Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Richard Nabavi says EU leaders should remember European histor

124»

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited November 2017

    For those who continue to base their entire political analysis on polls:

    https://twitter.com/paulbranditv/status/932176933797933056

    A tweet from someone I've never heard of about an unidentified person talking about internal polling ???

    Must be true.

    Meanwhile back in the real world.
    ‘From someone who you’ve never heard of’ implies that he’s some random person, he’s a political correspondent on ITV news

    Obviously they aren’t going to say who they’re talking about, these things never work out that way.

    Meanwhile back in the real world, and Tories still not learning from the last election when they dismiss all information that didn’t fit the preferred narrative.

    Like Tory 'internal polls' from the last election giving May a comfortable majority you mean? Even Survation, which got the last general election almost spot on (its final poll having a Tory lead of 1% compared to the 2% Tory lead that was the ultimate outcome) has a Labour lead of 6%, half the 12% in that supposed internal poll and still probably not enough for a Labour overall majority.
  • surbiton said:

    Richard Nabavi's comments above can basically be summarised as follows:

    1. The UK will leave a club but will pay an additional two years subscription [ even though it will be a transition period in which the UK will be a member for all practical purposes ]

    2. Thereafter, the UK should be allowed to enjoy those privileges and facilities of the club that it wants to enjoy and will not have to follow those rules it does not want to.

    And, for that the UK will not pay anything at all.

    Why should anyone be a club member ?

    If the UK is not allowed these then the Europeans are reminded of some future "revenge" conflict.

    The 'exit bill' is, apparently, payable even if we go to WTO terms. So your point 2 is nonsense.

    Even if we sign a trade deal, like Canada, it would not be normal to pay vast sums for the privilege. A trade deal is a two-way thing: they offer us favourable access to their market, and we offer them favourable access to our market.

    If they don't want to sign a trade deal with us, that would be a pity but it's entirely up to them. In that case, they should say so, and they should engage in friendly and constructive talks to ensure that we can move to WTO terms in an orderly fashion, without disruption.
    The EU may think that the bill is payable even if we go with WTO, but this is totally unenforceable. And since the UKs legal advice is that nothing is payable, the EU won't get a penny if they don't do a deal at all.

    There is no way that the UK can or should pay anything for a Canada type deal, or make any concessions on sovereignty, immigration etc. If the EU want that, they will need to offer a quasi SM approach (which does not include FOM obviously). From what we hear, they won't offer that, so the only game is an improved CETA deal that adds in services or a WTO outcome. If a decent CETA plus deal is on the table a deal can be done on the Brexit bill.

    Agree with your last point - if they want a deal, great. If not, fine.
    "If negotiators fail to agree on a political financial settlement, it could become a legal case in the International Court of Justice or the Permanent Court of Arbitration, both located in The Hague. The result of such a court case would be hard to predict."

    https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/eu-divorce-bill
  • For those who continue to base their entire political analysis on polls:

    https://twitter.com/paulbranditv/status/932176933797933056

    A tweet from someone I've never heard of about an unidentified person talking about internal polling ???

    Must be true.

    Meanwhile back in the real world.
    ‘From someone who you’ve never heard of’ implies that he’s some random person, he’s a political correspondent on ITV news

    Obviously they aren’t going to say who they’re talking about, these things never work out that way.

    Meanwhile back in the real world, and Tories still not learning from the last election when they dismiss all information that didn’t fit the preferred narrative.

    This weeks local elections were good for the conservatives taking a seat from labour and nearly taking another.

    In parts of London and the big cities a bigger lead is possible but not out in the Country generally
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:



    No, the EU will agree a FTA with the UK a la Canada ultimately provided we pay for it.

    I think there is a spectrum of more comprehensive deal + more payment to less comprehensive + less payment/no payment...

    TM gives every indication she will choose the low end of that range.
    It's hard to see how she could agree anything else given the red lines on FOM, ECJ and pinkish line on payments.

    I don't think we would pay for a Canada style deal - that would be odd, although I suppose can't be ruled out if Liam Fox is in charge...

    It looks quite likely May will pay for a Canada style FTA on current trends
    That would be a very poor result for the UK.
    I do think it's unlikely though.
    It would still restore sovereignty and crucially end free movement, which were the 2 key reasons for the Leave vote and lead to a trade deal.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    For those who continue to base their entire political analysis on polls:

    https://twitter.com/paulbranditv/status/932176933797933056

    A tweet from someone I've never heard of about an unidentified person talking about internal polling ???

    Must be true.

    Meanwhile back in the real world.
    Good points. But I have run into half a dozen people over the last couple of months who would normally be bolted on Conservatives who have at least spoken favourably about Corbyn. There is nothing more misleading than anecdotes, but it is weird that the polls are so different to my personal experience at the moment.
  • surbiton said:

    Richard Nabavi's comments above can basically be summarised as follows:

    1. The UK will leave a club but will pay an additional two years subscription [ even though it will be a transition period in which the UK will be a member for all practical purposes ]

    2. Thereafter, the UK should be allowed to enjoy those privileges and facilities of the club that it wants to enjoy and will not have to follow those rules it does not want to.

    And, for that the UK will not pay anything at all.

    Why should anyone be a club member ?

    If the UK is not allowed these then the Europeans are reminded of some future "revenge" conflict.

    The 'exit bill' is, apparently, payable even if we go to WTO terms. So your point 2 is nonsense.

    Even if we sign a trade deal, like Canada, it would not be normal to pay vast sums for the privilege. A trade deal is a two-way thing: they offer us favourable access to their market, and we offer them favourable access to our market.

    If they don't want to sign a trade deal with us, that would be a pity but it's entirely up to them. In that case, they should say so, and they should engage in friendly and constructive talks to ensure that we can move to WTO terms in an orderly fashion, without disruption.
    The EU may think that the bill is payable even if we go with WTO, but this is totally unenforceable. And since the UKs legal advice is that nothing is payable, the EU won't get a penny if they don't do a deal at all.

    There is no way that the UK can or should pay anything for a Canada type deal, or make any concessions on sovereignty, immigration etc. If the EU want that, they will need to offer a quasi SM approach (which does not include FOM obviously). From what we hear, they won't offer that, so the only game is an improved CETA deal that adds in services or a WTO outcome. If a decent CETA plus deal is on the table a deal can be done on the Brexit bill.

    Agree with your last point - if they want a deal, great. If not, fine.
    "If negotiators fail to agree on a political financial settlement, it could become a legal case in the International Court of Justice or the Permanent Court of Arbitration, both located in The Hague. The result of such a court case would be hard to predict."

    https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/eu-divorce-bill
    Even if they agree could it still be referred by a 'Gina Miller' style intervention
  • For those who continue to base their entire political analysis on polls:

    https://twitter.com/paulbranditv/status/932176933797933056

    A tweet from someone I've never heard of about an unidentified person talking about internal polling ???

    Must be true.

    Meanwhile back in the real world.
    ‘From someone who you’ve never heard of’ implies that he’s some random person, he’s a political correspondent on ITV news

    Obviously they aren’t going to say who they’re talking about, these things never work out that way.

    Meanwhile back in the real world, and Tories still not learning from the last election when they dismiss all information that didn’t fit the preferred narrative.

    And of course you're not picking only the information which fits your preferred narrative.

    When you become as old as I am you will realise that all these secret briefings about supposed secret info are almost always bollox and done by people playing their own games.

    Still we have local elections in May, fancy a bet that the Labour lead is 10% higher than what the opinion polls say at the time ?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,880


    The EU may think that the bill is payable even if we go with WTO, but this is totally unenforceable. And since the UKs legal advice is that nothing is payable, the EU won't get a penny if they don't do a deal at all.

    There is no way that the UK can or should pay anything for a Canada type deal, or make any concessions on sovereignty, immigration etc. If the EU want that, they will need to offer a quasi SM approach (which does not include FOM obviously). From what we hear, they won't offer that, so the only game is an improved CETA deal that adds in services or a WTO outcome. If a decent CETA plus deal is on the table a deal can be done on the Brexit bill.

    Agree with your last point - if they want a deal, great. If not, fine.

    Threatening not to pay what we owe (I don't care about the legal advice - it's obvious we shouldn't walk away from pension contributions for instance) would be a bad move.

    Who would want to do a deal with a partner like that?

    And yes we should not pay for a Canada deal - but it's worth pointing out that the Canada deal does also include concessions on sovereignty such as Investor State Dispute Settlement mechanism.
  • @Ishmael_Z Ah, the person who criticises me for indirect responses, indirectly talking about me. The irony is something to savour.

    @HYUFD I wasn’t saying the potential internal polling was true. I didn’t comment on that. My point was against using polls as the basis of an entire political analysis, particularly given the possibility we’ve got two contradicting sets of information.
  • @Ishmael_Z Ah, the person who criticises me for indirect responses, indirectly talking about me. The irony is something to savour.

    @HYUFD I wasn’t saying the potential internal polling was true. I didn’t comment on that. My point was against using polls as the basis of an entire political analysis, particularly given the possibility we’ve got two contradicting sets of information.

    The general consensus in the media is that labour should be doing much better and when asking the question , it is generally agreed that Corbyn and McDonnell are the ones preventing a clear move away from the government
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,612
    rkrkrk said:


    The EU may think that the bill is payable even if we go with WTO, but this is totally unenforceable. And since the UKs legal advice is that nothing is payable, the EU won't get a penny if they don't do a deal at all.

    There is no way that the UK can or should pay anything for a Canada type deal, or make any concessions on sovereignty, immigration etc. If the EU want that, they will need to offer a quasi SM approach (which does not include FOM obviously). From what we hear, they won't offer that, so the only game is an improved CETA deal that adds in services or a WTO outcome. If a decent CETA plus deal is on the table a deal can be done on the Brexit bill.

    Agree with your last point - if they want a deal, great. If not, fine.

    Threatening not to pay what we owe (I don't care about the legal advice - it's obvious we shouldn't walk away from pension contributions for instance) would be a bad move.

    Who would want to do a deal with a partner like that?

    And yes we should not pay for a Canada deal - but it's worth pointing out that the Canada deal does also include concessions on sovereignty such as Investor State Dispute Settlement mechanism.
    Why do you think we owe pensions? We don't. They are obligations of the EU, their employer. The EU treaties say only that the member states 'guarantee' the payment - which means if the EU defaults, we have to step in. So fine, we agree that if the EU defaults in its legal obligations we will contribute our share. That is not the same as having to pay it now, especially as any cash we pay will not be reserved for pensions anyway (there is no EU pension fund).

    There has never been any agreement that the pensions of EU staff are obligations of the member states. So we are not 'walking away' from any obligation we have ever made.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835

    Who on earth is managing the Tory comms?Can't they see putting Hammond tomorrow in the passenger seat of a driverless car is not an image of "Strong and Stable" government? Or is Hammond being stitched up by the Tory Brexit crazies and set up to fail to be the next out of the cabinet?Is he being set up to fail?
    Whoever they are,I think their problem does not emanate from Marx but from the influence of the Marks Bros because this is a satire on their fantastic films.
    Hammond as Groucho anyone?Damien Green as Harpo,the silent one?

    Boris would definitely be Chico. Fast-talking conman.
    Only afterwards do you realise his patter was utter nonsense.
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,612



    "If negotiators fail to agree on a political financial settlement, it could become a legal case in the International Court of Justice or the Permanent Court of Arbitration, both located in The Hague. The result of such a court case would be hard to predict."

    https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/eu-divorce-bill

    Even if they agree could it still be referred by a 'Gina Miller' style intervention
    This is completely factually wrong. There is no way to force any nation to the ICJ. Both sides have to agree to jurisdiction for a dispute to go there and the EU (not being a nation) has no standing at the ICJ anyway.

    It is true that we could AGREE for the PCA to decide the Brexit bill. But it is impossible for the EU to force us to pay or force us to the ICJ.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    edited November 2017
    We are only obsessing over it because when we decided to end the relationship the EU has turned out to be a Glenn Close style Bunny Boiler who doesn't want us to walk away unless it is with our eyes gouged out and our testicles removed.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    @Ishmael_Z Ah, the person who criticises me for indirect responses, indirectly talking about me. The irony is something to savour.

    @HYUFD I wasn’t saying the potential internal polling was true. I didn’t comment on that. My point was against using polls as the basis of an entire political analysis, particularly given the possibility we’ve got two contradicting sets of information.

    No, that's a non-point, since you only have to go one step back in the quotes to see what I was talking about. Pointing out that you have fallen flat on your logical arse does not, I am afraid, constitute an invasion of your safe space.
  • @another_richard It’s not my ‘preferred narrative’ - I didn’t vote for Labour last time, and I still have issues with Corbyn. It was posted more to challenge the thinking on here that after 2015 and 2017 that we should all take polls as an exact measure of public opinion.

    Have no idea what the Labour lead in polls will be. After the last two years, I’d stay away from exact political predictions. Which is probably why I’m not taking VI figures too literally. I didn’t comment on whether the asserted internal polling is true, of course. On that so I have no idea. Just thought it’d be interesting to post here, given that it contradicts much of what many are basing their info on now.

    For those who continue to base their entire political analysis on polls:

    https://twitter.com/paulbranditv/status/932176933797933056

    A tweet from someone I've never heard of about an unidentified person talking about internal polling ???

    Must be true.

    Meanwhile back in the real world.
    ‘From someone who you’ve never heard of’ implies that he’s some random person, he’s a political correspondent on ITV news

    Obviously they aren’t going to say who they’re talking about, these things never work out that way.

    Meanwhile back in the real world, and Tories still not learning from the last election when they dismiss all information that didn’t fit the preferred narrative.

    This weeks local elections were good for the conservatives taking a seat from labour and nearly taking another.

    In parts of London and the big cities a bigger lead is possible but not out in the Country generally
    Don’t know the extent to which we can base local elections etc. On measuring the political mood. We had by-elections which suggested Corbyn was going to get crushed before June, look how that turned out.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited November 2017

    @Ishmael_Z Ah, the person who criticises me for indirect responses, indirectly talking about me. The irony is something to savour.

    @HYUFD I wasn’t saying the potential internal polling was true. I didn’t comment on that. My point was against using polls as the basis of an entire political analysis, particularly given the possibility we’ve got two contradicting sets of information.

    If anything local government by elections are reinforcing the polling narrative which is that we are almost certainly heading for another hung parliament only this time probably a Labour minority government rather than a Tory minority government if there was a general election tomorrow.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    For those who continue to base their entire political analysis on polls:

    https://twitter.com/paulbranditv/status/932176933797933056

    A tweet from someone I've never heard of about an unidentified person talking about internal polling ???

    Must be true.

    Meanwhile back in the real world.
    Good points. But I have run into half a dozen people over the last couple of months who would normally be bolted on Conservatives who have at least spoken favourably about Corbyn. There is nothing more misleading than anecdotes, but it is weird that the polls are so different to my personal experience at the moment.
    Some Tories at least thinking Corbyn seems personally decent does not mean those same Tories will vote Labour and back Corbyn's policies.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382

    @Ishmael_Z Ah, the person who criticises me for indirect responses, indirectly talking about me. The irony is something to savour.

    @HYUFD I wasn’t saying the potential internal polling was true. I didn’t comment on that. My point was against using polls as the basis of an entire political analysis, particularly given the possibility we’ve got two contradicting sets of information.

    The general consensus in the media is that labour should be doing much better and when asking the question , it is generally agreed that Corbyn and McDonnell are the ones preventing a clear move away from the government
    One of the normally right wing pundits on the Sunday politics disagreed with that consensus .He thought Labour were doing remarkably well on polling from where they were last year especially on the economy.In my opinion the difference is they are getting a hearing and elements of their policies are becoming into the mainstream conversation again
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    @another_richard It’s not my ‘preferred narrative’ - I didn’t vote for Labour last time, and I still have issues with Corbyn. It was posted more to challenge the thinking on here that after 2015 and 2017 that we should all take polls as an exact measure of public opinion.

    Have no idea what the Labour lead in polls will be. After the last two years, I’d stay away from exact political predictions. Which is probably why I’m not taking VI figures too literally. I didn’t comment on whether the asserted internal polling is true, of course. On that so I have no idea. Just thought it’d be interesting to post here, given that it contradicts much of what many are basing their info on now.

    For those who continue to base their entire political analysis on polls:

    https://twitter.com/paulbranditv/status/932176933797933056

    A tweet from someone I've never heard of about an unidentified person talking about internal polling ???

    Must be true.

    Meanwhile back in the real world.
    ‘From someone who you’ve never heard of’ implies that he’s some random person, he’s a political correspondent on ITV news

    Obviously they aren’t going to say who they’re talking about, these things never work out that way.

    Meanwhile back in the real world, and Tories still not learning from the last election when they dismiss all information that didn’t fit the preferred narrative.

    This weeks local elections were good for the conservatives taking a seat from labour and nearly taking another.

    In parts of London and the big cities a bigger lead is possible but not out in the Country generally
    Don’t know the extent to which we can base local elections etc. On measuring the political mood. We had by-elections which suggested Corbyn was going to get crushed before June, look how that turned out.
    Labour lost Copeland in a by election and failed to win it back in June you mean?
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    edited November 2017
    Ishmael_Z said:

    @Ishmael_Z Ah, the person who criticises me for indirect responses, indirectly talking about me. The irony is something to savour.

    @HYUFD I wasn’t saying the potential internal polling was true. I didn’t comment on that. My point was against using polls as the basis of an entire political analysis, particularly given the possibility we’ve got two contradicting sets of information.

    No, that's a non-point, since you only have to go one step back in the quotes to see what I was talking about. Pointing out that you have fallen flat on your logical arse does not, I am afraid, constitute an invasion of your safe space.
    Yes it is a point, because you didn’t actually directly respond to me, which was your whole argument against me. Your point about the quote going back to my original quote doesn’t actually change that. You haven’t pointed out anything, except that irony is dead. LOL at that safe spaces remark, I clearly touched a nerve.

    I am afraid, that pointing out your own hypocrisy does not constitute an invasion of your safe space, of which you clearly need given this is your reaction to your own hypocrisy being pointed out.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,764
    rkrkrk said:

    Daniel Gros - centre for European Policy Studies writes in the FT.

    “As of end 2016, the EU had assets of about €160bn, but liabilities of about €232bn, and thus a negative net asset position of €72bn. When the UK leaves the club, it should pay for its part of the accumulated net liability. Given that the share of the UK in the budget of the EU is 14 per cent, the “divorce”, or rather disengagement, payment would amount to 14 per cent of €72bn: about €10bn,”

    Seems simple. Add on £10bn a year for the transition period and job done.

    Whatever relationship we have afterwards is completely separate and should be considered separately.

    I view it simply as horse-trading, not a payment that's easily defined in law.
  • HYUFD said:

    @another_richard It’s not my ‘preferred narrative’ - I didn’t vote for Labour last time, and I still have issues with Corbyn. It was posted more to challenge the thinking on here that after 2015 and 2017 that we should all take polls as an exact measure of public opinion.

    Have no idea what the Labour lead in polls will be. After the last two years, I’d stay away from exact political predictions. Which is probably why I’m not taking VI figures too literally. I didn’t comment on whether the asserted internal polling is true, of course. On that so I have no idea. Just thought it’d be interesting to post here, given that it contradicts much of what many are basing their info on now.

    For those who continue to base their entire political analysis on polls:

    https://twitter.com/paulbranditv/status/932176933797933056

    A tweet from someone I've never heard of about an unidentified person talking about internal polling ???

    Must be true.

    Meanwhile back in the real world.
    ‘From someone who you’ve never heard of’ implies that he’s some random person, he’s a political correspondent on ITV news

    Obviously they aren’t going to say who they’re talking about, these things never work out that way.

    Meanwhile back in the real world, and Tories still not learning from the last election when they dismiss all information that didn’t fit the preferred narrative.

    This weeks local elections were good for the conservatives taking a seat from labour and nearly taking another.

    In parts of London and the big cities a bigger lead is possible but not out in the Country generally
    Don’t know the extent to which we can base local elections etc. On measuring the political mood. We had by-elections which suggested Corbyn was going to get crushed before June, look how that turned out.
    Labour lost Copeland in a by election and failed to win it back in June you mean?
    My point was at the time it was seen as a indicative Labour were in trouble in more than just Copeland.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,764

    For those who continue to base their entire political analysis on polls:

    https://twitter.com/paulbranditv/status/932176933797933056

    A tweet from someone I've never heard of about an unidentified person talking about internal polling ???

    Must be true.

    Meanwhile back in the real world.
    Good points. But I have run into half a dozen people over the last couple of months who would normally be bolted on Conservatives who have at least spoken favourably about Corbyn. There is nothing more misleading than anecdotes, but it is weird that the polls are so different to my personal experience at the moment.
    If 42% say they'd currently vote Labour, you'd be sure to run into Labour supporters.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,764

    For those who continue to base their entire political analysis on polls:

    https://twitter.com/paulbranditv/status/932176933797933056

    OTOH, Labour's private pollster, BMG, had them trailing the Conservatives by 13% on polling day.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,764

    HYUFD said:

    @another_richard It’s not my ‘preferred narrative’ - I didn’t vote for Labour last time, and I still have issues with Corbyn. It was posted more to challenge the thinking on here that after 2015 and 2017 that we should all take polls as an exact measure of public opinion.

    Have no idea what the Labour lead in polls will be. After the last two years, I’d stay away from exact political predictions. Which is probably why I’m not taking VI figures too literally. I didn’t comment on whether the asserted internal polling is true, of course. On that so I have no idea. Just thought it’d be interesting to post here, given that it contradicts much of what many are basing their info on now.

    For those who continue to base their entire political analysis on polls:

    https://twitter.com/paulbranditv/status/932176933797933056

    A tweet from someone I've never heard of about an unidentified person talking about internal polling ???

    Must be true.

    Meanwhile back in the real world.
    ‘From someone who you’ve never heard of’ implies that he’s some random person, he’s a political correspondent on ITV news

    Obviously they aren’t going to say who they’re talking about, these things never work out that way.

    Meanwhile back in the real world, and Tories still not learning from the last election when they dismiss all information that didn’t fit the preferred narrative.

    This weeks local elections were good for the conservatives taking a seat from labour and nearly taking another.

    In parts of London and the big cities a bigger lead is possible but not out in the Country generally
    Don’t know the extent to which we can base local elections etc. On measuring the political mood. We had by-elections which suggested Corbyn was going to get crushed before June, look how that turned out.
    Labour lost Copeland in a by election and failed to win it back in June you mean?
    My point was at the time it was seen as a indicative Labour were in trouble in more than just Copeland.
    At the time, Labour were in lots of trouble, but the campaign changed everything.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    rkrkrk said:


    The EU may think that the bill is payable even if we go with WTO, but this is totally unenforceable. And since the UKs legal advice is that nothing is payable, the EU won't get a penny if they don't do a deal at all.

    There is no way that the UK can or should pay anything for a Canada type deal, or make any concessions on sovereignty, immigration etc. If the EU want that, they will need to offer a quasi SM approach (which does not include FOM obviously). From what we hear, they won't offer that, so the only game is an improved CETA deal that adds in services or a WTO outcome. If a decent CETA plus deal is on the table a deal can be done on the Brexit bill.

    Agree with your last point - if they want a deal, great. If not, fine.

    Threatening not to pay what we owe (I don't care about the legal advice - it's obvious we shouldn't walk away from pension contributions for instance) would be a bad move.

    Who would want to do a deal with a partner like that?

    And yes we should not pay for a Canada deal - but it's worth pointing out that the Canada deal does also include concessions on sovereignty such as Investor State Dispute Settlement mechanism.
    Why do you think we owe pensions? We don't. They are obligations of the EU, their employer. The EU treaties say only that the member states 'guarantee' the payment - which means if the EU defaults, we have to step in. So fine, we agree that if the EU defaults in its legal obligations we will contribute our share. That is not the same as having to pay it now, especially as any cash we pay will not be reserved for pensions anyway (there is no EU pension fund).

    There has never been any agreement that the pensions of EU staff are obligations of the member states. So we are not 'walking away' from any obligation we have ever made.
    It’s none the less quite reasonable to pay the pensions of those who served the EU as our appointees and electees. That’s everyone from Kinnock, Mandleson and Ashton, to Hannan and Farage and even Nick Griffin.
  • Sean_F said:

    For those who continue to base their entire political analysis on polls:

    https://twitter.com/paulbranditv/status/932176933797933056

    OTOH, Labour's private pollster, BMG, had them trailing the Conservatives by 13% on polling day.
    True, I think in 2015 Tory internal polling was on the mark though. At this stage, we have no idea whether the polls, asserted internal polling, or both are totally false.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,732
    RoyalBlue said:

    ydoethur said:

    Goodness me everyone is bad-tempered this morning.

    I shall go and do some practice. The final hymn is Love Divine and to achieve a proper climax I'm going to need some work on the eight foot horn to achieve full swell.

    I do hope everyone is feeling more amiable by the time I return.

    Which tune? Hydrofoil or the other one?
    That is the most awesome autocorrect cockup since one of my year 10s found his computer didn't like 'Cnut'.

    In answer to your question it was Blaenwern!

    ydoethur said:

    Goodness me everyone is bad-tempered this morning.

    I shall go and do some practice. The final hymn is Love Divine and to achieve a proper climax I'm going to need some work on the eight foot horn to achieve full swell.

    I do hope everyone is feeling more amiable by the time I return.

    Be careful there is a thief about :)

    Time for me to be off too.

    https://twitter.com/alistaircoleman/status/931959055362527232
    Dr Foxinsox, nobody gets their hands on my organ.

    Unless they are interested, attractive, female and single in which case other rules apply.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    edited November 2017
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    @another_richard It’s not my ‘preferred narrative’ - I didn’t vote for Labour last time, and I still have issues with Corbyn. It was posted more to challenge the thinking on here that after 2015 and 2017 that we should all take polls as an exact measure of public opinion.

    Have no idea what the Labour lead in polls will be. After the last two years, I’d stay away from exact political predictions. Which is probably why I’m not taking VI figures too literally. I didn’t comment on whether the asserted internal polling is true, of course. On that so I have no idea. Just thought it’d be interesting to post here, given that it contradicts much of what many are basing their info on now.

    For those who continue to base their entire political analysis on polls:

    https://twitter.com/paulbranditv/status/932176933797933056

    A tweet from someone I've never heard of about an unidentified person talking about internal polling ???

    Must be true.

    Meanwhile back in the real world.
    ‘From someone who you’ve never heard of’ implies that he’s some random person, he’s a political correspondent on ITV news

    Obviously they aren’t going to say who they’re talking about, these things never work out that way.

    Meanwhile back in the real world, and Tories still not learning from the last election when they dismiss all information that didn’t fit the preferred narrative.

    This weeks local elections were good for the conservatives taking a seat from labour and nearly taking another.

    In parts of London and the big cities a bigger lead is possible but not out in the Country generally
    Don’t know the extent to which we can base local elections etc. On measuring the political mood. We had by-elections which suggested Corbyn was going to get crushed before June, look how that turned out.
    Labour lost Copeland in a by election and failed to win it back in June you mean?
    My point was at the time it was seen as a indicative Labour were in trouble in more than just Copeland.
    At the time, Labour were in lots of trouble, but the campaign changed everything.
    In that case polling figures are more suspect to change than we might have previously thought (or are even thinking now). Although IIRC, there was talk on here shortly after the GE that the YouGov model suggested that the Tories were not as head as we may have believed even prior to the campaign.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,880
    Sean_F said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Daniel Gros - centre for European Policy Studies writes in the FT.

    “As of end 2016, the EU had assets of about €160bn, but liabilities of about €232bn, and thus a negative net asset position of €72bn. When the UK leaves the club, it should pay for its part of the accumulated net liability. Given that the share of the UK in the budget of the EU is 14 per cent, the “divorce”, or rather disengagement, payment would amount to 14 per cent of €72bn: about €10bn,”

    Seems simple. Add on £10bn a year for the transition period and job done.

    Whatever relationship we have afterwards is completely separate and should be considered separately.

    I view it simply as horse-trading, not a payment that's easily defined in law.
    Even if you view it as horse trading it’s smart to have a rationale for your offer I’d argue.
    This has the benefit of being figures from EU auditors & is much less than has been reported.


  • "If negotiators fail to agree on a political financial settlement, it could become a legal case in the International Court of Justice or the Permanent Court of Arbitration, both located in The Hague. The result of such a court case would be hard to predict."

    https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/eu-divorce-bill

    Even if they agree could it still be referred by a 'Gina Miller' style intervention
    This is completely factually wrong. There is no way to force any nation to the ICJ. Both sides have to agree to jurisdiction for a dispute to go there and the EU (not being a nation) has no standing at the ICJ anyway.

    It is true that we could AGREE for the PCA to decide the Brexit bill. But it is impossible for the EU to force us to pay or force us to the ICJ.
    I think the key word in the Institute of Gov article was "could".

    The House of Lords has a long report on all this and seems to conclude (if I have read parts of it correctly) that if we just waltz off after two years of A50, then there is no bill to pay. The Vienna convention on Treaties might cause issues, but the advice they seem to have had concludes it wont.

    The politics of our reputation by doing that of course are dire.

    This article argues that PCA is the best solution as it frees up the politicians to concentrate on future relationship and stop arguing about divorce bill for two years.

    http://bruegel.org/2017/05/international-arbitration-is-the-way-to-settle-the-uks-brexit-bill/?utm_content=buffer53b69&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer+(bruegel)
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,080
    edited November 2017
    Edited.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,764

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    @another_richard It’s not my ‘preferred narrative’ - I didn’t vote for Labour last time, and I still have issues with Corbyn. It was posted more to challenge the thinking on here that after 2015 and 2017 that we should all take polls as an exact measure of public opinion.

    Have no idea what the Labour lead in polls will be. After the last two years, I’d stay away from exact political predictions. Which is probably why I’m not taking VI figures too literally. I didn’t comment on whether the eir info on now.

    For those who continue to base their entire political analysis on polls:

    https://twitter.com/paulbranditv/status/932176933797933056

    A tweet from someone I've never heard of about an unidentified person talking about internal polling ???

    Must be true.

    Meanwhile back in the real world.
    ‘From someone who you’ve never heard of’ implies that he’s some random person, he’s a political correspondent on ITV news

    Obviously they aren’t going to say who they’re talking about, these things never work out that way.

    Meanwhile back in the real world, and Tories still not learning from the last election when they dismiss all information that didn’t fit the preferred narrative.

    This weeks local elections were good for the conservatives taking a seat from labour and nearly taking another.

    In parts of London and the big cities a bigger lead is possible but not out in the Country generally
    Don’t know the extent to which we can base local elections etc. On measuring the political mood. We had by-elections which suggested Corbyn was going to get crushed before June, look how that turned out.
    Labour lost Copeland in a by election and failed to win it back in June you mean?
    My point was at the time it was seen as a indicative Labour were in trouble in more than just Copeland.
    At the time, Labour were in lots of trouble, but the campaign changed everything.
    In that case polling figures are more suspect to change than we might have previously thought (or are even thinking now). Although IIRC, there as talk on here shortly after the GE that the YouGov model suggested that the Tories were not as head as we may have believed even prior to the campaign.
    The result blew apart a lot of received wisdom, including that campaigns make no difference to the outcome.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,164
    HYUFD said:

    Hammond gets 6 more votes than McDonnell in a Sunday Politics focus group in a Peterborough diner on who they trust more on the economy.

    Just caught up. I know that cafe, it's very good if you're ever in the area and want somewhere that isn't a Little Thief.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    HYUFD said:

    For those who continue to base their entire political analysis on polls:

    https://twitter.com/paulbranditv/status/932176933797933056

    A tweet from someone I've never heard of about an unidentified person talking about internal polling ???

    Must be true.

    Meanwhile back in the real world.
    Good points. But I have run into half a dozen people over the last couple of months who would normally be bolted on Conservatives who have at least spoken favourably about Corbyn. There is nothing more misleading than anecdotes, but it is weird that the polls are so different to my personal experience at the moment.
    Some Tories at least thinking Corbyn seems personally decent does not mean those same Tories will vote Labour and back Corbyn's policies.
    Agreed. Indeed it could be nothing more than that people are a bit more talkative about politics than usual at the moment. I live in a very Tory seat but even here there are thousands of Labour votes every election. The fact that I have now met a few doesn't really mean anything very much. But it does indicate that the polls just could be less accurate than usual.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614



    "If negotiators fail to agree on a political financial settlement, it could become a legal case in the International Court of Justice or the Permanent Court of Arbitration, both located in The Hague. The result of such a court case would be hard to predict."

    https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/eu-divorce-bill

    Even if they agree could it still be referred by a 'Gina Miller' style intervention
    This is completely factually wrong. There is no way to force any nation to the ICJ. Both sides have to agree to jurisdiction for a dispute to go there and the EU (not being a nation) has no standing at the ICJ anyway.

    It is true that we could AGREE for the PCA to decide the Brexit bill. But it is impossible for the EU to force us to pay or force us to the ICJ.
    I think the key word in the Institute of Gov article was "could".

    The House of Lords has a long report on all this and seems to conclude (if I have read parts of it correctly) that if we just waltz off after two years of A50, then there is no bill to pay. The Vienna convention on Treaties might cause issues, but the advice they seem to have had concludes it wont.

    The politics of our reputation by doing that of course are dire.

    This article argues that PCA is the best solution as it frees up the politicians to concentrate on future relationship and stop arguing about divorce bill for two years.

    http://bruegel.org/2017/05/international-arbitration-is-the-way-to-settle-the-uks-brexit-bill/?utm_content=buffer53b69&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer+(bruegel)
    Sending the question of money to an independent arbitrator is an excellent idea, as I’ve said here before. Can’t see the EU side agreeing though, they know there’s no basis in the Treaties, in law or in agreements for us to have to pay them anything at all after they day we leave.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    I am always a bit puzzled by the claim that the EU wants to make an example of Britain to prevent any other EU state from deciding to leave.

    There is very little evidence that any other EU member state is contemplating leaving. So why should this be a fear?

    Maybe one way to break the deadlock is to make an offer of a very large sum, the sort of sum that would make a real difference to the EU budget, but only in return for a signed FTA on both goods and services. And do this before December: an agreement in principle to pay a very large sum but only once a trade deal - a bespoke one - is agreed and signed.

    Better surely to link payment to what we would like to get and to what we see as our future relationship with the EU and get them to consider what sort of future relationship they want, rather than faffing about arguing about what our liabilities and share of the assets may be.

    This might also have the advantage of moving away from seeing it as a payment to leave to seeing it as a down payment on a future good relationship (including liabilities). Also, if the EU turns down the money or says that it cannot be linked to a future relationship, well, we will know where we stand and will have to make the best of it, difficult as that is likely to be.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,764
    rkrkrk said:

    Sean_F said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Daniel Gros - centre for European Policy Studies writes in the FT.

    “As of end 2016, the EU had assets of about €160bn, but liabilities of about €232bn, and thus a negative net asset position of €72bn. When the UK leaves the club, it should pay for its part of the accumulated net liability. Given that the share of the UK in the budget of the EU is 14 per cent, the “divorce”, or rather disengagement, payment would amount to 14 per cent of €72bn: about €10bn,”

    Seems simple. Add on £10bn a year for the transition period and job done.

    Whatever relationship we have afterwards is completely separate and should be considered separately.

    I view it simply as horse-trading, not a payment that's easily defined in law.
    Even if you view it as horse trading it’s smart to have a rationale for your offer I’d argue.
    This has the benefit of being figures from EU auditors & is much less than has been reported.
    Yes, I agree.

    My understanding of the EU's position is that they think we have a moral, not a legal, obligation to give them undertakings and guarantees, aka an exit fee, which is okay provided they are willing to accept that moral obligations need to be reciprocated.
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    Neil Findlay wades into Dugdale suspension row

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-42043971
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    edited November 2017
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    @another_richard It’s not my ‘preferred narrative’ - I didn’t vote for Labour last time, and I still have issues with Corbyn. It was posted more to challenge the thinking on here that after 2015 and 2017 that we should all take polls as an exact measure of public opinion.

    Have no idea what the Labour lead in polls will be. After the last two years, I’d stay away from exact political predictions. Which is probably why I’m not taking VI figures too literally. I didn’t comment on whether the eir info on now.

    For those who continue to base their entire political analysis on polls:

    https://twitter.com/paulbranditv/status/932176933797933056

    A tweet from someone I've never heard of about an unidentified person talking about internal polling ???

    Must be true.

    Meanwhile back in the real world.
    ‘From someone who you’ve never heard of’ implies that he’s some random person, he’s a political correspondent on ITV news

    Obviously they aren’t going to say who they’re talking about, these things never work out that way.

    Meanwhile back in the real world, and Tories still not learning from the last election when they dismiss all information that didn’t fit the preferred narrative.

    This weeks local elections were good for the conservatives taking a seat from labour and nearly taking another.

    In parts of London and the big cities a bigger lead is possible but not out in the Country generally
    Labour lost Copeland in a by election and failed to win it back in June you mean?
    My point was at the time it was seen as a indicative Labour were in trouble in more than just Copeland.
    At the time, Labour were in lots of trouble, but the campaign changed everything.
    In .
    The result blew apart a lot of received wisdom, including that campaigns make no difference to the outcome.
    IIRC someone on here made a point that considering how the figures changed with the campaign, a similar thing may happen again when the next GE comes around (although it could be in the Tories’ favour next time round if they learn the lessons of 2017).
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited November 2017
    I highly doubt Labour are ahead by anything close to 12%. But the people constantly squawking "Labour should be further ahead than they are" are moving the goalposts ridiculously. In general, polls simply don't move that quickly after an election. People talk about a "honeymoon effect", but it's not so much that, it's more a "like hell am I admitting I was wrong so quickly" effect - the British public, God love them, are stubborn gits, and it will usually take them a while to admit to themselves that they voted the wrong way.

    The only examples of there being a huge shift in the polls this soon after an election in recent times are 1992, due to the truly monumental cock-up that was 'Black Wednesday' (let's face it, the PM coughing during a speech or the Foreign Aid Minister being sacked was never going to have as seismic an effect as that, despite all the hyperventilating from the Westminster pundits) and 2010, when the LibDems did a 180-degree turn on what a huge chunk of their voters considered to be the party's raison d'etre. In other words, it would've taken something truly, historically exceptional for Labour to be miles ahead in the polls now, less than 6 months after losing an election.

    The "like hell am I admitting I was wrong" effect generally only starts to weaken about a year after an election, so maybe if Labour aren't moving decisively ahead by next summer then we can start to wonder whether it says anything about their chances at the next election.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,764
    Cyclefree said:

    I am always a bit puzzled by the claim that the EU wants to make an example of Britain to prevent any other EU state from deciding to leave.

    There is very little evidence that any other EU member state is contemplating leaving. So why should this be a fear?

    Maybe one way to break the deadlock is to make an offer of a very large sum, the sort of sum that would make a real difference to the EU budget, but only in return for a signed FTA on both goods and services. And do this before December: an agreement in principle to pay a very large sum but only once a trade deal - a bespoke one - is agreed and signed.

    Better surely to link payment to what we would like to get and to what we see as our future relationship with the EU and get them to consider what sort of future relationship they want, rather than faffing about arguing about what our liabilities and share of the assets may be.

    This might also have the advantage of moving away from seeing it as a payment to leave to seeing it as a down payment on a future good relationship (including liabilities). Also, if the EU turns down the money or says that it cannot be linked to a future relationship, well, we will know where we stand and will have to make the best of it, difficult as that is likely to be.

    That is my view entirely. And, since nothing is agreed till everything is agreed, it's quite feasible. If we make a big offer, and get told " thanks, but no thanks, " then we take it off the table.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    edited November 2017

    HYUFD said:

    For those who continue to base their entire political analysis on polls:

    https://twitter.com/paulbranditv/status/932176933797933056

    A tweet from someone I've never heard of about an unidentified person talking about internal polling ???

    Must be true.

    Meanwhile back in the real world.
    Good points. But I have run into half a dozen people over the last couple of months who would normally be bolted on Conservatives who have at least spoken favourably about Corbyn. There is nothing more misleading than anecdotes, but it is weird that the polls are so different to my personal experience at the moment.
    Some Tories at least thinking Corbyn seems personally decent does not mean those same Tories will vote Labour and back Corbyn's policies.
    Agreed. Indeed it could be nothing more than that people are a bit more talkative about politics than usual at the moment. I live in a very Tory seat but even here there are thousands of Labour votes every election. The fact that I have now met a few doesn't really mean anything very much. But it does indicate that the polls just could be less accurate than usual.
    :)

    Tbh there has been a lot of reason as of late to be sceptical of polls, and generally traditional measurements of public opinion (point I was trying to make originally). We’ve had two elections now where a significant number of pollsters have given us info that has not exactly measured up to the GE result. In 2015, polls told us we’d have a hung parliament. We got a Tory majority, internal polling that was reported after the GE indicated that. In 2017, Survation was one of the few pollsters to suggest that the Tories would not win a majority. Many - including ICM suggested the Tories had a double digit lead over Labour. Reported internal polling appear to back up what the polls were saying. The result suggested we cannot use leadership or VI ratings far out from a GE as a means of knowing for sure what will happen at the GE. Corbyn’s Labour had much worse VI figures and he had terrible leadership ratings, yet Labour did unexpectedly well and won marginals were you’d never think they would.

    Perhaps we need to change how we treat the data. Either way we need to find a way of measuring the public mood accurately in some way.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited November 2017
    Cyclefree said:

    I am always a bit puzzled by the claim that the EU wants to make an example of Britain to prevent any other EU state from deciding to leave.

    There is very little evidence that any other EU member state is contemplating leaving. So why should this be a fear?

    That's a reason for why it should not be a reasonable fear, not that it should not be a fear. EU leaders have previously spoken of 'contagion' when it comes to bowing to populists and the like (a quick googling attributes such a fear to many EU leaders, even where the pieces think it is unwarranted), and certainly in the aftermath of the Brexit vote there was plenty of talk of the need to reform to ensure such sentiment did not spread. Whether that has manifested as 'making an example' of the UK divides people, but I think there are very solid grounds to note the EU is worried about anyone else contemplating leaving, since this is a long term project.

    And that is not even a bad thing - all organisations must (or at least should) continually justify their existence, not just dismiss people who raise concerns, and one would hope for the benefit of the peoples of Europe that the EU will take more from this than 'We are awesome, the UK are fools for leaving', since even if that is true, as EU leaders acknowledge they are not perfect and the official position is our leaving is regrettable (even if it is mostly our own fault), they therefore have an interest in dissuading, one way or another, other places from one day making a similar mistake. One would hope they will focus on positive dissuasion.

    So I don't see why the idea should be puzzling at all. Being reasonable they would have no need to make an example of us, but this process is led by flawed human beings, with electorates to worry about in many cases, therefore self defeating strategies cannot be discounted as a possibility, even if it does not happen.

  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    edited November 2017

    @Ishmael_Z Ah, the person who criticises me for indirect responses, indirectly talking about me. The irony is something to savour.

    @HYUFD I wasn’t saying the potential internal polling was true. I didn’t comment on that. My point was against using polls as the basis of an entire political analysis, particularly given the possibility we’ve got two contradicting sets of information.

    The general consensus in the media is that labour should be doing much better and when asking the question , it is generally agreed that Corbyn and McDonnell are the ones preventing a clear move away from the government
    I agree that’s the consensus. I’m querying to what extent that consensus is wrong, given that much of what we’ve learned over the last two years has questioned the received wisdom. I think that so much analysis is based on polling data, that like in 2015, even if the polls are not shown to be the holy grail, commentators cannot stop using them as the basis for their analysis even when they should show more caution. We may find out polls this time are on point, but for now we don’t know to what extent the methodological changes have improved things. We don’t even know whether age will be the great divide in voting like the way it was in this GE.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited November 2017

    HYUFD said:

    For those who continue to base their entire political analysis on polls:

    https://twitter.com/paulbranditv/status/932176933797933056

    A tweet from someone I've never heard of about an unidentified person talking about internal polling ???

    Must be true.

    Meanwhile back in the real world.
    Good points. But I have run into half a dozen people over the last couple of months who would normally be bolted on Conservatives who have at least spoken favourably about Corbyn. There is nothing more misleading than anecdotes, but it is weird that the polls are so different to my personal experience at the moment.
    Some Tories at least thinking Corbyn seems personally decent does not mean those same Tories will vote Labour and back Corbyn's policies.
    Agreed. Indeed it could be nothing more than that people are a bit more talkative about politics than usual at the moment. I live in a very Tory seat but even here there are thousands of Labour votes every election. The fact that I have now met a few doesn't really mean anything very much. But it does indicate that the polls just could be less accurate than usual.
    Perhaps we need to change how we treat the data. Either way we need to find a way of measuring the public mood accurately in some way.
    I keep telling people we need to start reading signs in human entrails again, but no, that's 'inhumane' and 'monstrous' and 'why would you even say that, you lunatic?'.

    Once we leave the EU proper I'll propose it again, it'll play better in a lawless wasteland.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,996
    The UK has more to lose. This is clear from the extreme division in the UK on Brexit, relative to the unity of purpose of the EU leaders. Half the UK thinks Brexit is unsupportable, leaving the other half free to proclaim the value of freedom from Europe at the price of any economic loss. Therefore, the UK will pay! We don't even need moral arguments about multi-year international commitments to determine the outcome of this one, and we certainly don't need stories about snooty French jackbooting plucky rosbif Tommies.
  • The EU may think that the bill is payable even if we go with WTO, but this is totally unenforceable. And since the UKs legal advice is that nothing is payable, the EU won't get a penny if they don't do a deal at all.
    [snip]

    If that were the whole story, it wouldn't be too bad. However, as I've said before, there are two kind of 'no deal':

    - No trade deal, i.e. going to WTO terms, is one thing. It would be damaging, especially to our car industry, but in the long term there's no reason why we couldn't do OK in that scenario.

    - Much, much worse than that is no deal at all - crashing out in chaos. Yes, in that scenario they wouldn't get a centime, but the damage to us would be immense (and the damage to them would be very significant as well). My fear is that the EU27 are miscalculating their demands in a way which, especially when combined with the precarious position of the government in parliament, could lead to that lose-lose outcome.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,764
    On a happy note, ZANU PF has dismissed Mugabe as leader, and kicked Disgrace out of the party.

    As neat a coup as anyone could imagine.

  • kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    For those who continue to base their entire political analysis on polls:

    https://twitter.com/paulbranditv/status/932176933797933056

    A tweet from someone I've never heard of about an unidentified person talking about internal polling ???

    Must be true.

    Meanwhile back in the real world.
    Good points. But I have run into half a dozen people over the last couple of months who would normally be bolted on Conservatives who have at least spoken favourably about Corbyn. There is nothing more misleading than anecdotes, but it is weird that the polls are so different to my personal experience at the moment.
    Some Tories at least thinking Corbyn seems personally decent does not mean those same Tories will vote Labour and back Corbyn's policies.
    Agreed. Indeed it could be nothing more than that people are a bit more talkative about politics than usual at the moment. I live in a very Tory seat but even here there are thousands of Labour votes every election. The fact that I have now met a few doesn't really mean anything very much. But it does indicate that the polls just could be less accurate than usual.
    Perhaps we need to change how we treat the data. Either way we need to find a way of measuring the public mood accurately in some way.
    I keep telling people we need to start reading signs in human entrails again, but no, that's 'inhumane' and 'monstrous' and 'why would you even say that, you lunatic?'.

    Once we leave the EU proper I'll propose it again, it'll play better in a lawless wasteland.
    For some reason what you’ve just said reminds me of Titus Andronicus.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Sean_F said:

    On a happy note, ZANU PF has dismissed Mugabe as leader, and kicked Disgrace out of the party.

    As neat a coup as anyone could imagine.

    I wonder how many of those Zanu-PF officials would have been happy to call for the punishment of anyone who had dared criticise Mugabe in even the tiniest way just 2 weeks ago, but let us hope good truly does come from this.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I am always a bit puzzled by the claim that the EU wants to make an example of Britain to prevent any other EU state from deciding to leave.

    There is very little evidence that any other EU member state is contemplating leaving. So why should this be a fear?

    Maybe one way to break the deadlock is to make an offer of a very large sum, the sort of sum that would make a real difference to the EU budget, but only in return for a signed FTA on both goods and services. And do this before December: an agreement in principle to pay a very large sum but only once a trade deal - a bespoke one - is agreed and signed.

    Better surely to link payment to what we would like to get and to what we see as our future relationship with the EU and get them to consider what sort of future relationship they want, rather than faffing about arguing about what our liabilities and share of the assets may be.

    This might also have the advantage of moving away from seeing it as a payment to leave to seeing it as a down payment on a future good relationship (including liabilities). Also, if the EU turns down the money or says that it cannot be linked to a future relationship, well, we will know where we stand and will have to make the best of it, difficult as that is likely to be.

    That is my view entirely. And, since nothing is agreed till everything is agreed, it's quite feasible. If we make a big offer, and get told " thanks, but no thanks, " then we take it off the table.
    I would leave it on the table, personally. But concentrate on making preparations for a no-deal exit. If the EU changes its mind then the details can be hammered out then. But I wouldn't add another deadline to the process. Making it clear that we are prepared to offer a reasonable deal is worth it, not just for how we look to EU member states but for how we look to other states with whom we will be looking to make deals.

    The UK may be in a relatively weaker position but there is no reason for us not to make the best of what we can offer.

    It would be a pity if the EU did not focus on what sort of relationship it wants with Britain post our departure. They may not want any at all - we would be a third party, no different to Zimbabwe say. That would be a pity and ahistorical. It would not surprise me given that there has been - apparently - so little self-reflection by the EU as to whether their own behaviour might have contributed in any way to Britain's decision, however silly one might think it.

    But we should at least try and get them to think about it by being as generous as possible, even over-generous, in relation to departure payments, precisely in order to smoke out what the EU's position will be.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,392
    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    On a happy note, ZANU PF has dismissed Mugabe as leader, and kicked Disgrace out of the party.

    As neat a coup as anyone could imagine.

    I wonder how many of those Zanu-PF officials would have been happy to call for the punishment of anyone who had dared criticise Mugabe in even the tiniest way just 2 weeks ago, but let us hope good truly does come from this.
    I fear that the people are being taken for fools. A smooth transition from one despot to another, with the little glimmer of democratic change quickly extinguished.

    I hope that I'm wrong.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    On a happy note, ZANU PF has dismissed Mugabe as leader, and kicked Disgrace out of the party.

    As neat a coup as anyone could imagine.

    I wonder how many of those Zanu-PF officials would have been happy to call for the punishment of anyone who had dared criticise Mugabe in even the tiniest way just 2 weeks ago, but let us hope good truly does come from this.
    I fear that the people are being taken for fools. A smooth transition from one despot to another, with the little glimmer of democratic change quickly extinguished.

    I hope that I'm wrong.
    The hope, I assume, would be that in attempting this transition it releases forces for change that those who might hope for an easy despotic transition cannot prevent. I don't know if that is at all likely, or if at least the next one will be less bad, but of course we know that dictatorial regimes can last more or less forever if they are well managed by enough people.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,880

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    On a happy note, ZANU PF has dismissed Mugabe as leader, and kicked Disgrace out of the party.

    As neat a coup as anyone could imagine.

    I wonder how many of those Zanu-PF officials would have been happy to call for the punishment of anyone who had dared criticise Mugabe in even the tiniest way just 2 weeks ago, but let us hope good truly does come from this.
    I fear that the people are being taken for fools. A smooth transition from one despot to another, with the little glimmer of democratic change quickly extinguished.

    I hope that I'm wrong.
    Even that isn’t close to being the worst outcome. Power struggle leading to civil war is certainly not impossible.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    Cyclefree said:

    It would be a pity if the EU did not focus on what sort of relationship it wants with Britain post our departure. They may not want any at all - we would be a third party, no different to Zimbabwe say. That would be a pity and ahistorical. It would not surprise me given that there has been - apparently - so little self-reflection by the EU as to whether their own behaviour might have contributed in any way to Britain's decision, however silly one might think it.

    Who are ‘they’? The other member states? The commission?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    The EU may think that the bill is payable even if we go with WTO, but this is totally unenforceable. And since the UKs legal advice is that nothing is payable, the EU won't get a penny if they don't do a deal at all.
    [snip]

    If that were the whole story, it wouldn't be too bad. However, as I've said before, there are two kind of 'no deal':

    - No trade deal, i.e. going to WTO terms, is one thing. It would be damaging, especially to our car industry, but in the long term there's no reason why we couldn't do OK in that scenario.

    - Much, much worse than that is no deal at all - crashing out in chaos. Yes, in that scenario they wouldn't get a centime, but the damage to us would be immense (and the damage to them would be very significant as well). My fear is that the EU27 are miscalculating their demands in a way which, especially when combined with the precarious position of the government in parliament, could lead to that lose-lose outcome.
    There is a further bad option, that of a hostile WTO Brexit with post divorce lawyers involvedto pursue their pounds of flesh, particularly in terms of financial settlement.

    I don't agree with the "reparations" vocabulary, but perhaps think of it as Napoleon's Continental System.
  • Can't we just have Grieve as PM? Then man's always been moderate, competent and highly intelligent. Yet it's always the bungling crackpots who get to ascend the greasy pole. Why?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,764
    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    On a happy note, ZANU PF has dismissed Mugabe as leader, and kicked Disgrace out of the party.

    As neat a coup as anyone could imagine.

    I wonder how many of those Zanu-PF officials would have been happy to call for the punishment of anyone who had dared criticise Mugabe in even the tiniest way just 2 weeks ago, but let us hope good truly does come from this.
    Most of them would have done.

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    On a happy note, ZANU PF has dismissed Mugabe as leader, and kicked Disgrace out of the party.

    As neat a coup as anyone could imagine.

    I wonder how many of those Zanu-PF officials would have been happy to call for the punishment of anyone who had dared criticise Mugabe in even the tiniest way just 2 weeks ago, but let us hope good truly does come from this.
    I fear that the people are being taken for fools. A smooth transition from one despot to another, with the little glimmer of democratic change quickly extinguished.

    I hope that I'm wrong.
    A true democracy would be good. But, a competent non-democratic government would be reasonable.

    This is a falling out among thieves, but even people who are complicit in the crimes of the previous regime can do good, on attaining power, like Kruschev or Deng Xiao Ping.

    I think the Chinese have made clear that they want a return on their investment in the country, which means a return to economic sanity is probable.
  • No amount of Sky Sports Super Sunday hyping can get anybody excited but Ave It excited by Watford vs West Ham....
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    Cyclefree said:



    It would be a pity if the EU did not focus on what sort of relationship it wants with Britain post our departure. They may not want any at all - we would be a third party, no different to Zimbabwe say. That would be a pity and ahistorical. It would not surprise me given that there has been - apparently - so little self-reflection by the EU as to whether their own behaviour might have contributed in any way to Britain's decision, however silly one might think it.

    But we should at least try and get them to think about it by being as generous as possible, even over-generous, in relation to departure payments, precisely in order to smoke out what the EU's position will be.

    Personally I think they don't have a great deal to reflect on - the toxic interaction of irresponsible media and short-sighted politicians in Britain is historically 90% of the problem, and it's currently 98%. But in divorce proceedings it's almost always unwise to dwell on fault (it embitters everyone to argue about it and it's too late to fix): a pragmatic attitude to "where do we go from here if you want to leave?" is the only sensible option.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,955

    Breaking: Mugabe sacked as party leader

    Well done Tezzie for outlasting him!
    The one to watch is whether she will outlast Trump.....
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263

    Who on earth is managing the Tory comms?Can't they see putting Hammond tomorrow in the passenger seat of a driverless car is not an image of "Strong and Stable" government? Or is Hammond being stitched up by the Tory Brexit crazies and set up to fail to be the next out of the cabinet?Is he being set up to fail?
    Whoever they are,I think their problem does not emanate from Marx but from the influence of the Marks Bros because this is a satire on their fantastic films.
    Hammond as Groucho anyone?Damien Green as Harpo,the silent one?

    According to Rawnsley, many of his colleagues are activrely hoping for the Budget to be a fiasco:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/19/the-state-of-the-tory-party-is-the-only-grand-reveal-of-this-budget

    Has there ever been a more shambolic government in modern times?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,955

    Royal Navy helping Argentina find her lost submarine.

    That is a really good news story

    Depends - not if we knew where it was in the first place.....
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited November 2017
    Second, there has been a series of attacks on her across the media based on something she wrote about the black Conservative London Assembly member Shaun Bailey. In a pre-election blog post seven years ago, Dent Coad quoted some North Kensington constituents’ view of Bailey as a “token ghetto boy”. The phrase, without quotation marks, had been picked up as evidence of racism. Dent Coad has apologised for the remark, but is in no doubt that the timing of the story is part of a campaign to discredit her fact-finding work in the wake of Grenfell, a campaign she believes has gone on ever since the fire.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/19/emma-dent-coad-grenfell-interview-shaun-bailey

    Really...it is as tin foil hatted as some of the stuff on her blog. She has gotten grief because she has written and drawn a number of distasteful stuff and the media in a phase where they are digging into all members dodgy behaviour from the past, be it knee touching, computers with adult material on it or drawing Tories hangings from trees.
  • NEW THREAD

This discussion has been closed.