This is not a UK problem. It is a Conservative party problem. The only reason the government is holding out is because paying up would tear the Tories to pieces. It is classic party before country.
Except every poll shows the public does not want to pay the EU even the £20 billion May has offered let alone the £50 billion she will probably propose to start negotiations for a trade deal
McDonnell promises only to borrow to invest on Marr. Says nationalisation costs and issuing government bonds will be covered by the profits from the nationalised industries. He also promises to review PFI deals and will make savings longer term after buying them back from private companies.
McDonnell is all spend by billions and ignores the level of debt.
On the contrary - Labour's fiscal rule is to reduce the debt/GDP ratio by the end of the Parliament. They have a fiscal rule that measures the right things and leaves adequate room for investment - something Conservatives appear to have become ideologically opposed to.
McDonnell promises only to borrow to invest on Marr. Says nationalisation costs and issuing government bonds will be covered by the profits from the nationalised industries. He also promises to review PFI deals and will make savings longer term after buying them back from private companies.
McDonnell is all spend by billions and ignores the level of debt.
Hence Marr suggested that was why Labour was not further ahead in the polls
McDonnell promises only to borrow to invest on Marr. Says nationalisation costs and issuing government bonds will be covered by the profits from the nationalised industries. He also promises to review PFI deals and will make savings longer term after buying them back from private companies.
McDonnell is all spend by billions and ignores the level of debt.
fantasy economics/.. buying back pfi.. and how much will that cost...
A good article, Mr. Nabavi, with which I largely agree.
There's a great difference, though (besides scale of the pound of flesh demanded), which is that this follows a democratic vote in a free country, and isn't the price demanded following failure in war.
ITV (I think) had some voxpops in Sweden, and it was surprising that a few asked (always hard to tell how representative they are) actively wanted the UK to be punished. The fact the ITV reporter (blonde bloke, relatively new) is a moron [after Grenfell he said it raised questions about how the country was governed and even who governed us, and later supported the notion of lower entry requirements to Oxbridge for the purposes of social engineering] may mean they were cherrypicked for that purpose.
The EUphiles hate us and want to destroy us and they're going to make sure that they use the EU to achieve that goal.
The government should stop trying to reason with them and start throwing their weight around. Get on the phone to Trump and start talk of a new alliance out of NATO. He'd be up for it to help put pressure on the rest of Europe to pay their way in defence and we could use it to get a better deal and show we aren't to be fucked with.
Why the hell should we be paying billions in defence spending to help protect people who are actively trying to screw us over just because they can? It's completely pointless trying to be nice to people who have very malevolent plans for us.
The EU should be very careful how nice they play with the UK. They might think they have the whip hand now. But in five years time, they could find the UK spearheading a new movement - with no pretensions to be anything other than a trading bloc. No giant bureaucracy, no army, no constitution that binds all its citizens - in short, not a super state. Just a trading force that seeks to encourage economic advantage over those who are outside the club.
UK, US, Canada, Aus, NZ for starters...then Japan, China, Thailand, Vietnam....add in Brazil, Mexico, South Africa.
We could call it the Enterprise Economy Commonwealth. The EEC.
A good article, Mr. Nabavi, with which I largely agree.
There's a great difference, though (besides scale of the pound of flesh demanded), which is that this follows a democratic vote in a free country, and isn't the price demanded following failure in war.
ITV (I think) had some voxpops in Sweden, and it was surprising that a few asked (always hard to tell how representative they are) actively wanted the UK to be punished. The fact the ITV reporter (blonde bloke, relatively new) is a moron [after Grenfell he said it raised questions about how the country was governed and even who governed us, and later supported the notion of lower entry requirements to Oxbridge for the purposes of social engineering] may mean they were cherrypicked for that purpose.
The EUphiles hate us and want to destroy us and they're going to make sure that they use the EU to achieve that goal.
The government should stop trying to reason with them and start throwing their weight around. Get on the phone to Trump and start talk of a new alliance out of NATO. He'd be up for it to help put pressure on the rest of Europe to pay their way in defence and we could use it to get a better deal and show we aren't to be fucked with.
Why the hell should we be paying billions in defence spending to help protect people who are actively trying to screw us over just because they can? It's completely pointless trying to be nice to people who have very malevolent plans for us.
The the club.
UK, US, Canada, Aus, NZ for starters...then Japan, China, Thailand, Vietnam....add in Brazil, Mexico, South Africa.
We could call it the Enterprise Economy Commonwealth. The EEC.
What's that France, you want to join? Non...
Nostalgic twaddle.
Indeed!
Not least the problem exists that nearly all our export earning businesses voted Remain.
Though tarriff reduction on Australian iron ore will no doubt be a great boon to the Leave voting steel workers of South Wales.
Steel? Pah! We are looking at making graphene the core of the Welsh economy....
We handed leadership in grapheme technology to the Chinese and others almost as soon as it was discovered at Manchester University.
EU rules made it near impossible to encourage us to develop new national industries. That will now be gone as a bar.
Still time to win back the race on graphene. But it will require a Govt. that is prepared to throw some money at it. A bit of foresight. Investment.
McDonnell promises only to borrow to invest on Marr. Says nationalisation costs and issuing government bonds will be covered by the profits from the nationalised industries. He also promises to review PFI deals and will make savings longer term after buying them back from private companies.
McDonnell is all spend by billions and ignores the level of debt.
fantasy economics/.. buying back pfi.. and how much will that cost...
This is not a UK problem. It is a Conservative party problem. The only reason the government is holding out is because paying up would tear the Tories to pieces. It is classic party before country.
Except every poll shows the public does not want to pay the EU even the £20 billion May has offered let alone the £50 billion she will probably propose to start negotiations for a trade deal
Polls show the public wants to renationalise the railways. I don't see the Tories doing that.
Obviously, the Tories do not want to lose support in the opinion polls and they do not want to be torn apart, so they are not going to agree in principal to pay over a relatively small amount of money to kick-start phase 2. Party before country.
McDonnell promises only to borrow to invest on Marr. Says nationalisation costs and issuing government bonds will be covered by the profits from the nationalised industries. He also promises to review PFI deals and will make savings longer term after buying them back from private companies.
McDonnell is all spend by billions and ignores the level of debt.
fantasy economics/.. buying back pfi.. and how much will that cost...
No-one has set out a realistic vision for post Brexit Britain. Let alone a compelling or positive one. it's hard to tell whether the nostalgic twaddle coming out of the right is simply harmful or actively dangerous.
JRM is not going to lead Britain to a new golden age.
You Remainers just have no imagination....
Which we are going to need in abundance when we Leave.
Remainers imagination currently focused on undoing damage. Suspect that won't change. Nor why should it? They're totally within their rights to convince people to stay or rejoin.
Its a view, I suppose.
Some Labour supporters still don't realise that they lost the last election.
McDonnell promises only to borrow to invest on Marr. Says nationalisation costs and issuing government bonds will be covered by the profits from the nationalised industries. He also promises to review PFI deals and will make savings longer term after buying them back from private companies.
McDonnell is all spend by billions and ignores the level of debt.
fantasy economics/.. buying back pfi.. and how much will that cost...
Less than Brexit
This is on top of Brexit
The right and left both have their ideological follies they want us to pay for.
No-one has set out a realistic vision for post Brexit Britain. Let alone a compelling or positive one. it's hard to tell whether the nostalgic twaddle coming out of the right is simply harmful or actively dangerous.
JRM is not going to lead Britain to a new golden age.
You Remainers just have no imagination....
Which we are going to need in abundance when we Leave.
We are leaving. If the wealth creating Remainers lack the imaginations, the Leavers will have to step up. Go for it.
Of course we will. Whilst the Remainers lean against a wall, sucking air throught their teeth, mumbling "I wouldn't be doing it like that...."
Mr. Observer, if it's just the Conservative Party wanting to leave, why did 52% of the country vote for it?
We are leaving. We were told there would be no downsides to doing so and that it would be the easiest thing in the world. So let's do it in the easiest possible way and with the least possible disruption. Part of that is accepting that the EU holds the negotiating cards. If we had a government that put country first, this would not be a problem.
A good article, Mr. Nabavi, with which I largely agree.
There's a great difference, though (besides scale of the pound of flesh demanded), which is that this follows a democratic vote in a free country, and isn't the price demanded following failure in war.
ITV (I think) had some voxpops in Sweden, and it was surprising that a few asked (always hard to tell how representative they are) actively wanted the UK to be punished. The fact the ITV reporter (blonde bloke, relatively new) is a moron [after Grenfell he said it raised questions about how the country was governed and even who governed us, and later supported the notion of lower entry requirements to Oxbridge for the purposes of social engineering] may mean they were cherrypicked for that purpose.
The EUphiles hate us and want to destroy us and they're going to make sure that they use the EU to achieve that goal.
The government should stop trying to reason with them and start throwing their weight around. Get on the phone to Trump and start talk of a new alliance out of NATO. He'd be up for it to help put pressure on the rest of Europe to pay their way in defence and we could use it to get a better deal and show we aren't to be fucked with.
Why the hell should we be paying billions in defence spending to help protect people who are actively trying to screw us over just because they can? It's completely pointless trying to be nice to people who have very malevolent plans for us.
The EU should be very careful how nice they play with the UK. They might think they have the whip hand now. But in five years time, they could find the UK spearheading a new movement - with no pretensions to be anything other than a trading bloc. No giant bureaucracy, no army, no constitution that binds all its citizens - in short, not a super state. Just a trading force that seeks to encourage economic advantage over those who are outside the club.
UK, US, Canada, Aus, NZ for starters...then Japan, China, Thailand, Vietnam....add in Brazil, Mexico, South Africa.
We could call it the Enterprise Economy Commonwealth. The EEC.
What's that France, you want to join? Non...
Leaving aside the delusional imperialist undertone, how many countries do you think are going to be rushing into a trading bloc with Britain, it having walked out of EFTA, the Commonwealth trading arrangements and the EU?
No-one has set out a realistic vision for post Brexit Britain. Let alone a compelling or positive one. it's hard to tell whether the nostalgic twaddle coming out of the right is simply harmful or actively dangerous.
JRM is not going to lead Britain to a new golden age.
You Remainers just have no imagination....
Which we are going to need in abundance when we Leave.
We are leaving. If the wealth creating Remainers lack the imaginations, the Leavers will have to step up. Go for it.
Of course we will. Whilst the Remainers lean against a wall, sucking air throught their teeth, mumbling "I wouldn't be doing it like that...."
Go on then. Stop blaming others and deliver the Brexit that was promised.
Mr. Observer, if it's just the Conservative Party wanting to leave, why did 52% of the country vote for it?
We are leaving. We were told there would be no downsides to doing so and that it would be the easiest thing in the world. So let's do it in the easiest possible way and with the least possible disruption. Part of that is accepting that the EU holds the negotiating cards. If we had a government that put country first, this would not be a problem.
Just as a matter of interest is your idea of putting the Country first remaining in the EU - the only party signed up to that is the Lib Dem at about 7% in the polls
This is not a UK problem. It is a Conservative party problem. The only reason the government is holding out is because paying up would tear the Tories to pieces. It is classic party before country.
Except every poll shows the public does not want to pay the EU even the £20 billion May has offered let alone the £50 billion she will probably propose to start negotiations for a trade deal
Polls show the public wants to renationalise the railways. I don't see the Tories doing that.
Obviously, the Tories do not want to lose support in the opinion polls and they do not want to be torn apart, so they are not going to agree in principal to pay over a relatively small amount of money to kick-start phase 2. Party before country.
No they won't but Labour will. In any case as I said the Tories, or at least May and Hammond and probably Davis will likely eventually pay up for a deal despite protestations from the likes of Mogg and Boris and Gove. That would be country before party. Leaving free movement in place though to stay permanently in the single market is non negotiable.
A good article, Mr. Nabavi, with which I largely agree.
There's a great difference, though (besides scale of the pound of flesh demanded), which is that this follows a democratic vote in a free country, and isn't the price demanded following failure in war.
ITV (I think) had some voxpops in Sweden, and it was surprising that a few asked (always hard to tell how representative they are) actively wanted the UK to be punished. The fact the ITV reporter (blonde bloke, relatively new) is a moron [after Grenfell he said it raised questions about how the country was governed and even who governed us, and later supported the notion of lower entry requirements to Oxbridge for the purposes of social engineering] may mean they were cherrypicked for that purpose.
The EUphiles hate us and want to destroy us and they're going to make sure that they use the EU to achieve that goal.
The government should stop trying to reason with them and start throwing their weight around. Get on the phone to Trump and start talk of a new alliance out of NATO. He'd be up for it to help put pressure on the rest of Europe to pay their way in defence and we could use it to get a better deal and show we aren't to be fucked with.
Why the hell should we be paying billions in defence spending to help protect people who are actively trying to screw us over just because they can? It's completely pointless trying to be nice to people who have very malevolent plans for us.
The EU should be very careful how nice they play with the UK. They might think they have the whip hand now. But in five years time, they could find the UK spearheading a new movement - with no pretensions to be anything other than a trading bloc. No giant bureaucracy, no army, no constitution that binds all its citizens - in short, not a super state. Just a trading force that seeks to encourage economic advantage over those who are outside the club.
UK, US, Canada, Aus, NZ for starters...then Japan, China, Thailand, Vietnam....add in Brazil, Mexico, South Africa.
We could call it the Enterprise Economy Commonwealth. The EEC.
What's that France, you want to join? Non...
Leaving aside the delusional imperialist undertone, how many countries do you think are going to be rushing into a trading bloc with Britain, it having walked out of EFTA, the Commonwealth trading arrangements and the EU?
Amidst the backdrop of demands for ludicrous bills from the EU, apparently for little more than their hurt feelings? Quite a few.
Mr. Observer, claims varied from it being super easy to ending Western civilisation. Unsurprisingly, the truth will be somewhere in between.
I still think another referendum is eminently possible (not probable, but it could happen).
Another referendum before March 2019? <5% I reckon. Another referendum before a transition period ending in (say) 2021? <15% I think. Another referendum after we've left at some point in the future... >30% I reckon.
A good article, Mr. Nabavi, with which I largely agree.
There's a great difference, though (besides scale of the pound of flesh demanded), which is that this follows a democratic vote in a free country, and isn't the price demanded following failure in war.
ITV purpose.
The EUphiles hate us and want to destroy us and they're going to make sure that they use the EU to achieve that goal.
The government should stop trying to reason with them and start throwing their weight around. Get on the phone to Trump and start talk of a new alliance out of NATO. He'd be up for it to help put pressure on the rest of Europe to pay their way in defence and we could use it to get a better deal and show we aren't to be fucked with.
Why the hell should we be paying billions in defence spending to help protect people who are actively trying to screw us over just because they can? It's completely pointless trying to be nice to people who have very malevolent plans for us.
The the club.
UK, US, Canada, Aus, NZ for starters...then Japan, China, Thailand, Vietnam....add in Brazil, Mexico, South Africa.
We could call it the Enterprise Economy Commonwealth. The EEC.
What's that France, you want to join? Non...
Nostalgic twaddle.
Indeed!
Not least the problem exists that nearly all our export earning businesses voted Remain.
Though tarriff reduction on Australian iron ore will no doubt be a great boon to the Leave voting steel workers of South Wales.
Steel? Pah! We are looking at making graphene the core of the Welsh economy....
We handed leadership in grapheme technology to the Chinese and others almost as soon as it was discovered at Manchester University.
EU rules made it near impossible to encourage us to develop new national industries. That will now be gone as a bar.
Still time to win back the race on graphene. But it will require a Govt. that is prepared to throw some money at it. A bit of foresight. Investment.
Risk.
Absolute rubbish. We threw away our grapheme opportunity for reasons that were totally unconnected to the EU and all to do with the perennial UK disease of short-termism trumping investment in R&D.
Mr. Observer, claims varied from it being super easy to ending Western civilisation. Unsurprisingly, the truth will be somewhere in between.
I still think another referendum is eminently possible (not probable, but it could happen).
Another referendum before March 2019? <5% I reckon. Another referendum before a transition period ending in (say) 2021? <15% I think. Another referendum after we've left at some point in the future... >30% I reckon.
The truth is that the country is split down the middle on Brexit.
Skilled political leadership might have found a classic British fudge and vision capable of healing wounds. Instead The actions of this government have actively deepened the divisions.
Mr. Observer, if it's just the Conservative Party wanting to leave, why did 52% of the country vote for it?
We are leaving. We were told there would be no downsides to doing so and that it would be the easiest thing in the world. So let's do it in the easiest possible way and with the least possible disruption. Part of that is accepting that the EU holds the negotiating cards. If we had a government that put country first, this would not be a problem.
Just as a matter of interest is your idea of putting the Country first remaining in the EU - the only party signed up to that is the Lib Dem at about 7% in the polls
I think we are making a huge mistake in leaving the EU, but it is one that we have to make unless voters change their minds. My preference is for leaving to do be done in the most painless way possible, not in the way that has the best chance of keeping the Conservative party together. I think campaigning to stay in at this stage is a waste of time and effort.
The idea that we should pay for things we've previously agreed to pay (such as agreed payments while we're still members, and projects that we agreed to co-fund) is not revolutionary. The idea that we should default on our obligations is. Yes, it's a bit tricky to sell £60bn or whatever it is to the public, but that's a problem entirely owned by the Brexit fans. But Richard is right that the history of settlements seen as unfair is an unhappy one, and I do expect a deal.
On McDonnell, an Observer interview today conveys his outlook well:
To my mind, he's actually the most serious, detailed and careful thinker in the current Labour project, and a good balance to Corbyn's purist idealism.
The truth is that the country is split down the middle on Brexit.
Skilled political leadership might have found a classic British fudge and vision capable of healing wounds. Instead The actions of this government have actively deepened the divisions.
It should be held in utter contempt.
But it is only held in contempt by mainly hard core remainers
The truth is that the country is split down the middle on Brexit.
Skilled political leadership might have found a classic British fudge and vision capable of healing wounds. Instead The actions of this government have actively deepened the divisions.
It should be held in utter contempt.
It isn't split between those who want to recognise a democratic decision, and those who are the useful tools of the neo-liberal elite. Most people want the decision respected, however they voted.
Mr. rkrkrk, I'd say more 20-25% on before March 2019, personally.
You can get 5.2 on the UK being the next country to hold an In/Out referendum on Betfair. Seems unlikely another country would want to leave and would organize a vote before March 2019.
I still think Hammond could be next out of the cabinet at 10-1 is value.Whatever the government touches at the moment,it quickly turns into excrement.It's odds-on the budget,in one way or another,will go tits up. This destablises the government even more and ,should Damien Green come out poorly in the investigation about allegations against him,May could lose her like support completely. PP has Green at 7-2 fav.should Hammond survive.TMay is 5-1.
The truth is that the country is split down the middle on Brexit.
Skilled political leadership might have found a classic British fudge and vision capable of healing wounds. Instead The actions of this government have actively deepened the divisions.
It should be held in utter contempt.
What rubbish. Remainers want to stay in the single market and leave free movement uncontrolled if they cannot reverse Brexit and are happy to pay up for a trade deal.
Leavers want to leave both the EU and single market and ECJ jurisdiction and end free movement and replace it with a points system and pay the EU virtually nothing on departure. There is no way of bridging that divide and appeasing both sides, it is impossible.
Though even the government is likely to make some concessions to Remainers by paying up for a FTA even if they are taking the UK out of the EU and single market and ending free movement.
Mr. Observer, if it's just the Conservative Party wanting to leave, why did 52% of the country vote for it?
We are leaving. We were told there would be no downsides to doing so and that it would be the easiest thing in the world. So let's do it in the easiest possible way and with the least possible disruption. Part of that is accepting that the EU holds the negotiating cards. If we had a government that put country first, this would not be a problem.
Just as a matter of interest is your idea of putting the Country first remaining in the EU - the only party signed up to that is the Lib Dem at about 7% in the polls
I think we are making a huge mistake in leaving the EU, but it is one that we have to make unless voters change their minds. My preference is for leaving to do be done in the most painless way possible, not in the way that has the best chance of keeping the Conservative party together. I think campaigning to stay in at this stage is a waste of time and effort.
But that would involve staying in the single market and customs union thereby staying in the EU in all but name only.
I find it impossible to reconcile staying in the EU and the National humiliation that would involve and dropping off the edge, but in the end if the EU force us off by making impossible demands that is the end result come what may
So after an renainer MP was shot dead and the Leaver press call people traitors, saboteurs or mutineers. I think maybe, just maybe the ball to heal wounds and encourage democracy is in the Leavers court and the government has a responsibility to find a middle ground.
McDonnell promises only to borrow to invest on Marr. Says nationalisation costs and issuing government bonds will be covered by the profits from the nationalised industries. He also promises to review PFI deals and will make savings longer term after buying them back from private companies.
McDonnell is all spend by billions and ignores the level of debt.
fantasy economics/.. buying back pfi.. and how much will that cost...
McDonnell promises only to borrow to invest on Marr. Says nationalisation costs and issuing government bonds will be covered by the profits from the nationalised industries. He also promises to review PFI deals and will make savings longer term after buying them back from private companies.
He's not buying back.
He said (i) the profits from the purchases will more than cover the compensation paid and (ii) that Parliament will set the price
The truth is that the country is split down the middle on Brexit.
Skilled political leadership might have found a classic British fudge and vision capable of healing wounds. Instead The actions of this government have actively deepened the divisions.
This is not a UK problem. It is a Conservative party problem. The only reason the government is holding out is because paying up would tear the Tories to pieces. It is classic party before country.
No, it's because the EU is demanding payment with no guarantee of outcome on the trade talks.
If the payments were contingent on a trade deal it would be easy.
Mr. Observer, if it's just the Conservative Party wanting to leave, why did 52% of the country vote for it?
We are leaving. We were told there would be no downsides to doing so and that it would be the easiest thing in the world. So let's do it in the easiest possible way and with the least possible disruption. Part of that is accepting that the EU holds the negotiating cards. If we had a government that put country first, this would not be a problem.
Just as a matter of interest is your idea of putting the Country first remaining in the EU - the only party signed up to that is the Lib Dem at about 7% in the polls
I think we are making a huge mistake in leaving the EU, but it is one that we have to make unless voters change their minds. My preference is for leaving to do be done in the most painless way possible, not in the way that has the best chance of keeping the Conservative party together. I think campaigning to stay in at this stage is a waste of time and effort.
But that would involve staying in the single market and customs union thereby staying in the EU in all but name only.
I find it impossible to reconcile staying in the EU and the National humiliation that would involve and dropping off the edge, but in the end if the EU force us off by making impossible demands that is the end result come what may
The demands are politically impossible for a Conservative government to agree to. They are not impossible demands. There is a huge difference.
Mr. rkrkrk, already backed another vote pre-March 2019 at 6.5 at Ladbrokes.
I think I made a similar small bet by accident - misreading the terms and thinking I was betting on the other side. Cashing out won't work as market lacks liquidity. Not my finest betting moment but sadly not my worst either.
This is not a UK problem. It is a Conservative party problem. The only reason the government is holding out is because paying up would tear the Tories to pieces. It is classic party before country.
No, it's because the EU is demanding payment with no guarantee of outcome on the trade talks.
If the payments were contingent on a trade deal it would be easy.
At this stage, it is not demanding any payment at all. It is demanding progress on payments.
Mr. Observer, if it's just the Conservative Party wanting to leave, why did 52% of the country vote for it?
We are leaving. We were told there would be no downsides to doing so and that it would be the easiest thing in the world. So let's do it in the easiest possible way and with the least possible disruption. Part of that is accepting that the EU holds the negotiating cards. If we had a government that put country first, this would not be a problem.
Just as a matter of interest is your idea of putting the Country first remaining in the EU - the only party signed up to that is the Lib Dem at about 7% in the polls
I think we are making a huge mistake in leaving the EU, but it is one that we have to make unless voters change their minds. My preference is for leaving to do be done in the most painless way possible, not in the way that has the best chance of keeping the Conservative party together. I think campaigning to stay in at this stage is a waste of time and effort.
But that would involve staying in the single market and customs union thereby staying in the EU in all but name only.
I find it impossible to reconcile staying in the EU and the National humiliation that would involve and dropping off the edge, but in the end if the EU force us off by making impossible demands that is the end result come what may
The demands are politically impossible for a Conservative government to agree to. They are not impossible demands. There is a huge difference.
Which demands would you accept and how much would you pay
Mr. Observer, if it's just the Conservative Party wanting to leave, why did 52% of the country vote for it?
We are leaving. We were told there would be no downsides to doing so and that it would be the easiest thing in the world. So let's do it in the easiest possible way and with the least possible disruption. Part of that is accepting that the EU holds the negotiating cards. If we had a government that put country first, this would not be a problem.
Just as a matter of interest is your idea of putting the Country first remaining in the EU - the only party signed up to that is the Lib Dem at about 7% in the polls
I think we are making a huge mistake in leaving the EU, but it is one that we have to make unless voters change their minds. My preference is for leaving to do be done in the most painless way possible, not in the way that has the best chance of keeping the Conservative party together. I think campaigning to stay in at this stage is a waste of time and effort.
But that would involve staying in the single market and customs union thereby staying in the EU in all but name only.
I find it impossible to reconcile staying in the EU and the National humiliation that would involve and dropping off the edge, but in the end if the EU force us off by making impossible demands that is the end result come what may
The demands are politically impossible for a Conservative government to agree to. They are not impossible demands. There is a huge difference.
No, you just want the government to agree a soft Brexit as a diehard Remainer ignoring the 52% who voted Leave both to regain sovereignty and end free movement.
McDonnell promises only to borrow to invest on Marr. Says nationalisation costs and issuing government bonds will be covered by the profits from the nationalised industries. He also promises to review PFI deals and will make savings longer term after buying them back from private companies.
McDonnell is all spend by billions and ignores the level of debt.
fantasy economics/.. buying back pfi.. and how much will that cost...
Less than Brexit
This is on top of Brexit
Well if we can't do both, let's not do Brexit.
Ignore democracy - well it is a view but not one I accept
Hammond promises to help more young people own a home and reduce rents by building more homes on Marr at a rate of around 300 000 a year.
He promises to protect the Greenbelt but ensure planning permissions are being built out.
Doesn't that change it from a planning permission to a planning mandate? That sounds like a good policy to me, but it is pretty much command economy stuff and a long way from free market capitalism. I've noticed a swing to the left in attitudes but I wasn't expecting a Tory chancellor to be leading the way.
Up to 46% so up a bit. As well as high popularity with En Marche at 92% he actually has a higher approval rating with Les Republicains at 53% than he does with Parti Socialistes at 41%. However his lowest approval rating is from supporters of Melenchon's LFI at just 22% suggesting it may be Melenchon who could be Macron's main rival in 2022.
This is not a UK problem. It is a Conservative party problem. The only reason the government is holding out is because paying up would tear the Tories to pieces. It is classic party before country.
No, it's because the EU is demanding payment with no guarantee of outcome on the trade talks.
If the payments were contingent on a trade deal it would be easy.
As I see it, we've gone to a bar with mates and then ordered drinks. Before they arrive - we've said, hey look there's this great bar across the street - let's go there instead. And now we're saying, we won't pay for the drinks we've ordered unless you agree to come across the street. But the two issues are separate. Of course there will be some kind of trade deal (we like drinking together) - which obviously won't have everything we want in it - but that's compromise.
McDonnell promises only to borrow to invest on Marr. Says nationalisation costs and issuing government bonds will be covered by the profits from the nationalised industries. He also promises to review PFI deals and will make savings longer term after buying them back from private companies.
He's not buying back.
He said (i) the profits from the purchases will more than cover the compensation paid and (ii) that Parliament will set the price
The idea that we should pay for things we've previously agreed to pay (such as agreed payments while we're still members, and projects that we agreed to co-fund) is not revolutionary. The idea that we should default on our obligations is. Yes, it's a bit tricky to sell £60bn or whatever it is to the public, but that's a problem entirely owned by the Brexit fans. But Richard is right that the history of settlements seen as unfair is an unhappy one, and I do expect a deal.
On McDonnell, an Observer interview today conveys his outlook well:
To my mind, he's actually the most serious, detailed and careful thinker in the current Labour project, and a good balance to Corbyn's purist idealism.
An example of how shit metaphors engender shit thinking. It isn't "a problem entirely owned by the Brexit fans", it's a problem for the country. And if you want to allocate blame, the single individual whose personal choices were most responsible for the result is probably Jeremy Corbyn. Purist idealism, indeed.
The idea that we should pay for things we've previously agreed to pay (such as agreed payments while we're still members, and projects that we agreed to co-fund) is not revolutionary. The idea that we should default on our obligations is. Yes, it's a bit tricky to sell £60bn or whatever it is to the public, but that's a problem entirely owned by the Brexit fans. But Richard is right that the history of settlements seen as unfair is an unhappy one, and I do expect a deal.
On McDonnell, an Observer interview today conveys his outlook well:
To my mind, he's actually the most serious, detailed and careful thinker in the current Labour project, and a good balance to Corbyn's purist idealism.
An example of how shit metaphors engender shit thinking. It isn't "a problem entirely owned by the Brexit fans", it's a problem for the country. And if you want to allocate blame, the single individual whose personal choices were most responsible for the result is probably Jeremy Corbyn. Purist idealism, indeed.
Corbyn called the referendum and then interpreted the result as mandating a hard brexit on the shortest conceivable timescale?
Hammond promises to help more young people own a home and reduce rents by building more homes on Marr at a rate of around 300 000 a year.
He promises to protect the Greenbelt but ensure planning permissions are being built out.
Doesn't that change it from a planning permission to a planning mandate? That sounds like a good policy to me, but it is pretty much command economy stuff and a long way from free market capitalism. I've noticed a swing to the left in attitudes but I wasn't expecting a Tory chancellor to be leading the way.
Forcing developers to build on land they have planning permission for is hardly left wing and historically while not socialist like Labour the Tories have not actually been pure exponents of free market capitalism, certainly beyond the Thatcher years, that has been the Liberals.
Mr. Observer, if it's just the Conservative Party wanting to leave, why did 52% of the country vote for it?
We are leaving. We were told there would be no downsides to doing so and that it would be the easiest thing in the world. So let's do it in the easiest possible way and with the least possible disruption. Part of that is accepting that the EU holds the negotiating cards. If we had a government that put country first, this would not be a problem.
Just as a matter of interest is your idea of putting the Country first remaining in the EU - the only party signed up to that is the Lib Dem at about 7% in the polls
I think we are making a huge mistake in leaving the EU, but it is one that we have to make unless voters change their minds. My preference is for leaving to do be done in the most painless way possible, not in the way that has the best chance of keeping the Conservative party together. I think campaigning to stay in at this stage is a waste of time and effort.
But that would involve staying in the single market and customs union thereby staying in the EU in all but name only.
I find it impossible to reconcile staying in the EU and the National humiliation that would involve and dropping off the edge, but in the end if the EU force us off by making impossible demands that is the end result come what may
The demands are politically impossible for a Conservative government to agree to. They are not impossible demands. There is a huge difference.
No, you just want the government to agree a soft Brexit as a diehard Remainer ignoring the 52% who voted Leave both to regain sovereignty and end free movement.
Nope, I do not want the UK to be plunged into a sustained economic downturn just to keep the Conservative party together.
This is not a UK problem. It is a Conservative party problem. The only reason the government is holding out is because paying up would tear the Tories to pieces. It is classic party before country.
No, it's because the EU is demanding payment with no guarantee of outcome on the trade talks.
If the payments were contingent on a trade deal it would be easy.
At this stage, it is not demanding any payment at all. It is demanding progress on payments.
And the UK has indicated a willingness to pay £50bn on a contingent basis (a part of which - all our liabilities - is unilateral). The EU is saying the full amount is a liability and are only offering talks on trade in return
Mr. Observer, if it's just the Conservative Party wanting to leave, why did 52% of the country vote for it?
We are leaving. We were told there would be no downsides to doing so and that it would be the easiest thing in the world. So let's do it in the easiest possible way and with the least possible disruption. Part of that is accepting that the EU holds the negotiating cards. If we had a government that put country first, this would not be a problem.
Just as a matter of interest is your idea of putting the Country first remaining in the EU - the only party signed up to that is the Lib Dem at about 7% in the polls
I think we are making a huge mistake in leaving the EU, but it is one that we have to make unless voters change their minds. My preference is for leaving to do be done in the most painless way possible, not in the way that has the best chance of keeping the Conservative party together. I think campaigning to stay in at this stage is a waste of time and effort.
But that would involve staying in the single market and customs union thereby staying in the EU in all but name only.
I find it impossible to reconcile staying in the EU and the National humiliation that would involve and dropping off the edge, but in the end if the EU force us off by making impossible demands that is the end result come what may
The demands are politically impossible for a Conservative government to agree to. They are not impossible demands. There is a huge difference.
Which demands would you accept and how much would you pay
I would absolutely agree in principle to pay £50 billion. Compared to the alternative it is nothing. I would also withdraw the red line over any CJEU jurisdiction in the UK post-Brexit and I would resolve the EU citizens problem by giving UK citizens the rights that EU citizens currently resident in the UK enjoy while ensuring EU citizens do not get any further rights. On Northern Ireland I would agree to commit to no hard border in writing. I think once we are talking trade a lot of the current issues go away as all sides will be invested in securing a positive outcome.
This is not a UK problem. It is a Conservative party problem. The only reason the government is holding out is because paying up would tear the Tories to pieces. It is classic party before country.
No, it's because the EU is demanding payment with no guarantee of outcome on the trade talks.
If the payments were contingent on a trade deal it would be easy.
As I see it, we've gone to a bar with mates and then ordered drinks. Before they arrive - we've said, hey look there's this great bar across the street - let's go there instead. And now we're saying, we won't pay for the drinks we've ordered unless you agree to come across the street. But the two issues are separate. Of course there will be some kind of trade deal (we like drinking together) - which obviously won't have everything we want in it - but that's compromise.
It's a stupid metaphor (not aimed at you since you didn't originate it).
There are 3 types of drinks:
1. The tab (those we have drink but not paid for) 2. The in process (those we have ordered but not yet paid for) 3. The aspirational (earlier in the evening one of our friends said "wouldn't it be great to buy some champagne" but we've not yet ordered or paid for them)
Mr. Observer, if it's just the Conservative Party wanting to leave, why did 52% of the country vote for it?
We are leaving. We were told there would be no downsides to doing so and that it would be the easiest thing in the world. So let's do it in the easiest possible way and with the least possible disruption. Part of that is accepting that the EU holds the negotiating cards. If we had a government that put country first, this would not be a problem.
Just as a matter of interest is your idea of putting the Country first remaining in the EU - the only party signed up to that is the Lib Dem at about 7% in the polls
I think we are making a huge mistake in leaving the EU, but it is one that we have to make unless voters change their minds. My preference is for leaving to do be done in the most painless way possible, not in the way that has the best chance of keeping the Conservative party together. I think campaigning to stay in at this stage is a waste of time and effort.
But that would involve staying in the single market and customs union thereby staying in the EU in all but name only.
I find it impossible to reconcile staying in the EU and the National humiliation that would involve and dropping off the edge, but in the end if the EU force us off by making impossible demands that is the end result come what may
The demands are politically impossible for a Conservative government to agree to. They are not impossible demands. There is a huge difference.
No, you just want the government to agree a soft Brexit as a diehard Remainer ignoring the 52% who voted Leave both to regain sovereignty and end free movement.
Nope, I do not want the UK to be plunged into a sustained economic downturn just to keep the Conservative party together.
That would only be the case if the government was taking the UK out of the EU and single market and refusing to pay a sufficient exit bill to the EU for a FTA.
Yet all the signs are that May and Hammond will pay up to £50 billion for a FTA despite the protestations of Boris and Gove and Mogg.
This is not a UK problem. It is a Conservative party problem. The only reason the government is holding out is because paying up would tear the Tories to pieces. It is classic party before country.
No, it's because the EU is demanding payment with no guarantee of outcome on the trade talks.
If the payments were contingent on a trade deal it would be easy.
As I see it, we've gone to a bar with mates and then ordered drinks. Before they arrive - we've said, hey look there's this great bar across the street - let's go there instead. And now we're saying, we won't pay for the drinks we've ordered unless you agree to come across the street. But the two issues are separate. Of course there will be some kind of trade deal (we like drinking together) - which obviously won't have everything we want in it - but that's compromise.
You're in a bar with some neighbours.
While you and some of the neighbours have been buying the drinks others among the neighbours have been drinking without buying any.
You decide you've have had enough and will leave but will pay for one more round.
The neighbours then say they'll stay and keep drinking and ask you to leave £50 so that they can continue to do so after you have left.
This is not a UK problem. It is a Conservative party problem. The only reason the government is holding out is because paying up would tear the Tories to pieces. It is classic party before country.
No, it's because the EU is demanding payment with no guarantee of outcome on the trade talks.
If the payments were contingent on a trade deal it would be easy.
As I see it, we've gone to a bar with mates and then ordered drinks. Before they arrive - we've said, hey look there's this great bar across the street - let's go there instead. And now we're saying, we won't pay for the drinks we've ordered unless you agree to come across the street. But the two issues are separate. Of course there will be some kind of trade deal (we like drinking together) - which obviously won't have everything we want in it - but that's compromise.
You're in a bar with some neighbours.
While you and some of the neighbours have been buying the drinks others among the neighbours have been drinking without buying any.
You decide you've have had enough and will leave but will pay for one more round.
The neighbours then say they'll stay and keep drinking and ask you to leave £50 so that they can continue to do so after you have left.
Mr. Observer, if it's just the Conservative Party wanting to leave, why did 52% of the country vote for it?
We are leaving. We were told there would be no downsides to doing so and that it would be the easiest thing in the world. So let's do it in the easiest possible way and with the least possible disruption. Part of that is accepting that the EU holds the negotiating cards. If we had a government that put country first, this would not be a problem.
Just as a matter of interest is your idea of putting the Country first remaining in the EU - the only party signed up to that is the Lib Dem at about 7% in the polls
I think we are making a huge mistake in leaving the EU, but it is one that we have to make unless voters change their minds. My preference is for leaving to do be done in the most painless way possible, not in the way that has the best chance of keeping the Conservative party together. I think campaigning to stay in at this stage is a waste of time and effort.
But that would involve staying in the single market and customs union thereby staying in the EU in all but name only.
I find it impossible to reconcile staying in the EU and the National humiliation that would involve and dropping off the edge, but in the end if the EU force us off by making impossible demands that is the end result come what may
The demands are politically impossible for a Conservative government to agree to. They are not impossible demands. There is a huge difference.
No, you just want the government to agree a soft Brexit as a diehard Remainer ignoring the 52% who voted Leave both to regain sovereignty and end free movement.
Nope, I do not want the UK to be plunged into a sustained economic downturn just to keep the Conservative party together.
That would only be the case if the government was taking the UK out of the EU and single market and refusing to pay a sufficient exit bill to the EU for a FTA.
Yet all the signs are that May and Hammond will pay up to £50 billion for a FTA despite the protestations of Boris and Gove and Mogg.
Then let's see them do it. If they do, that will be a major step forward.
Hammond promises to help more young people own a home and reduce rents by building more homes on Marr at a rate of around 300 000 a year.
He promises to protect the Greenbelt but ensure planning permissions are being built out.
Doesn't that change it from a planning permission to a planning mandate? That sounds like a good policy to me, but it is pretty much command economy stuff and a long way from free market capitalism. I've noticed a swing to the left in attitudes but I wasn't expecting a Tory chancellor to be leading the way.
Forcing developers to build on land they have planning permission for is hardly left wing and historically while not socialist like Labour the Tories have not actually been pure exponents of free market capitalism, certainly beyond the Thatcher years, that has been the Liberals.
I was more talking about the direction of travel. Having planning regulations at all is an example of the state intervening. The spectrum runs all the way from letting people just get on with it through to all housing being owned and run by the state and allocated according to the latest 5 year plan. I expect the Conservatives to be closer to the let it be end of the scale, and I notice when they move in the other direction.
It actually sounds like a sensible and pragmatic move to me. I wasn't criticising it.
McDonnell promises only to borrow to invest on Marr. Says nationalisation costs and issuing government bonds will be covered by the profits from the nationalised industries. He also promises to review PFI deals and will make savings longer term after buying them back from private companies.
McDonnell is all spend by billions and ignores the level of debt.
Hammond says deficit has fallen by 3/4 since 2010 and debt mountain will now start to decline.
How does that work?
You can run a deficit but still have a reducing debt burden in GDP if your economy is growing fast enough.
Sort of; but not in real terms.
You can reduce the debt as % of GDP by growing the econonmy. But not in hard £, s and pence.
And every £1 of the deficit you don't remove each year adds to that debt in real terms.
If you're talking real terms then you need to include inflation. So imagine we have a deficit of 100 pounds on a debt of 100bn pounds. Inflation will gradually eat away at the real terms debt even though we are running a deficit each year. In 100 years we may owe 10,000 more pounds, but in real terms we will owe much less.
The combination of better short-term growth and lower borrowing means that the national debt will start to fall - as a percentage of GDP in 2018-19, and in cash terms in 2020-21.
Debt is now set to peak at 88.8pc of GDP in 2017-18, a lower level than the 90.2pc that was predicted in the Autumn Statement.
Looks like more deadlock in Catalonia though a separatist party will win the largest number of seats but their will be no separatist overall majority.
Deadlock is a win for Madrid as it stops separatism in its tracks. Rajoy's gamble would have worked. I still have a problem, though, with polling and language. I think that polls in Catalan could overstate the separatist vote, while those in Spanish may do the opposite. This will all be decided on turnout. We know that separatist voters will flock to the polls. Will unionist ones?
I've just had in an agreement which has the following clause:
" Neither party will engage in behaviour which can be construed as verbal or sexual abuse or harassment such as inappropriate touching, grabbing, groping, indecent exposure, dirty talk/jokes or requests for sex. "
This is not a UK problem. It is a Conservative party problem. The only reason the government is holding out is because paying up would tear the Tories to pieces. It is classic party before country.
No, it's because the EU is demanding payment with no guarantee of outcome on the trade talks.
If the payments were contingent on a trade deal it would be easy.
At this stage, it is not demanding any payment at all. It is demanding progress on payments.
And the UK has indicated a willingness to pay £50bn on a contingent basis (a part of which - all our liabilities - is unilateral). The EU is saying the full amount is a liability and are only offering talks on trade in return
As far as I can tell, the UK has indicated a willingness to pay some money, but it has not yet agreed a sum. It is still arguing with itself over that.
Hammond says deficit has fallen by 3/4 since 2010 and debt mountain will now start to decline.
How does that work?
You can run a deficit but still have a reducing debt burden in GDP if your economy is growing fast enough.
I think you understand it better than HY does. But that would be some growth spurt, at current deficit levels.
The deficit was 2.6% of GDP in 2016 though. That would normally be an achievable growth rate.
Normally?
I suspect Brexit will mean a lower growth rate than normal - at least for a while. From about 1993 - 2007 I think we mainly managed that or pretty close.
Mr. Observer, if it's just the Conservative Party wanting to leave, why did 52% of the country vote for it?
We are leaving. We were told there would be no downsides to doing so and that it would be the easiest thing in the world. So let's do it in the easiest possible way and with the least possible disruption. Part of that is accepting that the EU holds the negotiating cards. If we had a government that put country first, this would not be a problem.
Just as a matter of interest is your idea of putting the Country first remaining in the EU - the only party signed up to that is the Lib Dem at about 7% in the polls
I think we are making a huge mistake in leaving the EU, but it is one that we have to make unless voters change their minds. My preference is for leaving to do be done in the most painless way possible, not in the way that has the best chance of keeping the Conservative party together. I think campaigning to stay in at this stage is a waste of time and effort.
But that would involve staying in the single market and customs union thereby staying in the EU in all but name only.
I find it impossible to reconcile staying in the EU and the National humiliation that would involve and dropping off the edge, but in the end if the EU force us off by making impossible demands that is the end result come what may
The demands are politically impossible for a Conservative government to agree to. They are not impossible demands. There is a huge difference.
No, you just want the government to agree a soft Brexit as a diehard Remainer ignoring the 52% who voted Leave both to regain sovereignty and end free movement.
Nope, I do not want the UK to be plunged into a sustained economic downturn just to keep the Conservative party together.
That would only be the case if the government was taking the UK out of the EU and single market and refusing to pay a sufficient exit bill to the EU for a FTA.
Yet all the signs are that May and Hammond will pay up to £50 billion for a FTA despite the protestations of Boris and Gove and Mogg.
Then let's see them do it. If they do, that will be a major step forward.
They may even do so by Christmas judging by media reports
Hammond promises to help more young people own a home and reduce rents by building more homes on Marr at a rate of around 300 000 a year.
He promises to protect the Greenbelt but ensure planning permissions are being built out.
Doesn't that change it from a planning permission to a planning mandate? That sounds like a good policy to me, but it is pretty much command economy stuff and a long way from free market capitalism. I've noticed a swing to the left in attitudes but I wasn't expecting a Tory chancellor to be leading the way.
Forcing developers to build on land they have planning permission for is hardly left wing and historically while not socialist like Labour the Tories have not actually been pure exponents of free market capitalism, certainly beyond the Thatcher years, that has been the Liberals.
I was more talking about the direction of travel. Having planning regulations at all is an example of the state intervening. The spectrum runs all the way from letting people just get on with it through to all housing being owned and run by the state and allocated according to the latest 5 year plan. I expect the Conservatives to be closer to the let it be end of the scale, and I notice when they move in the other direction.
It actually sounds like a sensible and pragmatic move to me. I wasn't criticising it.
It is a sensible move, conservatives by the very definition of the word believe in conserving the countryside and environment and only developing and allowing planning permission where necessary.
I also believe that No Deal is likely. The EU are also constrained. They cannot see us get a good deal without risking more walk-outs. That's why blaming the UK side for the breakdown is illogical. I'm sure a trade talks would start tomorrow if we offered an eye-wateringly large sum to begin with. Even then, they'd be reluctant to concede anything.
What do the EU want?
Firstly to discourage others. If they receive a king's ransom to begin talks, they will hold out for a massively advantageous result. If that ends in us crawling back to beg forgiveness, even better.
Blaming UK negotiators and claiming they (whoever they are) could do better is a little optimistic, surely?
The EU simply sees itself as a rules based organisation, and abiding by rules and agreed procedures is their core goal.
This would be the EU which actively agreed to or turned a blind eye to most of the major states breaking its rules when joining the euro, because it suited them to do so, would it? That EU?
@Richard_Nabavi I'm astonished to see this clap trap over your name. Over all the years I've read this site you are almost certainly the single best poster PB has had. Posting such obvious and jingoistic nonsense in a thread much more as a thread header is baffling and unworthy of you.
By all accounts the actual divorce bill , the UK's share of accrued liabilities , is really quite small. The reason we are talking anything like €60bn is because as well leaving we are instantly wanting to establish a ' deep and special ' relationship which delivers a new security Treaty and mimics many of the aspects of membership. On top of this we're asking for a 27 month ' status quo ' transition where we'll enjoy almost full benefits of membership.Put simply the ' Divorce Bill ' isn't a bill for Divorce. It's a bill for Divorce, then 27 months of cohabitation then a new agreement where we continue to be f*ck buddies. And a divorce which we triggered with no plan which will in the short term leave us living in the Garage if our request for the Divorce/Cohabitation/F*ck Buddy agreement isn't met.
Put simply we've put ourselves in a weak bargaining position then decided to seek a Grand Bargain. In response our bemused neighbours are quite reasonably trying to screw a few extra billion out of us for the hassle, the laughs and because they can. And suppose they succeed and get say £15bn extra out of us over a multi year agreement ? It's a rounding error is UK government expenditure generally much less state waste, error and bad policy.
And you compare the trifling and minor cost of our incompetence to the Treaty of Versailles ?
Did you actually write this article Richard or was your account hacked ?
Translation: I'm upset you didn't write a nakedly pro-Remain piece, as I thought you would.
Mr. Submarine, if we're in a weak position it's because power was given away by UK politicians against the wishes of the British electorate, and, on one occasion, directly in contravention of a manifesto commitment to seek their consent.
Mr. Observer, if it's just the Conservative Party wanting to leave, why did 52% of the country vote for it?
We are leaving. We were told there would be no downsides to doing so and that it would be the easiest thing in the world. So let's do it in the easiest possible way and with the least possible disruption. Part of that is accepting that the EU holds the negotiating cards. If we had a government that put country first, this would not be a problem.
Just as a matter of interest is your idea of putting the Country first remaining in the EU - the only party signed up to that is the Lib Dem at about 7% in the polls
I think we are making a huge mistake in leaving the EU, but it is one that we have to make unless voters change their minds. My preference is for leaving to do be done in the most painless way possible, not in the way that has the best chance of keeping the Conservative party together. I think campaigning to stay in at this stage is a waste of time and effort.
But that would involve staying in the single market and customs union thereby staying in the EU in all but name only.
I find it impossible to reconcile staying in the EU and the National humiliation that would involve and dropping off the edge, but in the end if the EU force us off by making impossible demands that is the end result come what may
The demands are politically impossible for a Conservative government to agree to. They are not impossible demands. There is a huge difference.
Which demands would you accept and how much would you pay
I would absolutely agree in principle to pay £50 billion. Compared to the alternative it is nothing. I would also withdraw the red line over any CJEU jurisdiction in the UK post-Brexit and I would resolve the EU citizens problem by giving UK citizens the rights that EU citizens currently resident in the UK enjoy while ensuring EU citizens do not get any further rights. On Northern Ireland I would agree to commit to no hard border in writing. I think once we are talking trade a lot of the current issues go away as all sides will be invested in securing a positive outcome.
There is nothing there I do not agree with and indeed I suspect it is not far away from TM position.
However, that does assume that is the EU's position
You do wonder if the hard remainers and hard Brexiteers could back off a bit we could end up with a general consensus for the good of the Country
(1) I am happy to pay what we owe, or are morally obliged to honour, on the EU budget and its contingent pensions/liabilities (2) I think it's also fair to take into account the UK's share of EU assets into that calculation (3) I am happy to pay an ongoing annual payment, or lump sum upfront, as part of negotiations about our future trading and security relationship, and to participate in selected EU programmes (4) I recognise that choosing programmes à la carte means you sometimes pay more for those choices, and am happy to negotiate on that basis (5) I recognise that we will need to be generous and good-natured as future close neighbours, who will often still work together in close cooperation, and such negotiations should take place in that spirit
What I'm far less happy about is paying a very large amount of money upfront, which has little justification behind it, just to initiate trade talks pour encourager les autres.
It's that sort of legal and fiscal "flexibility" that gave rise to the perception EU is unfair and unjust in its governance in the first place.
A good article, Mr. Nabavi, with which I largely agree.
There's a great difference, though (besides scale of the pound of flesh demanded), which is that this follows a democratic vote in a free country, and isn't the price demanded following failure in war.
ITV (I think) had some voxpops in Sweden, and it was surprising that a few asked (always hard to tell how representative they are) actively wanted the UK to be punished. The fact the ITV reporter (blonde bloke, relatively new) is a moron [after Grenfell he said it raised questions about how the country was governed and even who governed us, and later supported the notion of lower entry requirements to Oxbridge for the purposes of social engineering] may mean they were cherrypicked for that purpose.
The EUphiles hate us and want to destroy us and they're going to make sure that they use the EU to achieve that goal.
The government should stop trying to reason with them and start throwing their weight around. Get on the phone to Trump and start talk of a new alliance out of NATO. He'd be up for it to help put pressure on the rest of Europe to pay their way in defence and we could use it to get a better deal and show we aren't to be fucked with.
Why the hell should we be paying billions in defence spending to help protect people who are actively trying to screw us over just because they can? It's completely pointless trying to be nice to people who have very malevolent plans for us.
The the club.
UK, US, Canada, Aus, NZ for starters...then Japan, China, Thailand, Vietnam....add in Brazil, Mexico, South Africa.
We could call it the Enterprise Economy Commonwealth. The EEC.
What's that France, you want to join? Non...
Nostalgic twaddle.
Indeed!
Not least the problem exists that nearly all our export earning businesses voted Remain.
Though tarriff reduction on Australian iron ore will no doubt be a great boon to the Leave voting steel workers of South Wales.
Steel? Pah! We are looking at making graphene the core of the Welsh economy....
We handed leadership in grapheme technology to the Chinese and others almost as soon as it was discovered at Manchester University.
I've just had in an agreement which has the following clause:
" Neither party will engage in behaviour which can be construed as verbal or sexual abuse or harassment such as inappropriate touching, grabbing, groping, indecent exposure, dirty talk/jokes or requests for sex. "
This is not a UK problem. It is a Conservative party problem. The only reason the government is holding out is because paying up would tear the Tories to pieces. It is classic party before country.
No, it's because the EU is demanding payment with no guarantee of outcome on the trade talks.
If the payments were contingent on a trade deal it would be easy.
At this stage, it is not demanding any payment at all. It is demanding progress on payments.
And the UK has indicated a willingness to pay £50bn on a contingent basis (a part of which - all our liabilities - is unilateral). The EU is saying the full amount is a liability and are only offering talks on trade in return
As far as I can tell, the UK has indicated a willingness to pay some money, but it has not yet agreed a sum. It is still arguing with itself over that.
It is negotiating with the EU over that. I very rarely read any criticism from you of the EU's position over this, or anything else.
Let's say the EU demanded £100bn instead, would you pay that as well, no questions asked?
I've just had in an agreement which has the following clause:
" Neither party will engage in behaviour which can be construed as verbal or sexual abuse or harassment such as inappropriate touching, grabbing, groping, indecent exposure, dirty talk/jokes or requests for sex. "
Comments
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2016/03/thinking-behind-john-mcdonnell-s-new-fiscal-credibility-rule
Still time to win back the race on graphene. But it will require a Govt. that is prepared to throw some money at it. A bit of foresight. Investment.
Risk.
Obviously, the Tories do not want to lose support in the opinion polls and they do not want to be torn apart, so they are not going to agree in principal to pay over a relatively small amount of money to kick-start phase 2. Party before country.
Some Labour supporters still don't realise that they lost the last election.
I still think another referendum is eminently possible (not probable, but it could happen).
Another referendum before a transition period ending in (say) 2021? <15% I think.
Another referendum after we've left at some point in the future... >30% I reckon.
Skilled political leadership might have found a classic British fudge and vision capable of healing wounds. Instead The actions of this government have actively deepened the divisions.
It should be held in utter contempt.
He promises to protect the Greenbelt but ensure planning permissions are being built out.
On McDonnell, an Observer interview today conveys his outlook well:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/19/john-mcdonnell-prepares-to-step-out-of-the-shadows
To my mind, he's actually the most serious, detailed and careful thinker in the current Labour project, and a good balance to Corbyn's purist idealism.
Seems unlikely another country would want to leave and would organize a vote before March 2019.
This destablises the government even more and ,should Damien Green come out poorly in the investigation about allegations against him,May could lose her like support completely.
PP has Green at 7-2 fav.should Hammond survive.TMay is 5-1.
Leavers want to leave both the EU and single market and ECJ jurisdiction and end free movement and replace it with a points system and pay the EU virtually nothing on departure. There is no way of bridging that divide and appeasing both sides, it is impossible.
Though even the government is likely to make some concessions to Remainers by paying up for a FTA even if they are taking the UK out of the EU and single market and ending free movement.
http://www.lejdd.fr/politique/popularite-emmanuel-macron-rebondit-et-gagne-4-points-3496385
I find it impossible to reconcile staying in the EU and the National humiliation that would involve and dropping off the edge, but in the end if the EU force us off by making impossible demands that is the end result come what may
He said (i) the profits from the purchases will more than cover the compensation paid and (ii) that Parliament will set the price
That's expropriation, not purchase
If the payments were contingent on a trade deal it would be easy.
Before they arrive - we've said, hey look there's this great bar across the street - let's go there instead.
And now we're saying, we won't pay for the drinks we've ordered unless you agree to come across the street. But the two issues are separate.
Of course there will be some kind of trade deal (we like drinking together) - which obviously won't have everything we want in it - but that's compromise.
https://twitter.com/thespainreport/status/932185860488990720
There is a need to soothe the bitterness but it's not one side that's got its lunatics. There are fringe idiots on both sides.
You can reduce the debt as % of GDP by growing the econonmy. But not in hard £, s and pence.
And every £1 of the deficit you don't remove each year adds to that debt in real terms.
That would normally be an achievable growth rate.
There are 3 types of drinks:
1. The tab (those we have drink but not paid for)
2. The in process (those we have ordered but not yet paid for)
3. The aspirational (earlier in the evening one of our friends said "wouldn't it be great to buy some champagne" but we've not yet ordered or paid for them)
We've agreed to pay for 1&2 but not for group 3
That seems reasonable to me
Yet all the signs are that May and Hammond will pay up to £50 billion for a FTA despite the protestations of Boris and Gove and Mogg.
While you and some of the neighbours have been buying the drinks others among the neighbours have been drinking without buying any.
You decide you've have had enough and will leave but will pay for one more round.
The neighbours then say they'll stay and keep drinking and ask you to leave £50 so that they can continue to do so after you have left.
It actually sounds like a sensible and pragmatic move to me. I wasn't criticising it.
So imagine we have a deficit of 100 pounds on a debt of 100bn pounds.
Inflation will gradually eat away at the real terms debt even though we are running a deficit each year.
In 100 years we may owe 10,000 more pounds, but in real terms we will owe much less.
In nominal terms the economy is expanding at 4-4.5% and since the deficit is lower than that debt is falling as a percentage of GDP
From a post budget article in March 17:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/03/08/budget-2017-four-charts-show-state-uk-economy/
The National Debt
The combination of better short-term growth and lower borrowing means that the national debt will start to fall - as a percentage of GDP in 2018-19, and in cash terms in 2020-21.
Debt is now set to peak at 88.8pc of GDP in 2017-18, a lower level than the 90.2pc that was predicted in the Autumn Statement.
" Neither party will engage in behaviour which can be construed as verbal or sexual abuse or harassment such as inappropriate touching, grabbing, groping, indecent exposure, dirty talk/jokes or requests for sex. "
The world has gone mad !!
From about 1993 - 2007 I think we mainly managed that or pretty close.
https://twitter.com/PM4EastRen/status/932020361566277632
However, that does assume that is the EU's position
You do wonder if the hard remainers and hard Brexiteers could back off a bit we could end up with a general consensus for the good of the Country
(1) I am happy to pay what we owe, or are morally obliged to honour, on the EU budget and its contingent pensions/liabilities
(2) I think it's also fair to take into account the UK's share of EU assets into that calculation
(3) I am happy to pay an ongoing annual payment, or lump sum upfront, as part of negotiations about our future trading and security relationship, and to participate in selected EU programmes
(4) I recognise that choosing programmes à la carte means you sometimes pay more for those choices, and am happy to negotiate on that basis
(5) I recognise that we will need to be generous and good-natured as future close neighbours, who will often still work together in close cooperation, and such negotiations should take place in that spirit
What I'm far less happy about is paying a very large amount of money upfront, which has little justification behind it, just to initiate trade talks pour encourager les autres.
It's that sort of legal and fiscal "flexibility" that gave rise to the perception EU is unfair and unjust in its governance in the first place.
It makes me want to tear my hair out.
However, there is an issue with the price of houses, or more accurately the price of the land on which new houses are built.
The way to reduce the price of houses/land is to increase interest rates for borrowing.
Of course mortgages would be more expenses but as loan repayments are made and equity in the house increases, this becomes a smaller problem.
Let's say the EU demanded £100bn instead, would you pay that as well, no questions asked?
Was that a marriage agreement?