I have an idea for a second referendum. The question should be "Should we pay the EU 36 billion for an exit agreement which grants us limited access to the Single Market and which will need to be paid for by a one off tax on every citizen, or should we leave without an agreement and trade under WTO rules?"
...which would mean a tax on every citizen in perpetuity to reduce the deficit caused by crashing our economy...
Mr. Quidder, maybe in a second part of a referendum. Multi-options can lead to a minority opinion having a major change. Better to have them binary and, if necessary, then focus on the approach in the way you suggest.
Actually this is going to affect me personally. I really need to be heard on this. Voting Labour is the only thing that will scare the government.
Why would voting Labour have scared the government more on Brexit specifically, than sending Lib Dem MPs to Parliament would've?
I guess that the Lib Dems might prop up the Tories, whereas Labour wouldn't?
Yeah something like that. But a bit more like voting Lib Dem is threatening to call the police, voting Labour is actually dialling them.
That's a lovely metaphor!
In general I agree with the majority of posters that Corbyn neither wants nor needs to dig into any particular position on this at the moment - the sensible thing is to say the result needs to be good for Britain Cabinet should stop squabbling and get on with it, and whatever the Government is saying is not adequate. A crunch will come, but right now there are no political prizes for tying ourselves to any particular position. If Corbyn was passionately pro or anti, that would be a problem, but he really isn't. Nor are most Labour MPs - they are overwhelmingly *mildly* pro-EU.
1. Trigger A50 2. Call Snap Election and win 100+ majority 3. Implement Brexit with focus on reducing immigration, screw the trade/economic consequences. Hope to prop up the economy with a return to industrial policy.
IMO step 3 would have been really bad. but the plan is so poor we didn't even make it to step 3.
Mr. rkrkrk, the execution, not the plan (at least to stage 2), was at fault.
May could've won 100+ majority. Indeed, it was odds on for most of the campaign. The lamentable litany of woe and idiocy that was her campaign put paid to that.
Morning all. 6 weeks down the line ? 6 months down the line ... difficult to assess what may happen. I am in Berlin which must be the most graffiti ridden city in the world. Nothing is sacred bar guarded buildings. 're last thread lots of SPD posters about this area(andersonplatz) but little from Merkel supporters. I guess it's a left wing city like London?
Yes, Berlin is a bit more than 50% centre-left with the former Communist Linke pretty strong (20+% in both halves of the city):
That said, I think Merkel is a shoo-in as Chancellor as suggested on a previous thread.
That’s an odd, but interesting polling result. Is it because for some sections of the population life was actually better under the DDR? I gather that in Russia it’s the old who tend to vote Communist as a sort of conservative ... ‘ah, times were better then’ vote.
Bit like Leavers here!
I don't really get the seventies' nostalgia - either Brexiteers or Ossis.
No, I don’t feel nostalgic for much of the 70’s. Early 70’s yes, mid 70’s not so much. Later yes, until 78 or so. My 40’s were a decade I want to forget! Only about one thing in my life then is memorable for the right reasons.
Mr. Quidder, maybe in a second part of a referendum. Multi-options can lead to a minority opinion having a major change. Better to have them binary and, if necessary, then focus on the approach in the way you suggest.
Yes, indeed. I would have had Q1: should we Leave/Remain; Q2: if Q1=Leave, should we seek membership of EEA/EFTA.
1. Trigger A50 2. Call Snap Election and win 100+ majority 3. Implement Brexit with focus on reducing immigration, screw the trade/economic consequences. Hope to prop up the economy with a return to industrial policy.
IMO step 3 would have been really bad. but the plan is so poor we didn't even make it to step 3.
I do not think (3) can be right -- most likely no immigration curbs were planned. The 100+ majority was needed to get a business and immigration-friendly Brexit past the Faragiste headbangers.
Theresa May had done nothing to stop or slow non-EU immigration in her six years at the Home Office and Brexit would not in itself cause a damascene conversion: Leave was fronted by Boris who is well-known to be pro-immigration, and Cummings reported £350 million for the NHS was the crucial issue.
1. Trigger A50 2. Call Snap Election and win 100+ majority 3. Implement Brexit with focus on reducing immigration, screw the trade/economic consequences. Hope to prop up the economy with a return to industrial policy.
IMO step 3 would have been really bad. but the plan is so poor we didn't even make it to step 3.
Actually May wasn’t doing too badly until she had that massive change of heart and decided to call the election. If she’d stuck to dealing with Brexit then we’d be a lot further towards an end-point and maybe a second confirmatory or otherwise referendum.
Except this 'policy' collides with the brick wall of reality. Having activated A50 the UK will leave the EU regardless after March 2019. That is now a part of EU and UK law. This can only be stopped by legislation to revoke A50, subject to the unanimous agreement of the EU27. Without that the 'approval' of parliament of the 'final settlement' is neither here nor there. In any event there will be no 'final settlement', only a transitional deal, it seems. The 'final settlement' is the FTA which is to be negotiated in the years following 2019. By the time we have that we will have long left the EU anyway.
You interpret these matters with a certainty that suggests you have some expertise in them. Could you let me know what it is, as your interpretation runs counter to what I have heard from lawyers specialising in the subject.
On the whole, their view has been that nobody will really know until the matter is tested, and then it will probably depend on political will as much as anything. The Articles themselves, as I understand it, were drafted in a way that encourages staying in the club rather than leaving it.
On what basis would you contest that?
You know lawyers who specialise in Article 50? Really?
My Careers Master at 6th form would have tried to talk me out of that as being just a little too narrow for a career option.
Mr Quirch would have been right as well. Thirty years hanging around doing nothing and then 100% of my life's work crammed into two short years.
...and only 599 days 2 hours 50 minutes of it left before I get early retirement. Cool!
My daughter, for one.
Sir Norfolk Passmore of this parish is another, I believe.
You might even add Mr Meekes, although he can speak for himself.
I think people take Brexit as policy position too literally; you can't do that. There is no single idea of Brexit, coherent or otherwise. Before the Ref many Brexiteers said we'd never leave the single market, now they want to leave everything in ways they don't even understand (Euratom, for example). Brexit is not policy, it is a totem.
Those who are more modern, cosmopolitan, internet savvy, pro feminist and LGBT etc. are Remainers. Those who are more traditional, culturally conservative, more concerned about sovereignty, more prone to isolationism and economic protectionism are Leavers. (there was a really good survey on this post-Ref but I can't find the link atm.) This explains why it wasn't simply a party vote during the Ref. But it also explains why Remainers can still vote with Corbyn's Labour: he is, for all the negatives thrown at him, the epitome of cosmopolitan life. Whereas the LDs (with Farron at the last election) were viewed with increased scepticism on those issues.
Corbyn is threading the needle between a not-too-hard-stance on Brexit (which is actually a good place to start negotiating from) to keep some Leavers happy (and because of his own economic plans, which are more in line with economic protectionism / populism) whilst being a social cosmopolitan that appeals to those who can't vote for "The Nasty Party" (Fox Hunting, Dementia Tax, Austerity, Oh My).
David Cameron did the same for the right; kept the base happy with right wing red meat, shrinking the government and (eventually) presenting the referendum, but passing things like equal marriage and not bringing up fox hunting to seem more cosmopolitan.
I don't think Remainers will leave Labour until / unless: a) LDs come across as more cosmopolitan post Farron b) Tories come across more cosmopolitan post May or c) Corbyn loses cosmopolitan credibility.
Welcome. Excellent analysis with a novel hypothesis to chew upon. Might help with the betting too!
Actually this is going to affect me personally. I really need to be heard on this. Voting Labour is the only thing that will scare the government.
Why would voting Labour have scared the government more on Brexit specifically, than sending Lib Dem MPs to Parliament would've?
I guess that the Lib Dems might prop up the Tories, whereas Labour wouldn't?
Yeah something like that. But a bit more like voting Lib Dem is threatening to call the police, voting Labour is actually dialling them.
That's a lovely metaphor!
In general I agree with the majority of posters that Corbyn neither wants nor needs to dig into any particular position on this at the moment - the sensible thing is to say the result needs to be good for Britain Cabinet should stop squabbling and get on with it, and whatever the Government is saying is not adequate. A crunch will come, but right now there are no political prizes for tying ourselves to any particular position. If Corbyn was passionately pro or anti, that would be a problem, but he really isn't. Nor are most Labour MPs - they are overwhelmingly *mildly* pro-EU.
"Corbyn neither wants nor needs to dig into any particular position on this at the moment - the sensible thing is to say the result needs to be good for Britain..."
So, on the most important issue facing the country this parliament, the leader of the opposition has no policy except he wants what would "be good for Britain" ?
Truly we have a crap government and a crap opposition.
1. Trigger A50 2. Call Snap Election and win 100+ majority 3. Implement Brexit with focus on reducing immigration, screw the trade/economic consequences. Hope to prop up the economy with a return to industrial policy.
IMO step 3 would have been really bad. but the plan is so poor we didn't even make it to step 3.
I do not think (3) can be right -- most likely no immigration curbs were planned. The 100+ majority was needed to get a business and immigration-friendly Brexit past the Faragiste headbangers.
Theresa May had done nothing to stop or slow non-EU immigration in her six years at the Home Office and Brexit would not in itself cause a damascene conversion: Leave was fronted by Boris who is well-known to be pro-immigration, and Cummings reported £350 million for the NHS was the crucial issue.
It could be that you're right about step 3 - we will never know. But decisions like keeping student numbers in her immigration target make me think she cares much more about immigration than the economy.
You are correct she failed to slow immigration - but I see that as largely out of her control.
To actually achieve Cameron's target would have required doing things Osborne and Cameron and certainly the Lib Dems would never have allowed.
Welcome. May I inquire if there is any significance to your username? It seems a little unusual.
Just an old username I was given at uni, so it's just random numbers and letters.
Also, glad to see this analysis ringing with other people, I've been saying this in my circles for a while. I know Leavers and Remainers from across all parties and the values people seem to hold reflect their view on the issue more than anything specific to the EU. I'm annoyed now that I can't find that initial study that showed this so well...
I will take your word for it that Corbyn is neither pro- nor anti-EU (although that does beg the question of his referendum campaign).
As you know him better than people on here - how likely is it that he waters down his redistributive policies?
When the Cons were competently running the country, there was no merit in Lab positioning itself as a "me-too" centrist party. Now that the Cons have blown themselves up, I would have thought there would be great appetite for such a party of the type that perhaps the other three leadership candidates exemplified.
Corbyn is principally at gut-feeling level about underdogs - the left-behind in Britain and international solidarity - multiculturalism, refugees, the Third World. He will never agree to waver on anything like that. Everything else is at a more intellectual level and somewhat negotiable, as we saw with the monarchy and NATO, which many thought were gut issues for him. I'd expect him to be very keen on restoring some benefits, and his distaste for flashy extremes of wealth is obvious (and shared elsewhere in politics), but McDonnell is the key on economics and he's actually more of a wily politician than a rigid Marxist: he wants to frame policies capable of majority support. That's why the Labour manifesto was actually less redistributive than many expected.
Welcome. May I inquire if there is any significance to your username? It seems a little unusual.
Just an old username I was given at uni, so it's just random numbers and letters.
Also, glad to see this analysis ringing with other people, I've been saying this in my circles for a while. I know Leavers and Remainers from across all parties and the values people seem to hold reflect their view on the issue more than anything specific to the EU. I'm annoyed now that I can't find that initial study that showed this so well...
Morning all. 6 weeks down the line ? 6 months down the line ... difficult to assess what may happen. I am in Berlin which must be the most graffiti ridden city in the world. Nothing is sacred bar guarded buildings. 're last thread lots of SPD posters about this area(andersonplatz) but little from Merkel supporters. I guess it's a left wing city like London?
Yes, Berlin is a bit more than 50% centre-left with the former Communist Linke pretty strong (20+% in both halves of the city):
That said, I think Merkel is a shoo-in as Chancellor as suggested on a previous thread.
That’s an odd, but interesting polling result. Is it because for some sections of the population life was actually better under the DDR? I gather that in Russia it’s the old who tend to vote Communist as a sort of conservative ... ‘ah, times were better then’ vote.
Bit like Leavers here!
Yes, I know some people who live there - they say lots of Ossis have mixed feelings. They can see that the GDR was a failure in consumerism and almost nobody mourns the passing of the Stasi and the Wall, but they feel that the State and people generally looked after each other much better than in our current world. The Left consistently gets about 25% of the vote in the former East from people who feel they're "on their side".
What is unusual in Berlin is that the Left has managed to get a similar share in the western half of the city. They've successfully changed enough to embrace the freewheeling young leftists whom the old Stalinists like Ulbricht would have regarded with great suspicion.
In Russia it's partly the objective fact that the "democratic" successors to the Soviet Union shed large parts of its land area and saw large chunks of its economy handed over to corrupt gangsters. It's not totally irrational for them to feel that this is all bad news. Putin is popular because he is respectful about that without actually favouring a return to failed Soviet economics. But the Russian Communists are still dominated by tired old apparatchiks, while the German Left has reinvented itself.
I will take your word for it that Corbyn is neither pro- nor anti-EU (although that does beg the question of his referendum campaign).
As you know him better than people on here - how likely is it that he waters down his redistributive policies?
When the Cons were competently running the country, there was no merit in Lab positioning itself as a "me-too" centrist party. Now that the Cons have blown themselves up, I would have thought there would be great appetite for such a party of the type that perhaps the other three leadership candidates exemplified.
Corbyn is principally at gut-feeling level about underdogs - the left-behind in Britain and international solidarity - multiculturalism, refugees, the Third World. He will never agree to waver on anything like that. Everything else is at a more intellectual level and somewhat negotiable, as we saw with the monarchy and NATO, which many thought were gut issues for him. I'd expect him to be very keen on restoring some benefits, and his distaste for flashy extremes of wealth is obvious (and shared elsewhere in politics), but McDonnell is the key on economics and he's actually more of a wily politician than a rigid Marxist: he wants to frame policies capable of majority support. That's why the Labour manifesto was actually less redistributive than many expected.
thx.
I appreciate that ideals are at stake, but to outsiders, it seems that a sensible leftish of centre party would win the next election by a country mile and not scare the horses.
Of course as polls (ha!) stand, Lab looks like it will win anyway...
Mr. B, it could be worse (I recently finished a biography of King John).
You're quite right, Mr.D. - of course it could.
Nonetheless, the ease with which Mr. Palmer approves the utterly vacuous party line on Europe dismays me.
I'm as Europhile as you can get - becoming one country in the medium term would be fine with me. I admire the European Parliament, approve of the ECJ and ECHR, and want an elected European President.
But I'm also a retired politician. And I don't see any advantage in the Opposition tying itself down to a particular position at this point. When we have something to vote on, let's talk again.
I have an idea for a second referendum. The question should be "Should we pay the EU 36 billion for an exit agreement which grants us limited access to the Single Market and which will need to be paid for by a one off tax on every citizen, or should we leave without an agreement and trade under WTO rules?"
That should sort it out. Amazing that most people saying that we need to pay the EU a huge bill don't want to accept the fact that we don't have any money for it as we are running a budget deficit. If people actually had to pay the bill (rather than just borrow the money and screw over the next generation) I suspect there would suddenly be a total re-evaluation of whether we think it is worth paying for SM access.
Perhaps we should include a third option.. Withdraw Article 50 and remain in the EU.
The problem with binary choice referenda where one option leads to other options is that you can end up with a result that only pleases a small minority, which goes against the principles of democracy.
For instance, if the last General Election had been a referendum and the question had been - Should the Conservatives continue to govern? The answer based on the results of the actual 2017 GE would have been no. That would then require a further referendum to decide who SHOULD actually govern and if Conservatives were omitted from the second referendum, as you propose that the Remain option should be omitted then we would end up being governed by a Party who had even less support than the Conservatives had.
That is the problem with Brexit and why there will be a majority of people unhappy with our final destination. If there had been the two options you suggest on the original referendum question, plus Remain. Then I am pretty sure that Remain would have got the most votes, although probably still less than 50%.
You could say that a GE is a referendum on who we want to govern us, but with multiple choices and the result is generally decided on the highest share of the vote.
I have an idea for a second referendum. The question should be "Should we pay the EU 36 billion for an exit agreement which grants us limited access to the Single Market and which will need to be paid for by a one off tax on every citizen, or should we leave without an agreement and trade under WTO rules?"
That should sort it out. Amazing that most people saying that we need to pay the EU a huge bill don't want to accept the fact that we don't have any money for it as we are running a budget deficit. If people actually had to pay the bill (rather than just borrow the money and screw over the next generation) I suspect there would suddenly be a total re-evaluation of whether we think it is worth paying for SM access.
Perhaps we should include a third option.. Withdraw Article 50 and remain in the EU.
The problem with binary choice referenda where one option leads to other options is that you can end up with a result that only pleases a small minority, which goes against the principles of democracy.
For instance, if the last General Election had been a referendum and the question had been - Should the Conservatives continue to govern? The answer based on the results of the actual 2017 GE would have been no. That would then require a further referendum to decide who SHOULD actually govern and if Conservatives were omitted from the second referendum, as you propose that the Remain option should be omitted then we would end up being governed by a Party who had even less support than the Conservatives had.
That is the problem with Brexit and why there will be a majority of people unhappy with our final destination. If there had been the two options you suggest on the original referendum question, plus Remain. Then I am pretty sure that Remain would have got the most votes, although probably still less than 50%.
You could say that a GE is a referendum on who we want to govern us, but with multiple choices and the result is generally decided on the highest share of the vote.
You assume that Leave has flavours but Remain does not.
If you split Remain into "Roll back to what we voted for in the 70s", "Status Quo" and "Superstate" then, again, you'd get a different biggest-minority,
Corbo and McD know that they can't push through the massive budget deficits, state subsidies and nationalisation programmes they have in mind whilst we are still in the EU as they will break all sorts of rules.
German anecdata -- a number of Germans told me last week that German infrastructure is falling apart (although the only evidence offered was an increasing number of potholes) and that Angela Merkel will remain Chancellor. All very "small earthquake in Chile".
You assume that Leave has flavours but Remain does not.
If you split Remain into "Roll back to what we voted for in the 70s", "Status Quo" and "Superstate" then, again, you'd get a different biggest-minority,
"Roll back to what we voted for in the 70s"
People in that category voted overwhelming Leave, primarily because their idea of what we voted for in the 70s was not what we actually did vote for. In their view what we voted for most closely approximates the Norway option, which is false but helps explain why they were not Remainers.
I have an idea for a second referendum. The question should be "Should we pay the EU 36 billion for an exit agreement which grants us limited access to the Single Market and which will need to be paid for by a one off tax on every citizen, or should we leave without an agreement and trade under WTO rules?"
That should sort it out. Amazing that most people saying that we need to pay the EU a huge bill don't want to accept the fact that we don't have any money for it as we are running a budget deficit. If people actually had to pay the bill (rather than just borrow the money and screw over the next generation) I suspect there would suddenly be a total re-evaluation of whether we think it is worth paying for SM access.
Perhaps we should include a third option.. Withdraw Article 50 and remain in the EU.
The problem with binary choice referenda where one option leads to other options is that you can end up with a result that only pleases a small minority, which goes against the principles of democracy.
For instance, if the last General Election had been a referendum and the question had been - Should the Conservatives continue to govern? The answer based on the results of the actual 2017 GE would have been no. That would then require a further referendum to decide who SHOULD actually govern and if Conservatives were omitted from the second referendum, as you propose that the Remain option should be omitted then we would end up being governed by a Party who had even less support than the Conservatives had.
That is the problem with Brexit and why there will be a majority of people unhappy with our final destination. If there had been the two options you suggest on the original referendum question, plus Remain. Then I am pretty sure that Remain would have got the most votes, although probably still less than 50%.
You could say that a GE is a referendum on who we want to govern us, but with multiple choices and the result is generally decided on the highest share of the vote.
You assume that Leave has flavours but Remain does not.
If you split Remain into "Roll back to what we voted for in the 70s", "Status Quo" and "Superstate" then, again, you'd get a different biggest-minority,
Fair comment, although of the three options you mention, other than the status quo, they are options we could not expect our government to deliver on our behalf. So Remain votes would have to be counted as status quo votes, with perhaps pressure being put upon our politicians to resist progression into Superstate and to lobby for a regression to what we originally voted fro in the 70's by those who would prefer those options
Corbo and McD know that they can't push through the massive budget deficits, state subsidies and nationalisation programmes they have in mind whilst we are still in the EU as they will break all sorts of rules.
They want freedom to go full Venezuela.
What in Labour's manifesto would the EU object to?
State-owned rail and utilities are common on the continent.
Mr. B, it could be worse (I recently finished a biography of King John).
You're quite right, Mr.D. - of course it could.
Nonetheless, the ease with which Mr. Palmer approves the utterly vacuous party line on Europe dismays me.
It is good that someone represents the Don't Knows.
Didn't we already have that with May at the last election, with her policy of trust me and give me a big majority to negotiate a deal ? Corbyn is effectively saying something similar, but with even less clarity.
Corbo and McD know that they can't push through the massive budget deficits, state subsidies and nationalisation programmes they have in mind whilst we are still in the EU as they will break all sorts of rules.
They want freedom to go full Venezuela.
What in Labour's manifesto would the EU object to?
State-owned rail and utilities are common on the continent.
Did they renationalise them then by borrowing huge sums to repay shareholders or simply appropriate them ? Daft comment.
So it seems that the prospect of paying £36 billion isn't making for happy Brexit campers. I note that David Davis is being stuck with responsibility for floating this. Clearly his rivals are aiming for a Brexit betrayal narrative.
Do you think the floating of a £36 billion exit payment only for it to be whacked down is government news management to soften up people for one of the many costs of Brexit in a deniable way, or is it a skirmish in the Conservative Civil War between the Regulars and the Die-hards where one side proposes something the other side will reject?
The rhetoric in the papers would suggest the second.
PS The problem with a Brexit Betrayal narrative is that it implies Brexit has failed.
Well, Brexit can hardly be classed as a roaring success so far. It just looks more and more like a can of worms.
Considering people were bandying around figures like a £100bn exit-bill, £36bn looks a good deal.
I have an idea for a second referendum. The question should be "Should we pay the EU 36 billion for an exit agreement which grants us limited access to the Single Market and which will need to be paid for by a one off tax on every citizen, or should we leave without an agreement and trade under WTO rules?"
That should sort it out. Amazing that most people saying that we need to pay the EU a huge bill don't want to accept the fact that we don't have any money for it as we are running a budget deficit. If people actually had to pay the bill (rather than just borrow the money and screw over the next generation) I suspect there would suddenly be a total re-evaluation of whether we think it is worth paying for SM access.
Perhaps we should include a third option.. Withdraw Article 50 and remain in the EU.
The problem with binary choice referenda where one option leads to other options is that you can end up with a result that only pleases a small minority, which goes against the principles of democracy.
For instance, if the last General Election had been a referendum and the question had been - Should the Conservatives continue to govern? The answer based on the results of the actual 2017 GE would have been no. That would then require a further referendum to decide who SHOULD actually govern and if Conservatives were omitted from the second referendum, as you propose that the Remain option should be omitted then we would end up being governed by a Party who had even less support than the Conservatives had.
That is the problem with Brexit and why there will be a majority of people unhappy with our final destination. If there had been the two options you suggest on the original referendum question, plus Remain. Then I am pretty sure that Remain would have got the most votes, although probably still less than 50%.
You could say that a GE is a referendum on who we want to govern us, but with multiple choices and the result is generally decided on the highest share of the vote.
You assume that Leave has flavours but Remain does not.
If you split Remain into "Roll back to what we voted for in the 70s", "Status Quo" and "Superstate" then, again, you'd get a different biggest-minority,
Leave has many flavours, Remain had one - the status Quo. If we had voted Remain nothing would need to have changed. Of course future decisions will always need to be taken and our sovereign parliament, accountable to the electorate would have had to take them.
I appreciate that ideals are at stake, but to outsiders, it seems that a sensible leftish of centre party would win the next election by a country mile and not scare the horses.
Of course as polls (ha!) stand, Lab looks like it will win anyway...
I think that's right. As you imply, we're keen that we shouldn't just win but win with a programme that feels worthwhile. Striking the right balance is always tricky, but I expect that the programme will have a few big picture leftie things (higher minimum wage, lavish NHS funding) while trying not to frighten the horses with loads of ideological baggage (leaving NATO, abolishing the monarchy). Appetite for being like Venezuala is virtually non-existent whatever CCHQ may say - sympathy for the third world is one thing, wanting to emulate Maduro quite something else - even for people on the left.
Mr. Song, disagree. If we'd voted Remain then it would've been under Cameron's rubbish negotiation, not the status quo, and, more importantly, there'd be pressure from the likes of the Lib Dems to go further.
Ultimately we have a choice, which is separation or integration.
So it seems that the prospect of paying £36 billion isn't making for happy Brexit campers. I note that David Davis is being stuck with responsibility for floating this. Clearly his rivals are aiming for a Brexit betrayal narrative.
Do you think the floating of a £36 billion exit payment only for it to be whacked down is government news management to soften up people for one of the many costs of Brexit in a deniable way, or is it a skirmish in the Conservative Civil War between the Regulars and the Die-hards where one side proposes something the other side will reject?
The rhetoric in the papers would suggest the second.
PS The problem with a Brexit Betrayal narrative is that it implies Brexit has failed.
Well, Brexit can hardly be classed as a roaring success so far. It just looks more and more like a can of worms.
Considering people were bandying around figures like a £100bn exit-bill, £36bn looks a good deal.
It's only extending our annual payments up to the end of the current budget with a one off £10Bn severance payment.
However the extra money for the NHS will not appear for 3 years - you can blame the EU for that.
I have an idea for a second referendum. The question should be "Should we pay the EU 36 billion for an exit agreement which grants us limited access to the Single Market and which will need to be paid for by a one off tax on every citizen, or should we leave without an agreement and trade under WTO rules?"
That should sort it out. Amazing that most people saying that we need to pay the EU a huge bill don't want to accept the fact that we don't have any money for it as we are running a budget deficit. If people actually had to pay the bill (rather than just borrow the money and screw over the next generation) I suspect there would suddenly be a total re-evaluation of whether we think it is worth paying for SM access.
Perhaps we should include a third option.. Withdraw Article 50 and remain in the EU.
The trouble with that is that it isn't in the unilateral gift of HMG, so would need unanimous agreement from the EU27 first.
I have an idea for a second referendum. The question should be "Should we pay the EU 36 billion for an exit agreement which grants us limited access to the Single Market and which will need to be paid for by a one off tax on every citizen, or should we leave without an agreement and trade under WTO rules?"
That should sort it out. Amazing that most people saying that we need to pay the EU a huge bill don't want to accept the fact that we don't have any money for it as we are running a budget deficit. If people actually had to pay the bill (rather than just borrow the money and screw over the next generation) I suspect there would suddenly be a total re-evaluation of whether we think it is worth paying for SM access.
Perhaps we should include a third option.. Withdraw Article 50 and remain in the EU.
The trouble with that is that it isn't in the unilateral gift of HMG, so would need unanimous agreement from the EU27 first.
I don't want to worry those who laid the draw against South Africa, but rain just stopped play... and tomorrow's forecast looks pretty dodgy.
England had better take their chances today, when the rain abates.
A stop start day would suit England nicely. Can you imagine any batsmen other than Elgar and du Plessis maintaining their concentration through three or four stoppages?
Moreover they only need to draw to win the series, if worst comes to worst. The Proteas have to win.
So it seems that the prospect of paying £36 billion isn't making for happy Brexit campers. I note that David Davis is being stuck with responsibility for floating this. Clearly his rivals are aiming for a Brexit betrayal narrative.
Do you think the floating of a £36 billion exit payment only for it to be whacked down is government news management to soften up people for one of the many costs of Brexit in a deniable way, or is it a skirmish in the Conservative Civil War between the Regulars and the Die-hards where one side proposes something the other side will reject?
The rhetoric in the papers would suggest the second.
PS The problem with a Brexit Betrayal narrative is that it implies Brexit has failed.
Well, Brexit can hardly be classed as a roaring success so far. It just looks more and more like a can of worms.
Considering people were bandying around figures like a £100bn exit-bill, £36bn looks a good deal.
It's only extending our annual payments up to the end of the current budget with a one off £10Bn severance payment.
However the extra money for the NHS will not appear for 3 years - you can blame the EU for that.
I am sorry, but the extra money for the NHS is Fools Gold.
It was never a policy by anyone and it has been admitted that it was simply made up.
Morning all. 6 weeks down the line ? 6 months down the line ... difficult to assess what may happen. I am in Berlin which must be the most graffiti ridden city in the world. Nothing is sacred bar guarded buildings. 're last thread lots of SPD posters about this area(andersonplatz) but little from Merkel supporters. I guess it's a left wing city like London?
Yes, Berlin is a bit more than 50% centre-left with the former Communist Linke pretty strong (20+% in both halves of the city):
That said, I think Merkel is a shoo-in as Chancellor as suggested on a previous thread.
That’s an odd, but interesting polling result. Is it because for some sections of the population life was actually better under the DDR? I gather that in Russia it’s the old who tend to vote Communist as a sort of conservative ... ‘ah, times were better then’ vote.
Bit like Leavers here!
Russian joke from the 1970s:
A young boy is telling his grandmother what life will be like when Communism is achieved.
'We will all have nice houses to live in, and schools and work, and eat meat three times a day.'
So it seems that the prospect of paying £36 billion isn't making for happy Brexit campers. I note that David Davis is being stuck with responsibility for floating this. Clearly his rivals are aiming for a Brexit betrayal narrative.
Do you think the floating of a £36 billion exit payment only for it to be whacked down is government news management to soften up people for one of the many costs of Brexit in a deniable way, or is it a skirmish in the Conservative Civil War between the Regulars and the Die-hards where one side proposes something the other side will reject?
The rhetoric in the papers would suggest the second.
PS The problem with a Brexit Betrayal narrative is that it implies Brexit has failed.
Well, Brexit can hardly be classed as a roaring success so far.
As continuity Remainers keep telling us whenever there's good news that debunks Project Fear yet again, "we haven't left yet".
Mr. Song, disagree. If we'd voted Remain then it would've been under Cameron's rubbish negotiation, not the status quo, and, more importantly, there'd be pressure from the likes of the Lib Dems to go further.
Ultimately we have a choice, which is separation or integration.
Are you saying that Cameron's negotiation was counterproductive from a Leaver's perspective. I thought that the consensus was that there were too few concessions from the EU. I'm sure that they would have withdrawn those concessions if we had wanted.
All of these people were on the campaign committee that gave the OK to this kind of material.
Rt Hon Michael Gove MP (Co-Convener) * Rt Hon Gisela Stuart MP (Co-Convener) * Matthew Elliott (Chief Executive) * Dominic Cummings (Campaign Director) * Steve Baker MP Ian Davidson * Nigel Dodds MP Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP Rt Hon Frank Field MP Lord Forsyth Rt Hon Liam Fox MP Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP Dan Hannan MEP Boris Johnson MP * Paul Keetch Lord Lawson Andrea Leadsom MP John Longworth Lord Owen Rt Hon Priti Patel MP Dominic Raab MP Graham Stringer MP Rt Hon Theresa Villiers MP Rt Hon John Whittingdale MP
* Denotes the core group which will coordinate between campaign committee meetings and meet on a daily basis.
I don't want to worry those who laid the draw against South Africa, but rain just stopped play... and tomorrow's forecast looks pretty dodgy.
England had better take their chances today, when the rain abates.
A stop start day would suit England nicely. Can you imagine any batsmen other than Elgar and du Plessis maintaining their concentration through three or four stoppages?
Moreover they only need to draw to win the series, if worst comes to worst. The Proteas have to win.
Well as Elgar's gone, I think that's it. SA needed an opening partnership to give them a chance of surviving the day.
My concern was for those punters at risk from the draw, but they now look safe.
I don't want to worry those who laid the draw against South Africa, but rain just stopped play... and tomorrow's forecast looks pretty dodgy.
England had better take their chances today, when the rain abates.
A stop start day would suit England nicely. Can you imagine any batsmen other than Elgar and du Plessis maintaining their concentration through three or four stoppages?
Moreover they only need to draw to win the series, if worst comes to worst. The Proteas have to win.
Well as Elgar's gone, I think that's it. SA needed an opening partnership to give them a chance of surviving the day.
My concern was for those punters at risk from the draw, but they now look safe.
Corbo and McD know that they can't push through the massive budget deficits, state subsidies and nationalisation programmes they have in mind whilst we are still in the EU as they will break all sorts of rules.
They want freedom to go full Venezuela.
What in Labour's manifesto would the EU object to?
State-owned rail and utilities are common on the continent.
Did they renationalise them then by borrowing huge sums to repay shareholders or simply appropriate them ? Daft comment.
Labour plans to borrow money to nationalise - as they've been clear on. The only people talking about appropriation are conservatives.
I don't want to worry those who laid the draw against South Africa, but rain just stopped play... and tomorrow's forecast looks pretty dodgy.
England had better take their chances today, when the rain abates.
A stop start day would suit England nicely. Can you imagine any batsmen other than Elgar and du Plessis maintaining their concentration through three or four stoppages?
Moreover they only need to draw to win the series, if worst comes to worst. The Proteas have to win.
Well as Elgar's gone, I think that's it. SA needed an opening partnership to give them a chance of surviving the day.
My concern was for those punters at risk from the draw, but they now look safe.
Elgar set by puzzle by Broad's Enigma Variation?
Any other bad musical puns out there?
Well in the circumstances he was seen of with very little pomp, leaving SA with no hope of glory - but that's all I've got.
So it seems that the prospect of paying £36 billion isn't making for happy Brexit campers. I note that David Davis is being stuck with responsibility for floating this. Clearly his rivals are aiming for a Brexit betrayal narrative.
Do you think the floating of a £36 billion exit payment only for it to be whacked down is government news management to soften up people for one of the many costs of Brexit in a deniable way, or is it a skirmish in the Conservative Civil War between the Regulars and the Die-hards where one side proposes something the other side will reject?
The rhetoric in the papers would suggest the second.
PS The problem with a Brexit Betrayal narrative is that it implies Brexit has failed.
Well, Brexit can hardly be classed as a roaring success so far.
As continuity Remainers keep telling us whenever there's good news that debunks Project Fear yet again, "we haven't left yet".
Well, we have NOT left yet. It is a simple fact. Nuffick to do wiv me guv'nor........
Catching up with weekend news and comment. Seems Nick Timothy has joined many of us here on PB in calling for a Royal Commission to sort out social care and the elderly:
Really interesting read - sounds like pulling out of the TPP will hurt American farmers quite a lot. But will that hurt Trump? Not convinced.
I find it highly ironic that we are leaving the EU when it is in the middle of signing lots of FTAs with countries that we want to negotiate FTAs with. No doubt the TPP fallout will be another opportunity we are going to toss away...
Really interesting read - sounds like pulling out of the TPP will hurt American farmers quite a lot. But will that hurt Trump? Not convinced.
I find it highly ironic that we are leaving the EU when it is in the middle of signing lots of FTAs with countries that we want to negotiate FTAs with. No doubt the TPP fallout will be another opportunity we are going to toss away...
Instead of which we are relying on the good offices of Dr. Fox....
All of these people were on the campaign committee that gave the OK to this kind of material.
Rt Hon Michael Gove MP (Co-Convener) * Rt Hon Gisela Stuart MP (Co-Convener) * Matthew Elliott (Chief Executive) * Dominic Cummings (Campaign Director) * Steve Baker MP Ian Davidson * Nigel Dodds MP Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP Rt Hon Frank Field MP Lord Forsyth Rt Hon Liam Fox MP Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP Dan Hannan MEP Boris Johnson MP * Paul Keetch Lord Lawson Andrea Leadsom MP John Longworth Lord Owen Rt Hon Priti Patel MP Dominic Raab MP Graham Stringer MP Rt Hon Theresa Villiers MP Rt Hon John Whittingdale MP
* Denotes the core group which will coordinate between campaign committee meetings and meet on a daily basis.
Logic suffered: " If the `World's most powerful man' tells us he thinks we should remain I'm gonna vote leave."
Really interesting read - sounds like pulling out of the TPP will hurt American farmers quite a lot. But will that hurt Trump? Not convinced.
I find it highly ironic that we are leaving the EU when it is in the middle of signing lots of FTAs with countries that we want to negotiate FTAs with. No doubt the TPP fallout will be another opportunity we are going to toss away...
Instead of which we are relying on the good offices of Dr. Fox....
I have an idea for a second referendum. The question should be "Should we pay the EU 36 billion for an exit agreement which grants us limited access to the Single Market and which will need to be paid for by a one off tax on every citizen, or should we leave without an agreement and trade under WTO rules?"
That should sort it out. Amazing that most people saying that we need to pay the EU a huge bill don't want to accept the fact that we don't have any money for it as we are running a budget deficit. If people actually had to pay the bill (rather than just borrow the money and screw over the next generation) I suspect there would suddenly be a total re-evaluation of whether we think it is worth paying for SM access.
Perhaps we should include a third option.. Withdraw Article 50 and remain in the EU.
The problem with binary choice referenda where one option leads to other options is that you can end up with a result that only pleases a small minority, which goes against the principles of democracy.
For instance, if the last General Election had been a referendum and the question had been - Should the Conservatives continue to govern? The answer based on the results of the actual 2017 GE would have been no. That would then require a further referendum to decide who SHOULD actually govern and if Conservatives were omitted from the second referendum, as you propose that the Remain option should be omitted then we would end up being governed by a Party who had even less support than the Conservatives had.
That is the problem with Brexit and why there will be a majority of people unhappy with our final destination. If there had been the two options you suggest on the original referendum question, plus Remain. Then I am pretty sure that Remain would have got the most votes, although probably still less than 50%.
You could say that a GE is a referendum on who we want to govern us, but with multiple choices and the result is generally decided on the highest share of the vote.
You assume that Leave has flavours but Remain does not.
If you split Remain into "Roll back to what we voted for in the 70s", "Status Quo" and "Superstate" then, again, you'd get a different biggest-minority,
Leave has many flavours, Remain had one - the status Quo. If we had voted Remain nothing would need to have changed.
The reason I was unpersuaded by Remain was exactly this rather preposterous idea that there a static and stable status quo available from Remaining. Of course there isn't. Remain in what, exactly?
In any case - UK government bonds aren't worthless.
These ones were going to be, since by some bizarre financial alchemy they were supposed to fully compensate shareholders whilst simultaneously not paying the dividends shareholders had bought the shares for.
In any case, the idea that Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell had at the fag-end of their long and undistinguished parliamentary careers suddenly become persuaded of the merits of financial probity and investors' rights is utterly ludicrous.
In any case - UK government bonds aren't worthless.
These ones were going to be, since by some bizarre financial alchemy they were supposed to fully compensate shareholders whilst simultaneously not paying the dividends shareholders had bought the shares for.
In any case, the idea that Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell had at the fag-end of their long and undistinguished parliamentary careers suddenly become persuaded of the merits of financial probity and investors' rights is utterly ludicrous.
Presumably a nil coupon gilt - which is what this sounds like - would itself be worth nil?
All of these people were on the campaign committee that gave the OK to this kind of material.
Rt Hon Michael Gove MP (Co-Convener) * Rt Hon Gisela Stuart MP (Co-Convener) * Matthew Elliott (Chief Executive) * Dominic Cummings (Campaign Director) * Steve Baker MP Ian Davidson * Nigel Dodds MP Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP Rt Hon Frank Field MP Lord Forsyth Rt Hon Liam Fox MP Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP Dan Hannan MEP Boris Johnson MP * Paul Keetch Lord Lawson Andrea Leadsom MP John Longworth Lord Owen Rt Hon Priti Patel MP Dominic Raab MP Graham Stringer MP Rt Hon Theresa Villiers MP Rt Hon John Whittingdale MP
* Denotes the core group which will coordinate between campaign committee meetings and meet on a daily basis.
Logic suffered: " If the `World's most powerful man' tells us he thinks we should remain I'm gonna vote leave."</blockquote
I have an idea for a second referendum. The question should be "Should we pay the EU 36 billion for an exit agreement which grants us limited access to the Single Market and which will need to be paid for by a one off tax on every citizen, or should we leave without an agreement and trade under WTO rules?"
That should sort it out. Amazing that most people saying that we need to pay the EU a huge bill don't want to accept the fact that we don't have any money for it as we are running a budget deficit. If people actually had to pay the bill (rather than just borrow the money and screw over the next generation) I suspect there would suddenly be a total re-evaluation of whether we think it is worth paying for SM access.
Perhaps we should include a third option.. Withdraw Article 50 and remain in the EU.
The problem with binary choice referenda where one option leads to other options is that you can end up with a result that only pleases a small minority, which goes against the principles of democracy.
For instance, if the last General Election had been a referendum and the question had been - Should the Conservatives continue to govern? The answer based on the results of the actual 2017 GE would have been no. That would then require a further referendum to decide who SHOULD actually govern and if Conservatives were omitted from the second referendum, as you propose that the Remain option should be omitted then we would end up being governed by a Party who had even less support than the Conservatives had.
That is the problem with Brexit and why there will be a majority of people unhappy with our final destination. If there had been the two options you suggest on the original referendum question, plus Remain. Then I am pretty sure that Remain would have got the most votes, although probably still less than 50%.
You could say that a GE is a referendum on who we want to govern us, but with multiple choices and the result is generally decided on the highest share of the vote.
You assume that Leave has flavours but Remain does not.
If you split Remain into "Roll back to what we voted for in the 70s", "Status Quo" and "Superstate" then, again, you'd get a different biggest-minority,
Leave has many flavours, Remain had one - the status Quo. If we had voted Remain nothing would need to have changed.
The reason I was unpersuaded by Remain was exactly this rather preposterous idea that there a static and stable status quo available from Remaining. Of course there isn't. Remain in what, exactly?
Everything is always changing. However we were part of the EU decision making process. Now we are not!
In any case - UK government bonds aren't worthless.
These ones were going to be, since by some bizarre financial alchemy they were supposed to fully compensate shareholders whilst simultaneously not paying the dividends shareholders had bought the shares for.
In any case, the idea that Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell had at the fag-end of their long and undistinguished parliamentary careers suddenly become persuaded of the merits of financial probity and investors' rights is utterly ludicrous.
Borrow the money. Buy the water companies.
Then: 1) pay the borrowing cost with the profits from the company you now own. 2) Return what is left over to consumers in the form of lower bills.
You can adjust between 1 and 2 as you please. The plan is simple.
Welcome. May I inquire if there is any significance to your username? It seems a little unusual.
Just an old username I was given at uni, so it's just random numbers and letters.
Also, glad to see this analysis ringing with other people, I've been saying this in my circles for a while. I know Leavers and Remainers from across all parties and the values people seem to hold reflect their view on the issue more than anything specific to the EU. I'm annoyed now that I can't find that initial study that showed this so well...
Well it was a solid argument, well put.
Be prepared for pushback. We don't like that kind of thing on PB.
The reason I was unpersuaded by Remain was exactly this rather preposterous idea that there a static and stable status quo available from Remaining. Of course there isn't. Remain in what, exactly?
I think this is a reasonable way for a voter to think, but it also illustrates why the fact that we were having the referendum in the first place was evidence of a systemic failing in British politics.
Then: 1) pay the borrowing cost with the profits from the company you now own. 2) Return what is left over to consumers in the form of lower bills.
You can adjust between 1 and 2 as you please. The plan is simple.
'Simple' is the word, as in simpleton.
As you rightly said earlier, they actually hadn't the faintest clue how this would be financed, nor the other hundreds of billions they were saying they'd spend. The entire manifesto was complete fantasy from beginning to end, so it's reasonable to assume that what they meant (if anything) was what Corbyn and McDonnell actually believe in - which is confiscation.
Welcome. May I inquire if there is any significance to your username? It seems a little unusual.
Just an old username I was given at uni, so it's just random numbers and letters.
Also, glad to see this analysis ringing with other people, I've been saying this in my circles for a while. I know Leavers and Remainers from across all parties and the values people seem to hold reflect their view on the issue more than anything specific to the EU. I'm annoyed now that I can't find that initial study that showed this so well...
Well it was a solid argument, well put.
Be prepared for pushback. We don't like that kind of thing on PB.
Welcome to @148grss - I wholeheartedly agree with your analysis (indeed I put forward a view that aligns with the first part of it here):
"it is far from clear that Brexit is the driver of the Conservative rise in the polls. The decision to vote for or against Brexit is more likely to be an effect of characteristics of individual voters that carry over into this election rather than a cause of future voting habits (I accept that there is an element of feedback here). An urban metropolitan liberal professional was highly likely to vote Remain and for the same reasons is likely to find anti-immigration social conservatism and old-fashioned corporatism unattractive. A working class northern pensioner is likely to react very differently to both prompts. The pre-existing characteristics seem more relevant than the EU referendum vote for determining likely polling intentions. Brexit choice may be a useful shorthand for these characteristics in some cases but a staunch socialist who voted Leave is unlikely to have a Damascene conversion to the Conservatives."
In any case - UK government bonds aren't worthless.
These ones were going to be, since by some bizarre financial alchemy they were supposed to fully compensate shareholders whilst simultaneously not paying the dividends shareholders had bought the shares for.
In any case, the idea that Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell had at the fag-end of their long and undistinguished parliamentary careers suddenly become persuaded of the merits of financial probity and investors' rights is utterly ludicrous.
The tories are fine with appropriation, though Richard.
Just last year they significantly increased the amount students have to pay back on their loans.
These were teenagers who signed contracts a few years ago - and then the tories go and change the terms.
Then: 1) pay the borrowing cost with the profits from the company you now own. 2) Return what is left over to consumers in the form of lower bills.
You can adjust between 1 and 2 as you please. The plan is simple.
'Simple' is the word, as in simpleton.
As you rightly said earlier, they actually hadn't the faintest clue how this would be financed, nor the other hundreds of billions they were saying they'd spend. The entire manifesto was complete fantasy from beginning to end, so it's reasonable to assume that what they meant (if anything) was what Corbyn and McDonnell actually believe in - which is confiscation.
You have the belief that they would confiscate. But it's not what they actually said - and it's not impossible for the UK government to borrow 70bn pounds or so.
Then: 1) pay the borrowing cost with the profits from the company you now own. 2) Return what is left over to consumers in the form of lower bills.
You can adjust between 1 and 2 as you please. The plan is simple.
'Simple' is the word, as in simpleton.
As you rightly said earlier, they actually hadn't the faintest clue how this would be financed, nor the other hundreds of billions they were saying they'd spend. The entire manifesto was complete fantasy from beginning to end, so it's reasonable to assume that what they meant (if anything) was what Corbyn and McDonnell actually believe in - which is confiscation.
The voters with private pensions will clearly see they are being ripped off if shares are swapped for dodgy bonds. If they fully compensate the shareholders the only gain to consumers would be if the new management were able to run things much more efficiently and / or the employees were paid less. If under political pressure they only fully compensate deserving shareholders (small holdings pensions etc.) then it would rapidly dissolve into farce.
The voters with private pensions will clearly see they are being ripped off if shares are swapped for dodgy bonds. If they fully compensate the shareholders the only gain to consumers would be if the new management were able to run things much more efficiently and / or the employees were paid less. If under political pressure they only fully compensate deserving shareholders (small holdings pensions etc.) then it would rapidly dissolve into farce.
LOL at the idea that a Corbyn/McDonnell appointed nationalised management would run things more efficiently!
All of these people were on the campaign committee that gave the OK to this kind of material.
Rt Hon Michael Gove MP (Co-Convener) * Rt Hon Gisela Stuart MP (Co-Convener) * Matthew Elliott (Chief Executive) * Dominic Cummings (Campaign Director) * Steve Baker MP Ian Davidson * Nigel Dodds MP Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP Rt Hon Frank Field MP Lord Forsyth Rt Hon Liam Fox MP Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP Dan Hannan MEP Boris Johnson MP * Paul Keetch Lord Lawson Andrea Leadsom MP John Longworth Lord Owen Rt Hon Priti Patel MP Dominic Raab MP Graham Stringer MP Rt Hon Theresa Villiers MP Rt Hon John Whittingdale MP
* Denotes the core group which will coordinate between campaign committee meetings and meet on a daily basis.
Logic suffered: " If the `World's most powerful man' tells us he thinks we should remain I'm gonna vote leave."
That's too subtle for me. Could it mean that left is right and right is left?
You have the belief that they would confiscate. But it's not what they actually said - and it's not impossible for the UK government to borrow 70bn pounds or so.
It's not £70bn or so, it's hundreds of billions. £70bn or more would be needed for water nationalisation alone, in the unlikely event that they paid full market capitalisation.
I have an idea for a second referendum. The question should be "Should we pay the EU 36 billion for an exit agreement which grants us limited access to the Single Market and which will need to be paid for by a one off tax on every citizen, or should we leave without an agreement and trade under WTO rules?"
That should sort it out. Amazing that most people saying that we need to pay the EU a huge bill don't want to accept the fact that we don't have any money for it as we are running a budget deficit. If people actually had to pay the bill (rather than just borrow the money and screw over the next generation) I suspect there would suddenly be a total re-evaluation of whether we think it is worth paying for SM access.
Perhaps we should include a third option.. Withdraw Article 50 and remain in the EU.
The problem with binary choice referenda where one option leads to other options is that you can end up with a result that only pleases a small minority, which goes against the principles of democracy.
That is the problem with Brexit and why there will be a majority of people unhappy with our final destination. If there had been the two options you suggest on the original referendum question, plus Remain. Then I am pretty sure that Remain would have got the most votes, although probably still less than 50%.
You could say that a GE is a referendum on who we want to govern us, but with multiple choices and the result is generally decided on the highest share of the vote.
You assume that Leave has flavours but Remain does not.
If you split Remain into "Roll back to what we voted for in the 70s", "Status Quo" and "Superstate" then, again, you'd get a different biggest-minority,
Leave has many flavours, Remain had one - the status Quo. If we had voted Remain nothing would need to have changed.
The reason I was unpersuaded by Remain was exactly this rather preposterous idea that there a static and stable status quo available from Remaining. Of course there isn't. Remain in what, exactly?
Everything is always changing. However we were part of the EU decision making process. Now we are not!
Equating the changes likely to be wrought by a Remain or a Leave decision and saying they are in any way comparable - now that really is preposterous.
You have the belief that they would confiscate. But it's not what they actually said - and it's not impossible for the UK government to borrow 70bn pounds or so.
It's not £70bn or so, it's hundreds of billions. £70bn or more would be needed for water nationalisation alone, in the unlikely event that they paid full market capitalisation.
The gov't would only need to buy 51% of the shares to have a controlling interest though I think ?
The gov't would only need to buy 51% of the shares to have a controlling interest though I think ?
Only if they continued to give due weight to minority shareholders' interests, which would completely negate the claimed purpose of the nationalisation.
Of course, that's under existing company law, and such old-fashioned concepts could be swept away by the new regime as part of the confiscation (provided we'd left the EU by then, of course).
I have an idea for a second referendum. The question should be "Should we pay the EU 36 billion for an exit agreement which grants us limited access to the Single Market and which will need to be paid for by a one off tax on every citizen, or should we leave without an agreement and trade under WTO rules?"
That should sort it out. Amazing that most people saying that we need to pay the EU a huge bill don't want to accept the fact that we don't have any money for it as we are running a budget deficit. If people actually had to pay the bill (rather than just borrow the money and screw over the next generation) I suspect there would suddenly be a total re-evaluation of whether we think it is worth paying for SM access.
Perhaps we should include a third option.. Withdraw Article 50 and remain in the EU.
For instance, if the last General Election had been a referendum and the question had been - Should the Conservatives continue to govern? The answer based on the results of the actual 2017 GE would have been no. That would then require a further referendum to decide who SHOULD actually govern and if Conservatives were omitted from the second referendum, as you propose that the Remain option should be omitted then we would end up being governed by a Party who had even less support than the Conservatives had.
That is the problem with Brexit and why there will be a majority of people unhappy with our final destination. If there had been the two options you suggest on the original referendum question, plus Remain. Then I am pretty sure that Remain would have got the most votes, although probably still less than 50%.
You could say that a GE is a referendum on who we want to govern us, but with multiple choices and the result is generally decided on the highest share of the vote.
You assume that Leave has flavours but Remain does not.
If you split Remain into "Roll back to what we voted for in the 70s", "Status Quo" and "Superstate" then, again, you'd get a different biggest-minority,
Leave has many flavours, Remain had one - the status Quo. If we had voted Remain nothing would need to have changed.
The reason I was unpersuaded by Remain was exactly this rather preposterous idea that there a static and stable status quo available from Remaining. Of course there isn't. Remain in what, exactly?
Everything is always changing. However we were part of the EU decision making process. Now we are not!
You have the belief that they would confiscate. But it's not what they actually said - and it's not impossible for the UK government to borrow 70bn pounds or so.
It's not £70bn or so, it's hundreds of billions. £70bn or more would be needed for water nationalisation alone, in the unlikely event that they paid full market capitalisation.
Yes - 70bn for water companies. Another 25-30bn for national grid. Rail franchises as they expire so no cost. That's it I think?
Leo Varadkar is a new kind of Taoiseach — not just because he’s a gay child of an Indian immigrant. He’s worked out that Ireland holds the upper hand in negotiations with Britain because, without Irish consent, the other 26 EU nations won’t sign off that “sufficient progress” has been made in the negotiations. Mr Varadkar said the options for solving the border issue were clear: either Britain stays in the EU customs union, or forms a new customs union with the EU, or in effect rejoins the European Free Trade Association. The Cabinet is split on all these, with hard Brexiteers ruling out all of them.
This points to the larger row now coming. Once the rest of the EU does judge that we’ve made “sufficient progress” on the initial issues, it expects us to present our ideal plan for our long-term relationship with the EU. It is this moment that Whitehall now fears. For there is no agreement at all, in a divided Cabinet or hung Parliament, on that future status. When Europe turns to Brexit Britain this autumn and says “tell us what you want”, our reply will be “we don’t know”. It turns out that handing over the money is going to be easy part.
Comments
I suspect she did have a plan - but it was dependent on winning a stonking majority and is now unimplementable.
2. Then a miracle happens
2. Call Snap Election and win 100+ majority
3. Implement Brexit with focus on reducing immigration, screw the trade/economic consequences. Hope to prop up the economy with a return to industrial policy.
IMO step 3 would have been really bad. but the plan is so poor we didn't even make it to step 3.
May could've won 100+ majority. Indeed, it was odds on for most of the campaign. The lamentable litany of woe and idiocy that was her campaign put paid to that.
My 40’s were a decade I want to forget! Only about one thing in my life then is memorable for the right reasons.
Theresa May had done nothing to stop or slow non-EU immigration in her six years at the Home Office and Brexit would not in itself cause a damascene conversion: Leave was fronted by Boris who is well-known to be pro-immigration, and Cummings reported £350 million for the NHS was the crucial issue.
Sir Norfolk Passmore of this parish is another, I believe.
You might even add Mr Meekes, although he can speak for himself.
So, on the most important issue facing the country this parliament, the leader of the opposition has no policy except he wants what would "be good for Britain" ?
Truly we have a crap government and a crap opposition.
But decisions like keeping student numbers in her immigration target make me think she cares much more about immigration than the economy.
You are correct she failed to slow immigration - but I see that as largely out of her control.
To actually achieve Cameron's target would have required doing things Osborne and Cameron and certainly the Lib Dems would never have allowed.
Just an old username I was given at uni, so it's just random numbers and letters.
Also, glad to see this analysis ringing with other people, I've been saying this in my circles for a while. I know Leavers and Remainers from across all parties and the values people seem to hold reflect their view on the issue more than anything specific to the EU. I'm annoyed now that I can't find that initial study that showed this so well...
Nonetheless, the ease with which Mr. Palmer approves the utterly vacuous party line on Europe dismays me.
I would've said the underdogs there were the people starving to death. But I'm not a right-on resident of Islington, so it's hard to be sure.
What is unusual in Berlin is that the Left has managed to get a similar share in the western half of the city. They've successfully changed enough to embrace the freewheeling young leftists whom the old Stalinists like Ulbricht would have regarded with great suspicion.
In Russia it's partly the objective fact that the "democratic" successors to the Soviet Union shed large parts of its land area and saw large chunks of its economy handed over to corrupt gangsters. It's not totally irrational for them to feel that this is all bad news. Putin is popular because he is respectful about that without actually favouring a return to failed Soviet economics. But the Russian Communists are still dominated by tired old apparatchiks, while the German Left has reinvented itself.
I appreciate that ideals are at stake, but to outsiders, it seems that a sensible leftish of centre party would win the next election by a country mile and not scare the horses.
Of course as polls (ha!) stand, Lab looks like it will win anyway...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/07/brexit-catastrophic-support-jeremy-corbyn-remainer
But I'm also a retired politician. And I don't see any advantage in the Opposition tying itself down to a particular position at this point. When we have something to vote on, let's talk again.
The problem with binary choice referenda where one option leads to other options is that you can end up with a result that only pleases a small minority, which goes against the principles of democracy.
For instance, if the last General Election had been a referendum and the question had been - Should the Conservatives continue to govern? The answer based on the results of the actual 2017 GE would have been no. That would then require a further referendum to decide who SHOULD actually govern and if Conservatives were omitted from the second referendum, as you propose that the Remain option should be omitted then we would end up being governed by a Party who had even less support than the Conservatives had.
That is the problem with Brexit and why there will be a majority of people unhappy with our final destination. If there had been the two options you suggest on the original referendum question, plus Remain. Then I am pretty sure that Remain would have got the most votes, although probably still less than 50%.
You could say that a GE is a referendum on who we want to govern us, but with multiple choices and the result is generally decided on the highest share of the vote.
If you split Remain into "Roll back to what we voted for in the 70s", "Status Quo" and "Superstate" then, again, you'd get a different biggest-minority,
They want freedom to go full Venezuela.
People in that category voted overwhelming Leave, primarily because their idea of what we voted for in the 70s was not what we actually did vote for. In their view what we voted for most closely approximates the Norway option, which is false but helps explain why they were not Remainers.
State-owned rail and utilities are common on the continent.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/07/trump-tpp-deal-withdrawal-trade-effects-215459
why?
England had better take their chances today, when the rain abates.
Corbyn is effectively saying something similar, but with even less clarity.
Considering people were bandying around figures like a £100bn exit-bill, £36bn looks a good deal.
If we had voted Remain nothing would need to have changed. Of course future decisions will always need to be taken and our sovereign parliament, accountable to the electorate would have had to take them.
Ultimately we have a choice, which is separation or integration.
However the extra money for the NHS will not appear for 3 years - you can blame the EU for that.
Moreover they only need to draw to win the series, if worst comes to worst. The Proteas have to win.
It was never a policy by anyone and it has been admitted that it was simply made up.
LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIYq5xMW98I
All of these people were on the campaign committee that gave the OK to this kind of material.
Rt Hon Michael Gove MP (Co-Convener) *
Rt Hon Gisela Stuart MP (Co-Convener) *
Matthew Elliott (Chief Executive) *
Dominic Cummings (Campaign Director) *
Steve Baker MP
Ian Davidson *
Nigel Dodds MP
Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP
Rt Hon Frank Field MP
Lord Forsyth
Rt Hon Liam Fox MP
Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP
Dan Hannan MEP
Boris Johnson MP *
Paul Keetch
Lord Lawson
Andrea Leadsom MP
John Longworth
Lord Owen
Rt Hon Priti Patel MP
Dominic Raab MP
Graham Stringer MP
Rt Hon Theresa Villiers MP
Rt Hon John Whittingdale MP
* Denotes the core group which will coordinate between campaign committee meetings and meet on a daily basis.
My concern was for those punters at risk from the draw, but they now look safe.
Any other bad musical puns out there?
The only people talking about appropriation are conservatives.
PS, enjoyed that pun!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/04/nick-timothy-election-went-wrong-tories-can-beat-corbyn-next/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/brexit-opinions-remain-brexiteer-bull-bs-leave-eu-new-york-times-jenni-russell-daniel-hannan-a7880401.html
Probably best to just ignore newspapers for a little while.
https://www.ft.com/content/664252d2-7334-30c0-8637-ada2ee1ae2de
In any case - UK government bonds aren't worthless.
In any case, the idea that Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell had at the fag-end of their long and undistinguished parliamentary careers suddenly become persuaded of the merits of financial probity and investors' rights is utterly ludicrous.
Then:
1) pay the borrowing cost with the profits from the company you now own.
2) Return what is left over to consumers in the form of lower bills.
You can adjust between 1 and 2 as you please.
The plan is simple.
Be prepared for pushback. We don't like that kind of thing on PB.
As you rightly said earlier, they actually hadn't the faintest clue how this would be financed, nor the other hundreds of billions they were saying they'd spend. The entire manifesto was complete fantasy from beginning to end, so it's reasonable to assume that what they meant (if anything) was what Corbyn and McDonnell actually believe in - which is confiscation.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/05/19/looking-at-labours-share-of-the-vote-in-the-polls-and-what-does-it-mean/
"it is far from clear that Brexit is the driver of the Conservative rise in the polls. The decision to vote for or against Brexit is more likely to be an effect of characteristics of individual voters that carry over into this election rather than a cause of future voting habits (I accept that there is an element of feedback here). An urban metropolitan liberal professional was highly likely to vote Remain and for the same reasons is likely to find anti-immigration social conservatism and old-fashioned corporatism unattractive. A working class northern pensioner is likely to react very differently to both prompts. The pre-existing characteristics seem more relevant than the EU referendum vote for determining likely polling intentions. Brexit choice may be a useful shorthand for these characteristics in some cases but a staunch socialist who voted Leave is unlikely to have a Damascene conversion to the Conservatives."
Just last year they significantly increased the amount students have to pay back on their loans.
These were teenagers who signed contracts a few years ago - and then the tories go and change the terms.
That's appropriation. Theft.
It's what the tories do.
But it's not what they actually said - and it's not impossible for the UK government to borrow 70bn pounds or so.
Personally I support either a graduate tax or backdating tuition fees.
We're all in this together, remember?
Of course, that's under existing company law, and such old-fashioned concepts could be swept away by the new regime as part of the confiscation (provided we'd left the EU by then, of course).
We didn't stop MIFID or MIFID II, for example.
Rail franchises as they expire so no cost. That's it I think?
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-in-brexit-talks-it-turns-out-money-is-the-easy-bit-a3605601.html
Leo Varadkar is a new kind of Taoiseach — not just because he’s a gay child of an Indian immigrant. He’s worked out that Ireland holds the upper hand in negotiations with Britain because, without Irish consent, the other 26 EU nations won’t sign off that “sufficient progress” has been made in the negotiations. Mr Varadkar said the options for solving the border issue were clear: either Britain stays in the EU customs union, or forms a new customs union with the EU, or in effect rejoins the European Free Trade Association. The Cabinet is split on all these, with hard Brexiteers ruling out all of them.
This points to the larger row now coming. Once the rest of the EU does judge that we’ve made “sufficient progress” on the initial issues, it expects us to present our ideal plan for our long-term relationship with the EU. It is this moment that Whitehall now fears. For there is no agreement at all, in a divided Cabinet or hung Parliament, on that future status. When Europe turns to Brexit Britain this autumn and says “tell us what you want”, our reply will be “we don’t know”. It turns out that handing over the money is going to be easy part.