- This topic has 67 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 12 months ago by
.
- Posts
I’m with Heseltine on this, Bo JO smashed up the room to get Brexit and now he cheerfully jumps ship.
The man is poison. Gove has known him 30 years and only in the last 48 hours has he concluded he’s a liability. What does that say for Gove? It’s looking very much like neither of the Brexit architects will be clearing up after themselves.
If Gove is blanked, Leadsom would seem good value as the only credible Brexiter left
The loathsome Gove is drifting fast, out to ~14/1 and Leadsom has shortened to ~9/2
My own view is that May – the usefully eurosceptic Remainer – will win comfortably and then appoint Leadsom – the ardent Leaver – to head the team negotiating exit
“Bo JO smashed up the room to get Brexit and now he cheerfully jumps ship.”
Rubbish. He dropped out only when it became clear to him he was unlikely to make the final two. Nothing cheerful about it from his point of view.
“My own view is that May – the usefully eurosceptic Remainer – will win comfortably and then appoint Leadsom – the ardent Leaver – to head the team negotiating exit.”
A likely scenario but I certainly wouldn’t rule out Gove yet. IF he makes the final three, the Eurosceptics within the Parliamentary Party will have to make a (secret) choice between Leadsom and Gove, and the latter’s experience and greater clarity of thought may yet tell. And once it goes to the Party membership it seems the majority are likely to be “Leave” voters, which could well give Leadsom or Gove the edge.
May’s speech yesterday was very good, though not in my view as good as Gove’s today. But she included just one word which flaws her from a thoroughly “Leave” perspective – the commitment to get “more” control over who enters the country. Thorough-going “Leavers” want “control”, not “more control”, not in the case of Gove and many others primarily to reduce the number of immigrants but because “control” rather than “more control” is the consequence of the aim of the “Leave” campaign, the re-establishment of the sovereignty of Parliament in matters British.
Gove came across to me in that speech as an awful ham actor. His delivery was worse than many I’ve seen in school plays. In an interview last night he looked like a headlighted rabbit. I think is previous self-assessment is correct – he is not up to it. He knows that. It will always be in his mind and whatever self-confidence remains will soon crumble.
These things are a matter of opinion, but when I heard an LBC political reporter doing a piece on the radio afterwards he said it was the best political speech he’d heard in six years. For all I know he may of course be Gove’s cousin!
It was a lightweight performance from a man with zero presence or gravitas. He is no leader.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
Give is hopeless, waste of time.
I've stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains
I've walked and I crawled on six crooked highwaysHave they got horses?
Yep. High ones
“Bo JO smashed up the room to get Brexit and now he cheerfully jumps ship.”
Rubbish. He dropped out only when it became clear to him he was unlikely to make the final two. Nothing cheerful about it from his point of view.
“My own view is that May – the usefully eurosceptic Remainer – will win comfortably and then appoint Leadsom – the ardent Leaver – to head the team negotiating exit.”
A likely scenario but I certainly wouldn’t rule out Gove yet. IF he makes the final three, the Eurosceptics within the Parliamentary Party will have to make a (secret) choice between Leadsom and Gove, and the latter’s experience and greater clarity of thought may yet tell. And once it goes to the Party membership it seems the majority are likely to be “Leave” voters, which could well give Leadsom or Gove the edge.
May’s speech yesterday was very good, though not in my view as good as Gove’s today. But she included just one word which flaws her from a thoroughly “Leave” perspective – the commitment to get “more” control over who enters the country. Thorough-going “Leavers” want “control”, not “more control”, not in the case of Gove and many others primarily to reduce the number of immigrants but because “control” rather than “more control” is the consequence of the aim of the “Leave” campaign, the re-establishment of the sovereignty of Parliament in matters British.
We must get most of the Free Market, otherwise our economy will suffer enormously. It would be wonderful to have the best of both Worlds, but it ain’t going to happen. No matter if 100% (let alone just 52%) voted for the EU to pay every British person 1 Million pounds, the EU is NOT going to pay.
The “Leavers” promised something that was unobtainable. You can not have access to the “Free Market” and have complete “control” over immigration – the EU won’t allow it! You were sold a con!
May, is more of a realist than Gove, Leadson, Fox and Johnson. More realism is a good thing.
We must endeavour to get most of the accsess to the free market we recieve now – whilst seeing what we can get on immigration. Doubt it’ll be much of the latter…
Not in the EU’s best interests to give us a good deal. To do so inreases the likelihood of others leaving the EU and therefore a threat to the EU’s very existence.
Value Is EverythingWe must get most of the Free Market, otherwise our economy will suffer enormously. It would be wonderful to have the best of both Worlds, but it ain’t going to happen. No matter if 100% (let alone just 52%) voted for the EU to pay every British person 1 Million pounds, the EU is NOT going to pay.
The “Leavers” promised something that was unobtainable. You can not have access to the “Free Market” and have complete “control” over immigration – the EU won’t allow it! You were sold a con!
May, is more of a realist than Gove, Leadson, Fox and Johnson. More realism is a good thing.
We must endeavour to get most of the accsess to the free market we recieve now – whilst seeing what we can get on immigration. Doubt it’ll be much of the latter…
Not in the EU’s best interests to give us a good deal. To do so inreases the likelihood of others leaving the EU and therefore a threat to the EU’s very existence.
You should be a politician.
EU has told Switzerland that they will not get “single market” access if do not allow free movement of citizens.
The UK will be told exactly the same.
May is certainly the best of the bunch but, she certainly will not be able to conjure-up the impossible that the citizens that voted out want:
CityA.M. is a website about trade and worldwide business.
A couple of years ago it explained in what respect the “single market” in the EU is not what it is cracked up to be. Useful, especially for manufactured goods, but very poor and downright obstructive if you want to sell services.
“Brussels’s focus on deepening political and social union has undermined the advantages of the Single Market and prevented its completion. “ It is not a complete market.
“In the services sector, where the UK performs particularly strongly, barriers to trade are acting as a serious economic drag. It seems an obvious point but, since 2000, EU services have added significantly more value than manufacturing, and created far more new jobs. An estimated 71 per cent of total EU GDP comes from services (in the UK it is 80%). Yet trade liberalisation is far more developed for goods: services account for just 22 per cent of trade within the EU.” So 70% (22 parts in 71) of all services trade between EU countries is not covered by the single market.
“The Single Market should have been completed in the 1990s. But two decades of additional services-driven wealth creation have been lost. “ Just like in external trade deals, the EU is keen only to drag its feet over having the single market cover all goods and services trading between EU countries.
“Some EU member states also impose unjustifiable barriers to the free operation of regulated professionals, like architects and pharmacists. This prevents companies and workers from freely trading across borders. When industries like accountancy, law, and consultancy, in which Britain leads the world, face barriers to their operations in Europe, this is nothing short of protectionism.” Just like in external trade deals, as mentioned in my earlier post, some EU countries veto accepting other EU countries’ more efficient companies operating in “their” territory.
As for the EU not breaking the rule of: “No single market without free movement”, I would only mention two other inviolable rules that no longer apply “National deficits must not be greater than 2% of GDP”, and “No financial bailouts from one EU country to any other”. Lots of EU countries have been able to break these rules without sanction, including Germany and France. When the chips are down, nobody will be cutting off their nose to spite their face, as the chairman of the German equivalent of the Confederation of British Industry recently said. Though since I only read a translation it could well have been “No butcher puts a kilo of gristle in his own family’s sausages”.
MV,
The EU could give Britain both Free Trade and full control on immigration if they really wanted to. However the problem is…If Britain does get a better settlement on Brexit than they’ve got now – then many other countries will want to leave the EU. The EU obviously can not allow that to happen because it will be the end of the EU.
Value Is EverythingMV,
The EU could give Britain both Free Trade and full control on immigration if they really wanted to. However the problem is…If Britain does get a better settlement on Brexit than they’ve got now – then many other countries will want to leave the EU. The EU obviously can not allow that to happen because it will be the end of the EU.
What does it say about the EU when even those in favour of the organization feel that many other countries would leave the EU, if only they thought they would not be punished for so doing. Why would they want to leave? Most people would hope that that the organization exists to benefit its members, to help make them more happy, prosperous and secure. Maybe the EU does not measure up to the task.
In February the EU gave Cameron (the UK) exemption from “ever closer union”, which has been in all EU Treaties for decades, in the Brexit negotiations. Perhaps the member countries want the EU to go back to being a club to benefit trade between the members and not a political entity with its own laws, judiciary and, eventually, its own army.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.