RugbyRebels

Zhivago wrote:Diane Abbott should be nowhere near government.

I really don't think there's any danger of it....

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

canta_brian wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39770328

Theresa with a masterclass in diplomacy, totally dismissing the reports of a difficult meeting over brexit as Brussels gossip.

This may play well with the section of the electorate who will only ever vote tory anyway, but is hardly likely to help when the brexit negotiations start in earnest.

It was always going to be this. The EU is too important to some European leaders to let practical stuff like economics get in the way. This is all about punishing Britain for leaving and sending a clear message to other countries.

Two scenarios:
A) Brexit and EU reforms
B) Brexit and EU disintegrates

Which one is better economically?

It's fair to say that if Brexit goes fine, and Britain keeps its perks, then it reduces the point of being in the EU... And B is a dangerous possibility.

Is there appetite for reform? I suspect Brexit will result in more federalisation, but is that necessarily reform? And we seem to be agreeing here, Britain must be punished (in the Eus eyes) for daring to leave the club. Ideology is trumping any thoughts about economics and the benefits of good relations with a major economic player or the alternative.

Zhivago wrote:Diane Abbott should be nowhere near government.

No arguments here. She is a buffoon of the highest order, but loyal to Corbyn so that makes up for her numerous mistakes.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Diane Abbott should be nowhere near government.

No arguments here. She is a buffoon of the highest order, but loyal to Corbyn so that makes up for her numerous mistakes.

Anyone daft enough to support JC will come across as a buffoon.

Ed Milliband owes us all a big apology for pandering to the Unions and telling them they should ignore his brother and reality, christ what a mess

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: It was always going to be this. The EU is too important to some European leaders to let practical stuff like economics get in the way. This is all about punishing Britain for leaving and sending a clear message to other countries.

Two scenarios:
A) Brexit and EU reforms
B) Brexit and EU disintegrates

Which one is better economically?

It's fair to say that if Brexit goes fine, and Britain keeps its perks, then it reduces the point of being in the EU... And B is a dangerous possibility.

Is there appetite for reform? I suspect Brexit will result in more federalisation, but is that necessarily reform? And we seem to be agreeing here, Britain must be punished (in the Eus eyes) for daring to leave the club. Ideology is trumping any thoughts about economics and the benefits of good relations with a major economic player or the alternative.

I can't imagine they'll want to punish Britain, rather they'll seek to give us the best deal they can for a country not in the union. That very likely will hurt us economically, but it was rather our choice

Stones of granite wrote:So, the British media continue to undermine the Labour General Election campaign.

I'd have thought Labour are doing a good enough job of that themselves.

Stones of granite wrote: Diane Abbott: What I'm saying about the costs is in year one, obviously, we're getting ready to recruit. But in year two, the cost will be £64.3million. In year three, the cost will be a £139.1million, year four, the cost will be £217million and year five, the cost will be £298million. And that can be amply covered by reversing the cuts to Capital Gains Tax.[/i]

That doesn't include training, which Notts police estmate at £12.9k/officer and kitting out the officers with the appropriate uniforms and equipment. So they haven't allowed for at least an additional £129million just on training over that time.

Big D wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: Diane Abbott: What I'm saying about the costs is in year one, obviously, we're getting ready to recruit. But in year two, the cost will be £64.3million. In year three, the cost will be a £139.1million, year four, the cost will be £217million and year five, the cost will be £298million. And that can be amply covered by reversing the cuts to Capital Gains Tax.[/i]

That doesn't include training, which Notts police estmate at £12.9k/officer and kitting out the officers with the appropriate uniforms and equipment. So they haven't allowed for at least an additional £129million just on training over that time.

That's just embarrassing really. It looks like Labour have looked at Police pay scales and asked themselves ' how much does a constable earn' and multiplied that by the number they are looking to recruit without considering the other overheads. This sounds like a policy statement made on the fly, or near enough, without any real research. I'm sure HMIC or any of the police forces in the country, or perhaps the Home Office which DA wants to lead, would be able to supply Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition with the actual capitation rates, for each rank. Rocket science it aint.

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Two scenarios:
A) Brexit and EU reforms
B) Brexit and EU disintegrates

Which one is better economically?

It's fair to say that if Brexit goes fine, and Britain keeps its perks, then it reduces the point of being in the EU... And B is a dangerous possibility.

Is there appetite for reform? I suspect Brexit will result in more federalisation, but is that necessarily reform? And we seem to be agreeing here, Britain must be punished (in the Eus eyes) for daring to leave the club. Ideology is trumping any thoughts about economics and the benefits of good relations with a major economic player or the alternative.

I can't imagine they'll want to punish Britain, rather they'll seek to give us the best deal they can for a country not in the union. That very likely will hurt us economically, but it was rather our choice

Im not so sure. Some of the antics thus far have been far from productive (on both sides to be fair) but the leaking of Junker's meeting with May is below the belt in terms of building an actual working relationship.

I didn't expect this to be easy, not by a long chalk, but I was hoping that the charade of working together would have lasted just a little bit longer. I'm also questioning why the EU is finding it appropriate to make disparaging comments about the UK, and its current political leadership, during an election campaign.

This by the very good Ian Dunt, who really knows about this Brexit stuff, is a neat summary http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/05 ... looks-like

fivepointer wrote:This by the very good Ian Dunt, who really knows about this Brexit stuff, is a neat summary http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/05 ... looks-like

I'd largely agree with that, although by no means have the EU been entirely reasonable in all this either.

The utterly stupid and depressing thing about all this is the reliance that we have on each other. Yet both sides seem to be quite happy engaging in diplomatic dick waving rather than compromising. Juncker, for example, insulting our political leadership is hardly helpful.

fivepointer wrote:This by the very good Ian Dunt, who really knows about this Brexit stuff, is a neat summary http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/05 ... looks-like

For me, this quote sums it up.

It is not taking back control. You just act like you're in control. It is actually about losing control.

Sandydragon wrote:

fivepointer wrote:This by the very good Ian Dunt, who really knows about this Brexit stuff, is a neat summary http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/05 ... looks-like

I'd largely agree with that, although by no means have the EU been entirely reasonable in all this either.

The utterly stupid and depressing thing about all this is the reliance that we have on each other. Yet both sides seem to be quite happy engaging in diplomatic dick waving rather than compromising. Juncker, for example, insulting our political leadership is hardly helpful.

When our politicians are telling us all how they're going to set those Johnny Foreigners right and tell them how it's going to be, it can hardly be a surprise when the Johnny Foreigners turn around and remind us who actually holds all the good cards.

Stones of granite wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

fivepointer wrote:This by the very good Ian Dunt, who really knows about this Brexit stuff, is a neat summary http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/05 ... looks-like

I'd largely agree with that, although by no means have the EU been entirely reasonable in all this either.

The utterly stupid and depressing thing about all this is the reliance that we have on each other. Yet both sides seem to be quite happy engaging in diplomatic dick waving rather than compromising. Juncker, for example, insulting our political leadership is hardly helpful.

When our politicians are telling us all how they're going to set those Johnny Foreigners right and tell them how it's going to be, it can hardly be a surprise when the Johnny Foreigners turn around and remind us who actually holds all the good cards.

This, 10 x this.



Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

Adder wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: I'd largely agree with that, although by no means have the EU been entirely reasonable in all this either.

The utterly stupid and depressing thing about all this is the reliance that we have on each other. Yet both sides seem to be quite happy engaging in diplomatic dick waving rather than compromising. Juncker, for example, insulting our political leadership is hardly helpful.

When our politicians are telling us all how they're going to set those Johnny Foreigners right and tell them how it's going to be, it can hardly be a surprise when the Johnny Foreigners turn around and remind us who actually holds all the good cards.

This, 10 x this.

Yup, it's tit for tat, and in playground parlance; we - most definitely - started it.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Is there appetite for reform? I suspect Brexit will result in more federalisation, but is that necessarily reform? And we seem to be agreeing here, Britain must be punished (in the Eus eyes) for daring to leave the club. Ideology is trumping any thoughts about economics and the benefits of good relations with a major economic player or the alternative.

I can't imagine they'll want to punish Britain, rather they'll seek to give us the best deal they can for a country not in the union. That very likely will hurt us economically, but it was rather our choice

Im not so sure. Some of the antics thus far have been far from productive (on both sides to be fair) but the leaking of Junker's meeting with May is below the belt in terms of building an actual working relationship.

I didn't expect this to be easy, not by a long chalk, but I was hoping that the charade of working together would have lasted just a little bit longer. I'm also questioning why the EU is finding it appropriate to make disparaging comments about the UK, and its current political leadership, during an election campaign.

I think the supposed leaks from the meeting are irrelevant. As are any disparaging remarks made by both sides.

What does seem of massive importance is the possibility of the French pushing for CAP to remain and for future UK contributions, at some point France needs sitting on over CAP whether we leave or not

Can't we just have an election which isn't influenced by baddie foreigners anymore?

May's ridiculous and I fear potentially very damaging outburst convinces me she is on course to be our woorst ever PM. After the disastrous Cameron that is some going.
Neither she, nor Corbyn, are remotely good enough to be leaders of our two main political parties.
We deserve a great deal better than these two numbingly awful mediocrities.
Our politics is in a very sorry state.

fivepointer wrote:May's ridiculous and I fear potentially very damaging outburst convinces me she is on course to be our woorst ever PM. After the disastrous Cameron that is some going.
Neither she, nor Corbyn, are remotely good enough to be leaders of our two main political parties.
We deserve a great deal better than these two numbingly awful mediocrities.
Our politics is in a very sorry state.

Absolutely

Stones of granite wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

fivepointer wrote:This by the very good Ian Dunt, who really knows about this Brexit stuff, is a neat summary http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/05 ... looks-like

I'd largely agree with that, although by no means have the EU been entirely reasonable in all this either.

The utterly stupid and depressing thing about all this is the reliance that we have on each other. Yet both sides seem to be quite happy engaging in diplomatic dick waving rather than compromising. Juncker, for example, insulting our political leadership is hardly helpful.

When our politicians are telling us all how they're going to set those Johnny Foreigners right and tell them how it's going to be, it can hardly be a surprise when the Johnny Foreigners turn around and remind us who actually holds all the good cards.

Not all of the cards, this can still,be a lose lose situation.

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:
I can't imagine they'll want to punish Britain, rather they'll seek to give us the best deal they can for a country not in the union. That very likely will hurt us economically, but it was rather our choice

Im not so sure. Some of the antics thus far have been far from productive (on both sides to be fair) but the leaking of Junker's meeting with May is below the belt in terms of building an actual working relationship.

I didn't expect this to be easy, not by a long chalk, but I was hoping that the charade of working together would have lasted just a little bit longer. I'm also questioning why the EU is finding it appropriate to make disparaging comments about the UK, and its current political leadership, during an election campaign.

I think the supposed leaks from the meeting are irrelevant. As are any disparaging remarks made by both sides.

What does seem of massive importance is the possibility of the French pushing for CAP to remain and for future UK contributions, at some point France needs sitting on over CAP whether we leave or not

The final divorce sum needs clarity. First 60million, now 100 million. Given the stakes, it would be helpful if the EU could work out the amount first and then stick to it.

However, this will end in failure for the simple reason that in the next two years, the U.K. And EU might agree a deal, it what are the chances of every EU government ratifying it?

I can't see much alternative to hard Brexit and years of animosity thereafter.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Im not so sure. Some of the antics thus far have been far from productive (on both sides to be fair) but the leaking of Junker's meeting with May is below the belt in terms of building an actual working relationship.

I didn't expect this to be easy, not by a long chalk, but I was hoping that the charade of working together would have lasted just a little bit longer. I'm also questioning why the EU is finding it appropriate to make disparaging comments about the UK, and its current political leadership, during an election campaign.

I think the supposed leaks from the meeting are irrelevant. As are any disparaging remarks made by both sides.

What does seem of massive importance is the possibility of the French pushing for CAP to remain and for future UK contributions, at some point France needs sitting on over CAP whether we leave or not

The final divorce sum needs clarity. First 60million, now 100 million. Given the stakes, it would be helpful if the EU could work out the amount first and then stick to it.

However, this will end in failure for the simple reason that in the next two years, the U.K. And EU might agree a deal, it what are the chances of every EU government ratifying it?

I can't see much alternative to hard Brexit and years of animosity thereafter.

The French will not let CAP go, their farmers have them by the testes. Many have tried, all have failed. Along with the ludicrous situation of two parliaments it's quite simply the most obvious example of self-interest and headline diplomacy that undermines the whole EU. Not to mention they're both a huge waste of money. Not that wasting money on a grand scale is something the EU worries about.

It will be a hard-Brexit as the EU are demanding a financial settlement before anything else. It's akin to a divorce in which the parents squabble about who keeps the properties, cars and investments and then discuss child care arrangements later. It sets out a hard stance from day 1. Don't get me wrong, we should pay what we'd promised we'd pay until 2020 - even if we did try and insist on some form of austerity - but it shows the EU in a bad light to demand on this order of events. That's before you get to the fact that Juncker is not shy of telling anyone who'll listen that he'd rather protect the EU than the average man on the street.

The chances of a deal being reached in two years is, as you say, highly unlikely. Kudos to the EU for being as democratic as possible over this. It's a shame they aren't so keen on democracy in all areas. But that's the EU in microcosm - good things, bad things and a whole lot of hypocrisy in between the two.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Im not so sure. Some of the antics thus far have been far from productive (on both sides to be fair) but the leaking of Junker's meeting with May is below the belt in terms of building an actual working relationship.

I didn't expect this to be easy, not by a long chalk, but I was hoping that the charade of working together would have lasted just a little bit longer. I'm also questioning why the EU is finding it appropriate to make disparaging comments about the UK, and its current political leadership, during an election campaign.

I think the supposed leaks from the meeting are irrelevant. As are any disparaging remarks made by both sides.

What does seem of massive importance is the possibility of the French pushing for CAP to remain and for future UK contributions, at some point France needs sitting on over CAP whether we leave or not

The final divorce sum needs clarity. First 60million, now 100 million. Given the stakes, it would be helpful if the EU could work out the amount first and then stick to it.

However, this will end in failure for the simple reason that in the next two years, the U.K. And EU might agree a deal, it what are the chances of every EU government ratifying it?

I can't see much alternative to hard Brexit and years of animosity thereafter.

Billion, not million. And there are different ways to count what will be owed and what our share of that might be

And getting everyone (including the Walloons) to sign off on it will likely prove annoying as people seek to wrangle last minute changes, though we were assured this is easier than having to be part of the EU so who knows

Sandydragon wrote: The utterly stupid and depressing thing about all this is the reliance that we have on each other. Yet both sides seem to be quite happy engaging in diplomatic dick waving rather than compromising. Juncker, for example, insulting our political leadership is hardly helpful.

It's only stupid and depressing because the UK is unilaterally jumping ship. You cannot blame the EU for the outcome.

Most worrying, stupid and depressing is the simple fact of the pound having lost 20% of it's value since the vote.
Very few people seem willing to even mention this situation and even worse it suddenly seems to be a method of checks and balances that the Establishment have decided to utterly ignore.

So far it's been a pathetically bad night for Glorious Leader™ though Labour wouldn't be wholly wrong to note the turnout was similarly pathetic