politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Losing the peace

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Yorkcity said:

GIN1138 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

rottenborough said:

Barnesian said:

Boris looks sick

Now he knows how the rest of us feel.

As poor as TM was her unruly cabinet laid her wide open to Corbyn's attacks. Boris is a pratt

Nope. Boris is sticking by the Con manifesto which said we would leave the single market and customs union.

It's Theresa May who has decided to stand with Remainers and destroy her government (and probably in due course her entire Party)

Agreed , either Boris should resign or May .This surely can not go on much longer.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/08/boris-johnson-crazy-remark-cabinet-brexit-deal-theresa-may

Boris is propped up by 30-40 loyal MPs who think that because he's got charisma, was a half-decent Mayor and can pen a witty column every 6 months, and do a pithy stump speech, he's a shoe-in for PM.

In truth, that was his limit and I think he knows it. I don't see much steel or initiative in the positions he takes. I think he's being driven from underneath, not by himself.

Interesting idea, that he’s driven by others.

I don’t even think he can even do a pithy stump speech anymore. His much trailed speech on the Brexit vision was utter, utter trash.

Boris is good for a laugh in the good times.
That’s about it.

I think Boris is actually quite sensitive and his confidence relies quite heavily on being liked/loved. Once that collapsed, in the wake of the Brexit vote, you could see him deflate.

I'm not sure he's ever recovered since.

Tissue_Price said:

AndyJS said:

2006 local elections: Lewisham East, using highest vote method.

LD 6,432 (29.5%)
Lab 6,357 (29.2%)
Con 5,072 (23.3%)
Greens 2,637 (12.1%)
Ind 1,020 (4.7%)
UKIP 281 (1.3%)

The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.

Indeed. But you could understand a bar-chart drawer with itchy fingers being unable to resist....

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Yorkcity said:

GIN1138 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

rottenborough said:

Barnesian said:

Boris looks sick

Now he knows how the rest of us feel.

As poor as TM was her unruly cabinet laid her wide open to Corbyn's attacks. Boris is a pratt

Nope. Boris is sticking by the Con manifesto which said we would leave the single market and customs union.

It's Theresa May who has decided to stand with Remainers and destroy her government (and probably in due course her entire Party)

Agreed , either Boris should resign or May .This surely can not go on much longer.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/08/boris-johnson-crazy-remark-cabinet-brexit-deal-theresa-may

Boris is propped up by 30-40 loyal MPs who think that because he's got charisma, was a half-decent Mayor and can pen a witty column every 6 months, and do a pithy stump speech, he's a shoe-in for PM.

In truth, that was his limit and I think he knows it. I don't see much steel or initiative in the positions he takes. I think he's being driven from underneath, not by himself.

Interesting idea, that he’s driven by others.

I don’t even think he can even do a pithy stump speech anymore. His much trailed speech on the Brexit vision was utter, utter trash.

Boris is good for a laugh in the good times.
That’s about it.

I think Boris is actually quite sensitive and his confidence relies quite heavily on being liked/loved. Once that collapsed, in the wake of the Brexit vote, you could see him deflate.

I'm not sure he's ever recovered since.

Yes, he looked really upset to have won.

Casino_Royale said:

Yorkcity said:

Casino_Royale said:

Yorkcity said:

GIN1138 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

rottenborough said:

Barnesian said:

Boris looks sick

Now he knows how the rest of us feel.

As poor as TM was her unruly cabinet laid her wide open to Corbyn's attacks. Boris is a pratt

Nope. Boris is sticking by the Con manifesto which said we would leave the single market and customs union.

It's Theresa May who has decided to stand with Remainers and destroy her government (and probably in due course her entire Party)

Agreed , either Boris should resign or May .This surely can not go on much longer.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/08/boris-johnson-crazy-remark-cabinet-brexit-deal-theresa-may

Boris is propped up by 30-40 loyal MPs who think that because he's got charisma, was a half-decent Mayor and can pen a witty column every 6 months, and do a pithy stump speech, he's a shoe-in for PM.

In truth, that was his limit and I think he knows it. I don't see much steel or initiative in the positions he takes. I think he's being driven from underneath, not by himself.

I think Boris could get a Conservative majority against Corbyn.

Whereas May has already proved she could not .

Even if that's true (and I don't think it is) I think he'd be a poor Prime Minister.

Yes not to my liking.However for whatever reason he backed Brexit against Cameron and most of the cabinet.

Whereas May even now can not make decision and stand and fight for it.In my opinion she is a decent woman but a terrible leader.

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

I don't think introducing property taxes for primary residences is a good idea, even at 1% it represents an opportunity for a future Labour government to jack it up. I think we should introduce a value tax on second property and primary residences owned by non tax residents. Say 3% per year for the former and 25% per year for thale latter.

I'm not going to lie when I say I have some (significant) self interest in there not being such a tax, as do you.
A primary residence is not first and foremost an investment, it is a place to live where you know that as the years go by you won't be subject to the vagaries of rising prices and the associated rent rises. It is also somewhere you know you won't get chucked out of (providing you pay the mortgage), and by retirement or thereabouts you will 'own' completely. It's also almost completely impossible to have pets in UK rented accomodation and there is no point spending your own capital to do up someone else's house.
Now 2nd homes OTOH...

Any politician who plays politics with people's houses in our democracy is committing electoral suicide, for the reasons you mention.

Its people's safe haven from all the woes of the world and their lives. It's unsurprising they defend it tenaciously.

I should add I do allow pets in the (one) house I rent out - my old one - which is purely because I can't sell it because of my bloody neighbours. I'd love to release the equity.

There’s also several interconnected markets at play with housing, and any policy intended to address one can have consequences on others. Not everyone is currently renting and desperately wanting to buy, especially in London.

Gardenwalker said:

Can I also stand up for second homes?

I don’t have one but again I fail to see what’s wrong with them in general. I can see a case for local-specific restrictions (to avoid graveyarding certain parts of Cornwall, for eg) but otherwise not.

All of these bete noires - the BTL’ers, the second-home owners, the foreigners who buy off-plan - are just convenient demons.

They are symptoms, not cause, and none immoral or unwelcome in their own right.

Isn't the problem the lack of housing in general? Although I guess second homes rarely fall in the affordable bracket.

RobD said:

Gardenwalker said:

Can I also stand up for second homes?

I don’t have one but again I fail to see what’s wrong with them in general. I can see a case for local-specific restrictions (to avoid graveyarding certain parts of Cornwall, for eg) but otherwise not.

All of these bete noires - the BTL’ers, the second-home owners, the foreigners who buy off-plan - are just convenient demons.

They are symptoms, not cause, and none immoral or unwelcome in their own right.

Isn't the problem the lack of housing in general? Although I guess second homes rarely fall in the affordable bracket.

At the very heart of it all, we simply don’t build enough houses, because the “market” is dysfunctional. And, an extended period of low interest rates has made it worse.

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

Can I also stand up for second homes?

I don’t have one but again I fail to see what’s wrong with them in general. I can see a case for local-specific restrictions (to avoid graveyarding certain parts of Cornwall, for eg) but otherwise not.

All of these bete noires - the BTL’ers, the second-home owners, the foreigners who buy off-plan - are just convenient demons.

They are symptoms, not cause, and none immoral or unwelcome in their own right.

I think it's a proven fact that foreign money and older people using BTL as pensions are the reason we have stupidly unaffordable houses. They are the cause. The symptoms are younger graduates with well paid jobs voting for Corbyn.

The reason we have stupidly unaffordable houses (I'm assuming you mean in London, not Stoke) is because of Big Bang which brought foreign mainly US investment bankers into the country and turned what had been a profession similar in status and compensation to doctors or lawyers, into a stratospherically-inflated salary group. They started in prime London and then expanded outwards, pushing people further out as they went.

So if you want no more stupidly unaffordable houses the thing to do is to prevent people coming from abroad and buying property in prime London locations.

Gardenwalker said:

RobD said:

Gardenwalker said:

Can I also stand up for second homes?

I don’t have one but again I fail to see what’s wrong with them in general. I can see a case for local-specific restrictions (to avoid graveyarding certain parts of Cornwall, for eg) but otherwise not.

All of these bete noires - the BTL’ers, the second-home owners, the foreigners who buy off-plan - are just convenient demons.

They are symptoms, not cause, and none immoral or unwelcome in their own right.

Isn't the problem the lack of housing in general? Although I guess second homes rarely fall in the affordable bracket.

At the very heart of it all, we simply don’t build enough houses, because the “market” is dysfunctional. And, an extended period of low interest rates has made it worse.

The single change that would have the largest positive effect on the housing market is getting interest rates off the floor. It is causing so many market distortions, and not just in housing either. The markets for things like art and classic cars have also gone bonkers in recent years, as the money tries to chase any returns possible.

And build more houses. Lots more houses.

david_herdson said:

Slightly late to the party here but just wanted to commend Alastair on an excellent header. Unfortunately, too many on both sides seem to regard reaching an workable agreement as a pleasant bonus, should the process so conclude - while they prioritise their primary goal of playing to their own audiences. Negotiation requires understanding the other side. The EU has never understood, nor sought to understand, the Brexit mindset but simply assumed them to be endemically hostile and adopted a similarly hostile attitude in consequence (it has to be said that many brexiteers have not helped themselves in that respect).

This is true and the reverse also holds - our government, largely, and almost everyone who voted Leave, also have little understanding or interest in the EU beyond a feeling they don't like it much. This is a much bigger problem, though, because the EU won't do anything fundamentally different because of Brexit while the UK is seriously impacted by it.

If we want a successful negotiation, we need to understand what the EU side actually wants and not what we think it ought to want. We can then trade those things against a shopping list of what we want, which could include top level access to Galileo. From my understanding the EU wants, in order of priority, are:

- Commitment to UK alignment to EU regulations, including but not limited to Northern Ireland.
- Shared security.
- UK diplomatic support for EU international positions.
- Money.

If we offer those, or a good part of them, we should get things in return. The EU no longer cares what the British as an ex-member thinks of them. It won't continue top level access to Galileo etc because we might get upset.

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

Can I also stand up for second homes?

I don’t have one but again I fail to see what’s wrong with them in general. I can see a case for local-specific restrictions (to avoid graveyarding certain parts of Cornwall, for eg) but otherwise not.

All of these bete noires - the BTL’ers, the second-home owners, the foreigners who buy off-plan - are just convenient demons.

They are symptoms, not cause, and none immoral or unwelcome in their own right.

I think it's a proven fact that foreign money and older people using BTL as pensions are the reason we have stupidly unaffordable houses. They are the cause. The symptoms are younger graduates with well paid jobs voting for Corbyn.

The reason we have stupidly unaffordable houses (I'm assuming you mean in London, not Stoke) is because of Big Bang which brought foreign mainly US investment bankers into the country and turned what had been a profession similar in status and compensation to doctors or lawyers, into a stratospherically-inflated salary group. They started in prime London and then expanded outwards, pushing people further out as they went.

So if you want no more stupidly unaffordable houses the thing to do is to prevent people coming from abroad and buying property in prime London locations.

Not really.
But it is true that since the 1990s, certain cities have done disproportionately well. There is greater demand to live in London, but also Paris, San Francisco and Cambridge. House prices have spiked in all of these places, because people want to/need toaccess local job markets.

FF43 said:

david_herdson said:

Slightly late to the party here but just wanted to commend Alastair on an excellent header. Unfortunately, too many on both sides seem to regard reaching an workable agreement as a pleasant bonus, should the process so conclude - while they prioritise their primary goal of playing to their own audiences. Negotiation requires understanding the other side. The EU has never understood, nor sought to understand, the Brexit mindset but simply assumed them to be endemically hostile and adopted a similarly hostile attitude in consequence (it has to be said that many brexiteers have not helped themselves in that respect).

It won't continue top level access to Galileo etc because we might get upset.

Fair enough. No (or very limited) Security Partnership then.

Their choice:

"The arrangements for any UK cooperation on Galileo are an important test case of the depth of operational cooperation and information sharing envisaged under the Security Partnership."

https://twitter.com/lefoudubaron/status/994196650909491200

It wasn’t good enough for the leader to routinely defer to his shadow chancellor when confronted with a difficult decision – a shadow chancellor who on three separate occasions undermined my efforts to agree collective positions on health matters.

It wasn’t good enough for the leader to say one thing to me, only for his political secretary to phone a day later and say: “He may have said that, but I know what he really thinks.”

It wasn’t good enough for the leader to read his position from a typed up script at shadow cabinet meetings discussing the prospect of military action against Isis in Syria or the EU referendum.

And it wasn’t good enough that whenever he appeared on TV, his description of a process, or his analysis of a problem, ended in confusion or despair on the party’s position – article 50, counterterrorism, “7.5 out of 10” on Brexit.

FF43 said:

RobD said:

FF43 said:

david_herdson said:

Slightly late to the party here but just wanted to commend Alastair on an excellent header. Unfortunately, too many on both sides seem to regard reaching an workable agreement as a pleasant bonus, should the process so conclude - while they prioritise their primary goal of playing to their own audiences. Negotiation requires understanding the other side. The EU has never understood, nor sought to understand, the Brexit mindset but simply assumed them to be endemically hostile and adopted a similarly hostile attitude in consequence (it has to be said that many brexiteers have not helped themselves in that respect).

This is true and the reverse also holds - our government, largely, and almost everyone who voted Leave, also have little understanding or interest in the EU beyond a feeling they don't like it much. This is a much bigger problem, though, because the EU won't do anything fundamentally different because of Brexit while the UK is seriously impacted by it.

If we want a successful negotiation, we need to understand what the EU side actually wants and not what we think it ought to want. We can then trade those things against a shopping list of what we want, which could include top level access to Galileo. From my understanding the EU wants, in order of priority, are:

- Commitment to UK alignment to EU regulations, including but not limited to Northern Ireland.
- Shared security.
- UK diplomatic support for EU international positions.
- Money.

If we offer those, or a good part of them, we should get things in return. The EU no longer cares what the British as an ex-member thinks of them. It won't continue top level access to Galileo etc because we might get upset.

Their Galileo decision shows the relationship only works one way. They want full cooperation from the UK on intelligence/defence matters, yet aren't willing to trust the UK with access to their special satellite program. Wasn't there howls of outrage that the UK was seen as suggesting security could be used as a bargaining chip early in the negotiations?

Any outcome will be a downgrade for us from the status quo. A successful negotiation will see a smaller downgrade than would otherwise happen. That might seem stupid but it's a consequence of Brexit being all downside and no upside.

Only if we are foolhardy enough to concede to "Commitment to UK alignment to EU regulations, including but not limited to Northern Ireland."

No longer aligning with EU regulations is why we're leaving.

RobD said:

FF43 said:

RobD said:

FF43 said:

david_herdson said:

Slightly late to the party here but just wanted to commend Alastair on an excellent header. Unfortunately, too many on both sides seem to regard reaching an workable agreement as a pleasant bonus, should the process so conclude - while they prioritise their primary goal of playing to their own audiences. Negotiation requires understanding the other side. The EU has never understood, nor sought to understand, the Brexit mindset but simply assumed them to be endemically hostile and adopted a similarly hostile attitude in consequence (it has to be said that many brexiteers have not helped themselves in that respect).

This is true and the reverse also holds - our government, largely, and almost everyone who voted Leave, also have little understanding or interest in the EU beyond a feeling they don't like it much. This is a much bigger problem, though, because the EU won't do anything fundamentally different because of Brexit while the UK is seriously impacted by it.

If we want a successful negotiation, we need to understand what the EU side actually wants and not what we think it ought to want. We can then trade those things against a shopping list of what we want, which could include top level access to Galileo. From my understanding the EU wants, in order of priority, are:

- Commitment to UK alignment to EU regulations, including but not limited to Northern Ireland.
- Shared security.
- UK diplomatic support for EU international positions.
- Money.

If we offer those, or a good part of them, we should get things in return. The EU no longer cares what the British as an ex-member thinks of them. It won't continue top level access to Galileo etc because we might get upset.

Their Galileo decision shows the relationship only works one way. They want full cooperation from the UK on intelligence/defence matters, yet aren't willing to trust the UK with access to their special satellite program. Wasn't there howls of outrage that the UK was seen as suggesting security could be used as a bargaining chip early in the negotiations?

Any outcome will be a downgrade for us from the status quo. A successful negotiation will see a smaller downgrade than would otherwise happen. That might seem stupid but it's a consequence of Brexit being all downside and no upside.

I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.

It's negotiable, but the negotiations will be relative to a no deal baseline, not the status quo.

Philip_Thompson said:

FF43 said:

RobD said:

FF43 said:

david_herdson said:

Slightly late to the party here but just wanted to commend Alastair on an excellent header. Unfortunately, too many on both sides seem to regard reaching an workable agreement as a pleasant bonus, should the process so conclude - while they prioritise their primary goal of playing to their own audiences. Negotiation requires understanding the other side. The EU has never understood, nor sought to understand, the Brexit mindset but simply assumed them to be endemically hostile and adopted a similarly hostile attitude in consequence (it has to be said that many brexiteers have not helped themselves in that respect).

This is true and the reverse also holds - our government, largely, and almost everyone who voted Leave, also have little understanding or interest in the EU beyond a feeling they don't like it much. This is a much bigger problem, though, because the EU won't do anything fundamentally different because of Brexit while the UK is seriously impacted by it.

If we want a successful negotiation, we need to understand what the EU side actually wants and not what we think it ought to want. We can then trade those things against a shopping list of what we want, which could include top level access to Galileo. From my understanding the EU wants, in order of priority, are:

- Commitment to UK alignment to EU regulations, including but not limited to Northern Ireland.
- Shared security.
- UK diplomatic support for EU international positions.
- Money.

If we offer those, or a good part of them, we should get things in return. The EU no longer cares what the British as an ex-member thinks of them. It won't continue top level access to Galileo etc because we might get upset.

Their Galileo decision shows the relationship only works one way. They want full cooperation from the UK on intelligence/defence matters, yet aren't willing to trust the UK with access to their special satellite program. Wasn't there howls of outrage that the UK was seen as suggesting security could be used as a bargaining chip early in the negotiations?

Any outcome will be a downgrade for us from the status quo. A successful negotiation will see a smaller downgrade than would otherwise happen. That might seem stupid but it's a consequence of Brexit being all downside and no upside.

Only if we are foolhardy enough to concede to "Commitment to UK alignment to EU regulations, including but not limited to Northern Ireland."

No longer aligning with EU regulations is why we're leaving.

Then we have less to offer of what the EU really wants and can expect less in return.

RobD said:

FF43 said:

RobD said:

FF43 said:

david_herdson said:

).

This is true and the reverse also holds - our government, largely, and almost everyone who voted Leave, also have little understanding or interest in the EU beyond a feeling they don't like it much. This is a much bigger problem, though, because the EU won't do anything fundamentally different because of Brexit while the UK is seriously impacted by it.

If we want a successful negotiation, we need to understand what the EU side actually wants and not what we think it ought to want. We can then trade those things against a shopping list of what we want, which could include top level access to Galileo. From my understanding the EU wants, in order of priority, are:

- Commitment to UK alignment to EU regulations, including but not limited to Northern Ireland.
- Shared security.
- UK diplomatic support for EU international positions.
- Money.

If we offer those, or a good part of them, we should get things in return. The EU no longer cares what the British as an ex-member thinks of them. It won't continue top level access to Galileo etc because we might get upset.

Their Galileo decision shows the relationship only works one way. They want full cooperation from the UK on intelligence/defence matters, yet aren't willing to trust the UK with access to their special satellite program. Wasn't there howls of outrage that the UK was seen as suggesting security could be used as a bargaining chip early in the negotiations?

Any outcome will be a downgrade for us from the status quo. A successful negotiation will see a smaller downgrade than would otherwise happen. That might seem stupid but it's a consequence of Brexit being all downside and no upside.

I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.

The Galileo discussion is probably the best example yet of the EU’s determination to be inflexible and to be seen to punish the UK, even if the reality of the situation is that they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Gardenwalker said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

Can I also stand up for second homes?

I don’t have one but again I fail to see what’s wrong with them in general. I can see a case for local-specific restrictions (to avoid graveyarding certain parts of Cornwall, for eg) but otherwise not.

All of these bete noires - the BTL’ers, the second-home owners, the foreigners who buy off-plan - are just convenient demons.

They are symptoms, not cause, and none immoral or unwelcome in their own right.

I think it's a proven fact that foreign money and older people using BTL as pensions are the reason we have stupidly unaffordable houses. They are the cause. The symptoms are younger graduates with well paid jobs voting for Corbyn.

The reason we have stupidly unaffordable houses (I'm assuming you mean in London, not Stoke) is because of Big Bang which brought foreign mainly US investment bankers into the country and turned what had been a profession similar in status and compensation to doctors or lawyers, into a stratospherically-inflated salary group. They started in prime London and then expanded outwards, pushing people further out as they went.

So if you want no more stupidly unaffordable houses the thing to do is to prevent people coming from abroad and buying property in prime London locations.

Not really.
But it is true that since the 1990s, certain cities have done disproportionately well. There is greater demand to live in London, but also Paris, San Francisco and Cambridge. House prices have spiked in all of these places, because people want to/need toaccess local job markets.

The influx of investment bankers after Big Bang, and the subsequent transformation of investment banking salaries changed the London property market dramatically.

RobD said:

FF43 said:

RobD said:

I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.

It's negotiable, but the negotiations will be relative to a no deal baseline, not the status quo.

You don't see the contradiction in their position on the matter?

Think about who it is you're asking lol. Not even Alastair thinks the EU being smart about this satellite stuff. I don't even think @williamglenn thinks its a smart play.

Sandpit said:

RobD said:

FF43 said:

RobD said:

FF43 said:

david_herdson said:

).

This is true and the reverse also holds - our government, largely, and almost everyone who voted Leave, also have little understanding or interest in the EU beyond a feeling they don't like it much. This is a much bigger problem, though, because the EU won't do anything fundamentally different because of Brexit while the UK is seriously impacted by it.

If we want a successful negotiation, we need to understand what the EU side actually wants and not what we think it ought to want. We can then trade those things against a shopping list of what we want, which could include top level access to Galileo. From my understanding the EU wants, in order of priority, are:

- Commitment to UK alignment to EU regulations, including but not limited to Northern Ireland.
- Shared security.
- UK diplomatic support for EU international positions.
- Money.

If we offer those, or a good part of them, we should get things in return. The EU no longer cares what the British as an ex-member thinks of them. It won't continue top level access to Galileo etc because we might get upset.

Their Galileo decision shows the relationship only works one way. They want full cooperation from the UK on intelligence/defence matters, yet aren't willing to trust the UK with access to their special satellite program. Wasn't there howls of outrage that the UK was seen as suggesting security could be used as a bargaining chip early in the negotiations?

Any outcome will be a downgrade for us from the status quo. A successful negotiation will see a smaller downgrade than would otherwise happen. That might seem stupid but it's a consequence of Brexit being all downside and no upside.

I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.

The Galileo discussion is probably the best example yet of the EU’s determination to be inflexible and to be seen to punish the UK, even if the reality of the situation is that they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

The issue is they think they can get away with it because the Lords and some MPs will do exactly what they want.

FF43 said:

RobD said:

FF43 said:

RobD said:

I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.

It's negotiable, but the negotiations will be relative to a no deal baseline, not the status quo.

You don't see the contradiction in their position on the matter?

Possibly. The negotiation hasn't played out. The default is no security pact and no participation in Galileo.

Maybe true, but the EU position is security pact and no UK access to the satellites. They have said plenty of times they want continued access to UK intelligence and security. Do you not see the inconsistency there? Or are you so blinded by your EUphillia that you think they can do no wrong?

MaxPB said:

RobD said:

FF43 said:

RobD said:

I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.

It's negotiable, but the negotiations will be relative to a no deal baseline, not the status quo.

You don't see the contradiction in their position on the matter?

Think about who it is you're asking lol. Not even Alastair thinks the EU being smart about this satellite stuff. I don't even think @williamglenn thinks its a smart play.

Nor the FT.....

@JohnRentoul: The moment a year ago today it all started to go wrong for Theresa May https://twitter.com/Jack_Blanchard_/status/861949848148471808

Scott_P said:

@JohnRentoul: The moment a year ago today it all started to go wrong for Theresa May https://twitter.com/Jack_Blanchard_/status/861949848148471808

Please, I've been working hard to suppress late May, early June 2017 from my memory.

CarlottaVance said:

MaxPB said:

RobD said:

FF43 said:

RobD said:

I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.

It's negotiable, but the negotiations will be relative to a no deal baseline, not the status quo.

You don't see the contradiction in their position on the matter?

Think about who it is you're asking lol. Not even Alastair thinks the EU being smart about this satellite stuff. I don't even think @williamglenn thinks its a smart play.

Nor the FT.....

I don’t have a view on this one way or another.
But if the EU has lost the FT, then certainly it’s a PR failure.

FF43 said:

Sandpit said:

RobD said:

FF43 said:

RobD said:

FF43 said:

david_herdson said:

).

If we want a successful negotiation, we need to understand what the EU side actually wants and not what we think it ought to want. We can then trade those things against a shopping list of what we want, which could include top level access to Galileo. From my understanding the EU wants, in order of priority, are:

- Commitment to UK alignment to EU regulations, including but not limited to Northern Ireland.
- Shared security.
- UK diplomatic support for EU international positions.
- Money.

If we offer those, or a good part of them, we should get things in return. The EU no longer cares what the British as an ex-member thinks of them. It won't continue top level access to Galileo etc because we might get upset.

Their Galileo decision shows the relationship only works one way. They want full cooperation from the UK on intelligence/defence matters, yet aren't willing to trust the UK with access to their special satellite program. Wasn't there howls of outrage that the UK was seen as suggesting security could be used as a bargaining chip early in the negotiations?

Any outcome will be a downgrade for us from the status quo. A successful negotiation will see a smaller downgrade than would otherwise happen. That might seem stupid but it's a consequence of Brexit being all downside and no upside.

I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.

The Galileo discussion is probably the best example yet of the EU’s determination to be inflexible and to be seen to punish the UK, even if the reality of the situation is that they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

We don't need to give the EU lessons about cut noses and spiteful faces. The truth is our nose is at a much bigger risk than the EU's. It's not that I think the EU is inherently more sensible than we are. The point is, Brexit is going to affect us much more than the EU and they know it.

Security and satellites are two areas where the UK has something valuable that the EU would miss. Injdeed had the UK not been a member of the EU I would still have expected us to participate in both respects.

At one point CHINA was part of Galileo. OK, so that was a different project back then, but still.

Scott_P said:

@JohnRentoul: The moment a year ago today it all started to go wrong for Theresa May https://twitter.com/Jack_Blanchard_/status/861949848148471808

Quite. An elderly relative of mine - all his life a diehard hunting, shooting and fishing man - cited that as being astronomically stupid politics.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

FF43 said:

Sandpit said:

RobD said:

FF43 said:

RobD said:

Their Galileo decision shows the relationship only works one way. They want full cooperation from the UK on intelligence/defence matters, yet aren't willing to trust the UK with access to their special satellite program. Wasn't there howls of outrage that the UK was seen as suggesting security could be used as a bargaining chip early in the negotiations?

Any outcome will be a downgrade for us from the status quo. A successful negotiation will see a smaller downgrade than would otherwise happen. That might seem stupid but it's a consequence of Brexit being all downside and no upside.

I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.

The Galileo discussion is probably the best example yet of the EU’s determination to be inflexible and to be seen to punish the UK, even if the reality of the situation is that they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

We don't need to give the EU lessons about cut noses and spiteful faces. The truth is our nose is at a much bigger risk than the EU's. It's not that I think the EU is inherently more sensible than we are. The point is, Brexit is going to affect us much more than the EU and they know it.

Security and satellites are two areas where the UK has something valuable that the EU would miss. Injdeed had the UK not been a member of the EU I would still have expected us to participate in both respects.

At one point CHINA was part of Galileo. OK, so that was a different project back then, but still.

Security cooperation is something the EU cares about. They can do satellites themselves. The discussion is about top level access to Galileo data, which is restricted to EU members and is not available to non EU-member associates such as Norway and Switzerland.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Scott_P said:

@JohnRentoul: The moment a year ago today it all started to go wrong for Theresa May https://twitter.com/Jack_Blanchard_/status/861949848148471808

Quite. An elderly relative of mine - all his life a diehard hunting, shooting and fishing man - cited that as being astronomically stupid politics.

you mean she should have whipped to repeal?

or (as I would have preferred) made no commitment at all?

That would never have come about if the Tories were being shown as level with Labour in the polls, first sign of massive overconfidence.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Scott_P said:

@JohnRentoul: The moment a year ago today it all started to go wrong for Theresa May https://twitter.com/Jack_Blanchard_/status/861949848148471808

Quite. An elderly relative of mine - all his life a diehard hunting, shooting and fishing man - cited that as being astronomically stupid politics.

you mean she should have whipped to repeal?

or (as I would have preferred) made no commitment at all?

She should have kept her mouth shut about it. As my blood-sports supporting relative said, it's an argument that can never be won about a subject that pisses people off.

An interesting finding about ex Londoners:

https://twitter.com/chris__curtis/status/994188794910986240?s=19

Sandpit said:

FF43 said:

Sandpit said:

The Galileo discussion is probably the best example yet of the EU’s determination to be inflexible and to be seen to punish the UK, even if the reality of the situation is that they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

We don't need to give the EU lessons about cut noses and spiteful faces. The truth is our nose is at a much bigger risk than the EU's. It's not that I think the EU is inherently more sensible than we are. The point is, Brexit is going to affect us much more than the EU and they know it.

No deal then, with no £39bn and we will commit to no border in NI on our side.

And no nose for us, while the EU nose will be largely intact. I don't think so. We might crash out, but we will be looking for a deal soon enough.

FF43 said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

FF43 said:

Sandpit said:

RobD said:

FF43 said:

Any outcome will be a downgrade for us from the status quo. A successful negotiation will see a smaller downgrade than would otherwise happen. That might seem stupid but it's a consequence of Brexit being all downside and no upside.

I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.

The Galileo discussion is probably the best example yet of the EU’s determination to be inflexible and to be seen to punish the UK, even if the reality of the situation is that they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

We don't need to give the EU lessons about cut noses and spiteful faces. The truth is our nose is at a much bigger risk than the EU's. It's not that I think the EU is inherently more sensible than we are. The point is, Brexit is going to affect us much more than the EU and they know it.

Security and satellites are two areas where the UK has something valuable that the EU would miss. Injdeed had the UK not been a member of the EU I would still have expected us to participate in both respects.

At one point CHINA was part of Galileo. OK, so that was a different project back then, but still.

Security cooperation is something the EU cares about. They can do satellites themselves. The discussion is about top level access to Galileo data, which is restricted to EU members and is not available to non EU-member associates such as Norway and Switzerland.

German MEP Christian Ehler doesn't think the EU can "do the satellites themselves". Or at least, not as well as with us.

nunuone said:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/09/tories-southern-red-south-england-london?CMP=share_btn_tw

Hasn't this always been the case? Don't people tend to vote more for the conservatives as they get older?

TheWhiteRabbit said:

FF43 said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

FF43 said:

Sandpit said:

RobD said:

FF43 said:

Any outcome will be a downgrade for us from the status quo. A successful negotiation will see a smaller downgrade than would otherwise happen. That might seem stupid but it's a consequence of Brexit being all downside and no upside.

I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.

The Galileo discussion is probably the best example yet of the EU’s determination to be inflexible and to be seen to punish the UK, even if the reality of the situation is that they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

We don't need to give the EU lessons about cut noses and spiteful faces. The truth is our nose is at a much bigger risk than the EU's. It's not that I think the EU is inherently more sensible than we are. The point is, Brexit is going to affect us much more than the EU and they know it.

Security and satellites are two areas where the UK has something valuable that the EU would miss. Injdeed had the UK not been a member of the EU I would still have expected us to participate in both respects.

At one point CHINA was part of Galileo. OK, so that was a different project back then, but still.

Security cooperation is something the EU cares about. They can do satellites themselves. The discussion is about top level access to Galileo data, which is restricted to EU members and is not available to non EU-member associates such as Norway and Switzerland.

German MEP Christian Ehler doesn't think the EU can "do the satellites themselves". Or at least, not as well as with us.

If so that's a bargaining chip for us. I suspect EU countries would be happy for UK based companies to move their operations to the EU, however.

nunuone said:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/09/tories-southern-red-south-england-london?CMP=share_btn_tw

OTOH Near me Mansfield and NE Derbyshire went Tory at the last election, and Ashfield is very close too.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

FF43 said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

FF43 said:

Sandpit said:

RobD said:

FF43 said:

Any outcome will be a downgrade for us from the status quo. A successful negotiation will see a smaller downgrade than would otherwise happen. That might seem stupid but it's a consequence of Brexit being all downside and no upside.

I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.

The Galileo discussion is probably the best example yet of the EU’s determination to be inflexible and to be seen to punish the UK, even if the reality of the situation is that they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

We don't need to give the EU lessons about cut noses and spiteful faces. The truth is our nose is at a much bigger risk than the EU's. It's not that I think the EU is inherently more sensible than we are. The point is, Brexit is going to affect us much more than the EU and they know it.

Security and satellites are two areas where the UK has something valuable that the EU would miss. Injdeed had the UK not been a member of the EU I would still have expected us to participate in both respects.

At one point CHINA was part of Galileo. OK, so that was a different project back then, but still.

Security cooperation is something the EU cares about. They can do satellites themselves. The discussion is about top level access to Galileo data, which is restricted to EU members and is not available to non EU-member associates such as Norway and Switzerland.

German MEP Christian Ehler doesn't think the EU can "do the satellites themselves". Or at least, not as well as with us.

Does he have special knowledge, or is he just an average (too thick to be in the national Parliament) MEP?

rcs1000 said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

FF43 said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

FF43 said:

Sandpit said:

RobD said:

FF43 said:

Any outcome will be a downgrade for us from the status quo. A successful negotiation will see a smaller downgrade than would otherwise happen. That might seem stupid but it's a consequence of Brexit being all downside and no upside.

I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.

The Galileo discussion is probably the best example yet of the EU’s determination to be inflexible and to be seen to punish the UK, even if the reality of the situation is that they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

We don't need to give the EU lessons about cut noses and spiteful faces. The truth is our nose is at a much bigger risk than the EU's. It's not that I think the EU is inherently more sensible than we are. The point is, Brexit is going to affect us much more than the EU and they know it.

Security and satellites are two areas where the UK has something valuable that the EU would miss. Injdeed had the UK not been a member of the EU I would still have expected us to participate in both respects.

At one point CHINA was part of Galileo. OK, so that was a different project back then, but still.

Security cooperation is something the EU cares about. They can do satellites themselves. The discussion is about top level access to Galileo data, which is restricted to EU members and is not available to non EU-member associates such as Norway and Switzerland.

German MEP Christian Ehler doesn't think the EU can "do the satellites themselves". Or at least, not as well as with us.

Does he have special knowledge, or is he just an average (too thick to be in the national Parliament) MEP?

Vice-chair of the subcommittee of security and defence, according to the EU's website. Not sure what that means in terms of access to secret information on the project though.

Scott_P said:

Sandpit said:

we will commit to no border in NI on our side.

TAKE BACK CONTROL OF OUR BORDERS !!!!

Ummmm, no, not that one...

Exactly. The EU tells us to string up the razor wire, we tell them to bugger off.

https://twitter.com/daily_politics/status/994170446290419712

David_Evershed said:

CarlottaVance said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TM seems to be very distracted today

As the old saying goes - "Your opponents are in front of you, your enemies behind you....."

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.

Perfect metaphor for Brexit.

Some c*** has blunder’d.

rcs1000 said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

FF43 said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

FF43 said:

Sandpit said:

RobD said:

FF43 said:

Any outcome will be a downgrade for us from the status quo. A successful negotiation will see a smaller downgrade than would otherwise happen. That might seem stupid but it's a consequence of Brexit being all downside and no upside.

I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.

The Galileo discussion is probably the best example yet of the EU’s determination to be inflexible and to be seen to punish the UK, even if the reality of the situation is that they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

We don't need to give the EU lessons about cut noses and spiteful faces. The truth is our nose is at a much bigger risk than the EU's. It's not that I think the EU is inherently more sensible than we are. The point is, Brexit is going to affect us much more than the EU and they know it.

Security and satellites are two areas where the UK has something valuable that the EU would miss. Injdeed had the UK not been a member of the EU I would still have expected us to participate in both respects.

At one point CHINA was part of Galileo. OK, so that was a different project back then, but still.

Security cooperation is something the EU cares about. They can do satellites themselves. The discussion is about top level access to Galileo data, which is restricted to EU members and is not available to non EU-member associates such as Norway and Switzerland.

German MEP Christian Ehler doesn't think the EU can "do the satellites themselves". Or at least, not as well as with us.

Does he have special knowledge, or is he just an average (too thick to be in the national Parliament) MEP?

Mr Ehler is talking common sense. Are you sure you have read @TheWhiteRabbit post properly ?

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/lefoudubaron/status/994196650909491200

It wasn’t good enough for the leader to routinely defer to his shadow chancellor when confronted with a difficult decision – a shadow chancellor who on three separate occasions undermined my efforts to agree collective positions on health matters.

It wasn’t good enough for the leader to say one thing to me, only for his political secretary to phone a day later and say: “He may have said that, but I know what he really thinks.”

It wasn’t good enough for the leader to read his position from a typed up script at shadow cabinet meetings discussing the prospect of military action against Isis in Syria or the EU referendum.

And it wasn’t good enough that whenever he appeared on TV, his description of a process, or his analysis of a problem, ended in confusion or despair on the party’s position – article 50, counterterrorism, “7.5 out of 10” on Brexit.

That sounds like a good argument for the Lib Dem campaign. What are the current odds?

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

FF43 said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

FF43 said:

Sandpit said:

RobD said:

FF43 said:

Any outcome will be a downgrade for us from the status quo. A successful negotiation will see a smaller downgrade than would otherwise happen. That might seem stupid but it's a consequence of Brexit being all downside and no upside.

I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.

The Galileo discussion is probably the best example yet of the EU’s determination to be inflexible and to be seen to punish the UK, even if the reality of the situation is that they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

We don't need to give the EU lessons about cut noses and spiteful faces. The truth is our nose is at a much bigger risk than the EU's. It's not that I think the EU is inherently more sensible than we are. The point is, Brexit is going to affect us much more than the EU and they know it.

Security and satellites are two areas where the UK has something valuable that the EU would miss. Injdeed had the UK not been a member of the EU I would still have expected us to participate in both respects.

At one point CHINA was part of Galileo. OK, so that was a different project back then, but still.

Security cooperation is something the EU cares about. They can do satellites themselves. The discussion is about top level access to Galileo data, which is restricted to EU members and is not available to non EU-member associates such as Norway and Switzerland.

German MEP Christian Ehler doesn't think the EU can "do the satellites themselves". Or at least, not as well as with us.

Does he have special knowledge, or is he just an average (too thick to be in the national Parliament) MEP?

Well a friend of mine from uni who does this kind of stuff said it would be very tough for the EU to replicate what the UK provides in terms of the locations and expertise to the project. Oddly the UK has enough overseas territory and trusted allies to build out our own system but the EU might struggle to securely locate all of their ground stations in appropriate parts of the world. It could mean intermittent gaps in the service or paying for a military presence in non aligned nations.

How many ground stations do you need for a satellite navigation system? I know A-GPS uses ground stations, but I assumed Glonass, Galileo and the Chinese one didn't bother.

PClipp said:

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

@JohnRentoul: The moment a year ago today it all started to go wrong for Theresa May https://twitter.com/Jack_Blanchard_/status/861949848148471808

Please, I've been working hard to suppress late May, early June 2017 from my memory.

Too late, young Rob. It is now part of your history and the Conservative black legend.

It’s karma for enjoying 2015 too much

SandyRentool said:

Scott_P said:

SandyRentool said:

Exactly. The EU tells us to string up the razor wire, we tell them to bugger off.

The EU doesn't tell us to do anything.

It's the headbangers who are squealing about controlling our borders. It's clear they don't regard the border in Ireland as "ours"

How do we tell them to bugger off?

We don't want to impose tariffs on imports from the EU - nothing to control

We don't want to stop EU citizens visiting the UK - nothing to control

We want to decide who gets the right to live and work here - you don't control this on the border

Now please explain why the EU wants us to string up the razor wire across the Emerald Isle.

Indeed, when most people talk about the border they are using it as a metonymy.

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/lefoudubaron/status/994196650909491200

It wasn’t good enough for the leader to routinely defer to his shadow chancellor when confronted with a difficult decision – a shadow chancellor who on three separate occasions undermined my efforts to agree collective positions on health matters.

It wasn’t good enough for the leader to say one thing to me, only for his political secretary to phone a day later and say: “He may have said that, but I know what he really thinks.”

It wasn’t good enough for the leader to read his position from a typed up script at shadow cabinet meetings discussing the prospect of military action against Isis in Syria or the EU referendum.

And it wasn’t good enough that whenever he appeared on TV, his description of a process, or his analysis of a problem, ended in confusion or despair on the party’s position – article 50, counterterrorism, “7.5 out of 10” on Brexit.

I think it simply confirms what we already knew, Jezza is as thick as mince.

Mr. 1000, weirdly, doesn't seem to be a Ladbrokes market on that.

rkrkrk said:

rcs1000 said:

West Virginia Third Congressional District Primary Update

(Much more interesting than Brexit...)

The Republican primary garnered 37,600 votes in total. The Democratic one 57,300. That's a massive difference, and is completely unprecedented in what is normally a safe Republican District.

Bear in mind the winner this year will probably only need 70,000 votes in November to take the District. Also bear in mind that in polls, Ojeda was more popular - with Republicans - than any of their candidates.

This is a Congressional District Trump won 74-24. It will be a Democratic pick-up by future President Richard Ojeda.

Get your money on now.

Get your money on where? Where can you bet on W. Virginia Third?

If Trump wins in 2020, Ojeda could be the Democratic nominee in 2024.

rcs1000 said:

rkrkrk said:

rcs1000 said:

West Virginia Third Congressional District Primary Update

(Much more interesting than Brexit...)

The Republican primary garnered 37,600 votes in total. The Democratic one 57,300. That's a massive difference, and is completely unprecedented in what is normally a safe Republican District.

Bear in mind the winner this year will probably only need 70,000 votes in November to take the District. Also bear in mind that in polls, Ojeda was more popular - with Republicans - than any of their candidates.

This is a Congressional District Trump won 74-24. It will be a Democratic pick-up by future President Richard Ojeda.

Get your money on now.

Get your money on where? Where can you bet on W. Virginia Third?

If Trump wins in 2020, Ojeda could be the Democratic nominee in 2024.

Where can you bet on Democratic nominee in 2024?
And IMO that's just too far away, I'd want something like 1,000-1 for it to be worth it.