If I were Mrs May and I knew I was about to be defenestrated, I'd make a Prime Ministerial broadcast and tell the country that I'd be going to the House of Commons the next day and asking them for a full vote on whether to proceed with Brexit. I'd then list all the complications and costs, going into detail about the impact on people's lives and in particular in Mr Johnson's, Mr Gove's, and Disgraced Mr Fox's constituencies, and recommend that they vote for a pause.

When I then lose the vote in the Commons, I will say that I will go to the Palace to resign, and recommend Mr Johnson to the Queen as her next PM, before repeating all the bad stuff. I'd then drop by Mrs Windsor's, then head straight to Heathrow and Latin America.

And that's enough of my twisted fantasies.

So guys, where are we on the Hi-Lo DOOOooOOooOM-o-meter?
£60 billion seems to be the current favoured amount, but any advance on this?

So guys, where are we on the Hi-Lo DOOOooOOooOM-o-meter?
£60 billion seems to be the current favoured amount, but any advance on this?

So guys, where are we on the Hi-Lo DOOOooOOooOM-o-meter?
£60 billion seems to be the current favoured amount, but any advance on this?

I think we should gamble it all on what's inside the Mystery Box!

A 'grand compromise' of 50 billion euros, plus on-going service charges of 20 billion a year. And a £5 convenience fee.

I'm more concerned as to whether May agrees to pay it in time. It'll be a tough sell to the public

I'm more concerned as to whether May agrees to pay it in time. It'll be a tough sell to the public

If it's anything like £60 billion I'd say it's an *impossible* sell, and therefore Hard Brexit looms.

Instead, getting out of the EU seems likely to require the same readiness to give ground on the part of the departing country as most countries have had to display when seeking to join the EC/EU. If the UK wants a deal, it is likely to be bought through British concessions and the abandonment of some of its initial negotiating aims, rather than large-scale giveaways by the EU27. And it is here that one final parallel with the 1961-3 negotiations becomes worrying. Because just as Macmillan’s ability to make the concessions needed to reach a breakthrough in Brussels was all but destroyed by growing cabinet splits on Europe, dwindling government popularity (1962 was the year of the famous Orpington by-election) and by a Labour opposition increasingly willing to seek party-political advantage through opportunism over the European issue, so too Theresa May’s scope for flexibility seems ever more circumscribed.

The present situation, though, is much more uncomfortable and potentially painful than that of 1963. The implications of failure are far greater. Britain’s inability to join the EEC in 1963 was a hammer blow to Macmillan’s government and a disappointment to many on both sides of the Channel. But ultimately it meant no more than a temporary prolongation of the status quo, and the postponement rather than the end of the UK’s European ambitions. Failure now would be much more serious, confronting the country with all the economic, legal and political consequences of a cliff-edge Brexit. The British government urgently needs to stop repeating the mistakes of its predecessor over half a century ago. A breakthrough in Brussels is a national necessity – even if achieving it requires awkward and painful climbdowns.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/11/09/swallow-the-lot-and-swallow-it-now-britain-is-and-was-deluded-about-its-negotiating-power-with-the-eu/

Comparing the Brexit negotiations with the 1960s negotiations for Britain to join the EEC. The parallels are quite striking.

. Because just as Macmillan’s ability to make the concessions needed to reach a breakthrough in Brussels was all but destroyed by growing cabinet splits on Europe, dwindling government popularity (1962 was the year of the famous Orpington by-election) and by a Labour opposition increasingly willing to seek party-political advantage through opportunism over the European issue, so too Theresa May’s scope for flexibility seems ever more circumscribed.

She said that "11pm GMT on 29 March 2019" is "there in black and white" in an amendment to the EU Withdrawal Bill

So the only way to appease the leave camp in the Tory Party is to write into the withdrawal bill something which has to happen by law anyway. Pathetic.


BBC.

As much as I dislike to pour scorn on the wretched, this is somewhat deserved.

Different standards apply to the powerful. Being Prime Minister must be a horrible, lonely, and complicated job that's only bound to end in failure and disappointment, and she's at the helm during particularly turbulent seas. But being power means we can, nay must, criticise and oppose where necessary (we can also cheer if they do something right, and probably should). Unfortunately, the storms have brought to forefront her weakness, although I can't think of anyone in the senior ranks of the Tories who could do any better. Perhaps Philip Hammond, but only since he always came across as quiet and hard-working in defence and I've not heard much from him in recent times.

Here endeth the lesson. We now turn to hymn 342.

Agency workers, I guess.

That's not an answer as to why wages are not rising. That's a reason to raise wages to attract and retain staff, in fact.

Oh, controlling costs.

...you're not allowed to moan about it being hard to find staff then!

I don’t think you understand people

James Dyson on Andrew Marr this morning:

Walk away from negotiations
Don't pay anything towards outstanding obligations
Scrap corporation tax
Make it easier to fire people

What a cunt.

On this, I felt a twinge of sympathy for Brown this morning as he was being interviewed and had malicious quotes read to him from books by Blair and Lord Mandelson. Turns out (at risk of poking the bear through the bars <wink>), he wanted tighter regulation of the city, but was shouted down.

I've just been told my corporation tax bill is £100,000 in April. Mr Suction might be onto something
Still, I'm sure this six figure sum will be magnificently efficiently managed and well spent.

They'll have a good Lord Mayor's Banquet this year.

James Dyson on Andrew Marr this morning:

Walk away from negotiations
Don't pay anything towards outstanding obligations
Scrap corporation tax
Make it easier to fire people

What a cunt.

I find it entertaining that Dyson was one of the loudest business voices calling for the UK to join the euro when it was launched. I look forward to him pleading for us to rejoin Europe in 15 years time.

Vacuum cleaner king James Dyson, the high-profile inventor and businessman, is set to reignite the debate surrounding the euro after threatening to expand his operations in Malaysia, rather than at his British factory, if the UK does not join the single currency.

Dyson, who devised the bagless vacuum cleaner, sparked a national debate earlier this year after complaining that the strong pound could force his company to move overseas. This time, however, his comments carry extra weight. Since he made his now famous remarks, Dyson has opened a small factory in Malaysia in a bid to offset both the impact of the pound and planning problems over enlarging his UK factory in Wiltshire.

The Malaysian plant is now used to make products for the Far Eastern markets, chiefly Japan. But Dyson is considering increasing its capacity in the longer term if the UK government's attitude to the single currency doesn't change.

'It's suicidal for the UK not to join the euro. Why should we go on exporting at a loss? We're facing unfair competition,' he said.

As for James Dyson, I don’t know much about him but IIRC he pays a lot more UK tax than a google, he’s set up UK Engineering training facilities and academies, he’s created a lot of wealth for U.K. plc even if I don’t agree with his Brexit views. So let’s just say he’s likely rather more useful than bankers or tax avoiding vampires?