If point 10 is correct (I honestly cannot recall) it is intereating, as surely it would mean either the EU is no more competent than us, or is operating in bad faith. I'd assume the former, because this whole area is a political mess.
It's a bit misleading. It agreed to those things in principle but didn't provide a solution, and stated that of a solution was not found that would meet the criteria, NI would have to remain in regulatory alignment with the EU (essentially staying in the CU )
The Belfast Telegraph on the possibility of an Irish Sea border, and the backstop plan:
Seems the only viable option to me, apart from full UK CU.
The invisible border concept is entirely viable in principle. It’s just the EU didn’t want to do the work jointly. Presumably because they thought they could “weaponise the Irish border” in negotiations
And Varadkar stopped the work on the border Kenny had started....'not our problem'....
The Dail has Sovereignty too!
In a negotiation, we do not get to pick the opposing team.
Why do you think he stopped the work? Surely cooperation is more fruitful?
Because it was giving false hope to the UK side who didn’t take the issue seriously.
Because we made the naïve assumption that the other side would negotiate in good faith towards a mutually beneficial outcome.
And the DVORAK keyboard is more efficient than a QWERTY keyboard, but the loss of efficiency is made up for by convenience because (for English speaking users anyway) it is what most people already use. Fair play to the French and a few allies for advancing the language, along with any advantages, but day to day usage and convenience leans toward English.
The point is that two people who have French (or Greek) as a second language are more likely to be able to communicate with precision than two people who have the same level of ability in English as a second language.
Almost all Commission posts require C1 and B2 CERF level in two of the EU's official languages so it isn't going to be a monoglot culture any time soon. I have tutored quite a few British students for the EU language entrance test in French and English but not any more...
Well, my 80th birthday celebrations of yesterday are over; nice things were said about me, drink was taken and cake was eaten and all that’s left is to sort out the bills.
On topic, dn’t those figures mean a conntinuation of the current Con plus DUP C&S arrangments?
Congrats Mr Cole, hope you enjoyed the day.
What a win,Harry Brook- star in the making ;-)
We did, Mr J, we did. Apart from the cricket, of course, where we’d booked a box, and it’s clear that in Coad as well as Brook Yorkshire have two future England players.
Back on topic, I think a coalition of the non-Conservative parties is really unlikely, but LibDems and SNP deciding to keep the Tories in office after 12 years and what would be perceived as electoral defeat would be suicide. In the end, perhaps after a new election, they will need to decide one way or the other, and it probably won't be for the Conservatives. I think we'd see a Labour minority government, lasting until either Corbyn decided to go for a majority (the FTPA won't inhibit it since oppositions won't in reality block an election) or a scandal occurred giving a legit reason to bring it down.
Specifically I doubt if attitudes to Brexit will be seen as crucial in 2022. Whatever we end up with, the electorate and even most MPs (if not Lord Adonis and Bill Cash) will be heartily sick of the subject.
Enda Kenny spelled out Ireland’s fears of a return to customs posts and border checks in a meeting with the UK prime minister during her visit to Dublin on Monday, amid warnings they could become targets for dissident republicans.
The taoiseach stressed that an open border and trade would between the two countries would “continue to be an absolute priority for my government, not just in our discussions with the British government, but also with our EU partners as we prepare for the negotiation process on the EU side of the table”.
Brexit was supposed to be the French language’s chance at a comeback.
For a brief moment after the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, Francophones in Paris and Brussels allowed themselves to believe that French would regain its historical standing as Europe’s language of diplomacy.
Instead, perhaps paradoxically, the opposite is taking place. Once Britain leaves the EU, only two, relatively small, EU member countries — Ireland and Malta — will still list English as an official language (alongside Irish and Maltese). It would be everyone else’s second language and thus neutral territory. Officials from non-French speaking countries like Poland, Italy or the Czech Republic are particularly eager to see the global lingua franca become the primary means of communication in the EU.
English is a very poor choice as a language of diplomacy and legislation due to the imprecision that comes from its manifold use of parataxis. Eg the omission of any type of connecting modifier between related nouns, optional elision of the conjunction "that" in subordinate clauses, omission of the relative pronoun when it serves as the object of a relative clause, use of the infinitive with an oblique pronoun in a subordinate clause. (There are lots more).
From a purely technical perspective French or Greek would be far superior as the working language of the EU.
A linguistics professor might say the points you are emphasizing were ones he had been making for years.
And the DVORAK keyboard is more efficient than a QWERTY keyboard, but the loss of efficiency is made up for by convenience because (for English speaking users anyway) it is what most people already use. Fair play to the French and a few allies for advancing the language, along with any advantages, but day to day usage and convenience leans toward English.
The point is that two people who have French (or Greek) as a second language are more likely to be able to communicate with precision than two people who have the same level of ability in English as a second language.
I wasn't contesting that, nor saying that the EU area is about to become monoglot, but it isn't purely about the Commission, and from that article the precision of language point does not seen to be the driving motivator either. I specifically referred to day to day, because from that article there are more people in the EU with english as second language than french, therefore it is demonstrably more convenient to conduct business in english a lot of the time. It isn't about only ever using english, no one is suggesting that, french is not going to disappear - the article was about francophiles hoping they could secure dominance for french once we left, but apparently that is not going to happen. That doesn't mean they will be forced to use english, that they will be disadvantaged. Just that they will not be advanged. Official documents and the like will still be in french, and german it seems.
So communication precision between two french or greek speakers is a bit irrelevant, since the french case is only superficially about efficient and effective communication. If they want french to be the dominant language, they need to convince other EU states to teach it as the second language more.
Back on topic, I think a coalition of the non-Conservative parties is really unlikely, but LibDems and SNP deciding to keep the Tories in office after 12 years and what would be perceived as electoral defeat would be suicide. In the end, perhaps after a new election, they will need to decide one way or the other, and it probably won't be for the Conservatives. I think we'd see a Labour minority government, lasting until either Corbyn decided to go for a majority (the FTPA won't inhibit it since oppositions won't in reality block an election) or a scandal occurred giving a legit reason to bring it down.
Specifically I doubt if attitudes to Brexit will be seen as crucial in 2022. Whatever we end up with, the electorate and even most MPs (if not Lord Adonis and Bill Cash) will be heartily sick of the subject.
We may all be heartily sick of Brexit by then but relations with the EU will still be a central issue in British politics so what the parties think that relationship should be will still be a critical issue, whether we like it or not.
Specifically I doubt if attitudes to Brexit will be seen as crucial in 2022. Whatever we end up with, the electorate and even most MPs (if not Lord Adonis and Bill Cash) will be heartily sick of the subject.
I have to disagree on that. The same Brexit issues as right now will not be crucial, but whatever deal we got, whatever transition, and how it is being perceived as it comes to an end, will I think very much influence what positions the parties take, and how much the public is willing to give either the benefit of the doubt. If the end state is as shambolic as the negotiation period, and depending on the economic bite that is occurring, then it won't matter, for instance, whether Corbyn would in practicality have done much differently, he can point to how badly the government did on it, and he'd probably get a lot of votes even from rejoiners, even if he is not proposing to rejoin, on the basis it punishes the Tories.
On topic, what parties say and do before an election and what they say and do immediately after are often entirely different. Before the votes are cast, it's all about maximising your own support and crucially winning as many seats as you can.
In an FPTP contest, seats are all that matters and the more seats the better and especially so for minor parties. 20 seats is infinitely worse than 60 seats and 100 seats infinitely better than 60 seats when it comes to deal-making and perhaps deal-breaking.
I'm no fan of either May or Corbyn but if the psychopath with the rusty blade that is our electoral system puts the LDs in a position similar to or more balanced than the projection at the top of the thread, what then ?
One of the advantages of being weak and irrelevant is no one asks you what you would do if you held the balance of power. It's a sign of the LDs recovering that the question that was asked throughout the mid 80s and early 90s is starting to be asked again.
The "line" (and I'm just a Party member so there's no point asking me) is, I believe, no deals. no coalitions and no C&S for either a minority Conservative or a minority Labour Government while the parties are led by and following the policy directions set by the current incumbents.
There's no deal or support until one changes - in the 1980s and 1990s Labour changed first but the Conservatives changed too albeit somewhat later and after three dismal GE defeats.
It's too easy to view the future through the prism of the past and assume what happened before will happen again. I don't know what's going to happen and neither does anyone else on here (though the certainty of some makes me think time travel from the future must be possible).
At the moment, Corbyn dominates politics albeit negatively. While he remains Labour leader, the Conservatives have a sense of purpose and a will to stay united and Labour remains profoundly unattractive to many however poorly the Conservative Government comports itself in office. Those who are tempted to stray from the blue tent have only to consider the apocalyptic vision of a Corbyn Government to run screaming back to May. Corbyn motivates as effectively as Kinnock did and Blair didn't.
The two scenarios that would change the current pattern are first the removal of Corbyn and his replacement by a new telegenic leader who would move to shift Labour's policies back to the centre or centre-left. The second is some form of implosion within the Conservative Party if the A50 deal is far removed from expectations. Let's not forget Conservatives have been happy to drag two Conservative Prime Ministers down over Europe so let's not assume, Corbyn notwithstanding, they wouldn't do it again.
I still think we're headed for a messy situation next time where Labour wins the most votes but the Tories end up with the most seats.
That will complicate matters.
Hmm it might look that way, but that is a narrow band to hit all things being equal. I'm not sure exactly how narrow though (The POTUS 16 hit it) - in practice the Con Votes-Con Seats & Labour votes-Labour seats are alot more likely surely though even if they aren't the central point. At the moment if you offered 2-1 on all three options, then Con-Con would probably be the bet.
What happens if a number of the Labour MPs let the Palace know that they would not support Corbyn as PM?
Hard to say but I'd imagine they'd still give him a chance to try. I mean, once we're in this alternative reality where Labour MPs won't vote for the Labour leader to become Prime Minister, who's to say there wouldn't be some Tories who would?
A more interesting question is what happens if somebody other than Corbyn looks like they can put together a coalition that includes part of the Conservative Party. At this point the Tories look more likely to crumble than to split, but you can imagine some weird things happening, like the Brexit ultras voting down their own government, at which point things could get quite contentious...
I see Barking & Dagenham was 76.7% Labour to 22.3% Con. That must be the highest combined vote share for Con/Lab anywhere, and probably Labour's highest vote anywhere.
Back on topic, I think a coalition of the non-Conservative parties is really unlikely, but LibDems and SNP deciding to keep the Tories in office after 12 years and what would be perceived as electoral defeat would be suicide. In the end, perhaps after a new election, they will need to decide one way or the other, and it probably won't be for the Conservatives. I think we'd see a Labour minority government, lasting until either Corbyn decided to go for a majority (the FTPA won't inhibit it since oppositions won't in reality block an election) or a scandal occurred giving a legit reason to bring it down.
Specifically I doubt if attitudes to Brexit will be seen as crucial in 2022. Whatever we end up with, the electorate and even most MPs (if not Lord Adonis and Bill Cash) will be heartily sick of the subject.
It is crazy that 2 years on and 10 months to go that the Brexiteers have no plan other than winging it.
As I keep pointing out, the Brexiteers do have a plan: I didn't coin the phrase "failing and blaming" for nothing. For some Brexiteers it's accidental and they are honestly bemused and upset when the world isn't as they imagined (witness the ongoing Ireland situation). For others it's a more cynical method of gaining and keeping power (witness Matthew Elliott and the bus). Given that many of them have the wealth and mobility to avoid any major repercussions, and the opposition is Jeremy Corbyn, this plan is not actually working too badly.
What happens if a number of the Labour MPs let the Palace know that they would not support Corbyn as PM?
Hard to say but I'd imagine they'd still give him a chance to try. I mean, once we're in this alternative reality where Labour MPs won't vote for the Labour leader to become Prime Minister, who's to say there wouldn't be some Tories who would? .
Well, there's at least one Labour MP (albeit currently suspended) who has been on the record previously as saying they would not vote to make Corbyn PM, though who knows if they would have followed through if the circumstance arose, and it was a matter of a few votes either way.
Anyway, time to enjoy some sun. Cover up everyone!
If point 10 is correct (I honestly cannot recall) it is intereating, as surely it would mean either the EU is no more competent than us, or is operating in bad faith. I'd assume the former, because this whole area is a political mess.
It's a bit misleading. It agreed to those things in principle but didn't provide a solution, and stated that of a solution was not found that would meet the criteria, NI would have to remain in regulatory alignment with the EU (essentially staying in the CU )
The Belfast Telegraph on the possibility of an Irish Sea border, and the backstop plan:
Seems the only viable option to me, apart from full UK CU.
The invisible border concept is entirely viable in principle. It’s just the EU didn’t want to do the work jointly. Presumably because they thought they could “weaponise the Irish border” in negotiations
The whole point of "Take back Control of Our Borders" is to have significant barriers to control entry of goods and people. Taking back control of borders by not policing them is an absurdity. We either need to have proper customs borders or to stay in the CU, whether a NI CU or a UK CU. Qe should have been building the human and physical infrastructure of Customs over the last 2 years. It is going to be a tall order by the end of Transition, which is likely to mean a forced continuity CU by default.
It is crazy that 2 years on and 10 months to go that the Brexiteers have no plan other than winging it.
The invisible border doesn’t mean not policing them. It means prefiling, trusted traveller status, intelligence led activity and spot checks.
Yep - loads more red tape and cost. Taking back control is expensive and bureaucratic.
Because we made the naïve assumption that the other side would negotiate in good faith towards a mutually beneficial outcome.
The pedant in me insists that you're using the phrase "in good faith" wrong. It means (or at least it used to, if google is correct) that you answer all questions honestly when asked. This is distinct from "utmost good faith", where you volunteer info even if not asked.
Assuming Norman Lamb retires at the next election, will the LDs be able to hold North Norfolk?
That depends.
If they poll 12-14% in 2022, up from 7% at the last election, and if they find a decent local candidate who works the seat for most of the next four years, then probably.
[December agreement:] The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU-UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all- island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement. 50. In the absence of agreed solutions, as set out in the previous paragraph, the United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, unless, consistent with the 1998 Agreement, the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland. In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market.
The EU is now trying to put a radically different interpretation on this, presumably due to pressure from Dublin backed by Selmayr, who doesn't have much understanding of the issues, but in principle the EU have themselves ruled out a border in the Irish Sea.
[...]
The EU has translated the general agreement, as agreed by Theresa May, into black and white treaty terms. She need not accept that translation and could, if she wanted to, negotiate the particular terms. She doesn't want to because she rejects the whole thing at the moment.
The question is what will happen. This needs to be agreed by October to unlock the Withdrawal Agreement and a standstill "transition" for the EU and third country agreements to the end of 2020. These are the possible short term outcomes:
1. The UK agrees the NI backstop largely or entirely as set out in the draft agreement. 2. The EU drops the NI backstop requirement. 3. The EU accepts a UK proposal to broaden the backstop to include all UK. 4. No agreement is made and the UK departs in chaos from the EU.
All are possible but I think (2) and (4) are unlikely (maybe a bit of hope for 4 as I clearly don't want chaos). I think (1) is quite likely, simply because the text is there and it is always more difficult to agree a specific other. It would have to be sold on the basis that the backstop would never actually kick in. There should be a majority in Westminster for (1). It should also get majority support in Northern Ireland. It is a big issue for the DUP, however, with implications for the Conservative government they are propping up.
I'm slightly confused about your comment about the IMF trying to prevent the ECB bailout of the Irish banks.
Indeed, I'm slightly confused about your comment about the ECB bailing out the Irish banks, given that the principle support given to them was from the Irish government itself.
According to Electoral Calculus, a result of Con 37, Lab 36, LD 14 (assuming no change in Scotland) gives Con 299, Lab 271, Lib Dem 24.
I would be surprised if the LDs did as well as that at 14%. While their vote is increasingly efficient (i.e. they are completely invisible in large parts of the country), that's a difficult one to pull off in FPTP.
I'm slightly confused about your comment about the IMF trying to prevent the ECB bailout of the Irish banks.
Indeed, I'm slightly confused about your comment about the ECB bailing out the Irish banks, given that the principle support given to them was from the Irish government itself.
1) The IMF tried to ensure unsecured bond holders would not be repaid. The ECB and the G8 disagreed.
2) It was a mixture. The ECB lent €160 billion to the Irish banks directly.
However, as the Irish government didn't have the money to bail out the banks itself, and couldn't borrow, the ECB loaned Ireland the money to bail out its banks.
The EU has translated the general agreement, as agreed by Theresa May, into black and white treaty terms. She need not accept that translation and could, if she wanted to, negotiate the particular terms. She doesn't want to because she rejects the whole thing at the moment.
The question is what will happen. This needs to be agreed by October to unlock the Withdrawal Agreement and a standstill "transition" for the EU and third country agreements to the end of 2020. These are the possible short term outcomes:
1. The UK agrees the NI backstop largely or entirely as set out in the draft agreement. 2. The EU drops the NI backstop requirement. 3. The EU accepts a UK proposal to broaden the backstop to include all UK. 4. No agreement is made and the UK departs in chaos from the EU.
All are possible but I think (2) and (4) are unlikely (maybe a bit of hope for 4 as I clearly don't want chaos). I think (1) is quite likely, simply because the text is there and it is always more difficult to agree a specific other. It would have to be sold on the basis that the backstop would never actually kick in. There should be a majority in Westminster for (1). It should also get majority support in Northern Ireland. It is a big issue for the DUP, however, with implications for the Conservative government they are propping up.
For completeness I should have added a fifth short term possibility that no agreement is arrived at for the Withdrawal Agreement and leaving the EU is delayed.
I'm slightly confused about your comment about the IMF trying to prevent the ECB bailout of the Irish banks.
Indeed, I'm slightly confused about your comment about the ECB bailing out the Irish banks, given that the principle support given to them was from the Irish government itself.
It was a mixture. The ECB lent €160 billion to the Irish banks directly.
However, as the Irish government didn't have the money to bail out the banks itself, and couldn't borrow, the ECB loaned Ireland the money to bail out its banks.
And this is on how the ECB's credit was used to reinflate the Irish property bubble:
OK, so my understanding and your understanding are broadly the same. That is, the Irish banks borrowed from the ECB by putting up collateral, as other European banks did, and the ECB bailed out the Irish government (which needed bailing out, because it had bailed out the Irish banks).
But I'm still struggling with the IMF comment. Are you referring to their criticism of the initial 29 September 2008 commitment by the Irish government to offer an unlimited backstop the banks? (Something the Irish government did unilaterally.)
Back on topic, I think a coalition of the non-Conservative parties is really unlikely, but LibDems and SNP deciding to keep the Tories in office after 12 years and what would be perceived as electoral defeat would be suicide. In the end, perhaps after a new election, they will need to decide one way or the other, and it probably won't be for the Conservatives.
"'There will be NO DEAL with SNP' Labour leader Corbyn rules out an alliance"
'Jeremy Corbyn says he would "open discussions" with the SNP over a second independence referendum'
'Jeremy Corbyn rejects 'progressive alliance' with SNP - BBC News'
"Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn: 'I will do a deal with the SNP to save Scottish steel industry'"
'“If a referendum is held then it is absolutely fine, it should be held,” he (Corbyn) said. “I don’t think it’s the job of Westminster or the Labour party to prevent people holding referenda.”'
'Jeremy Corbyn Told Me He Backs Scottish Independence, Claims Mhairi Black'
Alternatively, perhaps Jeremy needs to decide one way or the other about the SNP and Scotland.
I'm slightly confused about your comment about the IMF trying to prevent the ECB bailout of the Irish banks.
Indeed, I'm slightly confused about your comment about the ECB bailing out the Irish banks, given that the principle support given to them was from the Irish government itself.
1) The IMF tried to ensure unsecured bond holders would not be repaid. The ECB and the G8 disagreed.
2) It was a mixture. The ECB lent €160 billion to the Irish banks directly.
However, as the Irish government didn't have the money to bail out the banks itself, and couldn't borrow, the ECB loaned Ireland the money to bail out its banks.
I don't disagree that that ECB credit was used to reflate the Irish property market. BOE credit was used to reflate the UK property market, BOJ the Japanese one, and Fed money the US one. That was a feature, not a bug.
The goal - and you can agree with it or disagree with it - was to avoid a situation where falling prices pushed more property companies into insolvency, which forced properties onto the market, which banks were unable to lend people money to buy, which forced prices down further. And repeat.
If point 10 is correct (I honestly cannot recall) it is intereating, as surely it would mean either the EU is no more competent than us, or is operating in bad faith. I'd assume the former, because this whole area is a political mess.
It's a bit misleading. It agreed to those things in principle but didn't provide a solution, and stated that of a solution was not found that would meet the criteria, NI would have to remain in regulatory alignment with the EU (essentially staying in the CU )
The Belfast Telegraph on the possibility of an Irish Sea border, and the backstop plan:
Seems the only viable option to me, apart from full UK CU.
The invisible border concept is entirely viable in principle. It’s just the EU didn’t want to do the work jointly. Presumably because they thought they could “weaponise the Irish border” in negotiations
It is crazy that 2 years on and 10 months to go that the Brexiteers have no plan other than winging it.
The invisible border doesn’t mean not policing them. It means prefiling, trusted traveller status, intelligence led activity and spot checks.
Yep - loads more red tape and cost. Taking back control is expensive and bureaucratic.
As well as infrastructure and staff that we do not have. Anyone ready for another successful government IT project?
I think the EU is unlikely to completely trust us on customs, bearing in mind this little fine:
Back on topic, I think a coalition of the non-Conservative parties is really unlikely, but LibDems and SNP deciding to keep the Tories in office after 12 years and what would be perceived as electoral defeat would be suicide. In the end, perhaps after a new election, they will need to decide one way or the other, and it probably won't be for the Conservatives.
"'There will be NO DEAL with SNP' Labour leader Corbyn rules out an alliance"
'Jeremy Corbyn says he would "open discussions" with the SNP over a second independence referendum'
'Jeremy Corbyn rejects 'progressive alliance' with SNP - BBC News'
"Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn: 'I will do a deal with the SNP to save Scottish steel industry'"
'“If a referendum is held then it is absolutely fine, it should be held,” he (Corbyn) said. “I don’t think it’s the job of Westminster or the Labour party to prevent people holding referenda.”'
'Jeremy Corbyn Told Me He Backs Scottish Independence, Claims Mhairi Black'
Alternatively, perhaps Jeremy needs to decide one way or the other about the SNP and Scotland.
It’s quite disturbing how many things Jeremy C needs to decide one way or another on. Whereas Mrs May seems to decide but almost invariably the way which is of least advantage to Britain.
In some respects if the next general election produced a result as projected by Sky with the Tories largest party but Corbyn able to become PM propped up by the SNP, the LDs and Greens it would not be too bad a result for the Tories.
They would effectively have opposition all to themselves in mainland GB and the Corbyn government would be the weakest since the War and likely to become unpopular very quickly. That is as OGH affirms assuming the LDs did back Corbyn anyway
Back on topic, I think a coalition of the non-Conservative parties is really unlikely, but LibDems and SNP deciding to keep the Tories in office after 12 years and what would be perceived as electoral defeat would be suicide. In the end, perhaps after a new election, they will need to decide one way or the other, and it probably won't be for the Conservatives.
"'There will be NO DEAL with SNP' Labour leader Corbyn rules out an alliance"
'Jeremy Corbyn says he would "open discussions" with the SNP over a second independence referendum'
'Jeremy Corbyn rejects 'progressive alliance' with SNP - BBC News'
"Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn: 'I will do a deal with the SNP to save Scottish steel industry'"
'“If a referendum is held then it is absolutely fine, it should be held,” he (Corbyn) said. “I don’t think it’s the job of Westminster or the Labour party to prevent people holding referenda.”'
'Jeremy Corbyn Told Me He Backs Scottish Independence, Claims Mhairi Black'
Alternatively, perhaps Jeremy needs to decide one way or the other about the SNP and Scotland.
The uncertainty principle in action. Corbyn applies a similar method to Brexit, and dodgy regimes. Physicist have successfully put macro scale objects in quantum superpositions, but nothing quite on the scale of the leader of the opposition.
I'm slightly confused about your comment about the IMF trying to prevent the ECB bailout of the Irish banks.
Indeed, I'm slightly confused about your comment about the ECB bailing out the Irish banks, given that the principle support given to them was from the Irish government itself.
1) The IMF tried to ensure unsecured bond holders would not be repaid. The ECB and the G8 disagreed.
2) It was a mixture. The ECB lent €160 billion to the Irish banks directly.
However, as the Irish government didn't have the money to bail out the banks itself, and couldn't borrow, the ECB loaned Ireland the money to bail out its banks.
I don't disagree that that ECB credit was used to reflate the Irish property market. BOE credit was used to reflate the UK property market, BOJ the Japanese one, and Fed money the US one. That was a feature, not a bug.
The goal - and you can agree with it or disagree with it - was to avoid a situation where falling prices pushed more property companies into insolvency, which forced properties onto the market, which banks were unable to lend people money to buy, which forced prices down further. And repeat.
I'm slightly confused about your comment about the IMF trying to prevent the ECB bailout of the Irish banks.
Indeed, I'm slightly confused about your comment about the ECB bailing out the Irish banks, given that the principle support given to them was from the Irish government itself.
1) The IMF tried to ensure unsecured bond holders would not be repaid. The ECB and the G8 disagreed.
2) It was a mixture. The ECB lent €160 billion to the Irish banks directly.
However, as the Irish government didn't have the money to bail out the banks itself, and couldn't borrow, the ECB loaned Ireland the money to bail out its banks.
I don't disagree that that ECB credit was used to reflate the Irish property market. BOE credit was used to reflate the UK property market, BOJ the Japanese one, and Fed money the US one. That was a feature, not a bug.
The goal - and you can agree with it or disagree with it - was to avoid a situation where falling prices pushed more property companies into insolvency, which forced properties onto the market, which banks were unable to lend people money to buy, which forced prices down further. And repeat.
Sounds like state aid.
All the bank bailouts were state aid.
Because the consequences of cascading failure were too severe to contemplate.
Back on topic, I think a coalition of the non-Conservative parties is really unlikely, but LibDems and SNP deciding to keep the Tories in office after 12 years and what would be perceived as electoral defeat would be suicide. In the end, perhaps after a new election, they will need to decide one way or the other, and it probably won't be for the Conservatives.
"'There will be NO DEAL with SNP' Labour leader Corbyn rules out an alliance"
'Jeremy Corbyn says he would "open discussions" with the SNP over a second independence referendum'
'Jeremy Corbyn rejects 'progressive alliance' with SNP - BBC News'
"Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn: 'I will do a deal with the SNP to save Scottish steel industry'"
'“If a referendum is held then it is absolutely fine, it should be held,” he (Corbyn) said. “I don’t think it’s the job of Westminster or the Labour party to prevent people holding referenda.”'
'Jeremy Corbyn Told Me He Backs Scottish Independence, Claims Mhairi Black'
Alternatively, perhaps Jeremy needs to decide one way or the other about the SNP and Scotland.
By the next general election in 2022 polls project there will be a Unionist majority at Holyrood anyway in the 2021 Holyrood elections making the indyref2 issue less relevant
Back on topic, I think a coalition of the non-Conservative parties is really unlikely, but LibDems and SNP deciding to keep the Tories in office after 12 years and what would be perceived as electoral defeat would be suicide. In the end, perhaps after a new election, they will need to decide one way or the other, and it probably won't be for the Conservatives.
"'There will be NO DEAL with SNP' Labour leader Corbyn rules out an alliance"
'Jeremy Corbyn says he would "open discussions" with the SNP over a second independence referendum'
'Jeremy Corbyn rejects 'progressive alliance' with SNP - BBC News'
"Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn: 'I will do a deal with the SNP to save Scottish steel industry'"
'“If a referendum is held then it is absolutely fine, it should be held,” he (Corbyn) said. “I don’t think it’s the job of Westminster or the Labour party to prevent people holding referenda.”'
'Jeremy Corbyn Told Me He Backs Scottish Independence, Claims Mhairi Black'
Alternatively, perhaps Jeremy needs to decide one way or the other about the SNP and Scotland.
By the next general election in 2022 polls project there will be a Unionist majority at Holyrood anyway in the 2021 Holyrood elections making the indyref2 issue less relevant
You may have suggested that once or twice (or a hundred) times before.
Back on topic, I think a coalition of the non-Conservative parties is really unlikely, but LibDems and SNP deciding to keep the Tories in office after 12 years and what would be perceived as electoral defeat would be suicide. In the end, perhaps after a new election, they will need to decide one way or the other, and it probably won't be for the Conservatives.
"'There will be NO DEAL with SNP' Labour leader Corbyn rules out an alliance"
'Jeremy Corbyn says he would "open discussions" with the SNP over a second independence referendum'
'Jeremy Corbyn rejects 'progressive alliance' with SNP - BBC News'
"Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn: 'I will do a deal with the SNP to save Scottish steel industry'"
'“If a referendum is held then it is absolutely fine, it should be held,” he (Corbyn) said. “I don’t think it’s the job of Westminster or the Labour party to prevent people holding referenda.”'
'Jeremy Corbyn Told Me He Backs Scottish Independence, Claims Mhairi Black'
Alternatively, perhaps Jeremy needs to decide one way or the other about the SNP and Scotland.
The uncertainty principle in action. Corbyn applies a similar method to Brexit, and dodgy regimes. Physicist have successfully put macro scale objects in quantum superpositions, but nothing quite on the scale of the leader of the opposition.
To be fair, it does demonstrate an open mindedness that does leave scope for compromise
If point 10 is correct (I honestly cannot recall) it is intereating, as surely it would mean either the EU is no more competent than us, or is operating in bad faith. I'd assume the former, because this whole area is a political mess.
It’s not correct. The arrangement the EU and Uk came to in Dec was a backstop position if no agreement on Customs was made.
That is completely false. The EU agreed that the UK was leaving the CU. The backstop never agreed that either NI or the UK would remain in the CU. It referred only to full alignment over items that "support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.' This was deliberately vague and under the 1998 Agreement probably only a very limited subset of SM rules was involved.
The whole point of the 'backstop' was to be a fudge to allow negotiations to proceed on the FTA that would make it unnecessary. But of course the moment the EU got this concession they engaged bad faith and pretended that there was never any other solution.
The end game here of Olly Robbins was always to encourage the EU to use this clause to hold the whole UK in the CU and SM - all he is trying to do now is find a new name for it - Customs Partnership.
Back on topic, I think a coalition of the non-Conservative parties is really unlikely, but LibDems and SNP deciding to keep the Tories in office after 12 years and what would be perceived as electoral defeat would be suicide. In the end, perhaps after a new election, they will need to decide one way or the other, and it probably won't be for the Conservatives.
"'There will be NO DEAL with SNP' Labour leader Corbyn rules out an alliance"
'Jeremy Corbyn says he would "open discussions" with the SNP over a second independence referendum'
'Jeremy Corbyn rejects 'progressive alliance' with SNP - BBC News'
"Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn: 'I will do a deal with the SNP to save Scottish steel industry'"
'“If a referendum is held then it is absolutely fine, it should be held,” he (Corbyn) said. “I don’t think it’s the job of Westminster or the Labour party to prevent people holding referenda.”'
'Jeremy Corbyn Told Me He Backs Scottish Independence, Claims Mhairi Black'
Alternatively, perhaps Jeremy needs to decide one way or the other about the SNP and Scotland.
The uncertainty principle in action. Corbyn applies a similar method to Brexit, and dodgy regimes. Physicist have successfully put macro scale objects in quantum superpositions, but nothing quite on the scale of the leader of the opposition.
trump does the same thing, and it works for both of them.
Well, my 80th birthday celebrations of yesterday are over; nice things were said about me, drink was taken and cake was eaten and all that’s left is to sort out the bills.
On topic, dn’t those figures mean a conntinuation of the current Con plus DUP C&S arrangments?
Congrats Mr Cole, hope you enjoyed the day.
What a win,Harry Brook- star in the making ;-)
We did, Mr J, we did. Apart from the cricket, of course, where we’d booked a box, and it’s clear that in Coad as well as Brook Yorkshire have two future England players.
Well they certainly tick the experience in recovering from humiliating batting collapses box....
Coad apparently picked up an ankle injury; he also had a pre-season hip injury. I just hope he’s not pushed too hard, too fast. He’s added a yard to his pace, and needs a little time to settle in to it, I think.
I'm slightly confused about your comment about the IMF trying to prevent the ECB bailout of the Irish banks.
Indeed, I'm slightly confused about your comment about the ECB bailing out the Irish banks, given that the principle support given to them was from the Irish government itself.
1) The IMF tried to ensure unsecured bond holders would not be repaid. The ECB and the G8 disagreed.
2) It was a mixture. The ECB lent €160 billion to the Irish banks directly.
However, as the Irish government didn't have the money to bail out the banks itself, and couldn't borrow, the ECB loaned Ireland the money to bail out its banks.
I don't disagree that that ECB credit was used to reflate the Irish property market. BOE credit was used to reflate the UK property market, BOJ the Japanese one, and Fed money the US one. That was a feature, not a bug.
The goal - and you can agree with it or disagree with it - was to avoid a situation where falling prices pushed more property companies into insolvency, which forced properties onto the market, which banks were unable to lend people money to buy, which forced prices down further. And repeat.
Sounds like state aid.
For homeowners.
Ah, it's Edit The Comment After Publishing day.
The bank bailouts were bailouts for Depositors, and for Homeowners, for sure. What they mostly weren't was bailout for bank shareholders, most of whom lost the vast majority of their investments.
Mr. F, presumably that means the Conservatives had a smaller but significant lead in England (excluding London)? Also, that the Lib Dems did better out of London than in it?
It's interesting to note that Labour won 56 seats in London in 1997, compared to 11 Conservative and 6 Lib Dem. Thursday's result would have been more like 47, 22, 4, which shows how effective New Labour were at winning votes where they needed them.
I would imagine that the outer rim and banker belt have swung to the Conservatives but with the middle suburbs becoming strongly Labour.
Assuming Norman Lamb retires at the next election, will the LDs be able to hold North Norfolk?
LibDems don't have a great track record in 'handing on' seats to successor candidates, but it has happened. 'Twas how we came by Clegg, after all.
True but Sheffield Hallam is rather more natural LibDem territory than Norfolk North.
In fact Sheffield Hallam should be one of the most likely LibDem gains at the next GE.
If the current Labour MP manages to get reselected, then I think there's a good chance the LDs capture it. (TBH, the current MP is so loathsome, he's someone I might tactically vote against.)
I'm slightly confused about your comment about the IMF trying to prevent the ECB bailout of the Irish banks.
Indeed, I'm slightly confused about your comment about the ECB bailing out the Irish banks, given that the principle support given to them was from the Irish government itself.
1) The IMF tried to ensure unsecured bond holders would not be repaid. The ECB and the G8 disagreed.
2) It was a mixture. The ECB lent €160 billion to the Irish banks directly.
However, as the Irish government didn't have the money to bail out the banks itself, and couldn't borrow, the ECB loaned Ireland the money to bail out its banks.
I don't disagree that that ECB credit was used to reflate the Irish property market. BOE credit was used to reflate the UK property market, BOJ the Japanese one, and Fed money the US one. That was a feature, not a bug.
The goal - and you can agree with it or disagree with it - was to avoid a situation where falling prices pushed more property companies into insolvency, which forced properties onto the market, which banks were unable to lend people money to buy, which forced prices down further. And repeat.
Sounds like state aid.
For homeowners.
Ah, it's Edit The Comment After Publishing day.
The bank bailouts were bailouts for Depositors, and for Homeowners, for sure. What they mostly weren't was bailout for bank shareholders, most of whom lost the vast majority of their investments.
Assuming Norman Lamb retires at the next election, will the LDs be able to hold North Norfolk?
LibDems don't have a great track record in 'handing on' seats to successor candidates, but it has happened. 'Twas how we came by Clegg, after all.
True but Sheffield Hallam is rather more natural LibDem territory than Norfolk North.
In fact Sheffield Hallam should be one of the most likely LibDem gains at the next GE.
If the current Labour MP manages to get reselected, then I think there's a good chance the LDs capture it. (TBH, the current MP is so loathsome, he's someone I might tactically vote against.)
I think it will be a Lib Dem gain next election, though you can't always extrapolate from these things the locals were very very good for the yellows in west Sheffield.
We may all be heartily sick of Brexit by then but relations with the EU will still be a central issue in British politics so what the parties think that relationship should be will still be a critical issue, whether we like it or not.
There's something in that, but the main parameters (e.g. CU or not) will I assume be fixed by then, and everyone will be talking about nurturing good relations in the new situation - not sure there will be any deal-breakers still around.
Alternatively, perhaps Jeremy needs to decide one way or the other about the SNP and Scotland.
If offering Indyref2 to the SNP was the price of getting SNP support to be PM then Corybn would do it in a heartbeat.
Possibly, but it would depend on how much power Unionist Labour could bring to bear on him (cf Jezza & Trident). Normally I'd say that SLab would never wear it, but the new intake seem a bunch of sheep.
The bank bailouts were bailouts for Depositors, and for Homeowners, for sure. What they mostly weren't was bailout for bank shareholders, most of whom lost the vast majority of their investments.
They were bailouts for directors as well.
Yes.
There are banks (well a bank) where the Directors have unlimited liability.
If point 10 is correct (I honestly cannot recall) it is intereating, as surely it would mean either the EU is no more competent than us, or is operating in bad faith. I'd assume the former, because this whole area is a political mess.
It's a bit misleading. It agreed to those things in principle but didn't provide a solution, and stated that of a solution was not found that would meet the criteria, NI would have to remain in regulatory alignment with the EU (essentially staying in the CU )
The Belfast Telegraph on the possibility of an Irish Sea border, and the backstop plan:
Seems the only viable option to me, apart from full UK CU.
The invisible border concept is entirely viable in principle. It’s just the EU didn’t want to do the work jointly. Presumably because they thought they could “weaponise the Irish border” in negotiations
The whole point of "Take back Control of Our Borders" is to have significant barriers to control entry of goods and people. Taking back control of borders by not policing them is an absurdity. We either need to have proper customs borders or to stay in the CU, whether a NI CU or a UK CU. Qe should have been building the human and physical infrastructure of Customs over the last 2 years. It is going to be a tall order by the end of Transition, which is likely to mean a forced continuity CU by default.
It is crazy that 2 years on and 10 months to go that the Brexiteers have no plan other than winging it.
The invisible border doesn’t mean not policing them. It means prefiling, trusted traveller status, intelligence led activity and spot checks.
Yep - loads more red tape and cost. Taking back control is expensive and bureaucratic.
Not a huge amount but, by definition, if you introduce something that wasn’t there previously it is more bureaucratic.
I guess the voters saw that as an acceptable trade off vs what they perceived as the political upsides of leaving the EU
Alternatively, perhaps Jeremy needs to decide one way or the other about the SNP and Scotland.
If offering Indyref2 to the SNP was the price of getting SNP support to be PM then Corybn would do it in a heartbeat.
Possibly, but it would depend on how much power Unionist Labour could bring to bear on him (cf Jezza & Trident). Normally I'd say that SLab would never wear it, but the new intake seem a bunch of sheep.
He wouldn't get it through Parliament, especially as in this scenario the Tories would be largest party and would vote against, as would the DUP and the LDs and the most Unionist Labour MPs
The bank bailouts were bailouts for Depositors, and for Homeowners, for sure. What they mostly weren't was bailout for bank shareholders, most of whom lost the vast majority of their investments.
They were bailouts for directors as well.
Yes.
There are banks (well a bank) where the Directors have unlimited liability.
Personally I think that model encourages prudent behaviour and is therefore a good thing!
(Not all the directors by the way - just the partners)
Alternatively, perhaps Jeremy needs to decide one way or the other about the SNP and Scotland.
If offering Indyref2 to the SNP was the price of getting SNP support to be PM then Corybn would do it in a heartbeat.
Possibly, but it would depend on how much power Unionist Labour could bring to bear on him (cf Jezza & Trident). Normally I'd say that SLab would never wear it, but the new intake seem a bunch of sheep.
The May 2021 Holyrood elections could well prove to be quite interesting as the first major elections post Transition:
Alternatively, perhaps Jeremy needs to decide one way or the other about the SNP and Scotland.
If offering Indyref2 to the SNP was the price of getting SNP support to be PM then Corybn would do it in a heartbeat.
Possibly, but it would depend on how much power Unionist Labour could bring to bear on him (cf Jezza & Trident). Normally I'd say that SLab would never wear it, but the new intake seem a bunch of sheep.
The May 2021 Holyrood elections could well prove to be quite interesting as the first major elections post Transition:
Why is Olly Robbins suddenly in the line of Brexiter fire?
Are the Brexiters seriously suggesting that witless David Davis (supposedly close to resignation a week ago) is able to negotiate anything - apart from his way through a bottle of scotch, of course?
Refusing to invest time on a bank holiday debating any and every self-proclaimed twitter activist doesn’t say anything about the arguments
Refusing to engage in any debate because you have no answers says everything about Brexit
If “Vulcan shagger” John Redwood wishes to avoid debate on a sunny bank holiday, perhaps he ought to spend time in the garden instead of dialing into LBC.
Oh, and Mahathir Mohamad is hoping to be President in Tuesday’s Malaysian elections. He is 92.
No one can claim he doesn't have the experience, he has been in politics in Malaysia since immediately after WW2, and is the longest serving PM in their history. In some ways a mirror image of our Queen he has outlived six monarchs ;-)
I can't see how the SNP could justify propping the conservatives up. Obviously there's plenty of time for realignment if the next election is when its scheduled for, but their current positions don't really allow the option. They could of course cause massive problems for a Labour government and eventually bring it down.
But the Lib Dems are pretty right wing nowadays, so the conservatives are their natural allies. And if they're in a position where they can swing who is PM, that probably means the conservatives have significantly more seats which will help them justify their choice.
I can’t see any alternative in such a scenario for a Lab - LD - SNP - Green - SDLP hookup. Of course, it doesn’t have to be a formal coalition, it could be confidence and supply (which is probably what the LDs would prefer). What it would probably lead to is a very weak government fighting for ally support on each vote, which would go some way to mitigating the excesses of Corbynism.
The issue is that it probably leads to second Scottish referendum. It might also lead to - gasp - another electoral reform referendum.
Alternatively, perhaps Jeremy needs to decide one way or the other about the SNP and Scotland.
If offering Indyref2 to the SNP was the price of getting SNP support to be PM then Corybn would do it in a heartbeat.
Possibly, but it would depend on how much power Unionist Labour could bring to bear on him (cf Jezza & Trident). Normally I'd say that SLab would never wear it, but the new intake seem a bunch of sheep.
He wouldn't get it through Parliament, especially as in this scenario the Tories would be largest party and would vote against, as would the DUP and the LDs and the most Unionist Labour MPs
Well, there you go. Jezza offering to put forward legislation for Indy Ref II and it coming to pass in any useful form (see Devo ref '79) are 2 different things. I'd imagine that the SNP would be wise to any such slipperiness, though of course a well rinsed Yoon conspiracy theory is that they don't want another referendum, so..
Why is Olly Robbins suddenly in the line of Brexiter fire?
Are the Brexiters seriously suggesting that witless David Davis (supposedly close to resignation a week ago) is able to negotiate anything - apart from his way through a bottle of scotch, of course?
I believe his negotiation skills go as far as being able to get out of a wet paper bag.
As for Robbins, the issue isn't his competence, it, IMO, questions over his motivation. From what I've gathered there are some ministers who believe he has purposely led the negotiation on a customs "partnership" into a cul de sac because it leaves the door open to remaining. There are also a few who believe that he has been egging the EU to keep us in the customs union for the same reasons. I don't know whether that's true, but given that he's in the civil service and not answerable to the public we probably won't find out.
Either way it probably is time to replace him, he's clearly proven himself not up to the job along with Davis, Fox and Johnson.
I can’t see any alternative in such a scenario for a Lab - LD - SNP - Green - SDLP hookup. Of course, it doesn’t have to be a formal coalition, it could be confidence and supply (which is probably what the LDs would prefer). What it would probably lead to is a very weak government fighting for ally support on each vote, which would go some way to mitigating the excesses of Corbynism.
The issue is that it probably leads to second Scottish referendum. It might also lead to - gasp - another electoral reform referendum.
The Tories are currently on track for the same fate as the National Party in NZ.
Most votes, most seats - but locked out of government by fickle third parties.
The Lib Dem’s first choice - to prove they are not Tory stooges if nothing else - would be to support Labour in confidence & supply - probably in exchange for a new referendum on the EU.
The SNP are never going to support the Tories. I think Corbyn would eschew any formal arrangement with them - including C&S - if he could get away with it, but neither would be particularly worried about conceding a new Scottish ref.
As of today, a version of the above scenario must be about 50% likely.
Refusing to invest time on a bank holiday debating any and every self-proclaimed twitter activist doesn’t say anything about the arguments
Refusing to engage in any debate because you have no answers says everything about Brexit
If “Vulcan shagger” John Redwood wishes to avoid debate on a sunny bank holiday, perhaps he ought to spend time in the garden instead of dialing into LBC.
If you believe in something you generally don't avoid an opportunity to argue for it. I think a lot of Brexiters are losing their faith at the moment.
I believe his negotiation skills go as far as being able to get out of a wet paper bag.
As for Robbins, the issue isn't his competence, it, IMO, questions over his motivation. From what I've gathered there are some ministers who believe he has purposely led the negotiation on a customs "partnership" into a cul de sac because it leaves the door open to remaining. There are also a few who believe that he has been egging the EU to keep us in the customs union for the same reasons. I don't know whether that's true, but given that he's in the civil service and not answerable to the public we probably won't find out.
Either way it probably is time to replace him, he's clearly proven himself not up to the job along with Davis, Fox and Johnson.
You are right about Robbins motivations but not about his strategy. It was Robbins who convinced May to make the December agreement and to agree to the backstop. By all accounts Davis warned her not to do it. Robbins trick at the moment is to use the NI 'crisis' (that he and Barnier have created as is suits them both) to expand the backstop idea from NI to the whole UK. The customs partnership has always been is his endgame - it not only keeps us in the CU but also requires alignment to the SM. Basically, BRINO.
I don't believe that the EU actually object to the Customs Partnership. They object to MaxFac of course, not because it won't work but because it would and would allow the UK to exit both the CU and SM and leave the EU with no control. I think the EUs rejection of the Customs Partnership is a sham - they intend to grudgingly agree to allow May to save face and distract everyone from the reality which is that it is a complete sellout.
Unfortunately for May and Robbins, the ERG intervened and there were enough cabinet ministers with a brain to point out the obvious - that the customs partnership was just SM membership by another name. May was obviously surprised that she got called out.
However, all that will happen is there will be some tweaks to the model and it will reappear, this time badged as a 'combination' of the Customs Partnership and MaxFac. This is just about muddying the waters. The leavers will complain but don't have the guts to throw May out, and magically the EU will 'backtrack' and agree to the Customs Partnership (if, of course, we agree to follow all SM rules and allow the ECJ to adjudicate and no doubt some ridiculous agreement on FOM which will test even HYUFD's endurance). May will declare a victory and the absolute sheep that are Tory MPs will go along with it.
Unless JRM can save us all bu explaining to the British public that they have been had.....
Refusing to invest time on a bank holiday debating any and every self-proclaimed twitter activist doesn’t say anything about the arguments
Refusing to engage in any debate because you have no answers says everything about Brexit
If “Vulcan shagger” John Redwood wishes to avoid debate on a sunny bank holiday, perhaps he ought to spend time in the garden instead of dialing into LBC.
If you believe in something you generally don't avoid an opportunity to argue for it. I think a lot of Brexiters are losing their faith at the moment.
what if theyre just bored listening to the same people repeat the same arguments over and over again ?
Comments
I have come across a Fake News survey on the BBC website.
It claims 92% of passengers are satisfied with Birmingham New Street Station.
This is pretty unconvincing. My guess would be they asked 8 passengers and then the stationmaster 92 times.
Can you get to the bottom of it?
Britain's 'best and worst' railway stations named http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44023411
Almost all Commission posts require C1 and B2 CERF level in two of the EU's official languages so it isn't going to be a monoglot culture any time soon. I have tutored quite a few British students for the EU language entrance test in French and English but not any more...
That will complicate matters.
The survival of strike-hit Air France is in the balance, according to the country's economy minister.
Bruno Le Maire's warning that Air France could "disappear" comes as staff begin another round of industrial action over a pay dispute.
Despite the French state owning 14.3% of the Air France-KLM parent group, the loss-making airline would not be bailed out, he said.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-44021431
Specifically I doubt if attitudes to Brexit will be seen as crucial in 2022. Whatever we end up with, the electorate and even most MPs (if not Lord Adonis and Bill Cash) will be heartily sick of the subject.
Enda Kenny spelled out Ireland’s fears of a return to customs posts and border checks in a meeting with the UK prime minister during her visit to Dublin on Monday, amid warnings they could become targets for dissident republicans.
The taoiseach stressed that an open border and trade would between the two countries would “continue to be an absolute priority for my government, not just in our discussions with the British government, but also with our EU partners as we prepare for the negotiation process on the EU side of the table”.
So communication precision between two french or greek speakers is a bit irrelevant, since the french case is only superficially about efficient and effective communication. If they want french to be the dominant language, they need to convince other EU states to teach it as the second language more.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/07/who-is-amlo-mexico-andres-manuel-lopez-obrador-election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Mexican_general_election,_2018
On topic, what parties say and do before an election and what they say and do immediately after are often entirely different. Before the votes are cast, it's all about maximising your own support and crucially winning as many seats as you can.
In an FPTP contest, seats are all that matters and the more seats the better and especially so for minor parties. 20 seats is infinitely worse than 60 seats and 100 seats infinitely better than 60 seats when it comes to deal-making and perhaps deal-breaking.
I'm no fan of either May or Corbyn but if the psychopath with the rusty blade that is our electoral system puts the LDs in a position similar to or more balanced than the projection at the top of the thread, what then ?
One of the advantages of being weak and irrelevant is no one asks you what you would do if you held the balance of power. It's a sign of the LDs recovering that the question that was asked throughout the mid 80s and early 90s is starting to be asked again.
The "line" (and I'm just a Party member so there's no point asking me) is, I believe, no deals. no coalitions and no C&S for either a minority Conservative or a minority Labour Government while the parties are led by and following the policy directions set by the current incumbents.
There's no deal or support until one changes - in the 1980s and 1990s Labour changed first but the Conservatives changed too albeit somewhat later and after three dismal GE defeats.
It's too easy to view the future through the prism of the past and assume what happened before will happen again. I don't know what's going to happen and neither does anyone else on here (though the certainty of some makes me think time travel from the future must be possible).
At the moment, Corbyn dominates politics albeit negatively. While he remains Labour leader, the Conservatives have a sense of purpose and a will to stay united and Labour remains profoundly unattractive to many however poorly the Conservative Government comports itself in office. Those who are tempted to stray from the blue tent have only to consider the apocalyptic vision of a Corbyn Government to run screaming back to May. Corbyn motivates as effectively as Kinnock did and Blair didn't.
The two scenarios that would change the current pattern are first the removal of Corbyn and his replacement by a new telegenic leader who would move to shift Labour's policies back to the centre or centre-left. The second is some form of implosion within the Conservative Party if the A50 deal is far removed from expectations. Let's not forget Conservatives have been happy to drag two Conservative Prime Ministers down over Europe so let's not assume, Corbyn notwithstanding, they wouldn't do it again.
A more interesting question is what happens if somebody other than Corbyn looks like they can put together a coalition that includes part of the Conservative Party. At this point the Tories look more likely to crumble than to split, but you can imagine some weird things happening, like the Brexit ultras voting down their own government, at which point things could get quite contentious...
Anyway, time to enjoy some sun. Cover up everyone!
If they poll 12-14% in 2022, up from 7% at the last election, and if they find a decent local candidate who works the seat for most of the next four years, then probably.
The question is what will happen. This needs to be agreed by October to unlock the Withdrawal Agreement and a standstill "transition" for the EU and third country agreements to the end of 2020. These are the possible short term outcomes:
1. The UK agrees the NI backstop largely or entirely as set out in the draft agreement.
2. The EU drops the NI backstop requirement.
3. The EU accepts a UK proposal to broaden the backstop to include all UK.
4. No agreement is made and the UK departs in chaos from the EU.
All are possible but I think (2) and (4) are unlikely (maybe a bit of hope for 4 as I clearly don't want chaos). I think (1) is quite likely, simply because the text is there and it is always more difficult to agree a specific other. It would have to be sold on the basis that the backstop would never actually kick in. There should be a majority in Westminster for (1). It should also get majority support in Northern Ireland. It is a big issue for the DUP, however, with implications for the Conservative government they are propping up.
I'm slightly confused about your comment about the IMF trying to prevent the ECB bailout of the Irish banks.
Indeed, I'm slightly confused about your comment about the ECB bailing out the Irish banks, given that the principle support given to them was from the Irish government itself.
2) It was a mixture. The ECB lent €160 billion to the Irish banks directly.
However, as the Irish government didn't have the money to bail out the banks itself, and couldn't borrow, the ECB loaned Ireland the money to bail out its banks.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/ireland-s-future-depends-on-breaking-free-from-bailout-1.565236
And this is on how the ECB's credit was used to reinflate the Irish property bubble:
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/morgan-kelly-warns-our-real-economic-crisis-will-begin-if-ecb-credit-stops-1.1724130
But I'm still struggling with the IMF comment. Are you referring to their criticism of the initial 29 September 2008 commitment by the Irish government to offer an unlimited backstop the banks? (Something the Irish government did unilaterally.)
'Jeremy Corbyn says he would "open discussions" with the SNP over a second independence referendum'
'Jeremy Corbyn rejects 'progressive alliance' with SNP - BBC News'
"Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn: 'I will do a deal with the SNP to save Scottish steel industry'"
'“If a referendum is held then it is absolutely fine, it should be held,” he (Corbyn) said. “I don’t think it’s the job of Westminster or the Labour party to prevent people holding referenda.”'
'Jeremy Corbyn Told Me He Backs Scottish Independence, Claims Mhairi Black'
Alternatively, perhaps Jeremy needs to decide one way or the other about the SNP and Scotland.
I don't disagree that that ECB credit was used to reflate the Irish property market. BOE credit was used to reflate the UK property market, BOJ the Japanese one, and Fed money the US one. That was a feature, not a bug.
The goal - and you can agree with it or disagree with it - was to avoid a situation where falling prices pushed more property companies into insolvency, which forced properties onto the market, which banks were unable to lend people money to buy, which forced prices down further. And repeat.
I think the EU is unlikely to completely trust us on customs, bearing in mind this little fine:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/08/uk-faces-2bn-fine-over-chinese-imports-scam-say-eu-anti-fraud-investigators
They would effectively have opposition all to themselves in mainland GB and the Corbyn government would be the weakest since the War and likely to become unpopular very quickly. That is as OGH affirms assuming the LDs did back Corbyn anyway
Physicist have successfully put macro scale objects in quantum superpositions, but nothing quite on the scale of the leader of the opposition.
For homeowners.
Because the consequences of cascading failure were too severe to contemplate.
So I've had a think and all in all I'm not sure the Brexit thing is quite working out...
The whole point of the 'backstop' was to be a fudge to allow negotiations to proceed on the FTA that would make it unnecessary. But of course the moment the EU got this concession they engaged bad faith and pretended that there was never any other solution.
The end game here of Olly Robbins was always to encourage the EU to use this clause to hold the whole UK in the CU and SM - all he is trying to do now is find a new name for it - Customs Partnership.
In fact Sheffield Hallam should be one of the most likely LibDem gains at the next GE.
Just when you think it can't get any worse, it does.
Coad apparently picked up an ankle injury; he also had a pre-season hip injury. I just hope he’s not pushed too hard, too fast. He’s added a yard to his pace, and needs a little time to settle in to it, I think.
The bank bailouts were bailouts for Depositors, and for Homeowners, for sure. What they mostly weren't was bailout for bank shareholders, most of whom lost the vast majority of their investments.
(The above comment is a test for everyone's irony meters)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/republicans-whose-jobs-once-seemed-safe-are-struggling-for-a-2018-survival-strategy/2018/05/06/031e931e-4f49-11e8-84a0-458a1aa9ac0a_story.html
There are banks (well a bank) where the Directors have unlimited liability.
I guess the voters saw that as an acceptable trade off vs what they perceived as the political upsides of leaving the EU
Ojeda is leading the polls...
...of Republican voters.
(Not all the directors by the way - just the partners)
https://twitter.com/Carlaw4Eastwood/status/993399575892451328
https://twitter.com/ianpaisleymp/status/993239156527714307
The May 2021 Holyrood elections could well prove to be quite interesting as the first major elections post Transition:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Scottish_Parliament_election
Are the Brexiters seriously suggesting that witless David Davis (supposedly close to resignation a week ago) is able to negotiate anything - apart from his way through a bottle of scotch, of course?
Oh, and Mahathir Mohamad is hoping to be President in Tuesday’s Malaysian elections. He is 92.
No one can claim he doesn't have the experience, he has been in politics in Malaysia since immediately after WW2, and is the longest serving PM in their history. In some ways a mirror image of our Queen he has outlived six monarchs ;-)
But the Lib Dems are pretty right wing nowadays, so the conservatives are their natural allies. And if they're in a position where they can swing who is PM, that probably means the conservatives have significantly more seats which will help them justify their choice.
The issue is that it probably leads to second Scottish referendum. It might also lead to - gasp - another electoral reform referendum.
Good news for Jonathan Meades fans. He'd doing a programme this year on jargon:
http://francishanly.tv/jonathan-meades-jargon-bbc-4-27th-march/
As for Robbins, the issue isn't his competence, it, IMO, questions over his motivation. From what I've gathered there are some ministers who believe he has purposely led the negotiation on a customs "partnership" into a cul de sac because it leaves the door open to remaining. There are also a few who believe that he has been egging the EU to keep us in the customs union for the same reasons. I don't know whether that's true, but given that he's in the civil service and not answerable to the public we probably won't find out.
Either way it probably is time to replace him, he's clearly proven himself not up to the job along with Davis, Fox and Johnson.
Most votes, most seats - but locked out of government by fickle third parties.
The Lib Dem’s first choice - to prove they are not Tory stooges if nothing else - would be to support Labour in confidence & supply - probably in exchange for a new referendum on the EU.
The SNP are never going to support the Tories.
I think Corbyn would eschew any formal arrangement with them - including C&S - if he could get away with it, but neither would be particularly worried about conceding a new Scottish ref.
As of today, a version of the above scenario must be about 50% likely.
I don't believe that the EU actually object to the Customs Partnership. They object to MaxFac of course, not because it won't work but because it would and would allow the UK to exit both the CU and SM and leave the EU with no control. I think the EUs rejection of the Customs Partnership is a sham - they intend to grudgingly agree to allow May to save face and distract everyone from the reality which is that it is a complete sellout.
Unfortunately for May and Robbins, the ERG intervened and there were enough cabinet ministers with a brain to point out the obvious - that the customs partnership was just SM membership by another name. May was obviously surprised that she got called out.
However, all that will happen is there will be some tweaks to the model and it will reappear, this time badged as a 'combination' of the Customs Partnership and MaxFac. This is just about muddying the waters. The leavers will complain but don't have the guts to throw May out, and magically the EU will 'backtrack' and agree to the Customs Partnership (if, of course, we agree to follow all SM rules and allow the ECJ to adjudicate and no doubt some ridiculous agreement on FOM which will test even HYUFD's endurance). May will declare a victory and the absolute sheep that are Tory MPs will go along with it.
Unless JRM can save us all bu explaining to the British public that they have been had.....