The obvious flaw in PB Tory logic is that the Labour party manifesto, and party itself is not Marxist, even if the shadow chancellor and LoTO have Marxist sympathies.
Indeed the fact that the Tories are lifting large chunks of that manifesto, and implementing it shows that they are as much Marxists.
That's one of Mrs May's worst crimes, she's detoxifying Corbyn.
Indeed, a remarkable achievement that even most people in Labour once thought was impossible.
But it is the curse of Brexit that is behind this - any other Tory leader would be in an equally impossible position.
Anyone want to give me a précis about the elections in America yesterday?
A harbinger for Trump getting walloped in 2020 and the Dems taking the House in 2018?
Or is Trump gonna win in 2020?
Prior to the election the Republicans controlled the Virginia House of Delegates 66-34.
As of this morning Dems were 48-47 ahead with 5 races too close to call and it looks most likely it will be a 50-50 split.
The heavily Bannon backed Governor candidate got creamed in the suburbs with his Dem opponent winning 60%+ of people under 45. Crucially the Republican did brilliantly in rural Virginia and got absolutely destroyed in the suburbs.
Particularly after letting preparations and expectations get out of control.
Calling an election was the right call for May: the error was in how she conducted it.
Is this not what Marxists say? It was the execution (and not just of 40m people) that was the problem, not the ideas.
No, because every country that has ever tried to implement some version of Marxism has never got anywhere near the ideal and has always continued to repress and murder. By contrast, most governments, in most democracies, that go into an election with a 20-point lead come out of it with a stonking win.
May should, and could, have:
1. Used Crosby properly to vet the manifesto 2. Turned up to the debates 3. Spoken more to the public 4. Talked about the economy and let others do so 5. Made the election about the party and not principally herself 6. Been smarter in hitting Corbyn and McDonnell with their record
None of this is rocket science - and to the extent that it is, that's why you employ rocket scientists.
Obviously anyone with half a brain (thus excluding Corbyn) knows that in reality Marxism is a really, really stupid idea. No one would dispute that the campaign was inept. But was it a good idea in the first place? I am not so sure.
The counterfactual is what would have happened had she not called an election? One question is whether Corbyn would have been toppled by then or not. My guess is 'not'. I don't think the PLP would have wanted another leadership election this summer despite the dire polling and local election results. better to wait another year.
Beyond that, she'd still have had Brexit to deal with and still had a small majority, though that would probably have seemed larger than it was with Labour in disarray. And at some point, the bubble would still have burst.
I think we would be focussed on when the inept Mr Corbyn was going to stand down so his successor for the election due in 3 years time could get their feet under the table and the Labour party would still look spectacularly disunited. The election result stabilised the Labour Party every bit as much as it destabilised the Tories.
Freedom of goods principally a la the Canada FTA with some preferred access for the City if possible.
This table from Open Europe from before the referendum shows why any Canada style PTA will be highly disadvantageous to the UK. It covers sectors (medium to high chances of access in green) where we have large trade deficits with the EU, but not the sectors we do best at:
It covers manufacturing which is what matters to Leave areas.
It is not so good for the City but then the Leave vote was never a vote to protect the City and on even the worst Brexit projections London will still be the largest financial centre in Europe even if Frankfurt and Paris and Zurich narrow the gap.
In a word, "Nissan". I could see the government signing up to this highly unequal arrangement just to keep Nissan in Sunderland. But there's another problem to a Canadian style PTA. There's no transition available to it. We have to go through Hard Brexit first. What it will eventually be, how long it takes and whether it happens at all are very uncertain. The EU has more comprehensive trade agreements than anyone else but even so they lack them with some very big economies, including the USA, China, Japan and India.
May has agreed a 2 year transition post Brexit while a FTA continues to be negotiated and the UK is the biggest destination of exports for EU goods so long term it suits them while we still get a FTA and to end free movement.
Freedom of goods principally a la the Canada FTA with some preferred access for the City if possible.
This table from Open Europe from before the referendum shows why any Canada style PTA will be highly disadvantageous to the UK. It covers sectors (medium to high chances of access in green) where we have large trade deficits with the EU, but not the sectors we do best at:
In the 70s there was a plan for a coup to replace an inept PM with Lord Mountbatten.
Who is the Lord Mountbatten de nos jours?
Harold Wilson inept ? One of the best , kept us out of Vietnam ,The open University kept his party together .The social changes under his premiership made modern britain
May should have been reminded before celebrating the anniversary of the Balfour declaration with Netanyahu the old adage that if you sleep with dogs you catch fleas. Her judgement is just appalling. it's not as though she wasn't warned by just about everyone. Note the absence of Royal involvement. Netanyahu is toxic. Possibly the most loathed democratically elected leader outside his home country in the world.
Freedom of goods principally a la the Canada FTA with some preferred access for the City if possible.
This table from Open Europe from before the referendum shows why any Canada style PTA will be highly disadvantageous to the UK. It covers sectors (medium to high chances of access in green) where we have large trade deficits with the EU, but not the sectors we do best at:
It covers manufacturing which is what matters to Leave areas.
It is not so good for the City but then the Leave vote was never a vote to protect the City and on even the worst Brexit projections London will still be the largest financial centre in Europe even if Frankfurt and Paris and Zurich narrow the gap.
In a word, "Nissan". I could see the government signing up to this highly unequal arrangement just to keep Nissan in Sunderland. But there's another problem to a Canadian style PTA. There's no transition available to it. We have to go through Hard Brexit first. What it will eventually be, how long it takes and whether it happens at all are very uncertain. The EU has more comprehensive trade agreements than anyone else but even so they lack them with some very big economies, including the USA, China, Japan and India.
May has agreed a 2 year transition post Brexit while it continues to be negotiated and the UK is the biggest destination of exports for EU goods so long term it suits them while we still get a FTA and to end free movement.
I don't know whether your position is think or just delusional. We aren't going to negotiate a FTA in 2 years, so a transition deal still leaves a gap. Assuming we get a transition deal because at the moment the government have a very thick red line which says we leave properly on day 1, FOM and ECJ jurisdiction stops. And then we have the most basic problem - the EU has a hard border with states it has no agreement with. It will not have an agreement with us. Which means that free trade stops the moment we leave due to the full customs checks done on the EU side of the border regardless of what we do over here. And we would have to wave people through because HRMC say 5 years to create the infrastructure required to do checks on our side. And the basic principle of WTO which prevents us from waving the EU stuff through and checking everyone else.
On a basis of simple practicality there is no way to make "transition to FTA" work. We can transition to EFTA/EEA, and from there negotiate FTA. Or crash out.
May should have been reminded before celebrating the anniversary of the Balfour declaration with Netanyahu the old adage that if you sleep with dogs you catch fleas. Her judgement is just appalling. it's not as though she wasn't warned by just about everyone. Note the absence of Royal involvement. Netanyahu is toxic. Possibly the most loathed democratically elected leader outside his home country in the world.
Anyone want to give me a précis about the elections in America yesterday?
A harbinger for Trump getting walloped in 2020 and the Dems taking the House in 2018?
Or is Trump gonna win in 2020?
Prior to the election the Republicans controlled the Virginia House of Delegates 66-34.
As of this morning Dems were 48-47 ahead with 5 races too close to call and it looks most likely it will be a 50-50 split.
The heavily Bannon backed Governor candidate got creamed in the suburbs with his Dem opponent winning 60%+ of people under 45. Crucially the Republican did brilliantly in rural Virginia and got absolutely destroyed in the suburbs.
Freedom of goods principally a la the Canada FTA with some preferred access for the City if possible.
This table from Open Europe from before the referendum shows why any Canada style PTA will be highly disadvantageous to the UK. It covers sectors (medium to high chances of access in green) where we have large trade deficits with the EU, but not the sectors we do best at:
It covers manufacturing which is what matters to Leave areas.
It is not so good for the City but then the Leave vote was never a vote to protect the City and on even the worst Brexit projections London will still be the largest financial centre in Europe even if Frankfurt and Paris and Zurich narrow the gap.
In a word, "Nissan". I could see the government signing up to this highly unequal arrangement just to keep Nissan in Sunderland. But there's another problem to a Canadian style PTA. There's no transition available to it. We have to go through Hard Brexit first. What it will eventually be, how long it takes and whether it happens at all are very uncertain. The EU has more comprehensive trade agreements than anyone else but even so they lack them with some very big economies, including the USA, China, Japan and India.
May has agreed a 2 year transition post Brexit while a FTA continues to be negotiated and the UK is the biggest destination of exports for EU goods so long term it suits them while we still get a FTA and to end free movement.
It MIGHT happen (but by no means a sure thing) on that timescale simply because it's so much in the EU interest and not ours. But as long as the Single Market is available as an option (and indeed EU membership), we have choices that give us much better access, are more certain and are more equal.
Anyone want to give me a précis about the elections in America yesterday?
A harbinger for Trump getting walloped in 2020 and the Dems taking the House in 2018?
Or is Trump gonna win in 2020?
Prior to the election the Republicans controlled the Virginia House of Delegates 66-34.
As of this morning Dems were 48-47 ahead with 5 races too close to call and it looks most likely it will be a 50-50 split.
The heavily Bannon backed Governor candidate got creamed in the suburbs with his Dem opponent winning 60%+ of people under 45. Crucially the Republican did brilliantly in rural Virginia and got absolutely destroyed in the suburbs.
Freedom of goods principally a la the Canada FTA with some preferred access for the City if possible.
This table from Open Europe from before the referendum shows why any Canada style PTA will be highly disadvantageous to the UK. It covers sectors (medium to high chances of access in green) where we have large trade deficits with the EU, but not the sectors we do best at:
It covers manufacturing which is what matters to Leave areas.
It is not so good for the City but then the Leave vote was never a vote to protect the City and on even the worst Brexit projections London will still be the largest financial centre in Europe even if Frankfurt and Paris and Zurich narrow the gap.
In a word, "Nissan". I could see the government signing up to this highly unequal arrangement just to keep Nissan in Sunderland. But there's another problem to a Canadian style PTA. There's no transition available to it. We have to go through Hard Brexit first. What it will eventually be, how long it takes and whether it happens at all are very uncertain. The EU has more comprehensive trade agreements than anyone else but even so they lack them with some very big economies, including the USA, China, Japan and India.
May has agreed a 2 year transition post Brexit while a FTA continues to be negotiated and the UK is the biggest destination of exports for EU goods so long term it suits them while we still get a FTA and to end free movement.
May has suggested a 2-year bespoke transition deal. But the EU has said there will be no bespoke deals and talks about a transition have not yet started. Nor is it clear that such a deal would be accepted by either the HoC or the European Parliament.
Anyone want to give me a précis about the elections in America yesterday?
A harbinger for Trump getting walloped in 2020 and the Dems taking the House in 2018?
Or is Trump gonna win in 2020?
Prior to the election the Republicans controlled the Virginia House of Delegates 66-34.
As of this morning Dems were 48-47 ahead with 5 races too close to call and it looks most likely it will be a 50-50 split.
The heavily Bannon backed Governor candidate got creamed in the suburbs with his Dem opponent winning 60%+ of people under 45. Crucially the Republican did brilliantly in rural Virginia and got absolutely destroyed in the suburbs.
Particularly after letting preparations and expectations get out of control.
Calling an election was the right call for May: the error was in how she conducted it.
Is this not what Marxists say? It was the execution (and not just of 40m people) that was the problem, not the ideas.
No, because every country that has ever tried to implement some version of Marxism has never got anywhere near the ideal and has always continued to repress and murder. By contrast, most governments, in most democracies, that go into an election with a 20-point lead come out of it with a stonking win.
May should, and could, have:
1. Used Crosby properly to vet the manifesto 2. Turned up to the debates 3. Spoken more to the public 4. Talked about the economy and let others do so 5. Made the election about the party and not principally herself 6. Been smarter in hitting Corbyn and McDonnell with their record
None of this is rocket science - and to the extent that it is, that's why you employ rocket scientists.
Obviously anyone with half a brain (thus excluding Corbyn) knows that in reality Marxism is a really, really stupid idea. No one would dispute that the campaign was inept. But was it a good idea in the first place? I am not so sure.
The counterfactual is what would have happened had she not called an election? One question is whether Corbyn would have been toppled by then or not. My guess is 'not'. I don't think the PLP would have wanted another leadership election this summer despite the dire polling and local election results. better to wait another year.
Beyond that, she'd still have had Brexit to deal with and still had a small majority, though that would probably have seemed larger than it was with Labour in disarray. And at some point, the bubble would still have burst.
I think we would be focussed on when the inept Mr Corbyn was going to stand down so his successor for the election due in 3 years time could get their feet under the table and the Labour party would still look spectacularly disunited. The election result stabilised the Labour Party every bit as much as it destabilised the Tories.
Mr Eagles, surely you’re not describing electoral success by votes cast rather than seats won?
Is all about winning/keeping majorities or making net seat gains.
And Major lost dozens of seats, did he not?
But he held the Tory majority in 1992 in difficult circumstances.
Major like Cameron in 2015 and Trump in 2016 piled up the votes in the right places - Hillary and May piled them up in the wrong ones. Such are the quirks of first past the post - 36 percent got you a 60 seat majority in 2005 but 43 percent left you short in 2017.
Freedom of goods principally a la the Canada FTA with some preferred access for the City if possible.
This table from Open Europe from before the referendum shows why any Canada style PTA will be highly disadvantageous to the UK. It covers sectors (medium to high chances of access in green) where we have large trade deficits with the EU, but not the sectors we do best at:
It covers manufacturing which is what matters to Leave areas.
It is not so good for the City but then the Leave vote was never a vote to protect the City and on even the worst Brexit projections London will still be the largest financial centre in Europe even if Frankfurt and Paris and Zurich narrow the gap.
In a word, "Nissan". I could see the government signing up to this highly unequal arrangement just to keep Nissan in Sunderland. But there's another problem to a Canadian style nd India.
May has agreed a 2 year transition post Brexit while it continues to be negotiated and the UK is the biggest destination of exports for EU goods so long term it suits them while we still get a FTA and to end free movement.
I don't know whether your position is think or just delusional. We aren't going to negotiate a FTA in 2 years, so a transition deal still leaves a gap. Assuming we get a transition deal because at the moment the government have a very thick red line which says we leave properly on day 1, FOM and ECJ jurisdiction stops. And then we have the most basic problem - the EU has a hard border with states it has no agreement with. It will not have an agreement with us. Which means that free trade stops the moment we leave due to the full customs checks done on the EU side of the border regardless of what we do over here. And we would have to wave people through because HRMC say 5 years to create the infrastructure required to do checks on our side. And the basic principle of WTO which prevents us from waving the EU stuff through and checking everyone else.
On a basis of simple practicality there is no way to make "transition to FTA" work. We can transition to EFTA/EEA, and from there negotiate FTA. Or crash out.
We are starting negotiations in December with the 2 year transition that means 4 years for negotiations which may well be enough and even Canada got theirs agreed in 7 years and were starting from scratch.
Priti reaches Belgium. Landing estimated in 47 minutes.
The excitement! The suspense! Never before have so many people followed an aeroplane which may or may not contain Her Maesty's Secretary of State for International Development who may or may not be getting the sack for failing to disclose meetings she was asked to keep quiet by the person who may or may not be sacking her.
Good job that the Tories have a real reputation for discipline and good government under strong and stable Theresa May. Otherwise this would look like a career-ending shambles, one of those rare episodes of The Apprentice where he sacks all three of them.
Freedom of goods principally a la the Canada FTA with some preferred access for the City if possible.
This table from Open Europe from before the referendum shows why any Canada style PTA will be highly disadvantageous to the UK. It covers sectors (medium to high chances of access in green) where we have large trade deficits with the EU, but not the sectors we do best at:
It covers manufacturing which is what matters to Leave areas.
It is not so good for the City but then the Leave vote was never a vote to protect the City and on even the worst Brexit projections London will still be the largest financial centre in Europe even if Frankfurt and Paris and Zurich narrow the gap.
In a word, "Nissan". I could see the government signing up to this highly unequal arrangement just to keep Nissan in Sunderland. But there's another problem to a Canadian style PTA. There's no transition available to it. We have to go through Hard Brexit first. What it will eventually be, how long it takes and whether it happens at all are very uncertain. The EU has more comprehensive trade agreements than anyone else but even so they lack them with some very big economies, including the USA, China, Japan and India.
May has agreed a 2 year transition post Brexit while a FTA continues to be negotiated and the UK is the biggest destination of exports for EU goods so long term it suits them while we still get a FTA and to end free movement.
It MIGHT happen (but by no means a sure thing) on that timescale simply because it's so much in the EU interest and not ours. But as long as the Single Market is available as an option (and indeed EU membership), we have choices that give us much better access, are more certain and are more equal.
The single market obviously means uncontrolled free movement which also means failing to respect the Leave vote fully and the millions of working class Leave voters who voted Leave to reduce immigration.
So that is clearly a non starter at this time. As is obviously the EU given the Leave victory.
And yet we still mock Brown for not having the cojones to call an election. Such changes are unstable, unpredictable and events can turn on the slightest (or in this case, most enormous) issue.
I don't blame her for not rocking the boat.
It is execrable, weak, bad government, a shambles. But I don't blame her for it.
A major and bold reshuffle would be a risk, of course, but one with considerable potential upside. Conversely, doing as little as possible is also a risk, but one with with little or no upside. What's more, now is a particularly good time to be bold, because her most dangerous ministers are currently weak and the sexual harassment scandal is a restraining factor on any plots.
There will never be a better time for her to seize the initiative.
However, she won't.
She either carries on like this, or rolls the dice. No brainer.
I was trying to work this though but actually, I think she's toast either way. The basic problem is that all the Leave cabinet ministers, apart from Gove, are not very good. Sacking one but not others will cause resentment at disparate treatment; sacking all would cause uproar. On top of which, she probably can't sack Hammond two weeks before the Budget, which would just compound Leavers' wrath. Further, bringing in the likes of JRM is unlikely to solve the main problem while adding new ones to the mix (is he any good? If not, status quo ante plus the experience of an ineffective reshuffle; if so, boosts his leadership credentials).
I think Grayling is competent. David Davis is ok.
Theresa Villiers seemed ok (previously) as well, although NI secretary is hard to judge.
We are starting negotiations in December with the 2 year transition that means 4 years for negotiations which may well be enough and even Canada got theirs agreed in 7 years and were starting from scratch.
No we're not. We've said we're starting negotiations. The EU haven't yet agreed and won't agree unless David Dipshit rolls back on his red lines. Its a fantasy and you know it.
Anyone want to give me a précis about the elections in America yesterday?
A harbinger for Trump getting walloped in 2020 and the Dems taking the House in 2018?
Or is Trump gonna win in 2020?
Prior to the election the Republicans controlled the Virginia House of Delegates 66-34.
As of this morning Dems were 48-47 ahead with 5 races too close to call and it looks most likely it will be a 50-50 split.
The heavily Bannon backed Governor candidate got creamed in the suburbs with his Dem opponent winning 60%+ of people under 45. Crucially the Republican did brilliantly in rural Virginia and got absolutely destroyed in the suburbs.
I got on @ 3/1 for Dem control of Congress. I feel smug right now.
Thank you.
Remember that I thought 2016 was a lock for Hilary
The popular vote always was
Yes - due to a massive lead in one state out of 50 - California. Unfortunately you can only win that states 55 electoral votes once - she spent too much time in Hollywood and not enough in Michigan, PA and Wisconsin.
DD to FO and Gove to Brexit I could live with, particularly if there was a handover period. Boris needs to go now. The party chairmanship was the job for him in July 2016 (provided there was an administratively able deputy) but not now.
I would leave DD in place. It's an extremely complicated brief and he seems to be reasonably on top of it.
Ruth Davidson to party chair. Jeremy Hunt to FO if he wants it (he might not). Alistair Burt to DFID. Esther McVey to Health if Hunt has had enough, or to Leader of the House. Split Damian Green's role into two.
The obvious flaw in PB Tory logic is that the Labour party manifesto, and party itself is not Marxist, even if the shadow chancellor and LoTO have Marxist sympathies.
Indeed the fact that the Tories are lifting large chunks of that manifesto, and implementing it shows that they are as much Marxists.
That's one of Mrs May's worst crimes, she's detoxifying Corbyn.
Corbyn won the 2016 local elections before May
'Won' is a generous way of putting it. Labour scored 31% (to the Tories' 30%), and lost a net 18 seats: the first time in about 30 years that the main opposition party lost seats in a non-GE year.
And yet we still mock Brown for not having the cojones to call an election. Such changes are unstable, unpredictable and events can turn on the slightest (or in this case, most enormous) issue.
I don't blame her for not rocking the boat.
It is execrable, weak, bad government, a shambles. But I don't blame her for it.
A major and bold reshuffle would be a risk, of course, but one with considerable potential upside. Conversely, doing as little as possible is also a risk, but one with with little or no upside. What's more, now is a particularly good time to be bold, because her most dangerous ministers are currently weak and the sexual harassment scandal is a restraining factor on any plots.
There will never be a better time for her to seize the initiative.
However, she won't.
She either carries on like this, or rolls the dice. No brainer.
I was trying to work this though but actually, I think she's toast either way. The basic problem is that all the Leave cabinet ministers, apart from Gove, are not very good. Sacking one but not others will cause resentment at disparate treatment; sacking all would cause uproar. On top of which, she probably can't sack Hammond two weeks before the Budget, which would just compound Leavers' wrath. Further, bringing in the likes of JRM is unlikely to solve the main problem while adding new ones to the mix (is he any good? If not, status quo ante plus the experience of an ineffective reshuffle; if so, boosts his leadership credentials).
I think Grayling is competent. David Davis is ok.
Theresa Villiers seemed ok (previously) as well, although NI secretary is hard to judge.
I've noted with Chris Grayling that when he covers a topic with legal complexity (Brexit and Justice) he flounders badly, but away from that he's a solid performer and deliverer. Covered higher education well in opposition, good employment minister and transport secretary. I'd keep him where he is though - he does seem a strong fit at transport.
The obvious flaw in PB Tory logic is that the Labour party manifesto, and party itself is not Marxist, even if the shadow chancellor and LoTO have Marxist sympathies.
Indeed the fact that the Tories are lifting large chunks of that manifesto, and implementing it shows that they are as much Marxists.
That's one of Mrs May's worst crimes, she's detoxifying Corbyn.
Corbyn won the 2016 local elections before May
'Won' is a generous way of putting it. Labour scored 31% (to the Tories' 30%), and lost a net 18 seats: the first time in about 30 years that the main opposition party lost seats in a non-GE year.
Corbyn lost the 2017 local elections in both votes and seats.
Corbyn also had a few poll leads even against Cameron.
We are starting negotiations in December with the 2 year transition that means 4 years for negotiations which may well be enough and even Canada got theirs agreed in 7 years and were starting from scratch.
No we're not. We've said we're starting negotiations. The EU haven't yet agreed and won't agree unless David Dipshit rolls back on his red lines. Its a fantasy and you know it.
And yet we still mock Brown for not having the cojones to call an election. Such changes are unstable, unpredictable and events can turn on the slightest (or in this case, most enormous) issue.
I don't blame her for not rocking the boat.
It is execrable, weak, bad government, a shambles. But I don't blame her for it.
A major and bold reshuffle would be a risk, of course, but one with considerable potential upside. Conversely, doing as little as possible is also a risk, but one with with little or no upside. What's more, now is a particularly good time to be bold, because her most dangerous ministers are currently weak and the sexual harassment scandal is a restraining factor on any plots.
There will never be a better time for her to seize the initiative.
However, she won't.
She either carries on like this, or rolls the dice. No brainer.
I was trying to work this though but actually, I think she's toast either way. The basic problem is that all the Leave cabinet ministers, apart from Gove, are not very good. Sacking one but not others will cause resentment at disparate treatment; sacking all would cause uproar. On top of which, she probably can't sack Hammond two weeks before the Budget, which would just compound Leavers' wrath. Further, bringing in the likes of JRM is unlikely to solve the main problem while adding new ones to the mix (is he any good? If not, status quo ante plus the experience of an ineffective reshuffle; if so, boosts his leadership credentials).
I think Grayling is competent. David Davis is ok.
Theresa Villiers seemed ok (previously) as well, although NI secretary is hard to judge.
Davis is incredibly complacent and should have been able to sort the 'nationals' residency rights' issue by now.
Freedom of goods principally a la the Canada FTA with some preferred access for the City if possible.
This table from Open Europe from before the referendum shows why any Canada style PTA will be highly disadvantageous to the UK. It covers sectors (medium to high chances of access in green) where we have large trade deficits with the EU, but not the sectors we do best at:
It covers manufacturing which is what matters to Leave areas.
It is not so good for the City but then the Leave vote was never a vote to protect the City and on even the worst Brexit projections London will still be the largest financial centre in Europe even if Frankfurt and Paris and Zurich narrow the gap.
In a word, "Nissan". I could see the government signing up to this highly unequal arrangement just to keep Nissan in Sunderland. But there's another problem to a Canadian style PTA. There's no transition available to it. We have to go through Hard Brexit first. What it will eventually be, how long it takes and whether it happens at all are very uncertain. The EU has more comprehensive trade agreements than anyone else but even so they lack them with some very big economies, including the USA, China, Japan and India.
May has agreed a 2 year transition post Brexit while a FTA continues to be negotiated and the UK is the biggest destination of exports for EU goods so long term it suits them while we still get a FTA and to end free movement.
It MIGHT happen (but by no means a sure thing) on that timescale simply because it's so much in the EU interest and not ours. But as long as the Single Market is available as an option (and indeed EU membership), we have choices that give us much better access, are more certain and are more equal.
The single market obviously means uncontrolled free movement which also means failing to respect the Leave vote fully and the millions of working class Leave voters who voted Leave to reduce immigration.
So that is clearly a non starter at this time. As is obviously the EU given the Leave victory.
That's fine, as long as they're not expecting the tax revenue which has left the country to continue to come to them. Telling some hard truths might be worthwhile.
In the long run it would be less costly than no FTA but above all it ends free movement which was, along with restoring sovereignty, the key motive for Leave voters and therefore non negotiable
Thanks for the honest response which I'll take as a Yes and I look forward to seeing the Conservatives trying to "sell" the 60 billion bill to the LEAVE voters. You argue it well - whether it's an argument that will hold remains to be seen.
Yes, of course, Blair did agree to end the transition controls for Poland, Lithuania and Estonia but they couldn't have been maintained post 2011 and the original measure went through Parliament with no votes against (though, I suspect, a number of abstentions). The catastrophic error was the assumption the migrants would number in the low thousands rather than the numbers which actually came.
As an example, there are now 116,000 Lithuanians in the UK from a country whose total population is less than 3 million and falling from a peak of 3.6 million in 1989. The immigration story isn't just our story - it's the story of the depopulation of other parts of Eastern Europe and the correspondent decline in economic performance and investment as the labour heads west.
This is the result of the pernicious Single Market which so many on here seem to think such a good thing. It has been an unmitigated disaster for much of the peripheries of Europe.
Freedom of goods principally a la the Canada FTA with some preferred access for the City if possible.
This table from Open Europe from before the referendum shows why any Canada style PTA will be highly disadvantageous to the UK. It covers sectors (medium to high chances of access in green) where we have large trade deficits with the EU, but not the sectors we do best at:
It covers manufacturing which is what matters to Leave areas.
It is not so good for the City but then the Leave vote was never a vote to protect the City and on even the worst Brexit projections London will still be the largest financial centre in Europe even if Frankfurt and Paris and Zurich narrow the gap.
In a word, "Nissan". I could see the government signing up to this highly unequal arrangement just to keep Nissan in Sunderland. But there's another problem to a Canadian style PTA. There's no transition available to it. We have to go through Hard Brexit first. What it will eventually be, how long it takes and whether it happens at all are very uncertain. The EU has more comprehensive trade agreements than anyone else but even so they lack them with some very big economies, including the USA, China, Japan and India.
May has agreed a 2 year transition post Brexit while a FTA continues to be negotiated and the UK is the biggest destination of exports for EU goods so long term it suits them while we still get a FTA and to end free movement.
It MIGHT happen (but by no means a sure thing) on l.
The single market obviously means uncontrolled free movement which also means failing to respect the Leave vote fully and the millions of working class Leave voters who voted Leave to reduce immigration.
So that is clearly a non starter at this time. As is obviously the EU given the Leave victory.
That's fine, as long as they're not expecting the tax revenue which has left the country to continue to come to them. Telling some hard truths might be worthwhile.
The single market obviously means uncontrolled free movement which also means failing to respect the Leave vote fully and the millions of working class Leave voters who voted Leave to reduce immigration.
So that is clearly a non starter at this time. As is obviously the EU given the Leave victory.
All our choices are non-starters. Which is why Theresa May rejected them all in her Florence speech. We have to pick one. The PTA is at least as problematic as the others. Once those problems become clearer there will be pressure to do something different. From where I see it, the EEA is the least difficult of those options. I should stress it isn't MY choice. Getting less than what we had as a members and removing all formal influence over what happens to us makes no sense to me. But we are where we are. We have to make the best of it.
If the Conservatives won't implement EEA, Jeremy Corbyn will, closet Brexiteer or no.
Priti reaches Belgium. Landing estimated in 47 minutes.
The excitement! The suspense! Never before have so many people followed an aeroplane which may or may not contain Her Maesty's Secretary of State for International Development who may or may not be getting the sack for failing to disclose meetings she was asked to keep quiet by the person who may or may not be sacking her.
Good job that the Tories have a real reputation for discipline and good government under strong and stable Theresa May. Otherwise this would look like a career-ending shambles, one of those rare episodes of The Apprentice where he sacks all three of them.
Anyone else here remember the story with Osborne on the train.
In the long run it would be less costly than no FTA but above all it ends free movement which was, along with restoring sovereignty, the key motive for Leave voters and therefore non negotiable
Thanks for the honest response which I'll take as a Yes and I look forward to seeing the Conservatives trying to "sell" the 60 billion bill to the LEAVE voters. You argue it well - whether it's an argument that will hold remains to be seen.
Yes, of course, Blair did agree to end the transition controls for Poland, Lithuania and Estonia but they couldn't have been maintained post 2011 and the original measure went through Parliament with no votes against (though, I suspect, a number of abstentions). The catastrophic error was the assumption the migrants would number in the low thousands rather than the numbers which actually came.
As an example, there are now 116,000 Lithuanians in the UK from a country whose total population is less than 3 million and falling from a peak of 3.6 million in 1989. The immigration story isn't just our story - it's the story of the depopulation of other parts of Eastern Europe and the correspondent decline in economic performance and investment as the labour heads west.
This is the result of the pernicious Single Market which so many on here seem to think such a good thing. It has been an unmitigated disaster for much of the peripheries of Europe.
Yes, good point about the problems in eastern EU countries. I was in Ukraine in the summer, and trying to find tradesmen there is now really difficult - as they’ve all gone across the border to Poland, just as the Polish tradesmen went to the UK.
In the long run it would be less costly than no FTA but above all it ends free movement which was, along with restoring sovereignty, the key motive for Leave voters and therefore non negotiable
Thanks for the honest response which I'll take as a Yes and I look forward to seeing the Conservatives trying to "sell" the 60 billion bill to the LEAVE voters. You argue it well - whether it's an argument that will hold remains to be seen.
Yes, of course, Blair did agree to end the transition controls for Poland, Lithuania and Estonia but they couldn't have been maintained post 2011 and the original measure went through Parliament with no votes against (though, I suspect, a number of abstentions). The catastrophic error was the assumption the migrants would number in the low thousands rather than the numbers which actually came.
As an example, there are now 116,000 Lithuanians in the UK from a country whose total population is less than 3 million and falling from a peak of 3.6 million in 1989. The immigration story isn't just our story - it's the story of the depopulation of other parts of Eastern Europe and the correspondent decline in economic performance and investment as the labour heads west.
This is the result of the pernicious Single Market which so many on here seem to think such a good thing. It has been an unmitigated disaster for much of the peripheries of Europe.
It will be easier to explain to Leave voters than either leaving immigration from the EU uncontrolled or leaving without any FTA at all.
Plus of course Corbyn can hardly oppose it given he backs a FTA deal too.
I agree Blair made a fatal error on transition controls.
Could claim political asylum with the catalan leaders...
Some on here think that if this was the 29th March 2019 it would not be allowed fo fly on to the UK
Thats just what the aviation lawyers who understand the treaties and things like insurance think. But as I keep reading that experts are traitors its safe to just ignore their expert opinion, presumably whilst running up and down the corridor with arms outstretched making "NNNEEEEEEEAAAAOOOOOWWWW" noises
One has to wonder what the LDs have to do to move in the polls. Doing absolutely nothing should put them in the 20% or 30% range. Yet nothing whatsoever changes.
The Third Party have always had issues getting support when there's a wide gap between the Big Two. There's a bunch of people who fear Corbyn getting in; they're not going to give him an increased chance by breaking ranks, and there's a large cohort of people who really don't like May and co; they're not going to risk letting them off the hook by breaking ranks, either.
While both sides may have lost "positive" voters, the "negative" voters more than make up for it. Neither side should worry about losing these unless there looks to be a bandwagon effect making a Cable Premiership (to exclude both of May and Corbyn), but there can't be a surge in voters towards that to create such a bandwagon effect until after it's occurred.
So it has a massive threshold to cross, and it's difficult to see how that could happen.
This is the result of the pernicious Single Market which so many on here seem to think such a good thing. It has been an unmitigated disaster for much of the peripheries of Europe.
The single market obviously means uncontrolled free movement which also means failing to respect the Leave vote fully and the millions of working class Leave voters who voted Leave to reduce immigration.
So that is clearly a non starter at this time. As is obviously the EU given the Leave victory.
All our choices are non-starters. Which is why Theresa May rejected them all in her Florence speech. We have to pick one. The PTA is at least as problematic as the others. Once those problems become clearer there will be pressure to do something different. From where I see it, the EEA is the least difficult of those options. I should stress it isn't MY choice. Getting less than what we had as a members and removing all formal influence over what happens to us makes no sense to me. But we are where we are. We have to make the best of it.
If the Conservatives won't implement EEA, Jeremy Corbyn will, closet Brexiteer or no.
Corbyn has made clear he won't back EEA permanently either to keep the 37% of Labour Leavers and 20% of UKIP voters he won on board and to ensure he can implement a socialist agenda.
Only the LDs and SNP and Greens back permanent single market membership and they got 7% and under 5% and 1% in June across the UK respectively.
Thats just what the aviation lawyers who understand the treaties and things like insurance think. But as I keep reading that experts are traitors its safe to just ignore their expert opinion, presumably whilst running up and down the corridor with arms outstretched making "NNNEEEEEEEAAAAOOOOOWWWW" noises
Do you think that the governments of Malta, Cyprus, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Czech Republic and Croatia will be happy to see UK holidaymakers unable to fly to their countries?
One has to wonder what the LDs have to do to move in the polls. Doing absolutely nothing should put them in the 20% or 30% range. Yet nothing whatsoever changes.
The Third Party have always had issues getting support when there's a wide gap between the Big Two. There's a bunch of people who fear Corbyn getting in; they're not going to give him an increased chance by breaking ranks, and there's a large cohort of people who really don't like May and co; they're not going to risk letting them off the hook by breaking ranks, either.
While both sides may have lost "positive" voters, the "negative" voters more than make up for it. Neither side should worry about losing these unless there looks to be a bandwagon effect making a Cable Premiership (to exclude both of May and Corbyn), but there can't be a surge in voters towards that to create such a bandwagon effect until after it's occurred.
So it has a massive threshold to cross, and it's difficult to see how that could happen.
That's not entirely true. The best ever polling for the Lib Dems or their predecessors was in 1981/2, when they hit 50%, when the Tories had generated a recession, put 1.5m+ out of work and pushed interest rates to 17%; and Labour was led by Michael Foot and very nearly elected Tony Benn as his deputy.
However, your point is right in its dynamics. One reason the Lib/SDP Alliance polled so well then was because it was already reasonably strong and looked like a genuine alternative - so the fear of the other main party was much lessened. Now, they don't: they look like a wasted vote that might let the other lot in by accident.
The single market obviously means uncontrolled free movement which also means failing to respect the Leave vote fully and the millions of working class Leave voters who voted Leave to reduce immigration.
So that is clearly a non starter at this time. As is obviously the EU given the Leave victory.
All our choices are non-starters. Which is why Theresa May rejected them all in her Florence speech. We have to pick one. The PTA is at least as problematic as the others. Once those problems become clearer there will be pressure to do something different. From where I see it, the EEA is the least difficult of those options. I should stress it isn't MY choice. Getting less than what we had as a members and removing all formal influence over what happens to us makes no sense to me. But we are where we are. We have to make the best of it.
If the Conservatives won't implement EEA, Jeremy Corbyn will, closet Brexiteer or no.
Corbyn has made clear he won't back EEA permanently either to keep the 37% of Labour Leavers and 20% of UKIP voters he won on board and to ensure he can implement a socialist agenda.
Only the LDs and SNP and Greens back permanent single market membership and they got 7% and under 5% and 1% in June across the UK respectively.
He will.
(Mainly because he doesn't care strongly one way or the other).
Theresa Villiers seemed ok (previously) as well, although NI secretary is hard to judge.
Most people in the rail industry have a rather lower opinion of Grayling.
Ironically, though, the best piece of transport news for the Government in months has come today - the Southern Rail strikes against the DfT-imposed DOO contracts have finally been called off - only to be completely drowned out by Departuregate.
However, your point is right in its dynamics. One reason the Lib/SDP Alliance polled so well then was because it was already reasonably strong and looked like a genuine alternative - so the fear of the other main party was much lessened. Now, they don't: they look like a wasted vote that might let the other lot in by accident.
It would seem for a third party to have any chance there has to be an existing large gap in the polling as the election approaches. If the Tories were 20% ahead in the polls the anti-corbyn vote would start feel safe enough to peel off to alternative parties, similarly if Labour were 20% ahead the anti-May vote would feel empowered. The problem is that there seems to be similar number of "anti" voters, so when both parties are shite they run close in the polls and everyone votes out of paranoia of the other lot getting in.
May should have been reminded before celebrating the anniversary of the Balfour declaration with Netanyahu the old adage that if you sleep with dogs you catch fleas. Her judgement is just appalling. it's not as though she wasn't warned by just about everyone. Note the absence of Royal involvement. Netanyahu is toxic. Possibly the most loathed democratically elected leader outside his home country in the world.
Were trump and putin not democratically elected?
Believe it or not if you go off UN resolutions and their support he knocks both of them into a cocked hat
The single market obviously means uncontrolled free movement which also means failing to respect the Leave vote fully and the millions of working class Leave voters who voted Leave to reduce immigration.
So that is clearly a non starter at this time. As is obviously the EU given the Leave victory.
All our choices are non-starters. Which is why Theresa May rejected them all in her Florence speech. We have to pick one. The PTA is at least as problematic as the others. Once those problems become clearer there will be pressure to do something different. From where I see it, the EEA is the least difficult of those options. I should stress it isn't MY choice. Getting less than what we had as a members and removing all formal influence over what happens to us makes no sense to me. But we are where we are. We have to make the best of it.
If the Conservatives won't implement EEA, Jeremy Corbyn will, closet Brexiteer or no.
Corbyn has made clear he won't back EEA permanently either to keep the 37% of Labour Leavers and 20% of UKIP voters he won on board and to ensure he can implement a socialist agenda.
Only the LDs and SNP and Greens back permanent single market membership and they got 7% and under 5% and 1% in June across the UK respectively.
What Labour says in opposition and what it might do given the chance are probably quite different. Not least because the circumstances by which they come by that influence (or power, even) will most probably change everything (or be the consequence of everything having changed).
However, your point is right in its dynamics. One reason the Lib/SDP Alliance polled so well then was because it was already reasonably strong and looked like a genuine alternative - so the fear of the other main party was much lessened. Now, they don't: they look like a wasted vote that might let the other lot in by accident.
It would seem for a third party to have any chance there has to be an existing large gap in the polling as the election approaches. If the Tories were 20% ahead in the polls the anti-corbyn vote would start feel safe enough to peel off to alternative parties, similarly if Labour were 20% ahead the anti-May vote would feel empowered. The problem is that there seems to be similar number of "anti" voters, so when both parties are shite they run close in the polls and everyone votes out of paranoia of the other lot getting in.
Feb 1974 is a counter-example? There are still many seats, mostly in the South, for which that remains the peak third party vote.
The single market obviously means uncontrolled free movement which also means failing to respect the Leave vote fully and the millions of working class Leave voters who voted Leave to reduce immigration.
So that is clearly a non starter at this time. As is obviously the EU given the Leave victory.
All our choices are non-starters. Which is why Theresa May rejected them all in her Florence speech. We have to pick one. The PTA is at least as problematic as the others. Once those problems become clearer there will be pressure to do something different. From where I see it, the EEA is the least difficult of those options. I should stress it isn't MY choice. Getting less than what we had as a members and removing all formal influence over what happens to us makes no sense to me. But we are where we are. We have to make the best of it.
If the Conservatives won't implement EEA, Jeremy Corbyn will, closet Brexiteer or no.
Corbyn has made clear he won't back EEA permanently either to keep the 37% of Labour Leavers and 20% of UKIP voters he won on board and to ensure he can implement a socialist agenda.
Only the LDs and SNP and Greens back permanent single market membership and they got 7% and under 5% and 1% in June across the UK respectively.
He will.
(Mainly because he doesn't care strongly one way or the other).
Oh he does, he cares about winning most of all and he knows most Labour seats voted Leave (in large part because of immigration concerns).
Plus of course he has always been anti EU and voted against the Maastricht Treaty in 1993.
Thats just what the aviation lawyers who understand the treaties and things like insurance think. But as I keep reading that experts are traitors its safe to just ignore their expert opinion, presumably whilst running up and down the corridor with arms outstretched making "NNNEEEEEEEAAAAOOOOOWWWW" noises
Do you think that the governments of Malta, Cyprus, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Czech Republic and Croatia will be happy to see UK holidaymakers unable to fly to their countries?
The single market obviously means uncontrolled free movement which also means failing to respect the Leave vote fully and the millions of working class Leave voters who voted Leave to reduce immigration.
So that is clearly a non starter at this time. As is obviously the EU given the Leave victory.
All our choices are non-starters. Which is why Theresa May rejected them all in her Florence speech. We have to pick one. The PTA is at least as problematic as the others. Once those problems become clearer there will be pressure to do something different. From where I see it, the EEA is the least difficult of those options. I should stress it isn't MY choice. Getting less than what we had as a members and removing all formal influence over what happens to us makes no sense to me. But we are where we are. We have to make the best of it.
If the Conservatives won't implement EEA, Jeremy Corbyn will, closet Brexiteer or no.
Corbyn has made clear he won't back EEA permanently either to keep the 37% of Labour Leavers and 20% of UKIP voters he won on board and to ensure he can implement a socialist agenda.
Only the LDs and SNP and Greens back permanent single market membership and they got 7% and under 5% and 1% in June across the UK respectively.
What Labour says in opposition and what it might do given the chance are probably quite different. Not least because the circumstances by which they come by that influence (or power, even) will most probably change everything (or be the consequence of everything having changed).
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that EEA would still mean that we are out of the customs union; and membership of EFTA is incompatible with the customs union. Soft Brexit appears to mean membership of the EEA and a transitional arrangement to mimic the EU customs union until we are able to construct the necessary infrastructure to cope with being out of the customs union and arranging our own trade deals.
Thats just what the aviation lawyers who understand the treaties and things like insurance think. But as I keep reading that experts are traitors its safe to just ignore their expert opinion, presumably whilst running up and down the corridor with arms outstretched making "NNNEEEEEEEAAAAOOOOOWWWW" noises
Do you think that the governments of Malta, Cyprus, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Czech Republic and Croatia will be happy to see UK holidaymakers unable to fly to their countries?
Not really. There's a complete difference of scale.
Unlike most people in this debate, I like to keep a sense of perspective. Sure, Brexit is likely to be an economic hit or worse, but some things are unlikely. One of those is that around a third of EU countries will, out of spite, happily clobber the tourist sectors which make up such a large proportion of their economies.
Thats just what the aviation lawyers who understand the treaties and things like insurance think. But as I keep reading that experts are traitors its safe to just ignore their expert opinion, presumably whilst running up and down the corridor with arms outstretched making "NNNEEEEEEEAAAAOOOOOWWWW" noises
Do you think that the governments of Malta, Cyprus, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Czech Republic and Croatia will be happy to see UK holidaymakers unable to fly to their countries?
The single market obviously means uncontrolled free movement which also means failing to respect the Leave vote fully and the millions of working class Leave voters who voted Leave to reduce immigration.
So that is clearly a non starter at this time. As is obviously the EU given the Leave victory.
All our choices are non-starters. Which is why Theresa May rejected them all in her Florence speech. We have to pick one. The PTA is at least as problematic as the others. Once those problems become clearer there will be pressure to do something different. From where I see it, the EEA is the least difficult of those options. I should stress it isn't MY choice. Getting less than what we had as a members and removing all formal influence over what happens to us makes no sense to me. But we are where we are. We have to make the best of it.
If the Conservatives won't implement EEA, Jeremy Corbyn will, closet Brexiteer or no.
Corbyn has made clear he won't back EEA permanently either to keep the 37% of Labour Leavers and 20% of UKIP voters he won on board and to ensure he can implement a socialist agenda.
Only the LDs and SNP and Greens back permanent single market membership and they got 7% and under 5% and 1% in June across the UK respectively.
If Labour comes to power between now and Brexit - quite a likely scenario at the rate we're going - it will say the Tories have royally f*cked up the Brexit process and the only way we can avoid a disastrous crash out is to accept EEA for a "transitional" period.
When the fuss has died down it will become clear that nobody really wants to transition any further - the UK will still face a cliff edge if it exits the EEA and the EU will have no reason to move since it will have lost the troublesome Brits from the political structure and they will still be paying in to the budget.
For quality of administration, I'd rank Theresa May's post-election government as by some distance the worst of my adult life.
Fortunately, it's not as if there's much going on.
It seems very similar to me to Brown's appalling efforts as the unmade decisions piled up in No 10. Admittedly there was a modest improvement with Brown when he got Mandelson back to run the country for him.
It is not the only similarity. Brown's government was rapidly overwhelmed by events that made a mockery of everything they had ever said or done in respect of the economy leaving them looking ridiculous and out of their depth. This government is overwhelmed by the complexities and uncertainties of Brexit and their inability to set the terms of engagement with the EU.
May should have been reminded before celebrating the anniversary of the Balfour declaration with Netanyahu the old adage that if you sleep with dogs you catch fleas. Her judgement is just appalling. it's not as though she wasn't warned by just about everyone. Note the absence of Royal involvement. Netanyahu is toxic. Possibly the most loathed democratically elected leader outside his home country in the world.
Were trump and putin not democratically elected?
Believe it or not if you go off UN resolutions and their support he knocks both of them into a cocked hat
UN resolutions? Is that the bellwether? What about 181?
For quality of administration, I'd rank Theresa May's post-election government as by some distance the worst of my adult life.
Fortunately, it's not as if there's much going on.
Not sure about that. There have been no administrative disasters like Margaret Beckett's Rural Payments Agency fiasco, or the NHS database fiasco, or HIPs, and so on. It's easy to forget just how bad the Blair/Brown government was at actually governing. They were good on discipline and media management, of course, but that's a different point. This government is utterly disastrous in that respect, but reasonably good on routine governing.
If I ever give up the law and take up a second career as an indie rock star, "Priti Patel's alleged plane" is going to be on the shortlist for band names.
For quality of administration, I'd rank Theresa May's post-election government as by some distance the worst of my adult life.
Fortunately, it's not as if there's much going on.
Not sure about that. There have been no administrative disasters like Margaret Beckett's Rural Payments Agency fiasco, or the NHS database fiasco, or HIPs, and so on. It's easy to forget just how bad the Blair/Brown government was at actually governing. They were good on discipline and media management, of course, but that's a different point. This government is utterly disastrous in that respect, but reasonably good on routine governing.
By "routine governing" I think you mean "not actually doing anything". Maybe wise. The NHS looks like it might be a problem for this government, as with Major.
The single market obviously means uncontrolled free movement which also means failing to respect the Leave vote fully and the millions of working class Leave voters who voted Leave to reduce immigration.
So that is clearly a non starter at this time. As is obviously the EU given the Leave victory.
All our choices are non-starters. Which is why Theresa May rejected them all in her Florence speech. We have to pick one. The PTA is at least as problematic as the others. Once those problems become clearer there will be pressure to do something different. From where I see it, the EEA is the least difficult of those options. I should stress it isn't MY choice. Getting less than what we had as a members and removing all formal influence over what happens to us makes no sense to me. But we are where we are. We have to make the best of it.
If the Conservatives won't implement EEA, Jeremy Corbyn will, closet Brexiteer or no.
Corbyn has made clear he won't back EEA permanently either to keep the 37% of Labour Leavers and 20% of UKIP voters he won on board and to ensure he can implement a socialist agenda.
Only the LDs and SNP and Greens back permanent single market membership and they got 7% and under 5% and 1% in June across the UK respectively.
He will.
(Mainly because he doesn't care strongly one way or the other).
Oh he does, he cares about winning most of all and he knows most Labour seats voted Leave (in large part because of immigration concerns).
Plus of course he has always been anti EU and voted against the Maastricht Treaty in 1993.
If "he cares about winning most of all", he's had a funny way of showing it these last 35 years.
Comments
But it is the curse of Brexit that is behind this - any other Tory leader would be in an equally impossible position.
Can't classify it under any of those headings to be honest
Labour Party are normally dead keen on calling for independent investigations.
E
Edit- I realise those are a very poor choice of words.
On a basis of simple practicality there is no way to make "transition to FTA" work. We can transition to EFTA/EEA, and from there negotiate FTA. Or crash out.
May only found out she wasn't the messiah after.
This one is embarrassing, but, Brexit aside, day-to-day administration is fine.
Good job that the Tories have a real reputation for discipline and good government under strong and stable Theresa May. Otherwise this would look like a career-ending shambles, one of those rare episodes of The Apprentice where he sacks all three of them.
So that is clearly a non starter at this time. As is obviously the EU given the Leave victory.
Theresa Villiers seemed ok (previously) as well, although NI secretary is hard to judge.
Corbyn also had a few poll leads even against Cameron.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/brexit-leaked-documents-reveal-eu-will-begin-trade-talks-britain-december-1643030
http://metro.co.uk/2017/09/03/theresa-may-secretly-agrees-to-pay-50-billion-eu-divorce-bill-6899289/
Yes, of course, Blair did agree to end the transition controls for Poland, Lithuania and Estonia but they couldn't have been maintained post 2011 and the original measure went through Parliament with no votes against (though, I suspect, a number of abstentions). The catastrophic error was the assumption the migrants would number in the low thousands rather than the numbers which actually came.
As an example, there are now 116,000 Lithuanians in the UK from a country whose total population is less than 3 million and falling from a peak of 3.6 million in 1989. The immigration story isn't just our story - it's the story of the depopulation of other parts of Eastern Europe and the correspondent decline in economic performance and investment as the labour heads west.
This is the result of the pernicious Single Market which so many on here seem to think such a good thing. It has been an unmitigated disaster for much of the peripheries of Europe.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
If the Conservatives won't implement EEA, Jeremy Corbyn will, closet Brexiteer or no.
https://twitter.com/DamianGreen/status/928251019334742016?s=17
Patel begins her descent.
Plus of course Corbyn can hardly oppose it given he backs a FTA deal too.
I agree Blair made a fatal error on transition controls.
There's a bunch of people who fear Corbyn getting in; they're not going to give him an increased chance by breaking ranks, and there's a large cohort of people who really don't like May and co; they're not going to risk letting them off the hook by breaking ranks, either.
While both sides may have lost "positive" voters, the "negative" voters more than make up for it. Neither side should worry about losing these unless there looks to be a bandwagon effect making a Cable Premiership (to exclude both of May and Corbyn), but there can't be a surge in voters towards that to create such a bandwagon effect until after it's occurred.
So it has a massive threshold to cross, and it's difficult to see how that could happen.
Only the LDs and SNP and Greens back permanent single market membership and they got 7% and under 5% and 1% in June across the UK respectively.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/875910/EU-Brexit-UK-British-travel-tourism-continent-free-movement-Malta-Spain-passport
https://twitter.com/GwynneMP/status/928261449650200576?s=17
However, your point is right in its dynamics. One reason the Lib/SDP Alliance polled so well then was because it was already reasonably strong and looked like a genuine alternative - so the fear of the other main party was much lessened. Now, they don't: they look like a wasted vote that might let the other lot in by accident.
(Mainly because he doesn't care strongly one way or the other).
Ironically, though, the best piece of transport news for the Government in months has come today - the Southern Rail strikes against the DfT-imposed DOO contracts have finally been called off - only to be completely drowned out by Departuregate.
Rochdale, contain yourself.
I think they just don't fly over central London.
Plus of course he has always been anti EU and voted against the Maastricht Treaty in 1993.
Fortunately, it's not as if there's much going on.
Unlike most people in this debate, I like to keep a sense of perspective. Sure, Brexit is likely to be an economic hit or worse, but some things are unlikely. One of those is that around a third of EU countries will, out of spite, happily clobber the tourist sectors which make up such a large proportion of their economies.
When the fuss has died down it will become clear that nobody really wants to transition any further - the UK will still face a cliff edge if it exits the EEA and the EU will have no reason to move since it will have lost the troublesome Brits from the political structure and they will still be paying in to the budget.
And the Tories will be blamed by everyone.
Win win really.
It is not the only similarity. Brown's government was rapidly overwhelmed by events that made a mockery of everything they had ever said or done in respect of the economy leaving them looking ridiculous and out of their depth. This government is overwhelmed by the complexities and uncertainties of Brexit and their inability to set the terms of engagement with the EU.