politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tick tock. Betting on the date of the UK’s exit from the EU

Casino_Royale said:

On taxes, my view is that income is already heavily taxed. Most people are paying 32%
on any significant income and 42% if they are doing well, on top of which they're paying 2-5% gross contributions for pensions.

Most people really struggle to have much left each month over after paying council tax on top
(another £1k+) utility bills, food, mortgage/rent and transport costs. I don't think it's fair
at all for the State to add to the burden.

That may well be the case. But then people need to realise that if they don't pay more they can't have the public services they appear to want.

Getting it into people's heads that if they want something they will have to pay for it, not expect someone else to do it, is essential if we're not going to go bankrupt as a nation.

That may well mean that they will have to cut back on stuff that is now seen as essential but which were seen as luxuries decades back e.g. lots of foreign holidays, nice cars, phones upgraded every few months, etc etc. We can't keep on paying ourselves more than we earn. At some point, the Micawber rule is going to kick in......

FF43 said:

Piris' point is that the constitutional requirement doesn't apply to the notification; it applies to the act of leaving. Therefore the government can withdraw its application at any time until the treaties lapse. He was the EU's chief law officer, so he should carry some weight.

It's hypothetical because the government won't withdraw its application.

Reading the Article 50 text, something just struck me in this paragraph:

The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period

There's nothing stopping the withdrawal agreement specifying an exit date LATER than two years after the notification, as long as it's agreed within the timeframe. Has anyone picked up on that?

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

Piris' point is that the constitutional requirement doesn't apply to the notification; it applies to the act of leaving. Therefore the government can withdraw its application at any time until the treaties lapse. He was the EU's chief law officer, so he should carry some weight.

It's hypothetical because the government won't withdraw its application.

Reading the Article 50 text, something just struck me in this paragraph:

The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period

There's nothing stopping the withdrawal agreement specifying an exit date LATER than two after the notification, as long as it's agreed within the timeframe. Has anyone picked up on that?

Yes, me in the thread header. See "Secondly".

rkrkrk said:

Casino_Royale said:

NickPalmer said:

No time to do a proper reply to Cyclefree's interesting post, but I'd throw in a modest wealth tax on Swiss lines (http://taxsummaries.pwc.com/ID/Switzerland-Individual-Other-taxes) - essentially you pay 0.05% (i.e. one two thousandth) on £30,000-£140,000) rising to 0.3% over £1.7 million.

The effect is to raise money almost imperceptibly from people who are well off (yes if you have £100 million you'll pay nearly £300,000, but on that bank balance you'll say meh), in a way that's harder to evade than income tax (because if you live here you have visible property here too that you can't move to the Cayman Islands); it also discourages people from just leaving wealth piled up in a current account and vacant property/unused land and nudges them into doing something with it, if only making it available for borrowing by someone else. I never met anyone in Switzerland, even rock-ribbed conservatives, who felt this unfair.

It worries me that as a right-winger I am struggling to disagree with that.

My redlines would be: no-one turfed out of their family home, or property, against their will. I would baseline such a tax to a property value index, reviewed annually. I want to see the super-rich and "tax-efficient" investment portfolios paying more tax, not ordinary families.

Time to vote Labour or Lib Dem then!

If you want a wealth tax on your neighbour, vote Liberal or Labour

IIRC

FF43 said:

david_herdson said:

FF43 said:

I think it is easier to stop or delay Brexit on legal grounds than set out here. The keywords in Article 50 are " in accordance with its own constitutional requirements" JC Piris, former EU Commission Legal Counsel, contends that this condition applies until the Treaties are nullified. In other words, if the UK decides it no longer wants to Brexit, it would no longer accord with its requirements.

However, we would probably only NOT leave on that date the EU if either the government changes its mind or the process is subject to a legal challenge. Even a technical delay, which is quite likely, will probably be dealt with using an interim version of the Transition Agreement rather than delaying the exit date.

So yes, unlikely not to happen.

No, the text says:

"Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."

That is a one-off action: it decides. There was an exceptionally high-powered court case which determined what the constitutional requirements were. These were then met. Whether or not the government, parliament or people subsequently decide that their *political* requirements have changed does not affect whether or not A50 notification was lawfully given.

Piris' point is that the constitutional requirement doesn't apply to the notification; it applies to the act of leaving. Therefore the government can withdraw its application at any time until the treaties lapse. He was the EU's chief law officer, so he should carry some weight.

It's hypothetical because the government won't withdraw its application.

That was the basis of Lord Docherty's decision in Scotland. An appeal has been contrived and should be heard by the Inner House (effectively the Court of Appeal) next month but the appeal will again be restricted to the question of whether this judicial review can even proceed to a substantive hearing.

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

FF43 said:

I think it is easier to stop or delay Brexit on legal grounds than set out here. The keywords in Article 50 are " in accordance with its own constitutional requirements" JC Piris, former EU Commission Legal Counsel, contends that this condition applies until the Treaties are nullified. In other words, if the UK decides it no longer wants to Brexit, it would no longer accord with its requirements.

However, we would probably only NOT leave on that date the EU if either the government changes its mind or the process is subject to a legal challenge. Even a technical delay, which is quite likely, will probably be dealt with using an interim version of the Transition Agreement rather than delaying the exit date.

So yes, unlikely not to happen.

No, the text says:

"Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."

That is a one-off action: it decides. There was an exceptionally high-powered court case which determined what the constitutional requirements were. These were then met. Whether or not the government, parliament or people subsequently decide that their *political* requirements have changed does not affect whether or not A50 notification was lawfully given.

This is the former head of the European Council's legal service:
https://twitter.com/piris_jc/status/962802993665101824

I don't think that it was ever intended that EU member States could serve and then withdraw A.50 Notices at will. Any member State could then use it as a tactic to obtain concessions from the rest.

rkrkrk said:

DavidL said:

TheValiant said:

Cyclefree said:

The only thing I disagree with is that I would scrap NI - And raise Income tax to 32%, 42% and 47%. To be fair, I'd overhaul IT completely to be a bit more sensible. The current TRUE bandings are a farce (0%, 12%, 32%, briefly up to 52% (NI band is £45,032 - tax is £45,000), back to 42%, then up to 62% (losing personal allowance) before back to 42% and then finally back up to 47%.

Goodness, having typed that I realise what a mess our tax system is. Where was George Osborne and his 'Tax simplification initiative'? The only thing he did was eliminate form P9D.

And of course, if you're married (and get the Marriage allowance transfer) and claim child benefit like I do, the rates are even more convoluted.

I completely agree that NI should be incorporated into IT now. Those living on rental or dividend income should not pay less tax than those who work for it (I accept of course that obtaining rent and indeed getting dividends from your own company does not mean it has not been worked for but this is all the more reason why this should be treated the same).

That means more tax for the elderly better off. Tough. Many of those who retired on final salary pension schemes have far more disposable income as well as lower outgoings than those with young children trying to buy their first home.

I also think we have reached the limits of taking people in work out of tax. Far too many people are being incentivised to vote for higher taxes in the confident expectation that they will not pay them. There is an attraction to avoiding the complication of taxes for those who are significant recipients of in work benefits but given how far up the income scale these still go we cannot avoid that.

The more I think about the mess that is our tax system the more I want Michael Gove as Chancellor.

I find Gove as Chancellor an intriguing prospect.
I think it entirely possible that once there he would horrify many of his supporters.

Is it far fetched to see him raising taxes on wealth significantly? Or slashing taxes on income for high earners? The range of possibilities is large I reckon.

But Gove is about the only person prepared to think the unthinkable, and then spend as long as it takes to defend the policy to the country and the media. The income tax and NI system as a whole is a complete mess, after decades of tinkering by Chancellors of all stripes. It needs throwing in the bin and starting again from scratch.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Hang on, maybe the market isn't quite so clear cut after all:

14:06 A new political party hoping to halt Brexit and run candidates in all 650 constituencies at the next general election was launched in Westminster today in an optimistic attempt to capitalise on what its leaders said was disenchantment with established political parties.

Renew has no high-profile candidates or donors and is led by three principals who have almost no prior political experience, although the philosopher AC Grayling was present at today’s launch, saying he was “rooting for” the party...

https://www.theguardian.com/education/live/2018/feb/19/theresa-may-to-set-out-tuition-fee-proposals-politics-live

AC Grayling, the next James Chapman.

AlastairMeeks said:

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

Piris' point is that the constitutional requirement doesn't apply to the notification; it applies to the act of leaving. Therefore the government can withdraw its application at any time until the treaties lapse. He was the EU's chief law officer, so he should carry some weight.

It's hypothetical because the government won't withdraw its application.

Reading the Article 50 text, something just struck me in this paragraph:

The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period

There's nothing stopping the withdrawal agreement specifying an exit date LATER than two after the notification, as long as it's agreed within the timeframe. Has anyone picked up on that?

Yes, me in the thread header. See "Secondly".

Duh!

I could see this addressing concerns about the legality of the transition agreement. It might also help shore up our own third party arrangements. The treaties would still apply but we would voluntarily through the Withdrawal Agreement stop our participation in decision making.

Sandpit said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Hang on, maybe the market isn't quite so clear cut after all:

14:06 A new political party hoping to halt Brexit and run candidates in all 650 constituencies at the next general election was launched in Westminster today in an optimistic attempt to capitalise on what its leaders said was disenchantment with established political parties.

Renew has no high-profile candidates or donors and is led by three principals who have almost no prior political experience, although the philosopher AC Grayling was present at today’s launch, saying he was “rooting for” the party...

https://www.theguardian.com/education/live/2018/feb/19/theresa-may-to-set-out-tuition-fee-proposals-politics-live

AC Grayling, the next James Chapman.

Describing Mrs May's speech as "live" seems a little optimistic.

Pulpstar said:

David_Evershed said:

They don't include the liability for future pension payments in the public debt figures.

Do they not - Jesus, that is simply a trillion pound accounting trick.

Nope, never have done. Public pensions are simply paid for out of current departmental budgets, no pot, no accounting, no formal liabilities....

Given that British Airways are close to having as many retired pilots as current pilots, some government departments must have crossed that threshold by now.

John_M said:

DavidL said:

John_M said:

A couple of points:

1.From memory of my time toiling for Her Majesty (not at her pleasure, I hasten to add), new entrants to the Civil Service are already on a DC pension. I maybe wrong.

Pretty certain that is wrong. What has changed is that the pension benefits are now based on average earnings across the career rather than final salary. This will have a major impact on the better paid, especially those who contrive promotion to a better paid post very shortly before they retire.

I checked; it's a mixed economy.

http://www.civilservicepensionscheme.org.uk/members/appointment-of-a-new-defined-contribution-pension-provider-for-civil-service-pensions/

This only seems to be for additional pension entitlements or the odd crazy who chooses not to join the scheme offered:

"The three defined contribution schemes are:
1.Additional Voluntary Contribution Scheme
2.Partnership Pension Account
3.Stand-alone Stakeholder Account"

williamglenn said:

FF43 said:

I could see this addressing concerns about the legality of the transition agreement. It might also help shore up our own third party arrangements. The treaties would still apply but we would voluntarily through the Withdrawal Agreement stop our participation in decision making.

I think Piris has addressed this in the past too. It's not possible because if we remain a full member, the EU would be unable to pass legislation lawfully without our representation so everything would grind to a halt.

... unless all parties agree otherwise?

John_M said:

A couple of points:

1.From memory of my time toiling for Her Majesty (not at her pleasure, I hasten to add), new entrants to the Civil Service are already on a DC pension. I maybe wrong.

2. I'd like to see some simple mechanisms for inter-generational wealth transfers. Setting up trusts can be expensive, gifting is limited if you have multiple children and so on. It would be nice for me to help my children before I actually shuffle off this mortal coil.

I feel there's a consensus that taxes have to rise. As an affluent early retiree, I'd support the removal of NI and a raising of income tax. Brutally simple.

The Civil Service in Scotland at least has two schemes. The DB one is only open to new recruits at a relatively high grade

PeterMannion said:

rkrkrk said:

Casino_Royale said:

NickPalmer said:

No time to do a proper reply to Cyclefree's interesting post, but I'd throw in a modest wealth tax on Swiss lines (http://taxsummaries.pwc.com/ID/Switzerland-Individual-Other-taxes) - essentially you pay 0.05% (i.e. one two thousandth) on £30,000-£140,000) rising to 0.3% over £1.7 million.

The effect is to raise money almost imperceptibly from people who are well off (yes if you have £100 million you'll pay nearly £300,000, but on that bank balance you'll say meh), in a way that's harder to evade than income tax (because if you live here you have visible property here too that you can't move to the Cayman Islands); it also discourages people from just leaving wealth piled up in a current account and vacant property/unused land and nudges them into doing something with it, if only making it available for borrowing by someone else. I never met anyone in Switzerland, even rock-ribbed conservatives, who felt this unfair.

It worries me that as a right-winger I am struggling to disagree with that.

My redlines would be: no-one turfed out of their family home, or property, against their will. I would baseline such a tax to a property value index, reviewed annually. I want to see the super-rich and "tax-efficient" investment portfolios paying more tax, not ordinary families.

Time to vote Labour or Lib Dem then!

If you want a wealth tax on your neighbour, vote Liberal or Labour

IIRC

What alternative are you in favour of?

Or are you prepared to let Public Services go to rat shit?

williamglenn said:

Barnesian said:

williamglenn said:

FF43 said:

I could see this addressing concerns about the legality of the transition agreement. It might also help shore up our own third party arrangements. The treaties would still apply but we would voluntarily through the Withdrawal Agreement stop our participation in decision making.

I think Piris has addressed this in the past too. It's not possible because if we remain a full member, the EU would be unable to pass legislation lawfully without our representation so everything would grind to a halt.

... unless all parties agree otherwise?

I don't think so. We could maybe abstain in the Council by default, but by what right would our 73 seats in the parliament be left vacant? If we're full members we would need to hold elections.

Yes. If the transition period is redefined as an A50 extension (and agreed by everyone) then we will have to elect MEPs in May 2019 as we will still be members.

Barnesian said:

williamglenn said:

Barnesian said:

williamglenn said:

FF43 said:

I could see this addressing concerns about the legality of the transition agreement. It might also help shore up our own third party arrangements. The treaties would still apply but we would voluntarily through the Withdrawal Agreement stop our participation in decision making.

I think Piris has addressed this in the past too. It's not possible because if we remain a full member, the EU would be unable to pass legislation lawfully without our representation so everything would grind to a halt.

... unless all parties agree otherwise?

I don't think so. We could maybe abstain in the Council by default, but by what right would our 73 seats in the parliament be left vacant? If we're full members we would need to hold elections.

Surely it would be possible for the UK government to formally agree with the EU that we would not hold elections for MEPs and not take up our seats. What would be the legal challenge to that?

It would disfranchise the population of the UK.

(For the record, getting agreement to extend the deadline during the Greek sovereign debt crisis - to allow for the referendum - was a much contentious decision. And was achieved in about an hour.)

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/jrmaidment/status/965589698163937280

Why would she want to talk to young people? They aren't going to vote for her....

(Although, I'm not sure anyone will vote for her again; surely she retires at the next election?)

DavidL said:

John_M said:

DavidL said:

John_M said:

A couple of points:

1.From memory of my time toiling for Her Majesty (not at her pleasure, I hasten to add), new entrants to the Civil Service are already on a DC pension. I maybe wrong.

Pretty certain that is wrong. What has changed is that the pension benefits are now based on average earnings across the career rather than final salary. This will have a major impact on the better paid, especially those who contrive promotion to a better paid post very shortly before they retire.

I checked; it's a mixed economy.

http://www.civilservicepensionscheme.org.uk/members/appointment-of-a-new-defined-contribution-pension-provider-for-civil-service-pensions/

This only seems to be for additional pension entitlements or the odd crazy who chooses not to join the scheme offered:

"The three defined contribution schemes are:
1.Additional Voluntary Contribution Scheme
2.Partnership Pension Account
3.Stand-alone Stakeholder Account"

And these are all only for the green twentysomethings going in at the bottom, for everyone else there’s still at least 30 years of people on the old final salary schemes still to retire on unaccounted-for pensions.

Barnesian said:

williamglenn said:

Barnesian said:

williamglenn said:

Barnesian said:

williamglenn said:

FF43 said:

I could see this addressing concerns about the legality of the transition agreement. It might also help shore up our own third party arrangements. The treaties would still apply but we would voluntarily through the Withdrawal Agreement stop our participation in decision making.

I think Piris has addressed this in the past too. It's not possible because if we remain a full member, the EU would be unable to pass legislation lawfully without our representation so everything would grind to a halt.

... unless all parties agree otherwise?

I don't think so. We could maybe abstain in the Council by default, but by what right would our 73 seats in the parliament be left vacant? If we're full members we would need to hold elections.

Surely it would be possible for the UK government to formally agree with the EU that we would not hold elections for MEPs and not take up our seats. What would be the legal challenge to that?

It would disfranchise the population of the UK.

Yes true. But that's equivalent to the transition period. What would be the potential legal challenge in the courts?

Richard's just given one example. I believe the more fundamental objection is that the resulting parliament wouldn't be able to operate lawfully under the treaties if one member state were not represented. It's one thing to be an external 'vassal state', but another to be a member treated the same way.

rcs1000 said:

Worth betting on at 6/4? No, definitely not, because there's at least a 10% chance of a disorganised Brexit, and probably a 50% chance that all will be done on time.

But more than a 1/4 shot. It should probably be 4/6.

Errm if you back 4-6 shots at 6-4 then long term you'll make wads of cash ?

Richard_Tyndall said:

Barnesian said:

williamglenn said:

Barnesian said:

williamglenn said:

FF43 said:

I could see this addressing concerns about the legality of the transition agreement. It might also help shore up our own third party arrangements. The treaties would still apply but we would voluntarily through the Withdrawal Agreement stop our participation in decision making.

I think Piris has addressed this in the past too. It's not possible because if we remain a full member, the EU would be unable to pass legislation lawfully without our representation so everything would grind to a halt.

... unless all parties agree otherwise?

I don't think so. We could maybe abstain in the Council by default, but by what right would our 73 seats in the parliament be left vacant? If we're full members we would need to hold elections.

Surely it would be possible for the UK government to formally agree with the EU that we would not hold elections for MEPs and not take up our seats. What would be the legal challenge to that?

Again you have to remember that the ECJ sees it as its duty to uphold the rights of the citizens of the EU according to the treaties. As such it would certainly respond to any UK citizen who decided to challenge an agreement between the EU and the UK which resulted in the removal of their voting rights whilst the UK was still remained a member of the EU.

OK. I'm just exploring possibilities. What if there was a simple amendment to the treaties agreed by all parties that removed the voting rights of UK citizens? Then that would be part of the treaties the ECJ would refer to. I'm sure a UK citizen would appeal to the ECJ but to what practical effect? The Euro elections would be held and we wouldn't take part.

williamglenn said:

Barnesian said:

williamglenn said:

Barnesian said:

williamglenn said:

Barnesian said:

williamglenn said:

FF43 said:

I could see this addressing concerns about the legality of the transition agreement. It might also help shore up our own third party arrangements. The treaties would still apply but we would voluntarily through the Withdrawal Agreement stop our participation in decision making.

I think Piris has addressed this in the past too. It's not possible because if we remain a full member, the EU would be unable to pass legislation lawfully without our representation so everything would grind to a halt.

... unless all parties agree otherwise?

I don't think so. We could maybe abstain in the Council by default, but by what right would our 73 seats in the parliament be left vacant? If we're full members we would need to hold elections.

Surely it would be possible for the UK government to formally agree with the EU that we would not hold elections for MEPs and not take up our seats. What would be the legal challenge to that?

It would disfranchise the population of the UK.

Yes true. But that's equivalent to the transition period. What would be the potential legal challenge in the courts?

Richard's just given one example. I believe the more fundamental objection is that the resulting parliament wouldn't be able to operate lawfully under the treaties if one member state were not represented. It's one thing to be an external 'vassal state', but another to be a member treated the same way.

An agreed amendment to existing treaties that says "Replace EU members" with "EU members excluding the UK" in sections .... and we sign on the dotted line. Could be agreed in an hour.

(Another) article explaining the obvious appeal of Corbyn amongst the young:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/feb/19/uk-millennials-second-worst-hit-financially-in-developed-world-says-study

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/965607674011365377

Oh lord.

Is it too much to hope that she knows there is more to come on this and doesn't want to jump the gun just yet? You know, like a charge of treason?

Probably.

Tine to wake up David

If there is dampness it was probably a dream!!

bigjohnowls said:

PeterMannion said:

rkrkrk said:

Casino_Royale said:

NickPalmer said:

No time to do a proper reply to Cyclefree's interesting post, but I'd throw in a modest wealth tax on Swiss lines (http://taxsummaries.pwc.com/ID/Switzerland-Individual-Other-taxes) - essentially you pay 0.05% (i.e. one two thousandth) on £30,000-£140,000) rising to 0.3% over £1.7 million.

The effect is to raise money almost imperceptibly from people who are well off (yes if you have £100 million you'll pay nearly £300,000, but on that bank balance you'll say meh), in a way that's harder to evade than income tax (because if you live here you have visible property here too that you can't move to the Cayman Islands); it also discourages people from just leaving wealth piled up in a current account and vacant property/unused land and nudges them into doing something with it, if only making it available for borrowing by someone else. I never met anyone in Switzerland, even rock-ribbed conservatives, who felt this unfair.

It worries me that as a right-winger I am struggling to disagree with that.

My redlines would be: no-one turfed out of their family home, or property, against their will. I would baseline such a tax to a property value index, reviewed annually. I want to see the super-rich and "tax-efficient" investment portfolios paying more tax, not ordinary families.

Time to vote Labour or Lib Dem then!

If you want a wealth tax on your neighbour, vote Liberal or Labour

IIRC

What alternative are you in favour of?

Or are you prepared to let Public Services go to rat shit?

Stop talking down our pubic services!

Pulpstar said:

rcs1000 said:

Worth betting on at 6/4? No, definitely not, because there's at least a 10% chance of a disorganised Brexit, and probably a 50% chance that all will be done on time.

But more than a 1/4 shot. It should probably be 4/6.

Errm if you back 4-6 shots at 6-4 then long term you'll make wads of cash ?

Oops: I mean it's about a 40% chance that Brexit is delayed a few weeks, and therefore there is no value to be had here.

DavidL said:

FF43 said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/965607674011365377

Oh lord.

Is it too much to hope that she knows there is more to come on this and doesn't want to jump the gun just yet? You know, like a charge of treason?

Probably.

What do you expect? So far the only known facts about Corbyn is that he chatted about his pet dogs and fish with a Czech "diplomat" and mentioned he didn't like Thatcher and Reagan, and he went on a cycling holiday in East Germany with his wife. A Czech former spy has made vague claims about Corbyn working for the Soviets as well as the Czechs. The latter is contradicted by the official archivist for the Czech spy agency. There were plenty of people who definitely were spies, including the last elected Czech Prime Minister, so it's not as if it's all hidden.

There was a carefully hedged allegation in the ST that he might have received a payment of £10K for his services to them. We also know that the diplomat was expelled by the UK government as a spy. If it were established that a UK MP had received money from a hostile foreign government to disclose information or even insight that he obtained as an MP I think we are getting perilously close to treason.

But the point TSE was making was that even if we are not in that territory it really wasn't an occasion for one of Mrs May's non answers. She just can't help herself.

The same source claims that he organised Live Aid. A shovel full of salt required:

https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/965020548592996357

Richard_Tyndall said:

Barnesian said:

williamglenn said:

Barnesian said:

williamglenn said:

Barnesian said:

williamglenn said:

Barnesian said:

williamglenn said:

FF43 said:

I could see this addressing concerns about the legality of the transition agreement. It might also help shore up our own third party arrangements. The treaties would still apply but we would voluntarily through the Withdrawal Agreement stop our participation in decision making.

I think Piris has addressed this in the past too. It's not possible because if we remain a full member, the EU would be unable to pass legislation lawfully without our representation so everything would grind to a halt.

... unless all parties agree otherwise?

I don't think so. We could maybe abstain in the Council by default, but by what right would our 73 seats in the parliament be left vacant? If we're full members we would need to hold elections.

Surely it would be possible for the UK government to formally agree with the EU that we would not hold elections for MEPs and not take up our seats. What would be the legal challenge to that?

It would disfranchise the population of the UK.

Yes true. But that's equivalent to the transition period. What would be the potential legal challenge in the courts?

Richard's just given one example. I believe the more fundamental objection is that the resulting parliament wouldn't be able to operate lawfully under the treaties if one member state were not represented. It's one thing to be an external 'vassal state', but another to be a member treated the same way.

An agreed amendment to existing treaties that says "Replace EU members" with "EU members excluding the UK" in sections .... and we sign on the dotted line. Could be agreed in an hour.

I think it would be considered the equivalent of the UK Parliament passing an act abolishing elections. It might be legal within the context of Parliament but the courts would certainly strike it down.

Although there is the question of timing. The ECJ is not quick to schedule cases. And once we'd left, then any ECJ decision would be moot.

That being said, absent some momentous international event (such as Russia invading Estonia), I can't see any delay stretching beyond the EU elections. And I suspect the EU elections are the real hard cut off point for negotiations.

FrancisUrquhart said:

bigjohnowls said:

FF43 said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/965607674011365377

Oh lord.

Is it too much to hope that she knows there is more to come on this and doesn't want to jump the gun just yet? You know, like a charge of treason?

Probably.

What do you expect? So far the only known facts about Corbyn is that he chatted about his pet dogs and fish with a Czech "diplomat" and mentioned he didn't like Thatcher and Reagan, and he went on a cycling holiday in East Germany with his wife. A Czech former spy has made vague claims about Corbyn working for the Soviets as well as the Czechs. The latter is contradicted by the official archivist for the Czech spy agency. There were plenty of people who definitely were spies, including the last elected Czech Prime Minister, so it's not as if it's all hidden.

Aren't the right wing press getting Jezza mixed up with Ray Mawby MP (codename - LAVAL)

More likely to be confused with John Stonehouse...

Him as well.

Jezza is no Lord Lucan lookalike though

DavidL said:

FF43 said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/965607674011365377

Oh lord.

Is it too much to hope that she knows there is more to come on this and doesn't want to jump the gun just yet? You know, like a charge of treason?

Probably.

What do you expect? So far the only known facts about Corbyn is that he chatted about his pet dogs and fish with a Czech "diplomat" and mentioned he didn't like Thatcher and Reagan, and he went on a cycling holiday in East Germany with his wife. A Czech former spy has made vague claims about Corbyn working for the Soviets as well as the Czechs. The latter is contradicted by the official archivist for the Czech spy agency. There were plenty of people who definitely were spies, including the last elected Czech Prime Minister, so it's not as if it's all hidden.

There was a carefully hedged allegation in the ST that he might have received a payment of £10K for his services to them. We also know that the diplomat was expelled by the UK government as a spy. If it were established that a UK MP had received money from a hostile foreign government to disclose information or even insight that he obtained as an MP I think we are getting perilously close to treason.

But the point TSE was making was that even if we are not in that territory it really wasn't an occasion for one of Mrs May's non answers. She just can't help herself.

According to Wiki this Tory MP was definitely a Commie Spy source

Following access by the BBC to previously secret files held by the current Czech Republic security services, it was revealed on 28 June 2012 that Mawby, who was given the code name "Laval", had spied for the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic during the Cold War. He received £100 (approx. £1,530 at 2012 prices) per nugget of information, and even signed a receipt for one payment.[4] He handed over handwritten floor plans of the Prime Minister's office in the House of Commons, and details of who provided security at the office. He also promised to ask questions in the House on behalf of his paymasters.

During the decade that Mawby supplied information he handed over lists of parliamentary committees, and details about his fellow politicians, including a supposedly confidential parliamentary investigation into a Conservative peer. Meetings sometimes took place three or four times in a month, although this greatly decreased by the end of the 1960s, and ended completely in November 1971.

There is no indication in MI5's authorised history that they knew of Mawby's spying activities, and he is the only Conservative MP known to have spied for a Communist government.

bigjohnowls said:

DavidL said:

FF43 said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/965607674011365377

Oh lord.

Is it too much to hope that she knows there is more to come on this and doesn't want to jump the gun just yet? You know, like a charge of treason?

Probably.

What do you expect? So far the only known facts about Corbyn is that he chatted about his pet dogs and fish with a Czech "diplomat" and mentioned he didn't like Thatcher and Reagan, and he went on a cycling holiday in East Germany with his wife. A Czech former spy has made vague claims about Corbyn working for the Soviets as well as the Czechs. The latter is contradicted by the official archivist for the Czech spy agency. There were plenty of people who definitely were spies, including the last elected Czech Prime Minister, so it's not as if it's all hidden.

There was a carefully hedged allegation in the ST that he might have received a payment of £10K for his services to them. We also know that the diplomat was expelled by the UK government as a spy. If it were established that a UK MP had received money from a hostile foreign government to disclose information or even insight that he obtained as an MP I think we are getting perilously close to treason.

But the point TSE was making was that even if we are not in that territory it really wasn't an occasion for one of Mrs May's non answers. She just can't help herself.

According to Wiki this Tory MP was definitely a Commie Spy source

Following access by the BBC to previously secret files held by the current Czech Republic security services, it was revealed on 28 June 2012 that Mawby, who was given the code name "Laval", had spied for the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic during the Cold War. He received £100 (approx. £1,530 at 2012 prices) per nugget of information, and even signed a receipt for one payment.[4] He handed over handwritten floor plans of the Prime Minister's office in the House of Commons, and details of who provided security at the office. He also promised to ask questions in the House on behalf of his paymasters.

During the decade that Mawby supplied information he handed over lists of parliamentary committees, and details about his fellow politicians, including a supposedly confidential parliamentary investigation into a Conservative peer. Meetings sometimes took place three or four times in a month, although this greatly decreased by the end of the 1960s, and ended completely in November 1971.

There is no indication in MI5's authorised history that they knew of Mawby's spying activities, and he is the only Conservative MP known to have spied for a Communist government.

Is he standing to be PM at the next GE though?

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/965618684583653377

Richard_Nabavi said:

bigjohnowls said:

According to Wiki this Tory MP was definitely a Commie Spy source

Following access by the BBC to previously secret files held by the current Czech Republic security services, it was revealed on 28 June 2012 that Mawby, who was given the code name "Laval", had spied for the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic during the Cold War. He received £100 (approx. £1,530 at 2012 prices) per nugget of information, and even signed a receipt for one payment.[4] He handed over handwritten floor plans of the Prime Minister's office in the House of Commons, and details of who provided security at the office. He also promised to ask questions in the House on behalf of his paymasters.

During the decade that Mawby supplied information he handed over lists of parliamentary committees, and details about his fellow politicians, including a supposedly confidential parliamentary investigation into a Conservative peer. Meetings sometimes took place three or four times in a month, although this greatly decreased by the end of the 1960s, and ended completely in November 1971.

There is no indication in MI5's authorised history that they knew of Mawby's spying activities, and he is the only Conservative MP known to have spied for a Communist government.

The thing is, though, he's not trying to become our next PM. A rather big difference, doncha think?

Good try, though.

He is only repeating Sqkwawkbox's best efforts....

Given that Harold Wilson and Tom Driberg were Commie spies you can understand why the Czechs targeted Corbyn.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

bigjohnowls said:

According to Wiki this Tory MP was definitely a Commie Spy source

Following access by the BBC to previously secret files held by the current Czech Republic security services, it was revealed on 28 June 2012 that Mawby, who was given the code name "Laval", had spied for the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic during the Cold War. He received £100 (approx. £1,530 at 2012 prices) per nugget of information, and even signed a receipt for one payment.[4] He handed over handwritten floor plans of the Prime Minister's office in the House of Commons, and details of who provided security at the office. He also promised to ask questions in the House on behalf of his paymasters.

During the decade that Mawby supplied information he handed over lists of parliamentary committees, and details about his fellow politicians, including a supposedly confidential parliamentary investigation into a Conservative peer. Meetings sometimes took place three or four times in a month, although this greatly decreased by the end of the 1960s, and ended completely in November 1971.

There is no indication in MI5's authorised history that they knew of Mawby's spying activities, and he is the only Conservative MP known to have spied for a Communist government.

The thing is, though, he's not trying to become our next PM. A rather big difference, doncha think?

Good try, though.

He is only repeating Sqkwawkbox's best efforts....

The Corbyn groupies do seem quite rattled by the revelations about Agent Cob.

DavidL said:

bigjohnowls said:

DavidL said:

FF43 said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Oh lord.

Is it too much to hope that she knows there is more to come on this and doesn't want to jump the gun just yet? You know, like a charge of treason?

Probably.

What do you expect? So far the only known facts about Corbyn is that he chatted about his pet dogs and fish with a Czech "diplomat" and mentioned he didn't like Thatcher and Reagan, and he went on a cycling holiday in East Germany with his wife. A Czech former spy has made vague claims about Corbyn working for the Soviets as well as the Czechs. The latter is contradicted by the official archivist for the Czech spy agency. There were plenty of people who definitely were spies, including the last elected Czech Prime Minister, so it's not as if it's all hidden.

There was a carefully hedged allegation in the ST that he might have received a payment of £10K for his services to them. We also know that the diplomat was expelled by the UK government as a spy. If it were established that a UK MP had received money from a hostile foreign government to disclose information or even insight that he obtained as an MP I think we are getting perilously close to treason.

But the point TSE was making was that even if we are not in that territory it really wasn't an occasion for one of Mrs May's non answers. She just can't help herself.

According to Wiki this Tory MP was definitely a Commie Spy source

Following access by the BBC to previously secret files held by the current Czech Republic security services, it was revealed on 28 June 2012 that Mawby, who was given the code name "Laval", had spied for the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic during the Cold War. He received £100 (approx. £1,530 at 2012 prices) per nugget of information, and even signed a receipt for one payment.[4] He handed over handwritten floor pl

During the decade that Mawby supplied information he handed over lists of parliamentary committees, and details about his fellow politicians, including a supposedly confidential parliamentary investigation into a Conservative peer. Meetings sometimes took place three or four times in a month, although this greatly decreased by the end of the 1960s, and ended completely in November 1971.

There is no indication in MI5's authorised history that they knew of Mawby's spying activities, and he is the only Conservative MP known to have spied for a Communist government.

So the fact that one scumbag of a Tory MP was a traitor makes what Corbyn allegedly did alright? Is that your argument?

No its the fact one did it and one didnt that matters

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/965607674011365377

Can you imagine the media running a story of Hague or Cameron being a paid informer for a neo-Nazi group, Bad Al would have summoned the forces of darkness from every corner of the earth and the outriders would be slipping this into every single media appearance. The media wouldn't need to ask Tony for a quote, Bad Al would have every Labourite crow barring it into every answer to every question on every subject.

To be honest, while it's more omission by accident (or inability to do politics, if you prefer), I still think it's the right decision. Fact is, these sort of stories were run pre-2017GE and gained very little traction. It's all a long time ago and those for whom it matters are already in the Con camp. The media have kept the story live and that should help to reinforce the determination of that anti-Corbyn group to stick where they are. The government doesn't need to try to use it - too many people will feel it to be of little importance to today's challenges.

FWIW, I very much doubt that Corbyn was an agent of any nature for the Czechs or anyone else. I do think that they might well have been scoping him out as a potential useful idiot who could spout their propaganda as a "voice for peace and understanding in Europe".

bigjohnowls said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

bigjohnowls said:

According to Wiki this Tory MP was definitely a Commie Spy source

Following access by the BBC to previously secret files held by the current Czech Republic security services, it was revealed on 28 June 2012 that Mawby, who was given the code name "Laval", had spied for the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic during the Cold War. He received £100 (approx. £1,530 at 2012 prices) per nugget of information, and even signed a receipt for one payment.[4] He handed over handwritten floor plans of the Prime Minister's office in the House of Commons, and details of who provided security at the office. He also promised to ask questions in the House on behalf of his paymasters.

During the decade that Mawby supplied information he handed over lists of parliamentary committees, and details about his fellow politicians, including a supposedly confidential parliamentary investigation into a Conservative peer. Meetings sometimes took place three or four times in a month, although this greatly decreased by the end of the 1960s, and ended completely in November 1971.

There is no indication in MI5's authorised history that they knew of Mawby's spying activities, and he is the only Conservative MP known to have spied for a Communist government.

The thing is, though, he's not trying to become our next PM. A rather big difference, doncha think?

Good try, though.

He is only repeating Sqkwawkbox's best efforts....

The Corbyn groupies do seem quite rattled by the revelations about Agent Cob.

Do you seriously believe the allegations?

Same to you DavidL I thought you were a sensible chap do you honestly believe "Corbyn and the Commie Spy"?

ISTR you believed the 'Cameron and the pig' story, which had a heck of a lot less basis in reality or likelihood.

You would have thought the Sun would have printed some actual "evidence" by now wouldnt you Anyone know how to photo shot Corbyn into this article?

https://skwawkbox.org/2018/02/19/this-is-whats-in-a-real-czech-moles-file-a-tory-one/

logical_song said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Given that Harold Wilson and Tom Driberg were Commie spies you can understand why the Czechs targeted Corbyn.

As reported in The Telegraph, MI5 disagree with your assertion that Wilson was a spy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/16/historys-greatest-conspiracy-theories/harold-wilson-was-a-soviet-agent/

I'm an expert in MI5 and the KGB.

Wilson was a Commie agent, just like Trump.

Plus Wilson, like Driberg went to that nest of traitors, Oxford University.

When considering Jeremy Corbyn and the Communist bloc, for some reason the poem about journalistic ethics springs to mind:

You cannot hope to bribe or twist,
Thank God! the British journalist.
But, seeing what the man will do
Unbribed, there's no occasion to.

david_herdson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/965607674011365377

Can you imagine the media running a story of Hague or Cameron being a paid informer for a neo-Nazi group, Bad Al would have summoned the forces of darkness from every corner of the earth and the outriders would be slipping this into every single media appearance. The media wouldn't need to ask Tony for a quote, Bad Al would have every Labourite crow barring it into every answer to every question on every subject.

To be honest, while it's more omission by accident (or inability to do politics, if you prefer), I still think it's the right decision. Fact is, these sort of stories were run pre-2017GE and gained very little traction. It's all a long time ago and those for whom it matters are already in the Con camp. The media have kept the story live and that should help to reinforce the determination of that anti-Corbyn group to stick where they are. The government doesn't need to try to use it - too many people will feel it to be of little importance to today's challenges.

FWIW, I very much doubt that Corbyn was an agent of any nature for the Czechs or anyone else. I do think that they might well have been scoping him out as a potential useful idiot who could spout their propaganda as a "voice for peace and understanding in Europe".

A willing useful idiot....which is actually worse than a spy in some ways, because a) made him as thick as pigshit and b) his loyalties lay with oppressive communists regimes.

Yorkcity said:

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

David_Evershed said:

They don't include the liability for future pension payments in the public debt figures.

Do they not - Jesus, that is simply a trillion pound accounting trick.

Nope, never have done. Public pensions are simply paid for out of current departmental budgets, no pot, no accounting, no formal liabilities....

Given that British Airways are close to having as many retired pilots as current pilots, some government departments must have crossed that threshold by now.

I think the LGPS is not paid from current departmental budgets.I believe the government wanted them to help fund infrastructure projects.(Local Government Pension Scheme )https://www.ipe.com/countries/uk/uk-government-not-directing-lgps-infrastructure-investment/10015818.article

I think the LGPS is different, but don’t know enough about it to comment. I believe that there’s a long legacy of unfunded pensions still payable by councils, the LGPS being a relatively new idea.

TheScreamingEagles said:

logical_song said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Given that Harold Wilson and Tom Driberg were Commie spies you can understand why the Czechs targeted Corbyn.

As reported in The Telegraph, MI5 disagree with your assertion that Wilson was a spy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/16/historys-greatest-conspiracy-theories/harold-wilson-was-a-soviet-agent/

I'm an expert in MI5 and the KGB.

Wilson was a Commie agent, just like Trump.

Plus Wilson, like Driberg went to that nest of traitors, Oxford University.

People in this country have had enough of experts!

FrancisUrquhart said:

david_herdson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/965607674011365377

Can you imagine the media running a story of Hague or Cameron being a paid informer for a neo-Nazi group, Bad Al would have summoned the forces of darkness from every corner of the earth and the outriders would be slipping this into every single media appearance. The media wouldn't need to ask Tony for a quote, Bad Al would have every Labourite crow barring it into every answer to every question on every subject.

To be honest, while it's more omission by accident (or inability to do politics, if you prefer), I still think it's the right decision. Fact is, these sort of stories were run pre-2017GE and gained very little traction. It's all a long time ago and those for whom it matters are already in the Con camp. The media have kept the story live and that should help to reinforce the determination of that anti-Corbyn group to stick where they are. The government doesn't need to try to use it - too many people will feel it to be of little importance to today's challenges.

FWIW, I very much doubt that Corbyn was an agent of any nature for the Czechs or anyone else. I do think that they might well have been scoping him out as a potential useful idiot who could spout their propaganda as a "voice for peace and understanding in Europe".

A willing useful idiot....which is actually worse than a spy in some ways, because a) made him as thick as pigshit and b) his loyalties lay with oppressive communists regimes.

Leopards dont change their spots. Corbynistas arrogantly assume that nothing, no matter what their hero did in the past can damage him. In the end he will do something that reveals him for the low life that he is.

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/965618684583653377

I think that is the first German poll where the AfD is ahead of the SPD?

FrancisUrquhart said:

david_herdson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/965607674011365377

Can you imagine the media running a story of Hague or Cameron being a paid informer for a neo-Nazi group, Bad Al would have summoned the forces of darkness from every corner of the earth and the outriders would be slipping this into every single media appearance. The media wouldn't need to ask Tony for a quote, Bad Al would have every Labourite crow barring it into every answer to every question on every subject.

To be honest, while it's more omission by accident (or inability to do politics, if you prefer), I still think it's the right decision. Fact is, these sort of stories were run pre-2017GE and gained very little traction. It's all a long time ago and those for whom it matters are already in the Con camp. The media have kept the story live and that should help to reinforce the determination of that anti-Corbyn group to stick where they are. The government doesn't need to try to use it - too many people will feel it to be of little importance to today's challenges.

FWIW, I very much doubt that Corbyn was an agent of any nature for the Czechs or anyone else. I do think that they might well have been scoping him out as a potential useful idiot who could spout their propaganda as a "voice for peace and understanding in Europe".

b) his loyalties lay with oppressive communists regimes.

Which ones?