Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Further thoughts on Chris Williamson succeeding Jeremy Corbyn

SystemSystem Posts: 6,389
edited September 8 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Further thoughts on Chris Williamson succeeding Jeremy Corbyn

Earlier on this week I wrote a piece on Chris Williamson’s odds to succeed Jeremy Corbyn tumbling from 100/1 to 33/1 in a week, I also explained the reasons why I wouldn’t be jumping aboard that betting bandwagon.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • RobDRobD Posts: 33,605
    First :smiley:
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 10,728
    Second
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 10,728
    Third like Boris.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 33,605
    IanB2 said:

    Third like Boris.

    Second and third? Very unsporting... :D
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,804
    Repost, FPT.

    The Dublin Convention will truly destroy the EU, not Brexit.

    I have long argued that the Convention is insane -- it places almost the entire burden of dealing with migration largely on Italy, Greece and Spain (instead of it being a shared responsibility of all the member states).

    I now read that the President of the Rich, the Mighty Jupiter, has pondered the matter.

    "French President Emmanuel Macron, speaking in a news conference following Thursday's meeting in Luxembourg, said the EU's main point-of-entry countries for migrants, like Spain, Italy and Greece, have a responsibility and cannot avoid it."

    This is the Great Reforming Hope of the EU.

    The EU truly cannot save itself.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,918
    Plausible. Though politics these days is damned tricky to predict.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 21,542
    The Derby Horror Marxist Show.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,804
    Can they depose Watson?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 23,000
    edited September 8
    The latest Swedish opinion poll has the Moderate Party only a 2.5% swing from first position, yet they're 100/1 to win most seats with Betfair. Seems a bit of a mismatch. (Now 40/1. You have to be quick on there).
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 9,132
    One odd thing a couple of days ago was that Williamson's Conservative namesake, Gavin Williamson's odds were jumping up and down and he is now 33/1 from 100/1. Perhaps someone got the two mixed up. For either party, there may be something to be said for waiting until there is a vacancy.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 4,211
    I think Watson would be the ideal candidate to be interim leader of the breakaway movement.

    I don't like him as a person but his quitting would be a major blow (as he has a considerable personal mandate of his own from the membership)

    He has significant union links which can help with the transfer of support from Momentum Labour to Real Labour.

    Under those circumstances, Williamson becoming the replacement Deputy to the rump of what is left of the Labour Party seems highly possible.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 4,070

    Repost, FPT.

    The Dublin Convention will truly destroy the EU, not Brexit.

    I have long argued that the Convention is insane -- it places almost the entire burden of dealing with migration largely on Italy, Greece and Spain (instead of it being a shared responsibility of all the member states).

    I now read that the President of the Rich, the Mighty Jupiter, has pondered the matter.

    "French President Emmanuel Macron, speaking in a news conference following Thursday's meeting in Luxembourg, said the EU's main point-of-entry countries for migrants, like Spain, Italy and Greece, have a responsibility and cannot avoid it."

    This is the Great Reforming Hope of the EU.

    The EU truly cannot save itself.

    Though trans Mediterranean migration is markedly down this year, in large part due to EU action, including some murky stuff in the Sahel.

    Africa is going to be more populous than Asia by the end of the century. The issue of migration is not going away.

    I expect that our reaction as a continent will be patchy, contentious and at times contradictory, but it does require international co operation, whether the EU continues in its current form or not.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 4,070

    Can they depose Watson?

    Not easily, as he was elected the same time as Jezza, and were Jezza to be squashed by a flying manhole cover, would become interim Leader. This would put him in charge of the next Leadership election.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,918
    Mr. JS, 51 on Ladbrokes, and 61 with boost. Cheers, put a tiny sum on.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,804
    Foxy said:

    Repost, FPT.

    The Dublin Convention will truly destroy the EU, not Brexit.

    I have long argued that the Convention is insane -- it places almost the entire burden of dealing with migration largely on Italy, Greece and Spain (instead of it being a shared responsibility of all the member states).

    I now read that the President of the Rich, the Mighty Jupiter, has pondered the matter.

    "French President Emmanuel Macron, speaking in a news conference following Thursday's meeting in Luxembourg, said the EU's main point-of-entry countries for migrants, like Spain, Italy and Greece, have a responsibility and cannot avoid it."

    This is the Great Reforming Hope of the EU.

    The EU truly cannot save itself.

    Though trans Mediterranean migration is markedly down this year, in large part due to EU action, including some murky stuff in the Sahel.

    Africa is going to be more populous than Asia by the end of the century. The issue of migration is not going away.

    I expect that our reaction as a continent will be patchy, contentious and at times contradictory, but it does require international co operation, whether the EU continues in its current form or not.
    All of this I largely agree with.

    My point is that even the so-called “reformers” in the EU don’t seem to understand how unfair the Dublin Convention really is -- as viewed from Italy or Malta or Greece.

    Although the comparison is often made between the EU and the USSR by rather insalubrious people like Farage, I do think the analogy has some validity.

    The EU seems incapable of reform.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 33,605

    twitter.com/michaelpdeacon/status/1038326291450273792?s=21

    Heh, the fifth one is great.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,573
    edited September 8
    Surely Williamson has a real chance simply because he's a 100% Corbynista.

    If you look at the current favourites they are generally just the senior members of the Shadow Cabinet and none of these are 100% Corbynista - other than McDonnell.

    The Corbynistas are going to want someone who is 100% pure - they'll fear someone like Thornberry or Starmer etc will tack back towards the Centre - at least to some degree.

    We also know from the last contest that being a leading Shadow Cabinet member is not a requirement to win.

    Bottom line - if McDonnell doesn't run, Williamson will have a decent chance.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 4,211
    MikeL said:


    The Corbynistas are going to want someone who is 100% pure - they'll fear someone like Thornberry or Starmer etc will tack back towards the Centre - at least to some degree.

    I can't see the membership voting for a Knight for leader - even though he has a very old Labour first name. The idea of a Corbynite Labour party having a toff as leader will be unacceptable to the mob. If he wants to stand a chance, he would have renounce his title.

    The same might apply to Lady Nugee - that amount of privilege will harm her chances. But harder for her to get away from the title unless she divorces him.

  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,573
    Foxy said:

    Can they depose Watson?

    Not easily, as he was elected the same time as Jezza, and were Jezza to be squashed by a flying manhole cover, would become interim Leader. This would put him in charge of the next Leadership election.
    Bu surely Watson could be challenged - just as Corbyn was challenged in 2016?

    And if he is challenged by someone like Williamson then he would be favourite to lose.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 4,070
    edited September 8

    Foxy said:

    Repost, FPT.

    The Dublin Convention will truly destroy the EU, not Brexit.

    I have long argued that the Convention is insane -- it places almost the entire burden of dealing with migration largely on Italy, Greece and Spain (instead of it being a shared responsibility of all the member states).

    I now read that the President of the Rich, the Mighty Jupiter, has pondered the matter.

    "French President Emmanuel Macron, speaking in a news conference following Thursday's meeting in Luxembourg, said the EU's main point-of-entry countries for migrants, like Spain, Italy and Greece, have a responsibility and cannot avoid it."

    This is the Great Reforming Hope of the EU.

    The EU truly cannot save itself.

    Though trans Mediterranean migration is markedly down this year, in large part due to EU action, including some murky stuff in the Sahel.

    Africa is going to be more populous than Asia by the end of the century. The issue of migration is not going away.

    I expect that our reaction as a continent will be patchy, contentious and at times contradictory, but it does require international co operation, whether the EU continues in its current form or not.
    All of this I largely agree with.

    My point is that even the so-called “reformers” in the EU don’t seem to understand how unfair the Dublin Convention really is -- as viewed from Italy or Malta or Greece.

    Although the comparison is often made between the EU and the USSR by rather insalubrious people like Farage, I do think the analogy has some validity.

    The EU seems incapable of reform.
    On the contrary, the EU is always evolving, albeit slowly.

    There is a multi-dimensional dispute, with the Countries of arrival not happy with the Dublin Convention, the destination countries (predominately in Northern Europe including UK) and with the Visegrad countries opposing a dispersal programme.

    The real problem is the large number of political and economic refugees in the world, with a convention covering the former, but not the latter. There are a large number of people unsafe in their own homes, and unwanted anywhere else. The EU, UN and other international bodies are nessecary to resolve the issue, but do require assistance from nation states.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 23,000

    Mr. JS, 51 on Ladbrokes, and 61 with boost. Cheers, put a tiny sum on.

    15/1 to 20/1 would be realistic IMO.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,918
    Dr. Foxy, "economic refugees"?

    Migrants.

    Mr. JS, if it comes off, I'd be rather pleased. Anyway, we shall see.

    Any idea of a timetable on exit polls, results, etc?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 16,499
    MikeL said:

    Foxy said:

    Can they depose Watson?

    Not easily, as he was elected the same time as Jezza, and were Jezza to be squashed by a flying manhole cover, would become interim Leader. This would put him in charge of the next Leadership election.
    Bu surely Watson could be challenged - just as Corbyn was challenged in 2016?

    And if he is challenged by someone like Williamson then he would be favourite to lose.
    I thought the Cult were pursuing another tactic: splitting the job into a male and female deputy.

    Which isn't a bad idea, generally, although in this case I suspect their real motives.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 33,605
    The EU are really going to ban exports of insulin to the UK?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 16,499
    RobD said:

    The EU are really going to ban exports of insulin to the UK?
    The concern is there will be a blip of many weeks I think, as the border will be blocked with lorries and there may even be a problem with aviation.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 33,605

    RobD said:

    The EU are really going to ban exports of insulin to the UK?
    The concern is there will be a blip of many weeks I think, as the border will be blocked with lorries and there may even be a problem with aviation.

    At the road border perhaps, but planes? Are they still threatening to shut down all EU-UK flights?
  • Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Repost, FPT.

    The Dublin Convention will truly destroy the EU, not Brexit.

    I have long argued that the Convention is insane -- it places almost the entire burden of dealing with migration largely on Italy, Greece and Spain (instead of it being a shared responsibility of all the member states).

    I now read that the President of the Rich, the Mighty Jupiter, has pondered the matter.

    "French President Emmanuel Macron, speaking in a news conference following Thursday's meeting in Luxembourg, said the EU's main point-of-entry countries for migrants, like Spain, Italy and Greece, have a responsibility and cannot avoid it."

    This is the Great Reforming Hope of the EU.

    The EU truly cannot save itself.

    Though trans Mediterranean migration is markedly down this year, in large part due to EU action, including some murky stuff in the Sahel.

    Africa is going to be more populous than Asia by the end of the century. The issue of migration is not going away.

    I expect that our reaction as a continent will be patchy, contentious and at times contradictory, but it does require international co operation, whether the EU continues in its current form or not.
    All of this I largely agree with.

    My point is that even the so-called “reformers” in the EU don’t seem to understand how unfair the Dublin Convention really is -- as viewed from Italy or Malta or Greece.

    Although the comparison is often made between the EU and the USSR by rather insalubrious people like Farage, I do think the analogy has some validity.

    The EU seems incapable of reform.
    On the contrary, the EU is always evolving, albeit slowly.

    There is a multi-dimensional dispute, with the Countries of arrival not happy with the Dublin Convention, the destination countries (predominately in Northern Europe including UK) and with the Visegrad countries opposing a dispersal programme.

    The real problem is the large number of political and economic refugees in the world, with a convention covering the former, but not the latter. There are a large number of people unsafe in their own homes, and unwanted anywhere else. The EU, UN and other international bodies are nessecary to resolve the issue, but do require assistance from nation states.
    Economic refugees = chancers.
  • mattmatt Posts: 1,849
    Is it very different to the Irish freely distributing their passport to anyone who’s every eaten champ?
  • Nothing new = "The Irish government wants to give the Irish minority in the UK Irish passports" :)
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 591

    RobD said:

    The EU are really going to ban exports of insulin to the UK?
    The concern is there will be a blip of many weeks I think, as the border will be blocked with lorries and there may even be a problem with aviation.

    Drug firms before Brexit already held stockpiles in the UK. Novo Nordisk supplies over 50% of insulin to the UK pre brexit held 7 weeks stock. on Brexit day they have stated that they will have 16 weeks stock in the UK. Sanofi are doing the same.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 68,320
    edited September 8
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    The EU are really going to ban exports of insulin to the UK?
    The concern is there will be a blip of many weeks I think, as the border will be blocked with lorries and there may even be a problem with aviation.

    At the road border perhaps, but planes? Are they still threatening to shut down all EU-UK flights?
    We’re the ones that keep on saying no deal is better than a bad deal.

    This is the reality of that.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,276
    They're all EU citizens, aren't they, so I don't see the issue. Or do you mean they should be selling their passports to make a profit?

    Good evening, everyone.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 33,605

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    The EU are really going to ban exports of insulin to the UK?
    The concern is there will be a blip of many weeks I think, as the border will be blocked with lorries and there may even be a problem with aviation.

    At the road border perhaps, but planes? Are they still threatening to shut down all EU-UK flights?
    We’re the ones that keep on saying no deal is better than a bad deal.

    This is the reality of that.
    Depends on your definition of a bad deal ;).
  • RobDRobD Posts: 33,605

    RobD said:

    The EU are really going to ban exports of insulin to the UK?
    The concern is there will be a blip of many weeks I think, as the border will be blocked with lorries and there may even be a problem with aviation.

    Drug firms before Brexit already held stockpiles in the UK. Novo Nordisk supplies over 50% of insulin to the UK pre brexit held 7 weeks stock. on Brexit day they have stated that they will have 16 weeks stock in the UK. Sanofi are doing the same.
    If it takes longer than seven weeks for a truck to get through customs I suspect we’d have far bigger problems than a lack of insulin.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 21,542

    We’re the ones that keep on saying no deal is better than a bad deal.

    This is the reality of that.

    This is Ivan Rogers' view of No Deal.

    http://www.britishirishchamber.com/2018/09/07/sir-mark-ivan-rogers-kcmg-speech-at-british-irish-chamber-of-commerce-annual-gala-dinner/

    Advocates of “no deal” know this really. They know that a genuine “no deal” would bring several key sectors of the economy to a halt. So they argue that European self-interest will be the deus ex machina which delivers a whole set of legal mini deals ensuring that it’s all alright on the night.

    This is, I fear, simply delusional.

    I am all for knowing in any negotiation what, in negotiators’ jargon, one’s Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement – one’s BATNA – is. It is particularly important in a negotiation like this one, where the default if there is no deal is not the status quo.

    But it is simply not the case that the best alternative here is a set of negotiated mini deals!

    Let’s think it through.. The reality, in any breakdown scenario, is that any UK PM who felt obliged to say that the Withdrawal negotiations had reached a dead end, would refuse to pay the exit bills.

    And the inevitable response to that from all 27 in the Council the following day would be to say there would be no resumption of normal trading relations with the UK unless and until it had agreed to honour its full debts.

    In the meantime, the 27 would no doubt enact, at 27, the emergency provisions, which enabled whatever continuity in whichever sectors it deemed in its interests. That would not mean the complete cessation of all business. Of course not. It just means an entirely unilateral and deliberately asymmetric selection by the EU of where there will be continuity and where there will not.

    That is not taking back control. That is giving it up.

    The EU would calculate that the UK would be back at the table with its chequebook out within the week.
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    The EU are really going to ban exports of insulin to the UK?
    The concern is there will be a blip of many weeks I think, as the border will be blocked with lorries and there may even be a problem with aviation.

    Drug firms before Brexit already held stockpiles in the UK. Novo Nordisk supplies over 50% of insulin to the UK pre brexit held 7 weeks stock. on Brexit day they have stated that they will have 16 weeks stock in the UK. Sanofi are doing the same.
    If it takes longer than seven weeks for a truck to get through customs I suspect we’d have far bigger problems than a lack of insulin.
    Can it not be manufactured recombinantly?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 33,605

    We’re the ones that keep on saying no deal is better than a bad deal.

    This is the reality of that.

    This is Ivan Rogers' view of No Deal.

    http://www.britishirishchamber.com/2018/09/07/sir-mark-ivan-rogers-kcmg-speech-at-british-irish-chamber-of-commerce-annual-gala-dinner/

    Advocates of “no deal” know this really. They know that a genuine “no deal” would bring several key sectors of the economy to a halt. So they argue that European self-interest will be the deus ex machina which delivers a whole set of legal mini deals ensuring that it’s all alright on the night.

    This is, I fear, simply delusional.

    I am all for knowing in any negotiation what, in negotiators’ jargon, one’s Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement – one’s BATNA – is. It is particularly important in a negotiation like this one, where the default if there is no deal is not the status quo.

    But it is simply not the case that the best alternative here is a set of negotiated mini deals!

    Let’s think it through.. The reality, in any breakdown scenario, is that any UK PM who felt obliged to say that the Withdrawal negotiations had reached a dead end, would refuse to pay the exit bills.

    And the inevitable response to that from all 27 in the Council the following day would be to say there would be no resumption of normal trading relations with the UK unless and until it had agreed to honour its full debts.

    In the meantime, the 27 would no doubt enact, at 27, the emergency provisions, which enabled whatever continuity in whichever sectors it deemed in its interests. That would not mean the complete cessation of all business. Of course not. It just means an entirely unilateral and deliberately asymmetric selection by the EU of where there will be continuity and where there will not.

    That is not taking back control. That is giving it up.

    The EU would calculate that the UK would be back at the table with its chequebook out within the week.
    “No resumption of normal trading relations”.

    And if that’s not on the table as a part of the negotiations?
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    The EU are really going to ban exports of insulin to the UK?
    The concern is there will be a blip of many weeks I think, as the border will be blocked with lorries and there may even be a problem with aviation.

    At the road border perhaps, but planes? Are they still threatening to shut down all EU-UK flights?
    We’re the ones that keep on saying no deal is better than a bad deal.

    This is the reality of that.
    Depends on your definition of a bad deal ;).
    Those Leavers that tumescent over no deal/WTO terms are the other tools in this.

    It’ll be we abolished boom and bust all over again.

    Just think your No vote may have ultimately signed us up to a United States of Europe

    That would be so funny.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 33,605

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    The EU are really going to ban exports of insulin to the UK?
    The concern is there will be a blip of many weeks I think, as the border will be blocked with lorries and there may even be a problem with aviation.

    At the road border perhaps, but planes? Are they still threatening to shut down all EU-UK flights?
    We’re the ones that keep on saying no deal is better than a bad deal.

    This is the reality of that.
    Depends on your definition of a bad deal ;).
    Those Leavers that tumescent over no deal/WTO terms are the other tools in this.

    It’ll be we abolished boom and bust all over again.

    Just think your No vote may have ultimately signed us up to a United States of Europe

    That would be so funny.
    It would take quite a while to live down indeed :p
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,589
    AnneJGP said:

    They're all EU citizens, aren't they, so I don't see the issue. Or do you mean they should be selling their passports to make a profit?

    Good evening, everyone.
    That is a rather controversial comment. In my book it is still afternoon, and evening doesn't kick in until 6 o'clock.
  • We’re the ones that keep on saying no deal is better than a bad deal.

    This is the reality of that.

    This is Ivan Rogers' view of No Deal.

    http://www.britishirishchamber.com/2018/09/07/sir-mark-ivan-rogers-kcmg-speech-at-british-irish-chamber-of-commerce-annual-gala-dinner/

    Advocates of “no deal” know this really. They know that a genuine “no deal” would bring several key sectors of the economy to a halt. So they argue that European self-interest will be the deus ex machina which delivers a whole set of legal mini deals ensuring that it’s all alright on the night.

    This is, I fear, simply delusional.

    I am all for knowing in any negotiation what, in negotiators’ jargon, one’s Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement – one’s BATNA – is. It is particularly important in a negotiation like this one, where the default if there is no deal is not the status quo.

    But it is simply not the case that the best alternative here is a set of negotiated mini deals!

    Let’s think it through.. The reality, in any breakdown scenario, is that any UK PM who felt obliged to say that the Withdrawal negotiations had reached a dead end, would refuse to pay the exit bills.

    And the inevitable response to that from all 27 in the Council the following day would be to say there would be no resumption of normal trading relations with the UK unless and until it had agreed to honour its full debts.

    In the meantime, the 27 would no doubt enact, at 27, the emergency provisions, which enabled whatever continuity in whichever sectors it deemed in its interests. That would not mean the complete cessation of all business. Of course not. It just means an entirely unilateral and deliberately asymmetric selection by the EU of where there will be continuity and where there will not.

    That is not taking back control. That is giving it up.

    The EU would calculate that the UK would be back at the table with its chequebook out within the week.
    I sat in a meeting with David Davis where he said it would be alright.

    That there’s be no disruption.

    He’s like my boxer shorts, full of bollocks.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 16,499
    AnneJGP said:

    They're all EU citizens, aren't they, so I don't see the issue. Or do you mean they should be selling their passports to make a profit?

    Good evening, everyone.
    Strikes me as deliberately provocative in a sensitive area, and has echoes of 1930s.
  • We’re the ones that keep on saying no deal is better than a bad deal.

    This is the reality of that.

    This is Ivan Rogers' view of No Deal.

    http://www.britishirishchamber.com/2018/09/07/sir-mark-ivan-rogers-kcmg-speech-at-british-irish-chamber-of-commerce-annual-gala-dinner/

    Advocates of “no deal” know this really. They know that a genuine “no deal” would bring several key sectors of the economy to a halt. So they argue that European self-interest will be the deus ex machina which delivers a whole set of legal mini deals ensuring that it’s all alright on the night.

    This is, I fear, simply delusional.

    I am all for knowing in any negotiation what, in negotiators’ jargon, one’s Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement – one’s BATNA – is. It is particularly important in a negotiation like this one, where the default if there is no deal is not the status quo.

    But it is simply not the case that the best alternative here is a set of negotiated mini deals!

    Let’s think it through.. The reality, in any breakdown scenario, is that any UK PM who felt obliged to say that the Withdrawal negotiations had reached a dead end, would refuse to pay the exit bills.

    And the inevitable response to that from all 27 in the Council the following day would be to say there would be no resumption of normal trading relations with the UK unless and until it had agreed to honour its full debts.

    In the meantime, the 27 would no doubt enact, at 27, the emergency provisions, which enabled whatever continuity in whichever sectors it deemed in its interests. That would not mean the complete cessation of all business. Of course not. It just means an entirely unilateral and deliberately asymmetric selection by the EU of where there will be continuity and where there will not.

    That is not taking back control. That is giving it up.

    The EU would calculate that the UK would be back at the table with its chequebook out within the week.
    Your last sentence indicates the EU have no idea about British resolve
  • mattmatt Posts: 1,849

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    The EU are really going to ban exports of insulin to the UK?
    The concern is there will be a blip of many weeks I think, as the border will be blocked with lorries and there may even be a problem with aviation.

    At the road border perhaps, but planes? Are they still threatening to shut down all EU-UK flights?
    We’re the ones that keep on saying no deal is better than a bad deal.

    This is the reality of that.
    While I don’t doubt that failure to agree an arrangement would be unwise, people who are tumescent at the thought of EASA/UK failure might consider where North Atlantic tracks are and the wider political consequences of grounding most North Atlantic flights.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 19,748
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    The EU are really going to ban exports of insulin to the UK?
    The concern is there will be a blip of many weeks I think, as the border will be blocked with lorries and there may even be a problem with aviation.

    At the road border perhaps, but planes? Are they still threatening to shut down all EU-UK flights?
    Not directly, but it’s the default if there’s a crash out and they’re refusing to discuss the issue until the withdrawal agreement is done.

    If push came to shove with medicines running out, we’d surely use military planes. I’d also suggest that the international pressure on the EU to stop being dicks would be immense well before that point.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 44,874
    If Corbyn goes and is succeeded by Williamson it is difficult to see how the Labour Party does not split as Williamson has been pushing the deselection of Labour moderates. A Williamson leadership would likely see Umunna and other moderates defect en masse to a new centrist party formed with the LDs and maybe a few pro EU Tories
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,276

    AnneJGP said:

    They're all EU citizens, aren't they, so I don't see the issue. Or do you mean they should be selling their passports to make a profit?

    Good evening, everyone.
    Strikes me as deliberately provocative in a sensitive area, and has echoes of 1930s.
    I see your point, and you may be right. After all, trying to leave the EU club seems to be showing it to be a matter of subjugation not consent.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 44,874
    Parliament has already voted to stay in the European Medicines Agency so regardless of what happens with Brexit it is unlikely to impact insulin supply
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 4,070

    Dr. Foxy, "economic refugees"?

    Migrants.

    Mr. JS, if it comes off, I'd be rather pleased. Anyway, we shall see.

    Any idea of a timetable on exit polls, results, etc?

    Politics and economics are intertwined so much that separating economic and political causes of becoming a refugee is not straightforward. Take for example the 4 million Zimbabweans that have left Zim in the last decade or so, or the 2 million that have fled Venezuela over the last couple of years.

    If South Africa followed a Zimbabwe like path in coming years, would the refugees be economic or political?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 16,499
    "Word has reached me from the Commons' tea room that Boris Johnson is about to go public with a full-frontal leadership bid to topple Theresa May and install himself in Downing Street.

    Johnson, enabled by Tory election mastermind and new sidekick Lynton Crosby, has mapped out a timeline to power which will torpedo the PM's Chequers plan for Brexit.

    Having scanned the Trump playbook for inspiration (see letterbox attack on Muslim women), Johnson cleared the decks on his personal life after his marriage break-up story appeared in The Sun on Friday.

    I am told that Johnson's MP backers are now compiling the requisite 48 names required to send to the backbench 1922 Committee to trigger a no confidence vote in Mrs May. One source even says this will happen on Monday.

    Look out for Johnson's Monday column in the Telegraph (invoice £5,000 a time) in which many of his colleagues expect him to fire the gun."
  • notmenotme Posts: 2,703

    We’re the ones that keep on saying no deal is better than a bad deal.

    This is the reality of that.

    This is Ivan Rogers' view of No Deal.

    http://www.britishirishchamber.com/2018/09/07/sir-mark-ivan-rogers-kcmg-speech-at-british-irish-chamber-of-commerce-annual-gala-dinner/

    Advocates of “no deal” know this really. They know that a genuine “no deal” would bring several key sectors of the economy to a halt. So they argue that European self-interest will be the deus ex machina which delivers a whole set of legal mini deals ensuring that it’s all alright on the night.

    This is, I fear, simply delusional.

    I am all for knowing in any negotiation what, in negotiators’ jargon, one’s Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement – one’s BATNA – is. It is particularly important in a negotiation like this one, where the default if there is no deal is not the status quo.

    But it is simply not the case that the best alternative here is a set of negotiated mini deals!

    Let’s think it through.. The reality, in any breakdown scenario, is that any UK PM who felt obliged to say that the Withdrawal negotiations had reached a dead end, would refuse to pay the exit bills.

    And the inevitable response to that from all 27 in the Council the following day would be to say there would be no resumption of normal trading relations with the UK unless and until it had agreed to honour its full debts.

    In the meantime, the 27 would no doubt enact, at 27, the emergency provisions, which enabled whatever continuity in whichever sectors it deemed in its interests. That would not mean the complete cessation of all business. Of course not. It just means an entirely unilateral and deliberately asymmetric selection by the EU of where there will be continuity and where there will not.

    That is not taking back control. That is giving it up.

    The EU would calculate that the UK would be back at the table with its chequebook out within the week.
    I sat in a meeting with David Davis where he said it would be alright.

    That there’s be no disruption.

    He’s like my boxer shorts, full of bollocks.
    There’s a lot of truth in that a true no deal would be economically cataclysmic, and for both us and them. But the commission will be mistaken if they think that the uk would bend back within weeks with its chequebook. If we are really going down the road of leaving without any kind of contingency it will harm uk rEU relations for generations. I would imagine there would be a complete withdrawal from any kind of friendly relations with other Eu countries.

    The damage would be enough to push the UK into a recession but also push the world into recession to dislocate the fifth largest economy from the global trading system.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 33,605
    Why do the words damp squib spring to mind?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,589
    Most men having a midlife crisis buy a motorbike or a sports car, this buffoon thinks he should run the country.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 44,874

    "Word has reached me from the Commons' tea room that Boris Johnson is about to go public with a full-frontal leadership bid to topple Theresa May and install himself in Downing Street.

    Johnson, enabled by Tory election mastermind and new sidekick Lynton Crosby, has mapped out a timeline to power which will torpedo the PM's Chequers plan for Brexit.

    Having scanned the Trump playbook for inspiration (see letterbox attack on Muslim women), Johnson cleared the decks on his personal life after his marriage break-up story appeared in The Sun on Friday.

    I am told that Johnson's MP backers are now compiling the requisite 48 names required to send to the backbench 1922 Committee to trigger a no confidence vote in Mrs May. One source even says this will happen on Monday.

    Look out for Johnson's Monday column in the Telegraph (invoice £5,000 a time) in which many of his colleagues expect him to fire the gun."

    May will win any no confidence vote at the moment, the question will only be her margin of victory
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 21,922
    notme said:

    I sat in a meeting with David Davis where he said it would be alright.

    That there’s be no disruption.

    He’s like my boxer shorts, full of bollocks.
    There’s a lot of truth in that a true no deal would be economically cataclysmic, and for both us and them. But the commission will be mistaken if they think that the uk would bend back within weeks with its chequebook. If we are really going down the road of leaving without any kind of contingency it will harm uk rEU relations for generations. I would imagine there would be a complete withdrawal from any kind of friendly relations with other Eu countries.

    The damage would be enough to push the UK into a recession but also push the world into recession to dislocate the fifth largest economy from the global trading system.

    Plus if the damage is done it is done. We will adapt and there will be no going back. But I really don't think that there is any chance of this. We will have a deal. Whether it is a good deal leading to good relationship with Europe or a bad deal and unending resentment remains to be seen.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 23,000

    Most men having a midlife crisis buy a motorbike or a sports car, this buffoon thinks he should run the country.
    It's now or never for Boris. That's probably his thinking.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,991
    edited September 8

    "Word has reached me from the Commons' tea room that Boris Johnson is about to go public with a full-frontal leadership bid to topple Theresa May and install himself in Downing Street.

    Johnson, enabled by Tory election mastermind and new sidekick Lynton Crosby, has mapped out a timeline to power which will torpedo the PM's Chequers plan for Brexit.

    Having scanned the Trump playbook for inspiration (see letterbox attack on Muslim women), Johnson cleared the decks on his personal life after his marriage break-up story appeared in The Sun on Friday.

    I am told that Johnson's MP backers are now compiling the requisite 48 names required to send to the backbench 1922 Committee to trigger a no confidence vote in Mrs May. One source even says this will happen on Monday.

    Look out for Johnson's Monday column in the Telegraph (invoice £5,000 a time) in which many of his colleagues expect him to fire the gun."

    As prophesied in Revelations, could we at last be about to see the second fourteenth coming of Boris Johnson?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 44,874
    notme said:

    We’re the ones that keep on saying no deal is better than a bad deal.

    This is the reality of that.

    This is Ivan Rogers' view of No Deal.

    http://www.britishirishchamber.com/2018/09/07/sir-mark-ivan-rogers-kcmg-speech-at-british-irish-chamber-of-commerce-annual-gala-dinner/

    mply delusional.

    I am all for knowing in any negotiation what, in negotiators’ jargon, one’s Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement – one’s BATNA – is. It is particularly important in a negotiation like this one, where the default if there is no deal is not the status quo.

    But it is simply not the case that the best alternative here is a set of negotiated mini deals!

    Let’s think it through.. The reality, in any breakdown scenario, is that any UK PM who felt obliged to say that the Withdrawal negotiations had reached a dead end, would refuse to pay the exit bills.

    And the inevitable response to that from all 27 in the Council the following day would be to say there would be no resumption of normal trading relations with the UK unless and until it had agreed to honour its full debts.

    In the meantime, the 27ntrol. That is giving it up.

    The EU would calculate that the UK would be back at the table with its chequebook out within the week.
    I sat in a meeting with David Davis where he said it would be alright.

    That there’s be no disruption.

    He’s like my boxer shorts, full of bollocks.
    There’s a lot of truth in that a true no deal would be economically cataclysmic, and for both us and them. But the commission will be mistaken if they think that the uk would bend back within weeks with its chequebook. If we are really going down the road of leaving without any kind of contingency it will harm uk rEU relations for generations. I would imagine there would be a complete withdrawal from any kind of friendly relations with other Eu countries.

    The damage would be enough to push the UK into a recession but also push the world into recession to dislocate the fifth largest economy from the global trading system.

    I think the most likely deal now is a Withdrawal Agreement based on Chequers Plus ie we stay aligned with single market rules as well as EU goods rules but with the ability to do our own trade deals and keep the work permits or study place on arrival requirement.

    That will get us the transition period but we will basically be in the single market and customs union rules wise for the most part
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,918
    Dr. Foxy, you think a flood of Venezuelans are crossing the Mediterranean?

    They're not. The comparison is fatuous. They're (mostly) economic migrants bypassing the usual rules of entry, aided and abetted by charities acting as useful idiots for people traffickers.

    There were, and maybe still are, some genuine refugees. And some scum (ISIS etc) too.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 3,670
    edited September 8
    AnneJGP said:

    AnneJGP said:

    They're all EU citizens, aren't they, so I don't see the issue. Or do you mean they should be selling their passports to make a profit?

    Good evening, everyone.
    Strikes me as deliberately provocative in a sensitive area, and has echoes of 1930s.
    I see your point, and you may be right. After all, trying to leave the EU club seems to be showing it to be a matter of subjugation not consent.
    It’s picking a 100 year old scab.

    The the South Tyrol had been Austrian/Archbishopric of Innsbruck/ Holy Roman Empire and 100% part of the broader “Germanic Realm” from just after the fall of the Roman Empire to 1918. In fact German remains the overwhelming majority language ( ever noticed how so many Italian skiers haven’t very non Italian names for example?).

    Their “problem” was they were in the wrong side of the Apline watershed, which here lies at the Brenner pass (the present Austrian/Italian border and the lowest trans Alpine pass so a huge door between northern and southern Europe). The Italians in a fit of geographical tidiness claimed it up to the Brenner pass and having fought with the Allies in 1914-18 (or 1915-18 in their case) claimed it as what they had been promised under the table to enter the war on the Allied side.

    Culturally it was like giving Kent to France and was the source of various argy bargy largely settled when the Italian state gave them huge devolution in the 70’s (I think, from memory). Rather like Ireland the effective removing of a border helped too.

    And there we were. Till now.........
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 4,211
    Was the divorce thing an attempt to clear the decks ahead of this?

    I can't see it.

    I think Watson is being fed a line to make him look a bit foolish.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 16,499

    Was the divorce thing an attempt to clear the decks ahead of this?

    I can't see it.

    I think Watson is being fed a line to make him look a bit foolish.
    Newton Dunn was adamant that Boris and friends were not involved in his scoop.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,918
    Mr. M, Revelation*.

    Common mistake, though.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 16,499
    welshowl said:

    AnneJGP said:

    AnneJGP said:

    They're all EU citizens, aren't they, so I don't see the issue. Or do you mean they should be selling their passports to make a profit?

    Good evening, everyone.
    Strikes me as deliberately provocative in a sensitive area, and has echoes of 1930s.
    I see your point, and you may be right. After all, trying to leave the EU club seems to be showing it to be a matter of subjugation not consent.
    It’s picking a 100 year old scab.

    The the South Tyrol had been Austrian/Archbishopric of Innsbruck/ Holy Roman Empire and 100% part of the broader “Germanic Realm” from just after the fall of the Roman Empire to 1918. In fact German remains the overwhelming majority language ( ever noticed how so many Italian skiers haven’t very non Italian names for example?).

    Their “problem” was they were in the wrong side of the Apline watershed, which here lies at the Brenner pass (the present Austrian/Italian border and the lowest trans Alpine pass so a huge door between northern and southern Europe). The Italians in a fit of geographical tidiness claimed it up to the Brenner pass and having fought with the Allies in 1914-18 (or 1915-18 in their case) claimed it as what they had been promised under the table to enter the war on the Allied side.

    Culturally it was like giving Kent to France and was the source of various argy bargy largely settled when the Italian state gave them huge devolution in the 70’s (I think, from memory). Rather like Ireland the effective removing of a border helped too.

    And there we were. Till now.........
    On the face of it, looks like Radical Right in Austria trying to cause trouble or at least find something to cause a diversion from something else they are doing.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 33,605
    welshowl said:

    AnneJGP said:

    AnneJGP said:

    They're all EU citizens, aren't they, so I don't see the issue. Or do you mean they should be selling their passports to make a profit?

    Good evening, everyone.
    Strikes me as deliberately provocative in a sensitive area, and has echoes of 1930s.
    I see your point, and you may be right. After all, trying to leave the EU club seems to be showing it to be a matter of subjugation not consent.
    It’s picking a 100 year old scab.

    The the South Tyrol had been Austrian/Archbishopric of Innsbruck/ Holy Roman Empire and 100% part of the broader “Germanic Realm” from just after the fall of the Roman Empire to 1918. In fact German remains the overwhelming majority language ( ever noticed how so many Italian skiers haven’t very non Italian names for example?).

    Their “problem” was they were in the wrong side of the Apline watershed, which here lies at the Brenner pass (the present Austrian/Italian border and the lowest trans Alpine pass so a huge door between northern and southern Europe). The Italians in a fit of geographical tidiness claimed it up to the Brenner pass and having fought with the Allies in 1914-18 (or 1915-18 in their case) claimed it as what they had been promised under the table to enter the war on the Allied side.

    Culturally it was like giving Kent to France and was the source of various argy bargy largely settled when the Italian state gave them huge devolution in the 70’s (I think, from memory). Rather like Ireland the effective removing of a border helped too.

    And there we were. Till now.........
    South Tyrol is the richest province in Italy. They aren’t going to be giving it up any time soon. :p
  • notmenotme Posts: 2,703
    HYUFD said:

    notme said:

    We’re the ones that keep on saying no deal is better than a bad deal.

    This is the reality of that.

    This is Ivan Rogers' view of No Deal.



    But it is simply not the case that the best alternative here is a set of negotiated mini deals!

    Let’s think it through.. The reality, in any breakdown scenario, is that any UK PM who felt obliged to say that the Withdrawal negotiations had reached a dead end, would refuse to pay the exit bills.

    And the inevitable response to that from all 27 in the Council the following day would be to say there would be no resumption of normal trading relations with the UK unless and until it had agreed to honour its full debts.

    In the meantime, the 27ntrol. That is giving it up.

    The EU would calculate that the UK would be back at the table with its chequebook out within the week.
    I sat in a meeting with David Davis where he said it would be alright.

    That there’s be no disruption.

    He’s like my boxer shorts, full of bollocks.
    There’s a lot of truth in that a true no deal would be economically cataclysmic, and for both us and them. But the commission will be mistaken if they think that the uk would bend back within weeks with its chequebook. If we are really going down the road of leaving without any kind of contingency it will harm uk rEU relations for generations. I would imagine there would be a complete withdrawal from any kind of friendly relations with other Eu countries.

    The damage would be enough to push the UK into a recession but also push the world into recession to dislocate the fifth largest economy from the global trading system.

    I think the most likely deal now is a Withdrawal Agreement based on Chequers Plus ie we stay aligned with single market rules as well as EU goods rules but with the ability to do our own trade deals and keep the work permits or study place on arrival requirement.

    That will get us the transition period but we will basically be in the single market and customs union rules wise for the most part
    And utterly bonkers. A dreadful compromise that doesn’t sail through the middle and cherry pick the best. Instead of the steak and tiramisu, we’ve proposed sprouts and blancmange. If we couldn’t work out what we wanted in the long term, a simple move to EFTA or EEA would have sufficed. Close to zero business interruption, no more ticking clock and fully implementing the Brexit referendum. And allows us to negotiate trade agreements, with a long term aim to leave the single market if we so desire.

    Complete cock up.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 3,670
    edited September 8

    welshowl said:

    AnneJGP said:

    AnneJGP said:

    They're all EU citizens, aren't they, so I don't see the issue. Or do you mean they should be selling their passports to make a profit?

    Good evening, everyone.
    Strikes me as deliberately provocative in a sensitive area, and has echoes of 1930s.
    I see your point, and you may be right. After all, trying to leave the EU club seems to be showing it to be a matter of subjugation not consent.
    It’s picking a 100 year old scab.

    The the South Tyrol had been Austrian/Archbishopric of Innsbruck/ Holy Roman Empire and 100% part of the broader “Germanic Realm” from just after the fall of the Roman Empire to 1918. In fact German remains the overwhelming majority language ( ever noticed how so many Italian skiers haven’t very non Italian names for example?).

    Their “problem” was they were in the wrong side of the Apline watershed, which here lies at the Brenner pass (the present Austrian/Italian border and the lowest trans Alpine pass so a huge door between northern and southern Europe). The Italians in a fit of geographical tidiness claimed it up to the Brenner pass and having fought with the Allies in 1914-18 (or 1915-18 in their case) claimed it as what they had been promised under the table to enter the war on the Allied side.

    Culturally it was like giving Kent to France and was the source of various argy bargy largely settled when the Italian state gave them huge devolution in the 70’s (I think, from memory). Rather like Ireland the effective removing of a border helped too.

    And there we were. Till now.........
    On the face of it, looks like Radical Right in Austria trying to cause trouble or at least find something to cause a diversion from something else they are doing.
    Well if the report is accurate the timing is “interesting “, in that it’s 100 years ago next month that Austria Hungary collapsed and the South Tyrol started to become part of Italy.

    If you go there it really is bizarre in that apart from cars saying “polizia” and the odd Italian flag outside the (usually tatty and unpainted) town hall, you are for all intents and purposes as if you were in Austria, full of immaculate chalets bedecked with flowers, and everyone speaking German ( though most are bilingual too I think).

    As I said it’s Italian like Kent is French(!)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 44,874
    notme said:

    HYUFD said:

    notme said:

    We’re the ones that keep on saying no deal is better than a bad deal.

    This is the reality of that.

    This is Ivan Rogers' view of No Deal.



    But it is simply not the case that the best alternative here is a set of negotiated mini deals!

    Let’s think it through.. The reality, in any breakdown scenario, is that any UK PM who felt obliged to say that the Withdrawal negotiations had reached a dead end, would refuse to pay the exit bills.

    And the inevitable response to that from all 27 in the Council the following day would be to say there would be no resumption of normal trading relations with the UK unless and until it had agreed to honour its full debts.

    In the meantime, the 27ntrol. That is giving it up.

    The EU would calculate that the UK would be back at the table with its chequebook out within the week.
    I sat in a meeting with David Davis where he said it would be alright.

    That there’s be no disruption.

    He’s like my boxer shorts, full of bollocks.
    There’s a lot of truth in that a true not economy from the global trading system.

    I think the most likely deal now is a Withdrawal Agreement based on Chequers Plus ie we stay aligned with single market rules as well as EU goods rules but with the ability to do our own trade deals and keep the work permits or study place on arrival requirement.

    That will get us the transition period but we will basically be in the single market and customs union rules wise for the most part
    And utterly bonkers. A dreadful compromise that doesn’t sail through the middle and cherry pick the best. Instead of the steak and tiramisu, we’ve proposed sprouts and blancmange. If we couldn’t work out what we wanted in the long term, a simple move to EFTA or EEA would have sufficed. Close to zero business interruption, no more ticking clock and fully implementing the Brexit referendum. And allows us to negotiate trade agreements, with a long term aim to leave the single market if we so desire.

    Complete cock up.
    No, it is the only proposal which can get a transition period and a deal with the EU, does not require an Irish sea border as Canada would which would be unacceptable to the DUP and at least does some change on free movement unlike EFTA/EEA
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 21,542
    edited September 8

    Was the divorce thing an attempt to clear the decks ahead of this?

    I can't see it.

    I think Watson is being fed a line to make him look a bit foolish.
    Newton Dunn was adamant that Boris and friends were not involved in his scoop.
    A well-known Sun journalist was said to be in a relationship with a prominent blonde Tory aide who was also said to be too close to Johnson and Gove...

    [/blindgossip]
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 21,922
    welshowl said:

    AnneJGP said:

    AnneJGP said:

    They're all EU citizens, aren't they, so I don't see the issue. Or do you mean they should be selling their passports to make a profit?

    Good evening, everyone.
    Strikes me as deliberately provocative in a sensitive area, and has echoes of 1930s.
    I see your point, and you may be right. After all, trying to leave the EU club seems to be showing it to be a matter of subjugation not consent.
    It’s picking a 100 year old scab.

    The the South Tyrol had been Austrian/Archbishopric of Innsbruck/ Holy Roman Empire and 100% part of the broader “Germanic Realm” from just after the fall of the Roman Empire to 1918. In fact German remains the overwhelming majority language ( ever noticed how so many Italian skiers haven’t very non Italian names for example?).

    Their “problem” was they were in the wrong side of the Apline watershed, which here lies at the Brenner pass (the present Austrian/Italian border and the lowest trans Alpine pass so a huge door between northern and southern Europe). The Italians in a fit of geographical tidiness claimed it up to the Brenner pass and having fought with the Allies in 1914-18 (or 1915-18 in their case) claimed it as what they had been promised under the table to enter the war on the Allied side.

    Culturally it was like giving Kent to France and was the source of various argy bargy largely settled when the Italian state gave them huge devolution in the 70’s (I think, from memory). Rather like Ireland the effective removing of a border helped too.

    And there we were. Till now.........
    I was at Lake Garda for my holidays this year. Very Germanic. Lots of German food, road signs, language. Didn't feel especially Italian.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 16,499
    Boris at 4.1 on BF.

    That's the lowest for a long time iirc.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 4,070

    Dr. Foxy, you think a flood of Venezuelans are crossing the Mediterranean?

    They're not. The comparison is fatuous. They're (mostly) economic migrants bypassing the usual rules of entry, aided and abetted by charities acting as useful idiots for people traffickers.

    There were, and maybe still are, some genuine refugees. And some scum (ISIS etc) too.

    My point is that the millions of Venezuelan and Zim refugees have mixed economic and political motives, not that they are crossing the Med.

    There are many Sudanese and Eritreans with similar mixed motives, one of the many issues with the UN treaties on Refugees.

    Personally, I think the whole convention needs revision, and favour an Australian style offshore internment and assessment system.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,476
    edited September 8
    I see after all that’s happened in British politics, most polls are still showing both parties level pegging. So the soft left still aren’t so outraged by Corbyn that they’re turning away from Labour.

    Meanwhile, I see that Tony Blair has intervened, I don’t know why - his words are unlikely to help Corbynsceptics. Indeed, after his meeting with Salvini, and his post PM career in general, his words about Corbyn ring hollow. I found Gordon Brown’s speech much more worthwhile to listen to. Now that was a great speech.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 3,670
    edited September 8
    DavidL said:

    welshowl said:

    AnneJGP said:

    AnneJGP said:

    They're all EU citizens, aren't they, so I don't see the issue. Or do you mean they should be selling their passports to make a profit?

    Good evening, everyone.
    Strikes me as deliberately provocative in a sensitive area, and has echoes of 1930s.
    I see your point, and you may be right. After all, trying to leave the EU club seems to be showing it to be a matter of subjugation not consent.
    It’s picking a 100 year old scab.

    The the South Tyrol had been Austrian/Archbishopric of Innsbruck/ Holy Roman Empire and 100% part of the broader “Germanic Realm” from just after the fall of the Roman Empire to 1918. In fact German remains the overwhelming majority language ( ever noticed how so many Italian skiers haven’t very non Italian names for example?).

    Their “problem” was they were in the wrong side of the Apline watershed, which here lies at the Brenner pass (the present Austrian/Italian border and the lowest trans Alpine pass so a huge door between northern and southern Europe). The Italians in a fit of geographical tidiness claimed it up to the Brenner pass and having fought with the Allies in 1914-18 (or 1915-18 in their case) claimed it as what they had been promised under the table to enter the war on the Allied side.

    Culturally it was like giving Kent to France and was the source of various argy bargy largely settled when the Italian state gave them huge devolution in the 70’s (I think, from memory). Rather like Ireland the effective removing of a border helped too.

    And there we were. Till now.........
    I was at Lake Garda for my holidays this year. Very Germanic. Lots of German food, road signs, language. Didn't feel especially Italian.
    Always fancied the Italian Lakes. One day.....

    Actually the old Austrian border used to come down to the northern end of Lake Garda but that was the one small bit that was Italian in language. South Tyrol is roughly the northern half of the province of Trentino Alto Adige. The Trentino bit (nearer lake Garda) being Italian and the “Alto Adige” bit being German. Alto Adige was, I presume, a way of the Italians not actually giving it its local name of Sud Tirol which, let’s face it, is pretty German.

    Bit like the French annexing Kent and calling it Pas de Calais Nord.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 1,445
    The problem is we are led by those horrible evil people on the left... ohh and for some reason we have stopped talking to each other respectfully...

    My worry sometimes is people don't even listen to their own words let alone other peoples.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 3,670

    I see after all that’s happened in British politics, most polls are still showing both parties level pegging. So the soft left still aren’t so outraged by Corbyn that they’re turning away from Labour.

    Meanwhile, I see that Tony Blair has intervened, I don’t know why - his words are unlikely to help Corbynsceptics. Indeed, after his meeting with Salvini, and his post PM career in general, his words about Corbyn ring hollow. I found Gordon Brown’s speech much more worthwhile to listen to. Now that was a great speech.

    I agree.

    There’s not much in public life that I thought Brown got right, but credit where it was due. It was a great speech the other day, and he was dead right. So good for him.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 999
    welshowl said:

    AnneJGP said:

    AnneJGP said:

    They're all EU citizens, aren't they, so I don't see the issue. Or do you mean they should be selling their passports to make a profit?

    Good evening, everyone.
    Strikes me as deliberately provocative in a sensitive area, and has echoes of 1930s.
    I see your point, and you may be right. After all, trying to leave the EU club seems to be showing it to be a matter of subjugation not consent.
    It’s picking a 100 year old scab.

    The the South Tyrol had been Austrian/Archbishopric of Innsbruck/ Holy Roman Empire and 100% part of the broader “Germanic Realm” from just after the fall of the Roman Empire to 1918. In fact German remains the overwhelming majority language ( ever noticed how so many Italian skiers haven’t very non Italian names for example?).

    Their “problem” was they were in the wrong side of the Apline watershed, which here lies at the Brenner pass (the present Austrian/Italian border and the lowest trans Alpine pass so a huge door between northern and southern Europe). The Italians in a fit of geographical tidiness claimed it up to the Brenner pass and having fought with the Allies in 1914-18 (or 1915-18 in their case) claimed it as what they had been promised under the table to enter the war on the Allied side.

    Culturally it was like giving Kent to France and was the source of various argy bargy largely settled when the Italian state gave them huge devolution in the 70’s (I think, from memory). Rather like Ireland the effective removing of a border helped too.

    And there we were. Till now.........
    But is there any indication that the Italians will be upset by this? Italy allows dual citizenship, and (from some recent research for a relative of my wife) appears to allow descendents of Italians living abroad generous rights to claim Italian citizenship. Many countries really don't care about multiple citizenship.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 4,211
    It does sound more like an attempt at self-promotion by hyperbole than a substantive contribution to a national debate.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 1,642
    "Italy is appalled" by Austria's offer says the tweet - has Salvini commented?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,918
    Dr. Foxy, there may well be a desire for rewriting the international treaties on migrants, although given the delinquency of Merkel's siren call and the people trafficking thus encouraged I suspect any changes made would do more harm than good.
  • Foxy said:
    Fat shaming?! Sadiq wont be pleased
  • JohnRussellJohnRussell Posts: 157
    edited September 8

    It does sound more like an attempt at self-promotion by hyperbole than a substantive contribution to a national debate.
    Pinned tweet on his account: "You can order both of my books on Russia's involvement in Brexit..."

    Well there's a surprise, another impartial source triggered
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 3,670
    rpjs said:

    welshowl said:

    AnneJGP said:

    AnneJGP said:

    They're all EU citizens, aren't they, so I don't see the issue. Or do you mean they should be selling their passports to make a profit?

    Good evening, everyone.
    Strikes me as deliberately provocative in a sensitive area, and has echoes of 1930s.
    I see your point, and you may be right. After all, trying to leave the EU club seems to be showing it to be a matter of subjugation not consent.
    It’s picking a 100 year old scab.

    The the South Tyrol had been Austrian/Archbishopric of Innsbruck/ Holy Roman Empire and 100% part of the broader “Germanic Realm” from just after the fall of the Roman Empire to 1918. In fact German remains the overwhelming majority language ( ever noticed how so many Italian skiers haven’t very non Italian names for example?).

    Their “problem” was they were in the wrong side of the Apline watershed, which here lies at the Brenner pass (the present Austrian/Italian border and the lowest trans Alpine pass so a huge door between northern and southern Europe). The Italians in a fit of geographical tidiness claimed it up to the Brenner pass and having fought with the Allies in 1914-18 (or 1915-18 in their case) claimed it as what they had been promised under the table to enter the war on the Allied side.

    Culturally it was like giving Kent to France and was the source of various argy bargy largely settled when the Italian state gave them huge devolution in the 70’s (I think, from memory). Rather like Ireland the effective removing of a border helped too.

    And there we were. Till now.........
    But is there any indication that the Italians will be upset by this? Italy allows dual citizenship, and (from some recent research for a relative of my wife) appears to allow descendents of Italians living abroad generous rights to claim Italian citizenship. Many countries really don't care about multiple citizenship.
    Good question. I haven’t the faintest.

    It is, however, not usually a good sign when a neighbouring state starts waving passports at people in part of your country. It can be got round and accepted (NI being a good example where the fact all ( well virtually all) people living there have been offered a passport by a neighbouring state doesn’t seem to bother anyone here), but I doubt it would go down well if say Russia offered everyone in eastern Estonia passports.

    As I say the 100 year anniversary seems a bit too coincidental.

    It’ll probably all fizzle out even if it’s an “issue” at all. Probably plays well to a certain constituency in Austria I guess, but I don’t think Italy need fret too much!
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 999
    edited September 8
    welshowl said:


    Always fancied the Italian Lakes. One day.....

    Actually the old Austrian border used to come down to the northern end of Lake Garda but that was the one small bit that was Italian in language. South Tyrol is roughly the northern half of the province of Trentino Alto Adige. The Trentino bit (nearer lake Garda) being Italian and the “Alto Adige” bit being German. Alto Adige was, I presume, a way of the Italians not actually giving it its local name of Sud Tirol which, let’s face it, is pretty German.

    Point of information Mr Speaker. Trentino-Alto Adige is a not a province but a region of Italy, with a special statute of autonomy. Almost all the powers of the region, which are more extensive than those of a regular region, are in fact devolved to the two autonomous provinces of the region: Trento (Trentino) which is Italian-speaking and Bolzano/Bolzen (South Tyrol) which is German-speaking. This arrangement appears to satisfy most of the locals, so there's no great push for the German province to secede. I suspect if that changed that Italy probably wouldn't greatly resist it if it was genuinely the will of the German province's people.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 1,913
    Derby North is not a very safe seat for a potential Labour Leader.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 30,135
    notme said:

    We’re the ones that keep on saying no deal is better than a bad deal.

    This is the reality of that.

    This is Ivan Rogers' view of No Deal.

    http://www.britishirishchamber.com/2018/09/07/sir-mark-ivan-rogers-kcmg-speech-at-british-irish-chamber-of-commerce-annual-gala-dinner/

    Advocates of “no deal” know this really. They know that a genuine “no deal” would bring several key sectors of the economy to a halt. So they argue that European self-interest will be the deus ex machina which delivers a whole set of legal mini deals ensuring that it’s all alright on the night.

    This is, I fear, simply delusional.



    In the meantime, the 27 would no doubt enact, at 27, the emergency provisions, which enabled whatever continuity in whichever sectors it deemed in its interests. That would not mean the complete cessation of all business. Of course not. It just means an entirely unilateral and deliberately asymmetric selection by the EU of where there will be continuity and where there will not.

    That is not taking back control. That is giving it up.

    The EU would calculate that the UK would be back at the table with its chequebook out within the week.
    I sat in a meeting with David Davis where he said it would be alright.

    That there’s be no disruption.

    He’s like my boxer shorts, full of bollocks.
    There’s a lot of truth in that a true no deal would be economically cataclysmic, and for both us and them. But the commission will be mistaken if they think that the uk would bend back within weeks with its chequebook. If we are really going down the road of leaving without any kind of contingency it will harm uk rEU relations for generations. I would imagine there would be a complete withdrawal from any kind of friendly relations with other Eu countries.

    The damage would be enough to push the UK into a recession but also push the world into recession to dislocate the fifth largest economy from the global trading system.

    With the British land bridge shut the Irish would be hammering the table in Brussels long before the British.
  • notmenotme Posts: 2,703
    HYUFD said:

    notme said:

    HYUFD said:

    notme said:

    We’re the ones that keep on saying no deal is better than a bad deal.

    This is the reality of that.

    This is Ivan Rogers' view of No Deal.



    But it is simply not the case that the best alternative here is a set of negotiated mini deals!

    Let’s think it through.. The reality, in any breakdown scenario, is that any UK PM who felt obliged to say that the Withdrawal negotiations had reached a dead end, would refuse to pay the exit bills.

    And the inevitable response to that from all 27 in the Council the following day would be to say there would be no resumption of normal trading relations with the UK unless and until it had agreed to honour its full debts.

    In the meantime, the 27ntrol. That is giving it up.

    The EU would calculate that the UK would be back at the table with its chequebook out within the week.
    I sat in a meeting with David Davis where he said it would be alright.

    That there’s be no disruption.

    He’s like my boxer shorts, full of bollocks.
    There’s a lot of truth in that a true not economy from the global trading system.

    I think the most likely deal now is a Withdrawal Agreement based on Chequers Plus ie we stay aligned with single market rules as well as EU goods rules but with the ability to do our own trade

    That will get us the transition period but we will basically be in the single market and customs union rules wise for the most part
    And utterly bonkers. A dreadful compromise that doesn’t sail through the middle and cherry pick the best. Instead of the steak and tiramisu, we’ve proposed sprouts and blancmange. If we couldn’t work out what we wanted in the long term, a simple move to EFTA or EEA would have sufficed. Close to zero business interruption, no more ticking clock and fully implementing the Brexit referendum. And allows us to negotiate trade agreements, with a long term aim to leave the single market if we so desire.

    Complete cock up.
    No, it is the only proposal which can get a transition period and a deal with the EU, does not require an Irish sea border as Canada would which would be unacceptable to the DUP and at least does some change on free movement unlike EFTA/EEA
    We could do free movement restrictions if we wanted. We have zero restrictions. It’s free movement of labour not people. We impose none of the rules that are allowed. And we have a welfare system that rewards low pay. If after three months they have no work or means to support themselves we are entirely free to deport them. We don’t now. Why would we in future.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 44,874
    AndyJS said:

    The latest Swedish opinion poll has the Moderate Party only a 2.5% swing from first position, yet they're 100/1 to win most seats with Betfair. Seems a bit of a mismatch. (Now 40/1. You have to be quick on there).

    A poll from Novus was taken on 6th September ie later than most of the Inizio poll above and as far as I can see is the latest Swedish poll.

    It has the Swedish Democrats in second on 19.1% ahead of the Moderates on 17.7% but the Social Democrats are still first on 24.9%


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Swedish_general_election,_2018
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,550

    Good to see Julie Burchill doing her bit for the Remain campaign.

    “It’s very easy for people in the affluent South to be Remainers. It’s a purely selfish vote, no matter how much they talk about brotherhood of man and internationalism. It’s purely because their lives are going just fine for them. I reverted to my old self which was a very poor working class girl from the West Country, where my people have been treated like dumb pawns in the European game for many generations. I reverted to my class type and voted for Brexit as a protest, because their vote is all they have and Brexiteers are the true democrats. Their vote is all they have and they used it.”

    The old gifts never die. Julie can still use language like a rapier, when the mood takes her.

    You could hardly find a better skewering of the monied Toppings and Meeks and WilliamGlenns.

    And the desolation of “Their vote is all they have and they used it” still tugs the heart.
    If I may politely disagree for a moment. Goodwin is clear on the coalition that carried Leave over the line: Left Behind Leavers (middle-aged working-class, struggling financially),
    Blue-Collar Pensioners (retired not struggling financially) and Affluent Eurosceptics (wealthy social conservatives)
    . Burchill is in the third category, hasn't been working-class for decades and is famously careless in her relationships. @TheScreamingEagles is more qualified to be working-class.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 999
    welshowl said:

    rpjs said:

    welshowl said:

    The South Tyrol had been Austrian/Archbishopric of Innsbruck/ Holy Roman Empire and 100% part of the broader “Germanic Realm” from just after the fall of the Roman Empire to 1918. In fact German remains the overwhelming majority language ( ever noticed how so many Italian skiers haven’t very non Italian names for example?).

    Their “problem” was they were in the wrong side of the Apline watershed, which here lies at the Brenner pass (the present Austrian/Italian border and the lowest trans Alpine pass so a huge door between northern and southern Europe). The Italians in a fit of geographical tidiness claimed it up to the Brenner pass and having fought with the Allies in 1914-18 (or 1915-18 in their case) claimed it as what they had been promised under the table to enter the war on the Allied side.

    Culturally it was like giving Kent to France and was the source of various argy bargy largely settled when the Italian state gave them huge devolution in the 70’s (I think, from memory). Rather like Ireland the effective removing of a border helped too.

    And there we were. Till now.........

    But is there any indication that the Italians will be upset by this? Italy allows dual citizenship, and (from some recent research for a relative of my wife) appears to allow descendents of Italians living abroad generous rights to claim Italian citizenship. Many countries really don't care about multiple citizenship.
    Good question. I haven’t the faintest.

    It is, however, not usually a good sign when a neighbouring state starts waving passports at people in part of your country. It can be got round and accepted (NI being a good example where the fact all ( well virtually all) people living there have been offered a passport by a neighbouring state doesn’t seem to bother anyone here), but I doubt it would go down well if say Russia offered everyone in eastern Estonia passports.

    As I say the 100 year anniversary seems a bit too coincidental.

    It’ll probably all fizzle out even if it’s an “issue” at all. Probably plays well to a certain constituency in Austria I guess, but I don’t think Italy need fret too much!
    I think Russia does now offer the Russian minority in Estonia (and Latvia and Lithuania) passports. At the risk of being denounced as a Russian bot, I would say that's a good thing on the whole, as the Baltic states have, for reasons which I have some but not unalloyed sympathy for, made it very difficult for their Russian minorities to get full citizenship.

    This left a lot of people stateless. I knew one such briefly, he was Russian from Estonia and at the time had citizenship of neither country. He'd managed to get refugee status in the UK but until he could eventually qualify for UK citizenship he could not leave the country as he had no passport.
  • JohnRussellJohnRussell Posts: 157
    edited September 8
    viewcode said:

    Good to see Julie Burchill doing her bit for the Remain campaign.

    “It’s very easy for people in the affluent South to be Remainers. It’s a purely selfish vote, no matter how much they talk about brotherhood of man and internationalism. It’s purely because their lives are going just fine for them. I reverted to my old self which was a very poor working class girl from the West Country, where my people have been treated like dumb pawns in the European game for many generations. I reverted to my class type and voted for Brexit as a protest, because their vote is all they have and Brexiteers are the true democrats. Their vote is all they have and they used it.”

    The old gifts never die. Julie can still use language like a rapier, when the mood takes her.

    You could hardly find a better skewering of the monied Toppings and Meeks and WilliamGlenns.

    And the desolation of “Their vote is all they have and they used it” still tugs the heart.
    If I may politely disagree for a moment. Goodwin is clear on the coalition that carried Leave over the line: Left Behind Leavers (middle-aged working-class, struggling financially),
    Blue-Collar Pensioners (retired not struggling financially) and Affluent Eurosceptics (wealthy social conservatives)
    . Burchill is in the third category, hasn't been working-class for decades and is famously careless in her relationships. @TheScreamingEagles is more qualified to be working-class.
    What's the split of that coalition?
This discussion has been closed.