Boris is propped up by 30-40 loyal MPs who think that because he's got charisma, was a half-decent Mayor and can pen a witty column every 6 months, and do a pithy stump speech, he's a shoe-in for PM.
In truth, that was his limit and I think he knows it. I don't see much steel or initiative in the positions he takes. I think he's being driven from underneath, not by himself.
Interesting idea, that he’s driven by others.
I don’t even think he can even do a pithy stump speech anymore. His much trailed speech on the Brexit vision was utter, utter trash.
Boris is good for a laugh in the good times. That’s about it.
I think Boris is actually quite sensitive and his confidence relies quite heavily on being liked/loved. Once that collapsed, in the wake of the Brexit vote, you could see him deflate.
Max seems to think private rentals are inherently immoral. In fact, yields in London at least are already awful. A strong rental sector is part of a wider, healthy housing market.
The problem for the young - and for the U.K., given productivity problems - is that we prefer to spend our money on housing rather than other forms of investment, and this is favoured via the tax system.
We need a macro solution, not a micro one.
It is immoral. Unless you're building new property there is no reason to "invest" in housing. You're just depriving someone else of secure home ownership.
A 3% value tax is a macro solution, it would force property "investors" to look elsewhere for yield.
There are challenges with short-term tenancy agreements being so dominant, which are probably a bit too weighted to the landlord, but private rental isn't immoral.
It brings vacant and unused property into use and allows people who anticipate living in an area for only 1-2 years a flexible accommodation option at a relatively high standard.
State-run rentals would tend to be of a poorer quality with greater restrictions on use, and bureaucracy in getting tenancies set up, which would probably reduce available housing stock overall and reduce labour mobility.
There are degrees of a policy I'd implement. Exemptions for build to let, offsetting capital expenditure against the tax etc...
I'm not against someone buying a derelict property, spending money on it and letting it. I'm also not against someone buying land, building property and letting it. What I am against is people buying ready made flats and houses then renting them out to people who would probably have preferred to buy it but were priced out by the "investors".
Boris is propped up by 30-40 loyal MPs who think that because he's got charisma, was a half-decent Mayor and can pen a witty column every 6 months, and do a pithy stump speech, he's a shoe-in for PM.
In truth, that was his limit and I think he knows it. I don't see much steel or initiative in the positions he takes. I think he's being driven from underneath, not by himself.
Interesting idea, that he’s driven by others.
I don’t even think he can even do a pithy stump speech anymore. His much trailed speech on the Brexit vision was utter, utter trash.
Boris is good for a laugh in the good times. That’s about it.
I think that's right, I'm at a loss as to who I'd vote for in a Boris vs May leadership election. It's Trump vs Clinton all over again.
But it was easy to choose between Trump and Clinton. It's not really to difficult to choose between Boris and May, even if you'd rather have A. N. Other in both cases.
Boris is propped up by 30-40 loyal MPs who think that because he's got charisma, was a half-decent Mayor and can pen a witty column every 6 months, and do a pithy stump speech, he's a shoe-in for PM.
In truth, that was his limit and I think he knows it. I don't see much steel or initiative in the positions he takes. I think he's being driven from underneath, not by himself.
Interesting idea, that he’s driven by others.
I don’t even think he can even do a pithy stump speech anymore. His much trailed speech on the Brexit vision was utter, utter trash.
Boris is good for a laugh in the good times. That’s about it.
I think Boris is actually quite sensitive and his confidence relies quite heavily on being liked/loved. Once that collapsed, in the wake of the Brexit vote, you could see him deflate.
Boris is propped up by 30-40 loyal MPs who think that because he's got charisma, was a half-decent Mayor and can pen a witty column every 6 months, and do a pithy stump speech, he's a shoe-in for PM.
In truth, that was his limit and I think he knows it. I don't see much steel or initiative in the positions he takes. I think he's being driven from underneath, not by himself.
I think Boris could get a Conservative majority against Corbyn.
Whereas May has already proved she could not .
Even if that's true (and I don't think it is) I think he'd be a poor Prime Minister.
Yes not to my liking.However for whatever reason he backed Brexit against Cameron and most of the cabinet.
Whereas May even now can not make decision and stand and fight for it.In my opinion she is a decent woman but a terrible leader.
I don’t have one but again I fail to see what’s wrong with them in general. I can see a case for local-specific restrictions (to avoid graveyarding certain parts of Cornwall, for eg) but otherwise not.
All of these bete noires - the BTL’ers, the second-home owners, the foreigners who buy off-plan - are just convenient demons.
They are symptoms, not cause, and none immoral or unwelcome in their own right.
I don't think introducing property taxes for primary residences is a good idea, even at 1% it represents an opportunity for a future Labour government to jack it up. I think we should introduce a value tax on second property and primary residences owned by non tax residents. Say 3% per year for the former and 25% per year for thale latter.
I'm not going to lie when I say I have some (significant) self interest in there not being such a tax, as do you. A primary residence is not first and foremost an investment, it is a place to live where you know that as the years go by you won't be subject to the vagaries of rising prices and the associated rent rises. It is also somewhere you know you won't get chucked out of (providing you pay the mortgage), and by retirement or thereabouts you will 'own' completely. It's also almost completely impossible to have pets in UK rented accomodation and there is no point spending your own capital to do up someone else's house. Now 2nd homes OTOH...
Any politician who plays politics with people's houses in our democracy is committing electoral suicide, for the reasons you mention.
Its people's safe haven from all the woes of the world and their lives. It's unsurprising they defend it tenaciously.
I should add I do allow pets in the (one) house I rent out - my old one - which is purely because I can't sell it because of my bloody neighbours. I'd love to release the equity.
There’s also several interconnected markets at play with housing, and any policy intended to address one can have consequences on others. Not everyone is currently renting and desperately wanting to buy, especially in London.
Boris is propped up by 30-40 loyal MPs who think that because he's got charisma, was a half-decent Mayor and can pen a witty column every 6 months, and do a pithy stump speech, he's a shoe-in for PM.
In truth, that was his limit and I think he knows it. I don't see much steel or initiative in the positions he takes. I think he's being driven from underneath, not by himself.
Interesting idea, that he’s driven by others.
I don’t even think he can even do a pithy stump speech anymore. His much trailed speech on the Brexit vision was utter, utter trash.
Boris is good for a laugh in the good times. That’s about it.
I think that's right, I'm at a loss as to who I'd vote for in a Boris vs May leadership election. It's Trump vs Clinton all over again.
But it was easy to choose between Trump and Clinton. It's not really to difficult to choose between Boris and May, even if you'd rather have A. N. Other in both cases.
It wasn't easy then and not easy now. Clinton would have been a different kind of disaster to Trump and May has proven she can't deliver us a majority against Corbyn. We can't afford to have her win leadership election and try and fight 2022. Boris is just generally a poor choice. I thought he would prove himself in the FCO and kept my mind open to the possibility, but he has been poor at every turn.
I don’t have one but again I fail to see what’s wrong with them in general. I can see a case for local-specific restrictions (to avoid graveyarding certain parts of Cornwall, for eg) but otherwise not.
All of these bete noires - the BTL’ers, the second-home owners, the foreigners who buy off-plan - are just convenient demons.
They are symptoms, not cause, and none immoral or unwelcome in their own right.
Isn't the problem the lack of housing in general? Although I guess second homes rarely fall in the affordable bracket.
I don’t have one but again I fail to see what’s wrong with them in general. I can see a case for local-specific restrictions (to avoid graveyarding certain parts of Cornwall, for eg) but otherwise not.
All of these bete noires - the BTL’ers, the second-home owners, the foreigners who buy off-plan - are just convenient demons.
They are symptoms, not cause, and none immoral or unwelcome in their own right.
I think it's a proven fact that foreign money and older people using BTL as pensions are the reason we have stupidly unaffordable houses. They are the cause. The symptoms are younger graduates with well paid jobs voting for Corbyn.
I don’t have one but again I fail to see what’s wrong with them in general. I can see a case for local-specific restrictions (to avoid graveyarding certain parts of Cornwall, for eg) but otherwise not.
All of these bete noires - the BTL’ers, the second-home owners, the foreigners who buy off-plan - are just convenient demons.
They are symptoms, not cause, and none immoral or unwelcome in their own right.
Isn't the problem the lack of housing in general? Although I guess second homes rarely fall in the affordable bracket.
At the very heart of it all, we simply don’t build enough houses, because the “market” is dysfunctional. And, an extended period of low interest rates has made it worse.
Boris is propped up by 30-40 loyal MPs who think that because he's got charisma, was a half-decent Mayor and can pen a witty column every 6 months, and do a pithy stump speech, he's a shoe-in for PM.
In truth, that was his limit and I think he knows it. I don't see much steel or initiative in the positions he takes. I think he's being driven from underneath, not by himself.
Interesting idea, that he’s driven by others.
I don’t even think he can even do a pithy stump speech anymore. His much trailed speech on the Brexit vision was utter, utter trash.
Boris is good for a laugh in the good times. That’s about it.
I think Boris is actually quite sensitive and his confidence relies quite heavily on being liked/loved. Once that collapsed, in the wake of the Brexit vote, you could see him deflate.
I'm not sure he's ever recovered since.
Yes, he looked really upset to have won.
He sure was not celebrating in public , unlike Farage and UKIp, their job was done , his about to start.
I don’t have one but again I fail to see what’s wrong with them in general. I can see a case for local-specific restrictions (to avoid graveyarding certain parts of Cornwall, for eg) but otherwise not.
All of these bete noires - the BTL’ers, the second-home owners, the foreigners who buy off-plan - are just convenient demons.
They are symptoms, not cause, and none immoral or unwelcome in their own right.
I think it's a proven fact that foreign money and older people using BTL as pensions are the reason we have stupidly unaffordable houses. They are the cause. The symptoms are younger graduates with well paid jobs voting for Corbyn.
The reason we have stupidly unaffordable houses (I'm assuming you mean in London, not Stoke) is because of Big Bang which brought foreign mainly US investment bankers into the country and turned what had been a profession similar in status and compensation to doctors or lawyers, into a stratospherically-inflated salary group. They started in prime London and then expanded outwards, pushing people further out as they went.
So if you want no more stupidly unaffordable houses the thing to do is to prevent people coming from abroad and buying property in prime London locations.
I don’t have one but again I fail to see what’s wrong with them in general. I can see a case for local-specific restrictions (to avoid graveyarding certain parts of Cornwall, for eg) but otherwise not.
All of these bete noires - the BTL’ers, the second-home owners, the foreigners who buy off-plan - are just convenient demons.
They are symptoms, not cause, and none immoral or unwelcome in their own right.
I think it's a proven fact that foreign money and older people using BTL as pensions are the reason we have stupidly unaffordable houses. They are the cause. The symptoms are younger graduates with well paid jobs voting for Corbyn.
I’d love to see the evidence of that. As it is, your contentions seem communistic.
If we want more housing, why can’t we just build some more? We don’t ration other goods in the way you suggest.
It is in fact the de facto rationing we already have, and certain tax advantages, that has caused people to favour property as an asset class.
I don’t have one but again I fail to see what’s wrong with them in general. I can see a case for local-specific restrictions (to avoid graveyarding certain parts of Cornwall, for eg) but otherwise not.
All of these bete noires - the BTL’ers, the second-home owners, the foreigners who buy off-plan - are just convenient demons.
They are symptoms, not cause, and none immoral or unwelcome in their own right.
Isn't the problem the lack of housing in general? Although I guess second homes rarely fall in the affordable bracket.
At the very heart of it all, we simply don’t build enough houses, because the “market” is dysfunctional. And, an extended period of low interest rates has made it worse.
The single change that would have the largest positive effect on the housing market is getting interest rates off the floor. It is causing so many market distortions, and not just in housing either. The markets for things like art and classic cars have also gone bonkers in recent years, as the money tries to chase any returns possible.
I don’t have one but again I fail to see what’s wrong with them in general. I can see a case for local-specific restrictions (to avoid graveyarding certain parts of Cornwall, for eg) but otherwise not.
All of these bete noires - the BTL’ers, the second-home owners, the foreigners who buy off-plan - are just convenient demons.
They are symptoms, not cause, and none immoral or unwelcome in their own right.
Isn't the problem the lack of housing in general? Although I guess second homes rarely fall in the affordable bracket.
At the very heart of it all, we simply don’t build enough houses, because the “market” is dysfunctional. And, an extended period of low interest rates has made it worse.
And I don't think people are looking for homes in places where second homes are popular. The buy to let market is far worse.
Slightly late to the party here but just wanted to commend Alastair on an excellent header. Unfortunately, too many on both sides seem to regard reaching an workable agreement as a pleasant bonus, should the process so conclude - while they prioritise their primary goal of playing to their own audiences. Negotiation requires understanding the other side. The EU has never understood, nor sought to understand, the Brexit mindset but simply assumed them to be endemically hostile and adopted a similarly hostile attitude in consequence (it has to be said that many brexiteers have not helped themselves in that respect).
This is true and the reverse also holds - our government, largely, and almost everyone who voted Leave, also have little understanding or interest in the EU beyond a feeling they don't like it much. This is a much bigger problem, though, because the EU won't do anything fundamentally different because of Brexit while the UK is seriously impacted by it.
If we want a successful negotiation, we need to understand what the EU side actually wants and not what we think it ought to want. We can then trade those things against a shopping list of what we want, which could include top level access to Galileo. From my understanding the EU wants, in order of priority, are:
- Commitment to UK alignment to EU regulations, including but not limited to Northern Ireland. - Shared security. - UK diplomatic support for EU international positions. - Money.
If we offer those, or a good part of them, we should get things in return. The EU no longer cares what the British as an ex-member thinks of them. It won't continue top level access to Galileo etc because we might get upset.
I don’t have one but again I fail to see what’s wrong with them in general. I can see a case for local-specific restrictions (to avoid graveyarding certain parts of Cornwall, for eg) but otherwise not.
All of these bete noires - the BTL’ers, the second-home owners, the foreigners who buy off-plan - are just convenient demons.
They are symptoms, not cause, and none immoral or unwelcome in their own right.
I think it's a proven fact that foreign money and older people using BTL as pensions are the reason we have stupidly unaffordable houses. They are the cause. The symptoms are younger graduates with well paid jobs voting for Corbyn.
The reason we have stupidly unaffordable houses (I'm assuming you mean in London, not Stoke) is because of Big Bang which brought foreign mainly US investment bankers into the country and turned what had been a profession similar in status and compensation to doctors or lawyers, into a stratospherically-inflated salary group. They started in prime London and then expanded outwards, pushing people further out as they went.
So if you want no more stupidly unaffordable houses the thing to do is to prevent people coming from abroad and buying property in prime London locations.
Not really. But it is true that since the 1990s, certain cities have done disproportionately well. There is greater demand to live in London, but also Paris, San Francisco and Cambridge. House prices have spiked in all of these places, because people want to/need toaccess local job markets.
I don’t have one but again I fail to see what’s wrong with them in general. I can see a case for local-specific restrictions (to avoid graveyarding certain parts of Cornwall, for eg) but otherwise not.
All of these bete noires - the BTL’ers, the second-home owners, the foreigners who buy off-plan - are just convenient demons.
They are symptoms, not cause, and none immoral or unwelcome in their own right.
I think it's a proven fact that foreign money and older people using BTL as pensions are the reason we have stupidly unaffordable houses. They are the cause. The symptoms are younger graduates with well paid jobs voting for Corbyn.
I’d love to see the evidence of that. As it is, your contentions seem communistic.
If we want more housing, why can’t we just build some more? We don’t ration other goods in the way you suggest.
It is in fact the de facto rationing we already have, but certain tax advantages, that has caused people to favour property as an asset class.
I'm not against building new houses, where did I say I was?! I'm pretty sure I even said that investors who build or redevelop should get exemptions and allowances from any value taxes!
What I'm saying is that we've got a situation where 0.9m people own 5.5m properties. That is not sustainable.
Slightly late to the party here but just wanted to commend Alastair on an excellent header. Unfortunately, too many on both sides seem to regard reaching an workable agreement as a pleasant bonus, should the process so conclude - while they prioritise their primary goal of playing to their own audiences. Negotiation requires understanding the other side. The EU has never understood, nor sought to understand, the Brexit mindset but simply assumed them to be endemically hostile and adopted a similarly hostile attitude in consequence (it has to be said that many brexiteers have not helped themselves in that respect).
It won't continue top level access to Galileo etc because we might get upset.
Fair enough. No (or very limited) Security Partnership then.
Their choice:
"The arrangements for any UK cooperation on Galileo are an important test case of the depth of operational cooperation and information sharing envisaged under the Security Partnership."
Slightly late to the party here but just wanted to commend Alastair on an excellent header. Unfortunately, too many on both sides seem to regard reaching an workable agreement as a pleasant bonus, should the process so conclude - while they prioritise their primary goal of playing to their own audiences. Negotiation requires understanding the other side. The EU has never understood, nor sought to understand, the Brexit mindset but simply assumed them to be endemically hostile and adopted a similarly hostile attitude in consequence (it has to be said that many brexiteers have not helped themselves in that respect).
This is true and the reverse also holds - our government, largely, and almost everyone who voted Leave, also have little understanding or interest in the EU beyond a feeling they don't like it much. This is a much bigger problem, though, because the EU won't do anything fundamentally different because of Brexit while the UK is seriously impacted by it.
If we want a successful negotiation, we need to understand what the EU side actually wants and not what we think it ought to want. We can then trade those things against a shopping list of what we want, which could include top level access to Galileo. From my understanding the EU wants, in order of priority, are:
- Commitment to UK alignment to EU regulations, including but not limited to Northern Ireland. - Shared security. - UK diplomatic support for EU international positions. - Money.
If we offer those, or a good part of them, we should get things in return. The EU no longer cares what the British as an ex-member thinks of them. It won't continue top level access to Galileo etc because we might get upset.
Their Galileo decision shows the relationship only works one way. They want full cooperation from the UK on intelligence/defence matters, yet aren't willing to trust the UK with access to their special satellite program. Wasn't there howls of outrage that the UK was seen as suggesting security could be used as a bargaining chip early in the negotiations?
It wasn’t good enough for the leader to routinely defer to his shadow chancellor when confronted with a difficult decision – a shadow chancellor who on three separate occasions undermined my efforts to agree collective positions on health matters.
It wasn’t good enough for the leader to say one thing to me, only for his political secretary to phone a day later and say: “He may have said that, but I know what he really thinks.”
It wasn’t good enough for the leader to read his position from a typed up script at shadow cabinet meetings discussing the prospect of military action against Isis in Syria or the EU referendum.
And it wasn’t good enough that whenever he appeared on TV, his description of a process, or his analysis of a problem, ended in confusion or despair on the party’s position – article 50, counterterrorism, “7.5 out of 10” on Brexit.
Slightly late to the party here but just wanted to commend Alastair on an excellent header. Unfortunately, too many on both sides seem to regard reaching an workable agreement as a pleasant bonus, should the process so conclude - while they prioritise their primary goal of playing to their own audiences. Negotiation requires understanding the other side. The EU has never understood, nor sought to understand, the Brexit mindset but simply assumed them to be endemically hostile and adopted a similarly hostile attitude in consequence (it has to be said that many brexiteers have not helped themselves in that respect).
This is true and the reverse also holds - our government, largely, and almost everyone who voted Leave, also have little understanding or interest in the EU beyond a feeling they don't like it much. This is a much bigger problem, though, because the EU won't do anything fundamentally different because of Brexit while the UK is seriously impacted by it.
If we want a successful negotiation, we need to understand what the EU side actually wants and not what we think it ought to want. We can then trade those things against a shopping list of what we want, which could include top level access to Galileo. From my understanding the EU wants, in order of priority, are:
- Commitment to UK alignment to EU regulations, including but not limited to Northern Ireland. - Shared security. - UK diplomatic support for EU international positions. - Money.
If we offer those, or a good part of them, we should get things in return. The EU no longer cares what the British as an ex-member thinks of them. It won't continue top level access to Galileo etc because we might get upset.
Their Galileo decision shows the relationship only works one way. They want full cooperation from the UK on intelligence/defence matters, yet aren't willing to trust the UK with access to their special satellite program. Wasn't there howls of outrage that the UK was seen as suggesting security could be used as a bargaining chip early in the negotiations?
Any outcome will be a downgrade for us from the status quo. A successful negotiation will see a smaller downgrade than would otherwise happen. That might seem stupid but it's a consequence of Brexit being all downside and no upside.
Slightly late to the party here but just wanted to commend Alastair on an excellent header. Unfortunately, too many on both sides seem to regard reaching an workable agreement as a pleasant bonus, should the process so conclude - while they prioritise their primary goal of playing to their own audiences. Negotiation requires understanding the other side. The EU has never understood, nor sought to understand, the Brexit mindset but simply assumed them to be endemically hostile and adopted a similarly hostile attitude in consequence (it has to be said that many brexiteers have not helped themselves in that respect).
This is true and the reverse also holds - our government, largely, and almost everyone who voted Leave, also have little understanding or interest in the EU beyond a feeling they don't like it much. This is a much bigger problem, though, because the EU won't do anything fundamentally different because of Brexit while the UK is seriously impacted by it.
If we want a successful negotiation, we need to understand what the EU side actually wants and not what we think it ought to want. We can then trade those things against a shopping list of what we want, which could include top level access to Galileo. From my understanding the EU wants, in order of priority, are:
- Commitment to UK alignment to EU regulations, including but not limited to Northern Ireland. - Shared security. - UK diplomatic support for EU international positions. - Money.
If we offer those, or a good part of them, we should get things in return. The EU no longer cares what the British as an ex-member thinks of them. It won't continue top level access to Galileo etc because we might get upset.
Their Galileo decision shows the relationship only works one way. They want full cooperation from the UK on intelligence/defence matters, yet aren't willing to trust the UK with access to their special satellite program. Wasn't there howls of outrage that the UK was seen as suggesting security could be used as a bargaining chip early in the negotiations?
Any outcome will be a downgrade for us from the status quo. A successful negotiation will see a smaller downgrade than would otherwise happen. That might seem stupid but it's a consequence of Brexit being all downside and no upside.
Only if we are foolhardy enough to concede to "Commitment to UK alignment to EU regulations, including but not limited to Northern Ireland."
No longer aligning with EU regulations is why we're leaving.
Slightly late to the party here but just wanted to commend Alastair on an excellent header. Unfortunately, too many on both sides seem to regard reaching an workable agreement as a pleasant bonus, should the process so conclude - while they prioritise their primary goal of playing to their own audiences. Negotiation requires understanding the other side. The EU has never understood, nor sought to understand, the Brexit mindset but simply assumed them to be endemically hostile and adopted a similarly hostile attitude in consequence (it has to be said that many brexiteers have not helped themselves in that respect).
This is true and the reverse also holds - our government, largely, and almost everyone who voted Leave, also have little understanding or interest in the EU beyond a feeling they don't like it much. This is a much bigger problem, though, because the EU won't do anything fundamentally different because of Brexit while the UK is seriously impacted by it.
If we want a successful negotiation, we need to understand what the EU side actually wants and not what we think it ought to want. We can then trade those things against a shopping list of what we want, which could include top level access to Galileo. From my understanding the EU wants, in order of priority, are:
- Commitment to UK alignment to EU regulations, including but not limited to Northern Ireland. - Shared security. - UK diplomatic support for EU international positions. - Money.
If we offer those, or a good part of them, we should get things in return. The EU no longer cares what the British as an ex-member thinks of them. It won't continue top level access to Galileo etc because we might get upset.
Their Galileo decision shows the relationship only works one way. They want full cooperation from the UK on intelligence/defence matters, yet aren't willing to trust the UK with access to their special satellite program. Wasn't there howls of outrage that the UK was seen as suggesting security could be used as a bargaining chip early in the negotiations?
Any outcome will be a downgrade for us from the status quo. A successful negotiation will see a smaller downgrade than would otherwise happen. That might seem stupid but it's a consequence of Brexit being all downside and no upside.
I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.
Slightly late to the party here but just wanted to commend Alastair on an excellent header. Unfortunately, too many on both sides seem to regard reaching an workable agreement as a pleasant bonus, should the process so conclude - while they prioritise their primary goal of playing to their own audiences. Negotiation requires understanding the other side. The EU has never understood, nor sought to understand, the Brexit mindset but simply assumed them to be endemically hostile and adopted a similarly hostile attitude in consequence (it has to be said that many brexiteers have not helped themselves in that respect).
This is true and the reverse also holds - our government, largely, and almost everyone who voted Leave, also have little understanding or interest in the EU beyond a feeling they don't like it much. This is a much bigger problem, though, because the EU won't do anything fundamentally different because of Brexit while the UK is seriously impacted by it.
If we want a successful negotiation, we need to understand what the EU side actually wants and not what we think it ought to want. We can then trade those things against a shopping list of what we want, which could include top level access to Galileo. From my understanding the EU wants, in order of priority, are:
- Commitment to UK alignment to EU regulations, including but not limited to Northern Ireland. - Shared security. - UK diplomatic support for EU international positions. - Money.
If we offer those, or a good part of them, we should get things in return. The EU no longer cares what the British as an ex-member thinks of them. It won't continue top level access to Galileo etc because we might get upset.
Their Galileo decision shows the relationship only works one way. They want full cooperation from the UK on intelligence/defence matters, yet aren't willing to trust the UK with access to their special satellite program. Wasn't there howls of outrage that the UK was seen as suggesting security could be used as a bargaining chip early in the negotiations?
Any outcome will be a downgrade for us from the status quo. A successful negotiation will see a smaller downgrade than would otherwise happen. That might seem stupid but it's a consequence of Brexit being all downside and no upside.
I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.
It's negotiable, but the negotiations will be relative to a no deal baseline, not the status quo.
I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.
It's negotiable, but the negotiations will be relative to a no deal baseline, not the status quo.
You don't see the contradiction in their position on the matter?
Slightly late to the party here but just wanted to commend Alastair on an excellent header. Unfortunately, too many on both sides seem to regard reaching an workable agreement as a pleasant bonus, should the process so conclude - while they prioritise their primary goal of playing to their own audiences. Negotiation requires understanding the other side. The EU has never understood, nor sought to understand, the Brexit mindset but simply assumed them to be endemically hostile and adopted a similarly hostile attitude in consequence (it has to be said that many brexiteers have not helped themselves in that respect).
This is true and the reverse also holds - our government, largely, and almost everyone who voted Leave, also have little understanding or interest in the EU beyond a feeling they don't like it much. This is a much bigger problem, though, because the EU won't do anything fundamentally different because of Brexit while the UK is seriously impacted by it.
If we want a successful negotiation, we need to understand what the EU side actually wants and not what we think it ought to want. We can then trade those things against a shopping list of what we want, which could include top level access to Galileo. From my understanding the EU wants, in order of priority, are:
- Commitment to UK alignment to EU regulations, including but not limited to Northern Ireland. - Shared security. - UK diplomatic support for EU international positions. - Money.
If we offer those, or a good part of them, we should get things in return. The EU no longer cares what the British as an ex-member thinks of them. It won't continue top level access to Galileo etc because we might get upset.
Their Galileo decision shows the relationship only works one way. They want full cooperation from the UK on intelligence/defence matters, yet aren't willing to trust the UK with access to their special satellite program. Wasn't there howls of outrage that the UK was seen as suggesting security could be used as a bargaining chip early in the negotiations?
Any outcome will be a downgrade for us from the status quo. A successful negotiation will see a smaller downgrade than would otherwise happen. That might seem stupid but it's a consequence of Brexit being all downside and no upside.
Only if we are foolhardy enough to concede to "Commitment to UK alignment to EU regulations, including but not limited to Northern Ireland."
No longer aligning with EU regulations is why we're leaving.
Then we have less to offer of what the EU really wants and can expect less in return.
I don’t have one but again I fail to see what’s wrong with them in general. I can see a case for local-specific restrictions (to avoid graveyarding certain parts of Cornwall, for eg) but otherwise not.
All of these bete noires - the BTL’ers, the second-home owners, the foreigners who buy off-plan - are just convenient demons.
They are symptoms, not cause, and none immoral or unwelcome in their own right.
I think it's a proven fact that foreign money and older people using BTL as pensions are the reason we have stupidly unaffordable houses. They are the cause. The symptoms are younger graduates with well paid jobs voting for Corbyn.
I’d love to see the evidence of that. As it is, your contentions seem communistic.
If we want more housing, why can’t we just build some more? We don’t ration other goods in the way you suggest.
It is in fact the de facto rationing we already have, but certain tax advantages, that has caused people to favour property as an asset class.
I'm not against building new houses, where did I say I was?! I'm pretty sure I even said that investors who build or redevelop should get exemptions and allowances from any value taxes!
What I'm saying is that we've got a situation where 0.9m people own 5.5m properties. That is not sustainable.
Why not?
Not everyone at all times can, wants to or will own their own home at every moment of time. Those who either want to rent or need to rent need homes to rent. Those homes need owners.
This is true and the reverse also holds - our government, largely, and almost everyone who voted Leave, also have little understanding or interest in the EU beyond a feeling they don't like it much. This is a much bigger problem, though, because the EU won't do anything fundamentally different because of Brexit while the UK is seriously impacted by it.
If we want a successful negotiation, we need to understand what the EU side actually wants and not what we think it ought to want. We can then trade those things against a shopping list of what we want, which could include top level access to Galileo. From my understanding the EU wants, in order of priority, are:
- Commitment to UK alignment to EU regulations, including but not limited to Northern Ireland. - Shared security. - UK diplomatic support for EU international positions. - Money.
If we offer those, or a good part of them, we should get things in return. The EU no longer cares what the British as an ex-member thinks of them. It won't continue top level access to Galileo etc because we might get upset.
Their Galileo decision shows the relationship only works one way. They want full cooperation from the UK on intelligence/defence matters, yet aren't willing to trust the UK with access to their special satellite program. Wasn't there howls of outrage that the UK was seen as suggesting security could be used as a bargaining chip early in the negotiations?
Any outcome will be a downgrade for us from the status quo. A successful negotiation will see a smaller downgrade than would otherwise happen. That might seem stupid but it's a consequence of Brexit being all downside and no upside.
I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.
The Galileo discussion is probably the best example yet of the EU’s determination to be inflexible and to be seen to punish the UK, even if the reality of the situation is that they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Any outcome will be a downgrade for us from the status quo. A successful negotiation will see a smaller downgrade than would otherwise happen. That might seem stupid but it's a consequence of Brexit being all downside and no upside.
Only if we are foolhardy enough to concede to "Commitment to UK alignment to EU regulations, including but not limited to Northern Ireland."
No longer aligning with EU regulations is why we're leaving.
Then we have less to offer of what the EU really wants and can expect less in return.
So be it. If we wanted to offer what the EU really wants we wouldn't be leaving now would we?
I don’t have one but again I fail to see what’s wrong with them in general. I can see a case for local-specific restrictions (to avoid graveyarding certain parts of Cornwall, for eg) but otherwise not.
All of these bete noires - the BTL’ers, the second-home owners, the foreigners who buy off-plan - are just convenient demons.
They are symptoms, not cause, and none immoral or unwelcome in their own right.
I think it's a proven fact that foreign money and older people using BTL as pensions are the reason we have stupidly unaffordable houses. They are the cause. The symptoms are younger graduates with well paid jobs voting for Corbyn.
The reason we have stupidly unaffordable houses (I'm assuming you mean in London, not Stoke) is because of Big Bang which brought foreign mainly US investment bankers into the country and turned what had been a profession similar in status and compensation to doctors or lawyers, into a stratospherically-inflated salary group. They started in prime London and then expanded outwards, pushing people further out as they went.
So if you want no more stupidly unaffordable houses the thing to do is to prevent people coming from abroad and buying property in prime London locations.
Not really. But it is true that since the 1990s, certain cities have done disproportionately well. There is greater demand to live in London, but also Paris, San Francisco and Cambridge. House prices have spiked in all of these places, because people want to/need toaccess local job markets.
The influx of investment bankers after Big Bang, and the subsequent transformation of investment banking salaries changed the London property market dramatically.
The Galileo discussion is probably the best example yet of the EU’s determination to be inflexible and to be seen to punish the UK, even if the reality of the situation is that they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.
I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.
It's negotiable, but the negotiations will be relative to a no deal baseline, not the status quo.
You don't see the contradiction in their position on the matter?
Think about who it is you're asking lol. Not even Alastair thinks the EU being smart about this satellite stuff. I don't even think @williamglenn thinks its a smart play.
This is true and the reverse also holds - our government, largely, and almost everyone who voted Leave, also have little understanding or interest in the EU beyond a feeling they don't like it much. This is a much bigger problem, though, because the EU won't do anything fundamentally different because of Brexit while the UK is seriously impacted by it.
If we want a successful negotiation, we need to understand what the EU side actually wants and not what we think it ought to want. We can then trade those things against a shopping list of what we want, which could include top level access to Galileo. From my understanding the EU wants, in order of priority, are:
- Commitment to UK alignment to EU regulations, including but not limited to Northern Ireland. - Shared security. - UK diplomatic support for EU international positions. - Money.
If we offer those, or a good part of them, we should get things in return. The EU no longer cares what the British as an ex-member thinks of them. It won't continue top level access to Galileo etc because we might get upset.
Their Galileo decision shows the relationship only works one way. They want full cooperation from the UK on intelligence/defence matters, yet aren't willing to trust the UK with access to their special satellite program. Wasn't there howls of outrage that the UK was seen as suggesting security could be used as a bargaining chip early in the negotiations?
Any outcome will be a downgrade for us from the status quo. A successful negotiation will see a smaller downgrade than would otherwise happen. That might seem stupid but it's a consequence of Brexit being all downside and no upside.
I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.
The Galileo discussion is probably the best example yet of the EU’s determination to be inflexible and to be seen to punish the UK, even if the reality of the situation is that they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.
The issue is they think they can get away with it because the Lords and some MPs will do exactly what they want.
I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.
It's negotiable, but the negotiations will be relative to a no deal baseline, not the status quo.
You don't see the contradiction in their position on the matter?
Possibly. The negotiation hasn't played out. The default is no security pact and no participation in Galileo.
I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.
It's negotiable, but the negotiations will be relative to a no deal baseline, not the status quo.
You don't see the contradiction in their position on the matter?
Possibly. The negotiation hasn't played out. The default is no security pact and no participation in Galileo.
Maybe true, but the EU position is security pact and no UK access to the satellites. They have said plenty of times they want continued access to UK intelligence and security. Do you not see the inconsistency there? Or are you so blinded by your EUphillia that you think they can do no wrong?
I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.
It's negotiable, but the negotiations will be relative to a no deal baseline, not the status quo.
You don't see the contradiction in their position on the matter?
Possibly. The negotiation hasn't played out. The default is no security pact and no participation in Galileo.
But they have made it clear that they want to continue security/defence cooperation, but also made it clear they don't trust the UK with access to their satellites. Not sure how you can square that one.
I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.
It's negotiable, but the negotiations will be relative to a no deal baseline, not the status quo.
You don't see the contradiction in their position on the matter?
Think about who it is you're asking lol. Not even Alastair thinks the EU being smart about this satellite stuff. I don't even think @williamglenn thinks its a smart play.
In the focus group in Southampton, the men were also keen on a cap on the difference between the pay of executives and their employees, and the nationalisation of the water, energy and rail industries.
But when asked whether the policies belonged to the Conservative or Labour party, three quickly replied in succession: “Conservative”.
When the men were told that the policies belonged to Mr Corbyn’s Labour party, not Theresa May’s Conservatives, they went cold, with one calling them “rubbish”.
“Their sums don’t add up,” said another participant, adding: “Although we haven’t seen the sums. We’re assuming they’re not going to add up.”
Another said the ideas could not be delivered “without ruining the country”
Who on Earth would have thought that utility nationalisation and pay restrictions would be Conservative policies?
In the eighties when you'd have thought that the two parties were pretty clear in what they stood for, I got talking to an old guy on a train. He was very interested in politics and had some very clear ideas of what he wanted. I forget the details, there were a lot of them. In essence he wanted a very controlled economy with a lot of state intervention. As he warmed up it turned out he was a Conservative activist. Based on his opinions you'd imagine he was in the Communist party. And yet when I wondered how well he fitted in with his fellow party members, he was convinced he was in the majority and that the ideas he'd outlined were pretty close to the Conservatives' actual policies.
This is true and the reverse also holds - our government, largely, and almost everyone who voted Leave, also have little understanding or interest in the EU beyond a feeling they don't like it much. This is a much bigger problem, though, because the EU won't do anything fundamentally different because of Brexit while the UK is seriously impacted by it.
If we want a successful negotiation, we need to understand what the EU side actually wants and not what we think it ought to want. We can then trade those things against a shopping list of what we want, which could include top level access to Galileo. From my understanding the EU wants, in order of priority, are:
- Commitment to UK alignment to EU regulations, including but not limited to Northern Ireland. - Shared security. - UK diplomatic support for EU international positions. - Money.
If we offer those, or a good part of them, we should get things in return. The EU no longer cares what the British as an ex-member thinks of them. It won't continue top level access to Galileo etc because we might get upset.
Their Galileo decision shows the relationship only works one way. They want full cooperation from the UK on intelligence/defence matters, yet aren't willing to trust the UK with access to their special satellite program. Wasn't there howls of outrage that the UK was seen as suggesting security could be used as a bargaining chip early in the negotiations?
Any outcome will be a downgrade for us from the status quo. A successful negotiation will see a smaller downgrade than would otherwise happen. That might seem stupid but it's a consequence of Brexit being all downside and no upside.
I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.
The Galileo discussion is probably the best example yet of the EU’s determination to be inflexible and to be seen to punish the UK, even if the reality of the situation is that they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.
The issue is they think they can get away with it because the Lords and some MPs will do exactly what they want.
Yes, my concern is that the EU side are being influenced by the media and the people they speak to in London - who seem to think we’ll find a way to call the whole thing off. It’s just encouraging a crap deal, which in reality is increasing the chances of a crash out with no deal at all.
This is true and the reverse also holds - our government, largely, and almost everyone who voted Leave, also have little understanding or interest in the EU beyond a feeling they don't like it much. This is a much bigger problem, though, because the EU won't do anything fundamentally different because of Brexit while the UK is seriously impacted by it.
If we want a successful negotiation, we need to understand what the EU side actually wants and not what we think it ought to want. We can then trade those things against a shopping list of what we want, which could include top level access to Galileo. From my understanding the EU wants, in order of priority, are:
- Commitment to UK alignment to EU regulations, including but not limited to Northern Ireland. - Shared security. - UK diplomatic support for EU international positions. - Money.
If we offer those, or a good part of them, we should get things in return. The EU no longer cares what the British as an ex-member thinks of them. It won't continue top level access to Galileo etc because we might get upset.
Their Galileo decision shows the relationship only works one way. They want full cooperation from the UK on intelligence/defence matters, yet aren't willing to trust the UK with access to their special satellite program. Wasn't there howls of outrage that the UK was seen as suggesting security could be used as a bargaining chip early in the negotiations?
Any outcome will be a downgrade for us from the status quo. A successful negotiation will see a smaller downgrade than would otherwise happen. That might seem stupid but it's a consequence of Brexit being all downside and no upside.
I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.
The Galileo discussion is probably the best example yet of the EU’s determination to be inflexible and to be seen to punish the UK, even if the reality of the situation is that they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.
We don't need to give the EU lessons about cut noses and spiteful faces. The truth is our nose is at a much bigger risk than the EU's. It's not that I think the EU is inherently more sensible than we are. The point is, Brexit is going to affect us much more than the EU and they know it.
I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.
It's negotiable, but the negotiations will be relative to a no deal baseline, not the status quo.
You don't see the contradiction in their position on the matter?
Think about who it is you're asking lol. Not even Alastair thinks the EU being smart about this satellite stuff. I don't even think @williamglenn thinks its a smart play.
Nor the FT.....
I don’t have a view on this one way or another. But if the EU has lost the FT, then certainly it’s a PR failure.
I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.
It's negotiable, but the negotiations will be relative to a no deal baseline, not the status quo.
You don't see the contradiction in their position on the matter?
Think about who it is you're asking lol. Not even Alastair thinks the EU being smart about this satellite stuff. I don't even think @williamglenn thinks its a smart play.
Nor the FT.....
I don’t have a view on this one way or another. But if the EU has lost the FT, then certainly it’s a PR failure.
If we want a successful negotiation, we need to understand what the EU side actually wants and not what we think it ought to want. We can then trade those things against a shopping list of what we want, which could include top level access to Galileo. From my understanding the EU wants, in order of priority, are:
- Commitment to UK alignment to EU regulations, including but not limited to Northern Ireland. - Shared security. - UK diplomatic support for EU international positions. - Money.
If we offer those, or a good part of them, we should get things in return. The EU no longer cares what the British as an ex-member thinks of them. It won't continue top level access to Galileo etc because we might get upset.
Their Galileo decision shows the relationship only works one way. They want full cooperation from the UK on intelligence/defence matters, yet aren't willing to trust the UK with access to their special satellite program. Wasn't there howls of outrage that the UK was seen as suggesting security could be used as a bargaining chip early in the negotiations?
Any outcome will be a downgrade for us from the status quo. A successful negotiation will see a smaller downgrade than would otherwise happen. That might seem stupid but it's a consequence of Brexit being all downside and no upside.
I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.
The Galileo discussion is probably the best example yet of the EU’s determination to be inflexible and to be seen to punish the UK, even if the reality of the situation is that they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.
We don't need to give the EU lessons about cut noses and spiteful faces. The truth is our nose is at a much bigger risk than the EU's. It's not that I think the EU is inherently more sensible than we are. The point is, Brexit is going to affect us much more than the EU and they know it.
Security and satellites are two areas where the UK has something valuable that the EU would miss. Injdeed had the UK not been a member of the EU I would still have expected us to participate in both respects.
At one point CHINA was part of Galileo. OK, so that was a different project back then, but still.
Their Galileo decision shows the relationship only works one way. They want full cooperation from the UK on intelligence/defence matters, yet aren't willing to trust the UK with access to their special satellite program. Wasn't there howls of outrage that the UK was seen as suggesting security could be used as a bargaining chip early in the negotiations?
Any outcome will be a downgrade for us from the status quo. A successful negotiation will see a smaller downgrade than would otherwise happen. That might seem stupid but it's a consequence of Brexit being all downside and no upside.
I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.
The Galileo discussion is probably the best example yet of the EU’s determination to be inflexible and to be seen to punish the UK, even if the reality of the situation is that they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.
We don't need to give the EU lessons about cut noses and spiteful faces. The truth is our nose is at a much bigger risk than the EU's. It's not that I think the EU is inherently more sensible than we are. The point is, Brexit is going to affect us much more than the EU and they know it.
Security and satellites are two areas where the UK has something valuable that the EU would miss. Injdeed had the UK not been a member of the EU I would still have expected us to participate in both respects.
At one point CHINA was part of Galileo. OK, so that was a different project back then, but still.
Security cooperation is something the EU cares about. They can do satellites themselves. The discussion is about top level access to Galileo data, which is restricted to EU members and is not available to non EU-member associates such as Norway and Switzerland.
In the focus group in Southampton, the men were also keen on a cap on the difference between the pay of executives and their employees, and the nationalisation of the water, energy and rail industries.
But when asked whether the policies belonged to the Conservative or Labour party, three quickly replied in succession: “Conservative”.
When the men were told that the policies belonged to Mr Corbyn’s Labour party, not Theresa May’s Conservatives, they went cold, with one calling them “rubbish”.
“Their sums don’t add up,” said another participant, adding: “Although we haven’t seen the sums. We’re assuming they’re not going to add up.”
Another said the ideas could not be delivered “without ruining the country”
Who on Earth would have thought that utility nationalisation and pay restrictions would be Conservative policies?
In the eighties when you'd have thought that the two parties were pretty clear in what they stood for, I got talking to an old guy on a train. He was very interested in politics and had some very clear ideas of what he wanted. I forget the details, there were a lot of them. In essence he wanted a very controlled economy with a lot of state intervention. As he warmed up it turned out he was a Conservative activist. Based on his opinions you'd imagine he was in the Communist party. And yet when I wondered how well he fitted in with his fellow party members, he was convinced he was in the majority and that the ideas he'd outlined were pretty close to the Conservatives' actual policies.
People are weird.
My Grandfather gave me a copy of the non-economic works of Marx, and also the thoughts of Chairman Mao, with the words "there is a lot of sense in these". He rather liked Tony Benn, but always voted Conservative. On the other hand my Dad used to vote kipper but want to stay in the EU. People are indeed weird!
Not everyone at all times can, wants to or will own their own home at every moment of time. Those who either want to rent or need to rent need homes to rent. Those homes need owners.
Absolutely. I've never aspired to home ownership and can't imagine that I ever will. The idea just doesn't interest me. Even if I were to win the lottery I honestly can't imagine it being something I'd want to do.
Quite. An elderly relative of mine - all his life a diehard hunting, shooting and fishing man - cited that as being astronomically stupid politics.
you mean she should have whipped to repeal?
or (as I would have preferred) made no commitment at all?
She should have kept her mouth shut about it. As my blood-sports supporting relative said, it's an argument that can never be won about a subject that pisses people off.
This is true and the reverse also holds - our government, largely, and almost everyone who voted Leave, also have little understanding or interest in the EU beyond a feeling they don't like it much. This is a much bigger problem, though, because the EU won't do anything fundamentally different because of Brexit while the UK is seriously impacted by it.
If we want a successful negotiation, we need to understand what the EU side actually wants and not what we think it ought to want. We can then trade those things against a shopping list of what we want, which could include top level access to Galileo. From my understanding the EU wants, in order of priority, are:
- Commitment to UK alignment to EU regulations, including but not limited to Northern Ireland. - Shared security. - UK diplomatic support for EU international positions. - Money.
If we offer those, or a good part of them, we should get things in return. The EU no longer cares what the British as an ex-member thinks of them. It won't continue top level access to Galileo etc because we might get upset.
Their Galileo decision shows the relationship only works one way. They want full cooperation from the UK on intelligence/defence matters, yet aren't willing to trust the UK with access to their special satellite program. Wasn't there howls of outrage that the UK was seen as suggesting security could be used as a bargaining chip early in the negotiations?
Any outcome will be a downgrade for us from the status quo. A successful negotiation will see a smaller downgrade than would otherwise happen. That might seem stupid but it's a consequence of Brexit being all downside and no upside.
I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.
The Galileo discussion is probably the best example yet of the EU’s determination to be inflexible and to be seen to punish the UK, even if the reality of the situation is that they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.
We don't need to give the EU lessons about cut noses and spiteful faces. The truth is our nose is at a much bigger risk than the EU's. It's not that I think the EU is inherently more sensible than we are. The point is, Brexit is going to affect us much more than the EU and they know it.
No deal then, with no £39bn and we will commit to no border in NI on our side.
Their Galileo decision shows the relationship only works one way. They want full cooperation from the UK on intelligence/defence matters, yet aren't willing to trust the UK with access to their special satellite program. Wasn't there howls of outrage that the UK was seen as suggesting security could be used as a bargaining chip early in the negotiations?
Any outcome will be a downgrade for us from the status quo. A successful negotiation will see a smaller downgrade than would otherwise happen. That might seem stupid but it's a consequence of Brexit being all downside and no upside.
I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.
The Galileo discussion is probably the best example yet of the EU’s determination to be inflexible and to be seen to punish the UK, even if the reality of the situation is that they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.
We don't need to give the EU lessons about cut noses and spiteful faces. The truth is our nose is at a much bigger risk than the EU's. It's not that I think the EU is inherently more sensible than we are. The point is, Brexit is going to affect us much more than the EU and they know it.
Security and satellites are two areas where the UK has something valuable that the EU would miss. Injdeed had the UK not been a member of the EU I would still have expected us to participate in both respects.
At one point CHINA was part of Galileo. OK, so that was a different project back then, but still.
Security cooperation is something the EU cares about. They can do satellites themselves. The discussion is about top level access to Galileo data, which is restricted to EU members and is not available to non EU-member associates such as Norway and Switzerland.
Perhaps UK intelligence should be restricted to Five Eyes members only. The EU are more than happy to trust the UK when it comes to getting intelligence. But trusting them with access to their satellites, oh no!
The Galileo discussion is probably the best example yet of the EU’s determination to be inflexible and to be seen to punish the UK, even if the reality of the situation is that they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.
We don't need to give the EU lessons about cut noses and spiteful faces. The truth is our nose is at a much bigger risk than the EU's. It's not that I think the EU is inherently more sensible than we are. The point is, Brexit is going to affect us much more than the EU and they know it.
No deal then, with no £39bn and we will commit to no border in NI on our side.
And no nose for us, while the EU nose will be largely intact. I don't think so. We might crash out, but we will be looking for a deal soon enough.
Any outcome will be a downgrade for us from the status quo. A successful negotiation will see a smaller downgrade than would otherwise happen. That might seem stupid but it's a consequence of Brexit being all downside and no upside.
I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.
The Galileo discussion is probably the best example yet of the EU’s determination to be inflexible and to be seen to punish the UK, even if the reality of the situation is that they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.
We don't need to give the EU lessons about cut noses and spiteful faces. The truth is our nose is at a much bigger risk than the EU's. It's not that I think the EU is inherently more sensible than we are. The point is, Brexit is going to affect us much more than the EU and they know it.
Security and satellites are two areas where the UK has something valuable that the EU would miss. Injdeed had the UK not been a member of the EU I would still have expected us to participate in both respects.
At one point CHINA was part of Galileo. OK, so that was a different project back then, but still.
Security cooperation is something the EU cares about. They can do satellites themselves. The discussion is about top level access to Galileo data, which is restricted to EU members and is not available to non EU-member associates such as Norway and Switzerland.
German MEP Christian Ehler doesn't think the EU can "do the satellites themselves". Or at least, not as well as with us.
Any outcome will be a downgrade for us from the status quo. A successful negotiation will see a smaller downgrade than would otherwise happen. That might seem stupid but it's a consequence of Brexit being all downside and no upside.
I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.
The Galileo discussion is probably the best example yet of the EU’s determination to be inflexible and to be seen to punish the UK, even if the reality of the situation is that they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.
We don't need to give the EU lessons about cut noses and spiteful faces. The truth is our nose is at a much bigger risk than the EU's. It's not that I think the EU is inherently more sensible than we are. The point is, Brexit is going to affect us much more than the EU and they know it.
Security and satellites are two areas where the UK has something valuable that the EU would miss. Injdeed had the UK not been a member of the EU I would still have expected us to participate in both respects.
At one point CHINA was part of Galileo. OK, so that was a different project back then, but still.
Security cooperation is something the EU cares about. They can do satellites themselves. The discussion is about top level access to Galileo data, which is restricted to EU members and is not available to non EU-member associates such as Norway and Switzerland.
German MEP Christian Ehler doesn't think the EU can "do the satellites themselves". Or at least, not as well as with us.
If so that's a bargaining chip for us. I suspect EU countries would be happy for UK based companies to move their operations to the EU, however.
The laughable thing is that what Sandpit means in practice is, "We'll control the border at Holyhead and Liverpool and let the EU do what they like with the other side."
Any outcome will be a downgrade for us from the status quo. A successful negotiation will see a smaller downgrade than would otherwise happen. That might seem stupid but it's a consequence of Brexit being all downside and no upside.
I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.
The Galileo discussion is probably the best example yet of the EU’s determination to be inflexible and to be seen to punish the UK, even if the reality of the situation is that they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.
We don't need to give the EU lessons about cut noses and spiteful faces. The truth is our nose is at a much bigger risk than the EU's. It's not that I think the EU is inherently more sensible than we are. The point is, Brexit is going to affect us much more than the EU and they know it.
Security and satellites are two areas where the UK has something valuable that the EU would miss. Injdeed had the UK not been a member of the EU I would still have expected us to participate in both respects.
At one point CHINA was part of Galileo. OK, so that was a different project back then, but still.
Security cooperation is something the EU cares about. They can do satellites themselves. The discussion is about top level access to Galileo data, which is restricted to EU members and is not available to non EU-member associates such as Norway and Switzerland.
German MEP Christian Ehler doesn't think the EU can "do the satellites themselves". Or at least, not as well as with us.
Does he have special knowledge, or is he just an average (too thick to be in the national Parliament) MEP?
Any outcome will be a downgrade for us from the status quo. A successful negotiation will see a smaller downgrade than would otherwise happen. That might seem stupid but it's a consequence of Brexit being all downside and no upside.
I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.
The Galileo discussion is probably the best example yet of the EU’s determination to be inflexible and to be seen to punish the UK, even if the reality of the situation is that they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.
We don't need to give the EU lessons about cut noses and spiteful faces. The truth is our nose is at a much bigger risk than the EU's. It's not that I think the EU is inherently more sensible than we are. The point is, Brexit is going to affect us much more than the EU and they know it.
Security and satellites are two areas where the UK has something valuable that the EU would miss. Injdeed had the UK not been a member of the EU I would still have expected us to participate in both respects.
At one point CHINA was part of Galileo. OK, so that was a different project back then, but still.
Security cooperation is something the EU cares about. They can do satellites themselves. The discussion is about top level access to Galileo data, which is restricted to EU members and is not available to non EU-member associates such as Norway and Switzerland.
German MEP Christian Ehler doesn't think the EU can "do the satellites themselves". Or at least, not as well as with us.
Does he have special knowledge, or is he just an average (too thick to be in the national Parliament) MEP?
Vice-chair of the subcommittee of security and defence, according to the EU's website. Not sure what that means in terms of access to secret information on the project though.
As the old saying goes - "Your opponents are in front of you, your enemies behind you....."
Cannon to right of them, Cannon to left of them, Cannon in front of them Volley'd and thunder'd; Storm'd at with shot and shell, Boldly they rode and well, Into the jaws of Death, Into the mouth of Hell Rode the six hundred.
Any outcome will be a downgrade for us from the status quo. A successful negotiation will see a smaller downgrade than would otherwise happen. That might seem stupid but it's a consequence of Brexit being all downside and no upside.
I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.
The Galileo discussion is probably the best example yet of the EU’s determination to be inflexible and to be seen to punish the UK, even if the reality of the situation is that they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.
We don't need to give the EU lessons about cut noses and spiteful faces. The truth is our nose is at a much bigger risk than the EU's. It's not that I think the EU is inherently more sensible than we are. The point is, Brexit is going to affect us much more than the EU and they know it.
Security and satellites are two areas where the UK has something valuable that the EU would miss. Injdeed had the UK not been a member of the EU I would still have expected us to participate in both respects.
At one point CHINA was part of Galileo. OK, so that was a different project back then, but still.
Security cooperation is something the EU cares about. They can do satellites themselves. The discussion is about top level access to Galileo data, which is restricted to EU members and is not available to non EU-member associates such as Norway and Switzerland.
German MEP Christian Ehler doesn't think the EU can "do the satellites themselves". Or at least, not as well as with us.
Does he have special knowledge, or is he just an average (too thick to be in the national Parliament) MEP?
Well a friend of mine from uni who does this kind of stuff said it would be very tough for the EU to replicate what the UK provides in terms of the locations and expertise to the project. Oddly the UK has enough overseas territory and trusted allies to build out our own system but the EU might struggle to securely locate all of their ground stations in appropriate parts of the world. It could mean intermittent gaps in the service or paying for a military presence in non aligned nations.
As the old saying goes - "Your opponents are in front of you, your enemies behind you....."
Cannon to right of them, Cannon to left of them, Cannon in front of them Volley'd and thunder'd; Storm'd at with shot and shell, Boldly they rode and well, Into the jaws of Death, Into the mouth of Hell Rode the six hundred.
Any outcome will be a downgrade for us from the status quo. A successful negotiation will see a smaller downgrade than would otherwise happen. That might seem stupid but it's a consequence of Brexit being all downside and no upside.
I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.
The Galileo discussion is probably the best example yet of the EU’s determination to be inflexible and to be seen to punish the UK, even if the reality of the situation is that they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.
We don't need to give the EU lessons about cut noses and spiteful faces. The truth is our nose is at a much bigger risk than the EU's. It's not that I think the EU is inherently more sensible than we are. The point is, Brexit is going to affect us much more than the EU and they know it.
Security and satellites are two areas where the UK has something valuable that the EU would miss. Injdeed had the UK not been a member of the EU I would still have expected us to participate in both respects.
At one point CHINA was part of Galileo. OK, so that was a different project back then, but still.
Security cooperation is something the EU cares about. They can do satellites themselves. The discussion is about top level access to Galileo data, which is restricted to EU members and is not available to non EU-member associates such as Norway and Switzerland.
German MEP Christian Ehler doesn't think the EU can "do the satellites themselves". Or at least, not as well as with us.
Does he have special knowledge, or is he just an average (too thick to be in the national Parliament) MEP?
Mr Ehler is talking common sense. Are you sure you have read @TheWhiteRabbit post properly ?
It wasn’t good enough for the leader to routinely defer to his shadow chancellor when confronted with a difficult decision – a shadow chancellor who on three separate occasions undermined my efforts to agree collective positions on health matters.
It wasn’t good enough for the leader to say one thing to me, only for his political secretary to phone a day later and say: “He may have said that, but I know what he really thinks.”
It wasn’t good enough for the leader to read his position from a typed up script at shadow cabinet meetings discussing the prospect of military action against Isis in Syria or the EU referendum.
And it wasn’t good enough that whenever he appeared on TV, his description of a process, or his analysis of a problem, ended in confusion or despair on the party’s position – article 50, counterterrorism, “7.5 out of 10” on Brexit.
That sounds like a good argument for the Lib Dem campaign. What are the current odds?
Any outcome will be a downgrade for us from the status quo. A successful negotiation will see a smaller downgrade than would otherwise happen. That might seem stupid but it's a consequence of Brexit being all downside and no upside.
I thought the EU wanted to continue with existing security/defence treaties and agreements? Saying that they can't trust the UK with access to their satellites while at the same time lapping up all the intelligence they can get their hands on seems a bit ridiculous.
The Galileo discussion is probably the best example yet of the EU’s determination to be inflexible and to be seen to punish the UK, even if the reality of the situation is that they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.
We don't need to give the EU lessons about cut noses and spiteful faces. The truth is our nose is at a much bigger risk than the EU's. It's not that I think the EU is inherently more sensible than we are. The point is, Brexit is going to affect us much more than the EU and they know it.
Security and satellites are two areas where the UK has something valuable that the EU would miss. Injdeed had the UK not been a member of the EU I would still have expected us to participate in both respects.
At one point CHINA was part of Galileo. OK, so that was a different project back then, but still.
Security cooperation is something the EU cares about. They can do satellites themselves. The discussion is about top level access to Galileo data, which is restricted to EU members and is not available to non EU-member associates such as Norway and Switzerland.
German MEP Christian Ehler doesn't think the EU can "do the satellites themselves". Or at least, not as well as with us.
Does he have special knowledge, or is he just an average (too thick to be in the national Parliament) MEP?
Well a friend of mine from uni who does this kind of stuff said it would be very tough for the EU to replicate what the UK provides in terms of the locations and expertise to the project. Oddly the UK has enough overseas territory and trusted allies to build out our own system but the EU might struggle to securely locate all of their ground stations in appropriate parts of the world. It could mean intermittent gaps in the service or paying for a military presence in non aligned nations.
How many ground stations do you need for a satellite navigation system? I know A-GPS uses ground stations, but I assumed Glonass, Galileo and the Chinese one didn't bother.
West Virginia Third Congressional District Primary Update
(Much more interesting than Brexit...)
The Republican primary garnered 37,600 votes in total. The Democratic one 57,300. That's a massive difference, and is completely unprecedented in what is normally a safe Republican District.
Bear in mind the winner this year will probably only need 70,000 votes in November to take the District. Also bear in mind that in polls, Ojeda was more popular - with Republicans - than any of their candidates.
This is a Congressional District Trump won 74-24. It will be a Democratic pick-up by future President Richard Ojeda.
It wasn’t good enough for the leader to routinely defer to his shadow chancellor when confronted with a difficult decision – a shadow chancellor who on three separate occasions undermined my efforts to agree collective positions on health matters.
It wasn’t good enough for the leader to say one thing to me, only for his political secretary to phone a day later and say: “He may have said that, but I know what he really thinks.”
It wasn’t good enough for the leader to read his position from a typed up script at shadow cabinet meetings discussing the prospect of military action against Isis in Syria or the EU referendum.
And it wasn’t good enough that whenever he appeared on TV, his description of a process, or his analysis of a problem, ended in confusion or despair on the party’s position – article 50, counterterrorism, “7.5 out of 10” on Brexit.
I think it simply confirms what we already knew, Jezza is as thick as mince.
West Virginia Third Congressional District Primary Update
(Much more interesting than Brexit...)
The Republican primary garnered 37,600 votes in total. The Democratic one 57,300. That's a massive difference, and is completely unprecedented in what is normally a safe Republican District.
Bear in mind the winner this year will probably only need 70,000 votes in November to take the District. Also bear in mind that in polls, Ojeda was more popular - with Republicans - than any of their candidates.
This is a Congressional District Trump won 74-24. It will be a Democratic pick-up by future President Richard Ojeda.
Get your money on now.
Get your money on where? Where can you bet on W. Virginia Third?
Exactly. The EU tells us to string up the razor wire, we tell them to bugger off.
The EU doesn't tell us to do anything.
It's the headbangers who are squealing about controlling our borders. It's clear they don't regard the border in Ireland as "ours"
How do we tell them to bugger off?
We don't want to impose tariffs on imports from the EU - nothing to control
We don't want to stop EU citizens visiting the UK - nothing to control
We want to decide who gets the right to live and work here - you don't control this on the border
Now please explain why the EU wants us to string up the razor wire across the Emerald Isle.
We can have an open border with the EU without an FTA as long as it's open to all goods free of restriction from anywhere in the world. Otherwise we will foul of WTO MFN (most favoured nation) rules. There are two issues with that. Firstly a number of sensitive industries will be wiped out - farming, steel, automotive manufacturing etc. Secondly don't expect third countries to reciprocate for their imports from us. We will lose the preferential trading arrangements we had as an EU member.
West Virginia Third Congressional District Primary Update
(Much more interesting than Brexit...)
The Republican primary garnered 37,600 votes in total. The Democratic one 57,300. That's a massive difference, and is completely unprecedented in what is normally a safe Republican District.
Bear in mind the winner this year will probably only need 70,000 votes in November to take the District. Also bear in mind that in polls, Ojeda was more popular - with Republicans - than any of their candidates.
This is a Congressional District Trump won 74-24. It will be a Democratic pick-up by future President Richard Ojeda.
Get your money on now.
Get your money on where? Where can you bet on W. Virginia Third?
If Trump wins in 2020, Ojeda could be the Democratic nominee in 2024.
All this talk about security partnerships and the like ...... if Corbyn becomes PM the EU would be quite right not to trust the UK on security matters. I don’t suppose the other 4 Eyes would either.
West Virginia Third Congressional District Primary Update
(Much more interesting than Brexit...)
The Republican primary garnered 37,600 votes in total. The Democratic one 57,300. That's a massive difference, and is completely unprecedented in what is normally a safe Republican District.
Bear in mind the winner this year will probably only need 70,000 votes in November to take the District. Also bear in mind that in polls, Ojeda was more popular - with Republicans - than any of their candidates.
This is a Congressional District Trump won 74-24. It will be a Democratic pick-up by future President Richard Ojeda.
Get your money on now.
Get your money on where? Where can you bet on W. Virginia Third?
If Trump wins in 2020, Ojeda could be the Democratic nominee in 2024.
Where can you bet on Democratic nominee in 2024? And IMO that's just too far away, I'd want something like 1,000-1 for it to be worth it.
I think I just heard on the 1 o'clock news that though the Europeans want to continue the Iran deal it's unlikely to hold because European firms including British ones who deal with Iran are likely to be boycotted by the US. Something no country can afford.
If ever there was a necessity for a strong EU with all hands to the pumps this is it. Are the UK seriously prepared to allow itself and the rest of the EU and Europe to be held to ransom by a lunatic?
This is one of those issues that has nothing to do with the EU per se or their relationship with the UK. Britain, Germany and France are standing firm on opposition to the Trump decision over Iran and there is absolutely no suggestion that the UK is considering taking a different line to either Germany or France (or China and Russia for that matter) on this.
Comments
I'm not sure he's ever recovered since.
I'm not against someone buying a derelict property, spending money on it and letting it. I'm also not against someone buying land, building property and letting it. What I am against is people buying ready made flats and houses then renting them out to people who would probably have preferred to buy it but were priced out by the "investors".
Whereas May even now can not make decision and stand and fight for it.In my opinion she is a decent woman but a terrible leader.
I don’t have one but again I fail to see what’s wrong with them in general. I can see a case for local-specific restrictions (to avoid graveyarding certain parts of Cornwall, for eg) but otherwise not.
All of these bete noires - the BTL’ers, the second-home owners, the foreigners who buy off-plan - are just convenient demons.
They are symptoms, not cause, and none immoral or unwelcome in their own right.
So if you want no more stupidly unaffordable houses the thing to do is to prevent people coming from abroad and buying property in prime London locations.
As it is, your contentions seem communistic.
If we want more housing, why can’t we just build some more? We don’t ration other goods in the way you suggest.
It is in fact the de facto rationing we already have, and certain tax advantages, that has caused people to favour property as an asset class.
And build more houses. Lots more houses.
If we want a successful negotiation, we need to understand what the EU side actually wants and not what we think it ought to want. We can then trade those things against a shopping list of what we want, which could include top level access to Galileo. From my understanding the EU wants, in order of priority, are:
- Commitment to UK alignment to EU regulations, including but not limited to Northern Ireland.
- Shared security.
- UK diplomatic support for EU international positions.
- Money.
If we offer those, or a good part of them, we should get things in return. The EU no longer cares what the British as an ex-member thinks of them. It won't continue top level access to Galileo etc because we might get upset.
But it is true that since the 1990s, certain cities have done disproportionately well. There is greater demand to live in London, but also Paris, San Francisco and Cambridge. House prices have spiked in all of these places, because people want to/need toaccess local job markets.
What I'm saying is that we've got a situation where 0.9m people own 5.5m properties. That is not sustainable.
Their choice:
"The arrangements for any UK cooperation on Galileo are an important test case of the depth of operational cooperation and information sharing envisaged under the Security Partnership."
It wasn’t good enough for the leader to routinely defer to his shadow chancellor when confronted with a difficult decision – a shadow chancellor who on three separate occasions undermined my efforts to agree collective positions on health matters.
It wasn’t good enough for the leader to say one thing to me, only for his political secretary to phone a day later and say: “He may have said that, but I know what he really thinks.”
It wasn’t good enough for the leader to read his position from a typed up script at shadow cabinet meetings discussing the prospect of military action against Isis in Syria or the EU referendum.
And it wasn’t good enough that whenever he appeared on TV, his description of a process, or his analysis of a problem, ended in confusion or despair on the party’s position – article 50, counterterrorism, “7.5 out of 10” on Brexit.
No longer aligning with EU regulations is why we're leaving.
Not everyone at all times can, wants to or will own their own home at every moment of time. Those who either want to rent or need to rent need homes to rent. Those homes need owners.
http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Thanks-Satan-In-Wreck-It-Ralph-Gif.gif
People are weird.
But if the EU has lost the FT, then certainly it’s a PR failure.
At one point CHINA was part of Galileo. OK, so that was a different project back then, but still.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/09/three-us-detainees-freed-north-korea-mike-pompeo-visit/
or (as I would have preferred) made no commitment at all?
https://twitter.com/chris__curtis/status/994188794910986240?s=19
Ummmm, no, not that one...
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.
Some c*** has blunder’d.
It's the headbangers who are squealing about controlling our borders. It's clear they don't regard the border in Ireland as "ours"
How do we tell them to bugger off?
We don't want to stop EU citizens visiting the UK - nothing to control
We want to decide who gets the right to live and work here - you don't control this on the border
Now please explain why the EU wants us to string up the razor wire across the Emerald Isle.
(Much more interesting than Brexit...)
The Republican primary garnered 37,600 votes in total. The Democratic one 57,300. That's a massive difference, and is completely unprecedented in what is normally a safe Republican District.
Bear in mind the winner this year will probably only need 70,000 votes in November to take the District. Also bear in mind that in polls, Ojeda was more popular - with Republicans - than any of their candidates.
This is a Congressional District Trump won 74-24. It will be a Democratic pick-up by future President Richard Ojeda.
Get your money on now.
And IMO that's just too far away, I'd want something like 1,000-1 for it to be worth it.