Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Eight months on from GE17 how LAB doing is performing in the p

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited February 9 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Eight months on from GE17 how LAB doing is performing in the polls compared with earlier main opposition parties at the same stage

David Cowling, the leading election analyst and former head of BBC political research, has produced an excellent paper which asks the question of why Corbyn’s Labour is not doing better in the polls.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • First again
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,493
    I don’t understand this table. Labour tallied 40% in June. They seem above that in most polls. How are they 3% behind where they were?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,200

    First again

    WInning here!
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 2,808
    This part of the final paragraph is open to dispute:

    . if Labour cannot put the Conservatives on the canvas when Mrs May is leading them

    May is leading?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,820
    edited February 9
    Fourth like Boris

    Sinking to fifth

    The times we are in, comparisons with past performance and outcomes (whether by government or opposition) seem decreasingly pertinent.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 2,808
    To be slightly more serious than my previous comment when you poll 40% in the GE it is harder to add 5% onto your total than when you poll 35%in a GE. Without GE percentages a bit meaningless.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 9,817

    I don’t understand this table. Labour tallied 40% in June. They seem above that in most polls. How are they 3% behind where they were?

    Per opposed candidate, wasn't it about 41%?

    And the answer to the question is simple - Corbyn's such a divisive figure that the Conservatives start with 40% of the vote even if they propose crazy shit like say a dementia tax.

    However, 2017 was also the fifth consecutive election that the Conservatives increased their vote share. That's a run that seems unlikely to go on forever. I rather suspect the next election will be decided by whose vote falls least. If Corbyn is in place the Conservatives still have a decent chance of being that party.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 9,817
    IanB2 said:

    Fourth like Boris

    Sinking to fifth

    Still 312 places too high in any leadership election.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    To become PM Corbyn needs to take votes from the Tories in Middle England marginals. Not pile up votes in seats Labour already holds (which is where most of the 2017 40% came from).

    If Corbyn Labour was actually making headway where it matters, the Tories would not be on 40% plus in the polls. They would be in the low to mid 30s and Labour in the high 40s. No opposition has ever come to power without being at least 15 points ahead between elections.

    Most governments tend to claw back support from their between election poll lows as general elections approach . Even Major and Brown did so. The Tories will almost certainly poll higher than 40% at the next election, especially since they will have a new leader, better manifesto, better campaign, and Corbyn will be 73 and exposed to vicious Tory forensic analysis. Brexit will be done and dusted, and older people who may have abstained in 2017 believing the Tory victory was "in the bag" will queue round the corner to stop Corbyn.

    Labour should be anticipating these developments. Instead of seeing the 2017 election as a vindication of Corbyn, it should have dumped him and moved forward with a new leader, addressing as it did so why Labour is not trusted on the economy.

    Instead the Labour Titanic chooses to return to its course towards the electoral iceberg.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 9,817
    stevef said:

    The Tories will almost certainly poll higher than 40% at the next election, especially since they will have a new leader, better manifesto, better campaign, and Corbyn will be 73 and exposed to vicious Tory forensic analysis. Brexit will be done and dusted, and older people who may have abstained in 2017 believing the Tory victory was "in the bag" will queue round the corner to stop Corbyn.

    They should have all those things.

    If the last twenty-five years have revealed anything however it is that nobody has ever lost out by betting on the Conservatives to do the most stupid and harmful thing they can.

    IDS was the worst but I am sure we can all think of others.

    While I would be very surprised if a Labour Party led by the Jezziah were to win, it can't be ruled out any more. We are a Boris premiership away from it.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,631
    stevef said:

    To become PM Corbyn needs to take votes from the Tories in Middle England marginals. Not pile up votes in seats Labour already holds (which is where most of the 2017 40% came from).

    If Corbyn Labour was actually making headway where it matters, the Tories would not be on 40% plus in the polls. They would be in the low to mid 30s and Labour in the high 40s. No opposition has ever come to power without being at least 15 points ahead between elections.

    Most governments tend to claw back support from their between election poll lows as general elections approach . Even Major and Brown did so. The Tories will almost certainly poll higher than 40% at the next election, especially since they will have a new leader, better manifesto, better campaign, and Corbyn will be 73 and exposed to vicious Tory forensic analysis. Brexit will be done and dusted, and older people who may have abstained in 2017 believing the Tory victory was "in the bag" will queue round the corner to stop Corbyn.

    Labour should be anticipating these developments. Instead of seeing the 2017 election as a vindication of Corbyn, it should have dumped him and moved forward with a new leader, addressing as it did so why Labour is not trusted on the economy.

    Instead the Labour Titanic chooses to return to its course towards the electoral iceberg.

    I do wonder whether Corbyn's policy package last year was subject to the right level of analysis. At the start of the campaign, no-one expected him to do so well, so perhaps the scrutiny of their manifesto was not as thorough as it would have been if the polling had been closer at the start of things.

    Certainly they can't expect that sort of treatment a second time round - particularly in the area of costings. It is easy to promise everything to everyone when you have no realistic expectation of winning. The costs don't matter if you are never going to implement things. But the electoral maths have changed and so will the level of economic scrutiny.

    It will be a very different dynamic in 2022. Different questions will be asked of a Corbyn Labour Party. They need proper answers.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 21,853
    edited February 9
    edit
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,115
    stevef said:

    To become PM Corbyn needs to take votes from the Tories in Middle England marginals. Not pile up votes in seats Labour already holds (which is where most of the 2017 40% came from).

    If Corbyn Labour was actually making headway where it matters, the Tories would not be on 40% plus in the polls. They would be in the low to mid 30s and Labour in the high 40s. No opposition has ever come to power without being at least 15 points ahead between elections.

    Most governments tend to claw back support from their between election poll lows as general elections approach . Even Major and Brown did so. The Tories will almost certainly poll higher than 40% at the next election, especially since they will have a new leader, better manifesto, better campaign, and Corbyn will be 73 and exposed to vicious Tory forensic analysis. Brexit will be done and dusted, and older people who may have abstained in 2017 believing the Tory victory was "in the bag" will queue round the corner to stop Corbyn.

    Labour should be anticipating these developments. Instead of seeing the 2017 election as a vindication of Corbyn, it should have dumped him and moved forward with a new leader, addressing as it did so why Labour is not trusted on the economy.

    Instead the Labour Titanic chooses to return to its course towards the electoral iceberg.

    The Conservatives ran three pretty inept campaigns in 2010, 2015, and 2017. Don't assume they can't run a fourth.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 21,853
    Labour are averaging 40% in the polls this year so far, which is down just 1% on the general election.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    Sean_F said:

    stevef said:

    To become PM Corbyn needs to take votes from the Tories in Middle England marginals. Not pile up votes in seats Labour already holds (which is where most of the 2017 40% came from).

    If Corbyn Labour was actually making headway where it matters, the Tories would not be on 40% plus in the polls. They would be in the low to mid 30s and Labour in the high 40s. No opposition has ever come to power without being at least 15 points ahead between elections.

    Most governments tend to claw back support from their between election poll lows as general elections approach . Even Major and Brown did so. The Tories will almost certainly poll higher than 40% at the next election, especially since they will have a new leader, better manifesto, better campaign, and Corbyn will be 73 and exposed to vicious Tory forensic analysis. Brexit will be done and dusted, and older people who may have abstained in 2017 believing the Tory victory was "in the bag" will queue round the corner to stop Corbyn.

    Labour should be anticipating these developments. Instead of seeing the 2017 election as a vindication of Corbyn, it should have dumped him and moved forward with a new leader, addressing as it did so why Labour is not trusted on the economy.

    Instead the Labour Titanic chooses to return to its course towards the electoral iceberg.

    The Conservatives ran three pretty inept campaigns in 2010, 2015, and 2017. Don't assume they can't run a fourth.
    The Tory campaign in 2015 was quite clever.

    However, I dont think the Tories will run the disastrous campaign of 2017 -they will have learned those lessons.

    Labour however has learned nothing. Still running its lap of honour, it is sleepwalking towards a famous defeat in 2022.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    AndyJS said:

    Labour are averaging 40% in the polls this year so far, which is down just 1% on the general election.

    ...which it lost, so to be down on that, and tio be down on that at such a bad time for the Tories, is not good.
  • stevef said:

    To become PM Corbyn needs to take votes from the Tories in Middle England marginals. Not pile up votes in seats Labour already holds (which is where most of the 2017 40% came from).

    If Corbyn Labour was actually making headway where it matters, the Tories would not be on 40% plus in the polls. They would be in the low to mid 30s and Labour in the high 40s. No opposition has ever come to power without being at least 15 points ahead between elections.

    Most governments tend to claw back support from their between election poll lows as general elections approach . Even Major and Brown did so. The Tories will almost certainly poll higher than 40% at the next election, especially since they will have a new leader, better manifesto, better campaign, and Corbyn will be 73 and exposed to vicious Tory forensic analysis. Brexit will be done and dusted, and older people who may have abstained in 2017 believing the Tory victory was "in the bag" will queue round the corner to stop Corbyn.

    Labour should be anticipating these developments. Instead of seeing the 2017 election as a vindication of Corbyn, it should have dumped him and moved forward with a new leader, addressing as it did so why Labour is not trusted on the economy.

    Instead the Labour Titanic chooses to return to its course towards the electoral iceberg.

    I do wonder whether Corbyn's policy package last year was subject to the right level of analysis. At the start of the campaign, no-one expected him to do so well, so perhaps the scrutiny of their manifesto was not as thorough as it would have been if the polling had been closer at the start of things.

    Certainly they can't expect that sort of treatment a second time round - particularly in the area of costings. It is easy to promise everything to everyone when you have no realistic expectation of winning. The costs don't matter if you are never going to implement things. But the electoral maths have changed and so will the level of economic scrutiny.

    It will be a very different dynamic in 2022. Different questions will be asked of a Corbyn Labour Party. They need proper answers.
    They are sorting out a run on the pound and capital flight at present. It is surreal
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 21,853
    stevef said:

    AndyJS said:

    Labour are averaging 40% in the polls this year so far, which is down just 1% on the general election.

    ...which it lost, so to be down on that, and tio be down on that at such a bad time for the Tories, is not good.
    Yes but I'm not sure where the -3% figure comes from.
  • AndyJS said:

    stevef said:

    AndyJS said:

    Labour are averaging 40% in the polls this year so far, which is down just 1% on the general election.

    ...which it lost, so to be down on that, and tio be down on that at such a bad time for the Tories, is not good.
    Yes but I'm not sure where the -3% figure comes from.
    The last you gov had con 43 labour 39 = but that is -4
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 21,853

    AndyJS said:

    stevef said:

    AndyJS said:

    Labour are averaging 40% in the polls this year so far, which is down just 1% on the general election.

    ...which it lost, so to be down on that, and tio be down on that at such a bad time for the Tories, is not good.
    Yes but I'm not sure where the -3% figure comes from.
    The last you gov had con 43 labour 39 = but that is -4
    I don't think anyone would ever use a single opinion poll in a study like this, it has to be some sort of average.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,472
    edited February 9

    AndyJS said:

    stevef said:

    AndyJS said:

    Labour are averaging 40% in the polls this year so far, which is down just 1% on the general election.

    ...which it lost, so to be down on that, and tio be down on that at such a bad time for the Tories, is not good.
    Yes but I'm not sure where the -3% figure comes from.
    The last you gov had con 43 labour 39 = but that is -4
    I have clarified this. It refers to the change in Labour's average poll share immediately after the election and now - not what the party secured at GE17. The header has been amended

    Note shares are GB not UK
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,526
    edited February 9
    Corbyn could easily also do well in the next GE campaign but one thing that will definitely be different is he will no longer have the benefit of novelty.

    In the 2017 GE campaign, the public (and indeed the media) were very surprised by many of his policies - with the result that much of the reporting was simply along the lines of "Wow, that's amazing, never dreamt he would do that".

    Whilst I'm sure he'll have some new policies next time, most of his policies next time (and certainly the general thrust of them) won't be new. As a result, the reporting is much more likely to be along the lines of "[As expected], Lab is proposing X, what will the effect be?".

    That doesn't mean the policies won't be just as popular - they may be - but the tone of the reporting is likely to be quite different.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,742
    edited February 9
    Russian security officers have arrested several scientists working at a top-secret Russian nuclear warhead facility for allegedly mining crypto-currencies.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-europe-43003740
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    MikeL said:

    Corbyn could easily also do well in the next GE campaign but one thing that will definitely be different is he will no longer have the benefit of novelty.

    In the 2017 GE campaign, the public (and indeed the media) were very surprised by many of his policies - with the result that much of the reporting was simply along the lines of "Wow, that's amazing, never dreamt he would do that".

    Whilst I'm sure he'll have some new policies next time, most of his policies next time (and certainly the general thrust of them) won't be new. As a result, the reporting is much more likely to be along the lines of "[As expected], Lab is proposing X, what will the effect be?".

    That doesn't mean the policies won't be just as popular - they may be - but the tone of the reporting is likely to be quite different.

    People were surprised at his manifesto because it was so moderate. He didnt have the guts to put forward the hard left policies he believes in. Instead he stole Blair's 1997 slogan, adopted Blair's promise not to raise income tax for most people, and omitted all the hard left things he believes in.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,526
    stevef said:

    MikeL said:

    Corbyn could easily also do well in the next GE campaign but one thing that will definitely be different is he will no longer have the benefit of novelty.

    In the 2017 GE campaign, the public (and indeed the media) were very surprised by many of his policies - with the result that much of the reporting was simply along the lines of "Wow, that's amazing, never dreamt he would do that".

    Whilst I'm sure he'll have some new policies next time, most of his policies next time (and certainly the general thrust of them) won't be new. As a result, the reporting is much more likely to be along the lines of "[As expected], Lab is proposing X, what will the effect be?".

    That doesn't mean the policies won't be just as popular - they may be - but the tone of the reporting is likely to be quite different.

    People were surprised at his manifesto because it was so moderate. He didnt have the guts to put forward the hard left policies he believes in. Instead he stole Blair's 1997 slogan, adopted Blair's promise not to raise income tax for most people, and omitted all the hard left things he believes in.
    I think the abolition of tuition fees and at least giving the impression of potentially wiping out all student debt were huge retail offers that got a "wow" reaction - which will be hard to repeat next time.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,526
    edited February 9
    Dow Jones today:

    Open - up 350
    6.30pm (UK time) - Down 400
    8.40pm (UK time) - Up 500
    Close - up 330
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 20,394
    Scott_P said:
    Nonetheless, given the banks' huge and evident reluctance to even bother opening and registering EU-domiciled subsidiaries, the truth is they aren't going to move en masse from March 2019: as 1. they really like living in London, 2. they are desperately hoping for a helpful agreement, to save all the cash and bother

    The initial feeling may be discounted as emotional, the second as wishful thinking..

    BUT I do not believe there will be this vast initial exodus. There may well, over time, be a drift to Paris and Frankfurt. But the French have this annoying tradition of speaking French, despite the odd totem court speaking English, and the Germans - with the SPD as co-governors = are borderline hostile to banks. And German.

    And this is to set aside the possibility (however slim under TMay) that an unshackled UK will get all Hong Kong and Singapore and be even more competitive.

    As far as I can see, Brexit can still be a disaster or triumph, or anything in between.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,398
    MikeL said:

    Dow Jones today:

    Open - up 350
    6.30pm (UK time) - Down 400
    8.40pm (UK time) - Up 500
    Close - up 330

    Buy low, sell high...

    As far as I can see these recent moves are of no concern whatsoever. For pretty much all previous periods of high volatility in the past (over more years than I'd care to share) I've understood and shared the concerns. That's not even slightly the case this time. I have to say that rather worries me :)

    One possible little contributing factor that isn't in the news as far as I'm aware, and yet is a significant factor, is that there may be a decline in business longevity. In the UK we see quite a few longstanding businesses having problems.

    The above notwithstanding I feel reasonably safe in equities.
  • William_HWilliam_H Posts: 313
    Corbyn effectively got the election victory honeymoon, despite not actually winning. Its faded a bit but Labour are still in a strong position.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,640
    Scott_P said:
    Dombret, the Bundesbank chief, has become very pessimistic about a banking deal post Brexit. He was one of the more sanguine ones before.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,612
    SeanT said:

    Scott_P said:
    Nonetheless, given the banks' huge and evident reluctance to even bother opening and registering EU-domiciled subsidiaries, the truth is they aren't going to move en masse from March 2019: as 1. they really like living in London, 2. they are desperately hoping for a helpful agreement, to save all the cash and bother

    The initial feeling may be discounted as emotional, the second as wishful thinking..

    BUT I do not believe there will be this vast initial exodus. There may well, over time, be a drift to Paris and Frankfurt. But the French have this annoying tradition of speaking French, despite the odd totem court speaking English, and the Germans - with the SPD as co-governors = are borderline hostile to banks. And German.

    And this is to set aside the possibility (however slim under TMay) that an unshackled UK will get all Hong Kong and Singapore and be even more competitive.

    As far as I can see, Brexit can still be a disaster or triumph, or anything in between.
    Given Stockholm Scott posts every piece of effluent from the Chicken Licken Faisal Islam I wouldn’t get too worried quite yet.

    Seems to be a market for doom and gloom these days - Trump, Global warming, North Korea, Brexit , Bake off moving to C4 etc - none of them ever materialise as an issue.

    Humankind and technology will prevail and improve our lives - only misanthropists who don’t have any faith in mankind to overcome change should worry.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 2,958
    Omnium said:

    MikeL said:

    Dow Jones today:

    Open - up 350
    6.30pm (UK time) - Down 400
    8.40pm (UK time) - Up 500
    Close - up 330

    Buy low, sell high...

    As far as I can see these recent moves are of no concern whatsoever. For pretty much all previous periods of high volatility in the past (over more years than I'd care to share) I've understood and shared the concerns. That's not even slightly the case this time. I have to say that rather worries me :)

    One possible little contributing factor that isn't in the news as far as I'm aware, and yet is a significant factor, is that there may be a decline in business longevity. In the UK we see quite a few longstanding businesses having problems.

    The above notwithstanding I feel reasonably safe in equities.
    I hope you're right Omnium. In any event, given bonds can only really move in one direction and deposits only offer negative real interest rates, what's the alternative?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,261
    edited February 9


    “Remainers crying into their Gazpacho”.....
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 519
    edited February 9
    SeanT said:

    Scott_P said:
    Nonetheless, given the banks' huge and evident reluctance to even bother opening and registering EU-domiciled subsidiaries, the truth is they aren't going to move en masse from March 2019: as 1. they really like living in London, 2. they are desperately hoping for a helpful agreement, to save all the cash and bother

    The initial feeling may be discounted as emotional, the second as wishful thinking..

    BUT I do not believe there will be this vast initial exodus. There may well, over time, be a drift to Paris and Frankfurt. But the French have this annoying tradition of speaking French, despite the odd totem court speaking English, and the Germans - with the SPD as co-governors = are borderline hostile to banks. And German.

    And this is to set aside the possibility (however slim under TMay) that an unshackled UK will get all Hong Kong and Singapore and be even more competitive.

    As far as I can see, Brexit can still be a disaster or triumph, or anything in between.
    Just out of interest, do you think a Theresa May led government will achieve any better trade deals with the rest of the world post Brexit? My observation is she is hopelessly out of her depth negotiating with the EU and it does not bode well for any worthwhile trade deals with the three most important markets of China, India and the U.S. The talk about doing trade deals with New Zealand is welcome but small beer in the greater scheme of things. I still cannot understand the logic of walking away from the EU on economic grounds as it is like opening a corner shop but insulting the nearest shoppers and focusing on those furthest away.
  • Infependent front page

    Tuition fees to be cut and incentives for science and tech students
  • Scott_P said:
    Neither is 50 billion euros then - it is convincing no one - just childish nonsense and headlines
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,469
    edited February 9

    SeanT said:

    Scott_P said:
    Nonetheless, given the banks' huge and evident reluctance to even bother opening and registering EU-domiciled subsidiaries, the truth is they aren't going to move en masse from March 2019: as 1. they really like living in London, 2. they are desperately hoping for a helpful agreement, to save all the cash and bother

    The initial feeling may be discounted as emotional, the second as wishful thinking..

    BUT I do not believe there will be this vast initial exodus. There may well, over time, be a drift to Paris and Frankfurt. But the French have this annoying tradition of speaking French, despite the odd totem court speaking English, and the Germans - with the SPD as co-governors = are borderline hostile to banks. And German.

    And this is to set aside the possibility (however slim under TMay) that an unshackled UK will get all Hong Kong and Singapore and be even more competitive.

    As far as I can see, Brexit can still be a disaster or triumph, or anything in between.
    Just out of interest, do you think a Theresa May led government will achieve any better trade deals with the rest of the world post Brexit? My observation is she is hopelessly out of her depth negotiating with the EU and it does not bode well for any worthwhile trade deals with the three most important markets of China, India and the U.S. The talk about doing trade deals with New Zealand is welcome but small beer in the greater scheme of things. I still cannot understand the logic of walking away from the EU on economic grounds as it is like opening a corner shop but insulting the nearest shoppers and focusing on those furthest away.
    You may or may not be right but the UK voted to leave so leave we must
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,723
    What does the thread header even mean? LAB polled 40% at GE2017 so is it claimed they are averaging 37 in the last month?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,075

    SeanT said:

    Scott_P said:
    Nonetheless, given the banks' huge and evident reluctance to even bother opening and registering EU-domiciled subsidiaries, the truth is they aren't going to move en masse from March 2019: as 1. they really like living in London, 2. they are desperately hoping for a helpful agreement, to save all the cash and bother

    The initial feeling may be discounted as emotional, the second as wishful thinking..

    BUT I do not believe there will be this vast initial exodus. There may well, over time, be a drift to Paris and Frankfurt. But the French have this annoying tradition of speaking French, despite the odd totem court speaking English, and the Germans - with the SPD as co-governors = are borderline hostile to banks. And German.

    And this is to set aside the possibility (however slim under TMay) that an unshackled UK will get all Hong Kong and Singapore and be even more competitive.

    As far as I can see, Brexit can still be a disaster or triumph, or anything in between.
    Just out of interest, do you think a Theresa May led government will achieve any better trade deals with the rest of the world post Brexit? My observation is she is hopelessly out of her depth negotiating with the EU and it does not bode well for any worthwhile trade deals with the three most important markets of China, India and the U.S. The talk about doing trade deals with New Zealand is welcome but small beer in the greater scheme of things. I still cannot understand the logic of walking away from the EU on economic grounds as it is like opening a corner shop but insulting the nearest shoppers and focusing on those furthest away.
    You may or may not be right but the UK voted to leave so leave we must
    The UK voted for Boaty Mc Boat Face.
  • I have decided to have an early night so best wishes to all for a good nights rest
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,261

    SeanT said:

    Scott_P said:
    Nonetheless, given the banks' huge and evident reluctance to even bother opening and registering EU-domiciled subsidiaries, the truth is they aren't going to move en masse from March 2019: as 1. they really like living in London, 2. they are desperately hoping for a helpful agreement, to save all the cash and bother

    The initial feeling may be discounted as emotional, the second as wishful thinking..

    BUT I do not believe there will be this vast initial exodus. There may well, over time, be a drift to Paris and Frankfurt. But the French have this annoying tradition of speaking French, despite the odd totem court speaking English, and the Germans - with the SPD as co-governors = are borderline hostile to banks. And German.

    And this is to set aside the possibility (however slim under TMay) that an unshackled UK will get all Hong Kong and Singapore and be even more competitive.

    As far as I can see, Brexit can still be a disaster or triumph, or anything in between.
    Just out of interest, do you think a Theresa May led government will achieve any better trade deals with the rest of the world post Brexit? My observation is she is hopelessly out of her depth negotiating with the EU and it does not bode well for any worthwhile trade deals with the three most important markets of China, India and the U.S. The talk about doing trade deals with New Zealand is welcome but small beer in the greater scheme of things. I still cannot understand the logic of walking away from the EU on economic grounds as it is like opening a corner shop but insulting the nearest shoppers and focusing on those furthest away.
    FWIW I suspect “trade deals” is a vastly over-rated aspect of BREXIT. Leaving the SM\CU after 40 years is a non-trivial challenge - but it won’t be the end of days. If we make stuff the world wants to buy, they’ll buy it. And if we don’t, they won’t. Whether or not we are in the SM/CU. There are significant challenges for companies with integrated supply chains - but they’ll adapt.

    I’d rather have 5% lower GDP in 15 years than no longer have voters trust the power of their vote.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,723

    I have decided to have an early night so best wishes to all for a good nights rest

    Think I will join you. What a dire convoluted thread.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 3,367
    edited February 9
    Jonathan said:

    SeanT said:

    Scott_P said:
    Nonetheless, given the banks' huge and evident reluctance to even bother opening and registering EU-domiciled subsidiaries, the truth is they aren't going to move en masse from March 2019: as 1. they really like living in London, 2. they are desperately hoping for a helpful agreement, to save all the cash and bother

    The initial feeling may be discounted as emotional, the second as wishful thinking..

    BUT I do not believe there will be this vast initial exodus. There may well, over time, be a drift to Paris and Frankfurt. But the French have this annoying tradition of speaking French, despite the odd totem court speaking English, and the Germans - with the SPD as co-governors = are borderline hostile to banks. And German.

    And this is to set aside the possibility (however slim under TMay) that an unshackled UK will get all Hong Kong and Singapore and be even more competitive.

    As far as I can see, Brexit can still be a disaster or triumph, or anything in between.
    Just out of interest, do you think a Theresa May led government will achieve any better trade deals with the rest of the world post Brexit? My observation is she is hopelessly out of her depth negotiating with the EU and it does not bode well for any worthwhile trade deals with the three most important markets of China, India and the U.S. The talk about doing trade deals with New Zealand is welcome but small beer in the greater scheme of things. I still cannot understand the logic of walking away from the EU on economic grounds as it is like opening a corner shop but insulting the nearest shoppers and focusing on those furthest away.
    You may or may not be right but the UK voted to leave so leave we must
    The UK voted for Boaty Mc Boat Face.
    Which just shows the free wheeling wtf spirit of the British electorate. Never underestimate the two fingers effect (hence why wheeling out Obama backfired with his “ back of the queue “ comment).

    Might yet elect Corbyn of course ( God help us).

    Of course a compromise was arrived at vis a vis Boaty McBoatface in that I think it’s the name of the launch boat of the RSS Attenborough.
  • I have decided to have an early night so best wishes to all for a good nights rest

    Think I will join you. What a dire convoluted thread.
    I would agree it is a bit obscure. Have a good night - as I switch the light off
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 519

    SeanT said:

    Scott_P said:
    Nonetheless, given the banks' huge and evident reluctance to even bother opening and registering EU-domiciled subsidiaries, the truth is they aren't going to move en masse from March 2019: as 1. they really like living in London, 2. they are desperately hoping for a helpful agreement, to save all the cash and bother

    The initial feeling may be discounted as emotional, the second as wishful thinking..

    BUT I do not believe there will be this vast initial exodus. There may well, over time, be a drift to Paris and Frankfurt. But the French have this annoying tradition of speaking French, despite the odd totem court speaking English, and the Germans - with the SPD as co-governors = are borderline hostile to banks. And German.

    And this is to set aside the possibility (however slim under TMay) that an unshackled UK will get all Hong Kong and Singapore and be even more competitive.

    As far as I can see, Brexit can still be a disaster or triumph, or anything in between.
    Just out of interest, do you think a Theresa May led government will achieve any better trade deals with the rest of the world post Brexit? My observation is she is hopelessly out of her depth negotiating with the EU and it does not bode well for any worthwhile trade deals with the three most important markets of China, India and the U.S. The talk about doing trade deals with New Zealand is welcome but small beer in the greater scheme of things. I still cannot understand the logic of walking away from the EU on economic grounds as it is like opening a corner shop but insulting the nearest shoppers and focusing on those furthest away.
    You may or may not be right but the UK voted to leave so leave we must
    Not so sure on that level, it is irresponsible in relation to the economy to proceed with something that overall is a worse position. I am fully aware people voted to Leave, however Johnson said we could have our cake and eat it or at the least try for a better deal than we had. Johnson even mentioned a second consultation of the people I seem to remember. If a Tory Brexit means the economy suffers severe structural changes then the political consequences will be dramatic and long lasting. The Tory brand will be tarnished for a generation. I still think that being part of the biggest trading block in the world with the ambition of enhancing a single market of prosperity that stretches across Europe was a better deal than the likely outcome of these botched negotiations. I still cannot accept the premise that creating barriers to high income yielding services to the EU are going to be replaced by equally high value services to third world countries. It just does not make sense.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,261
    welshowl said:

    Jonathan said:

    SeanT said:

    Scott_P said:
    Nonetheless, given the banks' huge and evident reluctance to even bother opening and registering EU-domiciled subsidiaries, the truth is they aren't going to move en masse from March 2019: as 1. they really like living in London, 2. they are desperately hoping for a helpful agreement, to save all the cash and bother

    The initial feeling may be discounted as emotional, the second as wishful thinking..

    BUT I do not believe there will be this vast initial exodus. There may well, over time, be a drift to Paris and Frankfurt. But the French have this annoying tradition of speaking French, despite the odd totem court speaking English, and the Germans - with the SPD as co-governors = are borderline hostile to banks. And German.

    And this is to set aside the possibility (however slim under TMay) that an unshackled UK will get all Hong Kong and Singapore and be even more competitive.

    As far as I can see, Brexit can still be a disaster or triumph, or anything in between.
    Just out of interest, do you think a Theresa May led government will achieve any better trade deals with the rest of the world post Brexit? My observation is she is hopelessly out of her depth negotiating with the EU and it does not bode well for any worthwhile trade deals with the three most important markets of China, India and the U.S. The talk about doing trade deals with New Zealand is welcome but small beer in the greater scheme of things. I still cannot understand the logic of walking away from the EU on economic grounds as it is like opening a corner shop but insulting the nearest shoppers and focusing on those furthest away.
    You may or may not be right but the UK voted to leave so leave we must
    The UK voted for Boaty Mc Boat Face.
    Which just shows the free wheeling wtf spirit of the British electorate. Never underestimate the two fingers effect (hence why wheeling out Obama backfired with his “ back of the queue “ comment).
    My favourite was New Labours search for a “National Motto” - two memorable entries:

    “No mottoes please, we’re British”

    And

    “Dipso, Fatso, Asbo, Tesco”
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 2,958

    I have decided to have an early night so best wishes to all for a good nights rest

    Think I will join you. What a dire convoluted thread.
    I never realised you two were such good friends! :wink:
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 21,853

    What does the thread header even mean? LAB polled 40% at GE2017 so is it claimed they are averaging 37 in the last month?

    OGH has clarified the position in a post below.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 3,367
    @Taxman

    It’s not about the money.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,261

    SeanT said:

    Scott_P said:


    And this is to set aside the possibility (however slim under TMay) that an unshackled UK will get all Hong Kong and Singapore and be even more competitive.

    As far as I can see, Brexit can still be a disaster or triumph, or anything in between.
    Just out of interest, do you think a Theresa May led government will achieve any better trade deals with the rest of the world post Brexit? My observation is she is hopelessly out of her depth negotiating with the EU and it does not bode well for any worthwhile trade deals with the three most important markets of China, India and the U.S. The talk about doing trade deals with New Zealand is welcome but small beer in the greater scheme of things. I still cannot understand the logic of walking away from the EU on economic grounds as it is like opening a corner shop but insulting the nearest shoppers and focusing on those furthest away.
    You may or may not be right but the UK voted to leave so leave we must
    Not so sure on that level, it is irresponsible in relation to the economy to proceed with something that overall is a worse position. I am fully aware people voted to Leave, however Johnson said we could have our cake and eat it or at the least try for a better deal than we had. Johnson even mentioned a second consultation of the people I seem to remember. If a Tory Brexit means the economy suffers severe structural changes then the political consequences will be dramatic and long lasting. The Tory brand will be tarnished for a generation. I still think that being part of the biggest trading block in the world with the ambition of enhancing a single market of prosperity that stretches across Europe was a better deal than the likely outcome of these botched negotiations. I still cannot accept the premise that creating barriers to high income yielding services to the EU are going to be replaced by equally high value services to third world countries. It just does not make sense.
    Remain made those arguments in the campaign. They still lost.

    Do I want an economy 5% smaller than it might have been in 15 years, or do I want a country where voters no longer think their vote can change things? For me it’s a simple decision.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 519

    SeanT said:

    Scott_P said:

    As far as I can see, Brexit can still be a disaster or triumph, or anything in between.
    Just out of interest, do you think a Theresa May led government will achieve any better trade deals with the rest of the world post Brexit? My observation is she is hopelessly out of her depth negotiating with the EU and it does not bode well for any worthwhile trade deals with the three most important markets of China, India and the U.S. The talk about doing trade deals with New Zealand is welcome but small beer in the greater scheme of things. I still cannot understand the logic of walking away from the EU on economic grounds as it is like opening a corner shop but insulting the nearest shoppers and focusing on those furthest away.
    FWIW I suspect “trade deals” is a vastly over-rated aspect of BREXIT. Leaving the SM\CU after 40 years is a non-trivial challenge - but it won’t be the end of days. If we make stuff the world wants to buy, they’ll buy it. And if we don’t, they won’t. Whether or not we are in the SM/CU. There are significant challenges for companies with integrated supply chains - but they’ll adapt.

    I’d rather have 5% lower GDP in 15 years than no longer have voters trust the power of their vote.
    Not so sure the voters trust the power of their votes anymore already! I think what might happen with Brexit is the domestic economy will carry on growing like in the 1930s but the trade side will suffer a severe setback like in the 1930s when trade tariffs were imposed by competitor nations. In the worse case scenario the private sector will suffer a severe contraction and after 8 years of austerity the Governments ability to increase spending to stimulate demand will have diminished. I don't buy the idea that Britain can become a Singapore or Hong Kong type of economy, the economy is too large and differentiated for that.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,184

    SeanT said:

    Scott_P said:
    Nonetheless, given the banks' huge and evident reluctance to even bother opening and registering EU-domiciled subsidiaries, the truth is they aren't going to move en masse from March 2019: as 1. they really like living in London, 2. they are desperately hoping for a helpful agreement, to save all the cash and bother

    The initial feeling may be discounted as emotional, the second as wishful thinking..

    BUT I do not believe there will be this vast initial exodus. There may well, over time, be a drift to Paris and Frankfurt. But the French have this annoying tradition of speaking French, despite the odd totem court speaking English, and the Germans - with the SPD as co-governors = are borderline hostile to banks. And German.

    And this is to set aside the possibility (however slim under TMay) that an unshackled UK will get all Hong Kong and Singapore and be even more competitive.

    As far as I can see, Brexit can still be a disaster or triumph, or anything in between.
    Just out of interest, do you think a Theresa May led government will achieve any better trade deals with the rest of the world post Brexit? My observation is she is hopelessly out of her depth negotiating with the EU and it does not bode well for any worthwhile trade deals with the three most important markets of China, India and the U.S. The talk about doing trade deals with New Zealand is welcome but small beer in the greater scheme of things. I still cannot understand the logic of walking away from the EU on economic grounds as it is like opening a corner shop but insulting the nearest shoppers and focusing on those furthest away.
    FWIW I suspect “trade deals” is a vastly over-rated aspect of BREXIT. Leaving the SM\CU after 40 years is a non-trivial challenge - but it won’t be the end of days. If we make stuff the world wants to buy, they’ll buy it. And if we don’t, they won’t. Whether or not we are in the SM/CU. There are significant challenges for companies with integrated supply chains - but they’ll adapt.

    I’d rather have 5% lower GDP in 15 years than no longer have voters trust the power of their vote.

    Some companies with integrated supply chains will adapt, others will move, others will go under. If Nissan leaves Sunderland what will replace it? The government needs to be planning for this. As we saw in the 1980s, communities that lose big employers often struggle to ever recover.

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,640


    Just out of interest, do you think a Theresa May led government will achieve any better trade deals with the rest of the world post Brexit? My observation is she is hopelessly out of her depth negotiating with the EU and it does not bode well for any worthwhile trade deals with the three most important markets of China, India and the U.S. The talk about doing trade deals with New Zealand is welcome but small beer in the greater scheme of things. I still cannot understand the logic of walking away from the EU on economic grounds as it is like opening a corner shop but insulting the nearest shoppers and focusing on those furthest away.

    You may or may not be right but the UK voted to leave so leave we must
    Not so sure on that level, it is irresponsible in relation to the economy to proceed with something that overall is a worse position. I am fully aware people voted to Leave, however Johnson said we could have our cake and eat it or at the least try for a better deal than we had. Johnson even mentioned a second consultation of the people I seem to remember. If a Tory Brexit means the economy suffers severe structural changes then the political consequences will be dramatic and long lasting. The Tory brand will be tarnished for a generation. I still think that being part of the biggest trading block in the world with the ambition of enhancing a single market of prosperity that stretches across Europe was a better deal than the likely outcome of these botched negotiations. I still cannot accept the premise that creating barriers to high income yielding services to the EU are going to be replaced by equally high value services to third world countries. It just does not make sense.
    I think we will probably end up with a Norway type deal. It's a waste of time and resources that would have been better spent on priorities. We will also be rule takers instead of full participants in collective decision making. But it will keep a lot of what we have got and limit the damage. It's either that or a return to EU membership, but I can't see us stomaching that. At some point reality will impinge. The Canada FTA route is too uncertain, too long drawn out and too mediocre IMO.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 2,958
    Chalk and cheese IMHO:

    Presidents Club = an organisation not understanding the way in which what is socially acceptable has changed (rapidly) in recent years.

    Oxfam = an organisation doing its best to deal with totally reprehensible behaviour by some of its (now former) employees.

    The latter could happen to any organisation (it's how they deal with it that counts); the former says a lot about the organisation itself.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 4,919


    You may or may not be right but the UK voted to leave so leave we must

    Not so sure on that level, it is irresponsible in relation to the economy to proceed with something that overall is a worse position. I am fully aware people voted to Leave, however Johnson said we could have our cake and eat it or at the least try for a better deal than we had. Johnson even mentioned a second consultation of the people I seem to remember. If a Tory Brexit means the economy suffers severe structural changes then the political consequences will be dramatic and long lasting. The Tory brand will be tarnished for a generation. I still think that being part of the biggest trading block in the world with the ambition of enhancing a single market of prosperity that stretches across Europe was a better deal than the likely outcome of these botched negotiations. I still cannot accept the premise that creating barriers to high income yielding services to the EU are going to be replaced by equally high value services to third world countries. It just does not make sense.
    Remain made those arguments in the campaign. They still lost.

    Do I want an economy 5% smaller than it might have been in 15 years, or do I want a country where voters no longer think their vote can change things? For me it’s a simple decision.
    Given also that the thing the country is second-most proud of is bankrupting itself and sacrificing many of its people to fight against the Nazis, and a few percentage points of GDP in exchange for intangible goods such as pride in national independence will strike many as a small price to pay.

    Not that I agree on the value of what they are buying with that GDP compared to the value of what we are losing, but I can understand why people would decide to make such a trade.
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 829

    SeanT said:

    Scott_P said:


    And this is to set aside the possibility (however slim under TMay) that an unshackled UK will get all Hong Kong and Singapore and be even more competitive.

    As far as I can see, Brexit can still be a disaster or triumph, or anything in between.
    Just out of interest, do you think a Theresa May led government will achieve any better trade deals with the rest of the world post Brexit? My observation is she is hopelessly out of her depth negotiating with the EU and it does not bode well for any worthwhile trade deals with the three most important markets of China, India and the U.S. The talk about doing trade deals with New Zealand is welcome but small beer in the greater scheme of things. I still cannot understand the logic of walking away from the EU on economic grounds as it is like opening a corner shop but insulting the nearest shoppers and focusing on those furthest away.
    You may or may not be right but the UK voted to leave so leave we must
    Not so sure on that level, it is irresponsible in relation to the economy to proceed with something that overall is a worse position. I am fully aware people voted to Leave, however Johnson said we could have our cake and eat it or at the least try for a better deal than we had. Johnson even mentioned a second consultation of the people I seem to remember. If a Tory Brexit means the economy suffers severe structural changes then the political consequences will be dramatic and long lasting. The Tory brand will be tarnished for a generation. I still think that being part of the biggest trading block in the world with the ambition of enhancing a single market of prosperity that stretches across Europe was a better deal than the likely outcome of these botched negotiations. I still cannot accept the premise that creating barriers to high income yielding services to the EU are going to be replaced by equally high value services to third world countries. It just does not make sense.
    Remain made those arguments in the campaign. They still lost.

    Do I want an economy 5% smaller than it might have been in 15 years, or do I want a country where voters no longer think their vote can change things? For me it’s a simple decision.
    Try putting that on the side of a bus.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 755
    edited February 9

    SeanT said:

    Scott_P said:


    And this is to set aside the possibility (however slim under TMay) that an unshackled UK will get all Hong Kong and Singapore and be even more competitive.

    As far as I can see, Brexit can still be a disaster or triumph, or anything in between.
    Just out of interest, do you think a Theresa May led government will achieve any better trade deals with the rest of the world post Brexit? My observation is she is hopelessly out of her depth negotiating with the EU and it does not bode well for any worthwhile trade deals with the three most important markets of China, India and the U.S. The talk about doing trade deals with New Zealand is welcome but small beer in the greater scheme of things. I still cannot understand the logic of walking away from the EU on economic grounds as it is like opening a corner shop but insulting the nearest shoppers and focusing on those furthest away.
    You may or may not be right but the UK voted to leave so leave we must
    Not so sure on that level, it is irresponsible in relation to the economy to proceed with something that overall is a worse position. I am fully aware people voted to Leave, however Johnson said we could have our cake and eat it or at the least try for a better deal than we had. Johnson even mentioned a second consultation of the people I seem to remember. If a Tory Brexit means the economy suffers severe structural changes then the political consequences will be dramatic and long lasting. The Tory brand will be tarnished for a generation. I still think that being part of the biggest trading block in the world with the ambition of enhancing a single market of prosperity that stretches across Europe was a better deal than the likely outcome of these botched negotiations. I still cannot accept the premise that creating barriers to high income yielding services to the EU are going to be replaced by equally high value services to third world countries. It just does not make sense.
    Remain made those arguments in the campaign. They still lost.

    Do I want an economy 5% smaller than it might have been in 15 years, or do I want a country where voters no longer think their vote can change things? For me it’s a simple decision.
    Try putting that on the side of a bus.
    Why bother. You would still rather our cash was spent subsidising inefficient French farmers, expanding the Slovakian road network and upgrading the Madrid metro than on the NHS!



  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,184


    You may or may not be right but the UK voted to leave so leave we must

    Not so sure on that level, it is irresponsible in relation to the economy to proceed with something that overall is a worse position. I am fully aware people voted to Leave, however Johnson said we could have our cake and eat it or at the least try for a better deal than we had. Johnson even mentioned a second consultation of the people I seem to remember. If a Tory Brexit means the economy suffers severe structural changes then the political consequences will be dramatic and long lasting. The Tory brand will be tarnished for a generation. I still think that being part of the biggest trading block in the world with the ambition of enhancing a single market of prosperity that stretches across Europe was a better deal than the likely outcome of these botched negotiations. I still cannot accept the premise that creating barriers to high income yielding services to the EU are going to be replaced by equally high value services to third world countries. It just does not make sense.
    Remain made those arguments in the campaign. They still lost.

    Do I want an economy 5% smaller than it might have been in 15 years, or do I want a country where voters no longer think their vote can change things? For me it’s a simple decision.
    Given also that the thing the country is second-most proud of is bankrupting itself and sacrificing many of its people to fight against the Nazis, and a few percentage points of GDP in exchange for intangible goods such as pride in national independence will strike many as a small price to pay.

    Not that I agree on the value of what they are buying with that GDP compared to the value of what we are losing, but I can understand why people would decide to make such a trade.

    They will absolutely make it in the abstract. Whether they happily swallow the reality of prolonged austerity and fewer well paid jobs remains to be seen. The well-off, of course, will be fine.

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 2,958
    edited February 9
    Can anyone tell me why the UK government feels that:
    Refusing to guarantee permanent rights to EU nationals who come to live and work in Britain during the transition period
    is a point worth sticking on?!
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 3,367


    You may or may not be right but the UK voted to leave so leave we must

    Not so sure on that level, it is irresponsible in relation to the economy to proceed with something that overall is a worse position. I am fully aware people voted to Leave, however Johnson said we could have our cake and eat it or at the least try for a better deal than we had. Johnson even mentioned a second consultation of the people I seem to remember. If a Tory Brexit means the economy suffers severe structural changes then the political consequences will be dramatic and long lasting. The Tory brand will be tarnished for a generation. I still think that being part of the biggest trading block in the world with the ambition of enhancing a single market of prosperity that stretches across Europe was a better deal than the likely outcome of these botched negotiations. I still cannot accept the premise that creating barriers to high income yielding services to the EU are going to be replaced by equally high value services to third world countries. It just does not make sense.
    Remain made those arguments in the campaign. They still lost.

    Do I want an economy 5% smaller than it might have been in 15 years, or do I want a country where voters no longer think their vote can change things? For me it’s a simple decision.
    Given also that the thing the country is second-most proud of is bankrupting itself and sacrificing many of its people to fight against the Nazis, and a few percentage points of GDP in exchange for intangible goods such as pride in national independence will strike many as a small price to pay.

    Not that I agree on the value of what they are buying with that GDP compared to the value of what we are losing, but I can understand why people would decide to make such a trade.
    Quite. The endless hand wringing about x% of GDP in 15 years time or exact customs arrangements in between Enniskillen and Sligo misses the point totally.

    It’s clear by now it’s a choice between being a province of a USE or an independent country.

    Worrying about equivalence or convergence or whatever on kettle regulations is just utterly missing the point.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 2,958
    brendan16 said:

    SeanT said:

    Scott_P said:



    As far as I can see, Brexit can still be a disaster or triumph, or anything in between.
    Just out of interest, do you think a Theresa May led government will achieve any better trade deals with the rest of the world post Brexit? My observation is she is hopelessly out of her depth negotiating with the EU and it does not bode well for any worthwhile trade deals with the three most important markets of China, India and the U.S. The talk about doing trade deals with New Zealand is welcome but small beer in the greater scheme of things. I still cannot understand the logic of walking away from the EU on economic grounds as it is like opening a corner shop but insulting the nearest shoppers and focusing on those furthest away.
    You may or may not be right but the UK voted to leave so leave we must
    Not so sure on that level, it is irresponsible in relation to the economy to proceed with something that overall is a worse position. I am fully aware people voted to Leave, however Johnson said we could have our cake and eat it or at the least try for a better deal than we had. Johnson even mentioned a second consultation of the people I seem to remember. If a Tory Brexit means the economy suffers severe structural changes then the political consequences will be dramatic and long lasting. The Tory brand will be tarnished for a generation. I still think that being part of the biggest trading block in the world with the ambition of enhancing a single market of prosperity that stretches across Europe was a better deal than the likely outcome of these botched negotiations. I still cannot accept the premise that creating barriers to high income yielding services to the EU are going to be replaced by equally high value services to third world countries. It just does not make sense.
    Remain made those arguments in the campaign. They still lost.

    Do I want an economy 5% smaller than it might have been in 15 years, or do I want a country where voters no longer think their vote can change things? For me it’s a simple decision.
    Try putting that on the side of a bus.
    Why bother. You would still rather our cash was spent subsidising inefficient French farmers, expanding the Slovakian road network and upgrading the Madrid metro than on the NHS!
    The implied 5% reduction in tax take from a 5% smaller economy would more than wipe out the EU contribution savings.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 755

    Can anyone tell me why the UK government feels that:
    Refusing to guarantee permanent rights to EU nationals who come to live and work in Britain during the transition period
    is a point worth sticking on?!

    Can anyone tell me why the UK government feels that:
    Refusing to guarantee permanent rights to EU nationals who come to live and work in Britain during the transition period
    is a point worth sticking on?!

    Because the rights they would be getting (eg on bringing spouses and family members) is actually more generous than the rights available to UK citizens and we won't be in the EU.

    No idea how any of it will be tracked anyway as we have no exit controls st al
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 2,958
    welshowl said:


    You may or may not be right but the UK voted to leave so leave we must

    Not so sure on that level, it is irresponsible in relation to the economy to proceed with something that overall is a worse position. I am fully aware people voted to Leave, however Johnson said we could have our cake and eat it or at the least try for a better deal than we had. Johnson even mentioned a second consultation of the people I seem to remember. If a Tory Brexit means the economy suffers severe structural changes then the political consequences will be dramatic and long lasting. The Tory brand will be tarnished for a generation. I still think that being part of the biggest trading block in the world with the ambition of enhancing a single market of prosperity that stretches across Europe was a better deal than the likely outcome of these botched negotiations. I still cannot accept the premise that creating barriers to high income yielding services to the EU are going to be replaced by equally high value services to third world countries. It just does not make sense.
    Remain made those arguments in the campaign. They still lost.

    Do I want an economy 5% smaller than it might have been in 15 years, or do I want a country where voters no longer think their vote can change things? For me it’s a simple decision.
    Given also that the thing the country is second-most proud of is bankrupting itself and sacrificing many of its people to fight against the Nazis, and a few percentage points of GDP in exchange for intangible goods such as pride in national independence will strike many as a small price to pay.

    Not that I agree on the value of what they are buying with that GDP compared to the value of what we are losing, but I can understand why people would decide to make such a trade.
    Quite. The endless hand wringing about x% of GDP in 15 years time or exact customs arrangements in between Enniskillen and Sligo misses the point totally.

    It’s clear by now it’s a choice between being a province of a USE or an independent country.

    Worrying about equivalence or convergence or whatever on kettle regulations is just utterly missing the point.
    On which point you and your fellow PB leavers are entirely right - it was never about the money.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,718

    SeanT said:

    Scott_P said:
    Nonetheless, given the banks' huge and evident reluctance to even bother opening and registering EU-domiciled subsidiaries, the truth is they aren't going to move en masse from March 2019: as 1. they really like living in London, 2. they are desperately hoping for a helpful agreement, to save all the cash and bother

    The initial feeling may be discounted as emotional, the second as wishful thinking..

    BUT I do not believe there will be this vast initial exodus. There may well, over time, be a drift to Paris and Frankfurt. But the French have this annoying tradition of speaking French, despite the odd totem court speaking English, and the Germans - with the SPD as co-governors = are borderline hostile to banks. And German.

    And this is to set aside the possibility (however slim under TMay) that an unshackled UK will get all Hong Kong and Singapore and be even more competitive.

    As far as I can see, Brexit can still be a disaster or triumph, or anything in between.
    Just out of interest, do you think a Theresa May led government will achieve any better trade deals with the rest of the world post Brexit? My observation is she is hopelessly out of her depth negotiating with the EU and it does not bode well for any worthwhile trade deals with the three most important markets of China, India and the U.S. The talk about doing trade deals with New Zealand is welcome but small beer in the greater scheme of things. I still cannot understand the logic of walking away from the EU on economic grounds as it is like opening a corner shop but insulting the nearest shoppers and focusing on those furthest away.
    FWIW I suspect “trade deals” is a vastly over-rated aspect of BREXIT. Leaving the SM\CU after 40 years is a non-trivial challenge - but it won’t be the end of days. If we make stuff the world wants to buy, they’ll buy it. And if we don’t, they won’t. Whether or not we are in the SM/CU. There are significant challenges for companies with integrated supply chains - but they’ll adapt.

    I’d rather have 5% lower GDP in 15 years than no longer have voters trust the power of their vote.
    “If we make the stuff the world wants to buy...”

    What exactly do you think the mix of our economy is in terms of manufacturing and services?
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 3,367

    Can anyone tell me why the UK government feels that:
    Refusing to guarantee permanent rights to EU nationals who come to live and work in Britain during the transition period
    is a point worth sticking on?!

    Maybe maybe not. It’s a negotiation. You don’t roll over. You make noises even if you are prepared to give way on that point. It may worry them.You probe their weak areas. You test.

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,640
    brendan16 said:


    Just out of interest, do you think a Theresa May led government will achieve any better trade deals with the rest of the world post Brexit? My observation is she is hopelessly out of her depth negotiating with the EU and it does not bode well for any worthwhile trade deals with the three most important markets of China, India and the U.S. The talk about doing trade deals with New Zealand is welcome but small beer in the greater scheme of things. I still cannot understand the logic of walking away from the EU on economic grounds as it is like opening a corner shop but insulting the nearest shoppers and focusing on those furthest away.

    You may or may not be right but the UK voted to leave so leave we must
    Not so sure on that level, it is irresponsible in relation to the economy to proceed with something that overall is a worse position. I am fully aware people voted to Leave, however Johnson said we could have our cake and eat it or at the least try for a better deal than we had. Johnson even mentioned a second consultation of the people I seem to remember. If a Tory Brexit means the economy suffers severe structural changes then the political consequences will be dramatic and long lasting. The Tory brand will be tarnished for a generation. I still think that being part of the biggest trading block in the world with the ambition of enhancing a single market of prosperity that stretches across Europe was a better deal than the likely outcome of these botched negotiations. I still cannot accept the premise that creating barriers to high income yielding services to the EU are going to be replaced by equally high value services to third world countries. It just does not make sense.
    Remain made those arguments in the campaign. They still lost.

    Do I want an economy 5% smaller than it might have been in 15 years, or do I want a country where voters no longer think their vote can change things? For me it’s a simple decision.
    Try putting that on the side of a bus.
    Why bother. You would still rather our cash was spent subsidising inefficient French farmers, expanding the Slovakian road network and upgrading the Madrid metro than on the NHS!



    Carlotta is proposing £500 million a week LESS to spend on anything at all. That could go on a bus.
  • Chalk and cheese IMHO:

    Presidents Club = an organisation not understanding the way in which what is socially acceptable has changed (rapidly) in recent years.

    Oxfam = an organisation doing its best to deal with totally reprehensible behaviour by some of its (now former) employees.

    The latter could happen to any organisation (it's how they deal with it that counts); the former says a lot about the organisation itself.
    Or how about one raised lots of money for charity whilst a few members behaved badly, and the other spent lots of money donated by others whilst some senior people behaved badly in a disaster zone, and then they covered it up, allegedly.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,421
    I look forward to next stage of PBsplaining arguing that the Hungarian anti-Soros campaign is not in fact antisemitic.

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 2,958
    brendan16 said:

    Can anyone tell me why the UK government feels that:
    Refusing to guarantee permanent rights to EU nationals who come to live and work in Britain during the transition period
    is a point worth sticking on?!

    Can anyone tell me why the UK government feels that:
    Refusing to guarantee permanent rights to EU nationals who come to live and work in Britain during the transition period
    is a point worth sticking on?!

    Because the rights they would be getting (eg on bringing spouses and family members) is actually more generous than the rights available to UK citizens and we won't be in the EU.

    No idea how any of it will be tracked anyway as we have no exit controls st al
    For a 2 year transition period it just seems like a totally stupid point to stick on.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,184
    brendan16 said:

    Can anyone tell me why the UK government feels that:
    Refusing to guarantee permanent rights to EU nationals who come to live and work in Britain during the transition period
    is a point worth sticking on?!

    Can anyone tell me why the UK government feels that:
    Refusing to guarantee permanent rights to EU nationals who come to live and work in Britain during the transition period
    is a point worth sticking on?!

    Because the rights they would be getting (eg on bringing spouses and family members) is actually more generous than the rights available to UK citizens and we won't be in the EU.

    No idea how any of it will be tracked anyway as we have no exit controls st al

    Yep - this is the bit I don’t get. How will we know they arrived for the first time after 29th March 2019?

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,184

    Chalk and cheese IMHO:

    Presidents Club = an organisation not understanding the way in which what is socially acceptable has changed (rapidly) in recent years.

    Oxfam = an organisation doing its best to deal with totally reprehensible behaviour by some of its (now former) employees.

    The latter could happen to any organisation (it's how they deal with it that counts); the former says a lot about the organisation itself.
    Or how about one raised lots of money for charity whilst a few members behaved badly, and the other spent lots of money donated by others whilst some senior people behaved badly in a disaster zone, and then they covered it up, allegedly.

    Didn’t it turn out the President’s Club actually raised very little for charity?

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 2,958
    welshowl said:

    Can anyone tell me why the UK government feels that:
    Refusing to guarantee permanent rights to EU nationals who come to live and work in Britain during the transition period
    is a point worth sticking on?!

    Maybe maybe not. It’s a negotiation. You don’t roll over. You make noises even if you are prepared to give way on that point. It may worry them.You probe their weak areas. You test.

    FFS! 'It may worry them'?! This is the Captain Mainwaring approach!

    It is much more likely that the uncertainty around the transition that this sort of stance induces will worry large corporations considering their location plans.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,633
    welshowl said:

    Can anyone tell me why the UK government feels that:
    Refusing to guarantee permanent rights to EU nationals who come to live and work in Britain during the transition period
    is a point worth sticking on?!

    Maybe maybe not. It’s a negotiation. You don’t roll over. You make noises even if you are prepared to give way on that point. It may worry them.You probe their weak areas. You test.

    you hold back on stuff you're prepared to give away, but again, there's no point doing that unless you're saying it's non negotiable, and the other side believing it, or at least not sure of true position.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,195

    Chalk and cheese IMHO:

    Presidents Club = an organisation not understanding the way in which what is socially acceptable has changed (rapidly) in recent years.

    Oxfam = an organisation doing its best to deal with totally reprehensible behaviour by some of its (now former) employees.

    The latter could happen to any organisation (it's how they deal with it that counts); the former says a lot about the organisation itself.
    I would largely agree, but in my travels I have met a fair number in the aid sector who are saintss and a number who exploit their status in various dubious ways.

    I used to be a big supporter of the Barnabas fund who do a lot of work with persecuted and refugee Christians:

    https://barnabasfund.org/en

    but have rather gone off them because of this little story.

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.christiantoday.com/amp/patrick-sookhdeo-why-the-barnabas-funds-founder-should-keep-silence/56964.htm
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,640
    edited February 9
    brendan16 said:

    Can anyone tell me why the UK government feels that:
    Refusing to guarantee permanent rights to EU nationals who come to live and work in Britain during the transition period
    is a point worth sticking on?!

    Can anyone tell me why the UK government feels that:
    Refusing to guarantee permanent rights to EU nationals who come to live and work in Britain during the transition period
    is a point worth sticking on?!

    Because the rights they would be getting (eg on bringing spouses and family members) is actually more generous than the rights available to UK citizens and we won't be in the EU.

    No idea how any of it will be tracked anyway as we have no exit controls st al
    The rights accorded to UK citizens are only less generous than to EU ones because the UK government chooses to discriminate against its own citizens. What governments do with their own citizens is outside Freedom of Movement anti discrimination rules.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,633

    welshowl said:

    Can anyone tell me why the UK government feels that:
    Refusing to guarantee permanent rights to EU nationals who come to live and work in Britain during the transition period
    is a point worth sticking on?!

    Maybe maybe not. It’s a negotiation. You don’t roll over. You make noises even if you are prepared to give way on that point. It may worry them.You probe their weak areas. You test.

    FFS! 'It may worry them'?! This is the Captain Mainwaring approach!

    It is much more likely that the uncertainty around the transition that this sort of stance induces will worry large corporations considering their location plans.
    large corporations are working their corner too! Have you ever negotiated anything?
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited February 9

    Infependent front page

    Tuition fees to be cut and incentives for science and tech students

    https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/treasury-paves-way-tuition-fee-cut/

    "The Treasury are happy to drop the maximum fee, if it makes the RAB [Resource Accounting and Budgeting] charge lower,” a well-placed source said."

    Smoke and mirrors?

    The RAB charge is (basically) the total % of tuition fee debt that the treasury doesn't get repaid.

    Reducing the RAB charge means making students pay more - Increasing the tuition fee burden.

    Which means Theresa would be backtracking on her October announcement...

    https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9964

    This is going to be fun.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 3,367

    welshowl said:

    Can anyone tell me why the UK government feels that:
    Refusing to guarantee permanent rights to EU nationals who come to live and work in Britain during the transition period
    is a point worth sticking on?!

    Maybe maybe not. It’s a negotiation. You don’t roll over. You make noises even if you are prepared to give way on that point. It may worry them.You probe their weak areas. You test.

    FFS! 'It may worry them'?! This is the Captain Mainwaring approach!

    It is much more likely that the uncertainty around the transition that this sort of stance induces will worry large corporations considering their location plans.
    Well there’s our difference. I’d not roll over at the first whiff of grapeshot.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,723

    I have decided to have an early night so best wishes to all for a good nights rest

    Think I will join you. What a dire convoluted thread.
    I never realised you two were such good friends! :wink:
    We are cuddling as you oost
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,261


    Try putting that on the side of a bus.

    “Your vote is irrelevant. Your betters have decided because you got it wrong”

    That what you meant?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,261

    brendan16 said:

    Can anyone tell me why the UK government feels that:
    Refusing to guarantee permanent rights to EU nationals who come to live and work in Britain during the transition period
    is a point worth sticking on?!

    Can anyone tell me why the UK government feels that:
    Refusing to guarantee permanent rights to EU nationals who come to live and work in Britain during the transition period
    is a point worth sticking on?!

    Because the rights they would be getting (eg on bringing spouses and family members) is actually more generous than the rights available to UK citizens and we won't be in the EU.

    No idea how any of it will be tracked anyway as we have no exit controls st al

    Yep - this is the bit I don’t get. How will we know they arrived for the first time after 29th March 2019?

    National Insurance numbers and tax records?
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 4,919

    brendan16 said:

    Can anyone tell me why the UK government feels that:
    Refusing to guarantee permanent rights to EU nationals who come to live and work in Britain during the transition period
    is a point worth sticking on?!

    Can anyone tell me why the UK government feels that:
    Refusing to guarantee permanent rights to EU nationals who come to live and work in Britain during the transition period
    is a point worth sticking on?!

    Because the rights they would be getting (eg on bringing spouses and family members) is actually more generous than the rights available to UK citizens and we won't be in the EU.

    No idea how any of it will be tracked anyway as we have no exit controls st al

    Yep - this is the bit I don’t get. How will we know they arrived for the first time after 29th March 2019?

    If they can't produce paperwork proving contrarywise.

    My Irish wife has been told she has to produce her passport every three months to prove she is allowed to work in the UK for example.

    The UK will become a bureaucratic hellhole for foreigners to live in I fear.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,184

    brendan16 said:

    Can anyone tell me why the UK government feels that:
    Refusing to guarantee permanent rights to EU nationals who come to live and work in Britain during the transition period
    is a point worth sticking on?!

    Can anyone tell me why the UK government feels that:
    Refusing to guarantee permanent rights to EU nationals who come to live and work in Britain during the transition period
    is a point worth sticking on?!

    Because the rights they would be getting (eg on bringing spouses and family members) is actually more generous than the rights available to UK citizens and we won't be in the EU.

    No idea how any of it will be tracked anyway as we have no exit controls st al

    Yep - this is the bit I don’t get. How will we know they arrived for the first time after 29th March 2019?

    National Insurance numbers and tax records?

    Do EU citizens need these now?

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 14,812

    Chalk and cheese IMHO:

    Presidents Club = an organisation not understanding the way in which what is socially acceptable has changed (rapidly) in recent years.

    Oxfam = an organisation doing its best to deal with totally reprehensible behaviour by some of its (now former) employees.

    The latter could happen to any organisation (it's how they deal with it that counts); the former says a lot about the organisation itself.
    Or how about one raised lots of money for charity whilst a few members behaved badly, and the other spent lots of money donated by others whilst some senior people behaved badly in a disaster zone, and then they covered it up, allegedly.

    Didn’t it turn out the President’s Club actually raised very little for charity?

    No.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 4,919

    brendan16 said:

    Can anyone tell me why the UK government feels that:
    Refusing to guarantee permanent rights to EU nationals who come to live and work in Britain during the transition period
    is a point worth sticking on?!

    Can anyone tell me why the UK government feels that:
    Refusing to guarantee permanent rights to EU nationals who come to live and work in Britain during the transition period
    is a point worth sticking on?!

    Because the rights they would be getting (eg on bringing spouses and family members) is actually more generous than the rights available to UK citizens and we won't be in the EU.

    No idea how any of it will be tracked anyway as we have no exit controls st al

    Yep - this is the bit I don’t get. How will we know they arrived for the first time after 29th March 2019?

    National Insurance numbers and tax records?

    Do EU citizens need these now?

    Everyone needs an NI number to work in the UK.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,184


    Try putting that on the side of a bus.

    “Your vote is irrelevant. Your betters have decided because you got it wrong”

    That what you meant?

    You were told there was no downside to your vote, that your wages would go up, there’d be more public spending and lower taxes, but - hey - it didn’t happen, your job’s gone and your community’s falling to pieces. Go sovereignty

  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 4,919


    Try putting that on the side of a bus.

    “Your vote is irrelevant. Your betters have decided because you got it wrong”

    That what you meant?

    You were told there was no downside to your vote, that your wages would go up, there’d be more public spending and lower taxes, but - hey - it didn’t happen, your job’s gone and your community’s falling to pieces. Go sovereignty

    "Everything would have been fine if the Remainers hadn't fought for the side of the EU."

    I think people would rather believe that they were right, but other people ruined it, then that they were duped. Sincere apologies, human psychology.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 3,367


    Try putting that on the side of a bus.

    “Your vote is irrelevant. Your betters have decided because you got it wrong”

    That what you meant?

    You were told there was no downside to your vote, that your wages would go up, there’d be more public spending and lower taxes, but - hey - it didn’t happen, your job’s gone and your community’s falling to pieces. Go sovereignty

    Yes the sky will fall and the waters rise and overwhelm us all.

    Or maybe not.

    Frankly as I said downthread it is clear by now this is existential to our independence. No price, I repeat no price, is not worth paying.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,018
    Pong said:

    Infependent front page

    Tuition fees to be cut and incentives for science and tech students

    https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/treasury-paves-way-tuition-fee-cut/

    "The Treasury are happy to drop the maximum fee, if it makes the RAB [Resource Accounting and Budgeting] charge lower,” a well-placed source said."

    Smoke and mirrors?

    The RAB charge is (basically) the total % of tuition fee debt that the treasury doesn't get repaid.

    Reducing the RAB charge means making students pay more - Increasing the tuition fee burden.

    Which means Theresa would be backtracking on her October announcement...

    https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9964

    This is going to be fun.
    I think it’s possible to reduce tuition fees but also RAB.
    Because the interest on the student debt is so high, and most never repay - that is theoretically a large amount of money Treasury miss out on.

    If Treasury reduced fees and made up the shortfall themselves (perhaps with a bit of a squeeze on universities to cut costs) then they could claim to have saved money. Bit of an accounting fiction.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,261


    Try putting that on the side of a bus.

    “Your vote is irrelevant. Your betters have decided because you got it wrong”

    That what you meant?

    You were told there was no downside to your vote, that your wages would go up, there’d be more public spending and lower taxes, but - hey - it didn’t happen, your job’s gone and your community’s falling to pieces. Go sovereignty

    You were told there would be an instant recession, sharp contraction in GDP and a surge in unemployment if you didn’t vote as you were told. And you voted how you wanted to anyway. That’s sovereignty.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,261

    brendan16 said:

    Can anyone tell me why the UK government feels that:
    Refusing to guarantee permanent rights to EU nationals who come to live and work in Britain during the transition period
    is a point worth sticking on?!

    Can anyone tell me why the UK government feels that:
    Refusing to guarantee permanent rights to EU nationals who come to live and work in Britain during the transition period
    is a point worth sticking on?!

    Because the rights they would be getting (eg on bringing spouses and family members) is actually more generous than the rights available to UK citizens and we won't be in the EU.

    No idea how any of it will be tracked anyway as we have no exit controls st al

    Yep - this is the bit I don’t get. How will we know they arrived for the first time after 29th March 2019?

    National Insurance numbers and tax records?

    Do EU citizens need these now?

    brendan16 said:

    Can anyone tell me why the UK government feels that:
    Refusing to guarantee permanent rights to EU nationals who come to live and work in Britain during the transition period
    is a point worth sticking on?!

    Can anyone tell me why the UK government feels that:
    Refusing to guarantee permanent rights to EU nationals who come to live and work in Britain during the transition period
    is a point worth sticking on?!

    Because the rights they would be getting (eg on bringing spouses and family members) is actually more generous than the rights available to UK citizens and we won't be in the EU.

    No idea how any of it will be tracked anyway as we have no exit controls st al

    Yep - this is the bit I don’t get. How will we know they arrived for the first time after 29th March 2019?

    National Insurance numbers and tax records?

    Do EU citizens need these now?

    Are you an employer?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,184


    Try putting that on the side of a bus.

    “Your vote is irrelevant. Your betters have decided because you got it wrong”

    That what you meant?

    You were told there was no downside to your vote, that your wages would go up, there’d be more public spending and lower taxes, but - hey - it didn’t happen, your job’s gone and your community’s falling to pieces. Go sovereignty

    "Everything would have been fine if the Remainers hadn't fought for the side of the EU."

    I think people would rather believe that they were right, but other people ruined it, then that they were duped. Sincere apologies, human psychology.

    Dealing with the fall-out of a closed Nissan or Honda plant will undoubtedly involve the Brexit loons saying it is all the EU’s fault, but they are still going to have to deal with the aftermath. There are countless fractured communities across the UK still paying the price of government failure to manage the decline of heavy industry proactively in the 80s and 90s.

  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited February 9
    Pong said:

    Infependent front page

    Tuition fees to be cut and incentives for science and tech students

    https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/treasury-paves-way-tuition-fee-cut/

    "The Treasury are happy to drop the maximum fee, if it makes the RAB [Resource Accounting and Budgeting] charge lower,” a well-placed source said."

    Smoke and mirrors?

    The RAB charge is (basically) the total % of tuition fee debt that the treasury doesn't get repaid.

    Reducing the RAB charge means making students pay more - Increasing the tuition fee burden.

    Which means Theresa would be backtracking on her October announcement...

    https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9964

    This is going to be fun.
    So,according to that source, the treasury is ok with cutting the headline tuition fee rate so long as students repay more overall.

    Oh no you don't.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,184

    brendan16 said:

    Can anyone tell me why the UK government feels that:
    Refusing to guarantee permanent rights to EU nationals who come to live and work in Britain during the transition period
    is a point worth sticking on?!

    Can anyone tell me why the UK government feels that:
    Refusing to guarantee permanent rights to EU nationals who come to live and work in Britain during the transition period
    is a point worth sticking on?!

    Because the rights they would be getting (eg on bringing spouses and family members) is actually more generous than the rights available to UK citizens and we won't be in the EU.

    No idea how any of it will be tracked anyway as we have no exit controls st al

    Yep - this is the bit I don’t get. How will we know they arrived for the first time after 29th March 2019?

    National Insurance numbers and tax records?

    Do EU citizens need these now?

    brendan16 said:

    Can anyone tell me why the UK government feels that:
    Refusing to guarantee permanent rights to EU nationals who come to live and work in Britain during the transition period
    is a point worth sticking on?!

    Can anyone tell me why the UK government feels that:
    Refusing to guarantee permanent rights to EU nationals who come to live and work in Britain during the transition period
    is a point worth sticking on?!

    Because the rights they would be getting (eg on bringing spouses and family members) is actually more generous than the rights available to UK citizens and we won't be in the EU.

    No idea how any of it will be tracked anyway as we have no exit controls st al

    Yep - this is the bit I don’t get. How will we know they arrived for the first time after 29th March 2019?

    National Insurance numbers and tax records?

    Do EU citizens need these now?

    Are you an employer?

    EU citizens do not need jobs to live here now, do they?

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,184


    Try putting that on the side of a bus.

    “Your vote is irrelevant. Your betters have decided because you got it wrong”

    That what you meant?

    You were told there was no downside to your vote, that your wages would go up, there’d be more public spending and lower taxes, but - hey - it didn’t happen, your job’s gone and your community’s falling to pieces. Go sovereignty

    You were told there would be an instant recession, sharp contraction in GDP and a surge in unemployment if you didn’t vote as you were told. And you voted how you wanted to anyway. That’s sovereignty.

    Not sure that works as a retort should we fall off the Brexit cliff. That’s why I’m still betting on a Brexit symbolique. The alternative is just too economically damaging to large parts of the country.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,261

    brendan16 said:

    Can anyone tell me why the UK government feels that:
    Refusing to guarantee permanent rights to EU nationals who come to live and work in Britain during the transition period
    is a point worth sticking on?!

    Can anyone tell me why the UK government feels that:
    Refusing to guarantee permanent rights to EU nationals who come to live and work in Britain during the transition period
    is a point worth sticking on?!

    Because the rights they would be getting (eg on bringing spouses and family members) is actually more generous than the rights available to UK citizens and we won't be in the EU.

    No idea how any of it will be tracked anyway as we have no exit controls st al

    Yep - this is the bit I don’t get. How will we know they arrived for the first time after 29th March 2019?

    National Insurance numbers and tax records?

    Do EU citizens need these now?

    brendan16 said:

    Can anyone tell me why the UK government feels that:
    Refusing to guarantee permanent rights to EU nationals who come to live and work in Britain during the transition period
    is a point worth sticking on?!

    Can anyone tell me why the UK government feels that:
    Refusing to guarantee permanent rights to EU nationals who come to live and work in Britain during the transition period
    is a point worth sticking on?!

    Because the rights they would be getting (eg on bringing spouses and family members) is actually more generous than the rights available to UK citizens and we won't be in the EU.

    No idea how any of it will be tracked anyway as we have no exit controls st al

    Yep - this is the bit I don’t get. How will we know they arrived for the first time after 29th March 2019?

    National Insurance numbers and tax records?

    Do EU citizens need these now?

    Are you an employer?

    EU citizens do not need jobs to live here now, do they?
    Freedom of movement is tied to employment - if people are not employed they can be asked to leave.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 4,919


    Try putting that on the side of a bus.

    “Your vote is irrelevant. Your betters have decided because you got it wrong”

    That what you meant?

    You were told there was no downside to your vote, that your wages would go up, there’d be more public spending and lower taxes, but - hey - it didn’t happen, your job’s gone and your community’s falling to pieces. Go sovereignty

    "Everything would have been fine if the Remainers hadn't fought for the side of the EU."

    I think people would rather believe that they were right, but other people ruined it, then that they were duped. Sincere apologies, human psychology.

    Dealing with the fall-out of a closed Nissan or Honda plant will undoubtedly involve the Brexit loons saying it is all the EU’s fault, but they are still going to have to deal with the aftermath. There are countless fractured communities across the UK still paying the price of government failure to manage the decline of heavy industry proactively in the 80s and 90s.

    Sure, there are going to be real consequences, but the Brexit loons won the public debate in 2016 and I see no sign of my side of the argument upping its game So who do you think is going to win the debate about who is to blame for the consequences?

    Being right is not enough. One also has to be persuasive. I know I just love being told how stupid I was whenever I've made a mistake.
This discussion has been closed.