Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tonight’s cartoon on Trump and the Nother Korean leader Kim Jo

13»

Comments

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,642
    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Confirmed the country has gone to the dogs and the public haven't got a clue....not talking about the rise of Commie Corbyn...

    Prosecco continued to be the strongest contender in the fizzy wine stakes, with 9.5 bottles of the Italian tipple selling for every bottle of champagne over Christmas and New Year.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5252703/Prosecco-popular-CHampagne-Christmas.html

    Truly we are entering the end times? but surely it is mostly the squeeze on pockets. Prosecco is just about the cheapest fizzy wine, Cheaper than Cava, Australian or NZ fizz or champagne. It is pretty dreadful thin acidic stuff. It is the 8 Ace of the wine world.

    Cheaper than Cava?

    I've always found it to be more expensive than Cava and have a far better reputation than Cava. But considerably cheaper than Champagne.
    Certainly better than CAVA and a decent bottle is better than most champagnes in my humble opinion.
    Chalk and apples, Malc, chalk and apples. Prosecco is a light, straightforward drink, with lower alcohol content than champagne. Champagne, in its turn is more complex, with higher alcohol content.

    Both are fine for what they are.

    English sparkling wine is great also, with Nyetimber very good indeed but I am struggling to see why I should pay more for it than a bottle of Bolly.

    Best value and best champagne for the price on the market (and better than plenty of Grand Marques right now) is Laytons NV.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,668
    Mr. Richard, pithy, and accurate.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,965
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Whisper it, but the Trump belligerence might just be getting results with North Korea..... They seem to have blinked first.

    Kim wants the bomb so that he doesn't end up like Ghadafi.
    It looks like he's got it and shown the world (mainly Trump) that he has. He may be mad but he's not mad enough to try a first strike on any US territory, so he can afford to send a team to the winter Olympics and maybe talk to South Korea leadership. It helps Kim with China to cool things down.
    Tell me again what Trump's belligerence has achieved.
    The North Koreans got the Bomb on Obama's watch. You know, that nice Mr. Obama.

    Trump has to try and clear up Obama's mess.
    You seem to have totally missed the post you are supposedly replying to, so here it is again:

    Kim wants the bomb so that he doesn't end up like Ghadafi.
    It looks like he's got it and shown the world (mainly Trump) that he has. He may be mad but he's not mad enough to try a first strike on any US territory, so he can afford to send a team to the winter Olympics and maybe talk to South Korea leadership. It helps Kim with China to cool things down.
    Tell me again what Trump's belligerence has achieved.
    Hoity toity, and what do you know about how mad Kim is? Is there consensus on the point among 97% of psychiatrists?
    Is anybody going to address the points I raised instead of schoolyard chants?
  • Scott_P said:
    Labour commit to keeping the UK in Narnia is just about as accrurate
    Its a Customs Union with The Customs Union. Like Turkey has.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,978
    TOPPING said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Confirmed the country has gone to the dogs and the public haven't got a clue....not talking about the rise of Commie Corbyn...

    Prosecco continued to be the strongest contender in the fizzy wine stakes, with 9.5 bottles of the Italian tipple selling for every bottle of champagne over Christmas and New Year.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5252703/Prosecco-popular-CHampagne-Christmas.html

    Truly we are entering the end times? but surely it is mostly the squeeze on pockets. Prosecco is just about the cheapest fizzy wine, Cheaper than Cava, Australian or NZ fizz or champagne. It is pretty dreadful thin acidic stuff. It is the 8 Ace of the wine world.

    Cheaper than Cava?

    I've always found it to be more expensive than Cava and have a far better reputation than Cava. But considerably cheaper than Champagne.
    Certainly better than CAVA and a decent bottle is better than most champagnes in my humble opinion.
    Chalk and apples, Malc, chalk and apples. Prosecco is a light, straightforward drink, with lower alcohol content than champagne. Champagne, in its turn is more complex, with higher alcohol content.

    Both are fine for what they are.

    English sparkling wine is great also, with Nyetimber very good indeed but I am struggling to see why I should pay more for it than a bottle of Bolly.

    Best value and best champagne for the price on the market (and better than plenty of Grand Marques right now) is Laytons NV.
    Big fan of English white, especially from the Bacchus grape.

    Last year I bought a not cheap English red (~20) - absolutely disgusting. A mistake not to be repeated.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,487
    Sitting down with a nice glass of prosecco and a Hawaian pizza is the best way to enjoy the Last Jedi.
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,041
    I note the Tories flag free logo has still not been rolled out onto their website

    https://www.conservatives.com
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364

    Mr. F, to be fair, a very large amount of humour (and insults) is still based on bodily functions, sexual immorality, and genital mockery.

    I quite like the old Gladstone/Disraeli exchange:
    G - I predict, sir, that you shall die either of hanging or some vile disease.
    D - That depends upon whether I embrace your morals or your mistress.

    Edited extra bit: also reminds me of Sir Thomas Blount, a traitor from about 600 years ago whose entrails had been removed. As he sat to watch them burnt he was asked if he wanted a drink and replied, "No, for I do not know where I should put it."

    Mr D, wasn’t that exchange about a century earlier?

    Allegedly there was also someone beheaded for treason who, when his severed head was lifted and the executioner said ‘behold the head of a traitor’ had sufficient vocal chords left to say ‘thou liest!’
    Which caused quite a stir!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,668
    King Cole, it was roughly 1400, early in the reign of Henry IV.

    I hadn't heard the vocal chord story, but that's quite visceral.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,978

    Scott_P said:
    Labour commit to keeping the UK in Narnia is just about as accrurate
    Its a Customs Union with The Customs Union. Like Turkey has.
    So pretty much what has been expected all along.

    Why don't their front bench then all start singing from the same hymn sheet. Chukka can see the writing on the wall.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,642
    Jonathan said:

    Sitting down with a nice glass of prosecco and a Hawaian pizza is the best way to enjoy the Last Jedi.

    or of course Die Hard, if over Christmas.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,580
    viewcode said:

    brendan16 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Virgin have as much right to not sell the Mail as a baker has to not make a cake with a message on that they do not approve of.

    I agree - they don't stock the Guardian either. But let's not pretend principles trump commercial decisions - all that preaching is just a bit rich.

    And you can of course read the Mail online and Guardian online for free on their onboard wifi. Why spend £2 on the FT in the onboard shop when you can read the Mail onboard for free?! All those endless stories about Z list celebs sure shorten that long journey from London to Scotland!!
    Unlike Great Western, South Western and (i think) Southern Railways, wifi on Virgin Trains is not free. You have to log on and pay extra.

    Oddly enough, I have gone on the London-Glasgow train. Their bastard sockets didn't work and I was nursemaiding my laptop battery all the bloody way. I was quite vexed.
    The bizarre PB love-in when Virgin-Stagecoach were awarded the East Coast franchise still puzzles me to this day.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364
    Mortimer said:

    TOPPING said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Confirmed the country has gone to the dogs and the public haven't got a clue....not talking about the rise of Commie Corbyn...

    Prosecco continued to be the strongest contender in the fizzy wine stakes, with 9.5 bottles of the Italian tipple selling for every bottle of champagne over Christmas and New Year.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5252703/Prosecco-popular-CHampagne-Christmas.html

    Truly we are entering the end times? but surely it is mostly the squeeze on pockets. Prosecco is just about the cheapest fizzy wine, Cheaper than Cava, Australian or NZ fizz or champagne. It is pretty dreadful thin acidic stuff. It is the 8 Ace of the wine world.

    Cheaper than Cava?

    I've always found it to be more expensive than Cava and have a far better reputation than Cava. But considerably cheaper than Champagne.
    Certainly better than CAVA and a decent bottle is better than most champagnes in my humble opinion.
    Chalk and apples, Malc, chalk and apples. Prosecco is a light, straightforward drink, with lower alcohol content than champagne. Champagne, in its turn is more complex, with higher alcohol content.

    Both are fine for what they are.

    English sparkling wine is great also, with Nyetimber very good indeed but I am struggling to see why I should pay more for it than a bottle of Bolly.

    Best value and best champagne for the price on the market (and better than plenty of Grand Marques right now) is Laytons NV.
    Big fan of English white, especially from the Bacchus grape.

    Last year I bought a not cheap English red (~20) - absolutely disgusting. A mistake not to be repeated.
    We have locally a vineyard, with winebar/resturant attached which serves ONLY English wine. The whites are, generally, very acceptabe. The vineyard’s own rosé is, by common consent, excellent, I have however only found one of their reds passable.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,130
    TOPPING said:

    Jonathan said:

    Sitting down with a nice glass of prosecco and a Hawaian pizza is the best way to enjoy the Last Jedi.

    or of course Die Hard, if over Christmas.
    With Radiohead on in the background.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,642
    Alistair said:

    viewcode said:

    brendan16 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Virgin have as much right to not sell the Mail as a baker has to not make a cake with a message on that they do not approve of.

    I agree - they don't stock the Guardian either. But let's not pretend principles trump commercial decisions - all that preaching is just a bit rich.

    And you can of course read the Mail online and Guardian online for free on their onboard wifi. Why spend £2 on the FT in the onboard shop when you can read the Mail onboard for free?! All those endless stories about Z list celebs sure shorten that long journey from London to Scotland!!
    Unlike Great Western, South Western and (i think) Southern Railways, wifi on Virgin Trains is not free. You have to log on and pay extra.

    Oddly enough, I have gone on the London-Glasgow train. Their bastard sockets didn't work and I was nursemaiding my laptop battery all the bloody way. I was quite vexed.
    The bizarre PB love-in when Virgin-Stagecoach were awarded the East Coast franchise still puzzles me to this day.
    It's not so much a love in just that ECML is a great line and has come on leaps and bounds over the past few years. We keep getting questionnaires about what we want (BEAM: no; Fast Wi-fi: yes) and there is precious little to complain about. It really is a great service.

    Signed M. Griffiths
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 6,085
    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    Jonathan said:

    Sitting down with a nice glass of prosecco and a Hawaian pizza is the best way to enjoy the Last Jedi.

    or of course Die Hard, if over Christmas.
    With Radiohead on in the background.
    Is it Radiohead ot Lana del Ray? Who knows?
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 718
    rcs1000 said:

    Dubliner said:

    Why do people continue to talk of with-holding the £40 billion?

    Are they relying on nothing is agreed until everything etc.

    There are two agreements, and the terms of the first are now agreed in full. So far as I'm aware both parties expect to have this sealed and delivered in March, and talks on the second potential deal will start then.

    The nothing etc etc will, of course, apply equally to the second deal.

    You are completely wrong. The Phase 1 agreement is not a signed treaty, it is just a statement of agreed positions. The Phase 1 agreements only become legally binding when incorporated into the A50 treaty which will only get signed at the end. If there is no trade deal the UK can walk away and not pay anything as long as there is no A50 treaty.

    However, once the A50 treaty is signed (say early 2019) the Brexit bill is binding on the UK but the trade deal is NOT binding on the EU. The EU can (and probably will) renege on the trade deal and never ratify it and the UK will have agreed to pay the whole bill. The EU cannot legally agree a trade deal as part of the A50 treaty - which is why the UK should never have agreed to discuss any Brexit bill at this time.
    Yes, because the EU - whose largest export market is the UK - would lose out by having a free trade deal with the UK.

    Obviously.
    Gloriously naive - are you a civil servant negotiating for the UK?

    What will happen is this - the EU will agree a very woolly 'political declaration' on trade that will promise to consider services access in an FTA. The UK will sign the A50 agreement. Then, when the real negotiations begin, the EU will announce that they cannot get unanimous agreement on services (or pretty much anything else that favours the UK) and that we can take a deal that is for goods only, which is totally in the EUs favour. The UK will complain but will still be legally liable to pay the 40-50bn Brexit bill because it is a legal obligation under the treaty and it is not ljnked to ratification of the FTA. If we refuse we will get no deal but still be liable for the money.

    Why on Earth would the EU NOT behave in this way? It is our fault for agreeing that the Brexit bill and the trade talks were not linked. This is the truth about the sellout that May has inflicted upon the UK.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532
    Scott_P said:
    I think those criticisms of May are pretty much priced in already.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,130
    Tbh, any criticism of Theresa is pointless anyway, she's not going to be leader in 2022.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812
    Despite Brexit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42633502

    Or something.

    Still managing to record sharp falls in construction though. It really is nonsense.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 2,024

    rcs1000 said:

    Dubliner said:

    Why do people continue to talk of with-holding the £40 billion?

    Are they relying on nothing is agreed until everything etc.

    There are two agreements, and the terms of the first are now agreed in full. So far as I'm aware both parties expect to have this sealed and delivered in March, and talks on the second potential deal will start then.

    The nothing etc etc will, of course, apply equally to the second deal.

    You are completely wrong. The Phase 1 agreement is not a signed treaty, it is just a statement of agreed positions. The Phase 1 agreements only become legally binding when incorporated into the A50 treaty which will only get signed at the end. If there is no trade deal the UK can walk away and not pay anything as long as there is no A50 treaty.

    However, once the A50 treaty is signed (say early 2019) the Brexit bill is binding on the UK but the trade deal is NOT binding on the EU. The EU can (and probably will) renege on the trade deal and never ratify it and the UK will have agreed to pay the whole bill. The EU cannot legally agree a trade deal as part of the A50 treaty - which is why the UK should never have agreed to discuss any Brexit bill at this time.
    Yes, because the EU - whose largest export market is the UK - would lose out by having a free trade deal with the UK.

    Obviously.
    Gloriously naive - are you a civil servant negotiating for the UK?

    What will happen is this - the EU will agree a very woolly 'political declaration' on trade that will promise to consider services access in an FTA. The UK will sign the A50 agreement. Then, when the real negotiations begin, the EU will announce that they cannot get unanimous agreement on services (or pretty much anything else that favours the UK) and that we can take a deal that is for goods only, which is totally in the EUs favour. The UK will complain but will still be legally liable to pay the 40-50bn Brexit bill because it is a legal obligation under the treaty and it is not ljnked to ratification of the FTA. If we refuse we will get no deal but still be liable for the money.

    Why on Earth would the EU NOT behave in this way? It is our fault for agreeing that the Brexit bill and the trade talks were not linked. This is the truth about the sellout that May has inflicted upon the UK.
    +1

    Quite frankly the post of the week.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,668
    Mr. Max, probably not, and she shouldn't be, but inertia worked wonders for Brown. Different rulebook, mind.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812

    rcs1000 said:

    Dubliner said:

    Why do people continue to talk of with-holding the £40 billion?

    Are they relying on nothing is agreed until everything etc.

    There are two agreements, and the terms of the first are now agreed in full. So far as I'm aware both parties expect to have this sealed and delivered in March, and talks on the second potential deal will start then.

    The nothing etc etc will, of course, apply equally to the second deal.

    You are completely wrong. The Phase 1 agreement is not a signed treaty, it is just a statement of agreed positions. The Phase 1 agreements only become legally binding when incorporated into the A50 treaty which will only get signed at the end. If there is no trade deal the UK can walk away and not pay anything as long as there is no A50 treaty.

    However, once the A50 treaty is signed (say early 2019) the Brexit bill is binding on the UK but the trade deal is NOT binding on the EU. The EU can (and probably will) renege on the trade deal and never ratify it and the UK will have agreed to pay the whole bill. The EU cannot legally agree a trade deal as part of the A50 treaty - which is why the UK should never have agreed to discuss any Brexit bill at this time.
    Yes, because the EU - whose largest export market is the UK - would lose out by having a free trade deal with the UK.

    Obviously.
    Gloriously naive - are you a civil servant negotiating for the UK?

    What will happen is this - the EU will agree a very woolly 'political declaration' on trade that will promise to consider services access in an FTA. The UK will sign the A50 agreement. Then, when the real negotiations begin, the EU will announce that they cannot get unanimous agreement on services (or pretty much anything else that favours the UK) and that we can take a deal that is for goods only, which is totally in the EUs favour. The UK will complain but will still be legally liable to pay the 40-50bn Brexit bill because it is a legal obligation under the treaty and it is not ljnked to ratification of the FTA. If we refuse we will get no deal but still be liable for the money.

    Why on Earth would the EU NOT behave in this way? It is our fault for agreeing that the Brexit bill and the trade talks were not linked. This is the truth about the sellout that May has inflicted upon the UK.
    Why on earth would we agree free trade in goods but not in services? What is in it for us?
  • TOPPING said:



    It's not so much a love in just that ECML is a great line and has come on leaps and bounds over the past few years. We keep getting questionnaires about what we want (BEAM: no; Fast Wi-fi: yes) and there is precious little to complain about. It really is a great service.

    Signed M. Griffiths

    Well, apart from the terrible service it is. They've made one cut too many on catering. Had to reinstate people to ensure basic catering provision is met. First Class Service has been pared back significantly and isn't reliably available. Maintenance on the rolling stock has been cut leading to a glut of failures.

    Yes Stagecoach is having to fund a deficit out of its own pocket. But when you peel away the Virgin marketing guff Stagecoach operations don't have a lot to celebrate. Until the manna from heaven came down - the DfT's mismanagement of Network Rail. A long delay on projects including the Kings Cross throat, catenary reliability improvements and an upgraded power supply for the northern half of the route.

    VTEC can't operate the services it is contractually obliged to operate. It'll have to keep leasing existing trains even after the new ones arrive as they won't have the power supplies to operate on. Which makes it impossible for VTEC to hit their payments back to the DfT. Its a clear breech of contract by the DfT. Virgin Rail can sue and win say DfT lawyers. And so the franchise is quietly put to bed, with a batshit crazy new model to replace it as a slight of hand distraction.

    And much to the DfT's delight the idiots fell for it. Instead of attacking DfT idiots who have left the department exposed to legal action by Virgin Rail (and Stagecoach. And Arriva. And First Group). And instead of asking how they can be stupid enough to make service upgrades a contractual obligation then not fund the infrastructure upgrades needed, punters instead attack the man who owns just 10% of just one of the franchises that can sue.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812

    TOPPING said:



    It's not so much a love in just that ECML is a great line and has come on leaps and bounds over the past few years. We keep getting questionnaires about what we want (BEAM: no; Fast Wi-fi: yes) and there is precious little to complain about. It really is a great service.

    Signed M. Griffiths

    Well, apart from the terrible service it is. They've made one cut too many on catering. Had to reinstate people to ensure basic catering provision is met. First Class Service has been pared back significantly and isn't reliably available. Maintenance on the rolling stock has been cut leading to a glut of failures.

    Yes Stagecoach is having to fund a deficit out of its own pocket. But when you peel away the Virgin marketing guff Stagecoach operations don't have a lot to celebrate. Until the manna from heaven came down - the DfT's mismanagement of Network Rail. A long delay on projects including the Kings Cross throat, catenary reliability improvements and an upgraded power supply for the northern half of the route.

    VTEC can't operate the services it is contractually obliged to operate. It'll have to keep leasing existing trains even after the new ones arrive as they won't have the power supplies to operate on. Which makes it impossible for VTEC to hit their payments back to the DfT. Its a clear breech of contract by the DfT. Virgin Rail can sue and win say DfT lawyers. And so the franchise is quietly put to bed, with a batshit crazy new model to replace it as a slight of hand distraction.

    And much to the DfT's delight the idiots fell for it. Instead of attacking DfT idiots who have left the department exposed to legal action by Virgin Rail (and Stagecoach. And Arriva. And First Group). And instead of asking how they can be stupid enough to make service upgrades a contractual obligation then not fund the infrastructure upgrades needed, punters instead attack the man who owns just 10% of just one of the franchises that can sue.

    My last first class trip to Dundee from London was free. Would rather it had been on time mind.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,294
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    IanB2 said:

    Curtice: He believes Labour’s revival under Jeremy Corbyn owes far more to young social liberals who would normally back the Lib Dems than to leftwing voters.

    There's definitely something in that but I don't know if EU membership is a drop dead issue for the jeunesse dorée as it is for the frightened middle aged white men on the other side of the Leave/Remain schism.
    It's not the EU per se so much as a reminder that Labour is trying to hold together a coalition of younger urban liberal voters and the WWC (and ethnic minorities), and that the Brexit process is very likely to put this under severe strain at some point
    Maybe so, but will it actually be severe strain? The WWC aren't that different to urban liberals. And while they may be in favour of Brexit when asked the question is isolation is it really so important to them as to make them switch to the Conservatives over it? Insofar as the 2017 election tells us anything, it is that maybe a few did but not that many. I'd say it is at least likely that habitual Labour voters who switched to the Conservatives over Brexit are quite likely to start drifting back to where they were before.
    I am not convinced that it will be a strain. Not least because at the post Brexit election the deal will be done, or we have a WTO Brexit. Labour EU policy will be a dead letter.

    Austerity will be a continuing issue, and the increasingly anti immigrant rhetoric of the right will keep most BME Britons voting Labour. The urban liberal europhiles are more culturally attached to Europe than economically, so the exact terms of Brexit do not matter much. All deals are bad deals.

    Labour can hold its coalition together a lot longer. Indeed one of the more interesting political moves of the last week has been largely uncommented. While TM has been rearranging her deckchairs, Corbyn has organised his Red Guards for a Cultural Revolution within the Party.

    Very interesting read - thanks. Seems a great idea from Miliband/Corbyn to increase campaigning on local issues.

    My worry is - do the places where Labour need seats match up well to where they have members/activists?
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 5,199

    rcs1000 said:

    Dubliner said:

    Why do people continue to talk of with-holding the £40 billion?

    Are they relying on nothing is agreed until everything etc.

    There are two agreements, and the terms of the first are now agreed in full. So far as I'm aware both parties expect to have this sealed and delivered in March, and talks on the second potential deal will start then.

    The nothing etc etc will, of course, apply equally to the second deal.

    You are completely wrong. The Phase 1 agreement is not a signed treaty, it is just a statement of agreed positions. The Phase 1 agreements only become legally binding when incorporated into the A50 treaty which will only get signed at the end. If there is no trade deal the UK can walk away and not pay anything as long as there is no A50 treaty.

    However, once the A50 treaty is signed (say early 2019) the Brexit bill is binding on the UK but the trade deal is NOT binding on the EU. The EU can (and probably will) renege on the trade deal and never ratify it and the UK will have agreed to pay the whole bill. The EU cannot legally agree a trade deal as part of the A50 treaty - which is why the UK should never have agreed to discuss any Brexit bill at this time.
    Yes, because the EU - whose largest export market is the UK - would lose out by having a free trade deal with the UK.

    Obviously.
    Gloriously naive - are you a civil servant negotiating for the UK?

    What will happen is this - the EU will agree a very woolly 'political declaration' on trade that will promise to consider services access in an FTA. The UK will sign the A50 agreement. Then, when the real negotiations begin, the EU will announce that they cannot get unanimous agreement on services (or pretty much anything else that favours the UK) and that we can take a deal that is for goods only, which is totally in the EUs favour. The UK will complain but will still be legally liable to pay the 40-50bn Brexit bill because it is a legal obligation under the treaty and it is not ljnked to ratification of the FTA. If we refuse we will get no deal but still be liable for the money.

    Why on Earth would the EU NOT behave in this way? It is our fault for agreeing that the Brexit bill and the trade talks were not linked. This is the truth about the sellout that May has inflicted upon the UK.
    "......will still be legally liable to pay the 40-50bn Brexit bill because it is a legal obligation under the treaty"

    We have been told this is not a legal obligation but a moral obligation. One moral obligation deserves another. It is a quid pro quo. It's Tit for Tat. It's a negotiation.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,938
    Morning all :)

    My first chance to comment on the "re-sniffle" or reshuffle or "re-shambles".

    The problem for the Prime Minister is that it cuts to the heart of what kind of leader she really is or wants to be. After the 23/6/16 Referendum and her smooth accession to the top, she seemed to want to channel her inner Margaret and there were overtones of this right up to and during the ill-fated election campaign.

    The GE was as much a personal vote of confidence and mandate for her (to make up for the one she never got from her own Party perhaps ?) as in the Conservative Party and indeed much of the May message was taking her beyond the confines of the Conservative Party brand and trying to create a group of May Labour voters (Trump Democrats ?).

    That failed as we know so she was forced back into a more concensual environment - she was quickly stripped of her two main allies with the departure of Hill and Timothy. This seemed a jarring juxtaposition to her pre-GE position and so it has remained. The confident, almost arrogant, pre-GE echo resonates but is now diluted with this much more confusing and mixed message underlining her weakness.

    It reminds me of a question I've always pondered - whether Margaret Thatcher would or could have stayed as Prime Minister had the 1987 election produced not a 101 majority but a Hung Parliament. Could she have coped with her authority gone - in 1990 she didn't lose but left before she could or would have lost in a second ballot.

    May, I think, does concensual very well and I think the current arrangements probably play to her strengths but the echo of what happened before June 2017 remains and accentuates her fall from dominance. It has also emboldened her colleagues who see her weakness as their strength and no longer feel cowed by her authority which is not backed (seemingly) by a powerful electoral mandate.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,294

    rcs1000 said:

    Dubliner said:

    Why do people continue to talk of with-holding the £40 billion?

    Are they relying on nothing is agreed until everything etc.

    There are two agreements, and the terms of the first are now agreed in full. So far as I'm aware both parties expect to have this sealed and delivered in March, and talks on the second potential deal will start then.

    The nothing etc etc will, of course, apply equally to the second deal.

    You are completely wrong. The Phase 1 agreement is not a signed treaty, it is just a statement of agreed positions. The Phase 1 agreements only become legally binding when incorporated into the A50 treaty which will only get signed at the end. If there is no trade deal the UK can walk away and not pay anything as long as there is no A50 treaty.

    However, once the A50 treaty is signed (say early 2019) the Brexit bill is binding on the UK but the trade deal is NOT binding on the EU. The EU can (and probably will) renege on the trade deal and never ratify it and the UK will have agreed to pay the whole bill. The EU cannot legally agree a trade deal as part of the A50 treaty - which is why the UK should never have agreed to discuss any Brexit bill at this time.
    Yes, because the EU - whose largest export market is the UK - would lose out by having a free trade deal with the UK.

    Obviously.
    Gloriously naive - are you a civil servant negotiating for the UK?

    What will happen is this - the EU will agree a very woolly 'political declaration' on trade that will promise to consider services access in an FTA. The UK will sign the A50 agreement. Then, when the real negotiations begin, the EU will announce that they cannot get unanimous agreement on services (or pretty much anything else that favours the UK) and that we can take a deal that is for goods only, which is totally in the EUs favour. The UK will complain but will still be legally liable to pay the 40-50bn Brexit bill because it is a legal obligation under the treaty and it is not ljnked to ratification of the FTA. If we refuse we will get no deal but still be liable for the money.

    Why on Earth would the EU NOT behave in this way? It is our fault for agreeing that the Brexit bill and the trade talks were not linked. This is the truth about the sellout that May has inflicted upon the UK.
    Leavers were warned that we couldn’t cherrypick the bits of the EU we liked.
    It can hardly come as a surprise if a final deal doesn’t include services.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,947
    edited January 10
    rkrkrk said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    IanB2 said:

    Curtice: He believes Labour’s revival under Jeremy Corbyn owes far more to young social liberals who would normally back the Lib Dems than to leftwing voters.

    There's definitely something in that but I don't know if EU membership is a drop dead issue for the jeunesse dorée as it is for the frightened middle aged white men on the other side of the Leave/Remain schism.
    It's not the EU per se so much as a reminder that Labour is trying to hold together a coalition of younger urban liberal voters and the WWC (and ethnic minorities), and that the Brexit process is very likely to put this under severe strain at some point
    Maybe so, but will it actually be severe strain? The WWC aren't that different to urban liberals. And while they may .
    I am not convinced that it will be a strain. Not least because at the post Brexit election the deal will be done, or we have a WTO Brexit. Labour EU policy will be a dead letter.

    Austerity will be a continuing issue, and the increasingly anti immigrant rhetoric of the right will keep most BME Britons voting Labour. The urban liberal europhiles are more culturally attached to Europe than economically, so the exact terms of Brexit do not matter much. All deals are bad deals.

    Labour can hold its coalition together a lot longer. Indeed one of the more interesting political moves of the last week has been largely uncommented. While TM has been rearranging her deckchairs, Corbyn has organised his Red Guards for a Cultural Revolution within the Party.

    Very interesting read - thanks. Seems a great idea from Miliband/Corbyn to increase campaigning on local issues.

    My worry is - do the places where Labour need seats match up well to where they have members/activists?
    I think it matches Corbyn's street agitation with the enthusiasm of recently joined (or re-joined) members, who often come from a single issue activism base, to get them to take an interest in the wider party.

    It is a very different vision of an inclusive party to Theresa's top down vision.

    I think Labour have members everywhere, but Momentum was great at organising car pooling etc in June.

    The comparison with the Red Guards may well go as far as excessive enthusiasm.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,941
    rkrkrk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dubliner said:

    Why do people continue to talk of with-holding the £40 billion?

    Are they relying on nothing is agreed until everything etc.

    There are two agreements, and the terms of the first are now agreed in full. So far as I'm aware both parties expect to have this sealed and delivered in March, and talks on the second potential deal will start then.

    The nothing etc etc will, of course, apply equally to the second deal.

    You are completely wrong. The Phase 1 agreement is not a signed treaty, it is just a statement of agreed positions. The Phase 1 agreements only become legally binding when incorporated into the A50 treaty which will only get signed at the end. If there is no trade deal the UK can walk away and not pay anything as long as there is no A50 treaty.

    However, once the A50 treaty is signed (say early 2019) the Brexit bill is binding on the UK but the trade deal is NOT binding on the EU. The EU can (and probably will) renege on the trade deal and never ratify it and the UK will have agreed to pay the whole bill. The EU cannot legally agree a trade deal as part of the A50 treaty - which is why the UK should never have agreed to discuss any Brexit bill at this time.
    Yes, because the EU - whose largest export market is the UK - would lose out by having a free trade deal with the UK.

    Obviously.
    Gloriously naive - are you a civil servant negotiating for the UK?

    What will happen is this - the EU will agree a very woolly 'political declaration' on trade that will promise to consider services access in an FTA. The UK will sign the A50 agreement. Then, when the real negotiations begin, the EU will announce that they cannot get unanimous agreement on services (or pretty much anything else that favours the UK) and that we can take a deal that is for goods only, which is totally in the EUs favour. The UK will complain but will still be legally liable to pay the 40-50bn Brexit bill because it is a legal obligation under the treaty and it is not ljnked to ratification of the FTA. If we refuse we will get no deal but still be liable for the money.

    Why on Earth would the EU NOT behave in this way? It is our fault for agreeing that the Brexit bill and the trade talks were not linked. This is the truth about the sellout that May has inflicted upon the UK.
    Leavers were warned that we couldn’t cherrypick the bits of the EU we liked.
    It can hardly come as a surprise if a final deal doesn’t include services.
    Why would we sign any deal that doesn't include services ? Not much use to us is it ?

  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,489
    Good morning all.

    I'm still puzzled by the confident predictions of the outcome of our Brexit negotiations. I've a good deal of negotiation experience, but the EU's past record on fudgery, together with the variable impact of Brexit on individual EU member states makes it seem extraordinarily hard to predict what outcome we'll jointly achieve.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,294
    edited January 10
    TGOHF said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dubliner said:

    Why do people continue to talk of with-holding the £40 billion?

    Are they relying on nothing is agreed until everything etc.

    There are two agreements, and the terms of the first are now agreed in full. So far as I'm aware both parties expect to have this sealed and delivered in March, and talks on the second potential deal will start then.

    The nothing etc etc will, of course, apply equally to the second deal.

    nything as long as there is no A50 treaty.

    However, once the A50 treaty is signed (say early 2019) the Brexit bill is binding on the UK but the as part of the A50 treaty - which is why the UK should never have agreed to discuss any Brexit bill at this time.
    Yes, because the EU - whose largest export market is the UK - would lose out by having a free trade deal with the UK.

    Obviously.
    Gloriously naive - are you a civil servant negotiating for the UK?

    What will happen is this - the EU will agree a very woolly 'political declaration' on trade that will promise to consider services access in an FTA. The UK will sign the A50 agreement. Then, when the real negotiations begin, the EU will announce that they cannot get unanimous agreement on services (or pretty much anything else that favours the UK) and that we can take a deal that is for goods only, which is totally in the EUs favour. The UK will complain but will still be legally liable to pay the 40-50bn Brexit bill because it is a legal obligation under the treaty and it is not ljnked to ratification of the FTA. If we refuse we will get no deal but still be liable for the money.

    Why on Earth would the EU NOT behave in this way? It is our fault for agreeing that the Brexit bill and the trade talks were not linked. This is the truth about the sellout that May has inflicted upon the UK.
    Leavers were warned that we couldn’t cherrypick the bits of the EU we liked.
    It can hardly come as a surprise if a final deal doesn’t include services.
    Why would we sign any deal that doesn't include services ? Not much use to us is it ?

    It would provide our consumers with cheaper goods as well as helping those UK businesses which do export goods also. Trade can benefit both parties.

    Edit: to be clear - a deal which included services would obviously be preferable- but if it’s no deal or one which is goods only - we should pick the second option I think.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 5,199
    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Confirmed the country has gone to the dogs and the public haven't got a clue....not talking about the rise of Commie Corbyn...

    Prosecco continued to be the strongest contender in the fizzy wine stakes, with 9.5 bottles of the Italian tipple selling for every bottle of champagne over Christmas and New Year.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5252703/Prosecco-popular-CHampagne-Christmas.html

    Truly we are entering the end times? but surely it is mostly the squeeze on pockets. Prosecco is just about the cheapest fizzy wine, Cheaper than Cava, Australian or NZ fizz or champagne. It is pretty dreadful thin acidic stuff. It is the 8 Ace of the wine world.

    Cheaper than Cava?

    I've always found it to be more expensive than Cava and have a far better reputation than Cava. But considerably cheaper than Champagne.
    Certainly better than CAVA and a decent bottle is better than most champagnes in my humble opinion.
    M&S Cava is excellent.

    As is the English Nytimber, but expensive at over £30 a bottle nowadays. Nytimber beats Champagne at blind tastings in France.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,941
    John_M said:

    Good morning all.

    I'm still puzzled by the confident predictions of the outcome of our Brexit negotiations. I've a good deal of negotiation experience, but the EU's past record on fudgery, together with the variable impact of Brexit on individual EU member states makes it seem extraordinarily hard to predict what outcome we'll jointly achieve.

    Things we can predict - as the next deadline approaches the forces of darkness will ramp up the gloom-ometer to defcon 666 with tales of doom and misery.

    Both sides want a deal - desperately - despite what they may say in public or through useful idiots.
  • NEW THREAD

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,941
    rkrkrk said:

    TGOHF said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dubliner said:

    Why do people continue to talk of with-holding the £40 billion?

    Are they relying on nothing is agreed until everything etc.

    There are two agreements, and the terms of the first are now agreed in full. So far as I'm aware both parties expect to have this sealed and delivered in March, and talks on the second potential deal will start then.

    The nothing etc etc will, of course, apply equally to the second deal.

    nything as long as there is no A50 treaty.

    However, once the A50 treaty is signed (say early 2019) the Brexit bill is binding on the UK but the as part of the A50 treaty - which is why the UK should never have agreed to discuss any Brexit bill at this time.
    Yes, because the EU - whose largest export market is the UK - would lose out by having a free trade deal with the UK.

    Obviously.
    Gloriously naive - are you a civil servant negotiating for the UK?

    What will happen is this - the EU will agree a very woolly 'political declaration' on trade that will promise to consider services access in an FTA. The UK will sign the A50 agreement. Then, when the real negotiations begin, the EU will announce that they cannot get unanimous agreement on services (or pretty much anything else that favours the UK) and that we can take a deal that is for goods only, which is totally in the EUs favour. The UK will complain but will still be legally liable to pay the 40-50bn Brexit bill because it is a legal obligation under the treaty and it is not ljnked to ratification of the FTA. If we refuse we will get no deal but still be liable for the money.

    Why on Earth would the EU NOT behave in this way? It is our fault for agreeing that the Brexit bill and the trade talks were not linked. This is the truth about the sellout that May has inflicted upon the UK.
    Leavers were warned that we couldn’t cherrypick the bits of the EU we liked.
    It can hardly come as a surprise if a final deal doesn’t include services.
    Why would we sign any deal that doesn't include services ? Not much use to us is it ?

    It would provide our consumers with cheaper goods as well as helping those UK businesses which do export goods also. Trade can benefit both parties.
    If it's a deal reduced in scope then there would be a consummate reduction in cost (for the Uk).
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 407

    Demos focus groups among predominantly 50+ white working class:

    Theresa May incites quite a high level of sympathy for her position, and a sense that she is not being adequately supported by her colleagues. But others were less convinced of whether she was genuine in her claim to want to tackle ‘burning injustices’, and participants consistently expressed both confusion and frustration at having been asked to head to the polls again in June 2017.

    They’ll all stab her in the back, instead of getting behind her and saying, right what are we doing this week?
    I just don’t like this Prime Minister. I just think she’s totally out of touch with people. Just terrible! She just comes across as weirdly sinister.
    I actually don’t mind Theresa May; I think she’s actually quite nice.
    She’s been better than I thought she’d be. I thought she’d be the same old as Maggie Thatcher.
    I don’t know why she did, why she had the election and that, I don’t really understand what that was about you know.
    Everything right now has been exacerbated by Mrs May calling for an election that was totally unnecessary.
    I think at least with Theresa May at least she was willing to take the job on. She seems to have a bit of backbone, don’t she?
    She’s not the best of leaders but then again there’s not that much around.



    https://www.demos.co.uk/project/citizens-voices/

    That's an absolutely fascinating read.
    Intresting to note the introduction also said:

    "Between October and December 2017, my colleague Peter Harrison-Evans and I led an extensive series of focus groups across England,... such as Bermondsey in London, Havering, Birmingham, Leeds, Yorkshire, and Sunderland"

    and was closely followed by

    "...these focus groups have been conducted to explore the depth and variety of nostalgic feeling in contemporary Britain..."

  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,416
    DavidL said:

    Despite Brexit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42633502

    Or something.

    Still managing to record sharp falls in construction though. It really is nonsense.

    Big upward revisions of past construction output:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/constructionindustry/bulletins/constructionoutputingreatbritain/november2017#latest-revisions

    It looks like construction output will be 5% higher in 2017 than in 2016, which was itself 4% higher than in 2015.

    It seems that the "there seems to be a lot of construction work near me" annecdotes were correct.
This discussion has been closed.