On topic: Surely we need also to consider this from the EU political point of view.
Suppose Theresa May writes a letter to the Commission invoking Article 50. The process kicks off. At the end of two years, we are out of the EU. The point being - this is an EU process. As long as the Commission accept the letter as valid, that's it. It will be too late for any legal challenge in the UK to alter it, unless the EU - countries, Commission, ultimately perhaps the ECJ - agrees. Is it plausible that they would throw the process into even more ludicrous uncertainty by agreeing to reverse their acceptance of the trigger? I don't think so, they want rid of us now, and who can blame them? They not unreasonably take the view that the UK should be In or Out, and stop faffing around. We've chosen Out, and they are now planning on that basis. They won't accept us back even if we wanted to change our minds. (That's one reason why the LibDem position is so absurd).
From the UK political point of view, there is an overriding reason why the government must invoke Article 50 without going to parliament. This negotiation and process is already incredibly difficult, and mired in uncertainty which is potentially extremely damaging to the economy. Throwing yet more uncertainty into the mix - with grandstanding LibDem peers threatening to delay and confuse things - can only increase the damage.
I disagree. There is a principle here. One that benefits the Leave side, but it doesn't matter. A parliament that (almost certainly) rubberstamps the Article 50 decision allows the process to proceed. In the very unlikely event Parliament delays the decision for any length of time, the EU conditions for Article 50 won't have been met and we continue to be members of the EU until we sort out our own political crisis. Lib Dem peers (and not just they) have the prerogative to grandstand. Parliament rules.
I would have liked Parliament to have voted down our invasion of Iraq (and by the way your arguments against the Royal Prerogative were aired then too). Nevertheless the vote gave the war a legitimacy it would not have had otherwise. Brexit is a big mistake, just like Iraq, but in this case I want Parliament to vote the go-ahead. British voters answered the question in front of them and came back with a considered collective decision. That decision has to be respected.
'The Afghan-born suspect in the weekend’s New York bomb attacks is a jihadist who hailed Osama bin Laden and wrote that explosions “will be heard in the streets”, US prosecutors have said.'
Nothing to indicate international terrorism... FFS
They got all that from finding one pressure cooker IED or has there perhaps been some later information gathered? And even now, what is said is not that the bomber was controlled or directed by Al Qaeda or any other foreign terrorist organisation.
That is why we should worry: it is more dangerous than "classic" terrorism because there is no central control, not that the media is somehow hushing things up.
Some eye opening hostility to the UK government coming from Fergus Ewing the Scottish cabinet secretary for rural economy etc. BBC Parliament Channel live.
On borders you miss the point. The main impact is on the credibility of the Prime Minister who claimed along with Cameron, Osborne and,god help us, old John Major that a Brexit vote would of necessity mean a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
The then Northern Ireland Secretary said that this was not so that the Commons Travel Area established in 1923 took precedence. Within days of becoming Prime Minister Teresa May completely reversed her position and declared that a hard border was not necessary after all. It turned out that it was all the usual scaremongering nonsense.
The only circumstance where there is even an argument that a hard border is necessary depends on the EU wanting to push an independent Scotland into Schengen. But there is no evidence whatsoever that they would wish to do this.
As with Northern Ireland in the Brexit vote it is scaremongering pure and simple. The blow is to May's credibility and the political lesson is that "Project Fear" has had its time.
I think the EU demands a member is either a member of Schengen or the CTA, so on that basis Indy Scotland could probably join the CTA (why not Ireland is). This would probably be vital if only for geographical reasons as if (r)UK emerges from Brexit with stricter border controls and immigration policy (seems likely), Indy Scotland would be effectively guarding rUK's external border. Now in the CTA that's probably fine and dandy (it's worked since the 1920's ok so far) as long as rUK, Scotland, and Ireland all place nicely (common CTA border force anyone?), which they probably would because it's in all their interests. However, in Schengen a different world emerges where unrestricted immigration from the EU is allowed right up to the outskirts of Berwick, and Carlisle and only has to walk across to get to London. Given that's a big part of what rUK rejected there would be big problems all round (the Gretna jungle camp?) So a well managed and externally policed CTA seems a sensible alternative all round.
Funny really, the CTA and the relationship the UK and the Irish Republic ran (and currency aside still do) is so much of what the EU would like to be. Unified currency (well effectively till 1979), real free movement, full voting rights in each country, common external border that's uncontroversial, genuine unified labour market (helped by a common language of course), even a big overlap of media and culture and sport. Yet nobody doubted the Irish remained Irish, and as far as I am aware nobody post about 1921 in London was concerned about what tax rates or other laws Dublin was passing. And all in spite of 800 years of less than happy history, and all the violence from 1969-1994 or so. Maybe I'm being too rosy, I'm not Irish, but the ironies are there.
On topic: Surely we need also to consider this from the EU political point of view.
Suppose Theresa May writes a letter to the Commission invoking Article 50. The process kicks off. At the end of two years, we are out of the EU. The point being - this is an EU process. As long as the Commission accept the letter as valid, that's it. It will be too late for any legal challenge in the UK to alter it, unless the EU - countries, Commission, ultimately perhaps the ECJ - agrees. Is it plausible that they would throw the process into even more ludicrous uncertainty by agreeing to reverse their acceptance of the trigger? I don't think so, they want rid of us now, and who can blame them? They not unreasonably take the view that the UK should be In or Out, and stop faffing around. We've chosen Out, and they are now planning on that basis. They won't accept us back even if we wanted to change our minds. (That's one reason why the LibDem position is so absurd).
From the UK political point of view, there is an overriding reason why the government must invoke Article 50 without going to parliament. This negotiation and process is already incredibly difficult, and mired in uncertainty which is potentially extremely damaging to the economy. Throwing yet more uncertainty into the mix - with grandstanding LibDem peers threatening to delay and confuse things - can only increase the damage.
I disagree. There is a principle here. One that benefits the Leave side, but it doesn't matter. A parliament that (almost certainly) rubberstamps the Article 50 decision allows the process to proceed. In the very unlikely event Parliament delays the decision for any length of time, the EU conditions for Article 50 won't have been met and we continue to be members of the EU until we sort out our own political crisis. Lib Dem peers (and not just they) have the prerogative to grandstand. Parliament rules.
I would have liked Parliament to have voted down our invasion of Iraq (and by the way your arguments against parliamentary decisionmaking were aired then too). Nevertheless the vote gave the war a legitimacy it would not have had otherwise. Brexit is a big mistake, just like Iraq, but in this case I want Parliament to vote the go-ahead. British voters answered the question in front of them and came back with a considered collective decision. That decision has to be respected.
Parliament should vote on whether to trigger Article 50. But Parliament should vote to trigger Article 50. To do otherwise would be outrageous.
From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.
1. Parliament should have primacy over the government but the electorate at large should have primacy over both. A vote in parliament would be contrary to that principle.
2. Parliament has already had a vote when it passed the legislation authorising the referendum, unless you take the view that the referendum was an irrelevance.
I take the view that the referendum upturned the settled British constitution and that from here we should start from the principle that what it meant was returning sovereignty to the British people. That sovereignty should be exercised through Parliament, not through the executive. Thus, in my view a vote in Parliament should be required to formally trigger Article 50, but anything other than a vote to do so would be a constitutional outrage.
The real outrage would be to hold a vote in parliament.
Let's think this through. Either parliament would have discretion to take a genuine decision or it would be a window-dressing rubber-stamping exercise.
If it's the latter, then the vote would be all show and no substance; to parade through the lobbies with no real choice would be more of an affront to democracy than not holding a vote at all.
On the other hand, if there's a genuine choice then that has to permit the option of rejecting the decision of the referendum and not invoking Article 50 - but again, to overturn the freely expressed will of the electorate after parliament granted that vote in the first place would be much more of an insult to democracy than not holding a Commons vote.
The reality is that ultimate power and ultimate sovereignty lies not with parliament but with the people, and the people have spoken.
Lead story on BBC's project Fear News this morning has been that care homes will stop functioning because 80,000 EU workers may have to leave.... No mention that if they paid more they would get Brits to do the work. 80,000 off the dole, higher wages and an overall increase in the productivity because that is how it is calculated! Yes Care home charges would rise but only slightly as staffing is (I guess) under 40% of the costs.
He makes some interesting points, nevertheless, particularly about where we would be with a 1975 out vote. The biggest problem with EFTA as I understand it is that the Scandinavians quite like running it themselves and wouldn't welcome the UK taking over?
'The Afghan-born suspect in the weekend’s New York bomb attacks is a jihadist who hailed Osama bin Laden and wrote that explosions “will be heard in the streets”, US prosecutors have said.' Nothing to indicate international terrorism... FFS
Bill De Blasio is a socialist. All these household appliances from capitalists are corrupting the great unwashed.
I blame the NRA. Pressure cookers should be banned.
Not just Germany and the UK. My point was that southern European countries have done very well out of EU membership.
Hmm, I'm sure they'll tell you otherwise.
I doubt it.
I don't.
I have lived in Spain, done a lot of work in Portugal. They know what EU membership has done for them. You can see it, too, when flying over both countries - the new transport systems are plain to see.
There is no political party with any significant support in Spain, Portugal or Greece advocating EU withdrawal or even leaving the Euro. And in all three countries there is PR and a record of new parties appearing and winning parliamentary representation, so if the demand for such parties existed they would appear.
Cornwall voted decisively for Leave despite being a huge net beneficiary.
Cornwall was told any lost money would be covered. We'll see about that.
@faisalislam: soft Brexiteers start to speak out as Britain heads towards hard Brexit - where Tory MPs sit on this issue matters: https://t.co/RJFU3opl2e
The first piece is absolutely excellent and should be required reading for those on here who refuse to listen to nuance and prefer to spout meaningless platitudes like "Brexit means Brexit".
Some eye opening hostility to the UK government coming from Fergus Ewing the Scottish cabinet secretary for rural economy etc. BBC Parliament Channel live.
All that impotent rage needs an outlet.
But he is a civil servant ffs.
A politician is a civil servant? That's a novel view.
On borders you miss the point. The main impact is on the credibility of the Prime Minister who claimed along with Cameron, Osborne and,god help us, old John Major that a Brexit vote would of necessity mean a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
The then Northern Ireland Secretary said that this was not so that the Commons Travel Area established in 1923 took precedence. Within days of becoming Prime Minister Teresa May completely reversed her position and declared that a hard border was not necessary after all. It turned out that it was all the usual scaremongering nonsense.
The only circumstance where there is even an argument that a hard border is necessary depends on the EU wanting to push an independent Scotland into Schengen. But there is no evidence whatsoever that they would wish to do this.
As with Northern Ireland in the Brexit vote it is scaremongering pure and simple. The blow is to May's credibility and the political lesson is that "Project Fear" has had its time.
Hard to disagree with any of that.
The argument that there is a fundamental geo-philosophical difference between Scotland (outside Schengen) and Ireland (also outside Schengen) is indeed wafer thin.
Nicola McEwen, a University of Edinburgh professor and associate director of the Centre on Constitutional Change, said that troubled recent history of Ireland, as well as its geography, meant it may be viewed more sympathetically..... I'm not sure we could directly read over and that it would necessarily apply here too... There are different issues, more difficult issues, and perhaps less willing to make concessions given clearly Northern Ireland has a recent political difficulty, a recent political history, which is very difficult and nobody wants to reopen. The stakes are rather different in the case of Scotland, it seems to me."
Professor David Heald, of the University of Glasgow, backed Professor McEwen's view, saying: "The political context is somewhat different. There's a degree of indulgence about Northern Ireland which enables people to treat it as a special case because of its recent history."
Lead story on BBC's project Fear News this morning has been that care homes will stop functioning becuase 80,000 EU workers may have to leave.... No mention that if they paid more they would get Brits to do the work.
Or that work permits or whatever could be issued if we deem qualified care home workers are needed (which they are of course).
I wonder if Theresa May may just be tempted to let Art 50 get wrecked in the Lords or some such.
It could take alot of fudge and prevarication 'out of her hands'..
That would fit Macavity May's past form as we saw her AWOL during the referendum.
The Referendum is too fresh in people's minds to enable any such game playing now. So if May were thinking of any such ruse she would need to play for time and hope that the mood changes in some way. The thing to watch out for, therefore, is any sign that May isn't pushing things along briskly.....
On borders you miss the point. The main impact is on the credibility of the Prime Minister who claimed along with Cameron, Osborne and,god help us, old John Major that a Brexit vote would of necessity mean a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
The then Northern Ireland Secretary said that this was not so that the Commons Travel Area established in 1923 took precedence. Within days of becoming Prime Minister Teresa May completely reversed her position and declared that a hard border was not necessary after all. It turned out that it was all the usual scaremongering nonsense.
The only circumstance where there is even an argument that a hard border is necessary depends on the EU wanting to push an independent Scotland into Schengen. But there is no evidence whatsoever that they would wish to do this.
As with Northern Ireland in the Brexit vote it is scaremongering pure and simple. The blow is to May's credibility and the political lesson is that "Project Fear" has had its time.
I think the EU demands a member is either a member of Schengen or the CTA, so on that basis Indy Scotland could probably join the CTA (why not Ireland is). This would probably be vital if only for geographical reasons as if (r)UK emerges from Brexit with stricter border controls and immigration policy (seems likely), Indy Scotland would be effectively guarding rUK's external border. Now in the CTA that's probably fine and dandy (it's worked since the 1920's ok so far) as long as rUK, Scotland, and Ireland all place nicely (common CTA border force anyone?), which they probably would because it's in all their interests. However, in Schengen a different world emerges where unrestricted immigration from the EU is allowed right up to the outskirts of Berwick, and Carlisle and only has to walk across to get to London. Given that's a big part of what rUK rejected there would be big problems all round (the Gretna jungle camp?) So a well managed and externally policed CTA seems a sensible alternative all round.
Funny really, the CTA and the relationship the UK and the Irish Republic ran (and currency aside still do) is so much of what the EU would like to be. Unified currency (well effectively till 1979), real free movement, full voting rights in each country, common external border that's uncontroversial, genuine unified labour market (helped by a common language of course), even a big overlap of media and culture and sport. Yet nobody doubted the Irish remained Irish, and as far as I am aware nobody post about 1921 in London was concerned about what tax rates or other laws Dublin was passing. And all in spite of 800 years of less than happy history, and all the violence from 1969-1994 or so. Maybe I'm being too rosy, I'm not Irish, but the ironies are there.
Ned Simmons Jeremy Corbyn's ex-wife Jane Chapman just told Radio 5 she voted for Owen Smith.
And her son is John McDonnell's Chief of Staff.
Talk about awkward family reunions.
Yes son, I voted to see you get sacked too.
Could be wrong, as Corbyn’s marital affairs are some convoluted and the level of nepotism so rife within Labour, but I think John McDonnell's Chief of Staff is actually Seb Corbyn by Jeremy's second wife, Claudia Bracchitta.
Didn't Jeremy also give his first ex-wife Jane Chapman, a job in his shadow cabinet?
I wonder if Theresa May may just be tempted to let Art 50 get wrecked in the Lords or some such.
It could take alot of fudge and prevarication 'out of her hands'..
That would fit Macavity May's past form as we saw her AWOL during the referendum.
I reckon she was a quiet Leaver who reckoned Remain would win, so has ended up with the top job the wrong way round so to speak. Result either way for her.
Wales also voted to leave despite being a big recipient of EU funds. The question is whether the funds actually did anything to improve people's lives:
The university projects probably created long term jobs, while the construction projects were probably only temporary.
I went on that dual carriageway a few years back and seem to recall it being pretty empty of cars. Did it really need to be done or was it a case of finding something to spend the funds on?
Goes without saying. If you want to play golf at the course, you join the club, pay your dues and follow the rules. If you find golf tedious or don't get on with the other members, you let your membership lapse and everyone gets on with their lives. Either is OK, but there is no point pretending you are going to play as much golf or be as good at it.
Lead story on BBC's project Fear News this morning has been that care homes will stop functioning because 80,000 EU workers may have to leave.... No mention that if they paid more they would get Brits to do the work. 80,000 off the dole, higher wages and an overall increase in the productivity because that is how it is calculated! Yes Care home charges would rise but only slightly as staffing is (I guess) under 40% of the costs.
Not to mention there is no reason the current EU workers will have to leave. Both Remain and Leave seem to imagine that any EU-inspired legislation since 1973 will suddenly evaporate. It won't.
Brexit redux. I cannot fathom the mathematics of the US system, but perhaps it's time to make contingency plans for a Trump win.
If folks haven't read the New Yorker article yet on what a Trump admin might look they, you should. It's pretty balanced, but all the more scary for being so.
I wonder if Theresa May may just be tempted to let Art 50 get wrecked in the Lords or some such.
It could take alot of fudge and prevarication 'out of her hands'..
That would fit Macavity May's past form as we saw her AWOL during the referendum.
I reckon she was a quiet Leaver who reckoned Remain would win, so has ended up with the top job the wrong way round so to speak. Result either way for her.
In fifty years time it will come out that she 'paired' herself with Boris and they both agreed not to vote.
Wales also voted to leave despite being a big recipient of EU funds. The question is whether the funds actually did anything to improve people's lives:
The university projects probably created long term jobs, while the construction projects were probably only temporary.
I went on that dual carriageway a few years back and seem to recall it being pretty empty of cars. Did it really need to be done or was it a case of finding something to spend the funds on?
I wonder if Theresa May may just be tempted to let Art 50 get wrecked in the Lords or some such.
It could take alot of fudge and prevarication 'out of her hands'..
That would fit Macavity May's past form as we saw her AWOL during the referendum.
I reckon she was a quiet Leaver who reckoned Remain would win, so has ended up with the top job the wrong way round so to speak. Result either way for her.
In fifty years time it will come out that she 'paired' herself with Boris and they both agreed not to vote.
I wonder if Theresa May may just be tempted to let Art 50 get wrecked in the Lords or some such.
It could take alot of fudge and prevarication 'out of her hands'..
That would fit Macavity May's past form as we saw her AWOL during the referendum.
I reckon she was a quiet Leaver who reckoned Remain would win, so has ended up with the top job the wrong way round so to speak. Result either way for her.
In fifty years time it will come out that she 'paired' herself with Boris and they both agreed not to vote.
Brexit redux. I cannot fathom the mathematics of the US system, but perhaps it's time to make contingency plans for a Trump win.
If folks haven't read the New Yorker article yet on what a Trump admin might look they, you should. It's pretty balanced, but all the more scary for being so.
Brexit redux. I cannot fathom the mathematics of the US system, but perhaps it's time to make contingency plans for a Trump win.
If folks haven't read the New Yorker article yet on what a Trump admin might look they, you should. It's pretty balanced, but all the more scary for being so.
Those wargamers must have been most surprised to be dragged from away their metal imperial guardsmen and SPI counters to be asked for their views about Trump!
Brexit redux. I cannot fathom the mathematics of the US system, but perhaps it's time to make contingency plans for a Trump win.
If folks haven't read the New Yorker article yet on what a Trump admin might look they, you should. It's pretty balanced, but all the more scary for being so.
Those wargamers must have been most surprised to be dragged from away their metal imperial guardsmen and SPI counters to be asked for their views about Trump!
A thread on what a Trump win would mean for the UK would be most interesting.
I wonder if Theresa May may just be tempted to let Art 50 get wrecked in the Lords or some such.
It could take alot of fudge and prevarication 'out of her hands'..
That would fit Macavity May's past form as we saw her AWOL during the referendum.
I reckon she was a quiet Leaver who reckoned Remain would win, so has ended up with the top job the wrong way round so to speak. Result either way for her.
In fifty years time it will come out that she 'paired' herself with Boris and they both agreed not to vote.
But Boris crossed his fingers and voted anyway.
How dare you impugn the reputation of Boris Johnson like that.
Do you have any evidence of Boris of ever lying to a woman?
Brexit redux. I cannot fathom the mathematics of the US system, but perhaps it's time to make contingency plans for a Trump win.
If folks haven't read the New Yorker article yet on what a Trump admin might look they, you should. It's pretty balanced, but all the more scary for being so.
Those wargamers must have been most surprised to be dragged from away their metal imperial guardsmen and SPI counters to be asked for their views about Trump!
A thread on what a Trump win would mean for the UK would be most interesting.
Probably shuts off a FTA, for starters.
Might even make the EU freshly appealing.
Yes I agree. Someone on here posted at the weekend that they have already repositioned their investments anticipating a Trump win. I don't know what that would involve, apart from selling everything and investing in some canned food?
Brexit redux. I cannot fathom the mathematics of the US system, but perhaps it's time to make contingency plans for a Trump win.
If folks haven't read the New Yorker article yet on what a Trump admin might look they, you should. It's pretty balanced, but all the more scary for being so.
The notion of a NYorker article being balanced rather stretches my credulity. There's an enormous amount of campaign nonsense posturing being taken as literal policy.
Voting to leave the EU and then not following through would be the worst of all available options. Any influence we might have within the organisation would be shot to pieces. Why should the other 27 listen to a member which had expressed no confidence in the organisation, and why should they view a member which then didn't have the guts to exit with anything other than contempt?
Brexit redux. I cannot fathom the mathematics of the US system, but perhaps it's time to make contingency plans for a Trump win.
If folks haven't read the New Yorker article yet on what a Trump admin might look they, you should. It's pretty balanced, but all the more scary for being so.
The notion of a NYorker article being balanced rather stretches my credulity. There's an enormous amount of campaign nonsense posturing being taken as literal policy.
I'll leave you to your diet of Breitbart and Jeremy Kyle then.
Voting to leave the EU and then not following through would be the worst of all available options. Any influence we might have within the organisation would be shot to pieces. Why should the other 27 listen to a member which had expressed no confidence in the organisation, and why should they view a member which then didn't have the guts to exit with anything other than contempt?
Because they would see a distinction between the UK government/establishment and the portion of the population led up the garden path by Farage and Boris?
Brexit redux. I cannot fathom the mathematics of the US system, but perhaps it's time to make contingency plans for a Trump win.
If folks haven't read the New Yorker article yet on what a Trump admin might look they, you should. It's pretty balanced, but all the more scary for being so.
Those wargamers must have been most surprised to be dragged from away their metal imperial guardsmen and SPI counters to be asked for their views about Trump!
A thread on what a Trump win would mean for the UK would be most interesting.
Probably shuts off a FTA, for starters.
Might even make the EU freshly appealing.
A Trump win would focus left-of-centre minds dramatically on why Clinton lost. Lessons to be learned etc. Weak candidate, huge amounts of baggage, not seen as the 'change' candidate etc.
Why would Germany want an "inferior " trade deal with the Uk ? It's all bluster.
Inferior to one party is superior to the other party in a deal... Why would Germany want the UK to have "better" trade terms than it currently has? It's economic reality.
So let us talk specifics. We go from a 0% tariff on cars to a 2% tariff. Technically it has become worse. But it is worse for both. In terms of flow of goods, the price increase on cars would result in EU selling fewer cars to UK and vice versa. Since the EU sells us more cars ($ terms) than we do to them, the EU (and germans in particular) would take a bigger hit in $ terms than we would be hit with. (Assuming same elasticity). Result of worse terms is that EU loses more sales than we do. Therefore there is every incentive on the EU to get as close to a 0% tariff as possible.
Right ho. The fact that fully 12.3m people live in the London and Manchester areas has nothing to do with it.
Only about the BBC.
Only on PB.
Don't jerk that knee without thinking first.
BBC coverage of the Greater Manchester area has increased enormously since they opened the offices at MediaCityUK. If the BBC, and particular their main news station Radio 5, needs a vox pop, or to visit something like a school or factory, it seems to be the default choice now. But it means that they have essentially the same problem that they had before, they are still too focused on urban metropolitan Britain. Covering two places well really isn't much better than covering just one.
Mr. Eagles, the key to Conservative success next time will be unity (which sounds weird). But if Article 50 gets voted down in the Commons/Lords and May can't or won't resolve it, there'll be a major civil war. And, unlike the personality driven contest within Labour, it's be on policy grounds.
LA Times Tracker has the Trump lead down to 4.1% with his African American vote collapsing from 20.1% four days ago to 5.9% today.
Trump maintains the gradual white vote increase he has built up since Sept 11th and while support falling in the under 65 category he's picked up support among the 65+
Voting to leave the EU and then not following through would be the worst of all available options. Any influence we might have within the organisation would be shot to pieces. Why should the other 27 listen to a member which had expressed no confidence in the organisation, and why should they view a member which then didn't have the guts to exit with anything other than contempt?
Exactly. We would be (rightly) an utter laughing stock. If I were them I'd demand we sign up to the Euro, Schengen, the EU army, forget about the rebate, speak French, broadcast the Ode to bloody Joy on the hour every hour across all radio stations and above all stop whinging about Europe.
If Tim Farron and Owen Smith and their mates can sell that (Ok maybe not the Ode to Joy bit) they are sales geniuses of the first order.
Why would Germany want an "inferior " trade deal with the Uk ? It's all bluster.
Inferior to one party is superior to the other party in a deal... Why would Germany want the UK to have "better" trade terms than it currently has? It's economic reality.
So let us talk specifics. We go from a 0% tariff on cars to a 2% tariff. Technically it has become worse. But it is worse for both. In terms of flow of goods, the price increase on cars would result in EU selling fewer cars to UK and vice versa. Since the EU sells us more cars ($ terms) than we do to them, the EU (and germans in particular) would take a bigger hit in $ terms than we would be hit with. (Assuming same elasticity). Result of worse terms is that EU loses more sales than we do. Therefore there is every incentive on the EU to get as close to a 0% tariff as possible.
You are thinking in absolute terms. You need to think in relative terms, and add a random variable for "EU politics overriding economic logic".
Brexit redux. I cannot fathom the mathematics of the US system, but perhaps it's time to make contingency plans for a Trump win.
If folks haven't read the New Yorker article yet on what a Trump admin might look they, you should. It's pretty balanced, but all the more scary for being so.
The notion of a NYorker article being balanced rather stretches my credulity. There's an enormous amount of campaign nonsense posturing being taken as literal policy.
I'll leave you to your diet of Breitbart and Jeremy Kyle then.
Golly, what a superior lifeform you are. Still, the plebeians watch ITV and those who give them a voice are sneered at as untouchables.
Voting to leave the EU and then not following through would be the worst of all available options. Any influence we might have within the organisation would be shot to pieces. Why should the other 27 listen to a member which had expressed no confidence in the organisation, and why should they view a member which then didn't have the guts to exit with anything other than contempt?
Because they would see a distinction between the UK government/establishment and the portion of the population led up the garden path by Farage and Boris?
But they would conclude, rightly, that in the course of any negotiation, the UK was a paper tiger. It is hard to see how the UK could exercise any influence within the organisation.
Mr. Eagles, the key to Conservative success next time will be unity (which sounds weird). But if Article 50 gets voted down in the Commons/Lords and May can't or won't resolve it, there'll be a major civil war. And, unlike the personality driven contest within Labour, it's be on policy grounds.
To be fair to Labour, their contest was a proxy for policy grounds - the MPs very clearly dislike Corbyn's policy position, it is just that they haven't worked out yet what their own policies should be and, even if they had, couldn't afford to say anything about them to a membership so wedded to the left-wing view....
Brexit redux. I cannot fathom the mathematics of the US system, but perhaps it's time to make contingency plans for a Trump win.
If folks haven't read the New Yorker article yet on what a Trump admin might look they, you should. It's pretty balanced, but all the more scary for being so.
Those wargamers must have been most surprised to be dragged from away their metal imperial guardsmen and SPI counters to be asked for their views about Trump!
A thread on what a Trump win would mean for the UK would be most interesting.
Probably shuts off a FTA, for starters.
Might even make the EU freshly appealing.
Yes I agree. Someone on here posted at the weekend that they have already repositioned their investments anticipating a Trump win. I don't know what that would involve, apart from selling everything and investing in some canned food?
Cash, and buy into the global 20% market fall on Nov 9. You read it here first.
Brexit redux. I cannot fathom the mathematics of the US system, but perhaps it's time to make contingency plans for a Trump win.
If folks haven't read the New Yorker article yet on what a Trump admin might look they, you should. It's pretty balanced, but all the more scary for being so.
Those wargamers must have been most surprised to be dragged from away their metal imperial guardsmen and SPI counters to be asked for their views about Trump!
A thread on what a Trump win would mean for the UK would be most interesting.
Probably shuts off a FTA, for starters.
Might even make the EU freshly appealing.
A Trump win would focus left-of-centre minds dramatically on why Clinton lost. Lessons to be learned etc. Weak candidate, huge amounts of baggage, not seen as the 'change' candidate etc.
Hillary is following Remain's project fear script; earlier she was following Ed Miliband's "inherit the win" path. She needs to start telling people why they should vote for her, rather than why they should not vote for Trump.
Voting to leave the EU and then not following through would be the worst of all available options. Any influence we might have within the organisation would be shot to pieces. Why should the other 27 listen to a member which had expressed no confidence in the organisation, and why should they view a member which then didn't have the guts to exit with anything other than contempt?
Yes.
The other side of this coin would be the madness of wanting to reapply for membership once we have left.
Voting to leave the EU and then not following through would be the worst of all available options. Any influence we might have within the organisation would be shot to pieces. Why should the other 27 listen to a member which had expressed no confidence in the organisation, and why should they view a member which then didn't have the guts to exit with anything other than contempt?
Because they would see a distinction between the UK government/establishment and the portion of the population led up the garden path by Farage and Boris?
But they would conclude, rightly, that in the course of any negotiation, the UK was a paper tiger. It is hard to see how the UK could exercise any influence within the organisation.
We would have all the same levers that we have now. Our influence never rested upon the threat of leaving. Our position would be no different to those other countries that had anti-EU referendum results that were subsequently overturned. And they would be very grateful if our regret helped them head off the rise of far right populism back home.
Brexit redux. I cannot fathom the mathematics of the US system, but perhaps it's time to make contingency plans for a Trump win.
If folks haven't read the New Yorker article yet on what a Trump admin might look they, you should. It's pretty balanced, but all the more scary for being so.
The notion of a NYorker article being balanced rather stretches my credulity. There's an enormous amount of campaign nonsense posturing being taken as literal policy.
I'll leave you to your diet of Breitbart and Jeremy Kyle then.
Golly, what a superior lifeform you are. Still, the plebeians watch ITV and those who give them a voice are sneered at as untouchables.
It's what won them the referendum.....oh, wait......
Why would Germany want an "inferior " trade deal with the Uk ?
It's all bluster.
Inferior to one party is superior to the other party in a deal...
Why would Germany want the UK to have "better" trade terms than it currently has?
It's economic reality.
Because Germany has a great deal more than the UK to lose, if indeed the UK would lose anything at all.
This canard again.
Look at Germany's trade surplus. Much easier for them to withstand an inferior deal with the U.K. than it is for us.
If we want to make a success of Brexit, we should do so on the basis of a coldly honest assessment of where we start off.
That canard again.
Just because Germany has a big net trade surplus with other countries too doesn't alter in the slightest the advantage to them of maintaining a big one with the UK.
And in fact, because Germany's wealth is so tied to racking up trade surpluses across the EU and the world, it means that it has more than most to lose from a retreat into more limited and managed international trade. So it's very much in its interest not to give the UK an opportunity to show that it can prosper outside of the single market, in case other EU countries realise that they too can prosper outside it, in spades since they won't be tied to the Euro either.
And so it's very much in Germany's interests to keep us in there. Whereas the UK can be quite sanguine about the outcome.
Brexit redux. I cannot fathom the mathematics of the US system, but perhaps it's time to make contingency plans for a Trump win.
If folks haven't read the New Yorker article yet on what a Trump admin might look they, you should. It's pretty balanced, but all the more scary for being so.
The notion of a NYorker article being balanced rather stretches my credulity. There's an enormous amount of campaign nonsense posturing being taken as literal policy.
I'll leave you to your diet of Breitbart and Jeremy Kyle then.
Golly, what a superior lifeform you are. Still, the plebeians watch ITV and those who give them a voice are sneered at as untouchables.
Now Wash Your Hands.
I obviously touched a nerve there. But you do post a lot of Breitbart, and up thread you recommended a regular dose of Jeremy Kyle. So just citing you, really.
Voting to leave the EU and then not following through would be the worst of all available options. Any influence we might have within the organisation would be shot to pieces. Why should the other 27 listen to a member which had expressed no confidence in the organisation, and why should they view a member which then didn't have the guts to exit with anything other than contempt?
Yes.
The other side of this coin would be the madness of wanting to reapply for membership once we have left.
Would we be allowed back in without joining the Euro? Probably not. Which kills it stone dead as an option.
Voting to leave the EU and then not following through would be the worst of all available options. Any influence we might have within the organisation would be shot to pieces. Why should the other 27 listen to a member which had expressed no confidence in the organisation, and why should they view a member which then didn't have the guts to exit with anything other than contempt?
We would be like a Labour rebel pleading to be let back into Corbyn's shad cab.
Why would Germany want an "inferior " trade deal with the Uk ?
It's all bluster.
Inferior to one party is superior to the other party in a deal...
Why would Germany want the UK to have "better" trade terms than it currently has?
It's economic reality.
Because Germany has a great deal more than the UK to lose, if indeed the UK would lose anything at all.
This canard again.
Look at Germany's trade surplus. Much easier for them to withstand an inferior deal with the U.K. than it is for us.
If we want to make a success of Brexit, we should do so on the basis of a coldly honest assessment of where we start off.
That canard again.
Just because Germany has a big net trade surplus with other countries too doesn't alter in the slightest the advantage to them of maintaining a big one with the UK.
And in fact, because Germany's wealth is so tied to racking up trade surpluses across the EU and the world, it means that it has more than most to lose from a retreat into more limited and managed international trade. So it's very much in its interest not to give the UK an opportunity to show that it can prosper outside of the single market, in case other EU countries realise that they too can prosper outside it, in spades since they won't be tied to the Euro either.
And so it's very much in Germany's interests to keep us in there. Whereas the UK can be quite sanguine about the outcome.
Now you are straying beyond terms of trade into the political argument.
What you say makes sense, but you can make the counter argument that Germany profits so much from the EU that it will wear a sub-optimal deal with the U.K. in order to protect and advertise the benefits of EU membership to everyone else.
Brexit redux. I cannot fathom the mathematics of the US system, but perhaps it's time to make contingency plans for a Trump win.
If folks haven't read the New Yorker article yet on what a Trump admin might look they, you should. It's pretty balanced, but all the more scary for being so.
The notion of a NYorker article being balanced rather stretches my credulity. There's an enormous amount of campaign nonsense posturing being taken as literal policy.
I'll leave you to your diet of Breitbart and Jeremy Kyle then.
Golly, what a superior lifeform you are. Still, the plebeians watch ITV and those who give them a voice are sneered at as untouchables.
Now Wash Your Hands.
Count your blessings he didn't lump you in with half of pb.com as a "deplorable"....
Parliament should vote on whether to trigger Article 50. But Parliament should vote to trigger Article 50. To do otherwise would be outrageous.
From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.
1. Parliament should have primacy over the government but the electorate at large should have primacy over both. A vote in parliament would be contrary to that principle.
2. Parliament has already had a vote when it passed the legislation authorising the referendum, unless you take the view that the referendum was an irrelevance.
I take the view that the referendum upturned the settled British constitution and that from here we should start from the principle that what it meant was returning sovereignty to the British people. That sovereignty should be exercised through Parliament, not through the executive. Thus, in my view a vote in Parliament should be required to formally trigger Article 50, but anything other than a vote to do so would be a constitutional outrage.
The real outrage would be to hold a vote in parliament.
The reality is that ultimate power and ultimate sovereignty lies not with parliament but with the people, and the people have spoken.
David - You sound like Jeremy Corbyn. Elected MPs don't matter. The people have spoken.
Belfast Telegraph Comment: Big egos as well as smiles behind Jeremy and Gerry's beards as they rule their parties with iron fists https://t.co/2IoKAqN9IB
Right ho. The fact that fully 12.3m people live in the London and Manchester areas has nothing to do with it.
Only about the BBC.
Only on PB.
Don't jerk that knee without thinking first.
BBC coverage of the Greater Manchester area has increased enormously since they opened the offices at MediaCityUK. If the BBC, and particular their main news station Radio 5, needs a vox pop, or to visit something like a school or factory, it seems to be the default choice now. But it means that they have essentially the same problem that they had before, they are still too focused on urban metropolitan Britain. Covering two places well really isn't much better than covering just one.
Their solution to not enough regional coverage was absolutely stupid. Why did they not just move x% to each of the regional BBC offices, build those up, ask them to do reporting on stories in their area (rather than the national BBC either pushing the regional office out the way or repeating the story with two sets of reporters).
Instead they just transferred one bubble to another and lots of guests won't travel to Salford, so either they do the interview remotely or the presenter stays in London that day to do it.
Voting to leave the EU and then not following through would be the worst of all available options. Any influence we might have within the organisation would be shot to pieces. Why should the other 27 listen to a member which had expressed no confidence in the organisation, and why should they view a member which then didn't have the guts to exit with anything other than contempt?
We would be like a Labour rebel pleading to be let back into Corbyn's shad cab.
Brexit redux. I cannot fathom the mathematics of the US system, but perhaps it's time to make contingency plans for a Trump win.
If folks haven't read the New Yorker article yet on what a Trump admin might look they, you should. It's pretty balanced, but all the more scary for being so.
The notion of a NYorker article being balanced rather stretches my credulity. There's an enormous amount of campaign nonsense posturing being taken as literal policy.
I'll leave you to your diet of Breitbart and Jeremy Kyle then.
Golly, what a superior lifeform you are. Still, the plebeians watch ITV and those who give them a voice are sneered at as untouchables.
Now Wash Your Hands.
Count your blessings he didn't lump you in with half of pb.com as a "deplorable"....
Parliament should vote on whether to trigger Article 50. But Parliament should vote to trigger Article 50. To do otherwise would be outrageous.
From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.
1. Parliament should have primacy over the government but the electorate at large should have primacy over both. A vote in parliament would be contrary to that principle.
2. Parliament has already had a vote when it passed the legislation authorising the referendum, unless you take the view that the referendum was an irrelevance.
The second only flies of the referendum was agreed as binding. Which it could have been (as was AV, as I recall). But this one wasn't. If Parliament agrees a referendum as advisory it must leave open the possibility - in theory if not in practice - that the result can be disregarded.
Can you please cite the clause in the Act that allows for the result to be ignored?
Right ho. The fact that fully 12.3m people live in the London and Manchester areas has nothing to do with it.
Only about the BBC.
Only on PB.
Don't jerk that knee without thinking first.
BBC coverage of the Greater Manchester area has increased enormously since they opened the offices at MediaCityUK. If the BBC, and particular their main news station Radio 5, needs a vox pop, or to visit something like a school or factory, it seems to be the default choice now. But it means that they have essentially the same problem that they had before, they are still too focused on urban metropolitan Britain. Covering two places well really isn't much better than covering just one.
Their solution to not enough regional coverage was absolutely stupid. Why did they not just move x% to each of the regional BBC offices, build those up, ask them to do reporting on stories in their area (rather than the national BBC either pushing the regional office out the way or repeating the story with two sets of reporters).
Instead they just transferred one bubble to another and lots of guests won't travel to Salford, so either they do the interview remotely or the presenter stays in London that day to do it.
The BBC wanted to make a big political statement in moving to Salford to counter the Metro centric tag they had acquired, they would not have achieved that by tinkering with their regional coverage, although that would have been cheaper and more practicable as you say.
Hillary is following Remain's project fear script; earlier she was following Ed Miliband's "inherit the win" path. She needs to start telling people why they should vote for her, rather than why they should not vote for Trump.
Much like Remain and their failure to name some good things about the EU it's simply difficult to sell this particularly smelly sandwich. Not being Trump is the best reason to vote for Hilary.
In fact two u-turns in one, as they no longer support a continuation of austerity either.
The OECD are turning into that guy down the pub in The Fast Show, who always agreed with the last thing somebody said....
Not that cheery and OECD report really and they still think that Brexit damaged the UK economy.
"The OECD said it expected the UK economy to grow by 1.8% this year, a 0.1 point increase on its pre-referendum estimate [due to an unexpectedly strong growth before the referendum]. But growth is expected to slow to 1% next year, a bigger fall than it had previously envisaged in the event of a vote for Brexit."
Brexit redux. I cannot fathom the mathematics of the US system, but perhaps it's time to make contingency plans for a Trump win.
If folks haven't read the New Yorker article yet on what a Trump admin might look they, you should. It's pretty balanced, but all the more scary for being so.
The notion of a NYorker article being balanced rather stretches my credulity. There's an enormous amount of campaign nonsense posturing being taken as literal policy.
I'll leave you to your diet of Breitbart and Jeremy Kyle then.
Golly, what a superior lifeform you are. Still, the plebeians watch ITV and those who give them a voice are sneered at as untouchables.
Now Wash Your Hands.
Count your blessings he didn't lump you in with half of pb.com as a "deplorable"....
Only half?
+1 for the PB deplorables count
The PB tories trolling Labour to vote for Corbyn was utterly deplorable.
Right ho. The fact that fully 12.3m people live in the London and Manchester areas has nothing to do with it.
Only about the BBC.
Only on PB.
Don't jerk that knee without thinking first.
BBC coverage of the Greater Manchester area has increased enormously since they opened the offices at MediaCityUK. If the BBC, and particular their main news station Radio 5, needs a vox pop, or to visit something like a school or factory, it seems to be the default choice now. But it means that they have essentially the same problem that they had before, they are still too focused on urban metropolitan Britain. Covering two places well really isn't much better than covering just one.
Their solution to not enough regional coverage was absolutely stupid. Why did they not just move x% to each of the regional BBC offices, build those up, ask them to do reporting on stories in their area (rather than the national BBC either pushing the regional office out the way or repeating the story with two sets of reporters).
Instead they just transferred one bubble to another and lots of guests won't travel to Salford, so either they do the interview remotely or the presenter stays in London that day to do it.
The BBC wanted to make a big political statement in moving to Salford to counter the Metro centric tag they had acquired, they would not have achieved that by tinkering with their regional coverage, although that would have been cheaper and more practicable as you say.
And their extremely costly big political statement didn't even achieve that and when they say they can't afford £25m a year for GBBO, remind me how much this cost the BBC.
Evidence they might still be incredibly bubblified, today YET ANOTHER piece of the closure of Fabric nightclub.
Voting to leave the EU and then not following through would be the worst of all available options. Any influence we might have within the organisation would be shot to pieces. Why should the other 27 listen to a member which had expressed no confidence in the organisation, and why should they view a member which then didn't have the guts to exit with anything other than contempt?
Yes.
The other side of this coin would be the madness of wanting to reapply for membership once we have left.
Would we be allowed back in without joining the Euro? Probably not. Which kills it stone dead as an option.
Well exactly. Joining the Euro and compulsory singing of the Marseillaise every morning before coffee and croissants.
Why would Germany want an "inferior " trade deal with the Uk ?
It's all bluster.
Inferior to one party is superior to the other party in a deal...
Why would Germany want the UK to have "better" trade terms than it currently has?
It's economic reality.
Because Germany has a great deal more than the UK to lose, if indeed the UK would lose anything at all.
This canard again.
Look at Germany's trade surplus. Much easier for them to withstand an inferior deal with the U.K. than it is for us.
If we want to make a success of Brexit, we should do so on the basis of a coldly honest assessment of where we start off.
Actually Germany rely on their net trade for most of theor GDP growth, domestic and government consumption is weak. Losing their net trade position with the UK would be extremely damaging to the German economy and jobs market. I find it highly unlikely that we won't get tariff free goods trade and NTBs have mostly been eliminated at WTO level anyway. It's NTBs in services trade that forms the real battleground of Brexit, in an odd sort of way our own innovation (financial passporting) has come back to bite us in the bum. Financial services is one of very few service industries to have a near uniform market, that was our doing. Without that uniform market we would have far fewer issues as each nation would have its own barriers for financial services which our banks would be expertly negotiating with no real chance of even trying to close up markets to City banks.
Comments
I would have liked Parliament to have voted down our invasion of Iraq (and by the way your arguments against the Royal Prerogative were aired then too). Nevertheless the vote gave the war a legitimacy it would not have had otherwise. Brexit is a big mistake, just like Iraq, but in this case I want Parliament to vote the go-ahead. British voters answered the question in front of them and came back with a considered collective decision. That decision has to be respected.
That is why we should worry: it is more dangerous than "classic" terrorism because there is no central control, not that the media is somehow hushing things up.
It could take alot of fudge and prevarication 'out of her hands'..
Funny really, the CTA and the relationship the UK and the Irish Republic ran (and currency aside still do) is so much of what the EU would like to be. Unified currency (well effectively till 1979), real free movement, full voting rights in each country, common external border that's uncontroversial, genuine unified labour market (helped by a common language of course), even a big overlap of media and culture and sport. Yet nobody doubted the Irish remained Irish, and as far as I am aware nobody post about 1921 in London was concerned about what tax rates or other laws Dublin was passing. And all in spite of 800 years of less than happy history, and all the violence from 1969-1994 or so. Maybe I'm being too rosy, I'm not Irish, but the ironies are there.
Let's think this through. Either parliament would have discretion to take a genuine decision or it would be a window-dressing rubber-stamping exercise.
If it's the latter, then the vote would be all show and no substance; to parade through the lobbies with no real choice would be more of an affront to democracy than not holding a vote at all.
On the other hand, if there's a genuine choice then that has to permit the option of rejecting the decision of the referendum and not invoking Article 50 - but again, to overturn the freely expressed will of the electorate after parliament granted that vote in the first place would be much more of an insult to democracy than not holding a Commons vote.
The reality is that ultimate power and ultimate sovereignty lies not with parliament but with the people, and the people have spoken.
The first piece is absolutely excellent and should be required reading for those on here who refuse to listen to nuance and prefer to spout meaningless platitudes like "Brexit means Brexit".
Professor David Heald, of the University of Glasgow, backed Professor McEwen's view, saying: "The political context is somewhat different. There's a degree of indulgence about Northern Ireland which enables people to treat it as a special case because of its recent history."
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14754500.UK_s_no_Brexit_border_promise_in_Ireland_may_not_apply_to_independent_Scotland__experts_claim/
Constitutional experts, or folks on the internet - who to believe......
The whole thing seemed to be 'designed' as a distraction.
And that's without getting into ignoring how the electorate voted.
Didn't Jeremy also give his first ex-wife Jane Chapman, a job in his shadow cabinet?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nate-silver-trump-surges-from-3-to-48-chance-of-winning/article/2602386?custom_click=rss
Let us not forget the Secretary State for Exiting the EU when a backbencher took the government to court.
O tempora o mores
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/heres-how-much-money-wales-11527889
The university projects probably created long term jobs, while the construction projects were probably only temporary.
I went on that dual carriageway a few years back and seem to recall it being pretty empty of cars. Did it really need to be done or was it a case of finding something to spend the funds on?
Brexit redux. I cannot fathom the mathematics of the US system, but perhaps it's time to make contingency plans for a Trump win.
If folks haven't read the New Yorker article yet on what a Trump admin might look they, you should. It's pretty balanced, but all the more scary for being so.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/09/26/president-trumps-first-term
It's all bluster.
Why would Germany want the UK to have "better" trade terms than it currently has?
It's economic reality.
Probably shuts off a FTA, for starters.
Might even make the EU freshly appealing.
Do you have any evidence of Boris of ever lying to a woman?
Voting to leave the EU and then not following through would be the worst of all available options. Any influence we might have within the organisation would be shot to pieces. Why should the other 27 listen to a member which had expressed no confidence in the organisation, and why should they view a member which then didn't have the guts to exit with anything other than contempt?
Look at Germany's trade surplus. Much easier for them to withstand an inferior deal with the U.K. than it is for us.
If we want to make a success of Brexit, we should do so on the basis of a coldly honest assessment of where we start off.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/21/oecd-does-a-u-turn-over-brexit-warning-as-it-revises-growth-forecast-for-britain
In fact two u-turns in one, as they no longer support a continuation of austerity either.
https://www.destatis.de/EN/FactsFigures/NationalEconomyEnvironment/ForeignTrade/TradingPartners/Tables/OrderRankGermanyTradingPartners.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
Result of worse terms is that EU loses more sales than we do. Therefore there is every incentive on the EU to get as close to a 0% tariff as possible.
Have you been taking gravity lessons with Douglas Carswell?
BBC coverage of the Greater Manchester area has increased enormously since they opened the offices at MediaCityUK. If the BBC, and particular their main news station Radio 5, needs a vox pop, or to visit something like a school or factory, it seems to be the default choice now. But it means that they have essentially the same problem that they had before, they are still too focused on urban metropolitan Britain. Covering two places well really isn't much better than covering just one.
Per capita, that's possibly a *decline* on average living standard next year.
Trump maintains the gradual white vote increase he has built up since Sept 11th and while support falling in the under 65 category he's picked up support among the 65+
If Tim Farron and Owen Smith and their mates can sell that (Ok maybe not the Ode to Joy bit) they are sales geniuses of the first order.
I simply refute that the UK has some kind of trump card over Germany. It doesn't, or rather, playing that card damages the UK proportionately more.
You need to think in relative terms, and add a random variable for "EU politics overriding economic logic".
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14749831.Police_investigate_LibDem_MSP_over_election_expenses/
Now Wash Your Hands.
http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?c=setreg&region=2&m_id=_rs~Y!~A~Av&w_id=32376&news_id=2023866
Of course the reporter may be reading too much into a 'no comment' reply - but building two runways would be a great 'Open for Business' move......
The other side of this coin would be the madness of wanting to reapply for membership once we have left.
Just because Germany has a big net trade surplus with other countries too doesn't alter in the slightest the advantage to them of maintaining a big one with the UK.
And in fact, because Germany's wealth is so tied to racking up trade surpluses across the EU and the world, it means that it has more than most to lose from a retreat into more limited and managed international trade. So it's very much in its interest not to give the UK an opportunity to show that it can prosper outside of the single market, in case other EU countries realise that they too can prosper outside it, in spades since they won't be tied to the Euro either.
And so it's very much in Germany's interests to keep us in there. Whereas the UK can be quite sanguine about the outcome.
But you do post a lot of Breitbart, and up thread you recommended a regular dose of Jeremy Kyle. So just citing you, really.
What you say makes sense, but you can make the counter argument that Germany profits so much from the EU that it will wear a sub-optimal deal with the U.K. in order to protect and advertise the benefits of EU membership to everyone else.
Belfast Telegraph
Comment: Big egos as well as smiles behind Jeremy and Gerry's beards as they rule their parties with iron fists
https://t.co/2IoKAqN9IB
Instead they just transferred one bubble to another and lots of guests won't travel to Salford, so either they do the interview remotely or the presenter stays in London that day to do it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/douglas-carswell-tides-ukip-experts-science-mp-a7318461.html
Not that cheery and OECD report really and they still think that Brexit damaged the UK economy.
"The OECD said it expected the UK economy to grow by 1.8% this year, a 0.1 point increase on its pre-referendum estimate [due to an unexpectedly strong growth before the referendum]. But growth is expected to slow to 1% next year, a bigger fall than it had previously envisaged in the event of a vote for Brexit."
The PB tories trolling Labour to vote for Corbyn was utterly deplorable.
Evidence they might still be incredibly bubblified, today YET ANOTHER piece of the closure of Fabric nightclub.