Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » TMay’s plan to enshrine the Brexit date in law looks set to fa

1246

Comments

  • A minimum of 190 Premier League games will be televised live in Britain from start of the 2019-20 season.

    Premier League chairmen voted unanimously for the package, with the rights set to go out to auction before Christmas.

    A new package of Saturday night games is likely to be offered to broadcasters, along with more midweek and Bank Holiday matches.

    There will be a minimum of 22 additional live games on offer.

    http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/42022871

    They really just should stop fannying around and make all games available. The likes of Red Zone in the US for the hand egg has been a massive success.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 47,080

    The EU market is of greater value to the UK in percentage terms, the UK market is of greater value to the EU in real terms. Those are the bald facts

    No, they really aren't
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 57,540
    edited November 2017

    HYUFD said:



    Labour would have to have a clear position on the EU for the campaign and that is as likely as Bill Cash and Anna Soubry having a unified position on Brexit

    He's assuming Labour's leadership are against Brexit.

    A bit silly, all things considered.
    The mistake which some people make is to think that everyone Cares Passionately about EU membership. I do. You do. Anna Soubry and Bill Cash do. But the Labour leadership don't. They see it as an organisation with practical uses and some potential for good as well as some snags. On balance they're in favour, but it's not crucial to them either way. In that, they resemble many voters.

    Now that's very annoying to all of us who see it as the defining issue of our generation, etc. But it makes it quite easy to reverse an unfinished Brexit process if the opportunity arises and it seems like a good idea. I wouldn't bet on it, but nor would I rule it out. And if it delivered a net 10% gain in voters enabling them to do socialist things they really do care about, then sure, they'll do it.
    Except that is not true.

    Corbyn has one of the longest and most consistent anti EU voting records in Parliament. He may not be committed to hard Brexit but he is committed to Brexit. Corbyn was voting against the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 when Davis was whipping Tory MPs to vote in favour and before May had even entered Parliament.

    Corbyn also knows 37% of Labour voters and a majority of Labour seats voted Leave.
    Corbyn is also committed to giving the membership a greater say over Labour Party policy. And at least 90% of the membership voted remain. The view in the Party is that he is genuinely not very interested in the EU. But now he thinks he is on the threshold of Downing Street and he needs to hedge his bets to avoid antagonising leavers or remainers. So he will not go out on a limb - if the Brexit process looks to be failing he will not step in to defend it. Nor will he oppose a second referendum if there is a clear demand for one, but Labour will not officially campaign for one.
    Corbyn made the largest number of his gains at the last general election in Leave Tory seats and he and Momentum know that, it is Blairite Labour ie Campbell, Mandelson and Umunna and Blair himself who want to reverse Brexit not Corbyn Labour
  • Scott_P said:

    What on earth IS this generation, what sort of declined, malnourished, arseing useless bunch of thickos runs screaming for the hills when it gets an actual chance to arrest this country's circling of the toilet bowl and actually MAKE something of it.

    If we leave the EU, the point is that our prosperity isn't DECIDED by a group of other countries. It is decided by us.

    Our prosperity was always DECIDED by us, and we voted to trade it away to appease some xenophobes and bigots.
    Did we have a positive balance of trade with the EU?
    Were we a net beneficiary of EU funds?
    Did the EU secure us or offer some insurance against economic downturn?
    No, no and no. So we traded away shit all.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 23,948
    Scott_P said:
    If you don't guarantee to prevent a hard border then we will give you a hard border?

    Fundamental his is asking us to commit to doing whatever deal emerges from negotiations. That's not possible
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 8,237
    edited November 2017
    Scott_P said:

    The EU market is of greater value to the UK in percentage terms, the UK market is of greater value to the EU in real terms. Those are the bald facts

    No, they really aren't
    Great argument. (Edited)
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 2,802
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    geoffw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HHemmelig said:

    The idea that the UK would or could entirely abolish customs duties after Brexit is insane. It would destroy most of our remaining manufacturing industry at a stroke. And very heavily damage agriculture and other sectors too.

    I don't think that's true. Don't forget that lots of UK companies use imported components in their products, so their cost of manufacture would fall in the event of a zero tariff world.

    The biggest issue - to me at least - is that thanks to price elasticity of demand, we would see our savings rate drop further.
    I don't understand this last point. Can you explain?
    If something is cheaper, you demand more of it.

    Removing all tariffs would lower the price of consumer goods, and would therefore increase demand for them.

    Consumers would therefore spend a higher proportion of their incomes than previously, because their money went further.
    For consumers to buy goods they need money. The money comes from the wages they get making products. If the companies they work for go bust as they cant sell abroad it does not matter how cheap goods are consumers will lose.




    I'm struggling to understand. If we remove all tariffs from imports, why does that prevent UK firms from selling abroad?

    Furthermore, I'd point out that removing tariffs from imports would mean that British firms would be able to manufacture products for less, as the cost of their imported components would be lower.
    But many British firms would go bust - if we remove all tariffs on Chinese steel, the British steel industry would collapse overnight. The same would apply to many other industries and quite a bit of agriculture. The effect of a unilateral renunciation of tariffs in one economy would be a collapse in many areas of activity in that economy. If all countries renounced tariffs collectively this would not apply, but such a collective renunciation is about as likely as a successful Brexit.
  • Scott_P said:

    kle4 said:

    you treat anything the other side in negotiations say as fundamental truth

    No, I treat fundamental truth like fundamental truth.

    Membership is the best deal on offer is a fundamental truth.

    That the Brexiteers don't understand that is not my problem.
    What on earth IS this generation, what sort of declined, malnourished, arseing useless bunch of thickos runs screaming for the hills when it gets an actual chance to arrest this country's circling of the toilet bowl and actually MAKE something of it.

    If we leave the EU, the point is that our prosperity isn't DECIDED by a group of other countries. It is decided by us.

    The only problems we've faced since this result have had shit all to do with the actual consequences of the vote to leave, and everything to do with the unwillingness of our own Government, for whatever reason, to realise that the EU relinquishing power and sovereignty means the UK stepping up to that responsibility.

    Our prosperity has always been in our hands and, as an exporting nation, will also continue to be in the hands of others. It will continue to be the case that if we make stuff and offer services others want to buy we will be OK. It's just that now we will have fewer advantages than we have had up to now. But we voted for that and so must implement it. The problems the government has are political. It cannot accept the reality - that the EU holds the negotiating cards and will dictate the terms of any orderly withdrawal - because to do so would tear the Tories apart.

    The EU can decide what access the UK has to its market, the UK can decide what access the EU has to our market. The EU market is of greater value to the UK in percentage terms, the UK market is of greater value to the EU in real terms. Those are the bald facts - the quivering jellies of PB are acting like the EU has some amazing ace up their sleeve. Anyone would think we were leaving an organisation where the terms of trade were in our favour.

    The EU is not one country. The 27 member states will have their access to one country reduced. We’ll have access to 27 reduced. That’s the baldest fact of all. It’s not the PB moanerati negotiating with the EU27, it’s this Tory government.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 47,080

    Great argument

    Yes, I know
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 7,427
    Sean_F said:

    justin124 said:

    Tory gain from Labour in Waveney St Margarets ward by 77 votes!

    Waveney has shifted very strongly to the Conservatives, in recent years (an 8% swing since 2010).

    With a near-gain from Labour in Darlington, too, last night's results were very good for the Conservatives.
    I rather agree - though Labour did much better in the Waveney Kirkley ward where another by election took place yesterday. In St Margarets Labour had an Asian candidate . Possible that would have depressed the Labour vote in an east coastal area?
  • Sean_F said:

    justin124 said:

    Tory gain from Labour in Waveney St Margarets ward by 77 votes!

    Waveney has shifted very strongly to the Conservatives, in recent years (an 8% swing since 2010).

    With a near-gain from Labour in Darlington, too, last night's results were very good for the Conservatives.
    Very odd. Labour should be storming ahead surely?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 23,948

    rcs1000 said:

    TonyE said:

    The only thing I'd add there is that UK can't abolish tariffs across the Irish border without doing so across whole WTO. So the option would be to charge the tariff (in theory), but rely on goodwill and TIR for its payment.

    The problem with abolishing all tariffs (which is a good thing), is that it removes the incentive for other countries to enter into FTAs with us. And this is a particular issue, because it is not reducing tariffs that is the biggest benefit of FTAs, but the removal of NTBs.
    There was good article in the Telegraph which destroyed this idea. If we abolish tarrifs we close down our industry as we have no guarantee that we get access to export markets. In the long term maybe our trade partners reciprocate but before then we are bust.

    There was a nobel prize awarded on this subject based on the prisoner dilema. In essence if we play by the rules and the other person doesnt we go to prison and he gets off. The only winning strategy is tit for tat.


    Tit for tat is only a winning strategy in a perpetual game
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,819
    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:
    If you don't guarantee to prevent a hard border then we will give you a hard border?

    If that's what he wants, that's what he'll get.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,819

    Sean_F said:

    justin124 said:

    Tory gain from Labour in Waveney St Margarets ward by 77 votes!

    Waveney has shifted very strongly to the Conservatives, in recent years (an 8% swing since 2010).

    With a near-gain from Labour in Darlington, too, last night's results were very good for the Conservatives.
    Very odd. Labour should be storming ahead surely?
    Local by-elections are matching the opinion polls, overall.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,883


    That's true. However, isn't it the case that by and large the determining factor in house prices is mortgage repayment levels? The huge rise in house prices between 1995 and 2007 was facilitated by a market in which mortgage interest rates fell hugely, and as banks relaxed their lending ratios on the back of assumptions that low interest rates and rising prices were the new medium-plus term norm, people could afford to borrow much more with repayments eating up no more of their income. It was far from the only source - the expansion (or near-creation) of the BTL market added more money and more buyers to the mix, for example - but it was by far the biggest factor.

    Stumbled across this gem from the late 90s...

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/593477.stm

    With average UK earnings of £23,000, this will make the average home 4.3 times more than average earnings. This is approaching the house price-to-earnings ratio of five hit briefly before the bubble burst in 1989.

    The situation in London is even more extreme. The average salary is £28,000, the average property price is 5.5 times that.

    Even joint buyers - say a nurse and a teacher with a combined income of £45,000 - now find it difficult to buy more than a small flat unless they find a mortgage company willing to stretch the standard lending criteria of 2.5 times joint salary.
  • Sean_F said:

    justin124 said:

    Tory gain from Labour in Waveney St Margarets ward by 77 votes!

    Waveney has shifted very strongly to the Conservatives, in recent years (an 8% swing since 2010).

    With a near-gain from Labour in Darlington, too, last night's results were very good for the Conservatives.
    Very odd. Labour should be storming ahead surely?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,819
    Pulpstar said:


    That's true. However, isn't it the case that by and large the determining factor in house prices is mortgage repayment levels? The huge rise in house prices between 1995 and 2007 was facilitated by a market in which mortgage interest rates fell hugely, and as banks relaxed their lending ratios on the back of assumptions that low interest rates and rising prices were the new medium-plus term norm, people could afford to borrow much more with repayments eating up no more of their income. It was far from the only source - the expansion (or near-creation) of the BTL market added more money and more buyers to the mix, for example - but it was by far the biggest factor.

    Stumbled across this gem from the late 90s...

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/593477.stm

    With average UK earnings of £23,000, this will make the average home 4.3 times more than average earnings. This is approaching the house price-to-earnings ratio of five hit briefly before the bubble burst in 1989.

    The situation in London is even more extreme. The average salary is £28,000, the average property price is 5.5 times that.

    Even joint buyers - say a nurse and a teacher with a combined income of £45,000 - now find it difficult to buy more than a small flat unless they find a mortgage company willing to stretch the standard lending criteria of 2.5 times joint salary.
    1990-97 was a wonderful time for anyone who was buying property. Prices rocketed from 1997 to 2007.
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    Butter prices update-Lidl's unsalted block butter is £1.45,salted £1.35.I've stocked up to beat future price rises.MySupermarket.com to the rescue.
  • Scott_P said:

    kle4 said:

    you treat anything the other side in negotiations say as fundamental truth

    No, I treat fundamental truth like fundamental truth.

    Membership is the best deal on offer is a fundamental truth.

    That the Brexiteers don't understand that is not my problem.
    What on earth IS this generation, what sort of declined, malnourished, arseing useless bunch of thickos runs screaming for the hills when it gets an actual chance to arrest this country's circling of the toilet bowl and actually MAKE something of it.

    If we leave the EU, the point is that our prosperity isn't DECIDED by a group of other countries. It is decided by us.

    The only problems we've faced since this result have had shit all to do with the actual consequences of the vote to leave, and everything to do with the unwillingness of our own Government, for whatever reason, to realise that the EU relinquishing power and sovereignty means the UK stepping up to that responsibility.

    Our prosperity has always been in our hands and, as an exporting nation, will also continue to be in the hands of others. It will continue to be the case that if we make stuff and offer services others want to buy we will be OK. It's just that now we will have fewer advantages than we have had up to now. But we voted for that and so must implement it. The problems the government has are political. It cannot accept the reality - that the EU holds the negotiating cards and will dictate the terms of any orderly withdrawal - because to do so would tear the Tories apart.

    The EU can decide what access the UK has to its market, the UK can decide what access the EU has to our market. The EU market is of greater value to the UK in percentage terms, the UK market is of greater value to the EU in real terms. Those are the bald facts - the quivering jellies of PB are acting like the EU has some amazing ace up their sleeve. Anyone would think we were leaving an organisation where the terms of trade were in our favour.

    The EU is not one country. The 27 member states will have their access to one country reduced. We’ll have access to 27 reduced. That’s the baldest fact of all. It’s not the PB moanerati negotiating with the EU27, it’s this Tory government.

    Well yes, I suppose things could always be worse. If certain PBers were in charge of the negotiations we'd be weeping and beating ourselves with bagettes until they realised how sorry we were.
  • Scott_P said:

    Great argument

    Yes, I know
    Yes, carry on with those sorts of penetrating insights and being given a chair to sit on at the troll factory can't be far away.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited November 2017
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,819
    Scott_P said:
    It'll have them rolling in the aisles.
  • Scott_P said:

    kle4 said:

    you treat anything the other side in negotiations say as fundamental truth

    No, I treat fundamental truth like fundamental truth.

    Membership is the best deal on offer is a fundamental truth.

    That the Brexiteers don't understand that is not my problem.
    What on earth IS this generation, what sort of declined, malnourished, arseing useless bunch of thickos runs screaming for the hills when it gets an actual chance to arrest this country's circling of the toilet bowl and actually MAKE something of it.

    If we leave the EU, the point is that our prosperity isn't DECIDED by a group of other countries. It is decided by us.

    The only problems we've faced since this result have had shit all to do with the actual consequences of the vote to leave, and everything to do with the unwillingness of our own Government, for whatever reason, to realise that the EU relinquishing power and sovereignty means the UK stepping up to that responsibility.

    Our prosperity has always been in our hands and, as an exporting nation, will also continue to be in the hands of others. It will continue to be the case that if we make stuff and offer services others want to buy we will be OK. It's just that now we will have fewer advantages than we have had up to now. But we voted for that and so must implement it. The problems the government has are political. It cannot accept the reality - that the EU holds the negotiating cards and will dictate the terms of any orderly withdrawal - because to do so would tear the Tories apart.

    The EU can their sleeve. Anyone would think we were leaving an organisation where the terms of trade were in our favour.

    The EU is not one country. The 27 member states will have their access to one country reduced. We’ll have access to 27 reduced. That’s the baldest fact of all. It’s not the PB moanerati negotiating with the EU27, it’s this Tory government.

    Well yes, I suppose things could always be worse. If certain PBers were in charge of the negotiations we'd be weeping and beating ourselves with bagettes until they realised how sorry we were.

    If it were me in charge we’d be into phase two by now. But I don’t have a hopelessly divided Conservative party to keep together as my main priority.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,883
    Sean_F said:

    Pulpstar said:


    That's true. However, isn't it the case that by and large the determining factor in house prices is mortgage repayment levels? The huge rise in house prices between 1995 and 2007 was facilitated by a market in which mortgage interest rates fell hugely, and as banks relaxed their lending ratios on the back of assumptions that low interest rates and rising prices were the new medium-plus term norm, people could afford to borrow much more with repayments eating up no more of their income. It was far from the only source - the expansion (or near-creation) of the BTL market added more money and more buyers to the mix, for example - but it was by far the biggest factor.

    Stumbled across this gem from the late 90s...

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/593477.stm

    With average UK earnings of £23,000, this will make the average home 4.3 times more than average earnings. This is approaching the house price-to-earnings ratio of five hit briefly before the bubble burst in 1989.

    The situation in London is even more extreme. The average salary is £28,000, the average property price is 5.5 times that.

    Even joint buyers - say a nurse and a teacher with a combined income of £45,000 - now find it difficult to buy more than a small flat unless they find a mortgage company willing to stretch the standard lending criteria of 2.5 times joint salary.
    1990-97 was a wonderful time for anyone who was buying property. Prices rocketed from 1997 to 2007.
    True, but I was 10 -> 17 at the time.

    Doing some tables up, peak mortgage payments looks to be the back end of 1989 to me. Twice the real price of right now.
  • Scott_P said:

    kle4 said:

    you treat anything the other side in negotiations say as fundamental truth

    No, I treat fundamental truth like fundamental truth.

    Membership is the best deal on offer is a fundamental truth.

    That the Brexiteers don't understand that is not my problem.
    What on earth IS this generation, what sort of declined, malnourished, arseing useless bunch of thickos runs screaming for the hills when it gets an actual chance to arrest this country's circling of the toilet bowl and actually MAKE something of it.

    If we leave the EU, the point is that our prosperity isn't DECIDED by a group of other countries. It is decided by us.

    The only problems we've faced since this result have had shit all to do with the actual consequences of the vote to leave, and everything to do with the unwillingness of our own Government, for whatever reason, to realise that the EU relinquishing power and sovereignty means the UK stepping up to that responsibility.

    Our prosperity has always been in our hands and, as an exporting nation, will also continue to be in the hands of others. It will continue to be the case that if we make stuff and offer services others want to buy we will be OK. It's just that now we will have fewer advantages than we have had up to now. But we voted for that and so must implement it. The problems the government has are political. It cannot accept the reality - that the EU holds the negotiating cards and will dictate the terms of any orderly withdrawal - because to do so would tear the Tories apart.

    The EU can their sleeve. Anyone would think we were leaving an organisation where the terms of trade were in our favour.

    The EU is not one country. The 27 member states will have their access to one country reduced. We’ll have access to 27 reduced. That’s the baldest fact of all. It’s not the PB moanerati negotiating with the EU27, it’s this Tory government.

    Well yes, I suppose things could always be worse. If certain PBers were in charge of the negotiations we'd be weeping and beating ourselves with bagettes until they realised how sorry we were.

    If it were me in charge we’d be into phase two by now. But I don’t have a hopelessly divided Conservative party to keep together as my main priority.

    If May showed any leadership, there wouldn't be hopeless division.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,883
    Pulpstar said:

    Sean_F said:

    Pulpstar said:


    That's true. However, isn't it the case that by and large the determining factor in house prices is mortgage repayment levels? The huge rise in house prices between 1995 and 2007 was facilitated by a market in which mortgage interest rates fell hugely, and as banks relaxed their lending ratios on the back of assumptions that low interest rates and rising prices were the new medium-plus term norm, people could afford to borrow much more with repayments eating up no more of their income. It was far from the only source - the expansion (or near-creation) of the BTL market added more money and more buyers to the mix, for example - but it was by far the biggest factor.

    Stumbled across this gem from the late 90s...

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/593477.stm

    With average UK earnings of £23,000, this will make the average home 4.3 times more than average earnings. This is approaching the house price-to-earnings ratio of five hit briefly before the bubble burst in 1989.

    The situation in London is even more extreme. The average salary is £28,000, the average property price is 5.5 times that.

    Even joint buyers - say a nurse and a teacher with a combined income of £45,000 - now find it difficult to buy more than a small flat unless they find a mortgage company willing to stretch the standard lending criteria of 2.5 times joint salary.
    1990-97 was a wonderful time for anyone who was buying property. Prices rocketed from 1997 to 2007.
    True, but I was 10 -> 17 at the time.

    Doing some tables up, peak mortgage payments looks to be the back end of 1989 to me. Twice the real price of right now.
    Local maximum at the back end of 2007 too.
  • Scott_P said:
    Well, that's not an over the top article.
  • eekeek Posts: 4,192
    Sean_F said:

    Pulpstar said:


    That's true. However, isn't it the case that by and large the determining factor in house prices is mortgage repayment levels? The huge rise in house prices between 1995 and 2007 was facilitated by a market in which mortgage interest rates fell hugely, and as banks relaxed their lending ratios on the back of assumptions that low interest rates and rising prices were the new medium-plus term norm, people could afford to borrow much more with repayments eating up no more of their income. It was far from the only source - the expansion (or near-creation) of the BTL market added more money and more buyers to the mix, for example - but it was by far the biggest factor.

    Stumbled across this gem from the late 90s...

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/593477.stm

    With average UK earnings of £23,000, this will make the average home 4.3 times more than average earnings. This is approaching the house price-to-earnings ratio of five hit briefly before the bubble burst in 1989.

    The situation in London is even more extreme. The average salary is £28,000, the average property price is 5.5 times that.

    Even joint buyers - say a nurse and a teacher with a combined income of £45,000 - now find it difficult to buy more than a small flat unless they find a mortgage company willing to stretch the standard lending criteria of 2.5 times joint salary.
    1990-97 was a wonderful time for anyone who was buying property. Prices rocketed from 1997 to 2007.
    Hmm when was bank lending liberalised with regulation moved away from the BoE.....
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 22,309
    edited November 2017

    A minimum of 190 Premier League games will be televised live in Britain from start of the 2019-20 season.

    Premier League chairmen voted unanimously for the package, with the rights set to go out to auction before Christmas.

    A new package of Saturday night games is likely to be offered to broadcasters, along with more midweek and Bank Holiday matches.

    There will be a minimum of 22 additional live games on offer.

    http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/42022871

    They really just should stop fannying around and make all games available. The likes of Red Zone in the US for the hand egg has been a massive success.

    The 15:00 blackout is probably now redundant, so they should just embrace it and show every match live. I can walk into a bar in Dubai or Singapore on a Saturday evening, and find seven live Premier League matches on seven screens, all with the same English commentators that will be on MOTD later. Those who want to watch live will find those games streaming on the Internet easily enough.

    Messing around with the times to accommodate the TV also annoys the fans at the match, especially with midday Saturday or late Sunday kickoffs which can’t be done on public transport.

    Most annoying was they way they split the rights between Sky and BT, with every match exclusive to one or the other a consumer wanting to watch his team every week has to subscribe to both channels to watch, rather than just one as was previously the case. Splitting that way probably makes the rights more valuable to the Premier League though.

    I think in the US they still have regional blackouts for games that haven’t sold out, which must be really annoying as everyone tries to persuade friends to go to the match so everyone else can see it on TV.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 57,540

    Scott_P said:

    kle4 said:

    you treat anything the other side in negotiations say as fundamental truth

    No, I treat fundamental truth like fundamental truth.

    Membership is the best deal on offer is a fundamental truth.

    That the Brexiteers don't understand that is not my problem.
    What on earth IS this generation, what sort of declined, malnourished, arseing useless bunch of thickos runs screaming for the hills when it gets an actual chance to arrest this country's circling of the toilet bowl and actually MAKE something of it.

    If we leave the EU, the point is that our prosperity isn't DECIDED by a group of other countries. It is decided by us.

    The only problems we've faced since this result have had shit all to do with the actual consequences of the vote to leave, and everything to do with the unwillingness of our own Government, for whatever reason, to realise that the EU relinquishing power and sovereignty means the UK stepping up to that responsibility.

    Our prosperity has always been in our hands and, as an exporting nation, will also continue to be in the hands of others. It will continue to be the case that if we make stuff and offer services others want to buy we will be OK. It's just that now we will have fewer advantages than we have had up to now. But we voted for that and so must implement it. The problems the government has are political. It cannot accept the reality - that the EU holds the negotiating cards and will dictate the terms of any orderly withdrawal - because to do so would tear the Tories apart.

    The EU can their sleeve. Anyone would think we were leaving an organisation where the terms of trade were in our favour.

    The EU is not one country. The 27 member states will have their access to one country reduced. We’ll have access to 27 reduced. That’s the baldest fact of all. It’s not the PB moanerati negotiating with the EU27, it’s this Tory government.

    Well yes, I suppose things could always be worse. If certain PBers were in charge of the negotiations we'd be weeping and beating ourselves with bagettes until they realised how sorry we were.

    If it were me in charge we’d be into phase two by now. But I don’t have a hopelessly divided Conservative party to keep together as my main priority.

    If you were in charge you would have paid the EU any sum they asked for and left free movement and ECJ jurisdiction permanently in place
  • Scott_P said:
    Well, that's not an over the top article.
    I thought we were all agreed that Brexit would be end of Western Democracy??!
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 47,080
    HYUFD said:

    If you were in charge you would have paid the EU any sum they asked for and left free movement and ECJ jurisdiction permanently in place

    And if it included Blue passports most people would have been happy...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,780

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    geoffw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HHemmelig said:

    The idea that the UK would or could entirely abolish customs duties after Brexit is insane. It would destroy most of our remaining manufacturing industry at a stroke. And very heavily damage agriculture and other sectors too.

    I don't think that's true. Don't forget that lots of UK companies use imported components in their products, so their cost of manufacture would fall in the event of a zero tariff world.

    The biggest issue - to me at least - is that thanks to price elasticity of demand, we would see our savings rate drop further.
    I don't understand this last point. Can you explain?
    If something is cheaper, you demand more of it.

    Removing all tariffs would lower the price of consumer goods, and would therefore increase demand for them.

    Consumers would therefore spend a higher proportion of their incomes than previously, because their money went further.
    For consumers to buy goods they need money. The money comes from the wages they get making products. If the companies they work for go bust as they cant sell abroad it does not matter how cheap goods are consumers will lose.




    I'm struggling to understand. If we remove all tariffs from imports, why does that prevent UK firms from selling abroad?

    Furthermore, I'd point out that removing tariffs from imports would mean that British firms would be able to manufacture products for less, as the cost of their imported components would be lower.
    But many British firms would go bust - if we remove all tariffs on Chinese steel, the British steel industry would collapse overnight. The same would apply to many other industries and quite a bit of agriculture. The effect of a unilateral renunciation of tariffs in one economy would be a collapse in many areas of activity in that economy. If all countries renounced tariffs collectively this would not apply, but such a collective renunciation is about as likely as a successful Brexit.
    If we remove all tariffs on Chinese steel, UK car makers will be able to make cheaper cars.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 4,982

    Scott_P said:
    Well, that's not an over the top article.
    Indeed.

    "If Parliament abolishes Brexit, Britain may abolish Parliament in its current incarnation."

    Is he calling for the abolition of Parliament, and the installation of a Hard Brexit Junta? (The Popular Will).

    Seems like it. Fewer long words would help with his clarity.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 57,540
    Scott_P said:

    HYUFD said:

    If you were in charge you would have paid the EU any sum they asked for and left free movement and ECJ jurisdiction permanently in place

    And if it included Blue passports most people would have been happy...
    Of course not unless immigration falls and any payment is clearly costed
  • Sandpit said:

    A minimum of 190 Premier League games will be televised live in Britain from start of the 2019-20 season.

    Premier League chairmen voted unanimously for the package, with the rights set to go out to auction before Christmas.

    A new package of Saturday night games is likely to be offered to broadcasters, along with more midweek and Bank Holiday matches.

    There will be a minimum of 22 additional live games on offer.

    http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/42022871

    They really just should stop fannying around and make all games available. The likes of Red Zone in the US for the hand egg has been a massive success.

    The 15:00 blackout is probably now redundant, so they should just embrace it and show every match live. I can walk into a bar in Dubai or Singapore on a Saturday evening, and find seven live Premier League matches on seven screens, all with the same English commentators that will be on MOTD later. Those who want to watch live will find those games streaming on the Internet easily enough.

    Messing around with the times to accommodate the TV also annoys the fans at the match, especially with midday Saturday or late Sunday kickoffs which can’t be done on public transport.

    Most annoying was they way they split the rights between Sky and BT, with every match exclusive to one or the other a consumer wanting to watch his team every week has to subscribe to both channels to watch, rather than just one as was previously the case. Splitting that way probably makes the rights more valuable to the Premier League though.

    I think in the US they still have regional blackouts for games that haven’t sold out, which must be really annoying as everyone tries to persuade friends to go to the match so everyone else can see it on TV.
    The only reason the rights are split is because of EU.

    Agree with the 3pm blackout, all it is doing is driving illegal streaming. It feels very much like the music industry / napster. What they should be doing is working out a way to provide all the coverage and a red zone style access via online, all at a reasonable monthly cost.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,780
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    justin124 said:

    Tory gain from Labour in Waveney St Margarets ward by 77 votes!

    Waveney has shifted very strongly to the Conservatives, in recent years (an 8% swing since 2010).

    With a near-gain from Labour in Darlington, too, last night's results were very good for the Conservatives.
    Very odd. Labour should be storming ahead surely?
    Local by-elections are matching the opinion polls, overall.
    But I thought the LibDems were winning pretty much every by-election???
  • Scott_P said:
    Well, that's not an over the top article.
    I thought we were all agreed that Brexit would be end of Western Democracy??!
    Give it time.

    I suspect if we get the worst case scenario of a Hard/WTO no deal Brexit, then the Demos might be looking for a new form of democracy as the Brexit they were promised hasn't materialised.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 19,234
    Scott_P said:
    With good reason, the only country that currently trades with the rest of the globe under World Trade Organisation rules is Mauritania
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,883
    Sandpit said:


    I think in the US they still have regional blackouts for games that haven’t sold out, which must be really annoying as everyone tries to persuade friends to go to the match so everyone else can see it on TV.

    Redzone format >>> Soccer saturday !
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 47,080

    I suspect if we get the worst case scenario of a Hard/WTO no deal Brexit, then the Demos might be looking for a new form of democracy as the Brexit they were promised hasn't materialised.

    But it was on the side of a bus! BoZo carved it in steel.

    What do you mean it isn't happening?
  • Scott_P said:

    HYUFD said:

    If you were in charge you would have paid the EU any sum they asked for and left free movement and ECJ jurisdiction permanently in place

    And if it included Blue passports most people would have been happy...
    You are obviously saying that in jest, but why didn't Cameron make that part of his renegotiation? The restoration of an emotional symbol of sovereignty might have made people feel "ever closer union" was real. There's a precedent: Croatia.

    Dan Hannan and I had a good chat about this prior to the vote, and we couldn't understand why he hadn't asked for it.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,215

    Scott_P said:
    Well, that's not an over the top article.
    I thought we were all agreed that Brexit would be end of Western Democracy??!
    Give it time.

    I suspect if we get the worst case scenario of a Hard/WTO no deal Brexit, then the Demos might be looking for a new form of democracy as the Brexit they were promised hasn't materialised.
    If Parliament decides to cancel Brexit, the potential consequence are enormous:

    1) a Brexit Party of some description wins the next election

    2) the Tory Party splits irreversibly, letting Corbyn in with a large majority

    3) a large slice of the electorate stops voting permanently, on the basis that Benn's aphorism about elections being banned if they changed anything will have been proved right.

    We could be heading to a very dark place indeed.
  • HYUFD said:

    Scott_P said:

    kle4 said:

    you treat anything the other side in negotiations say as fundamental truth

    No, I treat fundamental truth like fundamental truth.

    Membership is the best deal on offer is a fundamental truth.

    That the Brexiteers don't understand that is not my problem.
    What on earth IS this generation, what sort of declined, malnourished, arseing useless bunch of thickos runs screaming for the hills when it gets an actual chance to arrest this country's circling of the toilet bowl and actually MAKE something of it.

    If we leave the EU, the point is that our prosperity isn't DECIDED by a group of other countries. It is decided by us.

    The only problems we've faced since this result have had shit all to do with the actual consequences of the vote to leave, and everything to do with the unwillingness of our own Government, for whatever reason, to realise that the EU relinquishing power and sovereignty means the UK stepping up to that responsibility.

    Our prosperity has always been in our he negotiating cards and will dictate the terms of any orderly withdrawal - because to do so would tear the Tories apart.

    The EU can their sleeve. Anyone would think we were leaving an organisation where the terms of trade were in our favour.

    The EU is not one country. The 27 member states will have their access to one country reduced. We’ll have access to 27 reduced. That’s the baldest fact of all. It’s not the PB moanerati negotiating with the EU27, it’s this Tory government.

    Well yes, I suppose things could always be worse. If certain PBers were in charge of the negotiations we'd be weeping and beating ourselves with bagettes until they realised how sorry we were.

    If it were me in charge we’d be into phase two by now. But I don’t have a hopelessly divided Conservative party to keep together as my main priority.

    If you were in charge you would have paid the EU any sum they asked for and left free movement and ECJ jurisdiction permanently in place

    I’d certainly have agreed in principle to pay the £50 billion the EU is reported to want and would not have red-lined all ongoing ECJ jurisdiction in the UK. In addition, I’d have given UK citizens all rights EU citizens enjoy in the UK, while retaining those they don’t. On free movement I’d have been far stricter than the government has been in enforcing the powers there are to control immigration from the EU27. And I’d have introduced blue passports.

  • Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TonyE said:

    The only thing I'd add there is that UK can't abolish tariffs across the Irish border without doing so across whole WTO. So the option would be to charge the tariff (in theory), but rely on goodwill and TIR for its payment.

    The problem with abolishing all tariffs (which is a good thing), is that it removes the incentive for other countries to enter into FTAs with us. And this is a particular issue, because it is not reducing tariffs that is the biggest benefit of FTAs, but the removal of NTBs.
    There was good article in the Telegraph which destroyed this idea. If we abolish tarrifs we close down our industry without any guarantee that we get access to export markets. In the long term maybe our trade partners reciprocate but before then we are bust.
    As I remember it, Minford was intensely relaxed about our industry closing down, given that he saw benefits to the UK elsewhere from having zero tariffs.
    IIRC Minford predicted that introducing a minimum wage would lead to mass unemployment. His views, therefore, should be viewed with an appropriate level of scepticism.
    People frequently make dire economic predictions in support of their political arguments. Remember David Blanchflower's 5 million unemployed, or George Osborne's Punishment Budget.

    It's a good point. I think George Osborne was a supporter of the EU for political reasons, not economic ones, and would have advocated us joining the euro had domestic politics made it plausible.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 19,234
    Sean_F said:

    Pulpstar said:


    That's true. However, isn't it the case that by and large the determining factor in house prices is mortgage repayment levels? The huge rise in house prices between 1995 and 2007 was facilitated by a market in which mortgage interest rates fell hugely, and as banks relaxed their lending ratios on the back of assumptions that low interest rates and rising prices were the new medium-plus term norm, people could afford to borrow much more with repayments eating up no more of their income. It was far from the only source - the expansion (or near-creation) of the BTL market added more money and more buyers to the mix, for example - but it was by far the biggest factor.

    Stumbled across this gem from the late 90s...

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/593477.stm

    With average UK earnings of £23,000, this will make the average home 4.3 times more than average earnings. This is approaching the house price-to-earnings ratio of five hit briefly before the bubble burst in 1989.

    The situation in London is even more extreme. The average salary is £28,000, the average property price is 5.5 times that.

    Even joint buyers - say a nurse and a teacher with a combined income of £45,000 - now find it difficult to buy more than a small flat unless they find a mortgage company willing to stretch the standard lending criteria of 2.5 times joint salary.
    1990-97 was a wonderful time for anyone who was buying property. Prices rocketed from 1997 to 2007.
    Nevertheless the price explosion in London really took off after the Olympics, 2012-2015.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 47,080

    You are obviously saying that in jest, but why didn't Cameron make that part of his renegotiation? The restoration of an emotional symbol of sovereignty might have made people feel "ever closer union" was real. There's a precedent: Croatia.

    Dan Hannan and I had a good chat about this prior to the vote, and we couldn't understand why he hadn't asked for it.

    As I understand it, he didn't need to ask for it. We could have had blue passports all along.

    That only people like Dan Hannan care is perhaps why he didn't bother.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,780
    RoyalBlue said:

    Scott_P said:
    Well, that's not an over the top article.
    I thought we were all agreed that Brexit would be end of Western Democracy??!
    Give it time.

    I suspect if we get the worst case scenario of a Hard/WTO no deal Brexit, then the Demos might be looking for a new form of democracy as the Brexit they were promised hasn't materialised.
    If Parliament decides to cancel Brexit, the potential consequence are enormous:

    1) a Brexit Party of some description wins the next election

    2) the Tory Party splits irreversibly, letting Corbyn in with a large majority

    3) a large slice of the electorate stops voting permanently, on the basis that Benn's aphorism about elections being banned if they changed anything will have been proved right.

    We could be heading to a very dark place indeed.
    Parliament is not going to cancel Brexit.

    The only way Brexit could be cancelled would be if either (a) the Conservative government falls and a pro-EU party is elected in its place; or (b) a second referendum.

    Both of these are unlikely, although the first is possible.
  • RoyalBlue said:

    Scott_P said:
    Well, that's not an over the top article.
    I thought we were all agreed that Brexit would be end of Western Democracy??!
    Give it time.

    I suspect if we get the worst case scenario of a Hard/WTO no deal Brexit, then the Demos might be looking for a new form of democracy as the Brexit they were promised hasn't materialised.
    If Parliament decides to cancel Brexit, the potential consequence are enormous:

    1) a Brexit Party of some description wins the next election

    2) the Tory Party splits irreversibly, letting Corbyn in with a large majority

    3) a large slice of the electorate stops voting permanently, on the basis that Benn's aphorism about elections being banned if they changed anything will have been proved right.

    We could be heading to a very dark place indeed.
    That's not the scenario I was talking about.

    Brexit will be honoured, but if it is a very bad Brexit, there will be a consequence for the people that promised and delivered Brexit, badly.

    I suspect that will lead to a very dark place for people like Gove, Johnson, May, Farage et al.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,780

    Scott_P said:

    HYUFD said:

    If you were in charge you would have paid the EU any sum they asked for and left free movement and ECJ jurisdiction permanently in place

    And if it included Blue passports most people would have been happy...
    You are obviously saying that in jest, but why didn't Cameron make that part of his renegotiation? The restoration of an emotional symbol of sovereignty might have made people feel "ever closer union" was real. There's a precedent: Croatia.

    Dan Hannan and I had a good chat about this prior to the vote, and we couldn't understand why he hadn't asked for it.
    We don't need EU permission to change our passport colour to blue.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 19,234
    RoyalBlue said:

    Scott_P said:
    Well, that's not an over the top article.
    I thought we were all agreed that Brexit would be end of Western Democracy??!
    Give it time.

    I suspect if we get the worst case scenario of a Hard/WTO no deal Brexit, then the Demos might be looking for a new form of democracy as the Brexit they were promised hasn't materialised.
    If Parliament decides to cancel Brexit, the potential consequence are enormous:

    1) a Brexit Party of some description wins the next election

    2) the Tory Party splits irreversibly, letting Corbyn in with a large majority

    3) a large slice of the electorate stops voting permanently, on the basis that Benn's aphorism about elections being banned if they changed anything will have been proved right.

    We could be heading to a very dark place indeed.
    Which is why the job will need to be done by another referendum.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,711
    Sir J Dyson not hopeful of a deal.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/mind-beeswax-sir-james-dyson-plans-re-invent-british-farming/

    "‘I don’t think they’ll do a deal,’ he says of David Davis’s chances around the negotiating table. ‘You can’t negotiate with that lot, as I’ve found out from 24 years of sitting on European committees with Dyson. No non-German company has ever won anything, and nobody has ever been able to block any suggestion from the German cartel. Never. They stifle innovation, the EU. And the European Court of Justice, well, that’s frankly crooked…’"
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,202
    Scott_P said:
    Ireland's bullying of the UK is an excellent example if the extra sovereignty or control being in a union gives a country.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 57,540
    RoyalBlue said:

    Scott_P said:
    Well, that's not an over the top article.
    I thought we were all agreed that Brexit would be end of Western Democracy??!
    Give it time.

    I suspect if we get the worst case scenario of a Hard/WTO no deal Brexit, then the Demos might be looking for a new form of democracy as the Brexit they were promised hasn't materialised.
    If Parliament decides to cancel Brexit, the potential consequence are enormous:

    1) a Brexit Party of some description wins the next election

    2) the Tory Party splits irreversibly, letting Corbyn in with a large majority

    3) a large slice of the electorate stops voting permanently, on the basis that Benn's aphorism about elections being banned if they changed anything will have been proved right.

    We could be heading to a very dark place indeed.
    Either UKIP wins the next general election if there is no Brexit or it is a hung parliament where UKIP could even hold the balance of power
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,780
    IanB2 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Pulpstar said:


    That's true. However, isn't it the case that by and large the determining factor in house prices is mortgage repayment levels? The huge rise in house prices between 1995 and 2007 was facilitated by a market in which mortgage interest rates fell hugely, and as banks relaxed their lending ratios on the back of assumptions that low interest rates and rising prices were the new medium-plus term norm, people could afford to borrow much more with repayments eating up no more of their income. It was far from the only source - the expansion (or near-creation) of the BTL market added more money and more buyers to the mix, for example - but it was by far the biggest factor.

    Stumbled across this gem from the late 90s...

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/593477.stm

    With average UK earnings of £23,000, this will make the average home 4.3 times more than average earnings. This is approaching the house price-to-earnings ratio of five hit briefly before the bubble burst in 1989.

    The situation in London is even more extreme. The average salary is £28,000, the average property price is 5.5 times that.

    Even joint buyers - say a nurse and a teacher with a combined income of £45,000 - now find it difficult to buy more than a small flat unless they find a mortgage company willing to stretch the standard lending criteria of 2.5 times joint salary.
    1990-97 was a wonderful time for anyone who was buying property. Prices rocketed from 1997 to 2007.
    Nevertheless the price explosion in London really took off after the Olympics, 2012-2015.
    1997 - 2007, London house prices +400%
    2007 - 2017, London house prices +45%

    See: https://www.nationwide.co.uk/about/house-price-index/download-data#tab:Downloaddata
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 75,750
    edited November 2017

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TonyE said:

    The only thing I'd add there is that UK can't abolish tariffs across the Irish border without doing so across whole WTO. So the option would be to charge the tariff (in theory), but rely on goodwill and TIR for its payment.

    The problem with abolishing all tariffs (which is a good thing), is that it removes the incentive for other countries to enter into FTAs with us. And this is a particular issue, because it is not reducing tariffs that is the biggest benefit of FTAs, but the removal of NTBs.
    There was good article in the Telegraph which destroyed this idea. If we abolish tarrifs we close down our industry without any guarantee that we get access to export markets. In the long term maybe our trade partners reciprocate but before then we are bust.
    As I remember it, Minford was intensely relaxed about our industry closing down, given that he saw benefits to the UK elsewhere from having zero tariffs.
    IIRC Minford predicted that introducing a minimum wage would lead to mass unemployment. His views, therefore, should be viewed with an appropriate level of scepticism.
    People frequently make dire economic predictions in support of their political arguments. Remember David Blanchflower's 5 million unemployed, or George Osborne's Punishment Budget.

    It's a good point. I think George Osborne was a supporter of the EU for political reasons, not economic ones, and would have advocated us joining the euro had domestic politics made it plausible.
    Nah, he said being in the Euro would remove most of the economic levers a Chancellor and the UK controls now.

    He said at times over the last 40 years, a single interest rate across the UK was problematic, a single interest rate across Europe is a disaster waiting to happen.

    He also knew the credit crunch/Great Financial Crisis would have been a lot lot worse for the UK if we had been inside the Eurozone.

    Ironically it might have broken the Eurozone permanently.
  • Scott_P said:
    Well, that's not an over the top article.
    The derangement of Leavers is remarkable to behold, like a rabid dog in the full throes of hydrophobia.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 22,309
    edited November 2017

    Sandpit said:

    A minimum of 190 Premier League games will be televised live in Britain from start of the 2019-20 season.

    Premier League chairmen voted unanimously for the package, with the rights set to go out to auction before Christmas.

    A new package of Saturday night games is likely to be offered to broadcasters, along with more midweek and Bank Holiday matches.

    There will be a minimum of 22 additional live games on offer.

    http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/42022871

    They really just should stop fannying around and make all games available. The likes of Red Zone in the US for the hand egg has been a massive success.

    The 15:00 blackout is probably now redundant, so they should just embrace it and show every match live. I can walk into a bar in Dubai or Singapore on a Saturday evening, and find seven live Premier League matches on seven screens, all with the same English commentators that will be on MOTD later. Those who want to watch live will find those games streaming on the Internet easily enough.

    Messing around with the times to accommodate the TV also annoys the fans at the match, especially with midday Saturday or late Sunday kickoffs which can’t be done on public transport.

    Most annoying was they way they split the rights between Sky and BT, with every match exclusive to one or the other a consumer wanting to watch his team every week has to subscribe to both channels to watch, rather than just one as was previously the case. Splitting that way probably makes the rights more valuable to the Premier League though.

    I think in the US they still have regional blackouts for games that haven’t sold out, which must be really annoying as everyone tries to persuade friends to go to the match so everyone else can see it on TV.
    The only reason the rights are split is because of EU.

    Agree with the 3pm blackout, all it is doing is driving illegal streaming. It feels very much like the music industry / napster. What they should be doing is working out a way to provide all the coverage and a red zone style access via online, all at a reasonable monthly cost.
    Ah yes, I remember the EU case now, said it wasn’t allowed for the PL to deal with only one broadcaster so they had to split the packages - but still kept each match exlusive for one or the other, which just drove up the cost to consumers having to subscribe to both.

    I can understand the reasons behind the 3pm Rule, to protect lower league attendances, but with international broadcasters now showing all the games live there’s probably no longer much point fighting it. Better to have the PL subsidise the lower league clubs from the TV revenue.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 19,234

    Scott_P said:

    kle4 said:

    you treat anything the other side in negotiations say as fundamental truth

    No, I treat fundamental truth like fundamental

    Membership is the best deal on offer is a fundamental truth.

    That the Brexiteers don't understand that is not my problem.
    What on earth IS this generation, what sort of declined, malnourished, arseing useless bunch of thickos runs screaming for the hills when it gets an actual chance to arrest this country's circling of the toilet bowl and actually MAKE something of it.

    If we leave the EU, the point is that our prosperity isn't DECIDED by a group of other countries. It is decided by us.

    The only problems we've faced since this result have had shit all to do with the actual consequences of the vote to leave, and everything to do with the unwillingness of our own Government, for whatever reason, to realise that the EU relinquishing power and sovereignty means the UK stepping up to that responsibility.

    Our prosperity has always been in our hands and, as an exporting nation, will also continue to be in the hands of others. It will continue to be the case that if we make stuff and offer services others want to buy we will be OK. It's just that now we will have fewer advantages than we have had up to now. But we voted for that and so must implement it. The problems the government has are political. It cannot accept the reality - that the EU holds the negotiating cards and will dictate the terms of any orderly withdrawal - because to do so would tear the Tories apart.

    The EU can their sleeve. Anyone would think we were leaving an organisation where the terms of trade were in our favour.

    The EU is not one country. The 27 member states will have their access to one country reduced. We’ll have access to 27 reduced. That’s the baldest fact of all. It’s not the PB moanerati negotiating with the EU27, it’s this Tory government.

    Well yes, I suppose things could always be worse. If certain PBers were in charge of the negotiations we'd be weeping and beating ourselves with bagettes until they realised how sorry we were.

    If it were me in charge we’d be into phase two by now. But I don’t have a hopelessly divided Conservative party to keep together as my main priority.

    If May showed any leadership, there wouldn't be hopeless division.
    Harsh and unfair. The Tory party has been hopelessly divided on Europe for a generation. The only way to cope was to try and ignore it.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,780
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    A minimum of 190 Premier League games will be televised live in Britain from start of the 2019-20 season.

    Premier League chairmen voted unanimously for the package, with the rights set to go out to auction before Christmas.

    A new package of Saturday night games is likely to be offered to broadcasters, along with more midweek and Bank Holiday matches.

    There will be a minimum of 22 additional live games on offer.

    http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/42022871

    They really just should stop fannying around and make all games available. The likes of Red Zone in the US for the hand egg has been a massive success.

    The 15:00 blackout is probably now redundant, so they should just embrace it and show every match live. I can walk into a bar in Dubai or Singapore on a Saturday evening, and find seven live Premier League matches on seven screens, all with the same English commentators that will be on MOTD later. Those who want to watch live will find those games streaming on the Internet easily enough.

    Messing around with the times to accommodate the TV also annoys the fans at the match, especially with midday Saturday or late Sunday kickoffs which can’t be done on public transport.

    Most annoying was they way they split the rights between Sky and BT, with every match exclusive to one or the other a consumer wanting to watch his team every week has to subscribe to both channels to watch, rather than just one as was previously the case. Splitting that way probably makes the rights more valuable to the Premier League though.

    I think in the US they still have regional blackouts for games that haven’t sold out, which must be really annoying as everyone tries to persuade friends to go to the match so everyone else can see it on TV.
    The only reason the rights are split is because of EU.

    Agree with the 3pm blackout, all it is doing is driving illegal streaming. It feels very much like the music industry / napster. What they should be doing is working out a way to provide all the coverage and a red zone style access via online, all at a reasonable monthly cost.
    Ah yes, I remember the EU case now, said it wasn’t allowed for the PL to deal with only one broadcaster so they had to split the packages - but still kept each match exlusive for one or the other, which just drove up the cost to consumers having to subscribe to both.
    The FA spent millions with McKinsey to design the rights auction in such a way as to maximise revenues.
  • Scott_P said:

    HYUFD said:

    If you were in charge you would have paid the EU any sum they asked for and left free movement and ECJ jurisdiction permanently in place

    And if it included Blue passports most people would have been happy...
    You are obviously saying that in jest, but why didn't Cameron make that part of his renegotiation? The restoration of an emotional symbol of sovereignty might have made people feel "ever closer union" was real. There's a precedent: Croatia.

    Dan Hannan and I had a good chat about this prior to the vote, and we couldn't understand why he hadn't asked for it.

    We didn’t need to ask. But I agree with you: symbolically, it would have meant a great deal to a great many people. We could probably have got a Euro row over it, too, with people like Huncker and Guy whatever his name is.

  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,215
    IanB2 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Scott_P said:
    Well, that's not an over the top article.
    I thought we were all agreed that Brexit would be end of Western Democracy??!
    Give it time.

    I suspect if we get the worst case scenario of a Hard/WTO no deal Brexit, then the Demos might be looking for a new form of democracy as the Brexit they were promised hasn't materialised.
    If Parliament decides to cancel Brexit, the potential consequence are enormous:

    1) a Brexit Party of some description wins the next election

    2) the Tory Party splits irreversibly, letting Corbyn in with a large majority

    3) a large slice of the electorate stops voting permanently, on the basis that Benn's aphorism about elections being banned if they changed anything will have been proved right.

    We could be heading to a very dark place indeed.
    Which is why the job will need to be done by another referendum.
    Even a second referendum would do immense damage to politics in this country. Leave will be fuelled by righteous anger, and Remain will double down on the 'don't be a stupid xenophobe' route.

    It will make the first referendum look like a tea party.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 19,234

    Scott_P said:
    Well, that's not an over the top article.
    The derangement of Leavers is remarkable to behold, like a rabid dog in the full throes of hydrophobia.
    ...that can't take its eyes off the bone on the other side of the minefield.
  • Scott_P said:
    The answer is obvious, give Northern Ireland to the Republic.
    You've also mentioned this (more than once) with Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands too.

    Do you see the UK surrendering some of its territory as a just punishment for Brexiteers?
  • RoyalBlue said:

    IanB2 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Scott_P said:
    Well, that's not an over the top article.
    I thought we were all agreed that Brexit would be end of Western Democracy??!
    Give it time.

    I suspect if we get the worst case scenario of a Hard/WTO no deal Brexit, then the Demos might be looking for a new form of democracy as the Brexit they were promised hasn't materialised.
    If Parliament decides to cancel Brexit, the potential consequence are enormous:

    1) a Brexit Party of some description wins the next election

    2) the Tory Party splits irreversibly, letting Corbyn in with a large majority

    3) a large slice of the electorate stops voting permanently, on the basis that Benn's aphorism about elections being banned if they changed anything will have been proved right.

    We could be heading to a very dark place indeed.
    Which is why the job will need to be done by another referendum.
    Even a second referendum would do immense damage to politics in this country. Leave will be fuelled by righteous anger, and Remain will double down on the 'don't be a stupid xenophobe' route.

    It will make the first referendum look like a tea party.
    A third referendum, the last one was the second one.

    To quote David Davis “If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.”
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 3,896
    edited November 2017

    Scott_P said:
    Well, that's not an over the top article.
    I thought we were all agreed that Brexit would be end of Western Democracy??!
    Give it time.

    I suspect if we get the worst case scenario of a Hard/WTO no deal Brexit, then the Demos might be looking for a new form of democracy as the Brexit they were promised hasn't materialised.
    The greatest danger is the total abandonment of what the people told Parliament to do ie by reversing the vote. At which point what then? We will do well, I greatly fear, to avoid violence I would suggest, as there’s no point voting is there?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 47,080
    RoyalBlue said:

    It will make the first referendum look like a tea party.

    If no politicians are killed, it will not be as bad as the first one
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,711

    Scott_P said:
    The answer is obvious, give Northern Ireland to the Republic.
    You've also mentioned this (more than once) with Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands too.

    Do you see the UK surrendering some of its territory as a just punishment for Brexiteers?
    It's part of the Remainer mindset to loathe every aspect of Britain for its temerity to vote for Brexit.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 19,234
    RoyalBlue said:

    IanB2 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Scott_P said:
    Well, that's not an over the top article.
    I thought we were all agreed that Brexit would be end of Western Democracy??!
    Give it time.

    I suspect if we get the worst case scenario of a Hard/WTO no deal Brexit, then the Demos might be looking for a new form of democracy as the Brexit they were promised hasn't materialised.
    If Parliament decides to cancel Brexit, the potential consequence are enormous:

    1) a Brexit Party of some description wins the next election

    2) the Tory Party splits irreversibly, letting Corbyn in with a large majority

    3) a large slice of the electorate stops voting permanently, on the basis that Benn's aphorism about elections being banned if they changed anything will have been proved right.

    We could be heading to a very dark place indeed.
    Which is why the job will need to be done by another referendum.
    Even a second referendum would do immense damage to politics in this country. Leave will be fuelled by righteous anger, and Remain will double down on the 'don't be a stupid xenophobe' route.

    It will make the first referendum look like a tea party.
    That depends on the political position and climate at the time it is held. It won't be held unless there is a clear recognition that the government has led us down a dangerous blind alley.
  • Scott_P said:
    The answer is obvious, give Northern Ireland to the Republic.
    You've also mentioned this (more than once) with Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands too.

    Do you see the UK surrendering some of its territory as a just punishment for Brexiteers?
    I've been advocating giving away Northern Ireland for years, long before Brexit.

    Northern Ireland's problems has caused much grief to the rest of the UK, this ends this, and helps with making sure we get a good Brexit deal.

    WIN WIN.

    Plus it reverses a great mistake by the Papists.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    So there is a 43% chance of democracy -the democratic will of the British people in the referendum -continuing to be ignored.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 18,543
    TGOHF said:

    Sir J Dyson not hopeful of a deal.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/mind-beeswax-sir-james-dyson-plans-re-invent-british-farming/

    "‘I don’t think they’ll do a deal,’ he says of David Davis’s chances around the negotiating table. ‘You can’t negotiate with that lot, as I’ve found out from 24 years of sitting on European committees with Dyson. No non-German company has ever won anything, and nobody has ever been able to block any suggestion from the German cartel. Never. They stifle innovation, the EU. And the European Court of Justice, well, that’s frankly crooked…’"

    I'm amazed that Dyson's firm has managed to struggle on these past years.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 22,309
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    A minimum of 190 Premier League games will be televised live in Britain from start of the 2019-20 season.

    Premier League chairmen voted unanimously for the package, with the rights set to go out to auction before Christmas.

    A new package of Saturday night games is likely to be offered to broadcasters, along with more midweek and Bank Holiday matches.

    There will be a minimum of 22 additional live games on offer.

    http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/42022871

    They really just should stop fannying around and make all games available. The likes of Red Zone in the US for the hand egg has been a massive success.

    The 15:00 blackout is probably now redundant, so they should just embrace it and show every match live. I can walk into a bar in Dubai or Singapore on a Saturday evening, and find seven live Premier League matches on seven screens, all with the same English commentators that will be on MOTD later. Those who want to watch live will find those games streaming on the Internet easily enough.

    Messing around with the times to accommodate the TV also annoys the fans at the match, especially with midday Saturday or late Sunday kickoffs which can’t be done on public transport.

    Most annoying was they way they split the rights between Sky and BT, with every match exclusive to one or the other a consumer wanting to watch his team every week has to subscribe to both channels to watch, rather than just one as was previously the case. Splitting that way probably makes the rights more valuable to the Premier League though.

    I think in the US they still have regional blackouts for games that haven’t sold out, which must be really annoying as everyone tries to persuade friends to go to the match so everyone else can see it on TV.
    The only reason the rights are split is because of EU.

    Agree with the 3pm blackout, all it is doing is driving illegal streaming. It feels very much like the music industry / napster. What they should be doing is working out a way to provide all the coverage and a red zone style access via online, all at a reasonable monthly cost.
    Ah yes, I remember the EU case now, said it wasn’t allowed for the PL to deal with only one broadcaster so they had to split the packages - but still kept each match exlusive for one or the other, which just drove up the cost to consumers having to subscribe to both.
    The FA spent millions with McKinsey to design the rights auction in such a way as to maximise revenues.
    Interesting. Well the FA probably got their money’s worth from that deal, they made a couple of billion from the rights IIRC.
  • Sandpit said:

    A minimum of 190 Premier League games will be televised live in Britain from start of the 2019-20 season.

    Premier League chairmen voted unanimously for the package, with the rights set to go out to auction before Christmas.

    A new package of Saturday night games is likely to be offered to broadcasters, along with more midweek and Bank Holiday matches.

    There will be a minimum of 22 additional live games on offer.

    http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/42022871

    They really just should stop fannying around and make all games available. The likes of Red Zone in the US for the hand egg has been a massive success.

    The 15:00 blackout is probably now redundant, so they should just embrace it and show every match live. I can walk into a bar in Dubai or Singapore on a Saturday evening, and find seven live Premier League matches on seven screens, all with the same English commentators that will be on MOTD later. Those who want to watch live will find those games streaming on the Internet easily enough.

    Messing around with the times to accommodate the TV also annoys the fans at the match, especially with midday Saturday or late Sunday kickoffs which can’t be done on public transport.

    Most annoying was they way they split the rights between Sky and BT, with every match exclusive to one or the other a consumer wanting to watch his team every week has to subscribe to both channels to watch, rather than just one as was previously the case. Splitting that way probably makes the rights more valuable to the Premier League though.

    I think in the US they still have regional blackouts for games that haven’t sold out, which must be really annoying as everyone tries to persuade friends to go to the match so everyone else can see it on TV.
    The only reason the rights are split is because of EU.

    Agree with the 3pm blackout, all it is doing is driving illegal streaming. It feels very much like the music industry / napster. What they should be doing is working out a way to provide all the coverage and a red zone style access via online, all at a reasonable monthly cost.

    The split was always going to happen. The PL makes more money that way.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 57,540

    Scott_P said:
    The answer is obvious, give Northern Ireland to the Republic.
    You've also mentioned this (more than once) with Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands too.

    Do you see the UK surrendering some of its territory as a just punishment for Brexiteers?
    I've been advocating giving away Northern Ireland for years, long before Brexit.

    Northern Ireland's problems has caused much grief to the rest of the UK, this ends this, and helps with making sure we get a good Brexit deal.

    WIN WIN.

    Plus it reverses a great mistake by the Papists.
    Further confirmation your natural home is not the Conservative and Unionist Party
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    52% of the British people are Brexiteers. Brexiteers are not some tiny little fringe group. They are the majority of the British people.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,711
    TOPPING said:

    TGOHF said:

    Sir J Dyson not hopeful of a deal.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/mind-beeswax-sir-james-dyson-plans-re-invent-british-farming/

    "‘I don’t think they’ll do a deal,’ he says of David Davis’s chances around the negotiating table. ‘You can’t negotiate with that lot, as I’ve found out from 24 years of sitting on European committees with Dyson. No non-German company has ever won anything, and nobody has ever been able to block any suggestion from the German cartel. Never. They stifle innovation, the EU. And the European Court of Justice, well, that’s frankly crooked…’"

    I'm amazed that Dyson's firm has managed to struggle on these past years.
    Well yes why would we listen to a successful businessman when there are unelected bureaucrats available to tell us what is best for us ?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 19,234
    HYUFD said:

    Scott_P said:
    The answer is obvious, give Northern Ireland to the Republic.
    You've also mentioned this (more than once) with Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands too.

    Do you see the UK surrendering some of its territory as a just punishment for Brexiteers?
    I've been advocating giving away Northern Ireland for years, long before Brexit.

    Northern Ireland's problems has caused much grief to the rest of the UK, this ends this, and helps with making sure we get a good Brexit deal.

    WIN WIN.

    Plus it reverses a great mistake by the Papists.
    Further confirmation your natural home is not the Conservative and Unionist Party
    I don't see him being that lonely in the years to come.
  • welshowl said:

    Scott_P said:
    Well, that's not an over the top article.
    I thought we were all agreed that Brexit would be end of Western Democracy??!
    Give it time.

    I suspect if we get the worst case scenario of a Hard/WTO no deal Brexit, then the Demos might be looking for a new form of democracy as the Brexit they were promised hasn't materialised.
    The greatest danger is the total abandonment of what the people told Parliament to do ie by reversing the vote. At which point what then? We will do well, I greatly fear, to avoid violence I would suggest, as there’s no point voting is there?
    Why do Leavers jump to violence, we're a democracy, reversing Brexit at the ballot box via a general election will be no different to the voters chucking out Labour at a general election and putting the Tories in power.

    Do you think we'd have seen violence in 1983 if Michael Foot had won and implemented his manifesto commitment to take the UK out of the EC, overturning the 1975 referendum result?

    Seriously?
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,215
    Scott_P said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    It will make the first referendum look like a tea party.

    If no politicians are killed, it will not be as bad as the first one
    It will split families, couples, friends, colleagues. I think regardless of the result, we would then have to live with US-style hyper-partisanship as a permanent feature of our politics.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,711

    Scott_P said:
    The answer is obvious, give Northern Ireland to the Republic.
    You've also mentioned this (more than once) with Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands too.

    Do you see the UK surrendering some of its territory as a just punishment for Brexiteers?
    I've been advocating giving away Northern Ireland for years, long before Brexit.

    Northern Ireland's problems has caused much grief to the rest of the UK, this ends this, and helps with making sure we get a good Brexit deal.

    WIN WIN.

    Plus it reverses a great mistake by the Papists.
    A pattern of ignoring the democratic will of the people TSE - at least you are consistent.
  • HYUFD said:

    Scott_P said:
    The answer is obvious, give Northern Ireland to the Republic.
    You've also mentioned this (more than once) with Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands too.

    Do you see the UK surrendering some of its territory as a just punishment for Brexiteers?
    I've been advocating giving away Northern Ireland for years, long before Brexit.

    Northern Ireland's problems has caused much grief to the rest of the UK, this ends this, and helps with making sure we get a good Brexit deal.

    WIN WIN.

    Plus it reverses a great mistake by the Papists.
    Further confirmation your natural home is not the Conservative and Unionist Party
    Think of it being similar to the Anglo-Irish agreement that Mrs Thatcher did.

    She was bold then.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 2,802
    JonathanD said:

    Scott_P said:
    Ireland's bullying of the UK is an excellent example if the extra sovereignty or control being in a union gives a country.
    Indeed. For centuries the UK has had a predominant influence over Ireland's economic future.

    Now their place in the EU gives them a predominant influence over ours.

    What was that about taking back control?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 18,543
    TGOHF said:

    TOPPING said:

    TGOHF said:

    Sir J Dyson not hopeful of a deal.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/mind-beeswax-sir-james-dyson-plans-re-invent-british-farming/

    "‘I don’t think they’ll do a deal,’ he says of David Davis’s chances around the negotiating table. ‘You can’t negotiate with that lot, as I’ve found out from 24 years of sitting on European committees with Dyson. No non-German company has ever won anything, and nobody has ever been able to block any suggestion from the German cartel. Never. They stifle innovation, the EU. And the European Court of Justice, well, that’s frankly crooked…’"

    I'm amazed that Dyson's firm has managed to struggle on these past years.
    Well yes why would we listen to a successful businessman when there are unelected bureaucrats available to tell us what is best for us ?
    Successful businessmen who say what hell doing business in the EU is while presiding over a successful business in the EU might also have their biases.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 47,080
    RoyalBlue said:

    It will split families, couples, friends, colleagues. I think regardless of the result, we would then have to live with US-style hyper-partisanship as a permanent feature of our politics.

    That happened last time
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 57,540
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_P said:
    The answer is obvious, give Northern Ireland to the Republic.
    You've also mentioned this (more than once) with Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands too.

    Do you see the UK surrendering some of its territory as a just punishment for Brexiteers?
    I've been advocating giving away Northern Ireland for years, long before Brexit.

    Northern Ireland's problems has caused much grief to the rest of the UK, this ends this, and helps with making sure we get a good Brexit deal.

    WIN WIN.

    Plus it reverses a great mistake by the Papists.
    Further confirmation your natural home is not the Conservative and Unionist Party
    I don't see him being that lonely in the years to come.
    Given TSE is not a Corbynite socialist either but an Orange Book LD he may be able to find just enough of his colleagues to book a tax ride home on a good night yes
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 19,234
    stevef said:

    52% of the British people are Brexiteers. Brexiteers are not some tiny little fringe group. They are the majority of the British people.

    Rubbish. True Brexiteers are, as they always have been, an obsessed minority. The bulk of people don't care that much one way or the other, and were swayed by a campaign that plumbed new depths of dishonesty. When the reality of Brexit becomes clear, all but that minority will peel away.
  • TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    The answer is obvious, give Northern Ireland to the Republic.
    You've also mentioned this (more than once) with Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands too.

    Do you see the UK surrendering some of its territory as a just punishment for Brexiteers?
    I've been advocating giving away Northern Ireland for years, long before Brexit.

    Northern Ireland's problems has caused much grief to the rest of the UK, this ends this, and helps with making sure we get a good Brexit deal.

    WIN WIN.

    Plus it reverses a great mistake by the Papists.
    A pattern of ignoring the democratic will of the people TSE - at least you are consistent.
    Norn Iron voted to remain in the EU, so I'm honouring the will of the people.
  • RoyalBlue said:

    Scott_P said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    It will make the first referendum look like a tea party.

    If no politicians are killed, it will not be as bad as the first one
    It will split families, couples, friends, colleagues. I think regardless of the result, we would then have to live with US-style hyper-partisanship as a permanent feature of our politics.
    That's already happened.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044

    welshowl said:

    Scott_P said:
    Well, that's not an over the top article.
    I thought we were all agreed that Brexit would be end of Western Democracy??!
    Give it time.

    I suspect if we get the worst case scenario of a Hard/WTO no deal Brexit, then the Demos might be looking for a new form of democracy as the Brexit they were promised hasn't materialised.
    The greatest danger is the total abandonment of what the people told Parliament to do ie by reversing the vote. At which point what then? We will do well, I greatly fear, to avoid violence I would suggest, as there’s no point voting is there?
    Why do Leavers jump to violence, we're a democracy, reversing Brexit at the ballot box via a general election will be no different to the voters chucking out Labour at a general election and putting the Tories in power.

    Do you think we'd have seen violence in 1983 if Michael Foot had won and implemented his manifesto commitment to take the UK out of the EC, overturning the 1975 referendum result?

    Seriously?
    A general election is fought on many issues not just one. A general election is won on far less than 50% of the vote let alone the 52% achieved by Leave.

    If the will of the British people is ignored, I fear that many people would conclude that democracy is being ignored and would turn to "other means"
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,771
    Scott_P said:
    Except people haven't changed their mind, so I don't see the analogy.
  • HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_P said:
    The answer is obvious, give Northern Ireland to the Republic.
    You've also mentioned this (more than once) with Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands too.

    Do you see the UK surrendering some of its territory as a just punishment for Brexiteers?
    I've been advocating giving away Northern Ireland for years, long before Brexit.

    Northern Ireland's problems has caused much grief to the rest of the UK, this ends this, and helps with making sure we get a good Brexit deal.

    WIN WIN.

    Plus it reverses a great mistake by the Papists.
    Further confirmation your natural home is not the Conservative and Unionist Party
    I don't see him being that lonely in the years to come.
    Given TSE is not a Corbynite socialist either but an Orange Book LD he may be able to find just enough of his colleagues to book a tax ride home on a good night yes
    Fuck's sake, my home is not the Lib Dems, I'm a radical free market one Nation Tory.

    You've done more for the Lib Dems than I ever have, I mean I've never lost a Tory seat to the Yellow peril.
This discussion has been closed.