RugbyRebels

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Do you not?

He reminds me a bit of Mandelson, bright, creative, hard working, horrible people skills, and every few months reacting with horror as drops the ball in spectacular style

He is an excellent support player. Lots of big ideas about how to reform things, often for the better. He needs a sanity checker and someone to front that as he doesn’t communicate well.

Pretty much why I thought the Boris - Gove ticket would win until theycommitted suicide. Gove doing the thinking and Boris doing the selling.

More noises about Brexit being delayed to allow more time for an agreement. I wonder at what point the ERG will attempt a leadership challenge?

Sandydragon wrote:More noises about Bruexit being delayed to allow more time for an agreement. I wonder at what point the ERG will attempt a leadership challenge?

If they're actually going to start getting into specifics on trade and compromising line by line then extending transition is a good idea, but there has to be a concern we're just kicking the can down the road

Not sure what erg can do, they don't agree a route forward on brexit and they know too they'd possibly lose brexit and lose government, still at least they'd be rid of the DUP, they must loathe dealing with fanatics who refuse the idea of compromise

Can May's only possible retention of any credibility come about with a WTO/no-payment exit conclusion? Has she been lining that up all along by throwing every concession possible in front of the EU so that she can claim to have tried everything in vain? Or, is she just stupid?

Oakboy wrote:Can May's only possible retention of any credibility come about with a WTO/no-payment exit conclusion? Has she been lining that up all along by throwing every concession possible in front of the EU so that she can claim to have tried everything in vain? Or, is she just stupid?

That outcome would shit on our economy so it's hard to see how it'd play out well

Digby wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Can May's only possible retention of any credibility come about with a WTO/no-payment exit conclusion? Has she been lining that up all along by throwing every concession possible in front of the EU so that she can claim to have tried everything in vain? Or, is she just stupid?

That outcome would shit on our economy so it's hard to see how it'd play out well

In the short term, maybe. If there was a second referendum and that option was available I think it would win by miles. Outside of the metropolitan elite, the ordinary man in the street wants it more than any compromise.

I think all politicians are underestimating the strength of feeling against the EU now.

Oakboy wrote:Can May's only possible retention of any credibility come about with a WTO/no-payment exit conclusion? Has she been lining that up all along by throwing every concession possible in front of the EU so that she can claim to have tried everything in vain? Or, is she just stupid?

She seems to have boxed herself into a corner by rejecting single market membership, even as an interim measure. Possibly because she felt that the Tories wouldn’t support it and she couldn’t trust Labour but it would have been an easier negotiation, possibly representing a transitional move away from the EU.

Oakboy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Can May's only possible retention of any credibility come about with a WTO/no-payment exit conclusion? Has she been lining that up all along by throwing every concession possible in front of the EU so that she can claim to have tried everything in vain? Or, is she just stupid?

That outcome would shit on our economy so it's hard to see how it'd play out well

In the short term, maybe. If there was a second referendum and that option was available I think it would win by miles. Outside of the metropolitan elite, the ordinary man in the street wants it more than any compromise.

I think all politicians are underestimating the strength of feeling against the EU now.

Really? While polls have been universally shunt nowadays, they're showing a drift towards remain as we get closer and it becomes clearer no-one's got a clue what they're doing. I haven't seen much evidence of support for leaving without a deal just to spite the EU.

Puja

Oakboy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Can May's only possible retention of any credibility come about with a WTO/no-payment exit conclusion? Has she been lining that up all along by throwing every concession possible in front of the EU so that she can claim to have tried everything in vain? Or, is she just stupid?

That outcome would shit on our economy so it's hard to see how it'd play out well

In the short term, maybe. If there was a second referendum and that option was available I think it would win by miles. Outside of the metropolitan elite, the ordinary man in the street wants it more than any compromise.

I think all politicians are underestimating the strength of feeling against the EU now.

Who is the ordinary man? Even Sunderland turned out a lot of remain voters, just as London returned a lot of leavers. It's not 50/50 across the country but it's sure as shit not a metropolitan elite and the rest

You may of course be right but people voting having taken to heart 'I'm with stupid' isn't anything new in all this

Polls never get it right on Brexit.

One of the big factors in the 52% at the referendum was the simple 'every vote counts factor. Throughout my lifetime many people (thousands, maybe millions?) have not bothered to vote because their vote would count for nothing because of first past the post constituency representation (conservative potential voter in area of big Labour majority and vice-versa). For the referendum, lots of people enjoyed having a meaningful say. Punditry/pollsters/Westminster seriously underestimated that factor and probably always will.

I encounter loads of people who want out now with no rigged links to the EU. What fascinates me is that I hear it more or less equally from those who voted remain or leave.

Oakboy wrote:Polls never get it right on Brexit.

One of the big factors in the 52% at the referendum was the simple 'every vote counts factor. Throughout my lifetime many people (thousands, maybe millions?) have not bothered to vote because their vote would count for nothing because of first past the post constituency representation (conservative potential voter in area of big Labour majority and vice-versa). For the referendum, lots of people enjoyed having a meaningful say. Punditry/pollsters/Westminster seriously underestimated that factor and probably always will.

I encounter loads of people who want out now with no rigged links to the EU. What fascinates me is that I hear it more or less equally from those who voted remain or leave.

Anyone who simply wants out no matter there being no deal in place is on a par with flat earth advocates or anti vaccers, they get a vote but they're not worth listening to

Digby wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Polls never get it right on Brexit.

One of the big factors in the 52% at the referendum was the simple 'every vote counts factor. Throughout my lifetime many people (thousands, maybe millions?) have not bothered to vote because their vote would count for nothing because of first past the post constituency representation (conservative potential voter in area of big Labour majority and vice-versa). For the referendum, lots of people enjoyed having a meaningful say. Punditry/pollsters/Westminster seriously underestimated that factor and probably always will.

I encounter loads of people who want out now with no rigged links to the EU. What fascinates me is that I hear it more or less equally from those who voted remain or leave.

Anyone who simply wants out no matter there being no deal in place is on a par with flat earth advocates or anti vaccers, they get a vote but they're not worth listening to

Denouncing those with extreme views by pronouncing extreme views.

Digby wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Polls never get it right on Brexit.

One of the big factors in the 52% at the referendum was the simple 'every vote counts factor. Throughout my lifetime many people (thousands, maybe millions?) have not bothered to vote because their vote would count for nothing because of first past the post constituency representation (conservative potential voter in area of big Labour majority and vice-versa). For the referendum, lots of people enjoyed having a meaningful say. Punditry/pollsters/Westminster seriously underestimated that factor and probably always will.

I encounter loads of people who want out now with no rigged links to the EU. What fascinates me is that I hear it more or less equally from those who voted remain or leave.

Anyone who simply wants out no matter there being no deal in place is on a par with flat earth advocates or anti vaccers, they get a vote but they're not worth listening to

But, that's the point! They HAVE got a vote and are equal to anyone else with a vote and a different opinion, like it or not. We live in a democracy or so it is claimed.

If I were a salesman, on the road to earn commission based on convincing people which way they should buy, I'd find the WTO/zero payment option the easiest to sell to the man/woman in the street.

IF it ever gets to the point where no-deal is the corner we find ourselves in, the positives will start to mount up in the political vision. To date, nobody is pushing it but publicising the Lords committee ruling that we don't owe the EU a single euro if they won't give us a deal is a starting point that could snowball, I'd guess. Simply, will you vote to pay 39 billion or nothing? It may be 'simply' for 'simpletons' but it's hell of a choice looking around at where the money could be spent etc.

Oakboy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Polls never get it right on Brexit.

One of the big factors in the 52% at the referendum was the simple 'every vote counts factor. Throughout my lifetime many people (thousands, maybe millions?) have not bothered to vote because their vote would count for nothing because of first past the post constituency representation (conservative potential voter in area of big Labour majority and vice-versa). For the referendum, lots of people enjoyed having a meaningful say. Punditry/pollsters/Westminster seriously underestimated that factor and probably always will.

I encounter loads of people who want out now with no rigged links to the EU. What fascinates me is that I hear it more or less equally from those who voted remain or leave.

Anyone who simply wants out no matter there being no deal in place is on a par with flat earth advocates or anti vaccers, they get a vote but they're not worth listening to

But, that's the point! They HAVE got a vote and are equal to anyone else with a vote and a different opinion, like it or not. We live in a democracy or so it is claimed.

If I were a salesman, on the road to earn commission based on convincing people which way they should buy, I'd find the WTO/zero payment option the easiest to sell to the man/woman in the street.

IF it ever gets to the point where no-deal is the corner we find ourselves in, the positives will start to mount up in the political vision. To date, nobody is pushing it but publicising the Lords committee ruling that we don't owe the EU a single euro if they won't give us a deal is a starting point that could snowball, I'd guess. Simply, will you vote to pay 39 billion or nothing? It may be 'simply' for 'simpletons' but it's hell of a choice looking around at where the money could be spent etc.

The not paying the £39 billion would be defaulting on debts already incurred though. It's not money that we're giving away, but money committed from extant agreements. Yes, we could spend it elsewhere, but we'd be doing it by declaring that the UK no longer pays its debts and is a default risk. Given the amount of sovereign debt we currently have and need to roll over in the next few years, I literally cannot think of a stupider thing to do - the interest rates on our borrowing would skyrocket.

That's notwithstanding that it would be screwing over our largest trading partner - we would become pariahs overnight.

I've no doubt that you could sell it very easily, but you'd be doing so to people who either didn't understand the downside or who you weren't explaining the downside to.

Puja

Not paying the divorce bill is just not a option.

Mellsblue wrote:Not paying the divorce bill is just not a option.

It would be if JOE Public could vote for it. That was my point. Let's just imagine if France were leaving. Would they pay? Not a snowball's chance in hell.

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Not paying the divorce bill is just not a option.

It would be if JOE Public could vote for it. That was my point. Let's just imagine if France were leaving. Would they pay? Not a snowball's chance in hell.

It’s not an option if you want the UK to be a international, free trading nation. It’s a bit like saying you don’t have to pay off your mortgage. It’s true in its most simple sense, but good luck getting any credit in the future. Why don’t you think the French would have to pay?

Mellsblue wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Not paying the divorce bill is just not a option.

It would be if JOE Public could vote for it. That was my point. Let's just imagine if France were leaving. Would they pay? Not a snowball's chance in hell.

It’s not an option if you want the UK to be a international, free trading nation. It’s a bit like saying you don’t have to pay off your mortgage. It’s true in its most simple sense, but good luck getting any credit in the future. Why don’t you think the French would have to pay?

I do think they should have to pay butvthey just would not. I think you are believing the EU to be more important on the world stage than it really is. It's emphasis is political but its true economic status is sub-par.

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
It would be if JOE Public could vote for it. That was my point. Let's just imagine if France were leaving. Would they pay? Not a snowball's chance in hell.

It’s not an option if you want the UK to be a international, free trading nation. It’s a bit like saying you don’t have to pay off your mortgage. It’s true in its most simple sense, but good luck getting any credit in the future. Why don’t you think the French would have to pay?

I do think they should have to pay butvthey just would not. I think you are believing the EU to be more important on the world stage than it really is. It's emphasis is political but its true economic status is sub-par.

What has the EU’s status in the world got to do whether we should pay, or whether France would. If you owe a debt, if you want credit in the future and you want to form financial and trading relationships in the future, you just can’t default. What FACTS make you think the French wouldn’t pay?

Mellsblue wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: It’s not an option if you want the UK to be a international, free trading nation. It’s a bit like saying you don’t have to pay off your mortgage. It’s true in its most simple sense, but good luck getting any credit in the future. Why don’t you think the French would have to pay?

I do think they should have to pay butvthey just would not. I think you are believing the EU to be more important on the world stage than it really is. It's emphasis is political but its true economic status is sub-par.

What has the EU’s status in the world got to do whether we should pay, or whether France would. If you owe a debt, if you want credit in the future and you want to form financial and trading relationships in the future, you just can’t default. What FACTS make you think the French wouldn’t pay?

Facts such as their refusal to bother obeying EU law so often in the past. Status affects credit. I doubt we'd have much bother in the future if we just sat back and waited for the EU to prove the debts and attempt to get us to settle.

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
I do think they should have to pay butvthey just would not. I think you are believing the EU to be more important on the world stage than it really is. It's emphasis is political but its true economic status is sub-par.

What has the EU’s status in the world got to do whether we should pay, or whether France would. If you owe a debt, if you want credit in the future and you want to form financial and trading relationships in the future, you just can’t default. What FACTS make you think the French wouldn’t pay?

Facts such as their refusal to bother obeying EU law so often in the past. Status affects credit. I doubt we'd have much bother in the future if we just sat back and waited for the EU to prove the debts and attempt to get us to settle.

Any facts where France refused to obey EU law AND refused to pay the fine?
I'll help you out here, there are zero examples of this. Your theory is pure bollocks I'm afraid

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
I do think they should have to pay butvthey just would not. I think you are believing the EU to be more important on the world stage than it really is. It's emphasis is political but its true economic status is sub-par.

What has the EU’s status in the world got to do whether we should pay, or whether France would. If you owe a debt, if you want credit in the future and you want to form financial and trading relationships in the future, you just can’t default. What FACTS make you think the French wouldn’t pay?

Facts such as their refusal to bother obeying EU law so often in the past. Status affects credit. I doubt we'd have much bother in the future if we just sat back and waited for the EU to prove the debts and attempt to get us to settle.

The question of what we owe isn’t EU law, it’s international law. We’ve already agreed the process to get to and the final figure on what we owe, ie our liabilities that we’ve previously agreed to whilst voting members of the EU. The debts/liabilities don’t need to be proven, we’ve already agreed them!!
When France break EU law they pay a fine. They don’t just get let off.
I think the EU is highly flawed but these claims that it’s rigged/ruled/dictated to by France and/or Germany have no basis in fact and just distract from the very real flaws of the EU.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Polls never get it right on Brexit.

One of the big factors in the 52% at the referendum was the simple 'every vote counts factor. Throughout my lifetime many people (thousands, maybe millions?) have not bothered to vote because their vote would count for nothing because of first past the post constituency representation (conservative potential voter in area of big Labour majority and vice-versa). For the referendum, lots of people enjoyed having a meaningful say. Punditry/pollsters/Westminster seriously underestimated that factor and probably always will.

I encounter loads of people who want out now with no rigged links to the EU. What fascinates me is that I hear it more or less equally from those who voted remain or leave.

Anyone who simply wants out no matter there being no deal in place is on a par with flat earth advocates or anti vaccers, they get a vote but they're not worth listening to

Denouncing those with extreme views by pronouncing extreme views.

What is extreme about saying it's not worth listening to people so stupid they think we can just walk away? There simply can't be one aspect they'd have close to sufficient grasp of

Oh, as for paying the £39B.
Try renaging on your mortgage commitments, and trying to get a new mortgage afterwards.
If you buy stuff, and refuse to actually pay for it, it's called theft, and doing so quite that blatantly is utterly stupid, and not something that you can brush off as being your right.

Mellsblue wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: What has the EU’s status in the world got to do whether we should pay, or whether France would. If you owe a debt, if you want credit in the future and you want to form financial and trading relationships in the future, you just can’t default. What FACTS make you think the French wouldn’t pay?

Facts such as their refusal to bother obeying EU law so often in the past. Status affects credit. I doubt we'd have much bother in the future if we just sat back and waited for the EU to prove the debts and attempt to get us to settle.

The question of what we owe isn’t EU law, it’s international law. We’ve already agreed the process to get to and the final figure on what we owe, ie our liabilities that we’ve previously agreed to whilst voting members of the EU. The debts/liabilities don’t need to be proven, we’ve already agreed them!!
When France break EU law they pay a fine. They don’t just get let off.
I think the EU is highly flawed but these claims that it’s rigged/ruled/dictated to by France and/or Germany have no basis in fact and just distract from the very real flaws of the EU.

Is it agreed now it's international law?

I don't agree with the idea of not honouring one's debts, but I thought there was still a chance it was enforceable by an EU court but only if we don't leave the EU