We need a No Deal Brexit to get UK politicians and civil servants applying themselves to serious negotiations with the EU instead of pussyfooting around as they have to date.
And EU politicians just might see it was in their better interests to bend a little too. At the G20, nobody is going to be going up to Macron and saying "Great job on those EU negotiations!" They are much more likely to shake their heads and mutter in Manadrin or Japanese, "Pillocks....clown troupe, the lot of you...."
I suspect that the other countries would be very happy with us as an EU vassal, or alternatively to circle us like hyenas around a post Brexit wounded wildebeast.
Trump is against the Deal and the EU, and like Putin's other little helpers with good reason. A post Brexit Britain would be rich pickings.
It must be very strange living in your weird fantasy world.
But do you agree that Trump and Putin are both pro Brexit - and for reasons that are not in our interests?
No. Next.
Q1. Do you agree that both Trump and Putin are both pro-Brexit?
Q2. Do you agree that Trump is pro-Brexit because he favours doing trade deals with smaller nations rather than the EU?
Q3. Do you agree that it is in Putin's interests to weaken the EU by encouraging the UK to leave?
Please - no facile answers.
No to all 3. Next.
You are showing your ignorance. I rarely make ad hominem remarks but this one is factual.
Not at all. I am being annoying, I hope, because your questions are facile. They are classic Remainer statements which come from viewing things as if the whole world is black and white - pro or anti Brexit. Facile and simplistic questions deserve facile and simplistic answers.
Speaking of £85K, what's going to happen to the bank account deposit protection limit of that amount that is currently guaranteed by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme if sterling plummets against the euro? It will be in for a hammering if it stays roughly pegged to €100K.
If sterling takes a battering, it will go up, not down, e.g. if 1€ = £1, then it becomes £100k.
Point taken. What I meant to say was that maintaining its real value could be very costly.
This YouTube video criticising the anti-EU campaign has had 90,000 views in less than 24 hours. Do you really think this issue will be settled once we leave?
Yes. The EU will continue to integrate without us and we will drift further apart. Early days there were talks of Canadian provinces joining the USA. You never hear that now. As time goes on the memory of being an EU member will fade, the younger generation who have never known us outside the EU will get to know that and old wounds will turn into scars and fade away.
The EU itself isn't going to fade away and it will remain on our doorstep. The relationship we have with it will continue to be subject to debate. Or we going to turn our noses up at every opportunity to co-operate with our neighbours? Do you really want to be the awkward eccentric in the room who does his own thing in the face of common sense because he thinks he is special?
This YouTube video criticising the anti-EU campaign has had 90,000 views in less than 24 hours. Do you really think this issue will be settled once we leave?
Of course it won't but we will have moved on to the next stage at least. As for videos, a Corbyn bashing video about him and the IRA got a lot of views too, it didn't affect anything anyway.
What the Commons has written can be changed, Parliament is sovereign.
You pin so much on 'things will change, who knows how'. It might happen, but it is reckless in the extreme for our legislators to take the same attitude. Brexit isn't a game, and changing rules and procedures is not always easy, and it is insulting that you blow away any concerns with an attitude that, even though they've all come together to create chaos now, they will definitely come together easily to sort it out in the exact way which works for you. It'll take huge amounts of work, luck and skill to pull it off, but no, you're right, it'll all just happen because you want it to.
This photo sums it up, people either want to remain or get out completely. No one wants this wretched deal.
Plenty of people do. Why even lie about such a thing? It's not necessary to pretend no one would prefer a messy compromise than remaining or getting out completely clean. However wrong you think that view is, it clearly exists, it just happens to be outnumbered by support for other options.
I agree on both fronts and I’m relieved to see they’ve dropped the ridiculous headline to the article about “real Brexit”. A No Deal Brexit after a fresh referendum would be far preferable to one that emerged from Parliamentary chaos. The victims of the subsequent debacle would have to recognise the mandate.
This YouTube video criticising the anti-EU campaign has had 90,000 views in less than 24 hours. Do you really think this issue will be settled once we leave?
Yes. The EU will continue to integrate without us and we will drift further apart. Early days there were talks of Canadian provinces joining the USA. You never hear that now. As time goes on the memory of being an EU member will fade, the younger generation who have never known us outside the EU will get to know that and old wounds will turn into scars and fade away.
The EU itself isn't going to fade away and it will remain on our doorstep. The relationship we have with it will continue to be subject to debate. Or we going to turn our noses up at every opportunity to co-operate with our neighbours? Do you really want to be the awkward eccentric in the room who does his own thing in the face of common sense because he thinks he is special?
If the EU faded or even stayed the same it would be easier to rejoin. My point was the opposite of fading it's going to go further. The further it goes from us the less likely rejoining becomes. The EU will continue to integrate around the Eurozone and while we may end up in some kind of NAFTA style trade deal with the EU we arent ever going to rejoin the political union.
Yes I want to be the entrepreneurial one doing his own thing and not a sheep in the crowd.
Very good and interesting thread David and thank you
Just catching up and see the usual suspects expecting TM to be out after the vote.
TM is the party's biggest asset at present, respected for her courtesy and persistance under intense attack from all sides and to attempt to vnoc would just fail at this critical moment
She is receiving increasing backing for her deal and the latest poll gives the party a 5% lead over labour and a 10 seat majority under electoral calculus.
It is widely expected she will lose the meaningful vote but this will depend on sequencing of the amendments and the flow chart points to no deal as default and it is this chart that is alarming remainers
It is high noon a week on tuesday and I do not think any of us really are able to predict the outcome, though of course we all tend to be influenced by our own opinions
The polls this weekend will be interesting
To be honest, I dont think we will see anything much happen this week, just the usual stalemate of trench warfare. Tuesday the 11th will be interesting. I expect that you are right and that the whiff of gunpowder will send the ERG types back gibbrering under their bunks in the duggout.
The good news is the 5 day debate commences on tuesday so we can have a week off before reconvening on tuesday week to see the theatre play out
Obviously I'm not planning to follow the debate, but it will be interesting to read how many really gut stuck into detail, how much they acknowledge the flaws of the deal, the flaws of the other options people want to try, and how much it is more just bashing the deal without much consideration of what happens afterwards - many of those who are opposing say they have considered things very carefully, and I believe most of them, so if that is the case it should be more nuanced that it has so far.
King Cole, disagree. Such an ill considered proposal was bound to bugger things up, as per the old books situation, as per Article 13, as per the mooted (by the UK political establishment) one-handed enthusiast database.
These things are obviously and predictably stupid, and those whose jobs it is to legislate in the area should be more familiar with it.
Don't often side with he EU but on this one I respectfully disagree. Sales on Amazon etc should face same taxes as sales elsewhere. If I go to a high street store everything I buy there has VAT. So should Amazon. If you don't like it, don't sell on it.
That was not MD's point as he said earlier. It was that a law designed to target large companies such as Amazon was introduced in a blanket form which adversely affected smaller companies which, because of their turnover, should not have been liable and that then drove them to trade via Amazon because the red tape involved in trading independently was not worth it.
A law designed to punish companies like Amazon has actually ended up helping them without making them pay any more taxes as a company than they were originally.
I don't see a realistic alternative with cross border trade. If a micro business wants to sell to the UK only then AFAIK this law doesn't apply. If you start exporting it does. Given the rampant exploitation that was occurring something had to change and I'm not sure how to change it any better. Not without homogenising VAT thresholds and that would have been a bigger outrage!
If we had a single homogenised VAT threshold across all.of Europe then simply apply VAT after that (though how you split the VAT-free between nations I'm not sure about) but otherwise it wouldn't work.
Alternatively and I'm just spitballing ideas keep your own domestic VAT threshold but have 0 threshold for exports.
This YouTube video criticising the anti-EU campaign has had 90,000 views in less than 24 hours. Do you really think this issue will be settled once we leave?
Yes. The EU will continue to integrate without us and we will drift further apart. Early days there were talks of Canadian provinces joining the USA. You never hear that now. As time goes on the memory of being an EU member will fade, the younger generation who have never known us outside the EU will get to know that and old wounds will turn into scars and fade away.
The EU itself isn't going to fade away and it will remain on our doorstep. The relationship we have with it will continue to be subject to debate. Or we going to turn our noses up at every opportunity to co-operate with our neighbours? Do you really want to be the awkward eccentric in the room who does his own thing in the face of common sense because he thinks he is special?
If the EU faded or even stayed the same it would be easier to rejoin. My point was the opposite of fading it's going to go further. The further it goes from us the less likely rejoining becomes. The EU will continue to integrate around the Eurozone and while we may end up in some kind of NAFTA style trade deal with the EU we arent ever going to rejoin the political union.
Yes I want to be the entrepreneurial one doing his own thing and not a sheep in the crowd.
Bloody funny entrepreneur who wants a smaller market to work in.
As for divergence from the EU, I don't think that is going to happen. You mentioned Canada earlier. In my field Canada has aligned its regulations pretty closely to those of the EU. I happen to quite like the way the Europeans do things, but the reality is we are giving up a say in the making of rules that have an effect on us. But we aren't removing the compelling reasons we will have to continue following those rules.
Rejoining will be easy whenever we do it. It's just a question of how long we leave the taxi waiting outside with the clock running.
I agree entirely with David Herdson's comments here. He has reminded me that Laura Kuenssberg has spoken gibberish on earlier occasions. I recall that on the day following the 2017 election she informed the nation that Theresa May was on her way to the Palace 'to ask permission to form a Minority Government.' She appeared to be totally unaware of the fact that under our systems PMs are not reappointed following a General Election - they either resign or carry on in office as PM. Theresa May went to the Palace to effectively advise the Queen of her intentions - not 'to ask permission' for anything. We really should not have to put up with such ignorance from such a senior journalist.
Very good and interesting thread David and thank you
Just catching up and see the usual suspects expecting TM to be out after the vote.
TM is the party's biggest asset at present, respected for her courtesy and persistance under intense attack from all sides and to attempt to vnoc would just fail at this critical moment
She is receiving increasing backing for her deal and the latest poll gives the party a 5% lead over labour and a 10 seat majority under electoral calculus.
It is widely expected she will lose the meaningful vote but this will depend on sequencing of the amendments and the flow chart points to no deal as default and it is this chart that is alarming remainers
It is high noon a week on tuesday and I do not think any of us really are able to predict the outcome, though of course we all tend to be influenced by our own opinions
The polls this weekend will be interesting
To be honest, I dont think we will see anything much happen this week, just the usual stalemate of trench warfare. Tuesday the 11th will be interesting. I expect that you are right and that the whiff of gunpowder will send the ERG types back gibbrering under their bunks in the duggout.
The good news is the 5 day debate commences on tuesday so we can have a week off before reconvening on tuesday week to see the theatre play out
Obviously I'm not planning to follow the debate, but it will be interesting to read how many really gut stuck into detail, how much they acknowledge the flaws of the deal, the flaws of the other options people want to try, and how much it is more just bashing the deal without much consideration of what happens afterwards - many of those who are opposing say they have considered things very carefully, and I believe most of them, so if that is the case it should be more nuanced that it has so far.
When do the amendments get voted on? Through the five days or all on Tuesday?
This YouTube video criticising the anti-EU campaign has had 90,000 views in less than 24 hours. Do you really think this issue will be settled once we leave?
Yes. The EU will continue to integrate without us and we will drift further apart. Early days there were talks of Canadian provinces joining the USA. You never hear that now. As time goes on the memory of being an EU member will fade, the younger generation who have never known us outside the EU will get to know that and old wounds will turn into scars and fade away.
The EU itself isn't going to fade away and it will remain on our doorstep. The relationship we have with it will continue to be subject to debate. Or we going to turn our noses up at every opportunity to co-operate with our neighbours? Do you really want to be the awkward eccentric in the room who does his own thing in the face of common sense because he thinks he is special?
If the EU faded or even stayed the same it would be easier to rejoin. My point was the opposite of fading it's going to go further. The further it goes from us the less likely rejoining becomes. The EU will continue to integrate around the Eurozone and while we may end up in some kind of NAFTA style trade deal with the EU we arent ever going to rejoin the political union.
Yes I want to be the entrepreneurial one doing his own thing and not a sheep in the crowd.
Bloody funny entrepreneur who wants a smaller market to work in.
As for divergence from the EU, I don't think that is going to happen. You mentioned Canada earlier. In my field Canada has aligned its regulations pretty closely to those of the EU. I happen to quite like the way the Europeans do things, but the reality is we are giving up a say in the making of rules that have an effect on us. But we aren't removing the compelling reasons we will have to continue following those rules.
Rejoining will be easy whenever we do it. It's just a question of how long we leave the taxi waiting outside with the clock running.
An entrepreneur can trade with a market without being contained within it.
In many fields standards are globalised. So yes the Canadian regulations are similar to European regulations are similar to Australian regulations are similar to American regulations are similar to post Brexit British ones. So long as we are involved in the global stage we still keep a say on those regulations.
Canada though doesn't have free migration with Europe, the same currency, the same military, the same Parliament etc
Speaking of £85K, what's going to happen to the bank account deposit protection limit of that amount that is currently guaranteed by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme if sterling plummets against the euro? It will be in for a hammering if it stays roughly pegged to €100K.
If sterling takes a battering, it will go up, not down, e.g. if 1€ = £1, then it becomes £100k.
Point taken. What I meant to say was that maintaining its real value could be very costly.
Costly when and real value to whom? Forget the funny foreigners with their strange Euro-money and our guarantee retains its value in sterling and costs the same (ie almost nothing except for a bookkeeping charge, provided the banks remain solvent).
Now, one reason we reduced the amount guaranteed was because the EU was worried our higher guarantees would suck in foreign money from Belgian dentists, leaving all the continental banks with no deposits left.
In other words, the reason we might want to raise the guarantee is nothing to do with exchange rates and everything to do with competition. #TakeBackControl #Singapore #UnlessWeSignAnAgreementNotToCompeteEvenAfterBrexit.
We all know that Trump's letter will be 95% about Trump, how huuuuuuge his achievements in power were etc etc etc.
Totally unfair. A good 20% will be about "Crooked Hillary", another 15% screaming "NO COLLUSION! WITCH HUNT!", and 10% inintelligible for reasons of spelling and grammar.
King Cole, disagree. Such an ill considered proposal was bound to bugger things up, as per the old books situation, as per Article 13, as per the mooted (by the UK political establishment) one-handed enthusiast database.
These things are obviously and predictably stupid, and those whose jobs it is to legislate in the area should be more familiar with it.
Don't often side with he EU but on this one I respectfully disagree. Sales on Amazon etc should face same taxes as sales elsewhere. If I go to a high street store everything I buy there has VAT. So should Amazon. If you don't like it, don't sell on it.
That was not MD's point as he said earlier. It was that a law designed to target large companies such as Amazon was introduced in a blanket form which adversely affected smaller companies which, because of their turnover, should not have been liable and that then drove them to trade via Amazon because the red tape involved in trading independently was not worth it.
A law designed to punish companies like Amazon has actually ended up helping them without making them pay any more taxes as a company than they were originally.
I don't see a realistic alternative with cross border trade. If a micro business wants to sell to the UK only then AFAIK this law doesn't apply. If you start exporting it does. Given the rampant exploitation that was occurring something had to change and I'm not sure how to change it any better. Not without homogenising VAT thresholds and that would have been a bigger outrage!
If we had a single homogenised VAT threshold across all.of Europe then simply apply VAT after that (though how you split the VAT-free between nations I'm not sure about) but otherwise it wouldn't work.
Alternatively and I'm just spitballing ideas keep your own domestic VAT threshold but have 0 threshold for exports.
AIUI, Mr D's primary problem is the sale of books which he has written. They are, of course, in English, and hence the American market is significant, and much more so than the European. As I said, I'm trying to pluck up courage to publsh a book I've written, and about which friends have been kind, and it would appear that the most sensible course is to use a subsidiary of Amazon, which will offer the prospect of more readers, albeit at slightly lower return.
Most proprietary traders - the good ones - are not gamblers. They understand risk and know when to get out of a losing trade. They do not go for double or quits. The essence of good banking, good trading is - other than trust - understanding how to manage risk. He had no idea because he himself was a gambler and a liar, long before he came to the City. He should never have been employed - and how he (and others like him) came to be is a whole other (and unedifying) story.
The biggest mistake that finance has made in recent years is not understanding that one of their biggest risks are the people they employ. That is why they have been so abysmal at managing their people and why they are now, belatedly, focusing on conduct and character and culture.
But if someone abuses the trust placed in them that is their choice. Adoboli chose to do the wrong thing over and over again and chose not to do the right thing when he had the opportunity to do so. That is down to him not anyone else. And he should take responsibility for his actions not make excuses and justifications, which is what he has done ever since he was caught on 14th September 2011.
I see no good reason why he should be allowed to stay in this country. He knew what the penalty was. And we are better off without people like him spreading his fairy stories about what happened. There are people who are doing something to improve the City's culture. They are undermined - not helped - by people like him.
Quoting from the Barry Walsh link:
"[The] amount of money lost by his fraudulent trading: US$2,500,000,000. If the sums spent by UBS on remediation and dealing with the consequences of this loss were added in, the totals would be truly eye-watering."
Implying that US$2,500,000,000 itself was not eye-watering.
Reminds me of a quote attributed to an American senator who said "a billion here, a billion there and pretty soon we are talking serious money".
Were I to tell you the costs - not just the fines and losses - of cases like this and LIBOR and FX, your eyes would be bleeding, never mind watering.
If a tiny fraction of those sums had been spent on better hiring, better systems etc banks - and we - would have avoided the swamp they fell into. But every 10 years or so they - and we - have to learn the same lesson all over again.
I can see now the start of the same complacency verging into hubris creeping in with the focus on AI, robots & blockchain as the answers to everything. They won't be. Anyone thinking that banks' IT is up to all of this needs their head examining. There is no such thing as "a new paradigm" when it comes to money.
The journalist should report her to the police. That's a threat of violence. If a schoolboy can be reported to the police for bullying a fellow pupil, why should this MP get away with making such a threat. Higher standards are to be expected of an MP (I know, I know) than of a child, after all.
We all know that Trump's letter will be 95% about Trump, how huuuuuuge his achievements in power were etc etc etc.
Totally unfair. A good 20% will be about "Crooked Hillary", another 15% screaming "NO COLLUSION! WITCH HUNT!", and 10% inintelligible for reasons of spelling and grammar.
One of the problems with Brexit (there are many) is that we become very navel-gazing, focussing on nothing else. With that in mind, I would like to point out that George HW Bush, (POTUS 89-93) died today. I liked him and I am quite surprised at the vituperation levelled at him online. The mindset of the late 2010's is quite strange to me and yet again it reacts in a way that I find difficult to sympathise with. Although if the allegations about fondling are accurate, that would negatively affect my view of him.
The main criticism of HW is that he was too focussed internationally, and not enough at home. So I think people from around the world might naturally have a different view.
He was focused internationally because of the end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union and its satellites and the first Iraq war. As well as, probably, his own inclinations, background and experience. But he was the last of the WW2 generation in public office and had a conception of public service which is so far above that of some of today's politicians as to be out of sight.
This YouTube video criticising the anti-EU campaign has had 90,000 views in less than 24 hours. Do you really think this issue will be settled once we leave?
Yes. The EU will continue to integrate without us and we will drift further apart. Early days there were talks of Canadian provinces joining the USA. You never hear that now. As time goes on the memory of being an EU member will fade, the younger generation who have never known us outside the EU will get to know that and old wounds will turn into scars and fade away.
I tend to agree with this, it's a rule of human nature. However this is such an explosive issue the psychological evolution will take time, so I reckon the Remainers will have a 3-5 year window after we Leave to get a new referendum, and win a vote to Rejoin.
The problem for them is that they need a major party to put that new vote in their manifesto, then that party must win the GE (and call the plebiscite). There is zero chance of the Tories doing it. Which leaves us with Labour, who would be very likely to do this if led by a normal centrist.... but they are led by Corbyn, so they won't.
And by the time Corbyn has gone, the window of opportunity, for another vote, will likely have shut.
I'd put the window a tad further than that and Corbyn may help them here. First 1-5 years the exit is going to be too fresh to be revisited. Last thing Europe is going to want is to talk Britain more. After 1 more Parliament then it's going to be prime window of opportunity. European Parliament 2024-29 probably, Brexit will have settled down and enough time passed to say "we want to go back in", not too much time. That gives the 2022 and 2027 elections to have that as a commitment. If Corbyn loses 2022 his successor will almost certainly win 2027 (by that point Tories will have been in Downing Street 17 years).
The journalist should report her to the police. That's a threat of violence. If a schoolboy can be reported to the police for bullying a fellow pupil, why should this MP get away with making such a threat. Higher standards are to be expected of an MP (I know, I know) than of a child, after all.
She allegedly threw water over another journalist. Is that an offence? It seems to me it could be considered assault, but I am of course no lawyer.
This YouTube video criticising the anti-EU campaign has had 90,000 views in less than 24 hours. Do you really think this issue will be settled once we leave?
Yes. The EU will continue to integrate without us and we will drift further apart. Early days there were talks of Canadian provinces joining the USA. You never hear that now. As time goes on the memory of being an EU member will fade, the younger generation who have never known us outside the EU will get to know that and old wounds will turn into scars and fade away.
I tend to agree with this, it's a rule of human nature. However this is such an explosive issue the psychological evolution will take time, so I reckon the Remainers will have a 3-5 year window after we Leave to get a new referendum, and win a vote to Rejoin.
The problem for them is that they need a major party to put that new vote in their manifesto, then that party must win the GE (and call the plebiscite). There is zero chance of the Tories doing it. Which leaves us with Labour, who would be very likely to do this if led by a normal centrist.... but they are led by Corbyn, so they won't.
And by the time Corbyn has gone, the window of opportunity, for another vote, will likely have shut.
I'd put the window a tad further than that and Corbyn may help them here. First 1-5 years the exit is going to be too fresh to be revisited. Last thing Europe is going to want is to talk Britain more. After 1 more Parliament then it's going to be prime window of opportunity. European Parliament 2024-29 probably, Brexit will have settled down and enough time passed to say "we want to go back in", not too much time. That gives the 2022 and 2027 elections to have that as a commitment. If Corbyn loses 2022 his successor will almost certainly win 2027 (by that point Tories will have been in Downing Street 17 years).
If it doesn't happen then it never will.
That sounds about right as the default path back in if nothing else happens to change the current trajectory. I still hope that some Brexiters will realise that their project is a waste of time and will concede the fact and save us all a lot of time.
The journalist should report her to the police. That's a threat of violence. If a schoolboy can be reported to the police for bullying a fellow pupil, why should this MP get away with making such a threat. Higher standards are to be expected of an MP (I know, I know) than of a child, after all.
I share the criticism of her , but am not sure that her words - as quoted- amounted to a threat . 'I should have ' reads as a statement of regret for failing to carry out an action rather than a statement of intent. Very unsavoury though.
Can you cite the part of section 25 that relates to S1? I don't see it.
The position re the notification was that a government cannot by executive authority override the effect of an Act of Parliament. In this case, parliament has expressly granted the PM the power to withdraw the UK from the EU, which she has since done. To withdraw that notice - the power to do which is not granted by the Act, and hence must rely on pre-existing executive powers - would run counter to that same de Keyser principle.
Yes, I can. Section 25(1) lists those provisions that come into force on the day the Act is passed (which doesn't include section 1). Then subsections (2) and (3) deal with some Scottish matters of no relevance to our discussion. Then subsection (4) says, "The provisions of this Act, so far as they are not brought into force by subsections (1) to (3), come into force on such day as a Minister of the Crown may by regulations appoint; and different days may be appointed for different purposes." So that's the relevant one for section 1, and it's not yet come into force.
[snip].
Fair enough - I'd not appreciated that. I'm surprised that there's not been more of a fuss kicked up by the ERG about it.
This YouTube video criticising the anti-EU campaign has had 90,000 views in less than 24 hours. Do you really think this issue will be settled once we leave?
Yes. The EU will continue to integrate without us and we will drift further apart. Early days there were talks of Canadian provinces joining the USA. You never hear that now. As time goes on the memory of being an EU member will fade, the younger generation who have never known us outside the EU will get to know that and old wounds will turn into scars and fade away.
I tend to agree with this, it's a rule of human nature. However this is such an explosive issue the psychological evolution will take time, so I reckon the Remainers will have a 3-5 year window after we Leave to get a new referendum, and win a vote to Rejoin.
The problem for them is that they need a major party to put that new vote in their manifesto, then that party must win the GE (and call the plebiscite). There is zero chance of the Tories doing it. Which leaves us with Labour, who would be very likely to do this if led by a normal centrist.... but they are led by Corbyn, so they won't.
And by the time Corbyn has gone, the window of opportunity, for another vote, will likely have shut.
I'd put the window a tad further than that and Corbyn may help them here. First 1-5 years the exit is going to be too fresh to be revisited. Last thing Europe is going to want is to talk Britain more. After 1 more Parliament then it's going to be prime window of opportunity. European Parliament 2024-29 probably, Brexit will have settled down and enough time passed to say "we want to go back in", not too much time. That gives the 2022 and 2027 elections to have that as a commitment. If Corbyn loses 2022 his successor will almost certainly win 2027 (by that point Tories will have been in Downing Street 17 years).
If it doesn't happen then it never will.
That sounds about right as the default path back in if nothing else happens to change the current trajectory. I still hope that some Brexiters will realise that their project is a waste of time and will concede the fact and save us all a lot of time.
If it was to estimate odds of us going back in once we've left I'd say
2020-22 50/1 (too soon) 2022-24 30/1 2024-39 10/1 (prime window but still very unlikely) After 2030 50/1 (too late)
The journalist should report her to the police. That's a threat of violence. If a schoolboy can be reported to the police for bullying a fellow pupil, why should this MP get away with making such a threat. Higher standards are to be expected of an MP (I know, I know) than of a child, after all.
She allegedly threw water over another journalist. Is that an offence? It seems to me it could be considered assault, but I am of course no lawyer.
Of course, when Jezza gets in, we will be funding "alternative" journalism that won't be asking any awkward questions of these people.
With hindsight GHWB's biggest error was not to have ensured regime change in Iraq. But, of course, hindsight's easy.
And the regime change that his son delivered left the country so much better off?
I think in 1991 with international support and an Iraqi regime already tottering while al-Qaeda were still only a minor irritant would have been a rather different matter from the disaster of 2003.
Edit - I hadn't seen his justification prior to posting this. I still think he was wrong and Saddam could have been removed with much less damage in 1991.
Arguably however 2003 was a mistake to rectify another mistake.
With hindsight GHWB's biggest error was not to have ensured regime change in Iraq. But, of course, hindsight's easy.
And the regime change that his son delivered left the country so much better off?
I think in 1991 with international support and an Iraqi regime already tottering while al-Qaeda were still only a minor irritant would have been a rather different matter from the disaster of 2003.
Edit - I hadn't seen his justification prior to posting this. I still think he was wrong and Saddam could have been removed with much less damage in 1991.
Arguably however 2003 was a mistake to rectify another mistake.
I also think we could have topped Saddam with a rebellion backed with air strikes and no need for a ground invasion. The rebels did rise up only to be squashed while we watched.
This photo sums it up, people either want to remain or get out completely. No one wants this wretched deal.
Fortunately we've had the referendum to decide which of the two options to go for.
Citation needed.
Most recent poll I've seen is that 25% want May's deal, 32% no deal, and 41% remain. And a poll on whether MPs should vote for May's deal show more people in favour than against (although a lot of undecideds).
So it seems to me you're simply asserting what YOU think, not what others among the 52% think.
We live by voting not opinion polls.
Which vote was it that supports Xenon's assertion that "No one wants this wretched deal."?
The lead certainly exemplifies why Cameron was deeply irresponsible to have proceeded to a referendum without any effort to create a specific Leave proposition.
With hindsight GHWB's biggest error was not to have ensured regime change in Iraq. But, of course, hindsight's easy.
And the regime change that his son delivered left the country so much better off?
I think in 1991 with international support and an Iraqi regime already tottering while al-Qaeda were still only a minor irritant would have been a rather different matter from the disaster of 2003.
Edit - I hadn't seen his justification prior to posting this. I still think he was wrong and Saddam could have been removed with much less damage in 1991.
Arguably however 2003 was a mistake to rectify another mistake.
I also think we could have topped Saddam with a rebellion backed with air strikes and no need for a ground invasion. The rebels did rise up only to be squashed while we watched.
Agreed. That's not to say there would not have been risks in such a strategy (witness Libya) but even at the time the decision to stop looked to be even riskier.
With hindsight GHWB's biggest error was not to have ensured regime change in Iraq. But, of course, hindsight's easy.
And the regime change that his son delivered left the country so much better off?
I think in 1991 with international support and an Iraqi regime already tottering while al-Qaeda were still only a minor irritant would have been a rather different matter from the disaster of 2003.
Edit - I hadn't seen his justification prior to posting this. I still think he was wrong and Saddam could have been removed with much less damage in 1991.
Arguably however 2003 was a mistake to rectify another mistake.
It still does not address the fundamental issue and that is until the Sunni's and the Shia's bury the hatchet and decide to live peacefully with each other any regime change in Iraq would have resulted in sectarian war until one side won.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
This photo sums it up, people either want to remain or get out completely. No one wants this wretched deal.
Fortunately we've had the referendum to decide which of the two options to go for.
Citation needed.
Most recent poll I've seen is that 25% want May's deal, 32% no deal, and 41% remain. And a poll on whether MPs should vote for May's deal show more people in favour than against (although a lot of undecideds).
So it seems to me you're simply asserting what YOU think, not what others among the 52% think.
We live by voting not opinion polls.
Which vote was it that supports Xenon's assertion that "No one wants this wretched deal."?
With hindsight GHWB's biggest error was not to have ensured regime change in Iraq. But, of course, hindsight's easy.
And the regime change that his son delivered left the country so much better off?
I think in 1991 with international support and an Iraqi regime already tottering while al-Qaeda were still only a minor irritant would have been a rather different matter from the disaster of 2003.
Edit - I hadn't seen his justification prior to posting this. I still think he was wrong and Saddam could have been removed with much less damage in 1991.
Arguably however 2003 was a mistake to rectify another mistake.
It still does not address the fundamental issue and that is until the Sunni's and the Shia's bury the hatchet and decide to live peacefully with each other any regime change in Iraq would have resulted in sectarian war until one side won.
They are industriously burying the hatchet right now.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.
Apols for shouting this but:
I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Although given the vast, unneeded, and probably irreversible ecological damage it has caused, arguably an ability to leave the CFP is one of the more understandable reasons for being a Leaver.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.
Apols for shouting this but:
I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.
Because its opponents are stubborn and cannot bear to admit they are wrong.
That's not a convincing argument but it is the reason.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.
Apols for shouting this but:
I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.
Apols for shouting this but:
I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.
As a remainer, I'd go for any option to reverse the Brexit idiocy, but otherwise you are right. May's deal gives the country stability and time to work through the complicated issues of how precisely to leave. The fact that leavers are so vocal in opposing a reasoned first step towards their objective is not to their credit.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.
Apols for shouting this but:
I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.
Because its opponents are stubborn and cannot bear to admit they are wrong.
That's not a convincing argument but it is the reason.
Inclined to agree. Most of them had decided they weren't going to like it before they saw it.
Makes me think TMay might have to find them a face-saving way to change their mind.
I've no idea what that can be as the EU are understandably not going to budge. If somone has a good idea, post it on PB - I am sure No 10 will be looking everywhere for inspriation!
This YouTube video criticising the anti-EU campaign has had 90,000 views in less than 24 hours. Do you really think this issue will be settled once we leave?
Yes. The EU will continue to integrate without us and we will drift further apart. Early days there were talks of Canadian provinces joining the USA. You never hear that now. As time goes on the memory of being an EU member will fade, the younger generation who have never known us outside the EU will get to know that and old wounds will turn into scars and fade away.
I tend to agree with this, it's a rule of human nature. However this is such an explosive issue the psychological evolution will take time, so I reckon the Remainers will have a 3-5 year window after we Leave to get a new referendum, and win a vote to Rejoin.
The problem for them is that they need a major party to put that new vote in their manifesto, then that party must win the GE (and call the plebiscite). There is zero chance of the Tories doing it. Which leaves us with Labour, who would be very likely to do this if led by a normal centrist.... but they are led by Corbyn, so they won't.
And by the time Corbyn has gone, the window of opportunity, for another vote, will likely have shut.
The only realistic eventual options IMO are EU membership and the Vassal State. I am reasonably confident the Vassal State will win. The argument for membership is that you might as well get the real thing rather than a degraded version of it. If we are following the rules we should have a say over what they are and ensure our interests are represented. The problem is that reversing direction requires mindshare when everyone is heartily sick of the subject and needs people to accept they made a mistake, which no-one enjoys.
Which brings me onto Greenland, a country unlike the UK in most respects, but which like us left the EU. In Greenland's case it was all about the fish. It had rich fish stocks and didn't see a need to share. After a negotiation that lasted two years, they ended up almost where they started, but leaving Greenland wholly dependent on a unreliable resource, cut off from EU development funds and diversification opportunities. Anyone with half a brain can see Greenland would be better off in the EU. The essential fact however is that Greenland is not in the EU.
With hindsight GHWB's biggest error was not to have ensured regime change in Iraq. But, of course, hindsight's easy.
And the regime change that his son delivered left the country so much better off?
I think in 1991 with international support and an Iraqi regime already tottering while al-Qaeda were still only a minor irritant would have been a rather different matter from the disaster of 2003.
Edit - I hadn't seen his justification prior to posting this. I still think he was wrong and Saddam could have been removed with much less damage in 1991.
Arguably however 2003 was a mistake to rectify another mistake.
It still does not address the fundamental issue and that is until the Sunni's and the Shia's bury the hatchet and decide to live peacefully with each other any regime change in Iraq would have resulted in sectarian war until one side won.
They are industriously burying the hatchet right now.
Pity they're choosing to bury it in each other.
The original misake was ours; creating the Republic of Iraq in 1921 out of the two provinces of Ottoman Mesopotamia.
However, as per upthread, hindsight is a wonderful thing!
My second grandson is 'doing' WWII as part of his GCSE History curriculum. I wonder what his essays will say about, for example, Dresden. My second granddaughter, in a Thai school has just had to write an essay about the British in India. It made her prouder that Thailand maintained it's independence!
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.
Apols for shouting this but:
I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.
In this day and age, moral purity is valued more highly than pragmatism. Both sides public voices have been hijacked by fanatics. May's deal isn't great, but it exists and is, whining to the contrary, better than no deal. I'm not interested in Fantasy Jerusalem-on-a-hill Brexit.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.
Apols for shouting this but:
I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.
As a remainer, I'd go for any option to reverse the Brexit idiocy, but otherwise you are right. May's deal gives the country stability and time to work through the complicated issues of how precisely to leave. The fact that leavers are so vocal in opposing a reasoned first step towards their objective is not to their credit.
We all know that Trump's letter will be 95% about Trump, how huuuuuuge his achievements in power were etc etc etc.
Totally unfair. A good 20% will be about "Crooked Hillary", another 15% screaming "NO COLLUSION! WITCH HUNT!", and 10% inintelligible for reasons of spelling and grammar.
This YouTube video criticising the anti-EU campaign has had 90,000 views in less than 24 hours. Do you really think this issue will be settled once we leave?
Yes. The EU will continue to integrate without us and we will drift further apart. Early days there were talks of Canadian provinces joining the USA. You never hear that now. As time goes on the memory of being an EU member will fade, the younger generation who have never known us outside the EU will get to know that and old wounds will turn into scars and fade away.
I tend to agree with this, it's a rule of human nature. However this is such an explosive issue the psychological evolution will take time, so I reckon the Remainers will have a 3-5 year window after we Leave to get a new referendum, and win a vote to Rejoin.
The problem for them is that they need a major party to put that new vote in their manifesto, then that party must win the GE (and call the plebiscite). There is zero chance of the Tories doing it. Which leaves us with Labour, who would be very likely to do this if led by a normal centrist.... but they are led by Corbyn, so they won't.
And by the time Corbyn has gone, the window of opportunity, for another vote, will likely have shut.
The only realistic eventual options IMO are EU membership and the Vassal State. I am reasonably confident the Vassal State will win. The argument for membership is that you might as well get the real thing rather than a degraded version of it. If we are following the rules we should have a say over what they are and ensure our interests are represented. The problem is that reversing direction requires mindshare when everyone is heartily sick of the subject and needs people to accept they made a mistake, which no-one enjoys.
Which brings me onto Greenland, a country unlike the UK in most respects, but which like us left the EU. In Greenland's case it was all about the fish. It had rich fish stocks and didn't see a need to share. After a negotiation that lasted two years, they ended up almost where they started, but leaving Greenland wholly dependent on a unreliable resource, cut off from EU development funds and diversification opportunities. Anyone with half a brain can see Greenland would be better off in the EU. The essential fact however is that Greenland is not in the EU.
Our instinct is always to judge things through the prism of the past, particularly if we are older and have actually lived through it. Unfortunately the world is changing so quickly that this is often the worst possible basis for taking decisions.
We all know that Trump's letter will be 95% about Trump, how huuuuuuge his achievements in power were etc etc etc.
Totally unfair. A good 20% will be about "Crooked Hillary", another 15% screaming "NO COLLUSION! WITCH HUNT!", and 10% inintelligible for reasons of spelling and grammar.
It would be hard to read in orange crayon as well
He still got to be POTUS though. What does that say about Septic voters......
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.
Apols for shouting this but:
I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.
Rejecting May's deal increases the chances of a Labour government. That’s why we aren't supporting it.
That is a convincing enough argument from where I sit.
On a second referendum: the question, the options, and the method (ie might be multi-question) will all be crucial.
Indeed. And to my mind impossible to frame.
(i) The Deal must be on the ballot. If it isn't the Brexit choice is restricted to No Deal and that gerrymanders the outcome towards Remain.
and
(ii) The Deal cannot be on the ballot. The public can hardly be expected to process and pass judgement on a 585 page legal contract plus a 26 page document that sketches out various possible futures over various possible timeframes and is neither binding nor agreed.
This YouTube video criticising the anti-EU campaign has had 90,000 views in less than 24 hours. Do you really think this issue will be settled once we leave?
Yes. The EU will continue to integrate without us and we will drift further apart. Early days there were talks of Canadian provinces joining the USA. You never hear that now. As time goes on the memory of being an EU member will fade, the younger generation who have never known us outside the EU will get to know that and old wounds will turn into scars and fade away.
The problem for them is that they need a major party to put that new vote in their manifesto, then that party must win the GE (and call the plebiscite). There is zero chance of the Tories doing it. Which leaves us with Labour, who would be very likely to do this if led by a normal centrist.... but they are led by Corbyn, so they won't.
And by the time Corbyn has gone, the window of opportunity, for another vote, will likely have shut.
The only realistic eventual options IMO are EU membership and the Vassal State. I am reasonably confident the Vassal State will win. The argument for membership is that you might as well get the real thing rather than a degraded version of it. If we are following the rules we should have a say over what they are and ensure our interests are represented. The problem is that reversing direction requires mindshare when everyone is heartily sick of the subject and needs people to accept they made a mistake, which no-one enjoys.
Which brings me onto Greenland, a country unlike the UK in most respects, but which like us left the EU. In Greenland's case it was all about the fish. It had rich fish stocks and didn't see a need to share. After a negotiation that lasted two years, they ended up almost where they started, but leaving Greenland wholly dependent on a unreliable resource, cut off from EU development funds and diversification opportunities. Anyone with half a brain can see Greenland would be better off in the EU. The essential fact however is that Greenland is not in the EU.
Our instinct is always to judge things through the prism of the past, particularly if we are older and have actually lived through it. Unfortunately the world is changing so quickly that this is often the worst possible basis for taking decisions.
This whole site is based on the principle that there are different views, obtained as a result of experience, about the future!
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.
Apols for shouting this but:
I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.
The Withdrawal Agreement should be supported because we don't have a real choice and never have done. Incidentally it isn't May's Deal. It's EU Demands, which haven't changed hugely over the past two years. They have added Level Playing Field requirements. Otherwise it's money, citizens' rights and Irish border provisions for a two year extension of the status quo and subsequent negotiations on the final arrangement.
The Political Statement isn't worth the paper it's written on but there is nevertheless no reason to support it.
On a second referendum: the question, the options, and the method (ie might be multi-question) will all be crucial.
Indeed. And to my mind impossible to frame.
(i) The Deal must be on the ballot. If it isn't the Brexit choice is restricted to No Deal and that gerrymanders the outcome towards Remain.
and
(ii) The Deal cannot be on the ballot. The public can hardly be expected to process and pass judgement on a 585 page legal contract plus a 26 page document that sketches out various possible futures over various possible timeframes and is neither binding nor agreed.
#intractable
There's more than one version of no-deal too, as Richard Nabavi regularly explains. Any options on the ballot need to be explained to the voters.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.
Apols for shouting this but:
I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.
Because its opponents are stubborn and cannot bear to admit they are wrong.
That's not a convincing argument but it is the reason.
Inclined to agree. Most of them had decided they weren't going to like it before they saw it.
Makes me think TMay might have to find them a face-saving way to change their mind.
I've no idea what that can be as the EU are understandably not going to budge. If somone has a good idea, post it on PB - I am sure No 10 will be looking everywhere for inspriation!
There has to be a human sacrifice to propitiate the dark gods of unreason.
The sacrifice will be TMay.
Either she'll promise to resign in the Summer after the Bill has passed.
Or she will be sacrificed before then and someone else (Gove ? Corby?) will present essentially her deal and it will pass.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.
Apols for shouting this but:
I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.
Because its opponents are stubborn and cannot bear to admit they are wrong.
That's not a convincing argument but it is the reason.
Inclined to agree. Most of them had decided they weren't going to like it before they saw it.
Makes me think TMay might have to find them a face-saving way to change their mind.
I've no idea what that can be as the EU are understandably not going to budge. If somone has a good idea, post it on PB - I am sure No 10 will be looking everywhere for inspriation!
Some tweaking of the backstop would do that. I'm wondering how much of this is theatrics.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.
Apols for shouting this but:
I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.
The Withdrawal Agreement should be supported because we don't have a real choice and never have done. Incidentally it isn't May's Deal. It's EU Demands, which haven't changed hugely over the past two years. They have added Level Playing Field requirements. Otherwise it's money, citizens' rights and Irish border provisions for a two year extension of the status quo and subsequent negotiations on the final arrangement.
The Political Statement isn't worth the paper it's written on but there is nevertheless no reason to support it.
There was a twitter thread posted here a week or so ago showing that it was more balanced than that. Both sides have made concessions, it's not true to say the EU just said "no" until they got what they want.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Although given the vast, unneeded, and probably irreversible ecological damage it has caused, arguably an ability to leave the CFP is one of the more understandable reasons for being a Leaver.
The CFP gets a bad press, but it is actually helping fish stocks recover. The biggest problem is politicians ignoring the science and allowing overfishing.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.
Apols for shouting this but:
I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.
Rejecting May's deal increases the chances of a Labour government. That’s why we aren't supporting it.
That is a convincing enough argument from where I sit.
You've more chance of a Labour government by approving May's deal for the following reasons:
1. Rejecting the deal and heading for no deal won't might remove May but won't remove the the Tories.
2. Approving the deal will put the DUP in a position where they would very likely pull support for the government and support a VoNC (the only way you can get an early GE).
3. Labour will fare better in a GE once Brexit is (significantly) settled - when voters will focus on the mess the Tories have made of public services.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.
Apols for shouting this but:
I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.
Because its opponents are stubborn and cannot bear to admit they are wrong.
That's not a convincing argument but it is the reason.
Inclined to agree. Most of them had decided they weren't going to like it before they saw it.
Makes me think TMay might have to find them a face-saving way to change their mind.
I've no idea what that can be as the EU are understandably not going to budge. If somone has a good idea, post it on PB - I am sure No 10 will be looking everywhere for inspriation!
Some tweaking of the backstop would do that. I'm wondering how much of this is theatrics.
I disagree with this. Eventhough constant posts on here blame the ERG nutters for voting against the deal, it is also remainer Tory MP's that are also voting against, Grieve, Gyimah, JoJo, etc. I do not know what tweaks would satisfy the remainers as they have not said much more than this is worse than staying in. On the ERG front or more correctly the standup4brexit lot they have the fundamental belief that no deal brexit is not much to worry about and will only be temporary and the country can at the point start to look forward to a better future straight away as opposed to waiting another 4 years. A tweak to the backstop will not change those views.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Although given the vast, unneeded, and probably irreversible ecological damage it has caused, arguably an ability to leave the CFP is one of the more understandable reasons for being a Leaver.
The CFP gets a bad press, but it is actually helping fish stocks recover. The biggest problem is politicians ignoring the science and allowing overfishing.
Too true, And all this talk of "keeping our fish" ignores the fact that the herring and mackerel caught in UK waters aren't to British taste (75% of the UK catch is exported, much to the EU) with most of the fare served across the counters of our "British" fish and chip shops being imported, much from the EU.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.
Apols for shouting this but:
I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.
Because its opponents are stubborn and cannot bear to admit they are wrong.
That's not a convincing argument but it is the reason.
Inclined to agree. Most of them had decided they weren't going to like it before they saw it.
Makes me think TMay might have to find them a face-saving way to change their mind.
I've no idea what that can be as the EU are understandably not going to budge. If somone has a good idea, post it on PB - I am sure No 10 will be looking everywhere for inspriation!
There has to be a human sacrifice to propitiate the dark gods of unreason.
The sacrifice will be TMay.
Either she'll promise to resign in the Summer after the Bill has passed.
Or she will be sacrificed before then and someone else (Gove ? Corby?) will present essentially her deal and it will pass.
Well that might be it I guess. I hope that's enough to do it tbh.
I still wonder if there's some deal she can cut with Jezza "You get Labour to abstain on the MV and I'll commit to supporting a GE after March 29th."
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Although given the vast, unneeded, and probably irreversible ecological damage it has caused, arguably an ability to leave the CFP is one of the more understandable reasons for being a Leaver.
The CFP gets a bad press, but it is actually helping fish stocks recover. The biggest problem is politicians ignoring the science and allowing overfishing.
Too true, And all this talk of "keeping our fish" ignores the fact that the herring and mackerel caught in UK waters aren't to British taste (75% of the UK catch is exported, much to the EU) with most of the fare served across the counters of our "British" fish and chip shops being imported, much from the EU.
Does it matter where the fish end up? I thought the argument was about who gets to do the fishing in the waters around Britain.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.
Apols for shouting this but:
I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.
Rejecting May's deal increases the chances of a Labour government. That’s why we aren't supporting it.
That is a convincing enough argument from where I sit.
You've more chance of a Labour government by approving May's deal for the following reasons:
1. Rejecting the deal and heading for no deal won't might remove May but won't remove the the Tories.
2. Approving the deal will put the DUP in a position where they would very likely pull support for the government and support a VoNC (the only way you can get an early GE).
3. Labour will fare better in a GE once Brexit is (significantly) settled - when voters will focus on the mess the Tories have made of public services.
The only quibble is that Labour did well last time by turning what was called as a Brexit election into a contest about domestic issues of greater concern to voters. But I don't think they will be able to repeat that trick in an election called now under current circumstances.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.
Apols for shouting this but:
I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.
Rejecting May's deal increases the chances of a Labour government. That’s why we aren't supporting it.
That is a convincing enough argument from where I sit.
You've more chance of a Labour government by approving May's deal for the following reasons:
1. Rejecting the deal and heading for no deal won't might remove May but won't remove the the Tories.
2. Approving the deal will put the DUP in a position where they would very likely pull support for the government and support a VoNC (the only way you can get an early GE).
3. Labour will fare better in a GE once Brexit is (significantly) settled - when voters will focus on the mess the Tories have made of public services.
The only quibble is that Labour did well last time by turning what was called as a Brexit election into a contest about domestic issues of greater concern to voters. But I don't think they will be able to repeat that trick in an election called now under current circumstances.
And to be fair, it might have been called as a Brexit election but Brexit was not discussed very much at all really.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Although given the vast, unneeded, and probably irreversible ecological damage it has caused, arguably an ability to leave the CFP is one of the more understandable reasons for being a Leaver.
The CFP gets a bad press, but it is actually helping fish stocks recover. The biggest problem is politicians ignoring the science and allowing overfishing.
Too true, And all this talk of "keeping our fish" ignores the fact that the herring and mackerel caught in UK waters aren't to British taste (75% of the UK catch is exported, much to the EU) with most of the fare served across the counters of our "British" fish and chip shops being imported, much from the EU.
Does it matter where the fish end up? I thought the argument was about who gets to do the fishing in the waters around Britain.
The point is that out industry's future depends rather more on being able to continue importing and exporting fish from the EU than it does on being able to catch more of the fish that happen to be swimming about our own shores.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Although given the vast, unneeded, and probably irreversible ecological damage it has caused, arguably an ability to leave the CFP is one of the more understandable reasons for being a Leaver.
The CFP gets a bad press, but it is actually helping fish stocks recover. The biggest problem is politicians ignoring the science and allowing overfishing.
Too true, And all this talk of "keeping our fish" ignores the fact that the herring and mackerel caught in UK waters aren't to British taste (75% of the UK catch is exported, much to the EU) with most of the fare served across the counters of our "British" fish and chip shops being imported, much from the EU.
A lot of the discards used to be fish that people didn't want to eat. There's been some good campaigning to get people eating unpopular fish like gurnard.
I worry that in the excitement at taking back control, we will return to overfishing.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Although given the vast, unneeded, and probably irreversible ecological damage it has caused, arguably an ability to leave the CFP is one of the more understandable reasons for being a Leaver.
The CFP gets a bad press, but it is actually helping fish stocks recover. The biggest problem is politicians ignoring the science and allowing overfishing.
Too true, And all this talk of "keeping our fish" ignores the fact that the herring and mackerel caught in UK waters aren't to British taste (75% of the UK catch is exported, much to the EU) with most of the fare served across the counters of our "British" fish and chip shops being imported, much from the EU.
Does it matter where the fish end up? I thought the argument was about who gets to do the fishing in the waters around Britain.
The point is that out industry's future depends rather more on being able to continue importing and exporting fish from the EU than it does on being able to catch more of the fish that happen to be swimming about our own shores.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.
Apols for shouting this but:
I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.
The Withdrawal Agreement should be supported because we don't have a real choice and never have done. Incidentally it isn't May's Deal. It's EU Demands, which haven't changed hugely over the past two years. They have added Level Playing Field requirements. Otherwise it's money, citizens' rights and Irish border provisions for a two year extension of the status quo and subsequent negotiations on the final arrangement.
The Political Statement isn't worth the paper it's written on but there is nevertheless no reason to support it.
There was a twitter thread posted here a week or so ago showing that it was more balanced than that. Both sides have made concessions, it's not true to say the EU just said "no" until they got what they want.
I think the Withdrawal Agreement is decent as far as it goes. I also think the Irish border backstop is necessary. It forces us to confront the Irish border issue, when we pretended there's no problem and we made no commitment to maintaining a soft GFA border.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.
Apols for shouting this but:
I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.
The Withdrawal Agreement should be supported because we don't have a real choice and never have done. Incidentally it isn't May's Deal. It's EU Demands, which haven't changed hugely over the past two years. They have added Level Playing Field requirements. Otherwise it's money, citizens' rights and Irish border provisions for a two year extension of the status quo and subsequent negotiations on the final arrangement.
The Political Statement isn't worth the paper it's written on but there is nevertheless no reason to support it.
There was a twitter thread posted here a week or so ago showing that it was more balanced than that. Both sides have made concessions, it's not true to say the EU just said "no" until they got what they want.
I think the Withdrawal Agreement is decent as far as it goes. I also think the Irish border backstop is necessary. It forces us to confront the Irish border issue, when we pretended there's no problem and we made no commitment to maintaining a soft GFA border.
I don't think the GFA precludes customs checks on the border.
I find this handy chart (from the Telegraph) useful:
Nice chart... but it could do with another column headed "Avoids trashing the economy" - May's Deal = moderate yes; No Deal = strong no
Exactly. Having a column for the fishing industry, which employees fewer people than Harrods, and not for the economic implications upon which the jobs of many depend, is not a balanced assessment.
Indeed. Funny though, how even this biased Telegraph chart makes TM's deal look the best option.
Apols for shouting this but:
I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.
Rejecting May's deal increases the chances of a Labour government. That’s why we aren't supporting it.
That is a convincing enough argument from where I sit.
You've more chance of a Labour government by approving May's deal for the following reasons:
1. Rejecting the deal and heading for no deal won't might remove May but won't remove the the Tories.
2. Approving the deal will put the DUP in a position where they would very likely pull support for the government and support a VoNC (the only way you can get an early GE).
3. Labour will fare better in a GE once Brexit is (significantly) settled - when voters will focus on the mess the Tories have made of public services.
Either a No Deal Brexit or No Brexit will tear the Tories apart. That is our best route to No. 10
Comments
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/11/30/disappointment-remainers-britain-has-no-bregrets/
https://twitter.com/StigAbell/status/1068778184127193088
Yes I want to be the entrepreneurial one doing his own thing and not a sheep in the crowd.
If we had a single homogenised VAT threshold across all.of Europe then simply apply VAT after that (though how you split the VAT-free between nations I'm not sure about) but otherwise it wouldn't work.
Alternatively and I'm just spitballing ideas keep your own domestic VAT threshold but have 0 threshold for exports.
As for divergence from the EU, I don't think that is going to happen. You mentioned Canada earlier. In my field Canada has aligned its regulations pretty closely to those of the EU. I happen to quite like the way the Europeans do things, but the reality is we are giving up a say in the making of rules that have an effect on us. But we aren't removing the compelling reasons we will have to continue following those rules.
Rejoining will be easy whenever we do it. It's just a question of how long we leave the taxi waiting outside with the clock running.
In many fields standards are globalised. So yes the Canadian regulations are similar to European regulations are similar to Australian regulations are similar to American regulations are similar to post Brexit British ones. So long as we are involved in the global stage we still keep a say on those regulations.
Canada though doesn't have free migration with Europe, the same currency, the same military, the same Parliament etc
"Labour Remainers are playing a risky game"
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/labour-remainers-are-playing-a-risky-game-f3hwz5vsv
Now, one reason we reduced the amount guaranteed was because the EU was worried our higher guarantees would suck in foreign money from Belgian dentists, leaving all the continental banks with no deposits left.
In other words, the reason we might want to raise the guarantee is nothing to do with exchange rates and everything to do with competition. #TakeBackControl #Singapore #UnlessWeSignAnAgreementNotToCompeteEvenAfterBrexit.
If a tiny fraction of those sums had been spent on better hiring, better systems etc banks - and we - would have avoided the swamp they fell into. But every 10 years or so they - and we - have to learn the same lesson all over again.
I can see now the start of the same complacency verging into hubris creeping in with the focus on AI, robots & blockchain as the answers to everything. They won't be. Anyone thinking that banks' IT is up to all of this needs their head examining. There is no such thing as "a new paradigm" when it comes to money.
The journalist should report her to the police. That's a threat of violence. If a schoolboy can be reported to the police for bullying a fellow pupil, why should this MP get away with making such a threat. Higher standards are to be expected of an MP (I know, I know) than of a child, after all.
He'll probably send some tone deaf tweet.
If it doesn't happen then it never will.
I think many people miss the personal aspect of his sons war. It was his dad's unfinished business.
https://twitter.com/birdyword/status/1068749221862363141?s=21
2020-22 50/1 (too soon)
2022-24 30/1
2024-39 10/1 (prime window but still very unlikely)
After 2030 50/1 (too late)
No I'm not prepared to lay at those odds.
On a second referendum: the question, the options, and the method (ie might be multi-question) will all be crucial.
Edit - I hadn't seen his justification prior to posting this. I still think he was wrong and Saddam could have been removed with much less damage in 1991.
Arguably however 2003 was a mistake to rectify another mistake.
EDIT: "May's deal with renegotiated backstop" is of course not actually an option, js.
Pity they're choosing to bury it in each other.
Apols for shouting this but:
I HAVE YET TO HEAR A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT WHY MAY'S DEAL SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED.
That's not a convincing argument but it is the reason.
Makes me think TMay might have to find them a face-saving way to change their mind.
I've no idea what that can be as the EU are understandably not going to budge. If somone has a good idea, post it on PB - I am sure No 10 will be looking everywhere for inspriation!
Which brings me onto Greenland, a country unlike the UK in most respects, but which like us left the EU. In Greenland's case it was all about the fish. It had rich fish stocks and didn't see a need to share. After a negotiation that lasted two years, they ended up almost where they started, but leaving Greenland wholly dependent on a unreliable resource, cut off from EU development funds and diversification opportunities. Anyone with half a brain can see Greenland would be better off in the EU. The essential fact however is that Greenland is not in the EU.
However, as per upthread, hindsight is a wonderful thing!
My second grandson is 'doing' WWII as part of his GCSE History curriculum. I wonder what his essays will say about, for example, Dresden.
My second granddaughter, in a Thai school has just had to write an essay about the British in India. It made her prouder that Thailand maintained it's independence!
I hope his resignation flourishes, having been “tended”....
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-2018-f1-season-review.html
That is a convincing enough argument from where I sit.
(i) The Deal must be on the ballot. If it isn't the Brexit choice is restricted to No Deal and that gerrymanders the outcome towards Remain.
and
(ii) The Deal cannot be on the ballot. The public can hardly be expected to process and pass judgement on a 585 page legal contract plus a 26 page document that sketches out various possible futures over various possible timeframes and is neither binding nor agreed.
#intractable
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1068888260770963460
The Political Statement isn't worth the paper it's written on but there is nevertheless no reason to support it.
We could end up with a choice between something the Commons has rejected and something the electorate has rejected.
Mr. Scrapheap, I'm sure she'll be back on her foot soon, just as long as she loves the leader enough.
Edited extra bit: ahem. Feet*.
Is that new, haven't seen it before
Leadsom, Gove and Mordaunt all on message
Has Grayling missed the train or has he been cancelled
The sacrifice will be TMay.
Either she'll promise to resign in the Summer after the Bill has passed.
Or she will be sacrificed before then and someone else (Gove ? Corby?) will present essentially her deal and it will pass.
1. Rejecting the deal and heading for no deal won't might remove May but won't remove the the Tories.
2. Approving the deal will put the DUP in a position where they would very likely pull support for the government and support a VoNC (the only way you can get an early GE).
3. Labour will fare better in a GE once Brexit is (significantly) settled - when voters will focus on the mess the Tories have made of public services.
I do not know what tweaks would satisfy the remainers as they have not said much more than this is worse than staying in.
On the ERG front or more correctly the standup4brexit lot they have the fundamental belief that no deal brexit is not much to worry about and will only be temporary and the country can at the point start to look forward to a better future straight away as opposed to waiting another 4 years. A tweak to the backstop will not change those views.
I still wonder if there's some deal she can cut with Jezza "You get Labour to abstain on the MV and I'll commit to supporting a GE after March 29th."
Yeah sure you are....
I worry that in the excitement at taking back control, we will return to overfishing.