williamglenn said:

FF43 said:

The No Deal is kabuki. It simply exists as a sop to Brexiteers as they gurgitate in their echo chamber. Meanwhile the displacement activity takes away from getting on with Brexit.

It's a way of telling the EU that "we are not Greece" by manoeuvring ourselves into a weaker position than Greece was in.

Greece is the world's 50th largest economy and in the Eurozone and with massive borrowing from the EU (principally Germany), the UK is the world's 5th largest economy, not in the Eurozone and with significantly less debt than Greece and less reliance on Germany.

The two are not comparable.

archer101au said:

Recidivist said:

archer101au said:

Well, this is good news. The Government will get a crap deal, Parliament will reject it and we will end up with no deal.

Do these people have any grasp of reality? Parliament cannot negotiate a treaty, nor can they issue directions to the executive. They can only pass or withhold legislation or form a new Government, which clearly is not an option for Tory MPs.

What do you suggest?

Glad you asked. The only rational decision at this stage is to terminate the negotiations.

Read the great analysis provided by Martin Howe QC. The facts are that the EU CANNOT deliver a trade deal as part of the A50 negotiations. The only outcome of continued negotiations is that we get close to the Brexit date and the EU blackmail us to get whatever they want because at that point we are not prepared for WTO. We cannot lock in a transition period at any time - it will all be up in the air until the last moment. The European Parliament could scupper any deal at the last minute or basically engage in their own last minute blackmail - and who really thinks this won't happen?

The only way that these negotiations would make any sense is if there was a rolling series of signed treaties as we go along - first on citizens rights, then on transition, then on trade. How the hell are we going to deal with the payment of the Brexit bill even if we give in - will the EU ever agree that it is paid years later when the trade deal is actually ratified? Of course not, they will demand the money now and then be able to renege on the trade deal. That this the whole basis of the structure of negotiations and why it has been forced into Phase 1 in the first place. All we are going to get for 50 billion is a two year transition period with no destination. It is madness.

There are only two sensible outcomes - join the EEA (an outcome which would mean that 589 MPs lied to their electorates) or accept that the only way forward is to prepare for WTO, execute Brexit and go back to the EU after this and try to get a trade deal when there is proper time and a sensible process. Hopefully we can get to this point sooner rather than later.

I have to agree. Whatever you think of Brexit, we've got ourselves into a situation where our national interests are severely threatened. Whatever we do next, we've got to get out of where Article 50 has landed us.

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

FF43 said:

The No Deal is kabuki. It simply exists as a sop to Brexiteers as they gurgitate in their echo chamber. Meanwhile the displacement activity takes away from getting on with Brexit.

It's a way of telling the EU that "we are not Greece" by manoeuvring ourselves into a weaker position than Greece was in.

Greece is the world's 50th largest economy and in the Eurozone and with massive borrowing from the EU (principally Germany), the UK is the world's 5th largest economy, not in the Eurozone and with significantly less debt than Greece and less reliance on Germany

Yes it's quite a feat for the UK to have got itself into this position. You should be ashamed of your party's role in it, and its continuing appeasement of anti-European extremism.

Sandpit said:

tlg86 said:

DavidL said:

rottenborough said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

Completely O/T but when did maths change?

My son has drawn my attention to the following sum:

6/2(1+2) = X

When I were a lad X=1 because you would deal with the brackets and the multiple of the brackets first so it ends up 6/6.

Now, apparently, the answer is 9 by having 6/2 multiply the 3 from the brackets.

I have seen over the years that there are several highly competent and qualified mathematicians on here. Has this changed and if so when?

BODMAS still applies, it hasn't been superseded.

Morning all,

Who is telling him the answer is 9?

My son' maths teacher. And the reason is indeed the application of BODMAS. You deal with the brackets first so that becomes 3 but you then start from the left so you do the 6/2 first before the multiplication.

But I am pretty sure that when I was at school you also dealt with the factor outside the brackets next giving the 6 before the division.

Excel says 9.

Which version of Excel? Different versions are well known for doing math(s) differently.

Don't get me started on Excel. The established abbreviation for a Masters of Architecture is MArch. Excel treats it as a date!

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

FF43 said:

The No Deal is kabuki. It simply exists as a sop to Brexiteers as they gurgitate in their echo chamber. Meanwhile the displacement activity takes away from getting on with Brexit.

It's a way of telling the EU that "we are not Greece" by manoeuvring ourselves into a weaker position than Greece was in.

Greece is the world's 50th largest economy and in the Eurozone and with massive borrowing from the EU (principally Germany), the UK is the world's 5th largest economy, not in the Eurozone and with significantly less debt than Greece and less reliance on Germany

Yes it's quite a feat for the UK to have got itself into this position. You should be ashamed of your party's role in it, and its continuing appeasement of anti-European extremism.

I know you are an EU Federalist ideologue which is a perfectly valid position to hold but it is not and I doubt ever will be the position of the majority of British people, they were prepared to have a 'Common Market' relationship with the EU which is why they voted to leave EFTA for the EEC in 1975. Once it became a political project with its own currency, Parliament, court, President and probably army they said no more.

Around 35% of Labour voters voted Leave, without those Leave would not have won, it was not just the majority of Tories and UKIP voters who won it for Brexit

HYUFD said:

I know you are an EU Federalist ideologue which is a perfectly valid position to hold but it is not and I doubt ever will be the position of the majority of British people, they were prepared to have a 'Common Market' relationship with the EU which is why they voted to leave EFTA for the EEC in 1975. Once it became a political project with its own currency, Parliament, court, President and probably army they said no more.

It had it's own parliament, court and commission before we joined. It didn't 'become a political project' subsequently. This is not opinion but fact.

HYUFD said:

Given a choice between telling the EU to 'go whistle' for 50 to 100 billion pounds of their money or telling Brexiteers to 'go whistle' and agree a deal with the EU on any terms I think the former is the more likely option chosen by UK taxpayers

If you are serious about Brexit you pay the money and move on. It's the price of Brexit and one that's worth the money if you support it. I have said all the long the government should get the payment out of the way early. If they had done so they might have been able to haggle the amount down. The government hasn't done so because they are not willing to be level with the British people over the very major costs of Brexit.

Ishmael_Z said:

viewcode said:

DavidL said:

Completely O/T but when did maths change?

My son has drawn my attention to the following sum:

6/2(1+2) = X

When I were a lad X=1 because you would deal with the brackets and the multiple of the brackets first so it ends up 6/6.

Now, apparently, the answer is 9 by having 6/2 multiply the 3 from the brackets.

I have seen over the years that there are several highly competent and qualified mathematicians on here. Has this changed and if so when?

I may be overanswering this, but

Option 1: applying BODMAS
================
6/2(1+2)
= 6 divided by 2 multiplied by openbracket 1 plus 2 closebracket
= 6 divided by 2 multiplied by 3
= 3 multiplied by 3
= 9

Option 2: write out the equation in pen on paper
=============================
Recall that prior to spreadsheets and LaTex and Word equations, people used to write maths down on paper with pens/pencil. It would have been depicted as
6/2(1+2)
= 6 on top of horizontal line above 2, with openbracket 1 plus 2 closebracket on top line
= 3 multipled by openbracket 1 plus 2 closebracket on top line
= 3 multiplied by 3
= 9

Option 3: various computer languages
======================
I'm not going to go into depth with this, particularly since these days the younger crowd think only R and Python exist, but the answer would be 9 or 1 dependent on which language/software you use. This is why I would write this as [6/2]*[1+2], to resolve the ambiguity.

I hope this is helpful

More just wrong. You offer the reading "6 on top of horizontal line above 2, with openbracket 1 plus 2 closebracket on top line" when there is no reason to privilege this interpretation over "6 on top of horizontal line above (2, with openbracket 1 plus 2 closebracket) all on on bottom line." We just can't tell.

Fair enough, but that's why I wrote " It would have been depicted as". In these days of typing things out and using things like "/" and "*", you are correct. But if this had been written out on a piece of paper using things like "_" and "x" instead, then the placement of the "(1+2)" (top line or bottom line?) would have enabled us to privilege one interpretation.

The irony is, of course, that I am typing this out. If I wrote it on a piece of paper, scanned it in, and posted it online, it would be clearer...

Recidivist said:

archer101au said:

Recidivist said:

archer101au said:

Well, this is good news. The Government will get a crap deal, Parliament will reject it and we will end up with no deal.

Do these people have any grasp of reality? Parliament cannot negotiate a treaty, nor can they issue directions to the executive. They can only pass or withhold legislation or form a new Government, which clearly is not an option for Tory MPs.

What do you suggest?

Glad you asked. The only rational decision at this stage is to terminate the negotiations.

Read the great analysis provided by Martin Howe QC. The facts are that the EU CANNOT deliver a trade deal as part of the A50 negotiations. The only outcome of continued negotiations is that we get close to the Brexit date and the EU blackmail us to get whatever they want because at that point we are not prepared for WTO. We cannot lock in a transition period at any time - it will all be up in the air until the last moment. The European Parliament could scupper any deal at the last minute or basically engage in their own last minute blackmail - and who really thinks this won't happen?

The only way that these negotiations would make any sense is if there was a rolling series of signed treaties as we go along - first on citizens rights, then on transition, then on trade. How the hell are we going to deal with the payment of the Brexit bill even if we give in - will the EU ever agree that it is paid years later when the trade deal is actually ratified? Of course not, they will demand the money now and then be able to renege on the trade deal. That this the whole basis of the structure of negotiations and why it has been forced into Phase 1 in the first place. All we are going to get for 50 billion is a two year transition period with no destination. It is madness.

There are only two sensible outcomes - join the EEA (an outcome which would mean that 589 MPs lied to their electorates) or accept that the only way forward is to prepare for WTO, execute Brexit and go back to the EU after this and try to get a trade deal when there is proper time and a sensible process. Hopefully we can get to this point sooner rather than later.

I have to agree. Whatever you think of Brexit, we've got ourselves into a situation where our national interests are severely threatened. Whatever we do next, we've got to get out of where Article 50 has landed us.

The UK set up EFTA 13 yrs before it joined the EEC, 32 yrs before the Maastricht Treaty turned the EEC into the EU. WTO wasn't on the ballot paper. The ballot paper said leave the EU, not go back to c.1955.

FF43 said:

HYUFD said:

Given a choice between telling the EU to 'go whistle' for 50 to 100 billion pounds of their money or telling Brexiteers to 'go whistle' and agree a deal with the EU on any terms I think the former is the more likely option chosen by UK taxpayers

If you are serious about Brexit you pay the money and move on. It's the price of Brexit and one that's worth the money if you support it. I have said all the long the government should get the payment out of the way early. If they had done so they might have been able to haggle the amount down. The government hasn't done so because they are not willing to be level with the British people over the very major costs of Brexit.

The whole point of Brexit for many Leave voters was to get back money from the EU and reduce immigration, they are not going to back 50 to 100 Euros to the EU

rural_voter said:

The UK set up EFTA 13 yrs before it joined the EEC, 32 yrs before the Maastricht Treaty turned the EEC into the EU. WTO wasn't on the ballot paper. The ballot paper said leave the EU, not go back to c.1955.

We didn't just join the EEC. We joined Euratom and the ECSC at the same time - they had already merged into the European Community under shared political institutions.

Recidivist said:

Sean_F said:

Recidivist said:

Sean_F said:

Recidivist said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, *sighs*

No deal is not a good result.

But if you rule it out and the EU want £100bn, what then?

Edited extra bit: Mr. L, you're spot on about housing.

The alternative is to withdraw article 50 and come up with a 10 to 15 year plan to disengage Britain from the EU. There is no reason Britain shouldn't be able to survive and even thrive outside of the EU. The problem is trying to run the leave project too quickly. But of course, if you run it over several general elections the probability is that people will swing back to supporting remaining in.

Why would the EU agree to that?

It would piss them off mightily. And that is obviously bad. But I thought leavers were rebels who didn't care about that kind of thing.

But it's not in our power to unilaterally withdraw A50. So, the agreement of each of the 27 States would be needed.

We just announce it. They'd have to accept it our throw us out. Presumably at the very least Ireland would veto our expulsion.

They don't have to take any positive steps.

It's like dismissing an employee, or exercising a break clause in a lease. Even if you change your mind, the other party is entitled to take you at your word. You can only withdraw your notice if the other party positively agrees.

justin124 said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

not_on_fire said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, *sighs*

No deal is not a good result.

But if you rule it out and the EU want £100bn, what then?

Edited extra bit: Mr. L, you're spot on about housing.

Dan Hodges sums that up brilliantly this morning

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/919491560420577281

All Labour needs to do is make clear that it would not do what the government is doing. If Brexit goes wrong that's the only requirement.

Logically impossible, if Labour attack the Tories for agreeing no deal because the EU is demanding too much money the Tories will simply ask Labour how much they are willing to pay the EU then

Nope, what is being said now is for consumption later. Brexit goes wrong - Labour says we were saying back in 2017 the government was messing the negotiation up.

We are leaving the EU by April 2019 ie

Yep -

75% of voters believe even a £40 billion divorce bill paid to the EU would be unacceptable according to ICM.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/847360/brexit-bill-britons-poll-find-it-unacceptable

Good luck to Labour trying to sell any more than that!

Voters are bad at understanding many things, including whether £40bn is a large sum of money in the context of what it gets us

Perhaps

That will be relatively easy if we are living with the consequences of a No Deal Brexit. If we aren't, it will not be an issue.

I doubt that Labour will be that interested

Labour would have to agree to such an election.The changed Parliamentary arithmetic would make it more difficult than was the case last April - particularly if the DUP did not fancy an election and was inclined to abstain.Of course, Corbyn might be up for it!

The Tories would only need one other party from SNP, LDs or the DUP to back a 2019 or 2020 general election for it to be called, they could call it without Labour backing, even a handful of Labour MPs abstaining or backing it would be enough (eg to get a mandate to stop a no deal Brexit) and as you say Corbyn might support one anyway

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

I know you are an EU Federalist ideologue which is a perfectly valid position to hold but it is not and I doubt ever will be the position of the majority of British people, they were prepared to have a 'Common Market' relationship with the EU which is why they voted to leave EFTA for the EEC in 1975. Once it became a political project with its own currency, Parliament, court, President and probably army they said no more.

It had it's own parliament, court and commission before we joined. It didn't 'become a political project' subsequently. This is not opinion but fact.

We joined the Common Market (pre the Euro, pre free movement, pre a European army etc), we left the European Union

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

I know you are an EU Federalist ideologue which is a perfectly valid position to hold but it is not and I doubt ever will be the position of the majority of British people, they were prepared to have a 'Common Market' relationship with the EU which is why they voted to leave EFTA for the EEC in 1975. Once it became a political project with its own currency, Parliament, court, President and probably army they said no more.

It had it's own parliament, court and commission before we joined. It didn't 'become a political project' subsequently. This is not opinion but fact.

We joined the Common Market (pre the Euro, pre free movement, pre a European army etc), we left the European Union

Free movement is in the Treaty of Rome.

It's unbelievable that you are so obtuse about this given that you apparently voted Remain. Do you think it serves your party somehow?

HYUFD said:

FF43 said:

HYUFD said:

Given a choice between telling the EU to 'go whistle' for 50 to 100 billion pounds of their money or telling Brexiteers to 'go whistle' and agree a deal with the EU on any terms I think the former is the more likely option chosen by UK taxpayers

If you are serious about Brexit you pay the money and move on. It's the price of Brexit and one that's worth the money if you support it. I have said all the long the government should get the payment out of the way early. If they had done so they might have been able to haggle the amount down. The government hasn't done so because they are not willing to be level with the British people over the very major costs of Brexit.

The whole point of Brexit for many Leave voters was to get back money from the EU and reduce immigration, they are not going to back 50 to 100 Euros to the EU

Maybe confront Leavers with some home truths then. If the government doesn't do it now, it will hit them later when the conseqquences will be graver.

What do you want?

A. No exit deal, save a fee of €60 over several years and have cold turkey chaos at a cost of - I think I saw somewhere - ca £70 billion every single year.
B. Pay the fee and move on.
C. Don't pay the fee and stay in the EU

viewcode said:

DavidL said:

Completely O/T but when did maths change?

My son has drawn my attention to the following sum:

6/2(1+2) = X

When I were a lad X=1 because you would deal with the brackets and the multiple of the brackets first so it ends up 6/6.

Now, apparently, the answer is 9 by having 6/2 multiply the 3 from the brackets.

I have seen over the years that there are several highly competent and qualified mathematicians on here. Has this changed and if so when?

I may be overanswering this, but

Option 1: applying BODMAS
================
6/2(1+2)
= 6 divided by 2 multiplied by openbracket 1 plus 2 closebracket
= 6 divided by 2 multiplied by 3
= 3 multiplied by 3
= 9

Option 2: write out the equation in pen on paper
=============================
Recall that prior to spreadsheets and LaTex and Word equations, people used to write maths down on paper with pens/pencil. It would have been depicted as
6/2(1+2)
= 6 on top of horizontal line above 2, with openbracket 1 plus 2 closebracket on top line
= 3 multipled by openbracket 1 plus 2 closebracket on top line
= 3 multiplied by 3
= 9

Option 3: various computer languages
======================
I'm not going to go into depth with this, particularly since these days the younger crowd think only R and Python exist, but the answer would be 9 or 1 dependent on which language/software you use. This is why I would write this as [6/2]*[1+2], to resolve the ambiguity.

I hope this is helpful

Many thanks for that. I did understand how it got to 9. The point I was making was that when I did my higher maths the answer would have been 1. The method has changed and the answer has changed with it.

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

I know you are an EU Federalist ideologue which is a perfectly valid position to hold but it is not and I doubt ever will be the position of the majority of British people, they were prepared to have a 'Common Market' relationship with the EU which is why they voted to leave EFTA for the EEC in 1975. Once it became a political project with its own currency, Parliament, court, President and probably army they said no more.

It had it's own parliament, court and commission before we joined. It didn't 'become a political project' subsequently. This is not opinion but fact.

We joined the Common Market (pre the Euro, pre free movement, pre a European army etc), we left the European Union

Free movement is in the Treaty of Rome.

It's unbelievable that you are so obtuse about this given that you apparently voted Remain. Do you think it serves your party somehow?

It was the EEA agreement in 1994 which enabled freedom of movement to take up residence in another nation and it was the accession of Eastern European nations in 2004 and their free movement which increased the problem for Leave voters, admittedly it was Blair's fault for failing to impose transition controls which compounded the problem.

I voted to Remain with reservations and the position as is, had it meant joining the Euro I would have voted Leave. Most Tory voters are Leave voters, if the Tories abandon Brexit they will go the way of the Progresssive Conservatives in Canada and be overtaken on the right by UKIP

HYUFD said:

Most Tory voters are Leave voters, if the Tories abandon Brexit they will go the way of the Progresssive Conservatives in Canada and be overtaken on the right by UKIP

Do you think Tory voters are incapable of understanding home truths? It's your party's cowardice when faced with the growth of wrong-headed ideas within its ranks that has got us in this mess. If it is incapable of facing them down, then that fate is exactly what it deserves.

FF43 said:

HYUFD said:

FF43 said:

HYUFD said:

Given a choice between telling the EU to 'go whistle' for 50 to 100 billion pounds of their money or telling Brexiteers to 'go whistle' and agree a deal with the EU on any terms I think the former is the more likely option chosen by UK taxpayers

If you are serious about Brexit you pay the money and move on. It's the price of Brexit and one that's worth the money if you support it. I have said all the long the government should get the payment out of the way early. If they had done so they might have been able to haggle the amount down. The government hasn't done so because they are not willing to be level with the British people over the very major costs of Brexit.

The whole point of Brexit for many Leave voters was to get back money from the EU and reduce immigration, they are not going to back 50 to 100 Euros to the EU

Maybe confront Leavers with some home truths then. If the government doesn't do it now, it will hit them later when the conseqquences will be graver.

What do you want?

A. No exit deal, save a fee of €60 over several years and have cold turkey chaos at a cost of - I think I saw somewhere - ca £70 billion every single year.
B. Pay the fee and move on.
C. Don't pay the fee and stay in the EU

I'd go for B. We owe them something, and it will help negotiations.

There seems to have been a mystique around "no deal" as in the UK resolutely walks away from the table, takes its EU money with it and we're all fine. But in detailed reality it won't be fine. And that detail now needs to be exposed.

The cost and disruption of a no-deal Brexit will cause uproar amongst the masses who voted leave for good reason. So lets tell them exactly what no deal means - hours in passport queues going abroad, a 20% increase in food prices coupled with a reduction in choice, a significant loss of jobs in all of the industries that used to reply on the just in time supply route from Europe now closed to us.

HYUFD said it below - many people voted on immigration grounds and getting money back. So lets offer that to them - the "I'm fucked you're fucked the country's fucked" WTO option, or less payment and restrictions on migration rejoining EFTA retaining our EEA/CU membership. EFTA members pay less than full EU members, so thats a saving to go and sell. And we impose the restrictions on movement always allowed but ignored here - the anti-migration people will delight in stories of EU migrants having to register at the town hall and being told to leave in 3 months if they can't support themselves.

There are many people from all parties - myself included - could could see a better future than what we faced as the EU evolves ever closer to being a federation. But voting to leave the EU was ONLY a vote to leave the EU - the question on the ballot paper. Not to cripple ourselves with the vacuous fuckwittery of WTO rules badly implemented by a country not understanding what this practically means.

Everyone seems to agree that we need a plan by the end of November. The EU negotiations are basically deadlocked, so I expect shortly to hear detail about how we would implement WTO. And then hear the details from the people on the ground as to just how crippling and disastrous and impossible to do in time that will be. And then - hopefully - we can have a sensible debate about the only remaining options - EFTA, or forget the whole thing and rescind A50.

Sean_F said:

FF43 said:

HYUFD said:

FF43 said:

HYUFD said:

Given a choice between telling the EU to 'go whistle' for 50 to 100 billion pounds of their money or telling Brexiteers to 'go whistle' and agree a deal with the EU on any terms I think the former is the more likely option chosen by UK taxpayers

If you are serious about Brexit you pay the money and move on. It's the price of Brexit and one that's worth the money if you support it. I have said all the long the government should get the payment out of the way early. If they had done so they might have been able to haggle the amount down. The government hasn't done so because they are not willing to be level with the British people over the very major costs of Brexit.

The whole point of Brexit for many Leave voters was to get back money from the EU and reduce immigration, they are not going to back 50 to 100 Euros to the EU

Maybe confront Leavers with some home truths then. If the government doesn't do it now, it will hit them later when the conseqquences will be graver.

What do you want?

A. No exit deal, save a fee of €60 over several years and have cold turkey chaos at a cost of - I think I saw somewhere - ca £70 billion every single year.
B. Pay the fee and move on.
C. Don't pay the fee and stay in the EU

I'd go for B. We owe them something, and it will help negotiations.

Sensible man! The other Brexiteers are sabotaging their own project.

williamglenn said:

rural_voter said:

The UK set up EFTA 13 yrs before it joined the EEC, 32 yrs before the Maastricht Treaty turned the EEC into the EU. WTO wasn't on the ballot paper. The ballot paper said leave the EU, not go back to c.1955.

We didn't just join the EEC. We joined Euratom and the ECSC at the same time - they had already merged into the European Community under shared political institutions.

OK. I think the ECSC appeared in 1950, so to justify current UK policy, under the usual contract between voters and politicians, 52% of the electorate should have ticked a box on the ballot paper that said

'... go back to 1949.'

Funnily, I only saw the words leave, remain and EU when I ticked my box to remain.

HYUFD said:

@FF43:

Maybe confront Leavers with some home truths then. If the government doesn't do it now, it will hit them later when the conseqquences will be graver.

What do you want?

A. No exit deal, save a fee of €60 over several years and have cold turkey chaos at a cost of - I think I saw somewhere - ca £70 billion every single year.
B. Pay the fee and move on.
C. Don't pay the fee and stay in the EU

----

A All hypothetical and could not be seen for years if not a decade or more
B As I said that would involve 50 to 100 billion euros to the EU which the voters would not accept
C Involves free movement unchecked and more payments to the EU which again the voters won't accept and even Corbyn accepts there has to be Brexit

The consequences will be clear by this time next year.

FF43 said:

Sean_F said:

FF43 said:

HYUFD said:

FF43 said:

HYUFD said:

Given a choice between telling the EU to 'go whistle' for 50 to 100 billion pounds of their money or telling Brexiteers to 'go whistle' and agree a deal with the EU on any terms I think the former is the more likely option chosen by UK taxpayers

If you are serious about Brexit you pay the money and move on. It's the price of Brexit and one that's worth the money if you support it. I have said all the long the government should get the payment out of the way early. If they had done so they might have been able to haggle the amount down. The government hasn't done so because they are not willing to be level with the British people over the very major costs of Brexit.

The whole point of Brexit for many Leave voters was to get back money from the EU and reduce immigration, they are not going to back 50 to 100 Euros to the EU

Maybe confront Leavers with some home truths then. If the government doesn't do it now, it will hit them later when the conseqquences will be graver.

What do you want?

A. No exit deal, save a fee of €60 over several years and have cold turkey chaos at a cost of - I think I saw somewhere - ca £70 billion every single year.
B. Pay the fee and move on.
C. Don't pay the fee and stay in the EU

I'd go for B. We owe them something, and it will help negotiations.

Sensible man! The other Brexiteers are sabotaging their own project.

Our GDP is £2 trn. Whether the exit bill is £40 bn or £50 bn (payable over some years in any case) is not that important in the scheme of things. There are far bigger fish to fry.

Jonathan said:

If Brexit does collapse, who will get the blame?

I blame the parents.

MJW - I suspect the middle class remainer has been much more in evidence - and the working class who voted exit doesn't like the look of them much. So, they will vote Corbyn to take the smiles off their faces, and get exit anyway.

williamglenn said:

Brexit is the most perfectly designed political doomsday machine there has ever been, and the irony is that it was the Brexiteers who built it before they locked themselves in and threw away the key. Every possible move they could make from here just leads to their inevitable self-destruction.

That's just hyperbole. The EU's own treaties provide for secession. It's not the act of rebellion that you think it is.

malcolmg - it was a Scotsman that told me...

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

I know you are an EU Federalist ideologue which is a perfectly valid position to hold but it is not and I doubt ever will be the position of the majority of British people, they were prepared to have a 'Common Market' relationship with the EU which is why they voted to leave EFTA for the EEC in 1975. Once it became a political project with its own currency, Parliament, court, President and probably army they said no more.

It had it's own parliament, court and commission before we joined. It didn't 'become a political project' subsequently. This is not opinion but fact.

We joined the Common Market (pre the Euro, pre free movement, pre a European army etc), we left the European Union

And prior to joining we were in EFTA which is now anathema to Leavers.

MJW said:

HYUFD said:

MJW said:

Sean_F said:

MJW said:

AlastairMeeks said:

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Dura_Ace said:

Casino_Royale said:

They need to win the battle of ideas, and show their way is the best way for young people to own their own homes, get decent jobs and have a prosperous future.

Corbyn also backs Brexit and May tried fiscal responsibility last time

As it happens, the Conservatives do still have a big lead over Labour on the economy.

And, millions of voters are very keen on Brexit. You win some voters, and you lose others.

Almost 80% of 2017 Tory voters now back Leave

Well yes, because lots of those 2015 Remain Tory voters decamped to Labour. You'd expect that. The Tories increased their vote share by taking the majority of the UKIP vote, so you'd expect them to be much more devoted to leave. I'm not sure of the relevance to my points which are that they're in an electoral bind because, firstly some leave voters saw the referendum as a one off, and didn't vote in the GE (and probably won't again - I'm sure people have met them on doorsteps, angry and mistrustful of any authority). And secondly, because working class voters so devoted to leave they'll go Tory aren't in very helpful places in FPTP - they helped the Tories nibble away at Labour in the north, but won them only a handful of seats compared to disgruntled remainers who voted Tory in 2015 but switched in 2017. Why? The only plausible explanation is that economic responsibility lost its salience as an issue for them in 2017 due to Brexit.

It may be impossible to win a majority at a general election off the back of a Brexit platform as politics currently stands - with both leave and remain voters fairly intransigent as to whether it's a good idea or not. Somehow, a government pursuing Brexit has to shift that in its favour. As it currently stands, both sides are getting angrier as they view the other as betraying the national interest, but remainers may well have more electoral clout in a general election than an in-out referendum. That's not going to happen with either a bad, or a no deal, and Brexit will likely have paved the way for Corbyn.

Possibly, small working class towns in the Midlands and North will vote like their US counterparts, and take the Conservatives over the line. It doesn't matter where your support comes from, so long as it is enough to win.

But could he kill a gay donkey trying to rape his horse?

I swear this isn't a Daily Mash story.

https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/919548417705000961

Spent weekend with my French connection. Few titbits:

- Macron is not getting involved in Brexit ("I don't give a f***. Angela tells me hard Brexit is good for her so let her have it")
- France has clearly communicated that a deal will be done over Ireland. No one wants to jeopardise the peace process
- France doesn't want a deal on residency rights. They want to kick out 300k expensive Brits and get back 1.4 taxpayers. It's worth at least 500m eur per year
- France also believes that constitutionally they can't do a deal on residency. Equality of all citizens is fundamental. Giving 1.4m citizens preferential access to a second (v g) jobs market is preferential
- Merkel thinks hard Brexit is worth 1pp off her unemployment rate and 0.5pp off her NAIRU. She thinks that full employment will solve the AfD issue.
- the price for trade talks is eur 50bn

NEW THREAD

MJW said:

HYUFD said:

MJW said:

Sean_F said:

MJW said:

AlastairMeeks said:

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Dura_Ace said:

Casino_Royale said:

They need to win the battle of ideas, and show their way is the best way for young people to own their own homes, get decent jobs and have a prosperous future.

Corbyn also backs Brexit and May tried fiscal responsibility last time

As it happens, the Conservatives do still have a big lead over Labour on the economy.

And, millions of voters are very keen on Brexit. You win some voters, and you lose others.

Almost 80% of 2017 Tory voters now back Leave

Well yes, because lots of those 2015 Remain Tory voters decamped to Labour. You'd expect that. The Tories increased their vote share by taking the majority of the UKIP vote, so you'd expect them to be much more devoted to leave. I'm not sure of the relevance to my points which are that they're in an electoral bind because, firstly some leave voters saw the referendum as a one off, and didn't vote in the GE (and probably won't again - I'm sure people have met them on doorsteps, angry and mistrustful of any authority). And secondly, because working class voters so devoted to leave they'll go Tory aren't in very helpful places in FPTP - they helped the Tories nibble away at Labour in the north, but won them only a handful of seats compared to disgruntled remainers who voted Tory in 2015 but switched in 2017. Why? The only plausible explanation is that economic responsibility lost its salience as an issue for them in 2017 due to Brexit.

It may be impossible to win a majority at a general election off the back of a Brexit platform as politics currently stands - with both leave and remain voters fairly intransigent as to whether it's a good idea or not. Somehow, a government pursuing Brexit has to shift that in its favour. As it currently stands, both sides are getting angrier as they view the other as betraying the national interest, but remainers may well have more electoral clout in a general election than an in-out referendum. That's not going to happen with either a bad, or a no deal, and Brexit will likely have paved the way for Corbyn.

Corbyn could not win last time with Remainers because he is not a true Remainer but his backing for Brexit did help him win a number of UKIP voters and keep Labour Leavers

FF43 said:

HYUFD said:

@FF43:

Maybe confront Leavers with some home truths then. If the government doesn't do it now, it will hit them later when the conseqquences will be graver.

What do you want?

A. No exit deal, save a fee of €60 over several years and have cold turkey chaos at a cost of - I think I saw somewhere - ca £70 billion every single year.
B. Pay the fee and move on.
C. Don't pay the fee and stay in the EU

----

A All hypothetical and could not be seen for years if not a decade or more
B As I said that would involve 50 to 100 billion euros to the EU which the voters would not accept
C Involves free movement unchecked and more payments to the EU which again the voters won't accept and even Corbyn accepts there has to be Brexit

The consequences will be clear by this time next year.

Remainers were saying they would be clear now