This morning Theresa May has made a statement that we are leaving the customs union and that is now being widely reported as the Government position and the media are at last having to explain the pros and cons. To be fair to Adam Boulton, who is a very committed remainer, he really made a good case that any other action would not be in the spirit of the referendum.
The remainers are out in force this morning fighting a rearguard action but the die is cast and I cannot see how TM can now change this decision without standing down and of course the result of that is likely to result in Boris or JRM becoming PM
Yep - I don’t think she can change her mind either.. But if we are leaving SM and CU only after transition period - then that is ages away...
If she can get agreement on a longer transition from the Brexiteers, with a promise that when we leave it is super hard Brexit - then she may be able to thread the needle.
Yes and as I recall she has made the 50 billion conditional on a trade agreement in principal. She cannot give the EU that money without some kind of trade deal so maybe a longer transition makes sense.
It is a pity that the remainers can't just accept we are leaving and of course make a case to rejoin if they so wish. It is inconceivable that we will not now leave the EU.
No, its reality. Our trade with the EU will continue on more or less the current level almost regardless of whether we have a deal, BINO, a currency union, the currency union, whatever. Trade barriers are marginal in the modern world. NTBs can be more of a hindrance but as all our manufacturers are currently 100% compliant with EU/our standards that really is not an issue for the foreseeable future.
This whole debate is taking place with a level of hysteria that is both counterproductive and disproportionate with completely extravagant claims on both sides. It is a proxy for having a neverendum on EU membership. Its just absurd.
While there's something in that, both economics and politics tend to be about what happens at the margins. And the effect on people's lives caused by the difference between 1% growth and no growth is quite significant for those existing on the margin - less so for (say) Charles ...or me.
As Robert and others have pointed out repeatedly our own domestic policies are far, far more significant for those at the margins. Will we invest more in infrastructure, improve our educational system, encourage investment rather than consumption, run a sane economic policy, make UC work in a compassionate way, build more houses...all of these will affect people at the margins more than a customs union.
At the risk of agreeing with @Alastair_Meeks by far the biggest cost of Brexit is the distraction from the real issues we face. In the long run it will probably be worth it but years of government paralysis are undoubtedly a heavy price to pay.
How on earth can you suggest that it will "probably be worth it"? This last week has established that Leavers don't accept the validity of projections for the future and anyone who pays any attention to any gets slapped down.
I think we will do better as a nation not being a part of an undemocratic, bureaucratic organisation that is increasingly focussed on a currency union that we are not a part of and which I would not wish us to join. I think not being a part of such a institution is worth some short term pain. We may of course make a mess of our new opportunities and freedom of manoeuvre but I think it is more likely than not that we will end up ahead of where we would have been. Its a judgment call and a matter of opinion. We can agree to disagree on it.
This morning Theresa May has made a statement that we are leaving the customs union and that is now being widely reported as the Government position and the media are at last having to explain the pros and cons. To be fair to Adam Boulton, who is a very committed remainer, he really made a good case that any other action would not be in the spirit of the referendum.
The remainers are out in force this morning fighting a rearguard action but the die is cast and I cannot see how TM can now change this decision without standing down and of course the result of that is likely to result in Boris or JRM becoming PM
Yep - I don’t think she can change her mind either.. But if we are leaving SM and CU only after transition period - then that is ages away...
If she can get agreement on a longer transition from the Brexiteers, with a promise that when we leave it is super hard Brexit - then she may be able to thread the needle.
Yes and as I recall she has made the 50 billion conditional on a trade agreement in principal. She cannot give the EU that money without some kind of trade deal so maybe a longer transition makes sense.
It is a pity that the remainers can't just accept we are leaving and of course make a case to rejoin if they so wish. It is inconceivable that we will not now leave the EU.
A longer transition risks running into GE2022. If there is one thing that will concentrate Con Leave minds, it's the possibility of Starmer taking over the negotiations before they're complete.
Sadly for us, Charles, you know what happens in the long run.
Plus, on the more formal point, discounted to today, there is no point making a gain in XX years time if today's benefit is trivial.
I’ve worked with an investor who makes all there decisions based on an assumption that they will hold assets for eternity...
As for the long run, the individual is not important: we are all but links in a chain
The investor would not undertake an NPV-negative project, though, would he/she?
They have forgone NPV-positive projects (specifically this is the Diocese of London which refuses to sell freeholds inside the City)
That's fine. But they would not undertake an NPV-negative one.
That is what we are talking about here. A future benefit means nothing if today's value is negative. As they say, and as of course you know, when discussing discounting - you can't get to there from here.
Brexiteers believe it is NPV positive - the future upside offsets the expected lower growth from the EU market
This is where the conversation started. You all said that "it's not all about the economics", implying that you understood that there would be a cost. You now say that "Brexiters believe it is NPV positive".
So I asked whether it is a cost, the price of which is worth paying (presumably) or whether there will be a Brexit bonus.
Can I ask the same question again?
There is a near term opportunity cost which, long term, will be offset (NPV positive) by external opportunities. But Most individuals focus on the very short term in a personal basis. Hence the “I’m sure it will be fine” argument - people are saying that long term it will work out.
The cherry on the cake is that the political benefits of Brexit also gave material intangible value which make people feel better about the near term opportunity cost, but which are hard to include in an NPV analysis.
I admire your dexterity
Growing up with lawyers and politicians does that to you...
This morning Theresa May has made a statement that we are leaving the customs union and that is now being widely reported as the Government position and the media are at last having to explain the pros and cons. To be fair to Adam Boulton, who is a very committed remainer, he really made a good case that any other action would not be in the spirit of the referendum.
The remainers are out in force this morning fighting a rearguard action but the die is cast and I cannot see how TM can now change this decision without standing down and of course the result of that is likely to result in Boris or JRM becoming PM
This morning Theresa May has made a statement that we are leaving the customs union and that is now being widely reported as the Government position and the media are at last having to explain the pros and cons. To be fair to Adam Boulton, who is a very committed remainer, he really made a good case that any other action would not be in the spirit of the referendum.
The remainers are out in force this morning fighting a rearguard action but the die is cast and I cannot see how TM can now change this decision without standing down and of course the result of that is likely to result in Boris or JRM becoming PM
Yep - I don’t think she can change her mind either.. But if we are leaving SM and CU only after transition period - then that is ages away...
If she can get agreement on a longer transition from the Brexiteers, with a promise that when we leave it is super hard Brexit - then she may be able to thread the needle.
Yes and as I recall she has made the 50 billion conditional on a trade agreement in principal. She cannot give the EU that money without some kind of trade deal so maybe a longer transition makes sense.
It is a pity that the remainers can't just accept we are leaving and of course make a case to rejoin if they so wish. It is inconceivable that we will not now leave the EU.
A longer transition risks running into GE2022. If there is one thing that will concentrate Con Leave minds, it's the possibility of Starmer taking over the negotiations before they're complete.
is what many Cons leavers seem to ignore.
I appreciate Jezza might well still be at the helm, but hell, he has travelled a long way from many positions, and could easily decide to go the stay in (or SM/CU) route if it gets him into No. 10.
Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: "Don't do that - I might give you my support if you stay in!" Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: "Why don't you reconsider?" Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: I've heard you're reconsidering." Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: "What about a customs union that exactly mimics the customs union?" Government: "We're leaving the customs union and not replacing it with any other customs union" Remainers: "Oh my God they are all over the place!"
Where in the timeline is the moment the government signed up to maintain full alignment with the customs union?
They didn't.
In the absence of unicorns, they did.
Sure, sure. Other solutions are unicorns, we won't be able to stop freedom of movement, there will be an immediate year long recession after the vote and Scotland will leave the UK in protest.
I was fascinated by Leavers' response to my thread yesterday. Not a single Leaver sought to defend the way in which the government is approaching its decision-making process. There was a lot of annoyance with me, but no real challenge to the actual argument on that point.
What did you expect Alistair? Plaudits? Reasoned argument?
This is WW1 all over again - everyone in their trenches lobbing explosives at each other and neither side moving an inch.
I expected some kind of engagement with the argument. Instead there was a lot of "don't be beastly" posts from the usual snowflakes.
Brexit has divided the country like nothing else has since the English Civil War. Even the Miner's Strike or the Winter of Discontent was less divisive.
No, the industrial disputes of the Seventies and Eighties involved bitter class conflict, with people fighting each other. People on either side saw their livelihoods at stake. The most passionate voices for and against Brexit are well-heeled people whose livelihoods will barely be affected by the outcome.
I doubt if Brexit is more divisive than, say, the arguments over extending the franchise to working class men and women.
This morning Theresa May has made a statement that we are leaving the customs union and that is now being widely reported as the Government position and the media are at last having to explain the pros and cons. To be fair to Adam Boulton, who is a very committed remainer, he really made a good case that any other action would not be in the spirit of the referendum.
The remainers are out in force this morning fighting a rearguard action but the die is cast and I cannot see how TM can now change this decision without standing down and of course the result of that is likely to result in Boris or JRM becoming PM
Yep - I don’t think she can change her mind either.. But if we are leaving SM and CU only after transition period - then that is ages away...
If she can get agreement on a longer transition from the Brexiteers, with a promise that when we leave it is super hard Brexit - then she may be able to thread the needle.
Yes and as I recall she has made the 50 billion conditional on a trade agreement in principal. She cannot give the EU that money without some kind of trade deal so maybe a longer transition makes sense.
It is a pity that the remainers can't just accept we are leaving and of course make a case to rejoin if they so wish. It is inconceivable that we will not now leave the EU.
A longer transition risks running into GE2022. If there is one thing that will concentrate Con Leave minds, it's the possibility of Starmer taking over the negotiations before they're complete.
And as we know, the government's sole guiding Brexit negotiations principle is what is best for the Conservative party in general and Mrs May in particular.
The UK economy diverging further from the Tiger economies of Europe.
"“The pace of UK economic growth slowed sharply at the start of the year as January saw a triple whammy of weaker PMI surveys. ....
All together, the PMI surveys point to the slowest pace of expansion since August 2016. “While the fourth quarter PMI readings were historically consistent with the economy growing at a resilient quarterly rate of 0.4-0.5%, in line with the recent GDP estimate, the January number signals a growth rate of just under 0.3% "
This morning Theresa May has made a statement that we are leaving the customs union and that is now being widely reported as the Government position and the media are at last having to explain the pros and cons. To be fair to Adam Boulton, who is a very committed remainer, he really made a good case that any other action would not be in the spirit of the referendum.
The remainers are out in force this morning fighting a rearguard action but the die is cast and I cannot see how TM can now change this decision without standing down and of course the result of that is likely to result in Boris or JRM becoming PM
JRM4PM?
I think Boris or JRM for PM is now nailed on. They're going to push her into ever more extreme Brexitism until something snaps - probably mass resignations within the Tory party or even a complete schism. Then the Dream Team will push her aside and move in.
I was hopeful for a nice soft Brexit yesterday, but those hopes have this morning been cruelly dashed. Talk of the 'Dream Team' has clearly rocked Therersa (perhaps there was more to that than met the eye) and is once again dancing to Leave Ultras' tune. But this endless see-sawing is doing untold harm. Theresa should just decide on what she wants to be and shape her government accordingly. If that means sacking Hammond and the rest of the cabinet softies and bringing in Rees-Mogg then so be it.
Mrs May is only delaying the inevitable pitched battle inside the Conservative party. She is desperately hoping that something will turn up, It won't. In the end, a decision will have to be made: cliff edge or BINO. I still think she will go for the latter. In the end, she does - I believe - want what is best for the country. But I could be wrong. It really could be that her own survival is what matters most to her.
This morning Theresa May has made a statement that we are leaving the customs union and that is now being widely reported as the Government position and the media are at last having to explain the pros and cons. To be fair to Adam Boulton, who is a very committed remainer, he really made a good case that any other action would not be in the spirit of the referendum.
The remainers are out in force this morning fighting a rearguard action but the die is cast and I cannot see how TM can now change this decision without standing down and of course the result of that is likely to result in Boris or JRM becoming PM
Yep - I don’t think she can change her mind either.. But if we are leaving SM and CU only after transition period - then that is ages away...
If she can get agreement on a longer transition from the Brexiteers, with a promise that when we leave it is super hard Brexit - then she may be able to thread the needle.
Yes and as I recall she has made the 50 billion conditional on a trade agreement in principal. She cannot give the EU that money without some kind of trade deal so maybe a longer transition makes sense.
It is a pity that the remainers can't just accept we are leaving and of course make a case to rejoin if they so wish. It is inconceivable that we will not now leave the EU.
A longer transition risks running into GE2022. If there is one thing that will concentrate Con Leave minds, it's the possibility of Starmer taking over the negotiations before they're complete.
And as we know, the government's sole guiding Brexit negotiations principle is what is best for the Conservative party in general and Mrs May in particular.
I would say it is actually worse for it in the longer term......she is juts putting off the tough decisions,, a bit like Cameron from 2010-2016, the split will happen between sceptics and
No, its reality. Our trade with the EU will continue on more or less the current level almost regardless of whether we have a deal, BINO, a currency union, the currency union, whatever. Trade barriers are marginal in the modern world. NTBs can be more of a hindrance but as all our manufacturers are currently 100% compliant with EU/our standards that really is not an issue for the foreseeable future.
This whole debate is taking place with a level of hysteria that is both counterproductive and disproportionate with completely extravagant claims on both sides. It is a proxy for having a neverendum on EU membership. Its just absurd.
While there's something in that, both economics and politics tend to be about what happens at the margins. And the effect on people's lives caused by the difference between 1% growth and no growth is quite significant for those existing on the margin - less so for (say) Charles ...or me.
As Robert and others have pointed out repeatedly our own domestic policies are far, far more significant for those at the margins. Will we invest more in infrastructure, improve our educational system, encourage investment rather than consumption, run a sane economic policy, make UC work in a compassionate way, build more houses...all of these will affect people at the margins more than a customs union.
At the risk of agreeing with @Alastair_Meeks by far the biggest cost of Brexit is the distraction from the real issues we face. In the long run it will probably be worth it but years of government paralysis are undoubtedly a heavy price to pay.
How on earth can you suggest that it will "probably be worth it"? This last week has established that Leavers don't accept the validity of projections for the future and anyone who pays any attention to any gets slapped down.
I think that's the question sorted for the second referendum:
Q: Do you support leaving the EU, including the customs union and single market, as it is probably worth it in the long term, but there will be years of paralysis in the short term? YES NO
But somehow, magically, not being in the Customs Union or the Single Market will make it much more difficult to export to the EU? It makes no sense whatsoever.
Oh dear.
Ask the car manufacturers if leaving the single market makes things "much more difficult" then get back to us
McLaren have already relocated their carbon composites factory from a supplier in Austria to their own facility in Sheffield, onshoring a bunch of very skilled jobs in the process. These things work both ways. https://twitter.com/McLarenAuto/status/953536565707460608
Saw that beast being tested in South Africa a couple of weeks ago. Looks and sounds incredible.
"On and on and on it goes Where it stops no one knows"
We could have voted to leave the EU and remain in a Customs Union but what would have been the point ? Oddly enough, had Cameron come back with a proposal to leave the political institutions of the EU and remain in the Customs Union, he'd probably have won the referendum comfortably.
Time and politics have moved on - the belief in Whitehall is clearly that a wholly independent UK will be able to strike more advantageous trade deals round the world than as part of the EU. It is part of the "Global Britain" strategy of turning away from the EU and facing out into the world.
It's not a risk free strategy - I suspect most countries will negotiate with the UK on the basis of what's best for them not what's best for the UK. I imagine some free trade deals will be announced as soon as we leave the EU next spring while others will take much longer.
My problem is not the theory but the politics that flow from that - one can already hear the siren voices of those advocating a low tax, low regulation economy as a prerequisite for global competition encouraging companies to invest here with an abolition of corporation tax and low personal taxes for high earners.
How that resolves the public finances is unclear so presumably the corollary is or will be deep spending cuts and pushing more of the provision ("responsibility") onto individuals via mandatory health insurance (perhaps) or compulsory saving (maybe) as well as the erosion of other workers' rights and benefits (leave for part time workers).
That's not a Britain I want to live in nor should it be one to which we aspire. We can and should be so much better than that. I'd rather be selling ourselves as "Quality Britain" rather than "Cheap Britain" or "Tax Haven Britain" and that will mean higher taxes and improved public services with investment in education and infrastructure to create a place where people will want to come and do business not because it's cheap but because it's the best.
This morning Theresa May has made a statement that we are leaving the customs union and that is now being widely reported as the Government position and the media are at last having to explain the pros and cons. To be fair to Adam Boulton, who is a very committed remainer, he really made a good case that any other action would not be in the spirit of the referendum.
The remainers are out in force this morning fighting a rearguard action but the die is cast and I cannot see how TM can now change this decision without standing down and of course the result of that is likely to result in Boris or JRM becoming PM
But Ireland have a veto on the deal. No customs union, then there's a border and the deal is off.
So they veto an organised, transitional, carefully constructed no customs union arrangement to make sure they get a disorderly no customs union arrangement?
This morning Theresa May has made a statement that we are leaving the customs union and that is now being widely reported as the Government position and the media are at last having to explain the pros and cons. To be fair to Adam Boulton, who is a very committed remainer, he really made a good case that any other action would not be in the spirit of the referendum.
The remainers are out in force this morning fighting a rearguard action but the die is cast and I cannot see how TM can now change this decision without standing down and of course the result of that is likely to result in Boris or JRM becoming PM
Yep - I don’t think she can change her mind either.. But if we are leaving SM and CU only after transition period - then that is ages away...
If she can get agreement on a longer transition from the Brexiteers, with a promise that when we leave it is super hard Brexit - then she may be able to thread the needle.
Yes and as I recall she has made the 50 billion conditional on a trade agreement in principal. She cannot give the EU that money without some kind of trade deal so maybe a longer transition makes sense.
It is a pity that the remainers can't just accept we are leaving and of course make a case to rejoin if they so wish. It is inconceivable that we will not now leave the EU.
A longer transition risks running into GE2022. If there is one thing that will concentrate Con Leave minds, it's the possibility of Starmer taking over the negotiations before they're complete.
is what many Cons leavers seem to ignore.
I appreciate Jezza might well still be at the helm, but hell, he has travelled a long way from many positions, and could easily decide to go the stay in (or SM/CU) route if it gets him into No. 10.
I think JC and JM are a dangerous pair of people, but I'd still be tempted to vote Labour - for the first time ever - if they pledged to keep us in the SM & CU. I think the damage that they could do would be counterbalanced by the benefit of staying in the EU.
Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: "Don't do that - I might give you my support if you stay in!" Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: "Why don't you reconsider?" Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: I've heard you're reconsidering." Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: "What about a customs union that exactly mimics the customs union?" Government: "We're leaving the customs union and not replacing it with any other customs union" Remainers: "Oh my God they are all over the place!"
Mr. Dawning, disagree it's a certainty. They have to make the final two. Mogg's getting lots of coverage but does he have MP support? Does he even want to be leader?
If he *did* get to the final two I agree he'd have an excellent chance.
This morning Theresa May has made a statement that we are leaving the customs union and that is now being widely reported as the Government position and the media are at last having to explain the pros and cons. To be fair to Adam Boulton, who is a very committed remainer, he really made a good case that any other action would not be in the spirit of the referendum.
The remainers are out in force this morning fighting a rearguard action but the die is cast and I cannot see how TM can now change this decision without standing down and of course the result of that is likely to result in Boris or JRM becoming PM
No, its reality. Our trade with the EU will continue on more or less the current level almost regardless of whether we have a deal, BINO, a currency union, the currency union, whatever. Trade barriers are marginal in the modern world. NTBs can be more of a hindrance but as all our manufacturers are currently 100% compliant with EU/our standards that really is not an issue for the foreseeable future.
This whole debate is taking place with a level of hysteria that is both counterproductive and disproportionate with completely extravagant claims on both sides. It is a proxy for having a neverendum on EU membership. Its just absurd.
While there's something in that, both economics and politics tend to be about what happens at the margins. And the effect on people's lives caused by the difference between 1% growth and no growth is quite significant for those existing on the margin - less so for (say) Charles ...or me.
As Robert and others have pointed out repeatedly our own domestic policies are far, far more significant for those at the margins. Will we invest more in infrastructure, improve our educational system, encourage investment rather than consumption, run a sane economic policy, make UC work in a compassionate way, build more houses...all of these will affect people at the margins more than a customs union.
At the risk of agreeing with @Alastair_Meeks by far the biggest cost of Brexit is the distraction from the real issues we face. In the long run it will probably be worth it but years of government paralysis are undoubtedly a heavy price to pay.
How on earth can you suggest that it will "probably be worth it"? This last week has established that Leavers don't accept the validity of projections for the future and anyone who pays any attention to any gets slapped down.
The projections use a model which is sound but depends on the assumptions which are input. As with any model, garbage in, garbage out. Conscious or unconscious bias exists when inputting assumptions.
This morning Theresa May has made a statement that we are leaving the customs union and that is now being widely reported as the Government position and the media are at last having to explain the pros and cons. To be fair to Adam Boulton, who is a very committed remainer, he really made a good case that any other action would not be in the spirit of the referendum.
The remainers are out in force this morning fighting a rearguard action but the die is cast and I cannot see how TM can now change this decision without standing down and of course the result of that is likely to result in Boris or JRM becoming PM
But Ireland have a veto on the deal. No customs union, then there's a border and the deal is off.
Uk negotiations have started with the closest possible arrangement with the EU and are drifing towards WTO terms.
Instead the UK should have started with WTO terms and negotiated from this strong position towards a more frictionless deal with the EU.
This morning Theresa May has made a statement that we are leaving the customs union and that is now being widely reported as the Government position and the media are at last having to explain the pros and cons. To be fair to Adam Boulton, who is a very committed remainer, he really made a good case that any other action would not be in the spirit of the referendum.
The remainers are out in force this morning fighting a rearguard action but the die is cast and I cannot see how TM can now change this decision without standing down and of course the result of that is likely to result in Boris or JRM becoming PM
Yep - I don’t think she can change her mind either.. But if we are leaving SM and CU only after transition period - then that is ages away...
If she can get agreement on a longer transition from the Brexiteers, with a promise that when we leave it is super hard Brexit - then she may be able to thread the needle.
Yes and as I recall she has made the 50 billion conditional on a trade agreement in principal. She cannot give the EU that money without some kind of trade deal so maybe a longer transition makes sense.
It is a pity that the remainers can't just accept we are leaving and of course make a case to rejoin if they so wish. It is inconceivable that we will not now leave the EU.
A longer transition risks running into GE2022. If there is one thing that will concentrate Con Leave minds, it's the possibility of Starmer taking over the negotiations before they're complete.
is what many Cons leavers seem to ignore.
I appreciate Jezza might well still be at the helm, but hell, he has travelled a long way from many positions, and could easily decide to go the stay in (or SM/CU) route if it gets him into No. 10.
I think JC and JM are a dangerous pair of people, but I'd still be tempted to vote Labour - for the first time ever - if they pledged to keep us in the SM & CU. I think the damage that they could do would be counterbalanced by the benefit of staying in the EU.
It is unlikely to be an option as Brexit will have taken place by the time of the next election. They could of course advocate re-joining the EU
No, its reality. Our trade with the EU will continue on more or less the current level almost regardless of whether we have a deal, BINO, a currency union, the currency union, whatever. Trade barriers are marginal in the modern world. NTBs can be more of a hindrance but as all our manufacturers are currently 100% compliant with EU/our standards that really is not an issue for the foreseeable future.
This whole debate is taking place with a level of hysteria that is both counterproductive and disproportionate with completely extravagant claims on both sides. It is a proxy for having a neverendum on EU membership. Its just absurd.
While there's something in that, both economics and politics tend to be about what happens at the margins. And the effect on people's lives caused by the difference between 1% growth and no growth is quite significant for those existing on the margin - less so for (say) Charles ...or me.
As Robert and others have pointed out repeatedly our own domestic policies are far, far more significant for those at the margins. Will we invest more in infrastructure, improve our educational system, encourage investment rather than consumption, run a sane economic policy, make UC work in a compassionate way, build more houses...all of these will affect people at the margins more than a customs union.
At the risk of agreeing with @Alastair_Meeks by far the biggest cost of Brexit is the distraction from the real issues we face. In the long run it will probably be worth it but years of government paralysis are undoubtedly a heavy price to pay.
How on earth can you suggest that it will "probably be worth it"? This last week has established that Leavers don't accept the validity of projections for the future and anyone who pays any attention to any gets slapped down.
The projections use a model which is sound but depends on the assumptions which are input. As with any model, garbage in, garbage out. Conscious or unconscious bias exists when inputting assumptions.
I seem to remember that Remainers were projecting an immediate recession the moment we voted to leave.....
This morning Theresa May has made a statement that we are leaving the customs union and that is now being widely reported as the Government position and the media are at last having to explain the pros and cons. To be fair to Adam Boulton, who is a very committed remainer, he really made a good case that any other action would not be in the spirit of the referendum.
The remainers are out in force this morning fighting a rearguard action but the die is cast and I cannot see how TM can now change this decision without standing down and of course the result of that is likely to result in Boris or JRM becoming PM
Yep - I don’t think she can change her mind either.. But if we are leaving SM and CU only after transition period - then that is ages away...
If she can get agreement on a longer transition from the Brexiteers, with a promise that when we leave it is super hard Brexit - then she may be able to thread the needle.
Yes and as I recall she has made the 50 billion conditional on a trade agreement in principal. She cannot give the EU that money without some kind of trade deal so maybe a longer transition makes sense.
It is a pity that the remainers can't just accept we are leaving and of course make a case to rejoin if they so wish. It is inconceivable that we will not now leave the EU.
A longer transition risks running into GE2022. If there is one thing that will concentrate Con Leave minds, it's the possibility of Starmer taking over the negotiations before they're complete.
is what many Cons leavers seem to ignore.
I appreciate Jezza might well still be at the helm, but hell, he has travelled a long way from many positions, and could easily decide to go the stay in (or SM/CU) route if it gets him into No. 10.
Yes, Labours positioning is tactical, waiting to see what is in the national and their party's best interest. No wonder this doesn't compute for leavers.
This morning Theresa May has made a statement that we are leaving the customs union and that is now being widely reported as the Government position and the media are at last having to explain the pros and cons. To be fair to Adam Boulton, who is a very committed remainer, he really made a good case that any other action would not be in the spirit of the referendum.
The remainers are out in force this morning fighting a rearguard action but the die is cast and I cannot see how TM can now change this decision without standing down and of course the result of that is likely to result in Boris or JRM becoming PM
Yep - I don’t think she can change her mind either.. But if we are leaving SM and CU only after transition period - then that is ages away...
If she can get agreement on a longer transition from the Brexiteers, with a promise that when we leave it is super hard Brexit - then she may be able to thread the needle.
Yes and as I recall she has made the 50 billion conditional on a trade agreement in principal. She cannot give the EU that money without some kind of trade deal so maybe a longer transition makes sense.
It is a pity that the remainers can't just accept we are leaving and of course make a case to rejoin if they so wish. It is inconceivable that we will not now leave the EU.
A longer transition risks running into GE2022. If there is one thing that will concentrate Con Leave minds, it's the possibility of Starmer taking over the negotiations before they're complete.
is what many Cons leavers seem to ignore.
I appreciate Jezza might well still be at the helm, but hell, he has travelled a long way from many positions, and could easily decide to go the stay in (or SM/CU) route if it gets him into No. 10.
I think JC and JM are a dangerous pair of people, but I'd still be tempted to vote Labour - for the first time ever - if they pledged to keep us in the SM & CU. I think the damage that they could do would be counterbalanced by the benefit of staying in the EU.
It is unlikely to be an option as Brexit will have taken place by the time of the next election. They could of course advocate re-joining the EU
As Vince Cable has pointed out, Remainers may not want to argue for re-joining the EU because the terms will be different eg having to commit to joining the euro, no rebates etc
Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: "Don't do that - I might give you my support if you stay in!" Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: "Why don't you reconsider?" Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: I've heard you're reconsidering." Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: "What about a customs union that exactly mimics the customs union?" Government: "We're leaving the customs union and not replacing it with any other customs union" Remainers: "Oh my God they are all over the place!"
+1
As an account of governmental consistency, that seem just a tad disingenuous...
This morning Theresa May has made a statement that we are leaving the customs union and that is now being widely reported as the Government position and the media are at last having to explain the pros and cons. To be fair to Adam Boulton, who is a very committed remainer, he really made a good case that any other action would not be in the spirit of the referendum.
The remainers are out in force this morning fighting a rearguard action but the die is cast and I cannot see how TM can now change this decision without standing down and of course the result of that is likely to result in Boris or JRM becoming PM
But Ireland have a veto on the deal. No customs union, then there's a border and the deal is off.
Uk negotiations have started with the closest possible arrangement with the EU and are drifing towards WTO terms.
Instead the UK should have started with WTO terms and negotiated from this strong position towards a more frictionless deal with the EU.
The Brexit strategy has moved on to "I wouldn't start from here".
We can't start from WTO terms unless we have the infrastructure to make it credible. In the meantime while building the infrastructure, we'd suffer the economic losses anyway because the real world won't sit around waiting for you to be in a position to bluff.
This morning Theresa May has made a statement that we are leaving the customs union and that is now being widely reported as the Government position and the media are at last having to explain the pros and cons. To be fair to Adam Boulton, who is a very committed remainer, he really made a good case that any other action would not be in the spirit of the referendum.
The remainers are out in force this morning fighting a rearguard action but the die is cast and I cannot see how TM can now change this decision without standing down and of course the result of that is likely to result in Boris or JRM becoming PM
Yep - I don’t think she can change her mind either.. But if we are leaving SM and CU only after transition period - then that is ages away...
If she can get agreement on a longer transition from the Brexiteers, with a promise that when we leave it is super hard Brexit - then she may be able to thread the needle.
Yes and as I recall she has made the 50 billion conditional on a trade agreement in principal. She cannot give the EU that money without some kind of trade deal so maybe a longer transition makes sense.
It is a pity that the remainers can't just accept we are leaving and of course make a case to rejoin if they so wish. It is inconceivable that we will not now leave the EU.
A longer transition risks running into GE2022. If there is one thing that will concentrate Con Leave minds, it's the possibility of Starmer taking over the negotiations before they're complete.
is what many Cons leavers seem to ignore.
I appreciate Jezza might well still be at the helm, but hell, he has travelled a long way from many positions, and could easily decide to go the stay in (or SM/CU) route if it gets him into No. 10.
Yes, Labours positioning is tactical, waiting to see what is in the national and their party's best interest. No wonder this doesn't compute for leavers.
So Corbyn might go into the next election promising voters that he will take us into the Single Market, -and thus restore freedom of movement and unlimited immigration?
I think Remoaners believe in DINO -democracy in name only.
What the voters really voted for, they argue is that we leave the EU, but that we remain under its control.
Who is arguing for that? If that's not what you want, where do you want to put the customs border with Ireland? Perhaps you could organise a collective of Brexiteers to go over and start work on some of the customs posts...
Why is is it essential to honour the Leave campaign's commitment to leave the single market and customs union but not to honour the campaign's pledge for £350 m per week to the NHS?
Both Gove and Johnson voted against an amendment to give £350m to the NHS.
If they ignore that part of the campaign they can ignore other parts of the campaign.
This morning Theresa May has made a statement that we are leaving the customs union and that is now being widely reported as the Government position and the media are at last having to explain the pros and cons. To be fair to Adam Boulton, who is a very committed remainer, he really made a good case that any other action would not be in the spirit of the referendum.
The remainers are out in force this morning fighting a rearguard action but the die is cast and I cannot see how TM can now change this decision without standing down and of course the result of that is likely to result in Boris or JRM becoming PM
Yep - I don’t think she can change her mind either.. But if we are leaving SM and CU only after transition period - then that is ages away...
If she can get agreement on a longer transition from the Brexiteers, with a promise that when we leave it is super hard Brexit - then she may be able to thread the needle.
Yes and as I recall she has made the 50 billion conditional on a trade agreement in principal. She cannot give the EU that money without some kind of trade deal so maybe a longer transition makes sense.
It is a pity that the remainers can't just accept we are leaving and of course make a case to rejoin if they so wish. It is inconceivable that we will not now leave the EU.
A longer transition risks running into GE2022. If there is one thing that will concentrate Con Leave minds, it's the possibility of Starmer taking over the negotiations before they're complete.
is what many Cons leavers seem to ignore.
I appreciate Jezza might well still be at the helm, but hell, he has travelled a long way from many positions, and could easily decide to go the stay in (or SM/CU) route if it gets him into No. 10.
Yes, Labours positioning is tactical, waiting to see what is in the national and their party's best interest. No wonder this doesn't compute for leavers.
So Corbyn might go into the next election promising voters that he will take us into the Single Market, -and thus restore freedom of movement and unlimited immigration?
Blimmin heck, make up your mind: will there be a Brexit bonus, or is the cost of Brexit a price worth paying?
I’ve always been consistent
A cost and it's worth it?
Absolutely fair enough. If the government were to be as honest, then we could at least get on with it.
An analogy is redeploying capital from a mature business to a new growth opportunity. There’s a short term opportunity cost (not an absolute cost) but long term we will be better off (assuming we execute effectively). When the cross over is I don’t know and it doesn’t matter - I tend to think on a multi-generational basis
Sadly for us, Charles, you know what happens in the long run.
Plus, on the more formal point, discounted to today, there is no point making a gain in XX years time if today's benefit is trivial.
I’ve worked with an investor who makes all there decisions based on an assumption that they will hold assets for eternity...
As for the long run, the individual is not important: we are all but links in a chain
The investor would not undertake an NPV-negative project, though, would he/she?
They have forgone NPV-positive projects (specifically this is the Diocese of London which refuses to sell freeholds inside the City)
That's fine. But they would not undertake an NPV-negative one.
That is what we are talking about here. A future benefit means nothing if today's value is negative. As theyere.
Brexiteers believe it is NPV positive - the future upside offsets the expected lower growth from the EU market
Steve Baker made it very clear that Leavers don't believe in any future projections. They're doing this because they want to, not because they have any evidence it's going to be good for Britain.
Indeed. Because there is no evidence at all. The only model to suggest there might be is Patrick Minford’s which assumes we’ll be importing all our food from China and that we’ll need to close down the entire North of England.
Charles seems to be arguing that Brexit will benefit us in the hereafter. But we have long known Brexit was theology not reality.
No - I’m saying in a 50 or hundred year view that UK will be a better place for not being part of the EU.
Long enough in opposition for even the Tories to sort themselves out
This morning Theresa May has made a statement that we are leaving the customs union and that is now being widely reported as the Government position and the media are at last having to explain the pros and cons. To be fair to Adam Boulton, who is a very committed remainer, he really made a good case that any other action would not be in the spirit of the referendum.
The remainers are out in force this morning fighting a rearguard action but the die is cast and I cannot see how TM can now change this decision without standing down and of course the result of that is likely to result in Boris or JRM becoming PM
Yep - I don’t think she can change her mind either.. But if we are leaving SM and CU only after transition period - then that is ages away...
If she can get agreement on a longer transition from the Brexiteers, with a promise that when we leave it is super hard Brexit - then she may be able to thread the needle.
Yes and as I recall she has made the 50 billion conditional on a trade agreement in principal. She cannot give the EU that money without some kind of trade deal so maybe a longer transition makes sense.
It is a pity that the remainers can't just accept we are leaving and of course make a case to rejoin if they so wish. It is inconceivable that we will not now leave the EU.
A longer transition risks running into GE2022. If there is one thing that will concentrate Con Leave minds, it's the possibility of Starmer taking over the negotiations before they're complete.
is what many Cons leavers seem to ignore.
I appreciate Jezza might well still be at the helm, but hell, he has travelled a long way from many positions, and could easily decide to go the stay in (or SM/CU) route if it gets him into No. 10.
Yes, Labours positioning is tactical, waiting to see what is in the national and their party's best interest. No wonder this doesn't compute for leavers.
So Corbyn might go into the next election promising voters that he will take us into the Single Market, -and thus restore freedom of movement and unlimited immigration?
- Being outside the Customs Union has very little bearing on the customs infrastructure question at the Irish border. The UK government aim is to have an agreement with our EU friends which minimises paperwork, and which relies on mutual recognition of administrative processes. The uncertainty on whether this is attainable is entirely because the negotiations haven't started yet. The responsibility for the fact that they haven't started yet lies with the EU, who refused the UK's request to start them over a year ago
And Varadkar who stopped the work his predecessor had started.
Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: "Don't do that - I might give you my support if you stay in!" Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: "Why don't you reconsider?" Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: I've heard you're reconsidering." Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: "What about a customs union that exactly mimics the customs union?" Government: "We're leaving the customs union and not replacing it with any other customs union" Remainers: "Oh my God they are all over the place!"
+1
As an account of governmental consistency, that seem just a tad disingenuous...
I do not want Britain to be part of the Common Commercial Policy and I do not want us to be bound by the Common External Tariff. These are the elements of the Customs Union that prevent us from striking our own comprehensive trade agreements with other countries. But I do want us to have a customs agreement with the EU. Whether that means we must reach a completely new customs agreement, become an associate member of the Customs Union in some way, or remain a signatory to some elements of it, I hold no preconceived position. I have an open mind on how we do it. It is not the means that matter, but the ends.
The Lancaster House speech.
May has now ruled out any kind of Customs Union with the EU. She has therefore changed her approach.
This morning Theresa May has made a statement that we are leaving the customs union and that is now being widely reported as the Government position and the media are at last having to explain the pros and cons. To be fair to Adam Boulton, who is a very committed remainer, he really made a good case that any other action would not be in the spirit of the referendum.
The remainers are out in force this morning fighting a rearguard action but the die is cast and I cannot see how TM can now change this decision without standing down and of course the result of that is likely to result in Boris or JRM becoming PM
Yep - I don’t think she can change her mind either.. But if we are leaving SM and CU only after transition period - then that is ages away...
If she can get agreement on a longer transition from the Brexiteers, with a promise that when we leave it is super hard Brexit - then she may be able to thread the needle.
Yes and as I recall she has made the 50 billion conditional on a trade agreement in principal. She cannot give the EU that money without some kind of trade deal so maybe a longer transition makes sense.
It is a pity that the remainers can't just accept we are leaving and of course make a case to rejoin if they so wish. It is inconceivable that we will not now leave the EU.
A longer transition risks running into GE2022. If there is one thing that will concentrate Con Leave minds, it's the possibility of Starmer taking over the negotiations before they're complete.
is what many Cons leavers seem to ignore.
I appreciate Jezza might well still be at the helm, but hell, he has travelled a long way from many positions, and could easily decide to go the stay in (or SM/CU) route if it gets him into No. 10.
Yes, Labours positioning is tactical, waiting to see what is in the national and their party's best interest. No wonder this doesn't compute for leavers.
So Corbyn might go into the next election promising voters that he will take us into the Single Market, -and thus restore freedom of movement and unlimited immigration?
Good luck with that
Unlimited immigration, and a house for all those arriving who don't have one.
Oh, and he's taking your garden to build those houses.
I'm quite looking forward to the next election....
- Being outside the Customs Union has very little bearing on the customs infrastructure question at the Irish border. The UK government aim is to have an agreement with our EU friends which minimises paperwork, and which relies on mutual recognition of administrative processes. The uncertainty on whether this is attainable is entirely because the negotiations haven't started yet. The responsibility for the fact that they haven't started yet lies with the EU, who refused the UK's request to start them over a year ago
And Varadkar who stopped the work his predecessor had started.
How would Varadkar have been able to help with the hypothetical example of a shipment arriving in Genoa detailed here:
Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: "Don't do that - I might give you my support if you stay in!" Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: "Why don't you reconsider?" Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: I've heard you're reconsidering." Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: "What about a customs union that exactly mimics the customs union?" Government: "We're leaving the customs union and not replacing it with any other customs union" Remainers: "Oh my God they are all over the place!"
+1
As an account of governmental consistency, that seem just a tad disingenuous...
I do not want Britain to be part of the Common Commercial Policy and I do not want us to be bound by the Common External Tariff. These are the elements of the Customs Union that prevent us from striking our own comprehensive trade agreements with other countries. But I do want us to have a customs agreement with the EU. Whether that means we must reach a completely new customs agreement, become an associate member of the Customs Union in some way, or remain a signatory to some elements of it, I hold no preconceived position. I have an open mind on how we do it. It is not the means that matter, but the ends.
The Lancaster House speech.
May has now ruled out any kind of Customs Union with the EU. She has therefore changed her approach.
A customs union has a single external tariff, it's a defining feature.
The only option which was on the table which has been ruled out is whereby we acceded to the CET only in respect of some but not all products, e.g. manufactured goods.
Feels like CCHQ have concluded that the Rees-Mogg/UWE incident was a net positive. Has to be said, a lot of that was down to JRM's restraint - setting up the potential for more similar protests is not without risk.
Feels like CCHQ have concluded that the Rees-Mogg/UWE incident was a net positive. Has to be said, a lot of that was down to JRM's restraint - setting up the potential for more similar protests is not without risk.
JRM looked very courageous the way he very calmly and politely walked TOWARDS the baying mob... It's hard to imagine that many politicians keeping calm like that.
I don't understand. That's exactly the response I would expect them to give.
It's what the vast majority of people would say.
Is this “highly streamlined technology based” solution' from the same stable as the NHS IT project?
I mean I really have no idea the likelihood that we can deliver a workable technical solution, but you are right to say based on past performance it should not be assumed
This morning Theresa May has made a statement that we are leaving the customs union and that is now being widely reported as the Government position and the media are at last having to explain the pros and cons. To be fair to Adam Boulton, who is a very committed remainer, he really made a good case that any other action would not be in the spirit of the referendum.
The remainers are out in force this morning fighting a rearguard action but the die is cast and I cannot see how TM can now change this decision without standing down and of course the result of that is likely to result in Boris or JRM becoming PM
Yep - I don’t think she can change her mind either.. But if we are leaving SM and CU only after transition period - then that is ages away...
If she can get agreement on a longer transition from the Brexiteers, with a promise that when we leave it is super hard Brexit - then she may be able to thread the needle.
Yes and as I recall she has made the 50 billion conditional on a trade agreement in principal. She cannot give the EU that money without some kind of trade deal so maybe a longer transition makes sense.
It is a pity that the remainers can't just accept we are leaving and of course make a case to rejoin if they so wish. It is inconceivable that we will not now leave the EU.
A longer transition risks running into GE2022. If there is one thing that will concentrate Con Leave minds, it's the possibility of Starmer taking over the negotiations before they're complete.
is what many Cons leavers seem to ignore.
I appreciate Jezza might well still be at the helm, but hell, he has travelled a long way from many positions, and could easily decide to go the stay in (or SM/CU) route if it gets him into No. 10.
Yes, Labours positioning is tactical, waiting to see what is in the national and their party's best interest. No wonder this doesn't compute for leavers.
So Corbyn might go into the next election promising voters that he will take us into the Single Market, -and thus restore freedom of movement and unlimited immigration?
Good luck with that
I would imagine by that stage Britain will not be an appealing destination for anyone. The opportunities afforded to exporters and emigrants, on the other hand...
" Traditionally in government it is the job of the prime minister to decide between competing factions. To lead is to choose, as they say. But with a split party and no majority, such an approach is fraught with danger for Theresa May. She prefers instead to fudge to survive. "
Gove now best-priced at 12-1.Of the 3 ST Brexiteer amigos,Gove looks the most likely to me even though he does have the face of a fish.
I wonder whether Boris has drifted too far? For all his faults as an administrator, he's a good campaigner and in an election, that matters. Gove, on the other hand, is entirely untested in that environment. Which wins in a fight between visceral and cerebral?
Gove now best-priced at 12-1.Of the 3 ST Brexiteer amigos,Gove looks the most likely to me even though he does have the face of a fish.
I wonder whether Boris has drifted too far? For all his faults as an administrator, he's a good campaigner and in an election, that matters. Gove, on the other hand, is entirely untested in that environment. Which wins in a fight between visceral and cerebral?
Boris is the only one of the Brexiteers that has sufficient groundswell of support, even now. I know party members who would die in a ditch for Boris.... The Moggster? After Boris maybe, but not before.
Gove now best-priced at 12-1.Of the 3 ST Brexiteer amigos,Gove looks the most likely to me even though he does have the face of a fish.
I wonder whether Boris has drifted too far? For all his faults as an administrator, he's a good campaigner and in an election, that matters. Gove, on the other hand, is entirely untested in that environment. Which wins in a fight between visceral and cerebral?
Boris is the only one of the Brexiteers that has sufficient groundswell of support, even now. I know party members who would die in a ditch for Boris.... The Moggster? After Boris maybe, but not before.
Making the final 2 would likely be the biggest barrier for Boris. I don't have a sense of how popular he is with Tory MPs, but I do know he keeps finding ways to alienate them
This morning Theresa May has made a statement that we are leaving the customs union and that is now being widely reported as the Government position and the media are at last having to explain the pros and cons. To be fair to Adam Boulton, who is a very committed remainer, he really made a good case that any other action would not be in the spirit of the referendum.
The remainers are out in force this morning fighting a rearguard action but the die is cast and I cannot see how TM can now change this decision without standing down and of course the result of that is likely to result in Boris or JRM becoming PM
Yep - I don’t think she can change her mind either.. But if we are leaving SM and CU only after transition period - then that is ages away...
If she can get agreement on a longer transition from the Brexiteers, with a promise that when we leave it is super hard Brexit - then she may be able to thread the needle.
Yes and as I recall she has made the 50 billion conditional on a trade agreement in principal. She cannot give the EU that money without some kind of trade deal so maybe a longer transition makes sense.
It is a pity that the remainers can't just accept we are leaving and of course make a case to rejoin if they so wish. It is inconceivable that we will not now leave the EU.
A longer transition risks running into GE2022. If there is one thing that will concentrate Con Leave minds, it's the possibility of Starmer taking over the negotiations before they're complete.
is what many Cons leavers seem to ignore.
I appreciate Jezza might well still be at the helm, but hell, he has travelled a long way from many positions, and could easily decide to go the stay in (or SM/CU) route if it gets him into No. 10.
Yes, Labours positioning is tactical, waiting to see what is in the national and their party's best interest. No wonder this doesn't compute for leavers.
So Corbyn might go into the next election promising voters that he will take us into the Single Market, -and thus restore freedom of movement and unlimited immigration?
Good luck with that
I would imagine by that stage Britain will not be an appealing destination for anyone. The opportunities afforded to exporters and emigrants, on the other hand...
But you dont know that. Britain might be making a big success of Brexit
But somehow, magically, not being in the Customs Union or the Single Market will make it much more difficult to export to the EU? It makes no sense whatsoever.
Oh dear.
Ask the car manufacturers if leaving the single market makes things "much more difficult" then get back to us
McLaren have already relocated their carbon composites factory from a supplier in Austria to their own facility in Sheffield, onshoring a bunch of very skilled jobs in the process. These things work both ways. https://twitter.com/McLarenAuto/status/953536565707460608
The trouble from a political point of view is that if I get a highly paid job I attribute it to the natural recognition of my talents that the world owes me. If I lose a highly paid job it's the fault of bad decisions by other people including the government.
We can all agree that Brexit will be a big upheaval and will have winners and losers. The problem for the Conservatives is they won't get much credit from the winners but they'll get a lot of debit from the losers.
Even if it was a sensible idea and was in some ways a 'success', it was still going to lose its advocates a shed load of votes.
But you dont know that. Britain might be making a big success of Brexit
All* the evidence points to the UK being worse off, with a weaker currency. Remittances to the Europe are worth less to immigrants in their home currency, and there are likely to be less jobs for e.g. Polish builders as disposable income falls.
So you might be right, but it's damned unlikely.
* Other than unsubstantiated wishful thinking by Leavers
This is the sort of garbage we are getting from Remoaners : where a respected newspaper (allegedly the "guardian" of our liberties, openly calls for the halting of a Brexit which a majority of people voted for -and justifying it on the spurious grounds of national interest.
This is a very dangerous for democracy. Where it would all end if we can overturn democratic elections on the grounds of national interest. What the Guardian say for example if a group of right wingers were to argue that if Jeremy Corbyn were to win the next election on 42% of the vote (10% below the Leave vote in 2016) we should have a military coup "in the national interest"?
This is the sort of garbage we are getting from Remoaners : where a respected newspaper (allegedly the "guardian" of our liberties, openly calls for the halting of a Brexit which a majority of people voted for -and justifying it on the spurious grounds of national interest.
This is a very dangerous for democracy. Where it would all end if we can overturn democratic elections on the grounds of national interest. What the Guardian say for example if a group of right wingers were to argue that if Jeremy Corbyn were to win the next election on 42% of the vote (10% below the Leave vote in 2016) we should have a military coup "in the national interest"?
Gove now best-priced at 12-1.Of the 3 ST Brexiteer amigos,Gove looks the most likely to me even though he does have the face of a fish.
I wonder whether Boris has drifted too far? For all his faults as an administrator, he's a good campaigner and in an election, that matters. Gove, on the other hand, is entirely untested in that environment. Which wins in a fight between visceral and cerebral?
Boris is the only one of the Brexiteers that has sufficient groundswell of support, even now. I know party members who would die in a ditch for Boris.... The Moggster? After Boris maybe, but not before.
Making the final 2 would likely be the biggest barrier for Boris. I don't have a sense of how popular he is with Tory MPs, but I do know he keeps finding ways to alienate them
Which candidates *are* popular with MPs? I don't see any which is particularly so. making the final two will, as usual, be at least as much about not being unpopular with them.
This is the sort of garbage we are getting from Remoaners : where a respected newspaper (allegedly the "guardian" of our liberties, openly calls for the halting of a Brexit which a majority of people voted for -and justifying it on the spurious grounds of national interest.
This is a very dangerous for democracy. Where it would all end if we can overturn democratic elections on the grounds of national interest. What the Guardian say for example if a group of right wingers were to argue that if Jeremy Corbyn were to win the next election on 42% of the vote (10% below the Leave vote in 2016) we should have a military coup "in the national interest"?
"The spurious ground of national interest."
Wow. Well at least you've been honest about it.</blockquote
I am honest in my defence of democracy. I dont believe in overthrowing referendum or general election results.
Feels like CCHQ have concluded that the Rees-Mogg/UWE incident was a net positive. Has to be said, a lot of that was down to JRM's restraint - setting up the potential for more similar protests is not without risk.
JRM looked very courageous the way he very calmly and politely walked TOWARDS the baying mob... It's hard to imagine that many politicians keeping calm like that.
The strategy is to deflect from Brexit by talking about free speech - something that is not remotely under threat. Even if the protestors wanted to shut down the event - which I strongly doubt - they didn't have the numbers to do so. Shouting someone down and not letting them get a word in is bad manners, but given that John Humphrys does it on a regular basis without being a threat to free speech.
This is the sort of garbage we are getting from Remoaners : where a respected newspaper (allegedly the "guardian" of our liberties, openly calls for the halting of a Brexit which a majority of people voted for -and justifying it on the spurious grounds of national interest.
This is a very dangerous for democracy. Where it would all end if we can overturn democratic elections on the grounds of national interest. What the Guardian say for example if a group of right wingers were to argue that if Jeremy Corbyn were to win the next election on 42% of the vote (10% below the Leave vote in 2016) we should have a military coup "in the national interest"?
"The spurious ground of national interest."
Wow. Well at least you've been honest about it.
I think a better way of phrasing it would be "spurious ground of asserted national interest".
People have different views of what the national interest is. Higher growth v less inequality; stronger security v civil liberties; lower taxes v higher spending etc. This is why we have elections: to decide whose view of the national interests prevails for the time being.
Isn't the problem with the Guardian's thinking here not that the process should be stopped on the grounds of national interest but that it should be stopped purely on the grounds of what they (and people like them) perceive to be the national interest, without reference to the public at large, who actually took the original decision?
This is the sort of garbage we are getting from Remoaners : where a respected newspaper (allegedly the "guardian" of our liberties, openly calls for the halting of a Brexit which a majority of people voted for -and justifying it on the spurious grounds of national interest.
This is a very dangerous for democracy. Where it would all end if we can overturn democratic elections on the grounds of national interest. What the Guardian say for example if a group of right wingers were to argue that if Jeremy Corbyn were to win the next election on 42% of the vote (10% below the Leave vote in 2016) we should have a military coup "in the national interest"?
"The spurious ground of national interest."
Wow. Well at least you've been honest about it.
I think a better way of phrasing it would be "spurious ground of asserted national interest".
People have different views of what the national interest is. Higher growth v less inequality; stronger security v civil liberties; lower taxes v higher spending etc. This is why we have elections: to decide whose view of the national interests prevails for the time being.
Isn't the problem with the Guardian's thinking here not that the process should be stopped on the grounds of national interest but that it should be stopped purely on the grounds of what they (and people like them) perceive to be the national interest, without reference to the public at large, who actually took the original decision?
Indeed. Any scoundrel can justify what he does on the grounds of national interest. I remember President Nixon justifying a whole host of illegal activities on the grounds of national interest. Every military dictator in history has justified himself on grounds of national interest.
Feels like CCHQ have concluded that the Rees-Mogg/UWE incident was a net positive. Has to be said, a lot of that was down to JRM's restraint - setting up the potential for more similar protests is not without risk.
JRM looked very courageous the way he very calmly and politely walked TOWARDS the baying mob... It's hard to imagine that many politicians keeping calm like that.
The strategy is to deflect from Brexit by talking about free speech - something that is not remotely under threat. Even if the protestors wanted to shut down the event - which I strongly doubt - they didn't have the numbers to do so. Shouting someone down and not letting them get a word in is bad manners, but given that John Humphrys does it on a regular basis without being a threat to free speech.
Sad to see you making excuses for yobs. Suppressing free speech througj intimidation and violence s exactly what the mob was about and you should be ashamed to be defending them.
Isn't the problem with the Guardian's thinking here not that the process should be stopped on the grounds of national interest but that it should be stopped purely on the grounds of what they (and people like them) perceive to be the national interest, without reference to the public at large, who actually took the original decision?
Precisely so. What's more, the grounds seem to be that economic models show that it's better to stay in the EU. However, that's not information which might justify a re-think or a re-run of the referendum, it was information widely available and widely pushed by the Remain camp before the referendum. Voters knew exactly what they were voting for.
This is the sort of garbage we are getting from Remoaners : where a respected newspaper (allegedly the "guardian" of our liberties, openly calls for the halting of a Brexit which a majority of people voted for -and justifying it on the spurious grounds of national interest.
This is a very dangerous for democracy. Where it would all end if we can overturn democratic elections on the grounds of national interest. What the Guardian say for example if a group of right wingers were to argue that if Jeremy Corbyn were to win the next election on 42% of the vote (10% below the Leave vote in 2016) we should have a military coup "in the national interest"?
"The spurious ground of national interest."
Wow. Well at least you've been honest about it.
I think a better way of phrasing it would be "spurious ground of asserted national interest".
People have different views of what the national interest is. Higher growth v less inequality; stronger security v civil liberties; lower taxes v higher spending etc. This is why we have elections: to decide whose view of the national interests prevails for the time being.
Isn't the problem with the Guardian's thinking here not that the process should be stopped on the grounds of national interest but that it should be stopped purely on the grounds of what they (and people like them) perceive to be the national interest, without reference to the public at large, who actually took the original decision?
You're right it should be put to the public at large in a new Referendum once the choices are clear.
This is the sort of garbage we are getting from Remoaners : where a respected newspaper (allegedly the "guardian" of our liberties, openly calls for the halting of a Brexit which a majority of people voted for -and justifying it on the spurious grounds of national interest.
This is a very dangerous for democracy. Where it would all end if we can overturn democratic elections on the grounds of national interest. What the Guardian say for example if a group of right wingers were to argue that if Jeremy Corbyn were to win the next election on 42% of the vote (10% below the Leave vote in 2016) we should have a military coup "in the national interest"?
"The spurious ground of national interest."
Wow. Well at least you've been honest about it.
I think a better way of phrasing it would be "spurious ground of asserted national interest".
People have different views of what the national interest is. Higher growth v less inequality; stronger security v civil liberties; lower taxes v higher spending etc. This is why we have elections: to decide whose view of the national interests prevails for the time being.
Isn't the problem with the Guardian's thinking here not that the process should be stopped on the grounds of national interest but that it should be stopped purely on the grounds of what they (and people like them) perceive to be the national interest, without reference to the public at large, who actually took the original decision?
You're right it should be put to the public at large in a new Referendum once the choices are clear.
The choices were clear in 2016. The Remain booklet sent to all homes at huge public cost stated clearly that a leave vote would mean leaving the Single Market. You just want a second referendum because you lost.
Comments
It is a pity that the remainers can't just accept we are leaving and of course make a case to rejoin if they so wish. It is inconceivable that we will not now leave the EU.
I will leave you to it. Have fun
I appreciate Jezza might well still be at the helm, but hell, he has travelled a long way from many positions, and could easily decide to go the stay in (or SM/CU) route if it gets him into No. 10.
I doubt if Brexit is more divisive than, say, the arguments over extending the franchise to working class men and women.
"“The pace of UK economic growth slowed sharply at the start of the year as January saw a triple whammy of weaker PMI surveys. ....
All together, the PMI surveys point to the slowest pace of expansion since August 2016. “While the fourth quarter PMI readings were historically consistent with the economy growing at a resilient quarterly rate of 0.4-0.5%, in line with the recent GDP estimate, the January number signals a growth rate of just under 0.3% "
https://www.markiteconomics.com/Survey/PressRelease.mvc/e345f5c3bc55418381350ff6bdd7a99e
Not before time, Mr Divvie.
The referee is democracy and he (other sexes are available) has ruled that leave won.
It's natural for economies to have stronger and weaker periods. That's just the business cycle.
Surely you want to stay for that?
Here’s the early front runners.
http://www.selfridges.com/GB/en/cat/gucci-donnie-gg-leather-loafers_5120-10004-0880030109/?previewAttribute=Brown
And
http://www.selfridges.com/GB/en/cat/salvatore-ferragamo-sardenga-buckle-driver-shoes_690-10004-4622600109/?previewAttribute=Black
Q: Do you support leaving the EU, including the customs union and single market, as it is probably worth it in the long term, but there will be years of paralysis in the short term?
YES NO
Bye
"On and on and on it goes
Where it stops no one knows"
We could have voted to leave the EU and remain in a Customs Union but what would have been the point ? Oddly enough, had Cameron come back with a proposal to leave the political institutions of the EU and remain in the Customs Union, he'd probably have won the referendum comfortably.
Time and politics have moved on - the belief in Whitehall is clearly that a wholly independent UK will be able to strike more advantageous trade deals round the world than as part of the EU. It is part of the "Global Britain" strategy of turning away from the EU and facing out into the world.
It's not a risk free strategy - I suspect most countries will negotiate with the UK on the basis of what's best for them not what's best for the UK. I imagine some free trade deals will be announced as soon as we leave the EU next spring while others will take much longer.
My problem is not the theory but the politics that flow from that - one can already hear the siren voices of those advocating a low tax, low regulation economy as a prerequisite for global competition encouraging companies to invest here with an abolition of corporation tax and low personal taxes for high earners.
How that resolves the public finances is unclear so presumably the corollary is or will be deep spending cuts and pushing more of the provision ("responsibility") onto individuals via mandatory health insurance (perhaps) or compulsory saving (maybe) as well as the erosion of other workers' rights and benefits (leave for part time workers).
That's not a Britain I want to live in nor should it be one to which we aspire. We can and should be so much better than that. I'd rather be selling ourselves as "Quality Britain" rather than "Cheap Britain" or "Tax Haven Britain" and that will mean higher taxes and improved public services with investment in education and infrastructure to create a place where people will want to come and do business not because it's cheap but because it's the best.
If he *did* get to the final two I agree he'd have an excellent chance.
https://www.gucci.com/uk/en_gb/pr/men/mens-shoes/mens-moccasins-loafers/gucci-jordaan-jacquard-loafer-p-4300889BL301089?position=31&listName=PGEU4Cols&categoryPath=Men/Mens-Shoes/Mens-Moccasins-Loafers
or
https://www.gucci.com/uk/en_gb/pr/men/mens-shoes/mens-moccasins-loafers/leather-loafer-with-kingsnake-p-429062DLC001000?position=27&listName=PGEU4Cols&categoryPath=Men/Mens-Shoes/Mens-Moccasins-Loafers
https://twitter.com/ArminNavabi/status/958798226622001153
Instead the UK should have started with WTO terms and negotiated from this strong position towards a more frictionless deal with the EU.
What the voters really voted for, they argue is that we leave the EU, but that we remain under its control.
$14bn and upwards, allegedly:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-05/elliott-sees-22-billion-lift-in-value-if-bhp-ditches-london-arm
We can't start from WTO terms unless we have the infrastructure to make it credible. In the meantime while building the infrastructure, we'd suffer the economic losses anyway because the real world won't sit around waiting for you to be in a position to bluff.
Good luck with that
https://tinyurl.com/ybmj7j45
https://twitter.com/mattholehouse/status/960479419465904128
Why is is it essential to honour the Leave campaign's commitment to leave the single market and customs union but not to honour the campaign's pledge for £350 m per week to the NHS?
Both Gove and Johnson voted against an amendment to give £350m to the NHS.
If they ignore that part of the campaign they can ignore other parts of the campaign.
It's what the vast majority of people would say.
Plus suede in Manchester, that's dicing with danger.
The regular Mancunian flash monsoons ruins suede
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/960485478981042176
Whether that means we must reach a completely new customs agreement, become an associate member of the Customs Union in some way, or remain a signatory to some elements of it, I hold no preconceived position. I have an open mind on how we do it. It is not the means that matter, but the ends.
The Lancaster House speech.
May has now ruled out any kind of Customs Union with the EU. She has therefore changed her approach.
Oh, and he's taking your garden to build those houses.
I'm quite looking forward to the next election....
https://www.ft.com/content/aaeb18e2-0a4d-11e8-8eb7-42f857ea9f09
The only option which was on the table which has been ruled out is whereby we acceded to the CET only in respect of some but not all products, e.g. manufactured goods.
https://twitter.com/nadams/status/960488152946434048
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/will-the-day-of-reckoning-come-this-week-rjr70jn82
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-shooting-birds-boris-johnson-michael-gove-brexit-eu-referendum-davos-a7540311.html?amp
That said I did hear Dave has made his peace with Boris.
They both bonded over the fact they had been stabbed in the front by Gove.
https://twitter.com/GOsborneGenius/status/960474005437341698
We can all agree that Brexit will be a big upheaval and will have winners and losers. The problem for the Conservatives is they won't get much credit from the winners but they'll get a lot of debit from the losers.
Even if it was a sensible idea and was in some ways a 'success', it was still going to lose its advocates a shed load of votes.
So you might be right, but it's damned unlikely.
* Other than unsubstantiated wishful thinking by Leavers
This is a very dangerous for democracy. Where it would all end if we can overturn democratic elections on the grounds of national interest. What the Guardian say for example if a group of right wingers were to argue that if Jeremy Corbyn were to win the next election on 42% of the vote (10% below the Leave vote in 2016) we should have a military coup "in the national interest"?
Wow. Well at least you've been honest about it.
People have different views of what the national interest is. Higher growth v less inequality; stronger security v civil liberties; lower taxes v higher spending etc. This is why we have elections: to decide whose view of the national interests prevails for the time being.
Isn't the problem with the Guardian's thinking here not that the process should be stopped on the grounds of national interest but that it should be stopped purely on the grounds of what they (and people like them) perceive to be the national interest, without reference to the public at large, who actually took the original decision?
Those here who are backing Hunt for next PM are looking more and more prescient by the day. Meanwhile, JRM is increasingly obviously out of his depth.