Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Going nuclear

SystemSystem Posts: 6,389
edited May 13 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Going nuclear

ICYMI: Courtesy of the always resourceful @EIAgov, I got data back to 1949 of U.S. *net* petroleum imports (that's crude oil and refined products). The latest forecast is for 2019 net imports to drop to 1.5m b/d — lowest since 1958. #OOTT Full story here: https://t.co/itjliIuOzT pic.twitter.com/LXz1GvmULM

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • RobDRobD Posts: 33,984
    Thanks for the thread, Alastair. An interesting read.
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 869
    Good article as always, really enjoy your work.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 21,494
    Excellent thread. Thanks, Alastair.

    (I would add a 'First', except PB's so borken atm that I guess there are several comments before this one. PB can probably do without my 'contributions', but the thread below the line is becoming essentially unreadable. Please, OGH, you are our only hope)
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 9,039
    edited May 13
    America can't enforce sanctions on their own, so don't Iran, the EU and everyone else just ignore the Americans and wait until they grow out of it?

    I mean, strategically it's clearly in the EU's interests to maintain a united front with fellow liberal democracies but everyone knows Trump is only opposed to this deal because it was signed by Obama instead of him, so this shouldn't particularly turn into a grand geopolitical realignment or anything. If the Americans won't sell Iranian people Boeings for a while, all the better for Airbus.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,690

    America can't enforce sanctions on their own, so don't Iran, the EU and everyone else just ignore the Americans and wait until they grow out of it?

    I mean, strategically it's clearly in the EU's interests to maintain a united front with fellow liberal democracies but everyone knows Trump is only opposed to this deal because it was signed by Obama instead of him, so this shouldn't particularly turn into a grand geopolitical realignment or anything. If the Americans won't sell Iranian people Boeings for a while, all the better for Airbus.

    If Iran won't deal with Airbus, that is a loss for them.

    If Airbus cannot sell in the American market, that is a catastrophe for them.

    It's not just about whether America will deal with Iran, it's what punishment they will inflict on others for doing so.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 12,255
    ydoethur said:

    America can't enforce sanctions on their own, so don't Iran, the EU and everyone else just ignore the Americans and wait until they grow out of it?

    I mean, strategically it's clearly in the EU's interests to maintain a united front with fellow liberal democracies but everyone knows Trump is only opposed to this deal because it was signed by Obama instead of him, so this shouldn't particularly turn into a grand geopolitical realignment or anything. If the Americans won't sell Iranian people Boeings for a while, all the better for Airbus.

    If Iran won't deal with Airbus, that is a loss for them.

    If Airbus cannot sell in the American market, that is a catastrophe for them.

    It's not just about whether America will deal with Iran, it's what punishment they will inflict on others for doing so.
    Absolutely. The USA has for years operated a policy of 'the friend of my enemy is my enemy too’ and implemented appropriate policies. It’s not just Airbus, either; banks are affected as well.
    And as far as Trump is concerned at any rate there’s an concordant policy of ‘an enemy of Israel is my enemy, too!’.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 22,866
    That's very interesting, thanks.

    Iran's unhappy history goes back even further. Iran was ruled by foreigners from the time of the Arab conquest, for hundreds of years, until Shah Ismail became ruler.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,220
    edited May 13
    Trump’s policies run contrary to UK interests in a way that we have not seen previously from a US president since WW2, at least. But his father wasn’t an uppity African and he has a bust of Churchill somewhere in the Oval Office (apparently), so that’s OK. Or something.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,690
    edited May 13

    Trump’s policies run contrary to UK interests in a way that we have not seen previously from a US president since WW2, at least.

    Not totally sure Eden would agree with you.

    But for the last 50/60 years your point would be valid.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,220
    ydoethur said:

    Trump’s policies run contrary to UK interests in a way that we have not seen previously from a US president since WW2, at least.

    Not totally sure Eden would agree with you.

    But for the last 50/60 years your point would be valid.

    Eisenhower reacted to Suez and other US presidents have certainly reacted negatively to specific British actions and/or totally ignored the British when it has suited (Reagan and Grenada, for example). But none have pursued an overall agenda that runs so contrary to UK interests as Trump has.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 45,525
    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: trying to find a bet for the race. Hmm.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 7,331

    America can't enforce sanctions on their own, so don't Iran, the EU and everyone else just ignore the Americans and wait until they grow out of it?

    I mean, strategically it's clearly in the EU's interests to maintain a united front with fellow liberal democracies but everyone knows Trump is only opposed to this deal because it was signed by Obama instead of him, so this shouldn't particularly turn into a grand geopolitical realignment or anything. If the Americans won't sell Iranian people Boeings for a while, all the better for Airbus.

    The US has an after the fact veto on the Iran nuclear deal that voids it and automatically reimposes universal sanctions. Trump is presumably exercising that veto.

    In general the US can impose sanctions on international companies that trade with places it disapproves of. Businesses that do no business with the US might be tempted.

    On the subject of the article, maintaining OK relations with Iran is sensible diplomacy, especially if you have problems with Russia.
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 695
    The EU and the UK can't rescue the deal, because they are in hock to the criminal Saudi regime and its Gulf satrapies, and also depend on trade with the USA, which will boycott their companies if they do business with Iran.

    They are also reluctant to be perceived as anti-semitic by taking a more neutral and detached view of Israel. Just look at the abuse Corbyn has recently received. The treatment of Israel is reflected in the bizarre outcome of the Eurovision 2018 song contest - the winner is not European in any way (by birthplace, residence, religion, ethnicity or language).
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 10,382
    edited May 13
    RIP Dame Tessa Jowell
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 45,525
    edited May 13
    Betting Post

    F1: pre-race will go up fairly soon, but here's the interesting bit:
    backed Verstappen/Ricciardo to not be classified at 4 each. Not heroic, but there we are.

    I also think the 101 (131 with boost) on Grosjean, Sirotkin, Ericsson and Hartley to all not be classified is worth a tiny sum. The first two have 50% DNF rates, the latter two 25% DNF rates, which I think gives a one in 64 chance of it occurring, all else being equal.

    Edited extra bit: sad to hear of Dame Tessa Jowell's passing.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 7,658
    ydoethur said:

    America can't enforce sanctions on their own, so don't Iran, the EU and everyone else just ignore the Americans and wait until they grow out of it?

    I mean, strategically it's clearly in the EU's interests to maintain a united front with fellow liberal democracies but everyone knows Trump is only opposed to this deal because it was signed by Obama instead of him, so this shouldn't particularly turn into a grand geopolitical realignment or anything. If the Americans won't sell Iranian people Boeings for a while, all the better for Airbus.

    If Iran won't deal with Airbus, that is a loss for them.

    If Airbus cannot sell in the American market, that is a catastrophe for them.

    It's not just about whether America will deal with Iran, it's what punishment they will inflict on others for doing so.
    Not to mention the large number of US made components in every Airbus. The US can indeed refuse export licenses for these, and it would take an enormous effort and a lot of time to source them elsewhere.

    It is an excellent article. The only nitpick I’d make is that it’s not altogether clear that the US producers need high oil prices any longer. The cost of fracking has dropped dramatically over the last decade as the technology has improved.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 31,026
    edited May 13

    If the Americans won't sell Iranian people Boeings for a while, all the better for Airbus.

    Not so. Airbus aircraft contain more than 10% US components so need an export licence from the US. Given the years long lead time from order to delivery they had to do some order juggling to deliver the three aircraft they have. The chances of them doing more in the next 90 days are slim indeed. The Russians and the Chinese face similar problems which is why the Iranians are flying some of the oldest aircraft in the skies.....

    Excellent thread, as usual (when not on you know what...)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 7,658
    A question for ydoethur: how accurate a reflection does this Guardian article provide of the current state of teaching ?
    (It’s clearly slanted towards the downside, but seems to me quite near the mark.)
    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/may/13/teacher-burnout-shortages-recruitment-problems-budget-cuts
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 31,026
    On a related theme, saw the movie “Beirut” last night - good old fashioned thriller with strong plot and actors at the top of their game. I still remember when Beirut was described as the “Paris of the Middle East”....
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 7,658

    If the Americans won't sell Iranian people Boeings for a while, all the better for Airbus.

    Not so. Airbus aircraft contain more than 10% US components so need an export licence from the US. Given the years long lead time from order to delivery they had to do some order juggling to deliver the three aircraft they have. The chances of them doing more in the next 90 days are slim indeed. The Russians and the Chinese face similar problems which is why the Iranians are flying some of the oldest aircraft in the skies.....

    Excellent thread, as usual (when not on you know what...)
    The longer game is perhaps a commercial one rather than the toxic strategic rivalries.
    The US is being very shortsighted creating openings for the nascent Chinese aviation industry, which has the prospect of becoming a real rival to the existing duopoly within a decade.

  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,747
    Tessa Jowell has died
  • RobDRobD Posts: 33,984

    RIP Dame Tessa Jowell

    Sad news. RIP.
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,710
    I didn't watch Eurovision but there's no way it was as much fun as watching anti-Israel nuts losing their minds on Twitter.

    Excellent and insightful piece Alastair.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 31,026
    RobD said:

    RIP Dame Tessa Jowell

    Sad news. RIP.
    It is indeed. Must be very difficult decision to make on being public about a terminal illness - last year we lost a few who had given no inkling that they were not long for this earth (Alan Rickman, Victoria Wood).
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,690
    edited May 13
    Nigelb said:

    A question for ydoethur: how accurate a reflection does this Guardian article provide of the current state of teaching ?
    (It’s clearly slanted towards the downside, but seems to me quite near the mark.)
    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/may/13/teacher-burnout-shortages-recruitment-problems-budget-cuts

    Looks pretty accurate to me. The only thing I would say is it's not very in-depth. Funding shortages are a problem, but I would say the over-hasty upheaval of Gove's reforms is a very much bigger problem in terms of workload. That adds to legacy issues where we ave too many students in classes for the model we teach already.

    I had actually drafted a thread header on the current mess in education. Not sure whether OGH would be interested though as I couldn't see any particular betting angle in it.

    Edit: people may find this of interest:

    https://www.tes.com/news/investigation-how-teachers-are-cutting-workload-themselves

    There is another article on Damien Hinds' initiative (which basically will shut OFSTED if he follows through on it, which would be a major help in raising standards) but I can't find it at the moment.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 2,941

    RobD said:

    RIP Dame Tessa Jowell

    Sad news. RIP.
    It is indeed. Must be very difficult decision to make on being public about a terminal illness - last year we lost a few who had given no inkling that they were not long for this earth (Alan Rickman, Victoria Wood).
    I think we have an unhealthy obsession with privacy of our wellbeing. Based on no facts at all I feel the stress of illness is lessened and generally the recovery is aided by sharing our troubles.

    Secrecy and privacy are over rated and come with many negative side effects and unintended consequences.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 7,658
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    A question for ydoethur: how accurate a reflection does this Guardian article provide of the current state of teaching ?
    (It’s clearly slanted towards the downside, but seems to me quite near the mark.)
    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/may/13/teacher-burnout-shortages-recruitment-problems-budget-cuts

    Looks pretty accurate to me. The only thing I would say is it's not very in-depth. Funding shortages are a problem, but I would say the over-hasty upheaval of Gove's reforms is a very much bigger problem in terms of workload. That adds to legacy issues where we ave too many students in classes for the model we teach already.

    I had actually drafted a thread header on the current mess in education. Not sure whether OGH would be interested though as I couldn't see any particular betting angle in it.

    Edit: people may find this of interest:

    https://www.tes.com/news/investigation-how-teachers-are-cutting-workload-themselves

    There is another article on Damien Hinds' initiative (which basically will shut OFSTED if he follows through on it, which would be a major help in raising standards) but I can't find it at the moment.
    I’d be very interested in reading it... and will have to think about a betting angle.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 31,026
    philiph said:

    RobD said:

    RIP Dame Tessa Jowell

    Sad news. RIP.
    It is indeed. Must be very difficult decision to make on being public about a terminal illness - last year we lost a few who had given no inkling that they were not long for this earth (Alan Rickman, Victoria Wood).
    I think we have an unhealthy obsession with privacy of our wellbeing. Based on no facts at all I feel the stress of illness is lessened and generally the recovery is aided by sharing our troubles.

    Secrecy and privacy are over rated and come with many negative side effects and unintended consequences.
    I think it’s entirely personal. Barbra Windsor’s husband remarked that they didn’t make her diagnosis public earlier as it would have made her life more difficult - now she’s reached a stage where she gets confused in public (people wanting photos with her) he’s looking for understanding. Dame Tessa felt being open about her condition could bring useful publicity to the condition. A courageous choice entirely in character, but also entirely personal.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 7,658

    philiph said:

    RobD said:

    RIP Dame Tessa Jowell

    Sad news. RIP.
    It is indeed. Must be very difficult decision to make on being public about a terminal illness - last year we lost a few who had given no inkling that they were not long for this earth (Alan Rickman, Victoria Wood).
    I think we have an unhealthy obsession with privacy of our wellbeing. Based on no facts at all I feel the stress of illness is lessened and generally the recovery is aided by sharing our troubles.

    Secrecy and privacy are over rated and come with many negative side effects and unintended consequences.
    I think it’s entirely personal. Barbra Windsor’s husband remarked that they didn’t make her diagnosis public earlier as it would have made her life more difficult - now she’s reached a stage where she gets confused in public (people wanting photos with her) he’s looking for understanding. Dame Tessa felt being open about her condition could bring useful publicity to the condition. A courageous choice entirely in character, but also entirely personal.
    And one which allowed her to hear heartfelt tributes before she died.
    I tend to agree with philiph, but it can be hard to unlearn the habits of a lifetime. And it’s not a choice to be forced on anyone.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,690
    This is the article I was talking about:

    https://www.tes.com/news/long-read-why-hinds-suddenly-letting-teachers-get-job

    You have to login to read it but you can log in with both Google and Facebook rather than creating a separate account.

    If he's sincere it may make a difference. I just doubt if he will get it past the DfES without going for the Wainwright option.

    Anecdotally a few weeks ago I visited a friend at a school in Telford that OFSTED keep putting into special measures. As a result, they all have to do 2 hours of staff training a week, hold three staff meetings a week at an hour each, and a number of staff are off with stress so class sizes have rocketed above 35.

    Strangely the quality of teaching has declined and most books are unmarked.

    Yet that is the reality of OFSTED interventions - making bad far, far worse.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 7,658
    edited May 13
    ydoethur said:

    This is the article I was talking about:

    https://www.tes.com/news/long-read-why-hinds-suddenly-letting-teachers-get-job

    You have to login to read it but you can log in with both Google and Facebook rather than creating a separate account.

    If he's sincere it may make a difference. I just doubt if he will get it past the DfES without going for the Wainwright option.

    Anecdotally a few weeks ago I visited a friend at a school in Telford that OFSTED keep putting into special measures. As a result, they all have to do 2 hours of staff training a week, hold three staff meetings a week at an hour each, and a number of staff are off with stress so class sizes have rocketed above 35.

    Strangely the quality of teaching has declined and most books are unmarked.

    Yet that is the reality of OFSTED interventions - making bad far, far worse.

    Which, of course, echoes this from the Guardian article: “It’s well established that you can cope with a very stressful job if you’ve got control and support,” she said. “If you take support out, things become much more difficult. If there is a lack of control and autonomy for a long period while you have high job demands, things start to go very wrong.”

    OFSTED intervention is the very definition of removal of autonomy.
    Stress leave is a necessary escape route for some (and I have known at least two good teachers whose careers have been ended by stress), but naturally increases the burden on the rest.

    Anyway, got to get going...
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 9,108
    Sad news about Tessa Jowell.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 11,906
    RIP Dame Tessa - She seemed like a genuinely nice person - Which is pretty rare in politics.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 1,927
    Interesting piece Alistair, thanks.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 475

    philiph said:

    RobD said:

    RIP Dame Tessa Jowell

    Sad news. RIP.
    It is indeed. Must be very difficult decision to make on being public about a terminal illness - last year we lost a few who had given no inkling that they were not long for this earth (Alan Rickman, Victoria Wood).
    I think we have an unhealthy obsession with privacy of our wellbeing. Based on no facts at all I feel the stress of illness is lessened and generally the recovery is aided by sharing our troubles.

    Secrecy and privacy are over rated and come with many negative side effects and unintended consequences.
    I think it’s entirely personal. Barbra Windsor’s husband remarked that they didn’t make her diagnosis public earlier as it would have made her life more difficult - now she’s reached a stage where she gets confused in public (people wanting photos with her) he’s looking for understanding. Dame Tessa felt being open about her condition could bring useful publicity to the condition. A courageous choice entirely in character, but also entirely personal.
    Also very different for public figures as you can attract cranks and unwanted commentary on your condition that can cause your family distress.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    The EU has to create a "Bank of Euro Settlements". So companies can operate in non-US territories and banks with no direct or indirect links with the US can also fund these companies.

    What happens if Airbus sells to the Russian or Chinese government, who then sells on to Iran, at a profit ?
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    This is the article I was talking about:

    https://www.tes.com/news/long-read-why-hinds-suddenly-letting-teachers-get-job

    You have to login to read it but you can log in with both Google and Facebook rather than creating a separate account.

    If he's sincere it may make a difference. I just doubt if he will get it past the DfES without going for the Wainwright option.

    Anecdotally a few weeks ago I visited a friend at a school in Telford that OFSTED keep putting into special measures. As a result, they all have to do 2 hours of staff training a week, hold three staff meetings a week at an hour each, and a number of staff are off with stress so class sizes have rocketed above 35.

    Strangely the quality of teaching has declined and most books are unmarked.

    Yet that is the reality of OFSTED interventions - making bad far, far worse.

    Which, of course, echoes this from the Guardian article: “It’s well established that you can cope with a very stressful job if you’ve got control and support,” she said. “If you take support out, things become much more difficult. If there is a lack of control and autonomy for a long period while you have high job demands, things start to go very wrong.”

    OFSTED intervention is the very definition of removal of autonomy.
    Stress leave is a necessary escape route for some (and I have known at least two good teachers whose careers have been ended by stress), but naturally increases the burden on the rest.

    Anyway, got to get going...
    Don't worry! They will come up with stats that will show remarkable improvement in standards.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    edited May 13
    The comments are more interesting.

    I am not sure what is her strategy. Does she really think she can implement policies which the EU, other political parties and indeed even the loony section of her own party and majority in the Brexit cabinet have rejected ?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,557
    Tbh, that reads like a bunch of waffle.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 17,437
    Nick Robinson is infinitely better than Marr
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 11,906
    "I will need your help and support to get there" - Implying we might have to have another general election?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 17,437
    GIN1138 said:

    "I will need your help and support to get there" - Implying we might have to have another general election?

    Another election would likely see little change but would end any hope of Brexit
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,713
    daodao said:

    The EU and the UK can't rescue the deal, because they are in hock to the criminal Saudi regime and its Gulf satrapies, and also depend on trade with the USA, which will boycott their companies if they do business with Iran.

    They are also reluctant to be perceived as anti-semitic by taking a more neutral and detached view of Israel. Just look at the abuse Corbyn has recently received. The treatment of Israel is reflected in the bizarre outcome of the Eurovision 2018 song contest - the winner is not European in any way (by birthplace, residence, religion, ethnicity or language).

    I don't know why every year they compete that people are surprised Israel is in euro vision. It's part of the broadcasting union, it's not really complicated. Linking it to political views of Israel is just hilarious.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 31,026
    surby said:
    I think she may be attempting to appeal directly to voters (or at least Constituency Chairmen) to try to put pressure on the more recalcitrant MPs on either side of the debate. And now Labours said they’ll vote against any deal....

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,713
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    A question for ydoethur: how accurate a reflection does this Guardian article provide of the current state of teaching ?
    (It’s clearly slanted towards the downside, but seems to me quite near the mark.)
    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/may/13/teacher-burnout-shortages-recruitment-problems-budget-cuts

    Looks pretty accurate to me. The only thing I would say is it's not very in-depth. Funding shortages are a problem, but I would say the over-hasty upheaval of Gove's reforms is a very much bigger problem in terms of workload. That adds to legacy issues where we ave too many students in classes for the model we teach already.

    I had actually drafted a thread header on the current mess in education. Not sure whether OGH would be interested though as I couldn't see any particular betting angle in it.

    Edit: people may find this of interest:

    https://www.tes.com/news/investigation-how-teachers-are-cutting-workload-themselves

    There is another article on Damien Hinds' initiative (which basically will shut OFSTED if he follows through on it, which would be a major help in raising standards) but I can't find it at the moment.
    Not all threads directly have a betting angle, but in any case the angle would be that it will be a political talking point so how it develops is important.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    GIN1138 said:

    "I will need your help and support to get there" - Implying we might have to have another general election?

    I said sometime back, October 2018 looks almost certain. If not, February / March 2019.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 9,108
    This Brexit really is a roller coaster...

    This week the cabinet are split, there is talk about GEs and a sense that it might not happen. A few weeks ago it was full steam ahead, with May recovering her position somewhat since the 2017 election.

    Hard to know what is really going on, beyond that with the clock ticking, they really should be further along than they are.

  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227

    surby said:
    I think she may be attempting to appeal directly to voters (or at least Constituency Chairmen) to try to put pressure on the more recalcitrant MPs on either side of the debate. And now Labours said they’ll vote against any deal....

    I think she knows there can be no deal this Parliament for her interpretation of the referendum result.

    An October or February election looks inevitable. In fact, the Tories possible loss of power will itself be pressure on the Tory party to back her.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 10,635
    GIN1138 said:

    "I will need your help and support to get there" - Implying we might have to have another general election?

    Don't see it.

    No likely gain from it.

    I read it as needs general acceptance of longer transition, in return for the MaxFac option - which is politically and practically the only viable option now.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,713
    Jonathan said:

    This Brexit really is a roller coaster...

    This week the cabinet are split, there is talk about GEs and a sense that it might not happen. A few weeks ago it was full steam ahead, with May recovering her position somewhat since the 2017 election.

    Hard to know what is really going on, beyond that with the clock ticking, they really should be further along than they are.

    Agreed, alas. Comfort has been taken at times that behind the scenes more may be being achieved than is apparent, but right now we know the cabinet still cannot agree on a position, the EU might have already rejetted what they are arguing about, parliament might not back anything that the cabinet can agree on, and it's not like the opposition have a very clear position either.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 17,437
    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    This Brexit really is a roller coaster...

    This week the cabinet are split, there is talk about GEs and a sense that it might not happen. A few weeks ago it was full steam ahead, with May recovering her position somewhat since the 2017 election.

    Hard to know what is really going on, beyond that with the clock ticking, they really should be further along than they are.

    Agreed, alas. Comfort has been taken at times that behind the scenes more may be being achieved than is apparent, but right now we know the cabinet still cannot agree on a position, the EU might have already rejetted what they are arguing about, parliament might not back anything that the cabinet can agree on, and it's not like the opposition have a very clear position either.
    Never mind - David Miliband is returning today as the remain saviour and everything will be alright
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,080
    GIN1138 said:

    RIP Dame Tessa - She seemed like a genuinely nice person - Which is pretty rare in politics.

    She was. She gave a talk at the London Business School during a course I was at a few years ago and we had dinner after. A genuinely nice, funny and thoughtful person. And she had some real achievements to her name.

    Condolences to her family and friends.

    Bizarrely I have a (slight) personal connection to the other person whose death was announced today (and for whom no condolences are warranted): Dennis Nielsen. I lived 4 doors up from him in Cranley Gardens when he was caught and remember being interviewed by the police, as all neighbours were, about what we had seen, if anything. From our back garden we could see the tent the police had erected in his garden as they carried out their grisly digging.

    Once the trial was over the local estate agents sent a flyer round saying that we shouldn't worry as they were positive this wouldn't adversely affect house prices in the area.

    Sad to see another IS attack in Paris. It has become so commonplace, sadly, that it is scarcely even worth noting these days.

    And thanks to Alistair for an interesting article.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,713
    surby said:

    surby said:
    I think she may be attempting to appeal directly to voters (or at least Constituency Chairmen) to try to put pressure on the more recalcitrant MPs on either side of the debate. And now Labours said they’ll vote against any deal....

    I think she knows there can be no deal this Parliament for her interpretation of the referendum result.

    An October or February election looks inevitable. In fact, the Tories possible loss of power will itself be pressure on the Tory party to back her.
    She was probably right that she needed a working majority for her type of Brexit, but the GE did not deliver one and if, a big if, polls are correct, it wouldn't with a new one either, for anyone. So what benefit to the nation for a GE? Labour are also split on the issue do if they gained power there's no clear direction, and certainly not if there needs to be a coalition.

    May doesn't seem to have the votes for what she wants to do. Nor, it woukd seem, do her ERG opponents. Unless she finds something labour can back and consensus is reached, which is not likely, we're in stalemate. And unless labour switch to remain, I don't know how that stalemate is overcome.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,080
    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    This Brexit really is a roller coaster...

    This week the cabinet are split, there is talk about GEs and a sense that it might not happen. A few weeks ago it was full steam ahead, with May recovering her position somewhat since the 2017 election.

    Hard to know what is really going on, beyond that with the clock ticking, they really should be further along than they are.

    Agreed, alas. Comfort has been taken at times that behind the scenes more may be being achieved than is apparent, but right now we know the cabinet still cannot agree on a position, the EU might have already rejetted what they are arguing about, parliament might not back anything that the cabinet can agree on, and it's not like the opposition have a very clear position either.
    That's what I don't understand. Since the EU has rejected both customs options why is the Cabinet even bothering to argue about them?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,615
    Scott_P said:
    Is Anna going to team up with them to form an Abba tribute band?
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    kle4 said:

    surby said:

    surby said:
    I think she may be attempting to appeal directly to voters (or at least Constituency Chairmen) to try to put pressure on the more recalcitrant MPs on either side of the debate. And now Labours said they’ll vote against any deal....

    I think she knows there can be no deal this Parliament for her interpretation of the referendum result.

    An October or February election looks inevitable. In fact, the Tories possible loss of power will itself be pressure on the Tory party to back her.
    She was probably right that she needed a working majority for her type of Brexit, but the GE did not deliver one and if, a big if, polls are correct, it wouldn't with a new one either, for anyone. So what benefit to the nation for a GE? Labour are also split on the issue do if they gained power there's no clear direction, and certainly not if there needs to be a coalition.

    May doesn't seem to have the votes for what she wants to do. Nor, it woukd seem, do her ERG opponents. Unless she finds something labour can back and consensus is reached, which is not likely, we're in stalemate. And unless labour switch to remain, I don't know how that stalemate is overcome.
    Labour is gradually moving to "a Single Market" through salami sliced announcements. Corbyn, of course, would be the last person to publicly do so "reluctantly". Just like his conversion to "a Customs Union".
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 38,750
    Cyclefree said:

    That's what I don't understand. Since the EU has rejected both customs options why is the Cabinet even bothering to argue about them?

    Because Brexit is a Tory party psychodrama, obviously
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 4,715
    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    This Brexit really is a roller coaster...

    This week the cabinet are split, there is talk about GEs and a sense that it might not happen. A few weeks ago it was full steam ahead, with May recovering her position somewhat since the 2017 election.

    Hard to know what is really going on, beyond that with the clock ticking, they really should be further along than they are.

    Agreed, alas. Comfort has been taken at times that behind the scenes more may be being achieved than is apparent, but right now we know the cabinet still cannot agree on a position, the EU might have already rejetted what they are arguing about, parliament might not back anything that the cabinet can agree on, and it's not like the opposition have a very clear position either.
    I think it unlikely that the backroom staff are making progress when May has been unable to give clear direction to what end they should negotiate.

    As WTO Brexit is default next March, an A50 extension looks likely to be requested by our government.

    It would have been much better having an all party Brexit committee if any agreement is to have widespread support. As it is, it is surrounded by enemies. May craves power, but seemingly without purpose.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    This Brexit really is a roller coaster...

    This week the cabinet are split, there is talk about GEs and a sense that it might not happen. A few weeks ago it was full steam ahead, with May recovering her position somewhat since the 2017 election.

    Hard to know what is really going on, beyond that with the clock ticking, they really should be further along than they are.

    Agreed, alas. Comfort has been taken at times that behind the scenes more may be being achieved than is apparent, but right now we know the cabinet still cannot agree on a position, the EU might have already rejetted what they are arguing about, parliament might not back anything that the cabinet can agree on, and it's not like the opposition have a very clear position either.
    That's what I don't understand. Since the EU has rejected both customs options why is the Cabinet even bothering to argue about them?
    Despite all the recent evidence, it still runs through our veins that the EU only say these things; they are really pining to accept anything which the UK will agree to.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,713
    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    This Brexit really is a roller coaster...

    This week the cabinet are split, there is talk about GEs and a sense that it might not happen. A few weeks ago it was full steam ahead, with May recovering her position somewhat since the 2017 election.

    Hard to know what is really going on, beyond that with the clock ticking, they really should be further along than they are.

    Agreed, alas. Comfort has been taken at times that behind the scenes more may be being achieved than is apparent, but right now we know the cabinet still cannot agree on a position, the EU might have already rejetted what they are arguing about, parliament might not back anything that the cabinet can agree on, and it's not like the opposition have a very clear position either.
    That's what I don't understand. Since the EU has rejected both customs options why is the Cabinet even bothering to argue about them?
    Part of me wonders if it is a secretly savvy move from may to have that internal battle done on sonething not, in the end, important, so when she wins she is clear to compromise later on sonething more important.

    The problem is I don't think she has that in her, nor is she certain to win (on the contrary in fact), and I don't see how Boris and co can remain in the cabinet after this if she did. Added to that if it is just a proxy battle she'll look even stupider when that becomes apparent.

    So I'm genuinely baffled.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 9,039
    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    This Brexit really is a roller coaster...

    This week the cabinet are split, there is talk about GEs and a sense that it might not happen. A few weeks ago it was full steam ahead, with May recovering her position somewhat since the 2017 election.

    Hard to know what is really going on, beyond that with the clock ticking, they really should be further along than they are.

    Agreed, alas. Comfort has been taken at times that behind the scenes more may be being achieved than is apparent, but right now we know the cabinet still cannot agree on a position, the EU might have already rejetted what they are arguing about, parliament might not back anything that the cabinet can agree on, and it's not like the opposition have a very clear position either.
    That's what I don't understand. Since the EU has rejected both customs options why is the Cabinet even bothering to argue about them?
    They have to tell their respective constituencies they tried, and TMay needs some time to practice her shrug.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 31,026
    Scott_P said:
    No great understanding of what drove the referendum result there then.....
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,713
    surby said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    This Brexit really is a roller coaster...

    This week the cabinet are split, there is talk about GEs and a sense that it might not happen. A few weeks ago it was full steam ahead, with May recovering her position somewhat since the 2017 election.

    Hard to know what is really going on, beyond that with the clock ticking, they really should be further along than they are.

    Agreed, alas. Comfort has been taken at times that behind the scenes more may be being achieved than is apparent, but right now we know the cabinet still cannot agree on a position, the EU might have already rejetted what they are arguing about, parliament might not back anything that the cabinet can agree on, and it's not like the opposition have a very clear position either.
    That's what I don't understand. Since the EU has rejected both customs options why is the Cabinet even bothering to argue about them?
    Despite all the recent evidence, it still runs through our veins that the EU only say these things; they are really pining to accept anything which the UK will agree to.
    Well it is fair to say not everything any side opens with in a negotiation necessarily represents what they might end up accepting - that's the whole point of a negotiation after all - but it's a big gamble to take when they've apparently been pretty unequivocal on that specific point.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    kle4 said:

    surby said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    This Brexit really is a roller coaster...

    This week the cabinet are split, there is talk about GEs and a sense that it might not happen. A few weeks ago it was full steam ahead, with May recovering her position somewhat since the 2017 election.

    Hard to know what is really going on, beyond that with the clock ticking, they really should be further along than they are.

    Agreed, alas. Comfort has been taken at times that behind the scenes more may be being achieved than is apparent, but right now we know the cabinet still cannot agree on a position, the EU might have already rejetted what they are arguing about, parliament might not back anything that the cabinet can agree on, and it's not like the opposition have a very clear position either.
    That's what I don't understand. Since the EU has rejected both customs options why is the Cabinet even bothering to argue about them?
    Despite all the recent evidence, it still runs through our veins that the EU only say these things; they are really pining to accept anything which the UK will agree to.
    Well it is fair to say not everything any side opens with in a negotiation necessarily represents what they might end up accepting - that's the whole point of a negotiation after all - but it's a big gamble to take when they've apparently been pretty unequivocal on that specific point.
    Particularly, when they know that the UK has very little choice, unless it is prepared to break WTO rules.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,615
    Nicky Morgan fails to give a straight answer on whether she will support the EEA amendment.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227

    Scott_P said:
    No great understanding of what drove the referendum result there then.....
    Immigration ?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,713
    edited May 13
    surby said:

    Scott_P said:
    No great understanding of what drove the referendum result there then.....
    Immigration ?
    For many. But I presume the point was that the public showed they were willing to take some economic hit in order to Brexit, since it was made very clear there would be some (granted, some will just not have believed that), therefore putting only economics first is not automatically as popular as she thinks.

    The question is how much cost for Brexit is too much. I don't regard any price to be worth paying.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    This Brexit really is a roller coaster...

    This week the cabinet are split, there is talk about GEs and a sense that it might not happen. A few weeks ago it was full steam ahead, with May recovering her position somewhat since the 2017 election.

    Hard to know what is really going on, beyond that with the clock ticking, they really should be further along than they are.

    Agreed, alas. Comfort has been taken at times that behind the scenes more may be being achieved than is apparent, but right now we know the cabinet still cannot agree on a position, the EU might have already rejetted what they are arguing about, parliament might not back anything that the cabinet can agree on, and it's not like the opposition have a very clear position either.
    I think it unlikely that the backroom staff are making progress when May has been unable to give clear direction to what end they should negotiate.

    As WTO Brexit is default next March, an A50 extension looks likely to be requested by our government.

    It would have been much better having an all party Brexit committee if any agreement is to have widespread support. As it is, it is surrounded by enemies. May craves power, but seemingly without purpose.
    I would not totally agree with your last sentence. May does crave power, with a purpose. She believes as the Prime Minister it is her duty to implement the referendum result with an "arrangement" as close as possible to existing trading situation minus unfettered freedom of movement and ECJ jurisdiction.

    She could have carried it out, if she rather unnecessarily did not draw her own red lines. She could live with a FTA which would look very similar to being in the single market with the UK paying an annual sum not entirely dissimilar to current contributions. The UK could also be in a "customs partnership" with the EU but not in the customs union.

    She would then claim the UK had left the EU.

    The only problem was created by the British people on June 8th 2017. Not only did they not give her a comfortable majority to ignore the loonies but she is now beholden to the other loonies across the water, the DUP. You can now see why a large majority was needed.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 4,715
    surby said:

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    This Brexit really is a roller coaster...

    This week the cabinet are split, there is talk about GEs and a sense that it might not happen. A few weeks ago it was full steam ahead, with May recovering her position somewhat since the 2017 election.

    Hard to know what is really going on, beyond that with the clock ticking, they really should be further along than they are.

    Agreed, alas. Comfort has been taken at times that behind the scenes more may be being achieved than is apparent, but right now we know the cabinet still cannot agree on a position, the EU might have already rejetted what they are arguing about, parliament might not back anything that the cabinet can agree on, and it's not like the opposition have a very clear position either.
    I think it unlikely that the backroom staff are making progress when May has been unable to give clear direction to what end they should negotiate.

    As WTO Brexit is default next March, an A50 extension looks likely to be requested by our government.

    It would have been much better having an all party Brexit committee if any agreement is to have widespread support. As it is, it is surrounded by enemies. May craves power, but seemingly without purpose.
    I would not totally agree with your last sentence. May does crave power, with a purpose. She believes as the Prime Minister it is her duty to implement the referendum result with an "arrangement" as close as possible to existing trading situation minus unfettered freedom of movement and ECJ jurisdiction.

    She could have carried it out, if she rather unnecessarily did not draw her own red lines. She could live with a FTA which would look very similar to being in the single market with the UK paying an annual sum not entirely dissimilar to current contributions. The UK could also be in a "customs partnership" with the EU but not in the customs union.

    She would then claim the UK had left the EU.

    The only problem was created by the British people on June 8th 2017. Not only did they not give her a comfortable majority to ignore the loonies but she is now beholden to the other loonies across the water, the DUP. You can now see why a large majority was needed.
    The British people were right last June, May cannot act as a dictator, she has to listen to Parliament. Her current difficulties come because of her tin ear and mental rigidity.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,713
    surby said:

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    This Brexit really is a roller coaster...

    This week the cabinet are split, there is talk about GEs and a sense that it might not happen. A few weeks ago it was full steam ahead, with May recovering her position somewhat since the 2017 election.

    Hard to know what is really going on, beyond that with the clock ticking, they really should be further along than they are.

    Agreed, alas. Comfort has been taken at times that behind the scenes more may be being achieved than is apparent, but right now we know the cabinet still cannot agree on a position, the EU might have already rejetted what they are arguing about, parliament might not back anything that the cabinet can agree on, and it's not like the opposition have a very clear position either.
    I t
    I would not totally agree with your last sentence. May does crave power, with a purpose. She believes as the Prime Minister it is her duty to implement the referendum result with an "arrangement" as close as possible to existing trading situation minus unfettered freedom of movement and ECJ jurisdiction.

    She could have carried it out, if she rather unnecessarily did not draw her own red lines. She could live with a FTA which would look very similar to being in the single market with the UK paying an annual sum not entirely dissimilar to current contributions. The UK could also be in a "customs partnership" with the EU but not in the customs union.

    She would then claim the UK had left the EU.

    The only problem was created by the British people on June 8th 2017. Not only did they not give her a comfortable majority to ignore the loonies but she is now beholden to the other loonies across the water, the DUP. You can now see why a large majority was needed.
    Seems like there were two options for her, based on the numbers we had in place before last year's GE - try to work to something a majority of the house could accept, even with her very small majority at the time, or go for a bigger majority so she could ignore loonies of whatever stripe. She went with the latter, and as you say a very unhelpful result was returned. It is fair to say that her job was made much harder at that point. Of course, that she still cannot even get agreement in a group of 12 on a Cabinet sub-committee shows the problems are not entirely down to parliamentary arithmetic, since that is a huge failure on her and her cabinet's part. They should have thrashed out something all in the cabinet could agree on, or people would leave the cabinet, a long time ago.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    kle4 said:

    surby said:

    Scott_P said:
    No great understanding of what drove the referendum result there then.....
    Immigration ?
    For many. But I presume the point was that the public showed they were willing to take some economic hit in order to Brexit, since it was made very clear there would be some (granted, some will just not have believed that), therefore putting only economics first is not automatically as popular as she thinks.

    The question is how much cost for Brexit is too much. I don't regard any price to be worth paying.
    This is the problem. If Britain underachieves her potential growth [ something which is already happening, by the way ] by , say, 0.3% per year in GDP growth terms. Over 5 - 10 years, this is a vast sum of money. This is, in itself, about £50bn in current prices and exchange rates. Of course, it could be even larger. I have not included possible costs of trade disruption etc.

    But the average person would say, 0.3% ? Pah!
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 15,212
    Very good piece from Alastair this morning.

    There is an interesting omission in his otherwise excellent summary of the 20th century history of Western involvement in Persia/Iran which is the Iran/Iraq war. This is probably the most devastating war since WW2 and resulted in over a million dead. It was a war instigated, sponsored and supported by the US who had advisors embedded with the Iraqi military providing real time intelligence to allow them to more effectively deploy chemical weapons.

    It is this more than anything which drives the Iranian desire for security and safety from the US and its proxies in the region - most notably Saudi Arabia. The US are the aggressors in this particular fight and we should not be supporting them.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 22,866
    surby said:

    kle4 said:

    surby said:

    Scott_P said:
    No great understanding of what drove the referendum result there then.....
    Immigration ?
    For many. But I presume the point was that the public showed they were willing to take some economic hit in order to Brexit, since it was made very clear there would be some (granted, some will just not have believed that), therefore putting only economics first is not automatically as popular as she thinks.

    The question is how much cost for Brexit is too much. I don't regard any price to be worth paying.
    This is the problem. If Britain underachieves her potential growth [ something which is already happening, by the way ] by , say, 0.3% per year in GDP growth terms. Over 5 - 10 years, this is a vast sum of money. This is, in itself, about £50bn in current prices and exchange rates. Of course, it could be even larger. I have not included possible costs of trade disruption etc.

    But the average person would say, 0.3% ? Pah!
    It depends what the growth rate is over ten years. If it's minus 0.3% a year, people will notice. If it's 2% as opposed to 2.3%, it's neither here nor there.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 15,212
    surby said:

    kle4 said:

    surby said:

    Scott_P said:
    No great understanding of what drove the referendum result there then.....
    Immigration ?
    For many. But I presume the point was that the public showed they were willing to take some economic hit in order to Brexit, since it was made very clear there would be some (granted, some will just not have believed that), therefore putting only economics first is not automatically as popular as she thinks.

    The question is how much cost for Brexit is too much. I don't regard any price to be worth paying.
    This is the problem. If Britain underachieves her potential growth [ something which is already happening, by the way ] by , say, 0.3% per year in GDP growth terms. Over 5 - 10 years, this is a vast sum of money. This is, in itself, about £50bn in current prices and exchange rates. Of course, it could be even larger. I have not included possible costs of trade disruption etc.

    But the average person would say, 0.3% ? Pah!
    And they will be right to do so. Purely home made policy changes brought about by changes of government result in changes to GDP of this magnitude all the time.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    kle4 said:

    surby said:

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    This Brexit really is a roller coaster...

    This week the cabinet are split, there is talk about GEs and a sense that it might not happen. A few weeks ago it was full steam ahead, with May recovering her position somewhat since the 2017 election.

    Hard to know what is really going on, beyond that with the clock ticking, they really should be further along than they are.

    Agreed, alas.......
    I t
    I would not totally agree with your last sentence. May does crave power, with a purpose. She believes as the Prime Minister it is her duty to implement the referendum result with an "arrangement" as close as possible to existing trading situation minus unfettered freedom of movement and ECJ jurisdiction.

    She could have carried it out, if she rather unnecessarily did not draw her own red lines. She could live with a FTA which would look very similar to being in the single market with the UK paying an annual sum not entirely dissimilar to current contributions. The UK could also be in a "customs partnership" with the EU but not in the customs union.

    She would then claim the UK had left the EU.

    The only problem was created by the British people on June 8th 2017. Not only did they not give her a comfortable majority to ignore the loonies but she is now beholden to the other loonies across the water, the DUP. You can now see why a large majority was needed.
    Seems like there were two options for her, based on the numbers we had in place before last year's GE - try to work to something a majority of the house could accept, even with her very small majority at the time, or go for a bigger majority so she could ignore loonies of whatever stripe. She went with the latter, and as you say a very unhelpful result was returned. It is fair to say that her job was made much harder at that point. Of course, that she still cannot even get agreement in a group of 12 on a Cabinet sub-committee shows the problems are not entirely down to parliamentary arithmetic, since that is a huge failure on her and her cabinet's part. They should have thrashed out something all in the cabinet could agree on, or people would leave the cabinet, a long time ago.
    Entirely agree with you. With hindsight, she had just about enough votes in the HoC to carry out what she would be only happy to do so now, if she could. Not total Brexit, of course.

    Did she have to listen to or instruct Nick Timothy to add the ill-fated dementia tax paragraphs ? It was cockiness on her part which did her in the end.

    Thankfully, for the rest of us.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,576
    philiph said:

    RobD said:

    RIP Dame Tessa Jowell

    Sad news. RIP.
    It is indeed. Must be very difficult decision to make on being public about a terminal illness - last year we lost a few who had given no inkling that they were not long for this earth (Alan Rickman, Victoria Wood).
    I think we have an unhealthy obsession with privacy of our wellbeing. Based on no facts at all I feel the stress of illness is lessened and generally the recovery is aided by sharing our troubles.

    Secrecy and privacy are over rated and come with many negative side effects and unintended consequences.
    There’s a difference between sharing with friends and family and sharing with the world
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227

    Nicky Morgan fails to give a straight answer on whether she will support the EEA amendment.

    Maybe, tactically she cannot.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 12,255

    Very good piece from Alastair this morning.

    There is an interesting omission in his otherwise excellent summary of the 20th century history of Western involvement in Persia/Iran which is the Iran/Iraq war. This is probably the most devastating war since WW2 and resulted in over a million dead. It was a war instigated, sponsored and supported by the US who had advisors embedded with the Iraqi military providing real time intelligence to allow them to more effectively deploy chemical weapons.

    It is this more than anything which drives the Iranian desire for security and safety from the US and its proxies in the region - most notably Saudi Arabia. The US are the aggressors in this particular fight and we should not be supporting them.

    Excellent point, and Mr M underplays the effect of the US intervention against the basically popular Mossadeq. Doing things for other peoples own good rarely makes said people grateful!
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 7,331
    This is a pitch to hard Leavers restating the red lines May set out in her Lancaster House speech end which she substantially gave away last December.

    If she says, "You can trust me to deliver.", clearly that group doesn't trust her to deliver.

    There's nothing here for Remainers or the small but important group of pragmatic Leavers. Nor is there any message for the European Union that she is supposedly negotiating with, beyond the impression that she is completely unreliable.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,804
    surby said:

    kle4 said:

    surby said:

    Scott_P said:
    No great understanding of what drove the referendum result there then.....
    Immigration ?
    For many. But I presume the point was that the public showed they were willing to take some economic hit in order to Brexit, since it was made very clear there would be some (granted, some will just not have believed that), therefore putting only economics first is not automatically as popular as she thinks.

    The question is how much cost for Brexit is too much. I don't regard any price to be worth paying.
    This is the problem. If Britain underachieves her potential growth [ something which is already happening, by the way ] by , say, 0.3% per year in GDP growth terms. Over 5 - 10 years, this is a vast sum of money. This is, in itself, about £50bn in current prices and exchange rates. Of course, it could be even larger. I have not included possible costs of trade disruption etc.

    But the average person would say, 0.3% ? Pah!
    The UK's 'growth' has become dependent upon debt fueled consumer spending and rising house prices.

    Less of that and more of growth from rising productivity, wealth creation, affordable housing and living within our means would be a good thing irrespective of what the nominal GDP figures said.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227

    Very good piece from Alastair this morning.

    There is an interesting omission in his otherwise excellent summary of the 20th century history of Western involvement in Persia/Iran which is the Iran/Iraq war. This is probably the most devastating war since WW2 and resulted in over a million dead. It was a war instigated, sponsored and supported by the US who had advisors embedded with the Iraqi military providing real time intelligence to allow them to more effectively deploy chemical weapons.

    It is this more than anything which drives the Iranian desire for security and safety from the US and its proxies in the region - most notably Saudi Arabia. The US are the aggressors in this particular fight and we should not be supporting them.

    Excellent point, and Mr M underplays the effect of the US intervention against the basically popular Mossadeq. Doing things for other peoples own good rarely makes said people grateful!
    We also should not forget that Morsi, in Egypt, was also popularly elected [ and, very few , at the time doubted the result ] and despite being an Islamist was not exactly Taleban. In fact, the Brotherhood , was far less Islamist than Saudi Arabia itself.

    To the US, the basic rule has nothing to do with democracy. It is to do with Israel.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 15,212
    Charles said:

    philiph said:

    RobD said:

    RIP Dame Tessa Jowell

    Sad news. RIP.
    It is indeed. Must be very difficult decision to make on being public about a terminal illness - last year we lost a few who had given no inkling that they were not long for this earth (Alan Rickman, Victoria Wood).
    I think we have an unhealthy obsession with privacy of our wellbeing. Based on no facts at all I feel the stress of illness is lessened and generally the recovery is aided by sharing our troubles.

    Secrecy and privacy are over rated and come with many negative side effects and unintended consequences.
    There’s a difference between sharing with friends and family and sharing with the world
    But that should be an entirely personal decision and one we should support and certainly not criticise. We are far too sensitive about the whole subject of end of life which is rather strange considering it is the one thing that unites us all. The attitude in this country is extremely unhealthy and akin to the way we once viewed the other end of the process - childbirth - where women went into confinement for the duration.

    A more open attitude to death, to its prelude and to its consequences would, I feel, do a great deal to help the mental well being of both individuals and society as a whole.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 7,331
    edited May 13
    kle4 said:

    surby said:

    Scott_P said:
    No great understanding of what drove the referendum result there then.....
    Immigration ?
    For many. But I presume the point was that the public showed they were willing to take some economic hit in order to Brexit, since it was made very clear there would be some (granted, some will just not have believed that), therefore putting only economics first is not automatically as popular as she thinks.

    The question is how much cost for Brexit is too much. I don't regard any price to be worth paying.
    The public absolutely did not show willingness to take an economic hit for Brexit. They were willing to get an extra £350 million a week for the NHS thanks to the "Brexit dividend". The Germans would sell us their cars and in any case who cares about declining Europe when you can be "Global Britain". To say otherwise was "Project Fear"
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,804
    Re the oil graph.

    Both US oil imports as a percentage of GDP and US oil imports from the Middle East would be even lower.

    It is impressive how the US has weaned itself off its dependency on oil imports from unstable regions.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 16,957
    FF43 said:

    This is a pitch to hard Leavers restating the red lines May set out in her Lancaster House speech end which she substantially gave away last December.

    If she says, "You can trust me to deliver.", clearly that group doesn't trust her to deliver.

    There's nothing here for Remainers or the small but important group of pragmatic Leavers. Nor is there any message for the European Union that she is supposedly negotiating with, beyond the impression that she is completely unreliable.
    Strikes me that May could have just written "nothing has changed" on her Facebook page and saved us all the trouble of reading the rest of the cake and unicorns nonsense.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 15,212

    Re the oil graph.

    Both US oil imports as a percentage of GDP and US oil imports from the Middle East would be even lower.

    It is impressive how the US has weaned itself off its dependency on oil imports from unstable regions.

    Fracking and deep water/deep play conventionals. And this at a time when the traditional US areas of exploration and production are being curtailed because of environmental impact fears.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,407
    Good piece. The massive increase in US oil production with fracking has indeed changed their interests in the ME. This week we had a judicial review on the part of Ineos in the Court of Session challenging the Scottish government’s ban on fracking which might politely be described as Luddite. Europe, including ourselves, really needs to take all reasonable steps to reduce its energy reliance on the ME. Wind energy etc is good but we need to exploit the resources available to us.

    I very much doubt that the Scottish courts will interfere in such a political decision, no matter how irrational. But we really need to rethink our position on this.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,713
    edited May 13
    FF43 said:

    kle4 said:

    surby said:

    Scott_P said:
    No great understanding of what drove the referendum result there then.....
    Immigration ?
    For many. But I presume the point was that the public showed they were willing to take some economic hit in order to Brexit, since it was made very clear there would be some (granted, some will just not have believed that), therefore putting only economics first is not automatically as popular as she thinks.

    The question is how much cost for Brexit is too much. I don't regard any price to be worth paying.
    The public absolutely did not show willingness to take an economic hit for Brexit. They were willing to get an extra £350 million a week for the NHS thanks to the "Brexit dividend". The Germans would sell us their cars and in any case who cares about declining Europe when you can be "Global Britain". To say otherwise was "Project Fear"
    You do the public a disservice. I said some would have disbelieved warnings of economic hits. But if you are going to tell me that everything remain said about economic hits was ignored, then I would say you are insulting a large proportion of the British public, as well as saying the remain campaign was completely useless, which is improbable. People heard both sides. They heard there would be an economic hit. Are you telling me 17 million people did not believe there would be any hit? I find that very hard to believe.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 7,331

    FF43 said:

    This is a pitch to hard Leavers restating the red lines May set out in her Lancaster House speech end which she substantially gave away last December.

    If she says, "You can trust me to deliver.", clearly that group doesn't trust her to deliver.

    There's nothing here for Remainers or the small but important group of pragmatic Leavers. Nor is there any message for the European Union that she is supposedly negotiating with, beyond the impression that she is completely unreliable.
    Strikes me that May could have just written "nothing has changed" on her Facebook page and saved us all the trouble of reading the rest of the cake and unicorns nonsense.
    Yup. The takeaway is that, whatever their beliefs about Brexit, no-one believes a word Theresa May says.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,407

    On a related theme, saw the movie “Beirut” last night - good old fashioned thriller with strong plot and actors at the top of their game. I still remember when Beirut was described as the “Paris of the Middle East”....

    I came seriously close to being brought up there. My father spent time there in the late 1950s and fell completely in love with the place and the people. When he married my mum he was very keen to emigrate there. Thankfully, my mum refused point blank to do so. She hinted in later life after my dad’s death that finding letters from a former girlfriend who lived there was somewhat influential in her decision.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 38,750
    kle4 said:

    Are you telling me 17 million people did not believe there would be any hit? I find that very hard to believe.

    The 17 million is split between

    - those who thought there would be a benefit;
    - those who thought it would be a wash
    - those who thought any hit would be to other people
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 7,331
    kle4 said:

    FF43 said:

    kle4 said:

    surby said:

    Scott_P said:
    No great understanding of what drove the referendum result there then.....
    Immigration ?
    For many. But I presume the point was that the public showed they were willing to take some economic hit in order to Brexit, since it was made very clear there would be some (granted, some will just not have believed that), therefore putting only economics first is not automatically as popular as she thinks.

    The question is how much cost for Brexit is too much. I don't regard any price to be worth paying.
    The public absolutely did not show willingness to take an economic hit for Brexit. They were willing to get an extra £350 million a week for the NHS thanks to the "Brexit dividend". The Germans would sell us their cars and in any case who cares about declining Europe when you can be "Global Britain". To say otherwise was "Project Fear"
    You do the public a disservice. I said some would have disbelieved warnings of economic hits. But if you are going to tell me that everything remain said about economic hits was ignored, then I would say you are insulting a large proportion of the British public, as well as saying the remain campaign was completely useless, which is improbable. People heard both sides. They heard there would be an economic hit. Are you telling me 17 million people did not believe there would be any hit? I find that very hard to believe.
    Sorry, I should have said the LEAVE voting public acted in the belief that Brexit would at least result in no economic damage. About 90% in opinion polls at the time IIRC. Most thought that Brexit would actually boost the economy. They substantially still thought the same a few months ago, when I last looked, in the face of evidence to the contrary.

    For Remainers, the reverse was true. They almost all believed there would be an economic hit.
This discussion has been closed.