Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

Graham_Devon

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/01/brexit-eu-accused-of-making-false-aid-funding-claims

The EU has been accused of putting the lives of the world!!!8217;s poorest at risk after warning off British development organisations from involvement in its humanitarian aid programmes by claiming they would lose all funding in the event of the a no-deal Brexit.

Officials working under Martin Selmayr, the most senior aide to the European commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, have inserted disclaimers in aid contracts warning UK NGOs that they will be dropped as a partner in programmes should Britain crash out of the EU next year.

But the commission !!!8211; which has recently increased efforts to prepare for a no-deal scenario !!!8211; has been accused of over-reaching. It emerged that British aid programme providers should still remain eligible for many contracts, due to the UK!!!8217;s membership of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, an intergovernmental body. The contracts include programmes tackling sexual violence in Zambia.

Another one that's a step to far in my opinion.

The EU potentially blocking aid organisations and removing them from projects already happening should we exit the EU.

There is nothing in this for anyone at all, other than a power trip.

Graham_Devon

Herzlos wrote: »

How so? Your own link shows that you need to back to Truman in '53 to get a lower approval rating than Trump. That's certainly a while.

Or do you want to claim he's popular?

ALL politicians have lower ratings than their peers in the 1950's and 60's. This is mainly to do with the fact that newspapers ruled the media. With media everywhere now, ratings have changed significantly.

Though your statement suggested that trumps rating has never been lower.

vivatifosi

Herzlos wrote: »

As far as I've seen went spent 2 years delaying proposals that have already been rejected. The cynic in me thinks this is so they can stay in the EU at the last minute and blame it on the EU. The Tories will survive at the cost of hugely increased resentment towards the EU because of Westminster failings.

There are now commentators in both the remain and leave camps questioning whether May is playing for time to get a compromise Brexit, softer than that wanted by Gove et al, but not remain either. Adam Boulton suggested this in today's ST, but unfortunately it's behind a paywall.

vivatifosi

Very interesting FT article about how the 5 Star/Northern League Alliance is playing good cop/bad cop with the EU and how it could damage the institution:
https://www.ft.com/content/c1c31e24-7ba5-11e8-8e67-1e1a0846c475

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

vivatifosi wrote: »

There are now commentators in both the remain and leave camps questioning whether May is playing for time to get a compromise Brexit,.

Interesting...

The prime minister has decided to stand and fight if Tory MPs force a vote to oust her declaring that she is content to win by one vote. That means the rebels would need 159 MPs to bring her down, more than three times the 48 who would be needed to trigger a vote of no confidence.

The prime minister will warn hardline Brexiteers that they will have to remove her if they want to stop the government pursuing a Norway-style Brexit deal that will keep Britain closely aligned to EU rules on the sale of goods.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/oust-me-if-you-dare-theresa-may-warns-brexit-bullies-5q7g5vn8m

If she can get a more-or-less Norway type of deal for single market access, frictionless borders via a customs partnership, and a preferential migration regime allowing greater control but still relatively easy reciprocal access for workers (with perhaps some limits on benefits and the 3 months rule being enforced), while being out of the EU political framework, out of fisheries, and out of the common agriculture policy.... that would almost certainly be enough to keep a clear majority of the country satisfied.

The headbangers at the extreme ends of the spectrum would of course still complain, but polling data shows the majority of people would live with it.

buglawton

Except...

The fly in the ointment (elephant in the room actually) is:

Norway is also outside the EU, but is a member of the European Economic Area (EEA). As such, Norway must apply the same free movement rules as EU member states, but has no vote on the rules.
https://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/immigration-and-justice/norway-and-switzerland/

Ain't gonna fly...

Herzlos

Neither will any other option.

Theophile

cogito wrote: »

We already have full access to the USA GPS system so not having access to a system which is already far from ready and depends to a large extent on UK capabilities doesn't appear to be a major problem anyway.

It's not about access. How often does this need to be told?

We will have access to Galileo like we have access to US GPS.
We won't be participating into further development though, nor will we have security clearance. Fully in line with Third Country status.
A status we chose to adopt. :cool:

cogito

buglawton wrote: »

Except...

The fly in the ointment (elephant in the room actually) is:

Norway is also outside the EU, but is a member of the European Economic Area (EEA). As such, Norway must apply the same free movement rules as EU member states, but has no vote on the rules.
https://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/immigration-and-justice/norway-and-switzerland/

Ain't gonna fly...

Two elephants (and possibly more). Continuing to pay billions into the EU budget.

Herzlos

What we pay into the EU is numerically irrelevant. It's a tiny fraction of what we gain by the single market access.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

ALL politicians have lower ratings than their peers in the 1950's and 60's. This is mainly to do with the fact that newspapers ruled the media. With media everywhere now, ratings have changed significantly.

Though your statement suggested that trumps rating has never been lower.

It's fair that approval ratings will be lower as access to information improves, but that still looks bad for Trump, where you need to go back 55 years (almost out of living memory) to find a president with a worse rating for more than a few days, and that's before all of the media improvements that drive lower ratings.


I didn't mean that compared to Trump, he's at his own personal low, I'm aware he's come up marginally from diabolical to merely terrible. I meant compared to any other president. He's the least popular president in a long time, even less popular than Clinton and Bush. That takes some effort.