politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The LDs to outperform the Tories in Thursday’s by-election is
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The LDs to outperform the Tories in Thursday’s by-election is the best bet out there at the moment
Yesterday on Betfair someone wagered a few pounds on the Tories at 1000/1 to win Thursday’s Lewisham East by-election. This means that if he bet £10 he’ll lose £10 for all the signs are that the blue team is just running a token campaign in the seat where LAB got 67.9% of the vote in June last year. To make things harder the CON candidate is a leaver in a seat that was 65% remain.
0
Comments
-
So I really ought to reopen my Ladbrook account, ought i?0
-
-
Interesting. Cheers for posting this.
Edited extra bit: upon discovering I backed Con to win at 2.62, I somewhat wimpishly backed LD at 2.55 (with boost). So, small profit whatever happens.
Edited extra bit: trying to decide whether to back Lab 50-60% at 3. On 60-70% at 3.5 and 70% plus at 17.0 -
Everything is a problem to arch remainer Faisal IslamScott_P said:
Nothing is agreed including the 40 billion until everything is agreed
WTO is becoming more likely day by day0 -
Clear from Barnier's slides that he's not going to accept anything short of NI in both the CU and SM. In other words not accepting anything short of NI remaining in the EU in all but name.Scott_P said:
No, absolutely not. Time to walk away. Any East/West border like he's proposing is as much a violation of the Good Friday Agreement as a North/South one. If Barnier won't agree to a deal its time to walk and once the hard border is erected along the NI border we can start negotiations as equals.0 -
It's the proposition that the Lib Dems have a chance that I have a problem with. Will enough people believe it to give them second place? Maybe, people have believed dafter things, I suppose.0
-
Indeed it is a problem. If the EU won’t accept anything that doesn’t involve annexing Northern Ireland, then that £39bn cheque they’ve spent already isn’t going to be signed.Scott_P said:0 -
Big_G_NorthWales said:
Everything is a problem to arch remainer Faisal IslamScott_P said:
Nothing is agreed including the 40 billion until everything is agreed
WTO is becoming more likely day by day
"WTO is becoming more likely day by day"
Unless there is some amazing alternative negotiation going on behind the scenes, then I agree with you.
0 -
I'm on 40-50% for LAB at 4/1.Morris_Dancer said:Interesting. Cheers for posting this.
Edited extra bit: upon discovering I backed Con to win at 2.62, I somewhat wimpishly backed LD at 2.55 (with boost). So, small profit whatever happens.
Edited extra bit: trying to decide whether to back Lab 50-60% at 3. On 60-70% at 3.5 and 70% plus at 17.0 -
Mr. Sandpit, unless May shamefully and totally capitulates. Which is a plausible possibility.0
-
The Speaker has allowed one UQ from Keith Vaz MP as below:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the reports of an imminent Saudi/UAE- led coalition attack on Hudaydah port, Yemen and the humanitarian impact.
Hasn't he got some washing machines to sell or something?0 -
Might the Conservative's token campaign and poor choice of candidate (in the sense of Brexit credentials for the constituency) be part of a plan? The Conservatives don't stand much of a chance, and their main 'enemy' is Labour. Putting in a leaver in a remain constituency might help the Lib Dems if not win, but do well enough to embarrass Labour.
Or perhaps I should re-tune my tinfoil hat...0 -
An East/West border as a result of NI staying in the SM/CU is not Barnier’s proposal but a consequence of Brexit. If that’s unacceptable you have a choice between vassal state Brexit and no Brexit.Philip_Thompson said:
Clear from Barnier's slides that he's not going to accept anything short of NI in both the CU and SM. In other words not accepting anything short of NI remaining in the EU in all but name.Scott_P said:
No, absolutely not. Time to walk away. Any East/West border like he's proposing is as much a violation of the Good Friday Agreement as a North/South one. If Barnier won't agree to a deal its time to walk and once the hard border is erected along the NI border we can start negotiations as equals.0 -
We have the option of the UK going to WTO. That includes NI going to WTO.williamglenn said:
An East/West border as a result of NI staying in the SM/CU is not Barnier’s proposal but a consequence of Brexit. If that’s unacceptable you have a choice between vassal state Brexit and no Brexit.Philip_Thompson said:
Clear from Barnier's slides that he's not going to accept anything short of NI in both the CU and SM. In other words not accepting anything short of NI remaining in the EU in all but name.Scott_P said:
No, absolutely not. Time to walk away. Any East/West border like he's proposing is as much a violation of the Good Friday Agreement as a North/South one. If Barnier won't agree to a deal its time to walk and once the hard border is erected along the NI border we can start negotiations as equals.
We have the option of the UK including NI signing a trade deal with the EU.
The latter isn't an option as they think they can get NI to stay in the EU, if they can't because we go WTO then that changes rapidly.0 -
williamglenn said:
An East/West border as a result of NI staying in the SM/CU is not Barnier’s proposal but a consequence of Brexit. If that’s unacceptable you have a choice between vassal state Brexit and no Brexit.Philip_Thompson said:
Clear from Barnier's slides that he's not going to accept anything short of NI in both the CU and SM. In other words not accepting anything short of NI remaining in the EU in all but name.Scott_P said:
No, absolutely not. Time to walk away. Any East/West border like he's proposing is as much a violation of the Good Friday Agreement as a North/South one. If Barnier won't agree to a deal its time to walk and once the hard border is erected along the NI border we can start negotiations as equals.
So you're saying that the EU wants to confiscate NI as a price for us leaving them.
0 -
I really do believe that Barnier is overplaying his hand and driving UK opinion against the EU at a speed that makes WTO most likely to be acceptable to the majority in the UKMarkHopkins said:Big_G_NorthWales said:
Everything is a problem to arch remainer Faisal IslamScott_P said:
Nothing is agreed including the 40 billion until everything is agreed
WTO is becoming more likely day by day
"WTO is becoming more likely day by day"
Unless there is some amazing alternative negotiation going on behind the scenes, then I agree with you.0 -
Tbh I have a little sympathy with the EU on this because I don't understand our "backstop" proposal either. Whether it ever made sense or simply ceased to do so once DD and May had mangled the words to something that they could both agree is not clear.Sandpit said:
Indeed it is a problem. If the EU won’t accept anything that doesn’t involve annexing Northern Ireland, then that £39bn cheque they’ve spent already isn’t going to be signed.Scott_P said:
But the time has come for us to take a step back and to get on with the practicalities of dealing with a no deal outcome. It really has.0 -
We've agreed it in principle under the basis "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed". They also agreed in principle that the backstop will apply to the whole UK and not just NI yet that's suddenly not what they're going for so it seems we have nothing agreed.SeanT said:
Isn't the UK legally obliged to pay the £39bn? And haven't we agreed that, in principle, already? Difficult to go back on that.Sandpit said:
Indeed it is a problem. If the EU won’t accept anything that doesn’t involve annexing Northern Ireland, then that £39bn cheque they’ve spent already isn’t going to be signed.Scott_P said:
OTOH if we simply refused to pay it, how could the EU force us to cough up? They could hardly take us to the ECJ, we'd be outside its remit.
OTOOH, they could then do a Trump on us, and raise tariffs on all UK trade til we are eating pebbles and London is haunted by wolverines and typhus.
I cannot believe we will lurch into a No Deal, which is so destructive for BOTH sides. This is either dangerous game of chicken, and one side will finally blink and veer away, or it is just theatrics to please the audience, and the real deal is being hashed out somewhere else.0 -
It is a direct consequence of Tezza spending her entire premiership attempting to negotiate with the headbangers on her backbenches, instead of reality.SeanT said:I cannot believe we will lurch into a No Deal, which is so destructive for BOTH sides. This is either dangerous game of chicken, and one side will finally blink and veer away, or it is just theatrics to please the audience, and the real deal is being hashed out somewhere else.
0 -
WTOwilliamglenn said:
An East/West border as a result of NI staying in the SM/CU is not Barnier’s proposal but a consequence of Brexit. If that’s unacceptable you have a choice between vassal state Brexit and no Brexit.Philip_Thompson said:
Clear from Barnier's slides that he's not going to accept anything short of NI in both the CU and SM. In other words not accepting anything short of NI remaining in the EU in all but name.Scott_P said:
No, absolutely not. Time to walk away. Any East/West border like he's proposing is as much a violation of the Good Friday Agreement as a North/South one. If Barnier won't agree to a deal its time to walk and once the hard border is erected along the NI border we can start negotiations as equals.0 -
Mr. Smithson, I hope my Lab vote share bet comes off, which unfortunately means yours would fail. It'll be interesting to see how that goes.
Mr. T, we're not legally obliged to £39bn. Someone here suggested debt liabilities totalled £20bn. Others that we owe nothing.0 -
Indeed. What we need is May gone and for the EU to be negotiating with our headbangers instead of her.Scott_P said:
It is a direct consequence of Tezza spending her entire premiership attempting to negotiate with the headbangers on her backbenches, instead of reality.SeanT said:I cannot believe we will lurch into a No Deal, which is so destructive for BOTH sides. This is either dangerous game of chicken, and one side will finally blink and veer away, or it is just theatrics to please the audience, and the real deal is being hashed out somewhere else.
0 -
My comment has been eaten, so I will repeat. What evidence is there that voter fatigue will disproportionately affect Labour? It must be at least as dispiriting voting so often as a LD or Con. In Lewisham, at least, the Labour voter gets a win at the end of it.0
-
DavidL said:
Tbh I have a little sympathy with the EU on this because I don't understand our "backstop" proposal either. Whether it ever made sense or simply ceased to do so once DD and May had mangled the words to something that they could both agree is not clear.Sandpit said:
Indeed it is a problem. If the EU won’t accept anything that doesn’t involve annexing Northern Ireland, then that £39bn cheque they’ve spent already isn’t going to be signed.Scott_P said:
But the time has come for us to take a step back and to get on with the practicalities of dealing with a no deal outcome. It really has.
This whole dispute over the backstop seems to be (deliberately?) muddying the waters.
Just get on discussing the deal, or if not go WTO. And if the EU won't start discussing the deal then WTO it is by default.
0 -
Yes, that will work! I can imagine the likes of Jacob Rees will be perfectly placed to get us a moderate deal that unites the country and protects the economy!?Philip_Thompson said:
Indeed. What we need is May gone and for the EU to be negotiating with our headbangers instead of her.Scott_P said:
It is a direct consequence of Tezza spending her entire premiership attempting to negotiate with the headbangers on her backbenches, instead of reality.SeanT said:I cannot believe we will lurch into a No Deal, which is so destructive for BOTH sides. This is either dangerous game of chicken, and one side will finally blink and veer away, or it is just theatrics to please the audience, and the real deal is being hashed out somewhere else.
Jesus, you really do see some utter shite on this forum now and then.0 -
Mr. T, indeed. Not to mention the obvious arrogance and insanity of the EU insisting that a customs border be imposed within a nation-state and pretending that's a reasonable offer.0
-
According to Nick it is likely to be Lab's position also. So potentially if we have a Lab government, it will be government policy.MarkHopkins said:williamglenn said:
An East/West border as a result of NI staying in the SM/CU is not Barnier’s proposal but a consequence of Brexit. If that’s unacceptable you have a choice between vassal state Brexit and no Brexit.Philip_Thompson said:
Clear from Barnier's slides that he's not going to accept anything short of NI in both the CU and SM. In other words not accepting anything short of NI remaining in the EU in all but name.Scott_P said:
No, absolutely not. Time to walk away. Any East/West border like he's proposing is as much a violation of the Good Friday Agreement as a North/South one. If Barnier won't agree to a deal its time to walk and once the hard border is erected along the NI border we can start negotiations as equals.
So you're saying that the EU wants to confiscate NI as a price for us leaving them.0 -
Garbage – would be a disaster for trade.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I really do believe that Barnier is overplaying his hand and driving UK opinion against the EU at a speed that makes WTO most likely to be acceptable to the majority in the UKMarkHopkins said:Big_G_NorthWales said:
Everything is a problem to arch remainer Faisal IslamScott_P said:
Nothing is agreed including the 40 billion until everything is agreed
WTO is becoming more likely day by day
"WTO is becoming more likely day by day"
Unless there is some amazing alternative negotiation going on behind the scenes, then I agree with you.0 -
Historically Labour voters are less likely to turn out in elections that aren’t general elections.dixiedean said:My comment has been eaten, so I will repeat. What evidence is there that voter fatigue will disproportionately affect Labour? It must be at least as dispiriting voting so often as a LD or Con. In Lewisham, at least, the Labour voter gets a win at the end of it.
0 -
There are more Leavers than just Mogg. Someone like Gove would work just as well. Either way a deal that both the EU and Mogg can agree is more likely to unite the country than a deal the EU and an EU supplicant can agree to will.Anazina said:
Yes, that will work! I can imagine the likes of Jacob Rees will be perfectly placed to get us a moderate deal that unites the country and protects the economy!?Philip_Thompson said:
Indeed. What we need is May gone and for the EU to be negotiating with our headbangers instead of her.Scott_P said:
It is a direct consequence of Tezza spending her entire premiership attempting to negotiate with the headbangers on her backbenches, instead of reality.SeanT said:I cannot believe we will lurch into a No Deal, which is so destructive for BOTH sides. This is either dangerous game of chicken, and one side will finally blink and veer away, or it is just theatrics to please the audience, and the real deal is being hashed out somewhere else.
Jesus, you really do see some utter shite on this forum now and then.
You don't reach a settlement by agreeing with your own side, you get a settlement by the opposing sides agreeing. The EU needs to negotiate with a Leaver.0 -
-
Nope. The other choice - and the one that will become increasingly attractive if the EU continues on this course is No deal. In which case the border will be between North and South and will be in whatever form each side chooses to impose.williamglenn said:
An East/West border as a result of NI staying in the SM/CU is not Barnier’s proposal but a consequence of Brexit. If that’s unacceptable you have a choice between vassal state Brexit and no Brexit.Philip_Thompson said:
Clear from Barnier's slides that he's not going to accept anything short of NI in both the CU and SM. In other words not accepting anything short of NI remaining in the EU in all but name.Scott_P said:
No, absolutely not. Time to walk away. Any East/West border like he's proposing is as much a violation of the Good Friday Agreement as a North/South one. If Barnier won't agree to a deal its time to walk and once the hard border is erected along the NI border we can start negotiations as equals.0 -
We made a mistake in agreeing the principle of a backstop to get onto a much more important discussion about trade and future relations. We are, in some respects, going back on that by offering something approaching gibberish.MarkHopkins said:DavidL said:
Tbh I have a little sympathy with the EU on this because I don't understand our "backstop" proposal either. Whether it ever made sense or simply ceased to do so once DD and May had mangled the words to something that they could both agree is not clear.Sandpit said:
Indeed it is a problem. If the EU won’t accept anything that doesn’t involve annexing Northern Ireland, then that £39bn cheque they’ve spent already isn’t going to be signed.Scott_P said:
But the time has come for us to take a step back and to get on with the practicalities of dealing with a no deal outcome. It really has.
This whole dispute over the backstop seems to be (deliberately?) muddying the waters.
Just get on discussing the deal, or if not go WTO. And if the EU won't start discussing the deal then WTO it is by default.
The point remains that what we want to discuss and what will actually make a difference to the UK and the EU is trade and 18 months into the process we seem to be really struggling to get to it thanks to the EU stance. We need to be clear that we are keen to speak to the EU and get a deal with them but only if they talk about what actually matters.0 -
I saw a projection that WTO/no deal has the potential to wipe off 40% of London property values.SeanT said:
No Deal would be fascinatingly spectacular. It could decimate our economy. I have no doubt we would take a very big GDP hit - 5-10%?Big_G_NorthWales said:
I really do believe that Barnier is overplaying his hand and driving UK opinion against the EU at a speed that makes WTO most likely to be acceptable to the majority in the UKMarkHopkins said:Big_G_NorthWales said:
Everything is a problem to arch remainer Faisal IslamScott_P said:
Nothing is agreed including the 40 billion until everything is agreed
WTO is becoming more likely day by day
"WTO is becoming more likely day by day"
Unless there is some amazing alternative negotiation going on behind the scenes, then I agree with you.
That said, we could also bounce back very quickly. Cf Iceland post Credit Crash.
It might just make house prices affordable for youngsters.0 -
Barnier reiterated only last week that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, for any monies to be enforceable they’d need to be written out in the formal Treaty document signed when we leave.SeanT said:
Isn't the UK legally obliged to pay the £39bn? And haven't we agreed that, in principle, already? Difficult to go back on that.Sandpit said:
Indeed it is a problem. If the EU won’t accept anything that doesn’t involve annexing Northern Ireland, then that £39bn cheque they’ve spent already isn’t going to be signed.Scott_P said:
OTOH if we simply refused to pay it, how could the EU force us to cough up? They could hardly take us to the ECJ, we'd be outside its remit.
OTOOH, they could then do a Trump on us, and raise tariffs on all UK trade til we are eating pebbles and London is haunted by wolverines and typhus.
I cannot believe we will lurch into a No Deal, which is so destructive for BOTH sides. This is either dangerous game of chicken, and one side will finally blink and veer away, or it is just theatrics to please the audience, and the real deal is being hashed out somewhere else.
Sadly it’s always been my thought that the EU has no incentive to negotiate in good faith given the timings involved, they’re going to offer a vassal state deal at the last minute that we can either accept or crash out. Which is why no deal needs to be credible from our side, we need to be preparing for it yesterday.
The one thing they can’t do is raise tarrifs on UK trade specifically, that go above what they would charge to other countries.
One has to assume (and hope) that there’s a bunch of adults actually negotiating Brexit somewhere, while leaving the politicians and journalists to mouth off at each other in the meantime.0 -
Convincing the other side that you're a headbanger (a la Trump) is a sane strategy.Philip_Thompson said:
Indeed. What we need is May gone and for the EU to be negotiating with our headbangers instead of her.Scott_P said:
It is a direct consequence of Tezza spending her entire premiership attempting to negotiate with the headbangers on her backbenches, instead of reality.SeanT said:I cannot believe we will lurch into a No Deal, which is so destructive for BOTH sides. This is either dangerous game of chicken, and one side will finally blink and veer away, or it is just theatrics to please the audience, and the real deal is being hashed out somewhere else.
0 -
For everyone including the EU but they will be in turmoil asTrump moves to bilateral trade deals only and negates the EUAnazina said:
Garbage – would be a disaster for trade.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I really do believe that Barnier is overplaying his hand and driving UK opinion against the EU at a speed that makes WTO most likely to be acceptable to the majority in the UKMarkHopkins said:Big_G_NorthWales said:
Everything is a problem to arch remainer Faisal IslamScott_P said:
Nothing is agreed including the 40 billion until everything is agreed
WTO is becoming more likely day by day
"WTO is becoming more likely day by day"
Unless there is some amazing alternative negotiation going on behind the scenes, then I agree with you.0 -
I think we could also bounce back towards the EU rapidly*, if leaving caused serious hardship.SeanT said:
No Deal would be fascinatingly spectacular. It could decimate our economy. I have no doubt we would take a very big GDP hit - 5-10%?Big_G_NorthWales said:
I really do believe that Barnier is overplaying his hand and driving UK opinion against the EU at a speed that makes WTO most likely to be acceptable to the majority in the UKMarkHopkins said:Big_G_NorthWales said:
Everything is a problem to arch remainer Faisal IslamScott_P said:
Nothing is agreed including the 40 billion until everything is agreed
WTO is becoming more likely day by day
"WTO is becoming more likely day by day"
Unless there is some amazing alternative negotiation going on behind the scenes, then I agree with you.
That said, we could also bounce back very quickly. Cf Iceland post Credit Crash.
(*Maybe not as a United Kingdom though, sadly, but as constituent parts with Scotland leading the way and England bringing up the rear tail between legs.)0 -
UK legally bound to pay £39bn Brexit 'divorce bill' before EU trade deal agreed, admits minister
Admission exposes Theresa May’s promise that 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' to be an empty one, government told
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-divorce-bill-uk-pay-eu-trade-deal-talks-david-davis-suella-braverman-a8364841.html?amp0 -
Indeed. The likes of Nicky Morgan proposing amendments directly opposing the manifesto she stood on less than a year ago is out of order.Scott_P said:
It is a direct consequence of Tezza spending her entire premiership attempting to negotiate with the headbangers on her backbenches, instead of reality.SeanT said:I cannot believe we will lurch into a No Deal, which is so destructive for BOTH sides. This is either dangerous game of chicken, and one side will finally blink and veer away, or it is just theatrics to please the audience, and the real deal is being hashed out somewhere else.
0 -
It worked for IDS and the other Leavers.Sandpit said:
Indeed. The likes of Nicky Morgan proposing amendments directly opposing the manifesto she stood on less than a year ago is out of order.Scott_P said:
It is a direct consequence of Tezza spending her entire premiership attempting to negotiate with the headbangers on her backbenches, instead of reality.SeanT said:I cannot believe we will lurch into a No Deal, which is so destructive for BOTH sides. This is either dangerous game of chicken, and one side will finally blink and veer away, or it is just theatrics to please the audience, and the real deal is being hashed out somewhere else.
0 -
Fair play to Mike for nailing his colours to the mast.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/lib-dems-expect-strong-second-place-finish-in-lewisham-east-anti-brexit-message-may-and-corbyn-2018-60 -
Ladbrokes gave me a couple of free bets so for small stakes I am effectively @ 5/2.0
-
Now changed to
Tories 8/13,
LibDems 6/50 -
The negotiating car crash is not happening because we do not have a believer doing the negotiating, it's because the EU hold all the cards.Philip_Thompson said:
There are more Leavers than just Mogg. Someone like Gove would work just as well. Either way a deal that both the EU and Mogg can agree is more likely to unite the country than a deal the EU and an EU supplicant can agree to will.Anazina said:
Yes, that will work! I can imagine the likes of Jacob Rees will be perfectly placed to get us a moderate deal that unites the country and protects the economy!?Philip_Thompson said:
Indeed. What we need is May gone and for the EU to be negotiating with our headbangers instead of her.Scott_P said:
It is a direct consequence of Tezza spending her entire premiership attempting to negotiate with the headbangers on her backbenches, instead of reality.SeanT said:I cannot believe we will lurch into a No Deal, which is so destructive for BOTH sides. This is either dangerous game of chicken, and one side will finally blink and veer away, or it is just theatrics to please the audience, and the real deal is being hashed out somewhere else.
Jesus, you really do see some utter shite on this forum now and then.
You don't reach a settlement by agreeing with your own side, you get a settlement by the opposing sides agreeing. The EU needs to negotiate with a Leaver.
The only advantage of having a leaver doing the negotiating is that it will force Leave to confront the reality of their self deception.0 -
"However, in fact, the EU has insisted the financial settlement must be signed off as part of the withdrawal deal – which will contain only a “political declaration” on a likely future trade deal."SeanT said:
That's what I thought. We are accepting a legal obligation.TheScreamingEagles said:UK legally bound to pay £39bn Brexit 'divorce bill' before EU trade deal agreed, admits minister
Admission exposes Theresa May’s promise that 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' to be an empty one, government told
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-divorce-bill-uk-pay-eu-trade-deal-talks-david-davis-suella-braverman-a8364841.html?amp
OTOH we could just say shove it to the EU, "because you are not acting in good faith", just keep our money, and I am not sure what the EU could do then.
The money is also AIUI meant to be paid in stages, at any stage we could just stop paying.
The Irish backstop will be part of the withdrawal deal, won't it?0 -
To make things harder the CON candidate is a leaver in a seat that was 65% remain.
Another way to look at this is to say that the Tory has 35% of the vote to themselves.
But then turnout matters a lot in by elections.0 -
The people that got the Referendum wrong are getting Brexit negotiation wrong too. Both in Brussels and London. Just as they thought they could be smart-arses and in getting that wrong, they delivered Brexit, so they think they can be smart-arses with the actual Leave negotiations - and will deliver a WTO exit too.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Everything is a problem to arch remainer Faisal IslamScott_P said:
Nothing is agreed including the 40 billion until everything is agreed
WTO is becoming more likely day by day0 -
If they legally agreed to pay £39bn come what may, that's ****ing ridiculous.0
-
Except if we’re begging countries to sign deals with us abrogating our obligations isn’t a good look.SeanT said:
That's what I thought. We are accepting a legal obligation.TheScreamingEagles said:UK legally bound to pay £39bn Brexit 'divorce bill' before EU trade deal agreed, admits minister
Admission exposes Theresa May’s promise that 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' to be an empty one, government told
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-divorce-bill-uk-pay-eu-trade-deal-talks-david-davis-suella-braverman-a8364841.html?amp
OTOH we could just say shove it to the EU, "because you are not acting in good faith", just keep our money, and I am not sure what the EU could do then.
The money is also AIUI meant to be paid in stages, at any stage we could just stop paying.0 -
What would that do to the country's credit rating?SeanT said:
That's what I thought. We are accepting a legal obligation.TheScreamingEagles said:UK legally bound to pay £39bn Brexit 'divorce bill' before EU trade deal agreed, admits minister
Admission exposes Theresa May’s promise that 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' to be an empty one, government told
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-divorce-bill-uk-pay-eu-trade-deal-talks-david-davis-suella-braverman-a8364841.html?amp
OTOH we could just say shove it to the EU, "because you are not acting in good faith", just keep our money, and I am not sure what the EU could do then.
The money is also AIUI meant to be paid in stages, at any stage we could just stop paying.0 -
Big Brave Ladbrokeslogical_song said:Now changed to
Tories 8/13,
LibDems 6/50 -
@mitchprothero: Perfectly timed content here folks https://twitter.com/warrenellis/status/10061682691438551050
-
Hard to believe that they need us more than we need them.Morris_Dancer said:If they legally agreed to pay £39bn come what may, that's ****ing ridiculous.
0 -
No UK govt will allow a border between North and South, as the EU no doubt it aware. It is an asymmetrical situation. They can threaten something they don't want and they have the power to impose, and the UK govt will acquiesce.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope. The other choice - and the one that will become increasingly attractive if the EU continues on this course is No deal. In which case the border will be between North and South and will be in whatever form each side chooses to impose.williamglenn said:
An East/West border as a result of NI staying in the SM/CU is not Barnier’s proposal but a consequence of Brexit. If that’s unacceptable you have a choice between vassal state Brexit and no Brexit.Philip_Thompson said:
Clear from Barnier's slides that he's not going to accept anything short of NI in both the CU and SM. In other words not accepting anything short of NI remaining in the EU in all but name.Scott_P said:
No, absolutely not. Time to walk away. Any East/West border like he's proposing is as much a violation of the Good Friday Agreement as a North/South one. If Barnier won't agree to a deal its time to walk and once the hard border is erected along the NI border we can start negotiations as equals.
That's just the reality. Not to say it is a reason we shouldn't have voted Leave, just to say it is a very real issue that perhaps was not given sufficient airtime prior to the vote.0 -
David Davis is so crap a negotiator that he pays full price for a sofa at DFS.
If you threw him into a barrel of boobs he’d come up sucking his own thumb.0 -
logical_song said:
What would that do to the country's credit rating?SeanT said:
That's what I thought. We are accepting a legal obligation.TheScreamingEagles said:UK legally bound to pay £39bn Brexit 'divorce bill' before EU trade deal agreed, admits minister
Admission exposes Theresa May’s promise that 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' to be an empty one, government told
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-divorce-bill-uk-pay-eu-trade-deal-talks-david-davis-suella-braverman-a8364841.html?amp
OTOH we could just say shove it to the EU, "because you are not acting in good faith", just keep our money, and I am not sure what the EU could do then.
The money is also AIUI meant to be paid in stages, at any stage we could just stop paying.
Not much. It's just a dispute (about whether the money is due) between the UK and the EU.
0 -
Mr. Topping, bollocks to that. Northern Ireland is a constituent part of the UK. Insisting on the imposition of a customs border between NI and Great Britain is as deranged as demanding one between England and Scotland, or Yorkshire and Lancashire.0
-
This thread has already descended to a carbon copy of about 1000 previous threads.0
-
We’ve not signed the withdrawal Treaty yet though. If we’re not prepared to walk away we should start buying lube.SeanT said:
That's what I thought. We are accepting a legal obligation.TheScreamingEagles said:UK legally bound to pay £39bn Brexit 'divorce bill' before EU trade deal agreed, admits minister
Admission exposes Theresa May’s promise that 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' to be an empty one, government told
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-divorce-bill-uk-pay-eu-trade-deal-talks-david-davis-suella-braverman-a8364841.html?amp
OTOH we could just say shove it to the EU, "because you are not acting in good faith", just keep our money, and I am not sure what the EU could do then.
The money is also AIUI meant to be paid in stages, at any stage we could just stop paying.0 -
A lot actually.MarkHopkins said:logical_song said:
What would that do to the country's credit rating?SeanT said:
That's what I thought. We are accepting a legal obligation.TheScreamingEagles said:UK legally bound to pay £39bn Brexit 'divorce bill' before EU trade deal agreed, admits minister
Admission exposes Theresa May’s promise that 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' to be an empty one, government told
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-divorce-bill-uk-pay-eu-trade-deal-talks-david-davis-suella-braverman-a8364841.html?amp
OTOH we could just say shove it to the EU, "because you are not acting in good faith", just keep our money, and I am not sure what the EU could do then.
The money is also AIUI meant to be paid in stages, at any stage we could just stop paying.
Not much. It's just a dispute (about whether the money is due) between the UK and the EU.
It would be registered as a default against us.
But our credit rating would already be in the toilet if we went WTO.0 -
I think that is way too high. We export 28% of our GDP. Of that about 11% of GDP is exported to the EU at the moment. WTO could reduce that by 10%, probably less given the level of WTO tariffs that would apply. That would reduce our GDP by 1.1%. Set against that, if imports from the EU fell by the same percentage we would, on paper, actually have a GDP gain.SeanT said:
No Deal would be fascinatingly spectacular. It could decimate our economy. I have no doubt we would take a very big GDP hit - 5-10%?Big_G_NorthWales said:
I really do believe that Barnier is overplaying his hand and driving UK opinion against the EU at a speed that makes WTO most likely to be acceptable to the majority in the UKMarkHopkins said:Big_G_NorthWales said:
Everything is a problem to arch remainer Faisal IslamScott_P said:
Nothing is agreed including the 40 billion until everything is agreed
WTO is becoming more likely day by day
"WTO is becoming more likely day by day"
Unless there is some amazing alternative negotiation going on behind the scenes, then I agree with you.
That said, we could also bounce back very quickly. Cf Iceland post Credit Crash.
Of course it would be more complicated than that. There would be a potential disruption of supply chains, there would be a loss of confidence, there might be some business transferred into the Single Market. My guess is that Sterling would take a bit of a beating offsetting and then some the loss of "free" access to the single market making our exports more competitive. But in Sterling terms the effect would be very modest.0 -
Must have been a different SeanT that called me a twat when I said WTO was likely if we voted Leave.SeanT said:
Depends on the optics. If, to the world, it looks like the EU is trying to extort money from us, then other countries might be sympathetic.TheScreamingEagles said:
Except if we’re begging countries to sign deals with us abrogating our obligations isn’t a good look.SeanT said:
That's what I thought. We are accepting a legal obligation.TheScreamingEagles said:UK legally bound to pay £39bn Brexit 'divorce bill' before EU trade deal agreed, admits minister
Admission exposes Theresa May’s promise that 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' to be an empty one, government told
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-divorce-bill-uk-pay-eu-trade-deal-talks-david-davis-suella-braverman-a8364841.html?amp
OTOH we could just say shove it to the EU, "because you are not acting in good faith", just keep our money, and I am not sure what the EU could do then.
The money is also AIUI meant to be paid in stages, at any stage we could just stop paying.
Either way I agree with the consensus on here. TMay is dithering and useless. Put a red-blooded Leaver in charge, or just someone with some cullions, like Javid.
And start visibly preparing for NO DEAL.0 -
Now it'slogical_song said:Now changed to
Tories 8/13,
LibDems 6/5
Tories 4/6
LibDems 11/10
... the power of PoliticalBetting.-1 -
1. Wholly electronic borderSeanT said:
No UK govt will allow a border in the Irish Sea, either.TOPPING said:
No UK govt will allow a border between North and South, as the EU no doubt it aware. It is an asymmetrical situation. They can threaten something they don't want and they have the power to impose, and the UK govt will acquiesce.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope. The other choice - and the one that will become increasingly attractive if the EU continues on this course is No deal. In which case the border will be between North and South and will be in whatever form each side chooses to impose.williamglenn said:
An East/West border as a result of NI staying in the SM/CU is not Barnier’s proposal but a consequence of Brexit. If that’s unacceptable you have a choice between vassal state Brexit and no Brexit.Philip_Thompson said:
Clear from Barnier's slides that he's not going to accept anything short of NI in both the CU and SM. In other words not accepting anything short of NI remaining in the EU in all but name.Scott_P said:
No, absolutely not. Time to walk away. Any East/West border like he's proposing is as much a violation of the Good Friday Agreement as a North/South one. If Barnier won't agree to a deal its time to walk and once the hard border is erected along the NI border we can start negotiations as equals.
That's just the reality. Not to say it is a reason we shouldn't have voted Leave, just to say it is a very real issue that perhaps was not given sufficient airtime prior to the vote.
It's an impasse. No Deal looms.
2. CU/SM whole UK membership
There can’t be a no deal for precisely the no hard border reason0 -
The UK has no intention of putting a border across Ireland. The EU, on the other hand...TOPPING said:
No UK govt will allow a border between North and South, as the EU no doubt it aware. It is an asymmetrical situation. They can threaten something they don't want and they have the power to impose, and the UK govt will acquiesce.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope. The other choice - and the one that will become increasingly attractive if the EU continues on this course is No deal. In which case the border will be between North and South and will be in whatever form each side chooses to impose.williamglenn said:
An East/West border as a result of NI staying in the SM/CU is not Barnier’s proposal but a consequence of Brexit. If that’s unacceptable you have a choice between vassal state Brexit and no Brexit.Philip_Thompson said:
Clear from Barnier's slides that he's not going to accept anything short of NI in both the CU and SM. In other words not accepting anything short of NI remaining in the EU in all but name.Scott_P said:
No, absolutely not. Time to walk away. Any East/West border like he's proposing is as much a violation of the Good Friday Agreement as a North/South one. If Barnier won't agree to a deal its time to walk and once the hard border is erected along the NI border we can start negotiations as equals.
That's just the reality. Not to say it is a reason we shouldn't have voted Leave, just to say it is a very real issue that perhaps was not given sufficient airtime prior to the vote.0 -
TheScreamingEagles said:
A lot actually.MarkHopkins said:logical_song said:
What would that do to the country's credit rating?SeanT said:
That's what I thought. We are accepting a legal obligation.TheScreamingEagles said:UK legally bound to pay £39bn Brexit 'divorce bill' before EU trade deal agreed, admits minister
Admission exposes Theresa May’s promise that 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' to be an empty one, government told
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-divorce-bill-uk-pay-eu-trade-deal-talks-david-davis-suella-braverman-a8364841.html?amp
OTOH we could just say shove it to the EU, "because you are not acting in good faith", just keep our money, and I am not sure what the EU could do then.
The money is also AIUI meant to be paid in stages, at any stage we could just stop paying.
Not much. It's just a dispute (about whether the money is due) between the UK and the EU.
It would be registered as a default against us.
But our credit rating would already be in the toilet if we went WTO.
It's not a default if it's not due.
0 -
Really?MarkHopkins said:logical_song said:
What would that do to the country's credit rating?SeanT said:
That's what I thought. We are accepting a legal obligation.TheScreamingEagles said:UK legally bound to pay £39bn Brexit 'divorce bill' before EU trade deal agreed, admits minister
Admission exposes Theresa May’s promise that 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' to be an empty one, government told
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-divorce-bill-uk-pay-eu-trade-deal-talks-david-davis-suella-braverman-a8364841.html?amp
OTOH we could just say shove it to the EU, "because you are not acting in good faith", just keep our money, and I am not sure what the EU could do then.
The money is also AIUI meant to be paid in stages, at any stage we could just stop paying.
Not much. It's just a dispute (about whether the money is due) between the UK and the EU.
"UK legally bound to pay £39bn Brexit 'divorce bill' before EU trade deal agreed, admits minister"0 -
But we’ve already agreed that it is.MarkHopkins said:TheScreamingEagles said:
A lot actually.MarkHopkins said:logical_song said:
What would that do to the country's credit rating?SeanT said:
That's what I thought. We are accepting a legal obligation.TheScreamingEagles said:UK legally bound to pay £39bn Brexit 'divorce bill' before EU trade deal agreed, admits minister
Admission exposes Theresa May’s promise that 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' to be an empty one, government told
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-divorce-bill-uk-pay-eu-trade-deal-talks-david-davis-suella-braverman-a8364841.html?amp
OTOH we could just say shove it to the EU, "because you are not acting in good faith", just keep our money, and I am not sure what the EU could do then.
The money is also AIUI meant to be paid in stages, at any stage we could just stop paying.
Not much. It's just a dispute (about whether the money is due) between the UK and the EU.
It would be registered as a default against us.
But our credit rating would already be in the toilet if we went WTO.
It's not a default if it's not due.0 -
Let me guess:FrancisUrquhart said:This thread has already descended to a carbon copy of about 1000 previous threads.
Brexit Brexit Brexit
Brexit Brexit Brexit
0 -
I don't know why we don't offer what was in the December agreement regarding a backstop. The EU agreed to it so they can hardly rebuff it.DavidL said:
We made a mistake in agreeing the principle of a backstop to get onto a much more important discussion about trade and future relations. We are, in some respects, going back on that by offering something approaching gibberish.MarkHopkins said:DavidL said:
Tbh I have a little sympathy with the EU on this because I don't understand our "backstop" proposal either. Whether it ever made sense or simply ceased to do so once DD and May had mangled the words to something that they could both agree is not clear.Sandpit said:
Indeed it is a problem. If the EU won’t accept anything that doesn’t involve annexing Northern Ireland, then that £39bn cheque they’ve spent already isn’t going to be signed.Scott_P said:
But the time has come for us to take a step back and to get on with the practicalities of dealing with a no deal outcome. It really has.
This whole dispute over the backstop seems to be (deliberately?) muddying the waters.
Just get on discussing the deal, or if not go WTO. And if the EU won't start discussing the deal then WTO it is by default.
The point remains that what we want to discuss and what will actually make a difference to the UK and the EU is trade and 18 months into the process we seem to be really struggling to get to it thanks to the EU stance. We need to be clear that we are keen to speak to the EU and get a deal with them but only if they talk about what actually matters.
Para 49 "In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.
Para 50. In the absence of agreed solutions, as set out in the previous paragraph, the United
Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern
Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom,"
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/joint_report.pdf
This backstop means the whole UK remain in the CU and SM until an agreement on the Irish border is reached.
The UK has already offered the CU part of this with a hope or expectation that an agreement on the border will be reached by December 2021. They now need to follow it up with the Internal Market bit and job done.0 -
Still confident on your Lewisham bets ?Pulpstar said:
Let me guess:FrancisUrquhart said:This thread has already descended to a carbon copy of about 1000 previous threads.
Brexit Brexit Brexit
Brexit Brexit Brexit0 -
I think most of the polling has shown Leavers would give up NI if it prevented their preferred form of leave, so i don't think more air time before the referendum would have changed minds muchTOPPING said:
No UK govt will allow a border between North and South, as the EU no doubt it aware. It is an asymmetrical situation. They can threaten something they don't want and they have the power to impose, and the UK govt will acquiesce.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope. The other choice - and the one that will become increasingly attractive if the EU continues on this course is No deal. In which case the border will be between North and South and will be in whatever form each side chooses to impose.williamglenn said:
An East/West border as a result of NI staying in the SM/CU is not Barnier’s proposal but a consequence of Brexit. If that’s unacceptable you have a choice between vassal state Brexit and no Brexit.Philip_Thompson said:
Clear from Barnier's slides that he's not going to accept anything short of NI in both the CU and SM. In other words not accepting anything short of NI remaining in the EU in all but name.Scott_P said:
No, absolutely not. Time to walk away. Any East/West border like he's proposing is as much a violation of the Good Friday Agreement as a North/South one. If Barnier won't agree to a deal its time to walk and once the hard border is erected along the NI border we can start negotiations as equals.
That's just the reality. Not to say it is a reason think we shouldn't have voted Leave, just to say it is a very real issue that perhaps was not given sufficient airtime prior to the vote.0 -
FPT:
I wouldn’t say that Elliot is a right wing Tory, but tbh he doesn’t come off as a social democrat but as centrist that leans right, especially on cultural issues. Labour did the ‘tough on immigration’ thing he’d like the party to go and do now in 2015, and they didn’t win. This is a very good article on the matter of centre left parties and immigration: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2018/06/lesson-swedish-social-democrats-not-one-you-think#ampAnazina said:
"my fellow social democrats"Elliot said:
Yep. I find it enormously frustrating that my fellow social democrats refuse to acknowledge how their support for open immigration and opposition to national identity completely undermines their own electoral base. They need to read more Orwell.HYUFD said:
Hence in the UK we had UKIP, Brexit and Corbyn, in the USA we had Trump and Sanders, in France they have Le Pen and Melenchon, in Italy they have a coalition government between the anti austerity Five Star and the anti migration Lega Nord and in New Zealand there is a coalition government between Labour and New Zealand FirstElliot said:
lide.rottenborough said:
populists or b) the populist thing blows up spectacularly somehow.asjohnstone said:edmundintokyo said:On topic, the big takeaway is that Trump has eaten the Republican Party, so:
1) GOP members will be terrified to impeach him, no matter what Mueller finds
2) It's going to be really hard to primary him
If that's right, the market that looks mis-priced is this one:
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2020/republican-candidate
Guffaw. Your posts suggest you are one of the most rightwing Tories on this forum. There must be a massive difference between what you write and what you think.
Research shows that voters lost to the far-right will not return to the social democratic embrace. Having rejected their traditional party affiliation, these voters state they would rather switch to other conservative parties rather than go back. And in many ways they shouldn’t. The hardening of rhetoric on immigration by social democrats is little more than the left following the far right. Voters who state “immigration” as their primary concern will always choose the real thing rather over the forced imitation.
My dad is one of those voters whose primary concern is immigration and I know I couldn’t vote for the same political vision as him. We have two totally different sets of values and ways of seeing the world - I’ve found that many voters like this generally have a more socially conservative perspective.0 -
TheScreamingEagles said:MarkHopkins said:logical_song said:SeanT said:TheScreamingEagles said:
UK legally bound to pay £39bn Brexit 'divorce bill' before EU trade deal agreed, admits minister
If the choice is between a border between North and South or one in the Irish Sea - and that really is the only two choices available - then North and South it will be.TOPPING said:
No UK govt will allow a border between North and South, as the EU no doubt it aware. It is an asymmetrical situation. They can threaten something they don't want and they have the power to impose, and the UK govt will acquiesce.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope. The other choice - and the one that will become increasingly attractive if the EU continues on this course is No deal. In which case the border will be between North and South and will be in whatever form each side chooses to impose.williamglenn said:
An East/West border as a result of NI staying in the SM/CU is not Barnier’s proposal but a consequence of Brexit. If that’s unacceptable you have a choice between vassal state Brexit and no Brexit.Philip_Thompson said:
Clear from Barnier's slides that he's not going to accept anything short of NI in both the CU and SM. In other words not accepting anything short of NI remaining in the EU in all but name.Scott_P said:
No, absolutely not. Time to walk away. Any East/West border like he's proposing is as much a violation of the Good Friday Agreement as a North/South one. If Barnier won't agree to a deal its time to walk and once the hard border is erected along the NI border we can start negotiations as equals.
That's just the reality. Not to say it is a reason we shouldn't have voted Leave, just to say it is a very real issue that perhaps was not given sufficient airtime prior to the vote.0 -
logical_song said:
Really?MarkHopkins said:logical_song said:
What would that do to the country's credit rating?SeanT said:
That's what I thought. We are accepting a legal obligation.TheScreamingEagles said:UK legally bound to pay £39bn Brexit 'divorce bill' before EU trade deal agreed, admits minister
Admission exposes Theresa May’s promise that 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' to be an empty one, government told
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-divorce-bill-uk-pay-eu-trade-deal-talks-david-davis-suella-braverman-a8364841.html?amp
OTOH we could just say shove it to the EU, "because you are not acting in good faith", just keep our money, and I am not sure what the EU could do then.
The money is also AIUI meant to be paid in stages, at any stage we could just stop paying.
Not much. It's just a dispute (about whether the money is due) between the UK and the EU.
"UK legally bound to pay £39bn Brexit 'divorce bill' before EU trade deal agreed, admits minister"
Only if parliament approves that (crazy) deal - it's not formally agreed with the EU yet.
0 -
You don’t get it.Sandpit said:
The UK has no intention of putting a border across Ireland. The EU, on the other hand...TOPPING said:
No UK govt will allow a border between North and South, as the EU no doubt it aware. It is an asymmetrical situation. They can threaten something they don't want and they have the power to impose, and the UK govt will acquiesce.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope. The other choice - and the one that will become increasingly attractive if the EU continues on this course is No deal. In which case the border will be between North and South and will be in whatever form each side chooses to impose.williamglenn said:
An East/West border as a result of NI staying in the SM/CU is not Barnier’s proposal but a consequence of Brexit. If that’s unacceptable you have a choice between vassal state Brexit and no Brexit.Philip_Thompson said:
Clear from Barnier's slides that he's not going to accept anything short of NI in both the CU and SM. In other words not accepting anything short of NI remaining in the EU in all but name.Scott_P said:
No, absolutely not. Time to walk away. Any East/West border like he's proposing is as much a violation of the Good Friday Agreement as a North/South one. If Barnier won't agree to a deal its time to walk and once the hard border is erected along the NI border we can start negotiations as equals.
That's just the reality. Not to say it is a reason we shouldn't have voted Leave, just to say it is a very real issue that perhaps was not given sufficient airtime prior to the vote.
Neither side wants a hard border but for the UK government it is an impossibility. So we are in the bizarre situation whereby the EU can threaten something it doesn’t want and the UK cannot risk any negotiation which results in one so will acquiesce as described above.0 -
Someone ought to redo the following with 'brexit brexit brexit ... 'Pulpstar said:
Let me guess:FrancisUrquhart said:This thread has already descended to a carbon copy of about 1000 previous threads.
Brexit Brexit Brexit
Brexit Brexit Brexit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIyixC9NsLI
It works on so many levels.0 -
Hmm, if the government had begun WTO exit planning two years ago and it looked like a serious option would the EU be so inflexible now? I doubt it.0
-
I wish there was a market on the outcome of the Singapore talks.
My prediction is that Trump will be aggressive towards Kim who will walk out and blame Trump for the collapse. Kim then has what he wants. He keeps his nuclear weapons. He has blunted Trump's threats. He has gained goodwill with South Korea, China and Russia who will ease sanctions. He has the prospect of a peace treaty with South Korea that excludes the US.
Trump will give his own account. Kim had the opportunity of a great future but he blew it. But it leaves Trump diminished.0 -
Maybe you should stop digging?MarkHopkins said:logical_song said:
Really?MarkHopkins said:logical_song said:
What would that do to the country's credit rating?SeanT said:
That's what I thought. We are accepting a legal obligation.TheScreamingEagles said:UK legally bound to pay £39bn Brexit 'divorce bill' before EU trade deal agreed, admits minister
Admission exposes Theresa May’s promise that 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' to be an empty one, government told
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-divorce-bill-uk-pay-eu-trade-deal-talks-david-davis-suella-braverman-a8364841.html?amp
OTOH we could just say shove it to the EU, "because you are not acting in good faith", just keep our money, and I am not sure what the EU could do then.
The money is also AIUI meant to be paid in stages, at any stage we could just stop paying.
Not much. It's just a dispute (about whether the money is due) between the UK and the EU.
"UK legally bound to pay £39bn Brexit 'divorce bill' before EU trade deal agreed, admits minister"
Only if parliament approves that (crazy) deal - it's not formally agreed with the EU yet.
Are you right and 'the minister' wrong?0 -
Barnesian said:
The problem is if that becomes the treaty how do we ever get out of the CU and SM? That is why DD insisted on an end date provision. He was right. If we want to go our own way we cannot be indefinitely committed to this. And if that causes a problem for Eire well ultimately that is just too bad.DavidL said:
I don't know why we don't offer what was in the December agreement regarding a backstop. The EU agreed to it so they can hardly rebuff it.MarkHopkins said:
We made a mistake in agreeing the principle of a backstop to get onto a much more important discussion about trade and future relations. We are, in some respects, going back on that by offering something approaching gibberish.DavidL said:
The point remains that what we want to discuss and what will actually make a difference to the UK and the EU is trade and 18 months into the process we seem to be really struggling to get to it thanks to the EU stance. We need to be clear that we are keen to speak to the EU and get a deal with them but only if they talk about what actually matters.
Para 49 "In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.
Para 50. In the absence of agreed solutions, as set out in the previous paragraph, the United
Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern
Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom,"
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/joint_report.pdf
This backstop means the whole UK remain in the CU and SM until an agreement on the Irish border is reached.
The UK has already offered the CU part of this with a hope or expectation that an agreement on the border will be reached by December 2021. They now need to follow it up with the Internal Market bit and job done.0 -
25 million views....a comment on modern society?JosiasJessop said:
Someone ought to redo the following with 'brexit brexit brexit ... 'Pulpstar said:
Let me guess:FrancisUrquhart said:This thread has already descended to a carbon copy of about 1000 previous threads.
Brexit Brexit Brexit
Brexit Brexit Brexit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIyixC9NsLI
It works on so many levels.0 -
Thick as pig shit...
Emma Dent Coad does it again on the Daily Politics. Asked if she wants to remain in the single market, she said:
“Absolutely, always have done, yes”
And asked if she will back the EEA amendment against the Labour whip?
“No, I won’t”0 -
See my response to @Sandpit.SeanT said:
There can certainly be a No Deal if the EU insists on something that the UK government/parliament simply cannot accept.TOPPING said:
1. Wholly electronic borderSeanT said:
No UK govt will allow a border in the Irish Sea, either.TOPPING said:
No UK govt will allow a border between North and South, as the EU no doubt it aware. It is an asymmetrical situation. They can threaten something they don't want and they have the power to impose, and the UK govt will acquiesce.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope. The other choice - and the one that will become increasingly attractive if the EU continues on this course is No deal. In which case the border will be between North and South and will be in whatever form each side chooses to impose.williamglenn said:
An East/West border as a result of NI staying in the SM/CU is not Barnier’s proposal but a consequence of Brexit. If that’s unacceptable you have a choice between vassal state Brexit and no Brexit.Philip_Thompson said:
Clear from Barnier's slides that he's not going to accept anything short of NI in both the CU and SM. In other words not accepting anything short of NI remaining in the EU in all but name.Scott_P said:
No, absolutely not. Time to walk away. Any East/West border like he's proposing is as much a violation of the Good Friday Agreement as a North/South one. If Barnier won't agree to a deal its time to walk and once the hard border is erected along the NI border we can start negotiations as equals.
That's just the reality. Not to say it is a reason we shouldn't have voted Leave, just to say it is a very real issue that perhaps was not given sufficient airtime prior to the vote.
It's an impasse. No Deal looms.
2. CU/SM whole UK membership
There can’t be a no deal for precisely the no hard border reason
And then?
We would not be the ones filmed on every global TV news station putting up a new border near Londonderry. We would do nothing, we would keep our side of the border open.
It would be the Irish and the EU visibly erecting the infrastructure, violating their own red line.0 -
The EU won’t put a border across Ireland, they’re bluffing and we need to call them on it.TOPPING said:
You don’t get it.Sandpit said:
The UK has no intention of putting a border across Ireland. The EU, on the other hand...TOPPING said:
No UK govt will allow a border between North and South, as the EU no doubt it aware. It is an asymmetrical situation. They can threaten something they don't want and they have the power to impose, and the UK govt will acquiesce.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope. The other choice - and the one that will become increasingly attractive if the EU continues on this course is No deal. In which case the border will be between North and South and will be in whatever form each side chooses to impose.williamglenn said:
An East/West border as a result of NI staying in the SM/CU is not Barnier’s proposal but a consequence of Brexit. If that’s unacceptable you have a choice between vassal state Brexit and no Brexit.Philip_Thompson said:
Clear from Barnier's slides that he's not going to accept anything short of NI in both the CU and SM. In other words not accepting anything short of NI remaining in the EU in all but name.Scott_P said:
No, absolutely not. Time to walk away. Any East/West border like he's proposing is as much a violation of the Good Friday Agreement as a North/South one. If Barnier won't agree to a deal its time to walk and once the hard border is erected along the NI border we can start negotiations as equals.
That's just the reality. Not to say it is a reason we shouldn't have voted Leave, just to say it is a very real issue that perhaps was not given sufficient airtime prior to the vote.
Neither side wants a hard border but for the UK government it is an impossibility. So we are in the bizarre situation whereby the EU can threaten something it doesn’t want and the UK cannot risk any negotiation which results in one so will acquiesce as described above.0 -
logical_song said:
Maybe you should stop digging?MarkHopkins said:logical_song said:
Really?MarkHopkins said:logical_song said:
What would that do to the country's credit rating?SeanT said:
That's what I thought. We are accepting a legal obligation.TheScreamingEagles said:UK legally bound to pay £39bn Brexit 'divorce bill' before EU trade deal agreed, admits minister
Admission exposes Theresa May’s promise that 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' to be an empty one, government told
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-divorce-bill-uk-pay-eu-trade-deal-talks-david-davis-suella-braverman-a8364841.html?amp
OTOH we could just say shove it to the EU, "because you are not acting in good faith", just keep our money, and I am not sure what the EU could do then.
The money is also AIUI meant to be paid in stages, at any stage we could just stop paying.
Not much. It's just a dispute (about whether the money is due) between the UK and the EU.
"UK legally bound to pay £39bn Brexit 'divorce bill' before EU trade deal agreed, admits minister"
Only if parliament approves that (crazy) deal - it's not formally agreed with the EU yet.
Are you right and 'the minister' wrong?
Read the article and understand the context of the quote.
0 -
Now it'slogical_song said:
Now it'slogical_song said:Now changed to
Tories 8/13,
LibDems 6/5
Tories 4/6
LibDems 11/10
... the power of PoliticalBetting.
Tories 8/11
LibDems Evens
I'm going to logout of Ladbrokes now, before crossover.0 -
DavidL said:
That's what we implicitly agreed last December. The "expects" end date provision is a fig-leaf with no legal meaning but it might be good enough to keep the Brexiteers in the pan.Barnesian said:
The problem is if that becomes the treaty how do we ever get out of the CU and SM? That is why DD insisted on an end date provision. He was right. If we want to go our own way we cannot be indefinitely committed to this. And if that causes a problem for Eire well ultimately that is just too bad.DavidL said:
I don't know why we don't offer what was in the December agreement regarding a backstop. The EU agreed to it so they can hardly rebuff it.MarkHopkins said:
We made a mistake in agreeing the principle of a backstop to get onto a much more important discussion about trade and future relations. We are, in some respects, going back on that by offering something approaching gibberish.DavidL said:
The point remains that what we want to discuss and what will actually make a difference to the UK and the EU is trade and 18 months into the process we seem to be really struggling to get to it thanks to the EU stance. We need to be clear that we are keen to speak to the EU and get a deal with them but only if they talk about what actually matters.
Para 49 "In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.
Para 50. In the absence of agreed solutions, as set out in the previous paragraph, the United
Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern
Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom,"
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/joint_report.pdf
This backstop means the whole UK remain in the CU and SM until an agreement on the Irish border is reached.
The UK has already offered the CU part of this with a hope or expectation that an agreement on the border will be reached by December 2021. They now need to follow it up with the Internal Market bit and job done.
DavidL - I don't know what you did to the quotes but my comments are yours and your are mine.0 -
Is this today's version of your drunken calls to deport all Muslims?SeanT said:OK I've girded my loins, and stapled my testicles to the sticking place, and pulled my father's rifle from the thatch, and, er, all that.
NO DEAL
Bring it on. What the F. Let's have it out with these prancing, garlic-ridden, pessary-using European dildo-eaters. WAR.
I took the advice you gave me the other day and never take you seriously.0 -
The UK can unilaterally guarantee no hard border for RoI -> NI, there is nothing the EU or RoI could do to stop that. If the EU decided not to reciprocate that's on them and the government needs to have the stones to let them take the fall for it.TOPPING said:
You don’t get it.Sandpit said:
The UK has no intention of putting a border across Ireland. The EU, on the other hand...TOPPING said:
No UK govt will allow a border between North and South, as the EU no doubt it aware. It is an asymmetrical situation. They can threaten something they don't want and they have the power to impose, and the UK govt will acquiesce.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope. The other choice - and the one that will become increasingly attractive if the EU continues on this course is No deal. In which case the border will be between North and South and will be in whatever form each side chooses to impose.williamglenn said:
An East/West border as a result of NI staying in the SM/CU is not Barnier’s proposal but a consequence of Brexit. If that’s unacceptable you have a choice between vassal state Brexit and no Brexit.Philip_Thompson said:
Clear from Barnier's slides that he's not going to accept anything short of NI in both the CU and SM. In other words not accepting anything short of NI remaining in the EU in all but name.Scott_P said:
No, absolutely not. Time to walk away. Any East/West border like he's proposing is as much a violation of the Good Friday Agreement as a North/South one. If Barnier won't agree to a deal its time to walk and once the hard border is erected along the NI border we can start negotiations as equals.
That's just the reality. Not to say it is a reason we shouldn't have voted Leave, just to say it is a very real issue that perhaps was not given sufficient airtime prior to the vote.
Neither side wants a hard border but for the UK government it is an impossibility. So we are in the bizarre situation whereby the EU can threaten something it doesn’t want and the UK cannot risk any negotiation which results in one so will acquiesce as described above.0 -
I think your GDP 'gain' is simply wrong. Don't forget that when an iPhone is bought at the Apple Store, it adds more to UK GDP than to Chinese or US.DavidL said:
I think that is way too high. We export 28% of our GDP. Of that about 11% of GDP is exported to the EU at the moment. WTO could reduce that by 10%, probably less given the level of WTO tariffs that would apply. That would reduce our GDP by 1.1%. Set against that, if imports from the EU fell by the same percentage we would, on paper, actually have a GDP gain.SeanT said:
No Deal would be fascinatingly spectacular. It could decimate our economy. I have no doubt we would take a very big GDP hit - 5-10%?Big_G_NorthWales said:
I really do believe that Barnier is overplaying his hand and driving UK opinion against the EU at a speed that makes WTO most likely to be acceptable to the majority in the UKMarkHopkins said:Big_G_NorthWales said:
Everything is a problem to arch remainer Faisal IslamScott_P said:
Nothing is agreed including the 40 billion until everything is agreed
WTO is becoming more likely day by day
"WTO is becoming more likely day by day"
Unless there is some amazing alternative negotiation going on behind the scenes, then I agree with you.
That said, we could also bounce back very quickly. Cf Iceland post Credit Crash.
Of course it would be more complicated than that. There would be a potential disruption of supply chains, there would be a loss of confidence, there might be some business transferred into the Single Market. My guess is that Sterling would take a bit of a beating offsetting and then some the loss of "free" access to the single market making our exports more competitive. But in Sterling terms the effect would be very modest.
If EU imports fell 10%, they would either be replaced by non-EU (no change to net import level), or they would be matched by a fall in consumption (which would magnify the GDP decline).0 -
"With respect to the DRAFT PROTOCOL ON IRELAND/NORTHERN IRELAND, the negotiators agree that a legally operative version of the “backstop” solution for the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, in line with paragraph 49 of the Joint Report, should be agreed as part of the legal text of the Withdrawal Agreement, to apply unless and until another solution is found."
Agreement in Northern Ireland > Withdrawal Agreement > Obligation to pay €39bn.0 -
We can’t.Sandpit said:
The EU won’t put a border across Ireland, they’re bluffing and we need to call them on it.TOPPING said:
You don’t get it.Sandpit said:
The UK has no intention of putting a border across Ireland. The EU, on the other hand...TOPPING said:
No UK govt will allow a border between North and South, as the EU no doubt it aware. It is an asymmetrical situation. They can threaten something they don't want and they have the power to impose, and the UK govt will acquiesce.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope. The other choice - and the one that will become increasingly attractive if the EU continues on this course is No deal. In which case the border will be between North and South and will be in whatever form each side chooses to impose.williamglenn said:
An East/West border as a result of NI staying in the SM/CU is not Barnier’s proposal but a consequence of Brexit. If that’s unacceptable you have a choice between vassal state Brexit and no Brexit.Philip_Thompson said:
Clear from Barnier's slides that he's not going to accept anything short of NI in both the CU and SM. In other words not accepting anything short of NI remaining in the EU in all but name.Scott_P said:
No, absolutely not. Time to walk away. Any East/West border like he's proposing is as much a violation of the Good Friday Agreement as a North/South one. If Barnier won't agree to a deal its time to walk and once the hard border is erected along the NI border we can start negotiations as equals.
That's just the reality. Not to say it is a reason we shouldn't have voted Leave, just to say it is a very real issue that perhaps was not given sufficient airtime prior to the vote.
Neither side wants a hard border but for the UK government it is an impossibility. So we are in the bizarre situation whereby the EU can threaten something it doesn’t want and the UK cannot risk any negotiation which results in one so will acquiesce as described above.
It would be the ultimate resignation of control (remember that?) for us to commit to no hard border, which we have done, and then allow a foreign power to erect one.0 -
Most probably. There are several versions of 'SeanT' each hour.TheScreamingEagles said:
Must have been a different SeanT that called me a twat when I said WTO was likely if we voted Leave.SeanT said:
Depends on the optics. If, to the world, it looks like the EU is trying to extort money from us, then other countries might be sympathetic.TheScreamingEagles said:
Except if we’re begging countries to sign deals with us abrogating our obligations isn’t a good look.SeanT said:
That's what I thought. We are accepting a legal obligation.TheScreamingEagles said:UK legally bound to pay £39bn Brexit 'divorce bill' before EU trade deal agreed, admits minister
Admission exposes Theresa May’s promise that 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' to be an empty one, government told
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-divorce-bill-uk-pay-eu-trade-deal-talks-david-davis-suella-braverman-a8364841.html?amp
OTOH we could just say shove it to the EU, "because you are not acting in good faith", just keep our money, and I am not sure what the EU could do then.
The money is also AIUI meant to be paid in stages, at any stage we could just stop paying.
Either way I agree with the consensus on here. TMay is dithering and useless. Put a red-blooded Leaver in charge, or just someone with some cullions, like Javid.
And start visibly preparing for NO DEAL.0 -
Big_G_NorthWales said:
For everyone including the EU but they will be in turmoil asTrump moves to bilateral trade deals only and negates the EUAnazina said:
Garbage – would be a disaster for trade.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I really do believe that Barnier is overplaying his hand and driving UK opinion against the EU at a speed that makes WTO most likely to be acceptable to the majority in the UKMarkHopkins said:Big_G_NorthWales said:
Everything is a problem to arch remainer Faisal IslamScott_P said:
Nothing is agreed including the 40 billion until everything is agreed
WTO is becoming more likely day by day
"WTO is becoming more likely day by day"
Unless there is some amazing alternative negotiation going on behind the scenes, then I agree with you.
The wreckers are in charge of the asylum today on PB.0 -
@Barnesian Something has gone wrong with our editing so I will start again.
It was for this reason I was very surprised that May managed to get the Cabinet to sign up to the December agreement. I said at the time that it was remarkable that Leavers in the Cabinet had signed up to this.
But leaving the EU ultimately means leaving the CU and the SM (it does not of course mean leaving a Free Trade area with the SM). There is far too much baggage in the SM including the 4 freedoms, in particular freedom of movement. May will not be able to sell that. If she tries her government will fall.0 -
She's right. The EEA amendment doesn't allow us to stay in the CU. The Labour amendment is for us to stay in the SM and the CU. That's why she backs the labour amendment and not the EEA one.FrancisUrquhart said:Thick as pig shit...
Emma Dent Coad does it again on the Daily Politics. Asked if she wants to remain in the single market, she said:
“Absolutely, always have done, yes”
And asked if she will back the EEA amendment against the Labour whip?
“No, I won’t”0 -
Over the years, we have had posters who appear to do that.SeanT said:
We work in shifts.Anazina said:
Most probably. There are several versions of 'SeanT' each hour.TheScreamingEagles said:
Must have been a different SeanT that called me a twat when I said WTO was likely if we voted Leave.SeanT said:
Depends on the optics. If, to the world, it looks like the EU is trying to extort money from us, then other countries might be sympathetic.TheScreamingEagles said:
Except if we’re begging countries to sign deals with us abrogating our obligations isn’t a good look.SeanT said:
That's what I thought. We are accepting a legal obligation.TheScreamingEagles said:UK legally bound to pay £39bn Brexit 'divorce bill' before EU trade deal agreed, admits minister
Admission exposes Theresa May’s promise that 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' to be an empty one, government told
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-divorce-bill-uk-pay-eu-trade-deal-talks-david-davis-suella-braverman-a8364841.html?amp
OTOH we could just say shove it to the EU, "because you are not acting in good faith", just keep our money, and I am not sure what the EU could do then.
The money is also AIUI meant to be paid in stages, at any stage we could just stop paying.
Either way I agree with the consensus on here. TMay is dithering and useless. Put a red-blooded Leaver in charge, or just someone with some cullions, like Javid.
And start visibly preparing for NO DEAL.0
This discussion has been closed.