As I have said before the remarkable thing given the completely over the top and down the other side gloom and doom that is on the media every single hour of every day is that the vote for leave has proved so robust.
Indeed.
It's been non-stop, 24/7 doom and gloom since 24th June 2016 with absolutely no rebuttal at all from the Leave side....
Reasons to be cheerful, part 1.
1) Blue passports.
2) see 1)
3) The increase in wealth for those with defined contribution pensions.
4) Laughing at grumpy old men moaning about 3% inflation (though not oddly enough moaning at 5% house price inflation)..
All this thread is telling me is that if we were to re-run the Brexit referendum we *might* get a 52/48 split in favour of remain this time. Which if acted on would be the one of the biggest middle fingers up to democracy of all time, and true proof that the EU will have you voting again and again until you give the right answer, just as they did in Ireland. It would be the death knell of democracy. The Monty Python parrot of democracy. If you think we're a joke now, wait until our democracy becomes a Norwegian Blue.
I say this as somebody who probably agrees with the strand of thought that says Brexit will be an act of economic self harm, but there is more to life than money. The right to determine, and dispatch, one's political masters, is one of them.
What I suspect we are seeing here is a small marginal uptick in the number of people who *lack faith in the government's ability to carry out Brexit* rather than any kind of ideological shift. How many people here have changed their minds in a year of non stop argument about it?
I don't believe Brexit will be a success. I don't believe the Tories will make a good job of it. But for me, even the hardest, cluster***k Brexit beats the terrible consequences of telling half the population their vote didn't count.
Your second-to-last paragraph makes an important point. If Brexit talks are seen to get moving, and rumours of Merkel saying there will be a trade deal are true, the likely result is whatever trend we've seen in the right/wrong poll will go into reverse.
As I have said before the remarkable thing given the completely over the top and down the other side gloom and doom that is on the media every single hour of every day is that the vote for leave has proved so robust.
Indeed.
It's been non-stop, 24/7 doom and gloom since 24th June 2016 with absolutely no rebuttal at all from the Leave side....
Reasons to be cheerful, part 1.
1) Blue passports.
2) see 1)
I want a Burgundy coloured one.
There's a point here that the older dark-blue brigade fail to notice: a generation of people, possibly two generations, have been raised with burgundy passports. They might not like a change as much as the old 'uns want to change.
For instance, my passports have always been burgundy. I quite like my collection of three burgundy passports, and don't want a dark blue one spoiling it - even worse, a dark blue that might be mistaken for Oxford Blue ...
(Shudders)
The best thing about the current passport, as opposed to the old passport, was that the new one fits easily in your pocket.
I think that size and soft cover are now international standard.
Blue seems to be the favoured colour in Latin America and Sub Saharan Africa.
Is the reason you're not at the King Power stadium chanting 'Srivaddhanaprabha out!' because you can't pronounce it?
Sacking Shakespeare was the right move by the owners. Indeed I wouldn't have given him the job in the summer.
Our owners are some of the best in the PL, and even provide the fans with free berrs and cakes on his birthday.
Considering the complete lack of opposing view to the Doom and Gloom narrative, in the midst of a very bad few months in the negotiations, the real news here is that the lead for 'wrong' is barely above margin of error.
Have you considered that those anticipating the doom and gloom known as 'Project Fear' were right all along?
I've considered it, and rejected it.
That's not say that Brexit will lead to a land of milk and honey, simply that the predictions of horrors are not very credible.
My own unhelpful view is that we haven't enough reliable information to judge whether the negotiations are going well and how likely they are to succeed or fail. (Supply your own definitions.) Journalists spout claptrap to fill the airwaves based on the same limited data available to anyone plus rumors and dodgy briefings. Added to that almost all commentors are pushing an agenda.
I think both sides are edging towards a deal - which might still fail, even when agreed, in the Commons or a European legislature.
So SNP 'recovery' still leaves them an astonishing 11 seats below their 2015 total.
That just shows how abysmal their general election result was. I remember MalcG scoffing at the idea the SNP would fall as low as 45 MPs in June. Now that score is seen as an SNP 'triumph.'
As I have said before the remarkable thing given the completely over the top and down the other side gloom and doom that is on the media every single hour of every day is that the vote for leave has proved so robust.
Indeed.
It's been non-stop, 24/7 doom and gloom since 24th June 2016 with absolutely no rebuttal at all from the Leave side....
Reasons to be cheerful, part 1.
1) Blue passports.
2) see 1)
3) The increase in wealth for those with defined contribution pensions.
4) Laughing at grumpy old men moaning about 3% inflation (though not oddly enough moaning at 5% house price inflation)..
All this thread is telling me is that if we were to re-run the Brexit referendum we *might* get a 52/48 split in favour of remain this time. Which if acted on would be the one of the biggest middle fingers up to democracy of all time, and true proof that the EU will have you voting again and again until you give the right answer, just as they did in Ireland. It would be the death knell of democracy. The Monty Python parrot of democracy. If you think we're a joke now, wait until our democracy becomes a Norwegian Blue.
I say this as somebody who probably agrees with the strand of thought that says Brexit will be an act of economic self harm, but there is more to life than money. The right to determine, and dispatch, one's political masters, is one of them.
What I suspect we are seeing here is a small marginal uptick in the number of people who *lack faith in the government's ability to carry out Brexit* rather than any kind of ideological shift. How many people here have changed their minds in a year of non stop argument about it?
I don't believe Brexit will be a success. I don't believe the Tories will make a good job of it. But for me, even the hardest, cluster***k Brexit beats the terrible consequences of telling half the population their vote didn't count.
Sweden and Denmark have still not voted again on their referendums rejecting the Euro, or at least not yet.
My own unhelpful view is that we haven't enough reliable information to judge whether the negotiations are going well and how likely they are to succeed or fail. (Supply your own definitions.) Journalists spout claptrap to fill the airwaves based on the same limited data available to anyone plus rumors and dodgy briefings. Added to that almost all commentors are pushing an agenda.
I think both sides are edging towards a deal - which might still fail, even when agreed, in the Commons or a European legislature.
One consoling thought is the inherent sleaziness of German industry and the politicians of France, Germany and Benelux who run the EU. The Remoaners have been saying for months LOL, the German car industry hasn't jumped in to save the day like you said it would. It hasn't said anything in public, but that doesn't rule out that the message has gone out from emission cheats HQ at Munich and Wolfsburg that a deal which enables them to continue selling to us will be rewarded by significant pourboires all round.
My own unhelpful view is that we haven't enough reliable information to judge whether the negotiations are going well and how likely they are to succeed or fail. (Supply your own definitions.) Journalists spout claptrap to fill the airwaves based on the same limited data available to anyone plus rumors and dodgy briefings. Added to that almost all commentors are pushing an agenda.
I think both sides are edging towards a deal - which might still fail, even when agreed, in the Commons or a European legislature.
One consoling thought is the inherent sleaziness of German industry and the politicians of France, Germany and Benelux who run the EU. The Remoaners have been saying for months LOL, the German car industry hasn't jumped in to save the day like you said it would. It hasn't said anything in public, but that doesn't rule out that the message has gone out from emission cheats HQ at Munich and Wolfsburg that a deal which enables them to continue selling to us will be rewarded by significant pourboires all round.
All this thread is telling me is that if we were to re-run the Brexit referendum we *might* get a 52/48 split in favour of remain this time. Which if acted on would be the one of the biggest middle fingers up to democracy of all time, and true proof that the EU will have you voting again and again until you give the right answer, just as they did in Ireland. It would be the death knell of democracy. The Monty Python parrot of democracy. If you think we're a joke now, wait until our democracy becomes a Norwegian Blue.
I say this as somebody who probably agrees with the strand of thought that says Brexit will be an act of economic self harm, but there is more to life than money. The right to determine, and dispatch, one's political masters, is one of them.
What I suspect we are seeing here is a small marginal uptick in the number of people who *lack faith in the government's ability to carry out Brexit* rather than any kind of ideological shift. How many people here have changed their minds in a year of non stop argument about it?
I don't believe Brexit will be a success. I don't believe the Tories will make a good job of it. But for me, even the hardest, cluster***k Brexit beats the terrible consequences of telling half the population their vote didn't count.
Sweden and Denmark have still not voted again on their referendums rejecting the Euro, or at least not yet.
I think the EU is of the opinion that the Euro will, in time, gobble up the non Euro EU states on the basis that it is better to be inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in - de facto the Krona(s) cannot compete against the Euro but Sterling can. The EU is pursuing a policy of finlandization against its more reluctant members. The fact that the UK has struck out against this is the reason we must be punished pour encourager les autres and is in my view all the more reason to leave. Bugger the money. Democracy is at stake here.
As I have said before the remarkable thing given the completely over the top and down the other side gloom and doom that is on the media every single hour of every day is that the vote for leave has proved so robust.
Indeed.
It's been non-stop, 24/7 doom and gloom since 24th June 2016 with absolutely no rebuttal at all from the Leave side....
Reasons to be cheerful, part 1.
1) Blue passports.
2) see 1)
I want a Burgundy coloured one.
There's a point here that the older dark-blue brigade fail to notice: a generation of people, possibly two generations, have been raised with burgundy passports. They might not like a change as much as the old 'uns want to change.
For instance, my passports have always been burgundy. I quite like my collection of three burgundy passports, and don't want a dark blue one spoiling it - even worse, a dark blue that might be mistaken for Oxford Blue ...
(Shudders)
I still have an US IMERA in my blue passport though ... can't get those for love or money any more
As I have said before the remarkable thing given the completely over the top and down the other side gloom and doom that is on the media every single hour of every day is that the vote for leave has proved so robust.
Indeed.
It's been non-stop, 24/7 doom and gloom since 24th June 2016 with absolutely no rebuttal at all from the Leave side....
Reasons to be cheerful, part 1.
1) Blue passports.
2) see 1)
3) The increase in wealth for those with defined contribution pensions.
4) Laughing at grumpy old men moaning about 3% inflation (though not oddly enough moaning at 5% house price inflation)..
Not many places seeing 5% house inflation
' The main contribution to the increase in UK house prices came from England, where house prices increased by 5.3% over the year to August 2017, with the average price in England now £244,000. Wales saw house prices increase by 3.4% over the last 12 months to stand at £150,000. In Scotland, the average price increased by 3.9% over the year to stand at £146,000. The average price in Northern Ireland currently stands at £129,000, an increase of 4.4% over the year to Quarter 2 (Apr to June) 2017. '
My own unhelpful view is that we haven't enough reliable information to judge whether the negotiations are going well and how likely they are to succeed or fail. (Supply your own definitions.) Journalists spout claptrap to fill the airwaves based on the same limited data available to anyone plus rumors and dodgy briefings. Added to that almost all commentors are pushing an agenda.
I think both sides are edging towards a deal - which might still fail, even when agreed, in the Commons or a European legislature.
One consoling thought is the inherent sleaziness of German industry and the politicians of France, Germany and Benelux who run the EU. The Remoaners have been saying for months LOL, the German car industry hasn't jumped in to save the day like you said it would. It hasn't said anything in public, but that doesn't rule out that the message has gone out from emission cheats HQ at Munich and Wolfsburg that a deal which enables them to continue selling to us will be rewarded by significant pourboires all round.
That's something I haven't read before.
Did the emissions test scandal pass you by? Or do you think defrauding regulatory bodies to increase profit, at the cost of additional deaths, is fair business practice?
My own unhelpful view is that we haven't enough reliable information to judge whether the negotiations are going well and how likely they are to succeed or fail. (Supply your own definitions.) Journalists spout claptrap to fill the airwaves based on the same limited data available to anyone plus rumors and dodgy briefings. Added to that almost all commentors are pushing an agenda.
I think both sides are edging towards a deal - which might still fail, even when agreed, in the Commons or a European legislature.
One consoling thought is the inherent sleaziness of German industry and the politicians of France, Germany and Benelux who run the EU. The Remoaners have been saying for months LOL, the German car industry hasn't jumped in to save the day like you said it would. It hasn't said anything in public, but that doesn't rule out that the message has gone out from emission cheats HQ at Munich and Wolfsburg that a deal which enables them to continue selling to us will be rewarded by significant pourboires all round.
It has said something in public, back in September.
Caught up with head of German auto industry body asked him a lot about Brexit: "Britain is v important, but EU27 is even more important"
Car industry chief Mr Wissmann also said that German industry task force is now looking at the "worst case" scenario of 'hard brexit'
German car body: "best solution" is "stay in internal market/CU. Any other solution v complicated & will need years to make possible"
staying in CU will mean car industry no new trade deals? "Do you really think you will perform better with your own trade agreements?"
All this thread is telling me is that if we were to re-run the Brexit referendum we *might* get a 52/48 split in favour of remain this time. Which if acted on would be the one of the biggest middle fingers up to democracy of all time, and true proof that the EU will have you voting again and again until you give the right answer, just as they did in Ireland. It would be the death knell of democracy. The Monty Python parrot of democracy. If you think we're a joke now, wait until our democracy becomes a Norwegian Blue.
I say this as somebody who probably agrees with the strand of thought that says Brexit will be an act of economic self harm, but there is more to life than money. The right to determine, and dispatch, one's political masters, is one of them.
What I suspect we are seeing here is a small marginal uptick in the number of people who *lack faith in the government's ability to carry out Brexit* rather than any kind of ideological shift. How many people here have changed their minds in a year of non stop argument about it?
I don't believe Brexit will be a success. I don't believe the Tories will make a good job of it. But for me, even the hardest, cluster***k Brexit beats the terrible consequences of telling half the population their vote didn't count.
Sweden and Denmark have still not voted again on their referendums rejecting the Euro, or at least not yet.
I think the EU is of the opinion that the Euro will, in time, gobble up the non Euro EU states on the basis that it is better to be inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in - de facto the Krona(s) cannot compete against the Euro but Sterling can. The EU is pursuing a policy of finlandization against its more reluctant members. The fact that the UK has struck out against this is the reason we must be punished pour encourager les autres and is in my view all the more reason to leave. Bugger the money. Democracy is at stake here.
More likely longer term I think is a two-year Europe emerges, the UK and Scandinavia in a reformed EFTA with Switzerland and the rest of Europe in a Federal EU and the Eurozone. (Some Eastern European EU nations may stay out of the Eurozone too).
All this thread is telling me is that if we were to re-run the Brexit referendum we *might* get a 52/48 split in favour of remain this time. Which if acted on would be the one of the biggest middle fingers up to democracy of all time, and true proof that the EU will have you voting again and again until you give the right answer, just as they did in Ireland. It would be the death knell of democracy. The Monty Python parrot of democracy. If you think we're a joke now, wait until our democracy becomes a Norwegian Blue.
I say this as somebody who probably agrees with the strand of thought that says Brexit will be an act of economic self harm, but there is more to life than money. The right to determine, and dispatch, one's political masters, is one of them.
What I suspect we are seeing here is a small marginal uptick in the number of people who *lack faith in the government's ability to carry out Brexit* rather than any kind of ideological shift. How many people here have changed their minds in a year of non stop argument about it?
I don't believe Brexit will be a success. I don't believe the Tories will make a good job of it. But for me, even the hardest, cluster***k Brexit beats the terrible consequences of telling half the population their vote didn't count.
Sweden and Denmark have still not voted again on their referendums rejecting the Euro, or at least not yet.
Sweden and Denmark are in different positions to each other. Denmark has a specific opt out fro joining the Euro in the Maastricht Treaty. Sweden does not. At some point if the EU decides to play hardball, Sweden does not have a legal leg to stand on as it would be in breach of its treaty obligations.
My own unhelpful view is that we haven't enough reliable information to judge whether the negotiations are going well and how likely they are to succeed or fail. (Supply your own definitions.) Journalists spout claptrap to fill the airwaves based on the same limited data available to anyone plus rumors and dodgy briefings. Added to that almost all commentors are pushing an agenda.
I think both sides are edging towards a deal - which might still fail, even when agreed, in the Commons or a European legislature.
One consoling thought is the inherent sleaziness of German industry and the politicians of France, Germany and Benelux who run the EU. The Remoaners have been saying for months LOL, the German car industry hasn't jumped in to save the day like you said it would. It hasn't said anything in public, but that doesn't rule out that the message has gone out from emission cheats HQ at Munich and Wolfsburg that a deal which enables them to continue selling to us will be rewarded by significant pourboires all round.
It has said something in public, back in September.
Caught up with head of German auto industry body asked him a lot about Brexit: "Britain is v important, but EU27 is even more important"
Car industry chief Mr Wissmann also said that German industry task force is now looking at the "worst case" scenario of 'hard brexit'
German car body: "best solution" is "stay in internal market/CU. Any other solution v complicated & will need years to make possible"
staying in CU will mean car industry no new trade deals? "Do you really think you will perform better with your own trade agreements?"
Why any numpty thinks the EU will do anything resembling a reasonable deal is unbelievable. They are going to extract every penny they can from UK and give worst deal possible, they cannot afford to do anything else even if it hurts them short term. Hard Brexit or very expensive Brexit are the options.
Ok so we've gone from "we have a brilliant future" to "it will make no difference" to ""we might be slightly worse off" to"it's going to hurt" but it is still worth it because we have taken back control. Well what are you going to do with this new found control?
One of the most influential directors in British theatre was forced to stand down from the company he founded after being accused of inappropriate, sexualised behaviour, the Guardian has learned.
Renowned director Max Stafford-Clark – the former artistic director of London’s Royal Court theatre – was forced out of the Out of Joint theatre company after a formal complaint that he made lewd comments to a member of staff.
Brexiteers are in danger of taking the Erdogan approach to democracy. It's not a train that you ride until you reach your station and then get off.
I'm well aware that democracy needs to be more than two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner, but the flip side of that is the systemic threat to one of the world's oldest, most stable democracies that is posed by flipping the bird to 52% of the electorate.
Ultimately we are where we are and without a major sea change - as yet not indicated by the polls - we must see this through.
Look on the bright side, if it ends as badly as you think it ends with us going cap in hand to the EU in ten years, properly chastened... personally I see it more likely that the UK ends up being to the EU as the channel islands are to the UK now - a smaller, tax friendly satellite with less political clout globally but more power locally. We don't need to compete with the EU, we just need to outflank them on the globalization game.
Yes, I'm aware that's not what most people voted for but I think it is one of the few positive scenarios possible from Brexit. We become a Jersey, a Hong Kong, a Singapore.
All this thread is telling me is that if we were to re-run the Brexit referendum we *might* get a 52/48 split in favour of remain this time. Which if acted on would be the one of the biggest middle fingers up to democracy of all time, and true proof that the EU will have you voting again and again until you give the right answer, just as they did in Ireland. It would be the death knell of democracy. The Monty Python parrot of democracy. If you think we're a joke now, wait until our democracy becomes a Norwegian Blue.
I say this as somebody who probably agrees with the strand of thought that says Brexit will be an act of economic self harm, but there is more to life than money. The right to determine, and dispatch, one's political masters, is one of them.
What I suspect we are seeing here is a small marginal uptick in the number of people who *lack faith in the government's ability to carry out Brexit* rather than any kind of ideological shift. How many people here have changed their minds in a year of non stop argument about it?
I don't believe Brexit will be a success. I don't believe the Tories will make a good job of it. But for me, even the hardest, cluster***k Brexit beats the terrible consequences of telling half the population their vote didn't count.
Sweden and Denmark have still not voted again on their referendums rejecting the Euro, or at least not yet.
Sweden and Denmark are in different positions to each other. Denmark has a specific opt out fro joining the Euro in the Maastricht Treaty. Sweden does not. At some point if the EU decides to play hardball, Sweden does not have a legal leg to stand on as it would be in breach of its treaty obligations.
Given Swedish polls show Swedes still overwhelmingly want to keep the Krone in reality they do, especially as if the EU try to push the issue with the anti immigration Swedish Democrats rising in the polls on a forced choice of the EU and Eurozone or EFTA and keeping the Krone Swedes may choose the latter.
Ok so we've gone from "we have a brilliant future" to "it will make no difference" to ""we might be slightly worse off" to"it's going to hurt" but it is still worth it because we have taken back control. Well what are you going to do with this new found control?
Sell ourselves bananas of arbitrary bendiness at so many groats the hundredweight.
Ok so we've gone from "we have a brilliant future" to "it will make no difference" to ""we might be slightly worse off" to"it's going to hurt" but it is still worth it because we have taken back control. Well what are you going to do with this new found control?
So long as we can chuck out the foreigners they plebs will be happy.
Ok so we've gone from "we have a brilliant future" to "it will make no difference" to ""we might be slightly worse off" to"it's going to hurt" but it is still worth it because we have taken back control. Well what are you going to do with this new found control?
So long as we can chuck out the foreigners they plebs will be happy.
One of the most influential directors in British theatre was forced to stand down from the company he founded after being accused of inappropriate, sexualised behaviour, the Guardian has learned.
Renowned director Max Stafford-Clark – the former artistic director of London’s Royal Court theatre – was forced out of the Out of Joint theatre company after a formal complaint that he made lewd comments to a member of staff.
There is a terrible whiff of the paedo-gate witch hunt about all of this. By all means punish the guilty, but there is a danger this is getting out of hand now.
One of the most influential directors in British theatre was forced to stand down from the company he founded after being accused of inappropriate, sexualised behaviour, the Guardian has learned.
Renowned director Max Stafford-Clark – the former artistic director of London’s Royal Court theatre – was forced out of the Out of Joint theatre company after a formal complaint that he made lewd comments to a member of staff.
There is a terrible whiff of the paedo-gate witch hunt about all of this. By all means punish the guilty, but there is a danger this is getting out of hand now.
One of the most influential directors in British theatre was forced to stand down from the company he founded after being accused of inappropriate, sexualised behaviour, the Guardian has learned.
Renowned director Max Stafford-Clark – the former artistic director of London’s Royal Court theatre – was forced out of the Out of Joint theatre company after a formal complaint that he made lewd comments to a member of staff.
There is a terrible whiff of the paedo-gate witch hunt about all of this. By all means punish the guilty, but there is a danger this is getting out of hand now.
One of the most influential directors in British theatre was forced to stand down from the company he founded after being accused of inappropriate, sexualised behaviour, the Guardian has learned.
Renowned director Max Stafford-Clark – the former artistic director of London’s Royal Court theatre – was forced out of the Out of Joint theatre company after a formal complaint that he made lewd comments to a member of staff.
There is a terrible whiff of the paedo-gate witch hunt about all of this. By all means punish the guilty, but there is a danger this is getting out of hand now.
Brexiteers are in danger of taking the Erdogan approach to democracy. It's not a train that you ride until you reach your station and then get off.
I'm well aware that democracy needs to be more than two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner, but the flip side of that is the systemic threat to one of the world's oldest, most stable democracies that is posed by flipping the bird to 52% of the electorate.
Ultimately we are where we are and without a major sea change - as yet not indicated by the polls - we must see this through.
Look on the bright side, if it ends as badly as you think it ends with us going cap in hand to the EU in ten years, properly chastened... personally I see it more likely that the UK ends up being to the EU as the channel islands are to the UK now - a smaller, tax friendly satellite with less political clout globally but more power locally. We don't need to compete with the EU, we just need to outflank them on the globalization game.
Yes, I'm aware that's not what most people voted for but I think it is one of the few positive scenarios possible from Brexit. We become a Jersey, a Hong Kong, a Singapore.
Brexiteers are in danger of taking the Erdogan approach to democracy. It's not a train that you ride until you reach your station and then get off.
I'm well aware that democracy needs to be more than two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner, but the flip side of that is the systemic threat to one of the world's oldest, most stable democracies that is posed by flipping the bird to 52% of the electorate.
Ultimately we are where we are and without a major sea change - as yet not indicated by the polls - we must see this through.
Look on the bright side, if it ends as badly as you think it ends with us going cap in hand to the EU in ten years, properly chastened... personally I see it more likely that the UK ends up being to the EU as the channel islands are to the UK now - a smaller, tax friendly satellite with less political clout globally but more power locally. We don't need to compete with the EU, we just need to outflank them on the globalization game.
Yes, I'm aware that's not what most people voted for but I think it is one of the few positive scenarios possible from Brexit. We become a Jersey, a Hong Kong, a Singapore.
It is possibly the only plausible non-disastrous outcome but poses the same threat as having a rerun of the referendum. You say it yourself - it's not what a lot of people voted for. Becoming a buccaneering low tax economy means keeping relatively high levels of immigration as, firstly, countries will demand a loosening of visa restrictions as part of trade deals and secondly, if we're looking to attract global companies they don't like the ultra-restrictive immigration policies that were a key motivator for a significant portion of leave voters.
We've all had a good laugh/gasped in horror at the people in Barnsley saying they're a bit miffed Brexit hasn't meant that foreigners are carted off but it's going to be a big problem when they realise they've been duped so the likes of Daniel Hannan can test their A Level economic theories. Whatever you do, at some point someone's got to tell them they've been sold pig in a poke and no sane government is going to do what they ask because it would cripple Britain rather than help. In some ways, if Brexit continues to go awry, a second referendum might be the least bad option.
One of the most influential directors in British theatre was forced to stand down from the company he founded after being accused of inappropriate, sexualised behaviour, the Guardian has learned.
Renowned director Max Stafford-Clark – the former artistic director of London’s Royal Court theatre – was forced out of the Out of Joint theatre company after a formal complaint that he made lewd comments to a member of staff.
There is a terrible whiff of the paedo-gate witch hunt about all of this. By all means punish the guilty, but there is a danger this is getting out of hand now.
Brexiteers are in danger of taking the Erdogan approach to democracy. It's not a train that you ride until you reach your station and then get off.
I'm well aware that democracy needs to be more than two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner, but the flip side of that is the systemic threat to one of the world's oldest, most stable democracies that is posed by flipping the bird to 52% of the electorate.
Ultimately we are where we are and without a major sea change - as yet not indicated by the polls - we must see this through.
Look on the bright side, if it ends as badly as you think it ends with us going cap in hand to the EU in ten years, properly chastened... personally I see it more likely that the UK ends up being to the EU as the channel islands are to the UK now - a smaller, tax friendly satellite with less political clout globally but more power locally. We don't need to compete with the EU, we just need to outflank them on the globalization game.
Yes, I'm aware that's not what most people voted for but I think it is one of the few positive scenarios possible from Brexit. We become a Jersey, a Hong Kong, a Singapore.
It is possibly the only plausible non-disastrous outcome but poses the same threat as having a rerun of the referendum. You say it yourself - it's not what a lot of people voted for. Becoming a buccaneering low tax economy means keeping relatively high levels of immigration as, firstly, countries will demand a loosening of visa restrictions as part of trade deals and secondly, if we're looking to attract global companies they don't like the ultra-restrictive immigration policies that were a key motivator for a significant portion of leave voters.
We've all had a good laugh/gasped in horror at the people in Barnsley saying they're a bit miffed Brexit hasn't meant that foreigners are carted off but it's going to be a big problem when they realise they've been duped so the likes of Daniel Hannan can test their A Level economic theories. Whatever you do, at some point someone's got to tell them they've been sold pig in a poke and no sane government is going to do what they ask because it would cripple Britain rather than help. In some ways, if Brexit continues to go awry, a second referendum might be the least bad option.
At the moment it looks more likely we get Corbyn as PM of a minority government and hard Brexit, ie Cuba's economic policies and Trump's immigration policies than we become Singapore, at least in the short-term. Which would be rather amusing at the expense of the likes of Hannan and Carswell.
Brexiteers are in danger of taking the Erdogan approach to democracy. It's not a train that you ride until you reach your station and then get off.
I'm well aware that democracy needs to be more than two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner, but the flip side of that is the systemic threat to one of the world's oldest, most stable democracies that is posed by flipping the bird to 52% of the electorate.
Ultimately we are where we are and without a major sea change - as yet not indicated by the polls - we must see this through.
Look on the bright side, if it ends as badly as you think it ends with us going cap in hand to the EU in ten years, properly chastened... personally I see it more likely that the UK ends up being to the EU as the channel islands are to the UK now - a smaller, tax friendly satellite with less political clout globally but more power locally. We don't need to compete with the EU, we just need to outflank them on the globalization game.
Yes, I'm aware that's not what most people voted for but I think it is one of the few positive scenarios possible from Brexit. We become a Jersey, a Hong Kong, a Singapore.
It is possibly the only plausible non-disastrous outcome but poses the same threat as having a rerun of the referendum. You say it yourself - it's not what a lot of people voted for. Becoming a buccaneering low tax economy means keeping relatively high levels of immigration as, firstly, countries will demand a loosening of visa restrictions as part of trade deals and secondly, if we're looking to attract global companies they don't like the ultra-restrictive immigration policies that were a key motivator for a significant portion of leave voters.
We've all had a good laugh/gasped in horror at the people in Barnsley saying they're a bit miffed Brexit hasn't meant that foreigners are carted off but it's going to be a big problem when they realise they've been duped so the likes of Daniel Hannan can test their A Level economic theories. Whatever you do, at some point someone's got to tell them they've been sold pig in a poke and no sane government is going to do what they ask because it would cripple Britain rather than help. In some ways, if Brexit continues to go awry, a second referendum might be the least bad option.
What is a second referendum going to achieve? The die is cast. Voting against the A.50 Bill was the last chance to retain EU membership.
We could apply to rejoin, but we would probably not like the terms.
So SNP 'recovery' still leaves them an astonishing 11 seats below their 2015 total.
That just shows how abysmal their general election result was. I remember MalcG scoffing at the idea the SNP would fall as low as 45 MPs in June. Now that score is seen as an SNP 'triumph.'
Admittedly a modest recovery, but the trend is with the SNP with no obvious reason as to why it won't continue. SNP appear Strong & Stable and are Getting on With the Day Job !!
The financial transactions of Ian Lavery have been noted on PB previously.
Has there been any mention of this today:
' MP Ian Lavery received £165,000 from the 10-member trade union he ran.
The regulator found that that the Northumberland Provident and Benevolent fund had lent Mr Lavery £72,500 to buy a house in 1994. 13 years on, the union Mr Lavery was then running forgave the loan to Mr Lavery. So he was £72,500 the richer.
But there's more. He'd been paying into an endowment fund to pay back the capital cost of the house. It had underperformed, but it still paid out £18,000. The regulator found Mr Lavery kept that too.
And that's not all.
The regulator found that in 2005, Mr Lavery sold a 15% stake in his house to the Union for £36,000. In 2013 the house was worth less, so he bought it back from the union for £27,500 - a notional profit of £8,500.
And then there's Mr Lavery's "termination payments", totalling £89,887.83. However, that total is a matter of some dispute between him and the union.
The regulator says that neither Mr Lavery nor the union could provide documentary evidence of the process or the decision by which Mr Lavery was made redundant - or why, given he was leaving for a job as an MP, he needed any redundancy payments at all. '
Now isn't Clive Lewis a big drinking buddy with a PBer ?
' Norwich South MP Clive Lewis was filmed on stage at a fringe event in Brighton saying: "Get on your knees, bitch" - the video emerged on social media. '
One of the most influential directors in British theatre was forced to stand down from the company he founded after being accused of inappropriate, sexualised behaviour, the Guardian has learned.
Renowned director Max Stafford-Clark – the former artistic director of London’s Royal Court theatre – was forced out of the Out of Joint theatre company after a formal complaint that he made lewd comments to a member of staff.
There is a terrible whiff of the paedo-gate witch hunt about all of this. By all means punish the guilty, but there is a danger this is getting out of hand now.
So SNP 'recovery' still leaves them an astonishing 11 seats below their 2015 total.
That just shows how abysmal their general election result was. I remember MalcG scoffing at the idea the SNP would fall as low as 45 MPs in June. Now that score is seen as an SNP 'triumph.'
Admittedly a modest recovery, but the trend is with the SNP with no obvious reason as to why it won't continue. SNP appear Strong & Stable and are Getting on With the Day Job !!
No, the trend has been dramatically against the SNP which is why even now they are polling lower than they got at the 2015 general election and the 2016 Holyrood elections. The fact the SNP now seem to have stabilised a little around the 40% mark still does not change the fact they are now supported by 5% fewer than the 45% who voted Yes in 2014.
But we are not governed by opinion polls -especially when those polls are frequently wrong.
Polls like Yougov after the election are also factoring in younger people as likely to vote when in the referendum many did not do so.
We had a referendum. Flawed opinion polls cannot override the result of that referendum.
If public opinion does shift in favour of EU membership, then people will need to vote for parties which are in favour of reapplying for membership after we have left. But it is highly dangerous to try to rob people of a democratic result in a democratic referendum on the basis of opinion polls.
Now isn't Clive Lewis a big drinking buddy with a PBer ?
' Norwich South MP Clive Lewis was filmed on stage at a fringe event in Brighton saying: "Get on your knees, bitch" - the video emerged on social media. '
Was it consensual? I've said things in BDSM relationships I would never dream of saying to strangers. Taken out of context I would probably be taken out and shot.
At the moment it looks more likely we get Corbyn as PM and hard Brexit, ie Cuba's economic policies and Trump's immigration policies than we become Singapore, at least in the short-term. Which would be rather amusing at the expense of the likes of Hannan
Well yes, it would be a poetic punishment for the Tories who seem to have forgotten Burke's dim view of revolutions - because even when they have rationality at their core they tend to have unexpected and unpleasant outcomes. I said the only plausible non-disastrous outcome.
The heart of this mess is the flaw in the design of the referendum - that there was no direct accountability after the campaign. The leave campaigns could pitch contradictory messages to voters and then disavow whatever bit didn't fit. It's a problem with all referendums that deal with major issues, with the exception of the Scottish Indyref because independence was so strongly tied to the SNP - they had to put out white papers explaining how it would be done. If say, the Tories had decided in 2015 to put leaving in their manifesto and won they'd have a direct mandate for whatever their plan was, they could then be judged accordingly and would be in a stronger negotiating position. It would also have hopefully been much better thought through than repeating, "We're Britain, we'll be fine" over and over again. Now, May has the problem that she's trying to find a unicorn Brexit that all but ends immigration and removes major entanglement in European law without severe economic consequences - one that doesn't exist in reality.
There is a vast difference between thinking it was wrong (as in the question) and thinking it is wrong (as in the commentary). For starters, you may think it would have been better if we had voted remain, but it would be hugely injurious to our democracy to go back on the result of the referendum. Furthermore, you might think it would now be disastrous to stay in because the Brexit vote and negotiation has weakened all that influence on the rest of the EU you thought we had, leaving us far worse off than we would have been if we hadn't voted wrongly.
But we are not governed by opinion polls -especially when those polls are frequently wrong.
Polls like Yougov after the election are also factoring in younger people as likely to vote when in the referendum many did not do so.
We had a referendum. Flawed opinion polls cannot override the result of that referendum.
If public opinion does shift in favour of EU membership, then people will need to vote for parties which are in favour of reapplying for membership after we have left. But it is highly dangerous to try to rob people of a democratic result in a democratic referendum on the basis of opinion polls.
The opinion polls are secondary to the opinions of the people tasked with delivering Brexit. If May and the rest of the cabinet were utterly convinced that Brexit was in the national interest and there was a great future, then it wouldn't matter if the polls shifted to 60% remain. The polls only matter if the cabinet, and in particular the Brexit campaigners, lose confidence in the project. Then it makes a difference if public opinion is solidly behind Brexit, in which case they would have to make the best of it anyway, or if public opinion has moved against it, in which case they could reasonably look for a face-saving way to back out of it.
At the moment it looks more likely we get Corbyn as PM and hard Brexit, ie Cuba's economic policies and Trump's immigration policies than we become Singapore, at least in the short-term. Which would be rather amusing at the expense of the likes of Hannan
Well yes, it would be a poetic punishment for the Tories who seem to have forgotten Burke's dim view of revolutions - because even when they have rationality at their core they tend to have unexpected and unpleasant outcomes. I said the only plausible non-disastrous outcome.
The heart of this mess is the flaw in the design of the referendum - that there was no direct accountability after the campaign. The leave campaigns could pitch contradictory messages to voters and then disavow whatever bit didn't fit. It's a problem with all referendums that deal with major issues, with the exception of the Scottish Indyref because independence was so strongly tied to the SNP - they had to put out white papers explaining how it would be done. If say, the Tories had decided in 2015 to put leaving in their manifesto and won they'd have a direct mandate for whatever their plan was, they could then be judged accordingly and would be in a stronger negotiating position. It would also have hopefully been much better thought through than repeating, "We're Britain, we'll be fine" over and over again. Now, May has the problem that she's trying to find a unicorn Brexit that all but ends immigration and removes major entanglement in European law without severe economic consequences - one that doesn't exist in reality.
True there are two competing forces but at the end of the day there are more voters who voted Leave for reduced immigration and more money for the NHS than there are Leavers like Hannan who voted Leave for reduced regulation, tax and spending and openly welcoming workers from across the world. Hannan had his vision of Brexit, he just made the mistake of thinking that the majority of his fellow Brexiteers backed it.
But we are not governed by opinion polls -especially when those polls are frequently wrong.
Polls like Yougov after the election are also factoring in younger people as likely to vote when in the referendum many did not do so.
We had a referendum. Flawed opinion polls cannot override the result of that referendum.
If public opinion does shift in favour of EU membership, then people will need to vote for parties which are in favour of reapplying for membership after we have left. But it is highly dangerous to try to rob people of a democratic result in a democratic referendum on the basis of opinion polls.
The opinion polls are secondary to the opinions of the people tasked with delivering Brexit. If May and the rest of the cabinet were utterly convinced that Brexit was in the national interest and there was a great future, then it wouldn't matter if the polls shifted to 60% remain. The polls only matter if the cabinet, and in particular the Brexit campaigners, lose confidence in the project. Then it makes a difference if public opinion is solidly behind Brexit, in which case they would have to make the best of it anyway, or if public opinion has moved against it, in which case they could reasonably look for a face-saving way to back out of it.
There is no way of backing out of it, save for Leave, and apply to rejoin at some future point.
But we are not governed by opinion polls -especially when those polls are frequently wrong.
Polls like Yougov after the election are also factoring in younger people as likely to vote when in the referendum many did not do so.
We had a referendum. Flawed opinion polls cannot override the result of that referendum.
If public opinion does shift in favour of EU membership, then people will need to vote for parties which are in favour of reapplying for membership after we have left. But it is highly dangerous to try to rob people of a democratic result in a democratic referendum on the basis of opinion polls.
Certainly "Overall this suggests that opinion might just be shifting though, of course, we need more polling" is question-begging. The vote is receding in the rearview mirror and the question is therefore merely a historical curiosity. I am sure there are diehard remainers who are waiting for it to consistently hit some target at which they can say "it is ridiculous that we cannot rerun the referendum when x% of the population say they have changed their minds". The main flaw in this is that, as you say, we are not governed by opinion polls and the reliability of the polls is currently highly questionable anyway, to the extent that parliamentary committees are looking nto them. It also doesn't help that the question is "*In hindsight*, do you think Britain *was* right or wrong...". The usual formulation "If there were a referendum tomorrow..." would arguably make a better case (but not much better).
Brexiteers are in danger of taking the Erdogan approach to democracy. It's not a train that you ride until you reach your station and then get off.
I'm well aware that democracy needs to be more than two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner, but the flip side of that is the systemic threat to one of the world's oldest, most stable democracies that is posed by flipping the bird to 52% of the electorate.
Ultimately we are where we are and without a major sea change - as yet not indicated by the polls - we must see this through.
Look on the bright side, if it ends as badly as you think it ends with us going cap in hand to the EU in ten years, properly chastened... personally I see it more likely that the UK ends up being to the EU as the channel islands are to the UK now - a smaller, tax friendly satellite with less political clout globally but more power locally. We don't need to compete with the EU, we just need to outflank them on the globalization game.
Yes, I'm aware that's not what most people voted for but I think it is one of the few positive scenarios possible from Brexit. We become a Jersey, a Hong Kong, a Singapore.
It is possibly the only plausible non-disastrous outcome but poses the same threat as having a rerun of the referendum. You say it yourself - it's not what a lot of people voted for. Becoming a buccaneering low tax economy means keeping relatively high levels of immigration as, firstly, countries will demand a loosening of visa restrictions as part of trade deals and secondly, if we're looking to attract global companies they don't like the ultra-restrictive immigration policies that were a key motivator for a significant portion of leave voters.
We've all had a good laugh/gasped in horror at the people in Barnsley saying they're a bit miffed Brexit hasn't meant that foreigners are carted off but it's going to be a big problem when they realise they've been duped so the likes of Daniel Hannan can test their A Level economic theories. Whatever you do, at some point someone's got to tell them they've been sold pig in a poke and no sane government is going to do what they ask because it would cripple Britain rather than help. In some ways, if Brexit continues to go awry, a second referendum might be the least bad option.
What is a second referendum going to achieve? The die is cast. Voting against the A.50 Bill was the last chance to retain EU membership.
We could apply to rejoin, but we would probably not like the terms.
Indeed. I'm amazed how few people in politics understand this.
There is a vast difference between thinking it was wrong (as in the question) and thinking it is wrong (as in the commentary). For starters, you may think it would have been better if we had voted remain, but it would be hugely injurious to our democracy to go back on the result of the referendum. Furthermore, you might think it would now be disastrous to stay in because the Brexit vote and negotiation has weakened all that influence on the rest of the EU you thought we had, leaving us far worse off than we would have been if we hadn't voted wrongly.
One of the most influential directors in British theatre was forced to stand down from the company he founded after being accused of inappropriate, sexualised behaviour, the Guardian has learned.
Renowned director Max Stafford-Clark – the former artistic director of London’s Royal Court theatre – was forced out of the Out of Joint theatre company after a formal complaint that he made lewd comments to a member of staff.
There is a terrible whiff of the paedo-gate witch hunt about all of this. By all means punish the guilty, but there is a danger this is getting out of hand now.
Amazing we are in an alliance to defend the 27, have been giving them money all these years, have been taking their unwanted immigrants, taking their workshy and their criminals, allowing them to bribe manufacturers to move their work - and now we see the precise value of the worthless people the EU governments are run by.
One of the most influential directors in British theatre was forced to stand down from the company he founded after being accused of inappropriate, sexualised behaviour, the Guardian has learned.
Renowned director Max Stafford-Clark – the former artistic director of London’s Royal Court theatre – was forced out of the Out of Joint theatre company after a formal complaint that he made lewd comments to a member of staff.
There is a terrible whiff of the paedo-gate witch hunt about all of this. By all means punish the guilty, but there is a danger this is getting out of hand now.
The Prime Minister originally offered to pay 20 billion euros as the "exit bill" (which is 20 billion euros more than a number want to pay).
The EU is looking for 60 billion euros and the Prime Minister has indicated we will move beyond 20 billion so that looks like a settlement around 30-40 billion euros in order to move on to phase 2 of the A50 negotiations.
Am I also right in thinking if we refuse to pay the negotiations will effectively come to a halt and we will leave the EU on 29/3/19 with no agreement and it'll be WTO rules (or similar) ?
Politically, what can May "sell" ? Clearly, there will be a significant minority who will baulk at any payment to the EU but vociferous though they may be how significant are they ? Will we see Cabinet resignations over any payment or only if the Prime Minister crosses a line ?
Presumably said 35-40 billion euros is going to have to come from somewhere - additional borrowing, tax rises or a swingeing round of spending cuts ?
Will Cracksman win the Champion Stakes tomorrow ?
As the old song goes "there are more questions than answers".
So SNP 'recovery' still leaves them an astonishing 11 seats below their 2015 total.
That just shows how abysmal their general election result was. I remember MalcG scoffing at the idea the SNP would fall as low as 45 MPs in June. Now that score is seen as an SNP 'triumph.'
Admittedly a modest recovery, but the trend is with the SNP with no obvious reason as to why it won't continue. SNP appear Strong & Stable and are Getting on With the Day Job !!
No, the trend has been dramatically against the SNP which is why even now they are polling lower than they got at the 2015 general election and the 2016 Holyrood elections. The fact the SNP now seem to have stabilised a little around the 40% mark still does not change the fact they are now supported by 5% fewer than the 45% who voted Yes in 2014.
Did I imagine it, or wasn't there actually a GE in 2017?
Basically Donald can call any ex-military vet back into action with a rather simple order. I reckon that its probably so that if any retired General starts to criticise him then they can be called up and silenced. Either that or Korean War prep.
This order is more extreme than what Bush signed on September 14th 2001, which allowed him to prevent people from retiring from duty.
True there are two competing forces but at the end of the day there are more voters who voted Leave for reduced immigration and more money for the NHS than there are Leavers like Hannan who voted Leave for reduced regulation, tax and spending and openly welcoming workers from across the world. Hannan had his vision of Brexit, he just made the mistake of thinking that the majority of his fellow Brexiteers backed it.
I don't think he and the likes of Redwood believed it for a moment, but they knew that to make Brexit a possibility they needed those votes. Their miscalculations have been in their own talents - or more accurately of their Brexiteer colleagues in government, and in just how strong and ugly the anti-immigrant feeling was. They thought their party could ride the tiger and get away with it - but May (accurately, but ultimately destructively) decided that a desire for insularity ("look after our own", "no foreign rules") was the biggest driver of the leave vote and decided she had to appease it. She in turn thought she could get away with that because no one would vote for Corbyn, but again miscalculated because so many of the under 40s see the consequences of that insularity as a bigger threat than a bearded socialist who at least says he wants to help them, even if they're sceptical of the detail.
Basically Donald can call any ex-military vet back into action with a rather simple order. I reckon that its probably so that if any retired General starts to criticise him then they can be called up and silenced. Either that or Korean War prep.
This order is more extreme than what Bush signed on September 14th 2001, which allowed him to prevent people from retiring from duty.
The Prime Minister originally offered to pay 20 billion euros as the "exit bill" (which is 20 billion euros more than a number want to pay).
The EU is looking for 60 billion euros and the Prime Minister has indicated we will move beyond 20 billion so that looks like a settlement around 30-40 billion euros in order to move on to phase 2 of the A50 negotiations.
Am I also right in thinking if we refuse to pay the negotiations will effectively come to a halt and we will leave the EU on 29/3/19 with no agreement and it'll be WTO rules (or similar) ?
Politically, what can May "sell" ? Clearly, there will be a significant minority who will baulk at any payment to the EU but vociferous though they may be how significant are they ? Will we see Cabinet resignations over any payment or only if the Prime Minister crosses a line ?
Presumably said 35-40 billion euros is going to have to come from somewhere - additional borrowing, tax rises or a swingeing round of spending cuts ?
Will Cracksman win the Champion Stakes tomorrow ?
As the old song goes "there are more questions than answers".
£35bn = approx 2 years of the alleged '£350m per week' - so only a deferment of all that extra money the NHS is going to get according to the Leave campaign.
Basically Donald can call any ex-military vet back into action with a rather simple order. I reckon that its probably so that if any retired General starts to criticise him then they can be called up and silenced. Either that or Korean War prep.
This order is more extreme than what Bush signed on September 14th 2001, which allowed him to prevent people from retiring from duty.
McCain ?...
Hopefully it is just that, but considering his 'calm before the storm' comment to the Generals on Thursday... Place buy orders on nuclear bunker makers.
One of the most influential directors in British theatre was forced to stand down from the company he founded after being accused of inappropriate, sexualised behaviour, the Guardian has learned.
Renowned director Max Stafford-Clark – the former artistic director of London’s Royal Court theatre – was forced out of the Out of Joint theatre company after a formal complaint that he made lewd comments to a member of staff.
There is a terrible whiff of the paedo-gate witch hunt about all of this. By all means punish the guilty, but there is a danger this is getting out of hand now.
The Prime Minister originally offered to pay 20 billion euros as the "exit bill" (which is 20 billion euros more than a number want to pay).
The EU is looking for 60 billion euros and the Prime Minister has indicated we will move beyond 20 billion so that looks like a settlement around 30-40 billion euros in order to move on to phase 2 of the A50 negotiations.
Am I also right in thinking if we refuse to pay the negotiations will effectively come to a halt and we will leave the EU on 29/3/19 with no agreement and it'll be WTO rules (or similar) ?
Politically, what can May "sell" ? Clearly, there will be a significant minority who will baulk at any payment to the EU but vociferous though they may be how significant are they ? Will we see Cabinet resignations over any payment or only if the Prime Minister crosses a line ?
Presumably said 35-40 billion euros is going to have to come from somewhere - additional borrowing, tax rises or a swingeing round of spending cuts ?
Will Cracksman win the Champion Stakes tomorrow ?
As the old song goes "there are more questions than answers".
£35bn = approx 2 years of the alleged '£350m per week' - so only a deferment of all that extra money the NHS is going to get according to the Leave campaign.
So you cruel Remainers would rather pay Brussels than fund our NHS?
No, the trend has been dramatically against the SNP which is why even now they are polling lower than they got at the 2015 general election and the 2016 Holyrood elections. The fact the SNP now seem to have stabilised a little around the 40% mark still does not change the fact they are now supported by 5% fewer than the 45% who voted Yes in 2014.
To be fair, critiquing the SNP performance at the 2015 GE would be rather like saying the Conservatives should have done even better in Surrey in June.
The Prime Minister originally offered to pay 20 billion euros as the "exit bill" (which is 20 billion euros more than a number want to pay).
The EU is looking for 60 billion euros and the Prime Minister has indicated we will move beyond 20 billion so that looks like a settlement around 30-40 billion euros in order to move on to phase 2 of the A50 negotiations.
Am I also right in thinking if we refuse to pay the negotiations will effectively come to a halt and we will leave the EU on 29/3/19 with no agreement and it'll be WTO rules (or similar) ?
Politically, what can May "sell" ? Clearly, there will be a significant minority who will baulk at any payment to the EU but vociferous though they may be how significant are they ? Will we see Cabinet resignations over any payment or only if the Prime Minister crosses a line ?
Presumably said 35-40 billion euros is going to have to come from somewhere - additional borrowing, tax rises or a swingeing round of spending cuts ?
Will Cracksman win the Champion Stakes tomorrow ?
As the old song goes "there are more questions than answers".
It's not payable as a lump sum. It involves annual budget payments, and taking on liabilities like pensions.
That's okay by me, but I'm not very well in touch with the Conservative Party, these days. Is it okay for them? No idea.
No, the trend has been dramatically against the SNP which is why even now they are polling lower than they got at the 2015 general election and the 2016 Holyrood elections. The fact the SNP now seem to have stabilised a little around the 40% mark still does not change the fact they are now supported by 5% fewer than the 45% who voted Yes in 2014.
To be fair, critiquing the SNP performance at the 2015 GE would be rather like saying the Conservatives should have done even better in Surrey in June.
I also think the SNP deserve considerable credit in offering a plausible alternative Government to the Scots.
If the SNP didn’t exist, the Scots would have to suffer endless dreary Labour Governments in Holyrood.
To see what would have happened, you only need to look at Wales, where the inability of the Welsh to construct a viable alternative has led to one complacent Labour administration after after another -- with the result that the Welsh are bottom of all the leagues (like education and health) of the countries comprising the UK.
Wales is a country that is poorer since devolution, its children are less well educated than those of other nations, its health service is worse.
That could so easily have happened to Scotland. It is to the SNP’s credit that it didn’t.
The Prime Minister originally offered to pay 20 billion euros as the "exit bill" (which is 20 billion euros more than a number want to pay).
The EU is looking for 60 billion euros and the Prime Minister has indicated we will move beyond 20 billion so that looks like a settlement around 30-40 billion euros in order to move on to phase 2 of the A50 negotiations.
Am I also right in thinking if we refuse to pay the negotiations will effectively come to a halt and we will leave the EU on 29/3/19 with no agreement and it'll be WTO rules (or similar) ?
Politically, what can May "sell" ? Clearly, there will be a significant minority who will baulk at any payment to the EU but vociferous though they may be how significant are they ? Will we see Cabinet resignations over any payment or only if the Prime Minister crosses a line ?
Presumably said 35-40 billion euros is going to have to come from somewhere - additional borrowing, tax rises or a swingeing round of spending cuts ?
Will Cracksman win the Champion Stakes tomorrow ?
As the old song goes "there are more questions than answers".
Everyone here seems to be missing the big issue - that the EU cannot agree a FTA as part of the A50 negotiations.
All we are going to get for our money is a transition period, plus a high level promise on an FTA. The UK will be committed to pay the money as part of the Treaty. The EU will then be able to spend the whole transition period re-negotiating the deal and, in the end, they may not even ratify it, and there will be nothing we can do.
These talks will collapse the moment that May concedes and agrees to pay the exit fee, because the first question from the UK public will be 'what exactly do we get for our money?'. The whole point of the EU structuring the talks like this is that they know they cannot deliver and will insist that the Brexit Bill is agreed and paid irrespective of the trade deal.
May is being dishonest when she says that the payment will be part of an overall agreement, because the overall agreement cannot by EU law include the FTA.
Now isn't Clive Lewis a big drinking buddy with a PBer ?
' Norwich South MP Clive Lewis was filmed on stage at a fringe event in Brighton saying: "Get on your knees, bitch" - the video emerged on social media. '
Was it consensual? I've said things in BDSM relationships I would never dream of saying to strangers. Taken out of context I would probably be taken out and shot.
Pretty consensual, evidently: part of a jovial boozy evening. The bloke (sic) that he said it to says it was all in fun and Clive's a great guy. The woman standing next to him confirms it. It;'s widely felt, though, that nobody should use words commonly used for sexist abuse, and that's why he's apologised. Seems reasonable to move on.
personally I see it more likely that the UK ends up being to the EU as the channel islands are to the UK now - a smaller, tax friendly satellite with less political clout globally but more power locally. We don't need to compete with the EU, we just need to outflank them on the globalization game.
Yes, I'm aware that's not what most people voted for but I think it is one of the few positive scenarios possible from Brexit. We become a Jersey, a Hong Kong, a Singapore.
There are lots of examples of countries being successful doing that but they're all small. It's much harder to bring the model off in a medium-sized country, especially one like Britain which is populated by voters who hate freedom and always want the government to make a new law whenever they read about a bad thing happening in the paper..
But we are not governed by opinion polls -especially when those polls are frequently wrong.
Polls like Yougov after the election are also factoring in younger people as likely to vote when in the referendum many did not do so.
We had a referendum. Flawed opinion polls cannot override the result of that referendum.
If public opinion does shift in favour of EU membership, then people will need to vote for parties which are in favour of reapplying for membership after we have left. But it is highly dangerous to try to rob people of a democratic result in a democratic referendum on the basis of opinion polls.
Certainly "Overall this suggests that opinion might just be shifting though, of course, we need more polling" is question-begging. The vote is receding in the rearview mirror and the question is therefore merely a historical curiosity. I am sure there are diehard remainers who are waiting for it to consistently hit some target at which they can say "it is ridiculous that we cannot rerun the referendum when x% of the population say they have changed their minds". The main flaw in this is that, as you say, we are not governed by opinion polls and the reliability of the polls is currently highly questionable anyway, to the extent that parliamentary committees are looking nto them. It also doesn't help that the question is "*In hindsight*, do you think Britain *was* right or wrong...". The usual formulation "If there were a referendum tomorrow..." would arguably make a better case (but not much better).
The obvious question is this - if Remain had won 52/48 and polls showed a shift towards leave, do you think the remainers would think that was grounds for another referendum? Or do you think they would all in unison declare that the matter was resolved forever by the referendum?
People who want a second referendum are total, utter hypocrites.
Now isn't Clive Lewis a big drinking buddy with a PBer ?
' Norwich South MP Clive Lewis was filmed on stage at a fringe event in Brighton saying: "Get on your knees, bitch" - the video emerged on social media. '
Was it consensual? I've said things in BDSM relationships I would never dream of saying to strangers. Taken out of context I would probably be taken out and shot.
Pretty consensual, evidently: part of a jovial boozy evening. The bloke (sic) that he said it to says it was all in fun and Clive's a great guy. The woman standing next to him confirms it. It;'s widely felt, though, that nobody should use words commonly used for sexist abuse, and that's why he's apologised. Seems reasonable to move on.
I think the problem is that many of us would have been (minimum) facing disciplinary action & (maximum) fired if a recording of us had appeared and we’d used such offensive and sexist language.
We wouldn’t have had a kindly Nick Palmer telling everyone to move on!
Year of Next GE - 2017 just matched at 80 - highest ever price - I think today is the day it pretty much became impossible - if it wasn't already.
Ditto a new PM this year - unless it's a coronation - even if May resigns on Monday. Between 2 and 3 weeks for kick-off, nominations and MPs ballots - that then leaves a bare 6 weeks for members vote with result announced a couple of days before Christmas.
That looks too tight and I doubt new PM would take office in week running up to Christmas - eg the Queen probably wouldn't be at Buckingham Palace etc.
No, the trend has been dramatically against the SNP which is why even now they are polling lower than they got at the 2015 general election and the 2016 Holyrood elections. The fact the SNP now seem to have stabilised a little around the 40% mark still does not change the fact they are now supported by 5% fewer than the 45% who voted Yes in 2014.
To be fair, critiquing the SNP performance at the 2015 GE would be rather like saying the Conservatives should have done even better in Surrey in June.
The 2015 general election was just Scottish guilt at not having voted for independence and 'to send a message to Westminster', once that had been done there and the SNP started pushing for another referendum on independence Scottish voters said 'no thanks' in June and put them back in their box.
Now isn't Clive Lewis a big drinking buddy with a PBer ?
' Norwich South MP Clive Lewis was filmed on stage at a fringe event in Brighton saying: "Get on your knees, bitch" - the video emerged on social media. '
Was it consensual? I've said things in BDSM relationships I would never dream of saying to strangers. Taken out of context I would probably be taken out and shot.
Pretty consensual, evidently: part of a jovial boozy evening. The bloke (sic) that he said it to says it was all in fun and Clive's a great guy. The woman standing next to him confirms it. It;'s widely felt, though, that nobody should use words commonly used for sexist abuse, and that's why he's apologised. Seems reasonable to move on.
Indeed. Wrong though it may have been out of context, I can’t imagine Clive Lewis is some kind of monster. Far too many these days ready to be professionally offended. Time to move on as you say.
The Prime Minister originally offered to pay 20 billion euros as the "exit bill" (which is 20 billion euros more than a number want to pay).
The EU is looking for 60 billion euros and the Prime Minister has indicated we will move beyond 20 billion so that looks like a settlement around 30-40 billion euros in order to move on to phase 2 of the A50 negotiations.
Am I also right in thinking if we refuse to pay the negotiations will effectively come to a halt and we will leave the EU on 29/3/19 with no agreement and it'll be WTO rules (or similar) ?
Politically, what can May "sell" ? Clearly, there will be a significant minority who will baulk at any payment to the EU but vociferous though they may be how significant are they ? Will we see Cabinet resignations over any payment or only if the Prime Minister crosses a line ?
Presumably said 35-40 billion euros is going to have to come from somewhere - additional borrowing, tax rises or a swingeing round of spending cuts ?
Will Cracksman win the Champion Stakes tomorrow ?
As the old song goes "there are more questions than answers".
Everyone here seems to be missing the big issue - that the EU cannot agree a FTA as part of the A50 negotiations.
All we are going to get for our money is a transition period, plus a high level promise on an FTA. The UK will be committed to pay the money as part of the Treaty. The EU will then be able to spend the whole transition period re-negotiating the deal and, in the end, they may not even ratify it, and there will be nothing we can do.
These talks will collapse the moment that May concedes and agrees to pay the exit fee, because the first question from the UK public will be 'what exactly do we get for our money?'. The whole point of the EU structuring the talks like this is that they know they cannot deliver and will insist that the Brexit Bill is agreed and paid irrespective of the trade deal.
May is being dishonest when she says that the payment will be part of an overall agreement, because the overall agreement cannot by EU law include the FTA.
Can’t we just hold it in the diplomatic equivalent of escrow till the final deal is done. No FTA to our liking, no cash past end of March 2019. Surely?
The obvious question is this - if Remain had won 52/48 and polls showed a shift towards leave, do you think the remainers would think that was grounds for another referendum? Or do you think they would all in unison declare that the matter was resolved forever by the referendum?
People who want a second referendum are total, utter hypocrites.
Political process arguments are like that. People have genuinely sincerely strong feelings about what the correct way to decide something should be - often even stronger than their feelings about the underlying issue - but they always happen to match what helps their side tactically.
To see the same thing on the other side, remember on the night of the referendum Farage was calling on his side to fight on before the votes had even been counted. (Prematurely obviously, since it later turned out he'd won.)
Everyone here seems to be missing the big issue - that the EU cannot agree a FTA as part of the A50 negotiations.
All we are going to get for our money is a transition period, plus a high level promise on an FTA. The UK will be committed to pay the money as part of the Treaty. The EU will then be able to spend the whole transition period re-negotiating the deal and, in the end, they may not even ratify it, and there will be nothing we can do.
These talks will collapse the moment that May concedes and agrees to pay the exit fee, because the first question from the UK public will be 'what exactly do we get for our money?'. The whole point of the EU structuring the talks like this is that they know they cannot deliver and will insist that the Brexit Bill is agreed and paid irrespective of the trade deal.
May is being dishonest when she says that the payment will be part of an overall agreement, because the overall agreement cannot by EU law include the FTA.
I'm not sure "everyone is missing" anything. It's quite clear the EU want the bill settled before they will even consider talking about trade. We want to talk about trade and then worry about the money while they want to resolve the money before talking about the trade.
You're right inasmuch as A50 is primarily about the withdrawal process. Two years is the maximum amount of time allowed but it could be agreed much more quickly allowing the separate trade talks to begin for an agreement to come into effect on the agreed date we cease to be EU members (as governed by A50).
We have conflated the A50 process with the trade agreement process and they are different albeit related. The fact we cannot agree with the EU on the terms of departure prevents us starting the much more important business of creating our future economic relationship with the EU.
The Prime Minister originally offered to pay 20 billion euros as the "exit bill" (which is 20 billion euros more than a number want to pay).
The EU is looking for 60 billion euros and the Prime Minister has indicated we will move beyond 20 billion so that looks like a settlement around 30-40 billion euros in order to move on to phase 2 of the A50 negotiations.
Am I also right in thinking if we refuse to pay the negotiations will effectively come to a halt and we will leave the EU on 29/3/19 with no agreement and it'll be WTO rules (or similar) ?
Politically, what can May "sell" ? Clearly, there will be a significant minority who will baulk at any payment to the EU but vociferous though they may be how significant are they ? Will we see Cabinet resignations over any payment or only if the Prime Minister crosses a line ?
Presumably said 35-40 billion euros is going to have to come from somewhere - additional borrowing, tax rises or a swingeing round of spending cuts ?
Will Cracksman win the Champion Stakes tomorrow ?
As the old song goes "there are more questions than answers".
Everyone here seems to be missing the big issue - that the EU cannot agree a FTA as part of the A50 negotiations.
All we are going to get for our money is a transition period, plus a high level promise on an FTA. The UK will be committed to pay the money as part of the Treaty. The EU will then be able to spend the whole transition period re-negotiating the deal and, in the end, they may not even ratify it, and there will be nothing we can do.
These talks will collapse the moment that May concedes and agrees to pay the exit fee, because the first question from the UK public will be 'what exactly do we get for our money?'. The whole point of the EU structuring the talks like this is that they know they cannot deliver and will insist that the Brexit Bill is agreed and paid irrespective of the trade deal.
May is being dishonest when she says that the payment will be part of an overall agreement, because the overall agreement cannot by EU law include the FTA.
Can’t we just hold it in the diplomatic equivalent of escrow till the final deal is done. No FTA to our liking, no cash past end of March 2019. Surely?
That is exactly what needs to happen. I can almost guarantee that the EU will refuse to agree. The whole basis of their strategy is that they should not have to deliver anything in return for the money. At that point domestic UK support for any settlement will evaporate. May is just dancing around this issue but it will be the showstopper.
Everyone here seems to be missing the big issue - that the EU cannot agree a FTA as part of the A50 negotiations.
All we are going to get for our money is a transition period, plus a high level promise on an FTA. The UK will be committed to pay the money as part of the Treaty. The EU will then be able to spend the whole transition period re-negotiating the deal and, in the end, they may not even ratify it, and there will be nothing we can do.
These talks will collapse the moment that May concedes and agrees to pay the exit fee, because the first question from the UK public will be 'what exactly do we get for our money?'. The whole point of the EU structuring the talks like this is that they know they cannot deliver and will insist that the Brexit Bill is agreed and paid irrespective of the trade deal.
May is being dishonest when she says that the payment will be part of an overall agreement, because the overall agreement cannot by EU law include the FTA.
I'm not sure "everyone is missing" anything. It's quite clear the EU want the bill settled before they will even consider talking about trade. We want to talk about trade and then worry about the money while they want to resolve the money before talking about the trade.
You're right inasmuch as A50 is primarily about the withdrawal process. Two years is the maximum amount of time allowed but it could be agreed much more quickly allowing the separate trade talks to begin for an agreement to come into effect on the agreed date we cease to be EU members (as governed by A50).
We have conflated the A50 process with the trade agreement process and they are different albeit related. The fact we cannot agree with the EU on the terms of departure prevents us starting the much more important business of creating our future economic relationship with the EU.
The point is not when the Brexit bill is agreed, but when it is paid. May and DD think that since we don't have to agree legally to it until the whole a50 process is complete (true) that we can link it to an FTA. We can't. The a50 treaty will make the UK legally liable to pay the bill and cannot make the EU legally liable to provide the FTA. The UK public will never accept this.
Now isn't Clive Lewis a big drinking buddy with a PBer ?
' Norwich South MP Clive Lewis was filmed on stage at a fringe event in Brighton saying: "Get on your knees, bitch" - the video emerged on social media. '
Was it consensual? I've said things in BDSM relationships I would never dream of saying to strangers. Taken out of context I would probably be taken out and shot.
Pretty consensual, evidently: part of a jovial boozy evening. The bloke (sic) that he said it to says it was all in fun and Clive's a great guy. The woman standing next to him confirms it. It;'s widely felt, though, that nobody should use words commonly used for sexist abuse, and that's why he's apologised. Seems reasonable to move on.
No doubt you'd have been suggesting we all move on had it been Boris Johnson rather than Clive Lewis.
Comments
4) Laughing at grumpy old men moaning about 3% inflation (though not oddly enough moaning at 5% house price inflation)..
Our owners are some of the best in the PL, and even provide the fans with free berrs and cakes on his birthday.
That's not say that Brexit will lead to a land of milk and honey, simply that the predictions of horrors are not very credible.
That just shows how abysmal their general election result was. I remember MalcG scoffing at the idea the SNP would fall as low as 45 MPs in June. Now that score is seen as an SNP 'triumph.'
TMay 'I'll take some questions from our European colleagues now'
Gary Gibbon 'We're all European'. LOL!
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/bulletins/housepriceindex/august2017
Caught up with head of German auto industry body asked him a lot about Brexit: "Britain is v important, but EU27 is even more important"
Car industry chief Mr Wissmann also said that German industry task force is now looking at the "worst case" scenario of 'hard brexit'
German car body: "best solution" is "stay in internal market/CU. Any other solution v complicated & will need years to make possible"
staying in CU will mean car industry no new trade deals? "Do you really think you will perform better with your own trade agreements?"
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/907678145540747266
Evening Malc!
Renowned director Max Stafford-Clark – the former artistic director of London’s Royal Court theatre – was forced out of the Out of Joint theatre company after a formal complaint that he made lewd comments to a member of staff.
Ultimately we are where we are and without a major sea change - as yet not indicated by the polls - we must see this through.
Look on the bright side, if it ends as badly as you think it ends with us going cap in hand to the EU in ten years, properly chastened... personally I see it more likely that the UK ends up being to the EU as the channel islands are to the UK now - a smaller, tax friendly satellite with less political clout globally but more power locally. We don't need to compete with the EU, we just need to outflank them on the globalization game.
Yes, I'm aware that's not what most people voted for but I think it is one of the few positive scenarios possible from Brexit. We become a Jersey, a Hong Kong, a Singapore.
https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/921330517064273921
https://twitter.com/make_trouble/status/921369356839374848
https://twitter.com/gilescoren/status/921430060690755584
We've all had a good laugh/gasped in horror at the people in Barnsley saying they're a bit miffed Brexit hasn't meant that foreigners are carted off but it's going to be a big problem when they realise they've been duped so the likes of Daniel Hannan can test their A Level economic theories. Whatever you do, at some point someone's got to tell them they've been sold pig in a poke and no sane government is going to do what they ask because it would cripple Britain rather than help. In some ways, if Brexit continues to go awry, a second referendum might be the least bad option.
I'm part of the electorate,
We are a democracy,
They are a mob.
We could apply to rejoin, but we would probably not like the terms.
Has there been any mention of this today:
' MP Ian Lavery received £165,000 from the 10-member trade union he ran.
The regulator found that that the Northumberland Provident and Benevolent fund had lent Mr Lavery £72,500 to buy a house in 1994. 13 years on, the union Mr Lavery was then running forgave the loan to Mr Lavery. So he was £72,500 the richer.
But there's more. He'd been paying into an endowment fund to pay back the capital cost of the house. It had underperformed, but it still paid out £18,000. The regulator found Mr Lavery kept that too.
And that's not all.
The regulator found that in 2005, Mr Lavery sold a 15% stake in his house to the Union for £36,000. In 2013 the house was worth less, so he bought it back from the union for £27,500 - a notional profit of £8,500.
And then there's Mr Lavery's "termination payments", totalling £89,887.83. However, that total is a matter of some dispute between him and the union.
The regulator says that neither Mr Lavery nor the union could provide documentary evidence of the process or the decision by which Mr Lavery was made redundant - or why, given he was leaving for a job as an MP, he needed any redundancy payments at all. '
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41688280
Now will his mate Jeremy have something to say ?
' Norwich South MP Clive Lewis was filmed on stage at a fringe event in Brighton saying: "Get on your knees, bitch" - the video emerged on social media. '
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41697615
https://twitter.com/alexebarker/status/921426504482828288
Polls like Yougov after the election are also factoring in younger people as likely to vote when in the referendum many did not do so.
We had a referendum. Flawed opinion polls cannot override the result of that referendum.
If public opinion does shift in favour of EU membership, then people will need to vote for parties which are in favour of reapplying for membership after we have left. But it is highly dangerous to try to rob people of a democratic result in a democratic referendum on the basis of opinion polls.
You are a swivel-eyed loon
He is a racist bigot
"3/ The notetakers were sent out. This was as sensitive as a summit gets ..."
We won.
They lost.
If I have understood this correctly:
The Prime Minister originally offered to pay 20 billion euros as the "exit bill" (which is 20 billion euros more than a number want to pay).
The EU is looking for 60 billion euros and the Prime Minister has indicated we will move beyond 20 billion so that looks like a settlement around 30-40 billion euros in order to move on to phase 2 of the A50 negotiations.
Am I also right in thinking if we refuse to pay the negotiations will effectively come to a halt and we will leave the EU on 29/3/19 with no agreement and it'll be WTO rules (or similar) ?
Politically, what can May "sell" ? Clearly, there will be a significant minority who will baulk at any payment to the EU but vociferous though they may be how significant are they ? Will we see Cabinet resignations over any payment or only if the Prime Minister crosses a line ?
Presumably said 35-40 billion euros is going to have to come from somewhere - additional borrowing, tax rises or a swingeing round of spending cuts ?
Will Cracksman win the Champion Stakes tomorrow ?
As the old song goes "there are more questions than answers".
Basically Donald can call any ex-military vet back into action with a rather simple order. I reckon that its probably so that if any retired General starts to criticise him then they can be called up and silenced. Either that or Korean War prep.
This order is more extreme than what Bush signed on September 14th 2001, which allowed him to prevent people from retiring from duty.
Also, on Thursday evening Donald was hosting a military dinner where he said (verbatim) 'You guys know what this represents? Maybe it’s the calm before the storm.' (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/us/politics/trump-calls-meeting-with-military-leaders-the-calm-before-the-storm.html)
British winner
Scottish loser
That's okay by me, but I'm not very well in touch with the Conservative Party, these days. Is it okay for them? No idea.
If the SNP didn’t exist, the Scots would have to suffer endless dreary Labour Governments in Holyrood.
To see what would have happened, you only need to look at Wales, where the inability of the Welsh to construct a viable alternative has led to one complacent Labour administration after after another -- with the result that the Welsh are bottom of all the leagues (like education and health) of the countries comprising the UK.
Wales is a country that is poorer since devolution, its children are less well educated than those of other nations, its health service is worse.
That could so easily have happened to Scotland. It is to the SNP’s credit that it didn’t.
All we are going to get for our money is a transition period, plus a high level promise on an FTA. The UK will be committed to pay the money as part of the Treaty. The EU will then be able to spend the whole transition period re-negotiating the deal and, in the end, they may not even ratify it, and there will be nothing we can do.
These talks will collapse the moment that May concedes and agrees to pay the exit fee, because the first question from the UK public will be 'what exactly do we get for our money?'. The whole point of the EU structuring the talks like this is that they know they cannot deliver and will insist that the Brexit Bill is agreed and paid irrespective of the trade deal.
May is being dishonest when she says that the payment will be part of an overall agreement, because the overall agreement cannot by EU law include the FTA.
People who want a second referendum are total, utter hypocrites.
We wouldn’t have had a kindly Nick Palmer telling everyone to move on!
Ditto a new PM this year - unless it's a coronation - even if May resigns on Monday. Between 2 and 3 weeks for kick-off, nominations and MPs ballots - that then leaves a bare 6 weeks for members vote with result announced a couple of days before Christmas.
That looks too tight and I doubt new PM would take office in week running up to Christmas - eg the Queen probably wouldn't be at Buckingham Palace etc.
To see the same thing on the other side, remember on the night of the referendum Farage was calling on his side to fight on before the votes had even been counted. (Prematurely obviously, since it later turned out he'd won.)
You're right inasmuch as A50 is primarily about the withdrawal process. Two years is the maximum amount of time allowed but it could be agreed much more quickly allowing the separate trade talks to begin for an agreement to come into effect on the agreed date we cease to be EU members (as governed by A50).
We have conflated the A50 process with the trade agreement process and they are different albeit related. The fact we cannot agree with the EU on the terms of departure prevents us starting the much more important business of creating our future economic relationship with the EU.