This is very good on why a Deal/Remain referendum is better than a Norway Plus stitch up.
I didn't realise there was anybody left that didn't understand that Deal vs Remain was just Remain.
There will be next to no support for Deal from any of the political class, and to be frank, after MP's collectively destroyed it I can't believe they would treat the public with such contempt as to offer it to them.
There was next to no support for Leave from any of the political class, yet it still won. There are lots of the political class who do support Deal. They just don't want to be seen supporting it.
And the point is that leaving without a deal isn't realistic or acceptable. Hence if we leave there needs to be a deal. If it isn't May's deal, someone needs to come up with an alternative.
Well if it isn't realistic or acceptable then it wouldn't win in a referendum would it? So no excuse for not putting it on the ballot.
Why would something that, if put into practice, would be neither realistic nor acceptable not gain popular support? Some might argue that the more unrealistic something is, the easier it is to get votes. "Something for nothing!" "There's always someone else who will pay!" "We'll give you all the positives with none of the negatives!"
You're right, we should just do away with elections.
Just let the establishment decide what is best for us.
Well, that's a complete strawman response. We don't vote in order to find out what's correct; reality isn't subject to popularity. We vote to give consent of the governed and avoid tyranny.
If you think democracy results in people voting for unrealistic and acceptable measures then you can't be a big fan of it.
Firstly - democracy isn't flawless, despite your apparent insistence that if enough people vote for something it has to be true, realistic, and achievable (If the passengers on board a crashing plane all vote for the crash to be soft, pleasant, and easily survivable, they're likely to be overridden by the ground's casting vote. Believe it or not). The lack of democracy is, however, far, far more flawed.
Can you truly not see that position? Or are you simply being deliberately disingenuous and trolling to try to defend a ridiculous position?
For those of us unaware, what was the statistic that Stewart apparently made up ?
It was about how many people supported the PM's deal, some preposterously high percentage. The charitable explanation would be he was speaking metaphorically, but even if that was so ministers and shadow ministers mentioning a statistic is going to be assumed to be at least somewhat rooted in fact, which it wasn't.
Ah, thanks. I suppose the answer to that might depend on what the alternative choice is, but nonetheless a foolish error in the circumstances.
Foolish error or foolish deliberately misleading, either or. Certainly not his finest hour. And it deserves being remembered even if one supports his general position on the deal.
If it was deliberately misleading that would be even more foolish.
When May comes back on Monday with a plan of 'I'll talk some more to the EU' I think I may scream. Have any of the sides made any progress? Every time there's a report of movement up pops the DUP to deny it, the ERG to hit the roof, the Cabinet remainers saying they'll resign, Labour stonewalling. Such a waste.
First the first time I'm starting to think that she might be running down the clock so we leave without a deal.
She clearly does not want no deal because she would not have worked so hard on her own deal if that was so. But I suppose if she has come around to the view that no deal is the best approach but recognises that will cost her Cabinet Ministers and plenty of support, she would seek to make it not her fault.
On Grieve's amendment the effect must be to change the whole way the government does business and of course would put Corbyn in a straight jacket. Are labour going to vote for it or am I wrong
Grieve's draft amendment appears to be limited to "a motion in connection with the UK's withdrawal from the EU", and it is also date limited to the date of the debate.
It seems very contrived to me but I am confident that Grieve understands these things a hell of a lot better than I do.
And the next big issue someone decides to do the same thing for? Let's change procedure depending on how much we care about the issue. He doesn't need to do this to get what he wants.
Well, for one thing people haven't forgotten, for two its hardly the only time Abbot had such an incident, and she'll also a lot more aggressive and, quite reasonable and proudly, even more partisan than most MPs, so far less likely to get any charitable understanding when she would never, ever, in a million years, extend the same courtesy. It's quite possible that she takes a lot of unearned shit, which she does, while still earning plenty of shit.
Personally if someone gets a ton of unearned racist & sexist shit, I'd be pretty fasdtidious about flinging more, earned or not.
What a peculiar attitude. Essentially give someone a pass because they also face unearned crap? We should all welcome getting such crap on that basis, because then how dare people criticise us...
That was not the point made. It was rather to make sure any such attacks are accurate, rather than trading on existing prejudices. (Do you not understand the meaning of fastidious ?)
I do, but the addition of 'earned or not' at the end confused me, since if I have been fastidious and am thus confident the attack I wish to make is accurate, how could it not be earned? The implication seemed to me to be that whether the attack was accurate I should be careful in making it. How would you defined an accurate attack which is unearned? I don't see how it exists. If it is accurate, it is earned.
I’m this case, though, we are discussing journalists with an obligation to avoid bias. Fastidiousness towards negative comments about someone in Abbott’s position is surely essential ?
Yes it is, but one could be extremely fastidious about it and still 'fling' more negative comments if that has indeed been earned.
On Grieve's amendment the effect must be to change the whole way the government does business and of course would put Corbyn in a straight jacket. Are labour going to vote for it or am I wrong
Grieve's draft amendment appears to be limited to "a motion in connection with the UK's withdrawal from the EU", and it is also date limited to the date of the debate.
It seems very contrived to me but I am confident that Grieve understands these things a hell of a lot better than I do.
Remember when some of us hoped/speculated that since TM can't be forced out for 12 months after the failed Tory VoNC she would become much bolder on Brexit compromises?
On Grieve's amendment the effect must be to change the whole way the government does business and of course would put Corbyn in a straight jacket. Are labour going to vote for it or am I wrong
Grieve's draft amendment appears to be limited to "a motion in connection with the UK's withdrawal from the EU", and it is also date limited to the date of the debate.
It seems very contrived to me but I am confident that Grieve understands these things a hell of a lot better than I do.
It would still set a precedent. It’s not necessarily a bad one - after all, any resulting motion has to be supported by a parliamentary majority to have any effect -but it is a pretty radical innovation.
As an aside, it’s not unusual for legislatures to be able to initiate legislation separately from the executive. It happens all the time in the US.
Under our system, it would only be effective when the government has a small or non existent majority - or on an issue which cut straight across party lines.
When May comes back on Monday with a plan of 'I'll talk some more to the EU' I think I may scream. Have any of the sides made any progress? Every time there's a report of movement up pops the DUP to deny it, the ERG to hit the roof, the Cabinet remainers saying they'll resign, Labour stonewalling. Such a waste.
First the first time I'm starting to think that she might be running down the clock so we leave without a deal.
She clearly does not want no deal because she would not have worked so hard on her own deal if that was so. But I suppose if she has come around to the view that no deal is the best approach but recognises that will cost her Cabinet Ministers and plenty of support, she would seek to make it not her fault.
On Grieve's amendment the effect must be to change the whole way the government does business and of course would put Corbyn in a straight jacket. Are labour going to vote for it or am I wrong
Grieve's draft amendment appears to be limited to "a motion in connection with the UK's withdrawal from the EU", and it is also date limited to the date of the debate.
It seems very contrived to me but I am confident that Grieve understands these things a hell of a lot better than I do.
And the next big issue someone decides to do the same thing for? Let's change procedure depending on how much we care about the issue. He doesn't need to do this to get what he wants.
Well, I think it's no bad thing if there's a mechanism for MPs to take control of business if enough of them feel strongly about it. After all they will still need to win a HoC majority to pass anything.
I agree at the FTSE level but the FTSE would head up for different reasons in those two scenarios so it is important which shares you choose.
Sterling tanking helps international shares like GSK whose earnings are mainly in dollars but domestic shares would suffer. Remaining helps mainly domestic shares like Barratts housebuilders and GSK would suffer from strong sterling. So it's not simple.
There is also a less technical reason why a fall in sterling boosts the footsie.
If the £ falls it makes UK shares cheaper - thus a more attractive buy - to international 'citizens of nowhere' investors.
Similar to the London prime property market. A cheap £ makes that Knightsbridge stucco villa more affordable to a wealthy overseas buyer and therefore boosts its price - or mitigates the fall of it in a bear market.
International funds are not going to invest in U.K. equities until Brexit is resolved. All their money has been pulled out and they have zero allocations to the U.K.
On Grieve's amendment the effect must be to change the whole way the government does business and of course would put Corbyn in a straight jacket. Are labour going to vote for it or am I wrong
Grieve's draft amendment appears to be limited to "a motion in connection with the UK's withdrawal from the EU", and it is also date limited to the date of the debate.
It seems very contrived to me but I am confident that Grieve understands these things a hell of a lot better than I do.
It would still set a precedent. It’s not necessarily a bad one - after all, any resulting motion has to be supported by a parliamentary majority to have any effect -but it is a pretty radical innovation.
As an aside, it’s not unusual for legislatures to be able to initiate legislation separately from the executive. It happens all the time in the US.
Under our system, it would only be effective when the government has a small or non existent majority - or on an issue which cut straight across party lines.
And yet by its very nature apparently he is only thinking about this one issue, and not any wider consequences or precedents, which suggests even if the broader principle is not terrible, he is not planning for it and could open up a huge can of worms. It's not that he's too clever for his own good, he's just too laser focused on his obsession.
When No Deal happens and its catastrophic effects are present for all to see, how will the Ultras explain them? I predict four approaches to be used in parallel:
They aren't happening. It's just the Elite and their media chums making stuff up.
They are happening but would have happened anyway.
They are happening and are the consequence of Remainers/the EU/not listening to DD.
They are happening but this is precisely what people voted for and it will prove good for us in the long term.
5) We should never have given away our independence against the wishes of the majority in the first place to the wretched organisation.
A reminder that this is the future if we end up remaining.
Having Brussels with any role in setting our tax rates will push good numbers of relucatant 2016 Remainers into less relucatant 2019 Leavers (if we were to have another vote). Much as Remainers might relish pointing out that Leave voters have died off, in the meantime the EU is pursuing an agenda that is even more distateful to many than was apparent in 2016.
It’s a key move on the way to a United States of Europe. It makes no deal more attractive too - the ability to cut taxes after we leave has to be attractive to most sane businesses and individuals.
When May comes back on Monday with a plan of 'I'll talk some more to the EU' I think I may scream. Have any of the sides made any progress? Every time there's a report of movement up pops the DUP to deny it, the ERG to hit the roof, the Cabinet remainers saying they'll resign, Labour stonewalling. Such a waste.
First the first time I'm starting to think that she might be running down the clock so we leave without a deal.
She clearly does not want no deal because she would not have worked so hard on her own deal if that was so. But I suppose if she has come around to the view that no deal is the best approach but recognises that will cost her Cabinet Ministers and plenty of support, she would seek to make it not her fault.
On Grieve's amendment the effect must be to change the whole way the government does business and of course would put Corbyn in a straight jacket. Are labour going to vote for it or am I wrong
Grieve's draft amendment appears to be limited to "a motion in connection with the UK's withdrawal from the EU", and it is also date limited to the date of the debate.
It seems very contrived to me but I am confident that Grieve understands these things a hell of a lot better than I do.
And the next big issue someone decides to do the same thing for? Let's change procedure depending on how much we care about the issue. He doesn't need to do this to get what he wants.
Well, I think it's no bad thing if there's a mechanism for MPs to take control of business if enough of them feel strongly about it. After all they will still need to win a HoC majority to pass anything.
My concern is the same as with badly drafted legislation, or when people proposed immediate abolition of the Lords when it does something they don't like. Rushed through plans based on short term problems are likely to be problematic. Because his only consideration is the now, and stopping Brexit, any wider positive effect is incidental, and he may not have thought about any wider problems it might cause.
Not to get all Jeremy Corbyn about it, but sometimes processes do matter, not just outcomes. Processes can and should be changed, but Grieve's explicitly come about as arcane tricks of procedure and in pursuit of short term advantage on a single issue - not a recipe for a robust change or precedent I would guess.
This is very good on why a Deal/Remain referendum is better than a Norway Plus stitch up.
I didn't realise there was anybody left that didn't understand that Deal vs Remain was just Remain.
There was next to no support for Leave from any of the political class, yet it still won. There are lots of the political class who do support Deal. They just don't want to be seen supporting it.
Well if it isn't realistic or acceptable then it wouldn't win in a referendum would it? So no excuse for not putting it on the ballot.
Why would something that, if put into practice, would be neither realistic nor acceptable not gain popular support? Some might argue that the more unrealistic something is, the easier it is to get votes. "Something for nothing!" "There's always someone else who will pay!" "We'll give you all the positives with none of the negatives!"
You're right, we should just do away with elections.
Just let the establishment decide what is best for us.
Well, that's a complete strawman response. We don't vote in order to find out what's correct; reality isn't subject to popularity. We vote to give consent of the governed and avoid tyranny.
If you think democracy results in people voting for unrealistic and acceptable measures then you can't be a big fan of it.
Firstly - democracy isn't flawless, despite your apparent insistence that if enough people vote for something it has to be true, realistic, and achievable (If the passengers on board a crashing plane all vote for the crash to be soft, pleasant, and easily survivable, they're likely to be overridden by the ground's casting vote. Believe it or not). The lack of democracy is, however, far, far more flawed.
Can you truly not see that position? Or are you simply being deliberately disingenuous and trolling to try to defend a ridiculous position?
Don't you understand that the people who favour no deal see it as being realistic and achievable?
It's like screaming about being in a plane that is going to crash when in fact the majority can see you're actually in a stationary Robin Reliant in Asda car park.
You seem to want to be the arbiter of what is or isn't acceptable and to deny voters who think otherwise a view on it. There seems to be a lot of this thinking about regarding the EU.
International funds are not going to invest in U.K. equities until Brexit is resolved. All their money has been pulled out and they have zero allocations to the U.K.
Doubt it's zero, but I'm sure that plenty of money has been pulled out pending resolution.
My point is that if sterling crashes it has the effect of making UK assets (e.g. shares, bonds, prime property) dirt cheap to foreign investors, and that in and of itself pushes prices up.
This is very good on why a Deal/Remain referendum is better than a Norway Plus stitch up.
I didn't realise there was anybody left that didn't understand that Deal vs Remain was just Remain.
There was next to no support for Leave from any of the political class, yet it still won. There are lots of the political class who do support Deal. They just don't want to be seen supporting it.
Well if it isn't realistic or acceptable then it wouldn't win in a referendum would it? So no excuse for not putting it on the ballot.
Why would something that, if put into practice, would be neither realistic nor acceptable not gain popular support? Some might argue that the more unrealistic something is, the easier it is to get votes. "Something for nothing!" "There's always someone else who will pay!" "We'll give you all the positives with none of the negatives!"
You're right, we should just do away with elections.
Just let the establishment decide what is best for us.
Well, that's a complete strawman response. We don't vote in order to find out what's correct; reality isn't subject to popularity. We vote to give consent of the governed and avoid tyranny.
If you think democracy results in people voting for unrealistic and acceptable measures then you can't be a big fan of it.
Firstly - ant, and easily survivable, they're likely to be overridden by the ground's casting vote. Believe it or not). The lack of democracy is, however, far, far more flawed.
Can you truly not see that position? Or are you simply being deliberately disingenuous and trolling to try to defend a ridiculous position?
Don't you understand that the people who favour no deal see it as being realistic and achievable?
It's like screaming about being in a plane that is going to crash when in fact the majority can see you're actually in a stationary Robin Reliant in Asda car park.
You seem to want to be the arbiter of what is or isn't acceptable and to deny voters who think otherwise a view on it. There seems to be a lot of this thinking about regarding the EU.
The people who 'favour' no deal are mostly either wealthy and privileged or far away enough to be safe whatever the outcome, or believe they have little to lose and don't appreciate the potential far reaching long term consequences.
I agree at the FTSE level but the FTSE would head up for different reasons in those two scenarios so it is important which shares you choose.
Sterling tanking helps international shares like GSK whose earnings are mainly in dollars but domestic shares would suffer. Remaining helps mainly domestic shares like Barratts housebuilders and GSK would suffer from strong sterling. So it's not simple.
There is also a less technical reason why a fall in sterling boosts the footsie.
If the £ falls it makes UK shares cheaper - thus a more attractive buy - to international 'citizens of nowhere' investors.
Similar to the London prime property market. A cheap £ makes that Knightsbridge stucco villa more affordable to a wealthy overseas buyer and therefore boosts its price - or mitigates the fall of it in a bear market.
International funds are not going to invest in U.K. equities until Brexit is resolved. All their money has been pulled out and they have zero allocations to the U.K.
Evidence?
I advise one and that’s what they tell me is the feedback from their fundraising.
On Grieve's amendment the effect must be to change the whole way the government does business and of course would put Corbyn in a straight jacket. Are labour going to vote for it or am I wrong
Grieve's draft amendment appears to be limited to "a motion in connection with the UK's withdrawal from the EU", and it is also date limited to the date of the debate.
It seems very contrived to me but I am confident that Grieve understands these things a hell of a lot better than I do.
It would still set a precedent. It’s not necessarily a bad one - after all, any resulting motion has to be supported by a parliamentary majority to have any effect -but it is a pretty radical innovation.
As an aside, it’s not unusual for legislatures to be able to initiate legislation separately from the executive. It happens all the time in the US.
Under our system, it would only be effective when the government has a small or non existent majority - or on an issue which cut straight across party lines.
And yet by its very nature apparently he is only thinking about this one issue, and not any wider consequences or precedents, which suggests even if the broader principle is not terrible, he is not planning for it and could open up a huge can of worms. It's not that he's too clever for his own good, he's just too laser focused on his obsession.
It’s not as though there’s time for a parliamentary enquiry into procedure. I don’t personally have a problem with his manoeuvre, for the reasons I’ve given.
Well, for one thing people haven't forgotten, for two its hardly the only time Abbot had such an incident, and she'll also a lot more aggressive and, quite reasonable and proudly, even more partisan than most MPs, so far less likely to get any charitable understanding when she would never, ever, in a million years, extend the same courtesy. It's quite possible that she takes a lot of unearned shit, which she does, while still earning plenty of shit.
Personally if someone gets a ton of unearned racist & sexist shit, I'd be pretty fasdtidious about flinging more, earned or not.
What a peculiar attitude. Essentially give someone a pass because they also face unearned crap? We should all welcome getting such crap on that basis, because then how dare people criticise us.
It is very easy to criticise people without even getting close to racist and sexist about it. That's all people have to do. Not stop with the criticism because you don't want to be in the same company of racists and sexists.
That's as silly as people liking something purely on the basis it upsets those they dislike.
Who said she had a pass?
I applaud your confidence in your judgement of what's accurate. Perhaps some of us are a little more hesitant deciding what is and isn't earned shit, particularly when a lot of it is indubitably unearned.
Well, for one thing people haven't forgotten, for two its hardly the only time Abbot had such an incident, and she'll also a lot more aggressive and, quite reasonable and proudly, even more partisan than most MPs, so far less likely to get any charitable understanding when she would never, ever, in a million years, extend the same courtesy. It's quite possible that she takes a lot of unearned shit, which she does, while still earning plenty of shit.
Personally if someone gets a ton of unearned racist & sexist shit, I'd be pretty fasdtidious about flinging more, earned or not.
What a peculiar attitude. Essentially give someone a pass because they also face unearned crap? We should all welcome getting such crap on that basis, because then how dare people criticise us.
It is very easy to criticise people without even getting close to racist and sexist about it. That's all people have to do. Not stop with the criticism because you don't want to be in the same company of racists and sexists.
That's as silly as people liking something purely on the basis it upsets those they dislike.
Who said she had a pass?
I applaud your confidence in your judgement of what's accurate. Perhaps some of us are a little more hesitant deciding what is and isn't earned shit, particularly when a lot of it is indubitably unearned.
My assumption you meant she should have a pass was based on you saying that one should be fastidious about flinging it 'earned or not', which I took to mean that you would wish to hesitate to fling it even when it was earned. If that was not your intent I apologise, but I could not see how else to take it. If someone is confident an attack is accurate I see no reason they should not fling it just because the target faces unearned attacks. Of course, that attacker might be wrong, and should be careful, we all should.
When No Deal happens and its catastrophic effects are present for all to see, how will the Ultras explain them? I predict four approaches to be used in parallel:
They aren't happening. It's just the Elite and their media chums making stuff up.
They are happening but would have happened anyway.
They are happening and are the consequence of Remainers/the EU/not listening to DD.
They are happening but this is precisely what people voted for and it will prove good for us in the long term.
5) We should never have given away our independence against the wishes of the majority in the first place to the wretched organisation.
A reminder that this is the future if we end up remaining.
Having Brussels with any role in setting our tax rates will push good numbers of relucatant 2016 Remainers into less relucatant 2019 Leavers (if we were to have another vote). Much as Remainers might relish pointing out that Leave voters have died off, in the meantime the EU is pursuing an agenda that is even more distateful to many than was apparent in 2016.
It’s a key move on the way to a United States of Europe. It makes no deal more attractive too - the ability to cut taxes after we leave has to be attractive to most sane businesses and individuals.
Cutting taxes always sounds attractive but the consequences - cutting public services and/or increasing the deficit - not so much.
Also worth noting that your neoliberal 'nirvana' could be pursued while we remain in the EU, leaving makes no difference.
On Grieve's amendment the effect must be to change the whole way the government does business and of course would put Corbyn in a straight jacket. Are labour going to vote for it or am I wrong
Grieve's draft amendment appears to be limited to "a motion in connection with the UK's withdrawal from the EU", and it is also date limited to the date of the debate.
It seems very contrived to me but I am confident that Grieve understands these things a hell of a lot better than I do.
It would still set a precedent. It’s not necessarily a bad one - after all, any resulting motion has to be supported by a parliamentary majority to have any effect -but it is a pretty radical innovation.
As an aside, it’s not unusual for legislatures to be able to initiate legislation separately from the executive. It happens all the time in the US.
Under our system, it would only be effective when the government has a small or non existent majority - or on an issue which cut straight across party lines.
And yet by its very nature apparently he is only thinking about this one issue, and not any wider consequences or precedents, which suggests even if the broader principle is not terrible, he is not planning for it and could open up a huge can of worms. It's not that he's too clever for his own good, he's just too laser focused on his obsession.
It’s not as though there’s time for a parliamentary enquiry into procedure. I don’t personally have a problem with his manoeuvre, for the reasons I’ve given.
And I do because I don't think it is necessary to do what he wants, but it avoids him doing what his logic suggests he should do if he thinks no deal is on the table.
This is very good on why a Deal/Remain referendum is better than a Norway Plus stitch up.
I didn't realise there was anybody left that didn't understand that Deal vs Remain was just Remain.
There was next to no support for Leave from any of the political class, yet it still won. There are lots of the political class who do support Deal. They just don't want to be seen supporting it.
.
Why would something that, if put into practice, would be neither realistic nor acceptable not gain popular support? Some might argue that the more unrealistic something is, the easier it is to get votes. "Something for nothing!" "There's always someone else who will pay!" "We'll give you all the positives with none of the negatives!"
You're right, we should just do away with elections.
Just let the establishment decide what is best for us.
Well, that's a complete strawman response. We don't vote in order to find out what's correct; reality isn't subject to popularity. We vote to give consent of the governed and avoid tyranny.
If you think democracy results in people voting for unrealistic and acceptable measures then you can't be a big fan of it.
Firstly - ant, and easily survivable, they're likely to be overridden by the ground's casting vote. Believe it or not). The lack of democracy is, however, far, far more flawed.
Can you truly not see that position? Or are you simply being deliberately disingenuous and trolling to try to defend a ridiculous position?
Don't you understand that the people who favour no deal see it as being realistic and achievable?
It's like screaming about being in a plane that is going to crash when in fact the majority can see you're actually in a stationary Robin Reliant in Asda car park.
You seem to want to be the arbiter of what is or isn't acceptable and to deny voters who think otherwise a view on it. There seems to be a lot of this thinking about regarding the EU.
The people who 'favour' no deal are mostly either wealthy and privileged or far away enough to be safe whatever the outcome, or believe they have little to lose and don't appreciate the potential far reaching long term consequences.
When No Deal happens and its catastrophic effects are present for all to see, how will the Ultras explain them? I predict four approaches to be used in parallel:
They aren't happening. It's just the Elite and their media chums making stuff up.
They are happening but would have happened anyway.
They are happening and are the consequence of Remainers/the EU/not listening to DD.
They are happening but this is precisely what people voted for and it will prove good for us in the long term.
5) We should never have given away our independence against the wishes of the majority in the first place to the wretched organisation.
A reminder that this is the future if we end up remaining.
Having Brussels with any role in setting our tax rates will push good numbers of relucatant 2016 Remainers into less relucatant 2019 Leavers (if we were to have another vote). Much as Remainers might relish pointing out that Leave voters have died off, in the meantime the EU is pursuing an agenda that is even more distateful to many than was apparent in 2016.
It’s a key move on the way to a United States of Europe. It makes no deal more attractive too - the ability to cut taxes after we leave has to be attractive to most sane businesses and individuals.
Cutting taxes always sounds attractive but the consequences - cutting public services and/or increasing the deficit - not so much.
Also worth noting that your neoliberal 'nirvana' could be pursued while we remain in the EU, leaving makes no difference.
It certainly ALWAYS sounds attractive to those who have decisions on inward investment.
Surely it is because she is dramatically under-equipped for the senior position she now holds?
Some of it is. But to explain the sheer extent and content of the abuse she receives one has to look beyond that and to recognize something that is distinctly uncomfortable to admit.
A GE is a very bad idea. What will it resolve? Nothing.
If the decision has to go to the people let’s have a second referendum: Leave on the terms negotiated or Remain. And get that Art 50 extension agreed pronto.
Stop all this faffing about.
A GE gives the TM the best opportunity from the current impasse to deliver Brexit, It will be the tories vs those trying to block Brexit, and Corbyn will do worse than 2017, the voters have learnt that they cant risk another protest, and the tories wont make the same strategic mistakes they made in 2017. TM will get her majority and hopefully will play hard ball with EU over backstop from a stronger position in parliament. Bercow will be resigned to history, and Corbyn will be finished too, whats not to like about it!
There is a lot of wishful thinking there - particularly the idea that Corbyn's 2017 support was largely a protest vote. Polls in the last week or so of the campaign pointed to the serious possibility of a Hung Parliament - in the same way that they do now! Corbyn outperformed by raising issues to which people could directly relate - rather than the highly technical issue of Brexit.
When No Deal happens and its catastrophic effects are present for all to see, how will the Ultras explain them? I predict four approaches to be used in parallel:
They aren't happening. It's just the Elite and their media chums making stuff up.
They are happening but would have happened anyway.
They are happening and are the consequence of Remainers/the EU/not listening to DD.
They are happening but this is precisely what people voted for and it will prove good for us in the long term.
5) We should never have given away our independence against the wishes of the majority in the first place to the wretched organisation.
A reminder that this is the future if we end up remaining.
Having Brussels with any role in setting our tax rates will push good numbers of relucatant 2016 Remainers into less relucatant 2019 Leavers (if we were to have another vote). Much as Remainers might relish pointing out that Leave voters have died off, in the meantime the EU is pursuing an agenda that is even more distateful to many than was apparent in 2016.
It’s a key move on the way to a United States of Europe. It makes no deal more attractive too - the ability to cut taxes after we leave has to be attractive to most sane businesses and individuals.
Cutting taxes always sounds attractive but the consequences - cutting public services and/or increasing the deficit - not so much.
Also worth noting that your neoliberal 'nirvana' could be pursued while we remain in the EU, leaving makes no difference.
Cutting tax rates can actually increase tax take as we saw with cuts to both corporation tax and the 50% income tax band. It simply taxes a belief in the Laffer curve and good judgement - sadly lacking in most of our politicians.
I am not a great believer in unversal benefits that aren’t means tested and most public spending is notoriously inefficient - U.K. MoD and the NHS benefits prime examples. In most cases, I’d rather see serious reform of public services rather than jump into cuts with the exception of white elephants like HS2 and ineffective spending like most of our overseas aid.
The people who 'favour' no deal are mostly either wealthy and privileged or far away enough to be safe whatever the outcome, or believe they have little to lose and don't appreciate the potential far reaching long term consequences.
The definition of wealthy, privileged and far away...
Goldman Sachs Morgan Stanley Bilderberg Group Billionaire financiers
A GE is a very bad idea. What will it resolve? Nothing.
If the decision has to go to the people let’s have a second referendum: Leave on the terms negotiated or Remain. And get that Art 50 extension agreed pronto.
Stop all this faffing about.
Problem is, too many people benefit from faff and TM does not want a referendum.
She knows(or fears at least) that remain will win. But it's also the only chance her deal has, she needs to give in already.
From Mays POV a GE has huge advantages.
It’s quicker She has control of the manifesto and if necessary candidate selection. Given her party has confidence in her she has the power to force her deal into the manifesto. Hardcore Enemies in her own party will have to accept or stand against her and almost certainly lose. Corbyn has fucked it up a bit and has no clear policy. Remain offered only by the LibDems will lose. It is a way of reviving her political career and dealing with 2017.
It will be a General Election rather than a referendum.
You reinforce my point. It’s about reviving her political career and fuck the rest of us.
If that is the attitude of May’s Tories they are not getting my vote. Since Parliament cannot decide, send it back to us.
We have to look at it from her point of view. If you were her would you rather win your deal (the best solution in the national interest as she sees it) via a people’s vote or via a majority won at a General Election that clears out the nutters and frees her from the DUP.
Most polls are suggesting the Tories would lose seats!
Firstly - democracy isn't flawless, despite your apparent insistence that if enough people vote for something it has to be true, realistic, and achievable (If the passengers on board a crashing plane all vote for the crash to be soft, pleasant, and easily survivable, they're likely to be overridden by the ground's casting vote. Believe it or not). The lack of democracy is, however, far, far more flawed.
Can you truly not see that position? Or are you simply being deliberately disingenuous and trolling to try to defend a ridiculous position?
Don't you understand that the people who favour no deal see it as being realistic and achievable?
It's like screaming about being in a plane that is going to crash when in fact the majority can see you're actually in a stationary Robin Reliant in Asda car park.
You seem to want to be the arbiter of what is or isn't acceptable and to deny voters who think otherwise a view on it. There seems to be a lot of this thinking about regarding the EU.
No. Look at what I bolded. The position that you've set out is that if No Deal wins, it must be realistic. That what those supporting "see" to be true, must be true. Or, to put it another way, that by "see" you mean "know with certainty". (And by extension, those on the other side must be seeing incorrectly as they are de facto wrong). Therefore whichever side is more popular must be seeing most accurately (and the less popular side must be deluded). My point is that popularity does not imply realism. Then you wander off into a bizarre assertion that I want to be arbiter of truth. I certainly do not: I don't know what No Deal will result in, but I am aware that it's a complex and interrelated system of systems that's being violently disrupted, and that rarely leads to sunny and straightforward outcomes. My certainty is that no-one really knows. Not me, and despite your position, not you either, I'm afraid.
Regardless of your apparent certainty that all must be fine.
Your original position was that anything that is popular must be realistic and correct. It's a view, I guess, but those disagreeing with it aren't automatically setting themselves up as omniscient beings.
I think, with respect, this is nonsense. A lot of Europeans - not least the Irish - are genuinely horrified at the idea of No Deal. They think it could lead to a chain reaction of economic negatives, becoming deep recessions continent-wide. Plus it will reflect very badly on the Eurocrats themselves. Their agenda has always been to make Brexit so bad we will change our minds and Remain. It never occurred to them we might actually crash out.
That was incredibly arrogant and silly of them then.
I believe they think no deal is bad, but like many in our own parliament not as bad as they are saying they think it is. If they believed it to be all that bad they'd do something more to prevent it. Never occurring we might crash out was an excuse 2 years ago, not now. It is very possible (though I'd say not quite as likely as remain), the EU are not fools and they can surely see that. They have chosen to offer nothing more, and that's their prerogative, but the cannot pretend to not now know it might really happen.
So why did our lot let him run rings around us and succeed in his aim? I thought your source 'high up in the Leave campaign' was confident that our guys were the dog's.
Because there were (and still are) enough ultra-remainers working incredibly hard to make sure the PM has her hands tied behind her back.
Because people don't sell when their asset's value is heading south?
No, not that. They often do.
The key point here is that from the viewpoint of a foreign currency investor, a sterling asset becomes cheaper - to them - if sterling falls.
That in and of itself makes the asset more attractive and creates upwards price pressure.
It does not mean the price goes up in absolute terms, that depends on the net impact of all the many factors that are relevant, but the fall in the currency per se is an upwards influence.
If the other factors are net negative - bear market - the impact of the sterling fall will be to mitigate this - i.e. prices will still decrease but not by as much as if the currency had not fallen.
I may be wrong but the EU are not going to grant an extension for a referendum on some unknown question which does not resolve issues for them. Why should they? They will think of their own best interests. And they want certainty.
We may not like it but we won't have control over this. Wishing it weren't so, saying this is not how things should be, this is not how things were last time is not going to change the brutal realities we face now. Apart from one choice, everything we do from now on it is dependant on others - and they will have their own interests and price. Time for Britain to face up to this fact instead of believing what it would like to be true.
If the EU dictate the Referendum question, then I think the Referendum will only have one answer.
They won't dictate it. They will simply refuse an extension for a referendum which does not give them something they won't get just by waiting until March 29th.
It's brutal power politics. We should not be surprised. It is exactly how Britain behaved when it had the upper hand. Now it doesn't. We don't like it. And instead of coming to terms with the new reality we're thrashing around moaning that the world isn't fair, isn't like it should be. What are we: four? Time for Britain to grow up.
With the greatest of respect the EU cannot decide the questions.
That is a decision for the HOC and electoral commission
Indeed I doubt they would attempt to interfere in something as controversial as this
Indirectly, they have all the power.
They decide whether to grant the extension needed to have the referendum. They will ask: why do you need it? Answer: a referendum. Question: what will be on the ballot?
If they don't like the answer to that, no extension. No extension. No referendum.
There is only one option where Parliament has total control without requiring the EU's consent: revocation of Article 50.
I would suggest the question on the ballot will follow the approval from the EU
The timetable produced by the government yesterday showed the legal process a referendum would go through extending over 12 months. Now that timescale seems too long but the decision and the questions and the wording are recommended by the electoral commission some weeks later
Therefore when requesting an extension the wording would be unknown
I may be wrong but the EU are not going to grant an extension for a referendum on some unknown question which does not resolve issues for them. Why should they? They will think of their own best interests. And they want certainty.
We may not like it but we won't have control over this. Wishing it weren't so, saying this is not how things should be, this is not how things were last time is not going to change the brutal realities we face now. Apart from one choice, everything we do from now on it is dependant on others - and they will have their own interests and price. Time for Britain to face up to this fact instead of believing what it would like to be true.
I think I may just have to disagree with you which is not very often by the way
Fair enough. Life would be dull if we agreed all the time.
Condolences to you over your recent losses. It cannot be easy, especially during this gloomy time of the year.
They won't dictate it. They will simply refuse an extension for a referendum which does not give them something they won't get just by waiting until March 29th.
It's brutal power politics. We should not be surprised. It is exactly how Britain behaved when it had the upper hand. Now it doesn't. We don't like it. And instead of coming to terms with the new reality we're thrashing around moaning that the world isn't fair, isn't like it should be. What are we: four? Time for Britain to grow up.
The EU is perfectly entitled to refuse an extension on whatever basis it sees fit.
As you say, 'brutal power politics'.
And I would have to question the loyalty of any MP who supported another country/organisation who was using your form of 'brutality' against the UK.
With the greatest of respect the EU cannot decide the questions.
That is a decision for the HOC and electoral commission
Indeed I doubt they would attempt to interfere in something as controversial as this
There is only one option where Parliament has total control without requiring the EU's consent: revocation of Article 50.
I would suggest the question on the ballot will follow the approval from the EU
The timetable produced by the government yesterday showed the legal process a referendum would go through extending over 12 months. Now that timescale seems too long but the decision and the questions and the wording are recommended by the electoral commission some weeks later
Therefore when requesting an extension the wording would be unknown
I may be wrong but the EU are not going to grant an extension for a referendum on some unknown question which does not resolve issues for them. Why should they? They will think of their own best interests. And they want certainty.
We may not like it but we won't have control over this. Wishing it weren't so, saying this is not how things should be, this is not how things were last time is not going to change the brutal realities we face now. Apart from one choice, everything we do from now on it is dependant on others - and they will have their own interests and price. Time for Britain to face up to this fact instead of believing what it would like to be true.
I think I may just have to disagree with you which is not very often by the way
Fair enough. Life would be dull if we agreed all the time.
Condolences to you over your recent losses. It cannot be easy, especially during this gloomy time of the year.
You are kind and it is painful to lose someone who you have known for over 50 years, been in business as partners for 37 of those years, and never once had an argument or fall out.
Sadly, one of our former employees died the week before, and two long standing friends in the last two months
Still we are grateful we keep plodding on, with the help of a few pills, and have all four of our grandchildren nearby who pop in all the time.
Comments
Can you truly not see that position?
Or are you simply being deliberately disingenuous and trolling to try to defend a ridiculous position?
It's the hope that kills you.
It’s not necessarily a bad one - after all, any resulting motion has to be supported by a parliamentary majority to have any effect -but it is a pretty radical innovation.
As an aside, it’s not unusual for legislatures to be able to initiate legislation separately from the executive. It happens all the time in the US.
Under our system, it would only be effective when the government has a small or non existent majority - or on an issue which cut straight across party lines.
In this case, both conditions apply.
Not to get all Jeremy Corbyn about it, but sometimes processes do matter, not just outcomes. Processes can and should be changed, but Grieve's explicitly come about as arcane tricks of procedure and in pursuit of short term advantage on a single issue - not a recipe for a robust change or precedent I would guess.
It's like screaming about being in a plane that is going to crash when in fact the majority can see you're actually in a stationary Robin Reliant in Asda car park.
You seem to want to be the arbiter of what is or isn't acceptable and to deny voters who think otherwise a view on it. There seems to be a lot of this thinking about regarding the EU.
My point is that if sterling crashes it has the effect of making UK assets (e.g. shares, bonds, prime property) dirt cheap to foreign investors, and that in and of itself pushes prices up.
I don’t personally have a problem with his manoeuvre, for the reasons I’ve given.
I applaud your confidence in your judgement of what's accurate. Perhaps some of us are a little more hesitant deciding what is and isn't earned shit, particularly when a lot of it is indubitably unearned.
Also worth noting that your neoliberal 'nirvana' could be pursued while we remain in the EU, leaving makes no difference.
But Prime London - the sector where overseas buyers are dominant - would have declined more were it not for the fall in the currency.
I am not a great believer in unversal benefits that aren’t means tested and most public spending is notoriously inefficient - U.K. MoD and the NHS benefits prime examples. In most cases, I’d rather see serious reform of public services rather than jump into cuts with the exception of white elephants like HS2 and ineffective spending like most of our overseas aid.
https://twitter.com/catmckinnell/status/1086630455825362944?s=21
Goldman Sachs
Morgan Stanley
Bilderberg Group
Billionaire financiers
All fighting hard to overturn Brexit.
Look at what I bolded.
The position that you've set out is that if No Deal wins, it must be realistic. That what those supporting "see" to be true, must be true. Or, to put it another way, that by "see" you mean "know with certainty".
(And by extension, those on the other side must be seeing incorrectly as they are de facto wrong).
Therefore whichever side is more popular must be seeing most accurately (and the less popular side must be deluded).
My point is that popularity does not imply realism.
Then you wander off into a bizarre assertion that I want to be arbiter of truth. I certainly do not: I don't know what No Deal will result in, but I am aware that it's a complex and interrelated system of systems that's being violently disrupted, and that rarely leads to sunny and straightforward outcomes.
My certainty is that no-one really knows. Not me, and despite your position, not you either, I'm afraid.
Regardless of your apparent certainty that all must be fine.
Your original position was that anything that is popular must be realistic and correct.
It's a view, I guess, but those disagreeing with it aren't automatically setting themselves up as omniscient beings.
The key point here is that from the viewpoint of a foreign currency investor, a sterling asset becomes cheaper - to them - if sterling falls.
That in and of itself makes the asset more attractive and creates upwards price pressure.
It does not mean the price goes up in absolute terms, that depends on the net impact of all the many factors that are relevant, but the fall in the currency per se is an upwards influence.
If the other factors are net negative - bear market - the impact of the sterling fall will be to mitigate this - i.e. prices will still decrease but not by as much as if the currency had not fallen.
A good example being London prime property.
It's brutal power politics. We should not be surprised. It is exactly how Britain behaved when it had the upper hand. Now it doesn't. We don't like it. And instead of coming to terms with the new reality we're thrashing around moaning that the world isn't fair, isn't like it should be. What are we: four? Time for Britain to grow up.
Condolences to you over your recent losses. It cannot be easy, especially during this gloomy time of the year.
As you say, 'brutal power politics'.
And I would have to question the loyalty of any MP who supported another country/organisation who was using your form of 'brutality' against the UK.
Sadly, one of our former employees died the week before, and two long standing friends in the last two months
Still we are grateful we keep plodding on, with the help of a few pills, and have all four of our grandchildren nearby who pop in all the time.