politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Its 5/4 at Ladbrokes that there’ll be no deal on Brexit

SandyRentool said:

W

W indeed.

MikeSmithson said:

SandyRentool said:

Not second.

When you think about the chances or there being a transitional arrangement for 2 or more years, this makes it very likely that there will not be a Breit deal in place by the given date. Assuming Lads don't consider the transitional arrangement to be the 'Deal'.

I'd say any agreement including transitional arrangements will be regarded as a deal for the purpose of the bet.

And as you say, none of those are particularly tempting, so it doesn't matter too much anyway at the moment.

Nigelb said:

FPT

DavidL said:

Ishmael_Z said:

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beverley_C said:

TGOHF said:

TGOHF said:

Free of the EU - the Uk could be a lot more nimble - should it choose a government which will enable that.

That is what you would like, an ideal scenario. What we will get is reality. Post Brexit we will soon know who our friends are.

But what the heck... you will soon rationalise this away and believe whatever you want. Just remember that it is unlikely that reality will share your idealism.

God knows how nations a fraction of our [economic] size like Australia, Canada etc cope outside the bosom of the EU.

I moved to Australia in 1992. Back then Australia was a poorer country than European nations. Per capita British GDP was 10% higher than Australia's. German GDP per capita was 50% higher.

Since then the EU has been sclerotic and failed while Australia has been nimble and signed free trade deals with lots of the world including the USA. But not including the sclerotic EU.

Today the idea of Aussies being poor has completely been reversed. Aussie GDP per capita is 25% higher than Britain's and 20% higher than Germany's. An incredible transformation in the last quarter century.

We could learn a thing or two from our Antipodean cousins.

Lesson one have lots of natural resources the Chinese want to buy.

We were being told this morning that we have loads of wind to sell. Despite Westminster it is not particularly London centric either.

Alec Salmond was going to export renewable energy, but I don't think we ever learned how this would work. Little AA McDuracells, perhaps.

If I had the benefit of a few hundred million to invest batteries would take a large part of it. Someone is going to find new ways of storing power and make google look normal.

This MIT technology looks rather promising:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435117300326

I am not qualified to judge the scientific content but the premise of the piece, that large scale renewable energy requires cost effective storage to be economically viable is indisputable. We don't have enough Cruachans.

https://twitter.com/lloydblankfein/status/920995573368545280

It's worth noting that Betfair have a few Brexit markets re date / 2nd referendum.

However, quite why they thought it was smart to specify the exact date in this market and then use "by" in the title and "before" in the rules is beyond me. Caveat bettor.

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.130766060

HYUFD said:

To pay £65 billion to the EU or not to pay £65 billion to the EU? That is the question for May and Corbyn and the price of any FTA deal.

€20B in cash + the European Investment Bank capital would allow both sides to claim victory.

I wrote a whole bunch of replies on the other thread.

Sigh.

rcs1000 said:

I wrote a whole bunch of replies on the other thread.

Sigh.

Does copy and paste not work in America?

Richard_Tyndall said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/lloydblankfein/status/920995573368545280

Of course he will. He needs to continue that rather dubious relationship between Goldman Sachs and the EU. They do seem to be the EU's go to company when something needs to be 'fixed'.

Yep, the bastards. Same as BMW - they seem to be the EU's go to company when someone needs a car. Or Deutsche Telecom - they seem to be the EU's go to company when someone needs to, er, make a telephone call.

TheScreamingEagles said:

‪Is Don unravelling?‬

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/920981920787386368

As an aside

Donald Trump has invoked the Fifth Amendment almost 100 times.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/two-things-you-should-know-11370724

Interesting choice of tense.

TheScreamingEagles said:

‪Is Don unravelling?‬

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/920981920787386368

As an aside

Donald Trump has invoked the Fifth Amendment almost 100 times.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/two-things-you-should-know-11370724

Properly, seriously, unequivocally mad.

It's just a matter of if he departs with a bang* or a whimper.

* Not one that's mushroom-shaped, I hope.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mrs May really isn’t acting like someone who isn’t fussed by no deal.

Gatecrashing the meeting tonight for example.

Why do I get the feeling Michel Barnier is one rejection away from finding a boiled bunny on his stove.

Maybe Glenn Close could play Mrs May when they make the Brexit movie in Hollywood!

Scott_P said:

@bbclaurak: May called for 'urgency' arriving in BXL, but we've just spoken to 10 different EU leaders who all say it's for UK to act

If only we could have seen this sort of intransigent behaviour coming.

Why oh why oh why did nobody warn us.

Anorak said:

Scott_P said:

@bbclaurak: May called for 'urgency' arriving in BXL, but we've just spoken to 10 different EU leaders who all say it's for UK to act

If only we could have seen this sort of intransigent behaviour coming.

Why oh why oh why did nobody warn us.

She should listen to David Davis, she is wasting her time in Bruxelles.

https://twitter.com/DavidDavisMP/status/735770073822961664

Anorak said:

Scott_P said:

@bbclaurak: May called for 'urgency' arriving in BXL, but we've just spoken to 10 different EU leaders who all say it's for UK to act

If only we could have seen this sort of intransigent behaviour coming.

Why oh why oh why did nobody warn us.

The EU are falling into our cunning trap: they push too hard; we give them two fingers and ride off into the sunset. Bah ha ha ha ha ha ...!

HYUFD said:

HHemmelig said:

HYUFD said:

To pay £65 billion to the EU or not to pay £65 billion to the EU? That is the question for May and Corbyn and the price of any FTA deal.

She'll pay it in the end.

5/4 are bad odds on No Deal.

If she does I think it will tip enough Leaver Tory MPs into backing a vote of no confidence. A new Tory leader from the Leave camp, probably Boris or Davis, may then go to the country for a mandate for no deal.

Mm, another back my version of Brexit GE? That should work.

HYUFD said:

HHemmelig said:

HYUFD said:

To pay £65 billion to the EU or not to pay £65 billion to the EU? That is the question for May and Corbyn and the price of any FTA deal.

She'll pay it in the end.

5/4 are bad odds on No Deal.

If she does I think it will tip enough Leaver Tory MPs into backing a vote of no confidence. A new Tory leader from the Leave camp, probably Boris or Davis, may then go to the country for a mandate for no deal.

Surely the only thing Leave Con MPs want is that we do actually Leave.

If the choice is:

1) Leave + Pay £60bn+

2) Let Corbyn become PM and see what happens

Then surely all Leave MPs would choose 1) because it's the only certain way of leaving - and at least leaving properly.

Whereas Option 2) could result in anything.

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

Rhubarb said:

HYUFD said:

To pay £65 billion to the EU or not to pay £65 billion to the EU? That is the question for May and Corbyn and the price of any FTA deal.

€20B in cash + the European Investment Bank capital would allow both sides to claim victory.

The EU would not accept anything less than £65 billion that is now clear

No, that is your opinion.

£65 billion is the LOW end of what the EU 27 will accept as a minimum payment before talks on a deal
http://www.politico.eu/article/eu-clarifies-stance-brexit-bill-michel-barnier-david-davis/

Have you ever heard of anchoring?

Of course they say they want £65-80bn. Why would they say anything else?

That doesn't mean they won't settle for:

Transfer of pension obligations to the UK for UK MEPs and Eurocrats.
Netting off of EIB stake.
£10bn a year payments during the transition period.
and a £20bn one off payment.

They can make that sound like £60bn if they like. And we'll make it sound like they accepted our £20bn.

MikeL said:

£65bn is peanuts in overall scheme of things.

Key point is it's a one-off payment.

National Debt is £1,700bn

So what if it becomes £1,765bn?

Difference is not material.

Have you ever been divorced ?

You’d rather trap an appendage in a door than give them a penny more.

MikeL said:

HYUFD said:

HHemmelig said:

HYUFD said:

To pay £65 billion to the EU or not to pay £65 billion to the EU? That is the question for May and Corbyn and the price of any FTA deal.

She'll pay it in the end.

5/4 are bad odds on No Deal.

If she does I think it will tip enough Leaver Tory MPs into backing a vote of no confidence. A new Tory leader from the Leave camp, probably Boris or Davis, may then go to the country for a mandate for no deal.

Surely the only thing Leave Con MPs want is that we do actually Leave.

If the choice is:

1) Leave + Pay £60bn+

2) Let Corbyn become PM and see what happens

Then surely all Leave MPs would choose 1) because it's the only certain way of leaving - and at least leaving properly.

Whereas Option 2) could result in anything.

No, at least 2 keeps the Leave vote largely behind the Tories.

1 would rip the Tory vote apart and be a gift to UKIP.

MikeL said:

£65bn is peanuts in overall scheme of things.

Key point is it's a one-off payment.

National Debt is £1,700bn

So what if it becomes £1,765bn?

Difference is not material.

The difference it has to make in 2019's GDP's figures to pay back the government by 2022 is... 0.2%.

F1: after my small 8 bet on Vettel to DNF, this sounds promising [BBC Gossip]

"Ferrari risk opening the door to "chaos" if they shake up their organisation too much in response to the reliability failures that have wrecked their championship ambitions, claims Force India chief operating officer Otmar Szafnauer. (Motorsport.com)"

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

Rhubarb said:

HYUFD said:

To pay £65 billion to the EU or not to pay £65 billion to the EU? That is the question for May and Corbyn and the price of any FTA deal.

€20B in cash + the European Investment Bank capital would allow both sides to claim victory.

The EU would not accept anything less than £65 billion that is now clear

No, that is your opinion.

£65 billion is the LOW end of what the EU 27 will accept as a minimum payment before talks on a deal
http://www.politico.eu/article/eu-clarifies-stance-brexit-bill-michel-barnier-david-davis/

Have you ever heard of anchoring?

Of course they say they want £65-80bn. Why would they say anything else?

That doesn't mean they won't settle for:

Transfer of pension obligations to the UK for UK MEPs and Eurocrats.
Netting off of EIB stake.
£10bn a year payments during the transition period.
and a £20bn one off payment.

They can make that sound like £60bn if they like. And we'll make it sound like they accepted our £20bn.

They want to ensure the UK is punished and no country follows them. Agreeing £60 billion is their minimum and £20 bn plus £20 bn each year for the 2 year transition is still £60 bn

This is a market to watch and then hammer as soon as the political situation changes.

For now, no bet.

Anyway, some out-of-the box thinking from the tory left;

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/19/conservative-case-for-redistribution-tories

IMO, the best way for the tories to regenerate themselves among the young/workers is ditching their homeownership fetish.

It's not going to happen, though. Their client vote are rentiers.

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

Rhubarb said:

HYUFD said:

To pay £65 billion to the EU or not to pay £65 billion to the EU? That is the question for May and Corbyn and the price of any FTA deal.

€20B in cash + the European Investment Bank capital would allow both sides to claim victory.

The EU would not accept anything less than £65 billion that is now clear

No, that is your opinion.

£65 billion is the LOW end of what the EU 27 will accept as a minimum payment before talks on a deal
http://www.politico.eu/article/eu-clarifies-stance-brexit-bill-michel-barnier-david-davis/

Have you ever heard of anchoring?

Of course they say they want £65-80bn. Why would they say anything else?

That doesn't mean they won't settle for:

Transfer of pension obligations to the UK for UK MEPs and Eurocrats.
Netting off of EIB stake.
£10bn a year payments during the transition period.
and a £20bn one off payment.

They can make that sound like £60bn if they like. And we'll make it sound like they accepted our £20bn.

They want to ensure the UK is punished and no country follows them. Agreeing £60 billion is their minimum and £20 bn plus £20 bn each year for the 2 year transition is still £60 bn

such insight into the mind of the EU.

TheScreamingEagles said:

To trash the economy or not to trash the economy that is the question.

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer. The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them: to die, to sleep.

Not sure I like the allusion... that one doesn't end well IIRC

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anorak said:

Scott_P said:

@bbclaurak: May called for 'urgency' arriving in BXL, but we've just spoken to 10 different EU leaders who all say it's for UK to act

If only we could have seen this sort of intransigent behaviour coming.

Why oh why oh why did nobody warn us.

She should listen to David Davis, she is wasting her time in Bruxelles.

https://twitter.com/DavidDavisMP/status/735770073822961664

If the reports are true that Barnier was open considering moving on to discuss trade but Merkel said no we need the money clarifying first ... then Davis was entirely correct! We need to strike a deal with Berlin and Brussels is just the intermediary, once Berlin is satisfied the deal will fall into place.

Excuses. Davis was talking shite before the referendum, he should have the grace to apologise.

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

Rhubarb said:

HYUFD said:

To pay £65 billion to the EU or not to pay £65 billion to the EU? That is the question for May and Corbyn and the price of any FTA deal.

€20B in cash + the European Investment Bank capital would allow both sides to claim victory.

The EU would not accept anything less than £65 billion that is now clear

No, that is your opinion.

£65 billion is the LOW end of what the EU 27 will accept as a minimum payment before talks on a deal
http://www.politico.eu/article/eu-clarifies-stance-brexit-bill-michel-barnier-david-davis/

Have you ever heard of anchoring?

Of course they say they want £65-80bn. Why would they say anything else?

That doesn't mean they won't settle for:

Transfer of pension obligations to the UK for UK MEPs and Eurocrats.
Netting off of EIB stake.
£10bn a year payments during the transition period.
and a £20bn one off payment.

They can make that sound like £60bn if they like. And we'll make it sound like they accepted our £20bn.

If we've dealt with pensions and payments to the end of the budget period (which the transition period will cover) then what is the £20bn and EIB stake paying for?

An amicable settlement?

The FT had an excellent article detailing exactly what the EU's claims were here (https://www.ft.com/content/29fc1abc-2fe0-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a and https://www.ft.com/content/69296fe6-51be-11e7-a1f2-db19572361bb?mhq5j=e7).

It says the EU is demanding a gross €100bn (i.e. £85bn), but that it is a net €60bn. The EU always uses the gross figure in its grandstanding (anchoring), but we always talk using net.

Of the €100bn, there is €12bn of contingent liabilities associated with the EU's bail outs in the financial crisis.

This is, of course, nonsense. Even if we accept that we'd be on the hook for a proportion of losses if the Irish government went bust, why would we hand the money over to the EU now so they could hold onto it until Ireland paid them back? (And the whole issue is almost completely academic anyway. Ireland's debt to GDP is now below the UK's and falling fast. A sensible solution where we lent on the Irish government - and potentially Portugal too - to replace their debts to the EU with private sector loans would eliminate this "bill" completely.)

When will German car manufacturers force Merkel to give us a good deal?

They are cutting it fine.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2017/oct/19/new-zealand-election-winston-peters-prime-minister-bill-english-jacinda-ardern-live

Bloody PR...

TheScreamingEagles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anorak said:

Scott_P said:

@bbclaurak: May called for 'urgency' arriving in BXL, but we've just spoken to 10 different EU leaders who all say it's for UK to act

If only we could have seen this sort of intransigent behaviour coming.

Why oh why oh why did nobody warn us.

She should listen to David Davis, she is wasting her time in Bruxelles.

https://twitter.com/DavidDavisMP/status/735770073822961664

If the reports are true that Barnier was open considering moving on to discuss trade but Merkel said no we need the money clarifying first ... then Davis was entirely correct! We need to strike a deal with Berlin and Brussels is just the intermediary, once Berlin is satisfied the deal will fall into place.

Excuses. Davis was talking shite before the referendum, he should have the grace to apologise.

I'm hearing this desire for an apology quite a bit from Remainers? Why?

I'm not asking Remainers to take back their guff from the referendum.

Mortimer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anorak said:

Scott_P said:

@bbclaurak: May called for 'urgency' arriving in BXL, but we've just spoken to 10 different EU leaders who all say it's for UK to act

If only we could have seen this sort of intransigent behaviour coming.

Why oh why oh why did nobody warn us.

She should listen to David Davis, she is wasting her time in Bruxelles.

https://twitter.com/DavidDavisMP/status/735770073822961664

If the reports are true that Barnier was open considering moving on to discuss trade but Merkel said no we need the money clarifying first ... then Davis was entirely correct! We need to strike a deal with Berlin and Brussels is just the intermediary, once Berlin is satisfied the deal will fall into place.

Excuses. Davis was talking shite before the referendum, he should have the grace to apologise.

I'm hearing this desire for an apology quite a bit from Remainers? Why?

I'm not asking Remainers to take back their guff from the referendum.

Because you won.

Think of it as the moment when Ed Miliband said the last Labour Government didn’t overspend.

Metatron said:

Any guesses how many Tory MP`s would privately like a 2nd referendum in the national interest even if they cannot publicly admit it?Most be minimum 25

Fewer than that. Otherwise it becomes recurring plebiscites forever.

The great unwashed have voted for it, it must be honoured.

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

MikeL said:

HYUFD said:

HHemmelig said:

HYUFD said:

To pay £65 billion to the EU or not to pay £65 billion to the EU? That is the question for May and Corbyn and the price of any FTA deal.

She'll pay it in the end.

5/4 are bad odds on No Deal.

If she does I think it will tip enough Leaver Tory MPs into backing a vote of no confidence. A new Tory leader from the Leave camp, probably Boris or Davis, may then go to the country for a mandate for no deal.

Surely the only thing Leave Con MPs want is that we do actually Leave.

If the choice is:

1) Leave + Pay £60bn+

2) Let Corbyn become PM and see what happens

Then surely all Leave MPs would choose 1) because it's the only certain way of leaving - and at least leaving properly.

Whereas Option 2) could result in anything.

No, at least 2 keeps the Leave vote largely behind the Tories.

1 would rip the Tory vote apart and be a gift to UKIP.

No it really wouldn't. Once we've left then what's done is done and if a payment has already been made but we've left then what are UKIP supposed to do about that? Say we should go back and ask for our money back?

The major of the COUNTRY does not even want to pay a penny more than £10 bn to the EU in the polls let alone Tories, paying £65 billion to the EU would be political suicide for them which is why Tory MPs will not agree it. The moment they did almost half the Tory vote could go to UKIP

What utter rubbish! I don't agree with much of what Philip_Thompson says but he's undeniably right that once a deal is struck UKIP are not going to get anywhere on a 'we want our money back' ticket. ('We want our money back' or else... what exactly?)

Metatron said:

Any guesses how many Tory MP`s would privately like a 2nd referendum in the national interest even if they cannot publicly admit it?Most be minimum 25

Probably a lot more than that, but certainly subject to the conditions you describe.

To admit as much would be tantamount to heresy!

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

MikeL said:

HYUFD said:

HHemmelig said:

HYUFD said:

To pay £65 billion to the EU or not to pay £65 billion to the EU? That is the question for May and Corbyn and the price of any FTA deal.

She'll pay it in the end.

5/4 are bad odds on No Deal.

If she does I think it will tip enough Leaver Tory MPs into backing a vote of no confidence. A new Tory leader from the Leave camp, probably Boris or Davis, may then go to the country for a mandate for no deal.

Surely the only thing Leave Con MPs want is that we do actually Leave.

If the choice is:

1) Leave + Pay £60bn+

2) Let Corbyn become PM and see what happens

Then surely all Leave MPs would choose 1) because it's the only certain way of leaving - and at least leaving properly.

Whereas Option 2) could result in anything.

No, at least 2 keeps the Leave vote largely behind the Tories.

1 would rip the Tory vote apart and be a gift to UKIP.

No it really wouldn't. Once we've left then what's done is done and if a payment has already been made but we've left then what are UKIP supposed to do about that? Say we should go back and ask for our money back?

The major of the COUNTRY does not even want to pay a penny more than £10 bn to the EU in the polls let alone Tories, paying £65 billion to the EU would be political suicide for them which is why Tory MPs will not agree it. The moment they did almost half the Tory vote could go to UKIP

What utter rubbish! I don't agree with much of what Philip_Thompson says but he's undeniably right that once a deal is struck UKIP are not going to get anywhere on a 'we want our money back' ticket. ('We want our money back' or else... what exactly?)

The only thing that will revive UKIP is No Brexit. In such circumstances, revive would be an understatement.

Benpointer said:

RobD said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Oh, lets just cough up the £60 billion to the EU and be done with. We don't spend that much less every year servicing the national debt. The politicians can market it as a mega long-term investment that will benefit the country for generations and generations to come - the ultimate cake-and-eat-it arrangement. Okay, so Theresa will be replaced by Rees-Mogg or whoever and will lose to Corbyn in a few years. Am I that bothered?

Thank god you aren't on the negotiating team...

At least Stark's approach would probably lead to a deal!

Giving them exactly what they wanted, who’d have thunk it?

Tissue_Price said:

https://twitter.com/MartinHoscik/status/921015102173794304

"A boy in upper 6th told me of you fart on your finger and sniff it then you'll get high".

Benpointer said:

RobD said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Oh, lets just cough up the £60 billion to the EU and be done with. We don't spend that much less every year servicing the national debt. The politicians can market it as a mega long-term investment that will benefit the country for generations and generations to come - the ultimate cake-and-eat-it arrangement. Okay, so Theresa will be replaced by Rees-Mogg or whoever and will lose to Corbyn in a few years. Am I that bothered?

Thank god you aren't on the negotiating team...

At least Stark's approach would probably lead to a deal!

Yes, but at €100bn.

@HYUFD's opinion notwithstanding, I still expect a deal that looks like €20bn to us and €60bn to them, along the lines @rcs1000 suggests.

But the timing is getting ugly in terms of the need for contingency planning, both by governments and firms.

Which is why I wouldn't necessarily have triggered Article 50 - it was written by the EU to advantage the EU. There were other ways of leaving, though perhaps they wouldn't have been politically practicable.

For Britain to be a member of the EU on 1st January 2020, the EU will have to accept a British revocation of Article 50 (unlikely in combination) or agree an extension of the Article 50 negotiation period. The latter is more likely because there are significant legal issues with a transition where the leaving country is not a member of the EU. The word "full" is vague in that case. We would legally still be a member but would be expected or be required to derogate from the decision-making bodies.

Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, said there were there were “encouraging” signs that the Brexit talks could move on to the subject of the future trade relationship as early as December. According to the Press Association, as Merkel arrived at the summit she said enough progress had been made to encourage her to think it would be possible to “take the work forward and then reach the start of the second phase in December”.

Tissue_Price said:

Benpointer said:

RobD said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Oh, lets just cough up the £60 billion to the EU and be done with. We don't spend that much less every year servicing the national debt. The politicians can market it as a mega long-term investment that will benefit the country for generations and generations to come - the ultimate cake-and-eat-it arrangement. Okay, so Theresa will be replaced by Rees-Mogg or whoever and will lose to Corbyn in a few years. Am I that bothered?

Thank god you aren't on the negotiating team...

At least Stark's approach would probably lead to a deal!

Yes, but at €100bn.

@HYUFD's opinion notwithstanding, I still expect a deal that looks like €20bn to us and €60bn to them, along the lines @rcs1000 suggests.

But the timing is getting ugly in terms of the need for contingency planning, both by governments and firms.

Which is why I wouldn't necessarily have triggered Article 50 - it was written by the EU to advantage the EU. There were other ways of leaving, though perhaps they wouldn't have been politically practicable.

We should have prepared for "No Deal", down to having published what our tariff schedules will like, before even triggering Article 50.

Unfortunately, even 16 months after the referendum, we have made next to no progress on being able to leave without a deal.

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/lloydblankfein/status/920995573368545280

Of course he will. He needs to continue that rather dubious relationship between Goldman Sachs and the EU. They do seem to be the EU's go to company when something needs to be 'fixed'.

Yep, the bastards. Same as BMW - they seem to be the EU's go to company when someone needs a car. Or Deutsche Telecom - they seem to be the EU's go to company when someone needs to, er, make a telephone call.

I was thinking more in terms of the sort of fixing that is not necessarily according to the rules. I use Greece and her Euro entry criteria as an exhibit.

rcs1000 said:

We should have prepared for "No Deal", down to having published what our tariff schedules will like, before even triggering Article 50.

And how does 'preparing for no deal' manifest itself in Northern Ireland?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anorak said:

Scott_P said:

@bbclaurak: May called for 'urgency' arriving in BXL, but we've just spoken to 10 different EU leaders who all say it's for UK to act

If only we could have seen this sort of intransigent behaviour coming.

Why oh why oh why did nobody warn us.

She should listen to David Davis, she is wasting her time in Bruxelles.

https://twitter.com/DavidDavisMP/status/735770073822961664

If the reports are true that Barnier was open considering moving on to discuss trade but Merkel said no we need the money clarifying first ... then Davis was entirely correct! We need to strike a deal with Berlin and Brussels is just the intermediary, once Berlin is satisfied the deal will fall into place.

Excuses. Davis was talking shite before the referendum, he should have the grace to apologise.

You talk shite all the time. Still waiting on your apology.

Tissue_Price said:

Benpointer said:

RobD said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Oh, lets just cough up the £60 billion to the EU and be done with. We don't spend that much less every year servicing the national debt. The politicians can market it as a mega long-term investment that will benefit the country for generations and generations to come - the ultimate cake-and-eat-it arrangement. Okay, so Theresa will be replaced by Rees-Mogg or whoever and will lose to Corbyn in a few years. Am I that bothered?

Thank god you aren't on the negotiating team...

At least Stark's approach would probably lead to a deal!

Yes, but at €100bn.

@HYUFD's opinion notwithstanding, I still expect a deal that looks like €20bn to us and €60bn to them, along the lines @rcs1000 suggests.

But the timing is getting ugly in terms of the need for contingency planning, both by governments and firms.

Which is why I wouldn't necessarily have triggered Article 50 - it was written by the EU to advantage the EU. There were other ways of leaving, though perhaps they wouldn't have been politically practicable.

Leaving the EU is easy - what is impossible is leaving the EU without damaging our standard of living as promised by Leave.

The Brexiteers current negotiating skills are making Cameron's EU negotiation look like a masterclass.

Interesting economics paper picked up by ft alphaville;

https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2017/10/19/2194996/is-growing-the-pie-overrated-and-does-that-explain-why-everything-is-terrible/

The tory approach - to impose austerity on the young and the poor while transferring wealth from them to their client vote through the housing market is a rather smart electoral strategy.

They can win the next election if they double down on it.

Fu*king terrifying if you're a young/poor/non-homeowner.

Pong said:

Interesting economics paper picked up by ft alphaville;

https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2017/10/19/2194996/is-growing-the-pie-overrated-and-does-that-explain-why-everything-is-terrible/

The tory approach - to impose austerity on the young and the poor while transferring wealth from them to their client vote through the housing market is a rather smart electoral strategy.

They can win the next election if they double down on it.

Fu*king terrifying if you're a young/poor/non-homeowner.

60% of the country are homeowners most of whose children and grandchildren will inherit that housing wealth thanks to Osborne's inheritance tax cut.

Anyway Javid is already pushing a mass programme of building more affordable housing, even going beyond council's local plans to do so.

https://twitter.com/spectator/status/921029357010866176