it!0 -
I'm due on LBC in the next 10 minutes or so.0
-
Break a leg!MikeSmithson said:I'm due on LBC in the next 10 minutes or so.
(Perhaps inappropriate on Friday 13th)0 -
No it doesn't.Mexicanpete said:In the hard- Brexiteer's mind he envisions a misty eyed post-Brexit world of rolling hills, red telephone kiosks and half-timbered Morris Minors.
I see empty factories, grounded aircraft and tumbleweed rolling through the City of London.
Both might be extreme views, but at least mine has at least a grain of possibility about it!0 -
You complained about my use of the word nutjob. I used it in relation to such people. It appears that you share my opinion.CopperSulphate said:
If you continually have to find the most extreme statements of people you disagree with then it shows how weak your argument actually is.AlastairMeeks said:
If you think that Britain is at war with the EU or you think that Philip Hammond is a traitor, you should only be trusted with plastic cutlery. These are actively dangerous beliefs and have no place in political debate.CopperSulphate said:Another day, another loads of remainers calling anyone with a different opinion "nutjobs".
And they wonder why they lost the referendum.
Only a year ago, an MP was murdered because a nutjob believed her to be a traitor.
Unfortunately, what you describe as extreme are direct quotes from the editorial of a major national newspaper and a leading Leaver. It's about time Leavers with pretensions to being moderate stood up to the dangerous idiots who speak in their name.0 -
Have fun. Listening in.MikeSmithson said:I'm due on LBC in the next 10 minutes or so.
0 -
So Hammond has been taking lessons from Boris on the use of feet and mouth.
Is this Conservative Party unity in action?0 -
Juncker is a serious embarrassment and in this country wouldn't have been left in place as chairman of the local Rotary Club. The fact that he is where he is in the EU is one of the best arguments for leaving.Nigelb said:
Yes, we don't mind paying for the last round... but funding Juncker's bar tab for the next decade is well beyond what should be expected of anyone.Elliot said:
Juncker's position here is very reasonable. Paying for our commitments under the last budget agreements (the buying a round analogy) is a fair enough position. What is unreasonable is paying for things we haven't agreed to already like unfunded liabilities. Or demand an EU court to have ongoing jurisdiction but no reciprocity.Sandpit said:J-C Drunker obviously had something in his breakfast tea today:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jRpXH4XjG5I0
This discussion has been closed.