At midnight on Monday the Boundary Commissions release revised recommendations for the boundary review. A few notes to aid in understanding what it means.

Firstly, and probably most importantly, they are still pretty unlikely to happen. The Boundary Commissions are obliged by law to continue with the review, it doesn’t mean the government have the support to implement it. When the review produces its final recommendations next September the recommendations need to be approved by Parliament before coming into force. This would have been tricky for the Conservatives to do with a small majority (there were a few Tory MP threatening to rebel), it will be all the harder to do without a majority at all. They cannot currently rely upon the support of the DUP to push them through – the initial recommendations in Northern Ireland were very favourable to Sinn Fein, very unfavourable to the DUP, and the DUP were very critical of them. Of course, it’s possible the revised recommendations may be less offensive to the DUP, but we shall see – in that sense, probably the most interesting recommendations will be those for Ulster.

Two – this is not a new review, it’s a revised version of the one that started in the last Parliament. The current rules for the Boundary Commissions require them to deliver a review every five years, the fact that there has been an early election doesn’t affect this at all. The recommendations published today are based on the ones from last year, taking account of all the comments the Boundary Commissions recieved during their consultation period.

Three – they are still for 600 seats. There were reports in the press that the government were intending to scrap this review and start again with a new review based upon 650 seats. These reports have not been confirmed and at the moment the old 600 seat review is going ahead. Neither the Boundary Commissions or the government have the power to change the rules from 600 to 650 at will; it is set in law. If the government do want to change the rules and go back to a 650 seat review, they’ll need to get primary legislation through Parliament (and then the Boundary Commissions will have to start all over again).

Four – I will, as ever, seek to work out notional figures for what the 2017 election would have been on the proposed boundaries. That will, however, take a couple of days. I can tell you now that the changes will almost certainly favour the Conservatives, at least a little. This is not because the Boundary Commissions are partisan – they are resolutely and genuinely neutral. However, the pattern of population movement in Britain means that boundary reviews almost always favour the Conservatives. Generally speaking, the population in Northern inner cities (that tend to vote Labour) is falling relative to commuter areas in the South (that tend to vote Conservative). Therefore over time the electorate in the northern cities falls, the electorate in the home countries rises and we end up with Northern urban seats having lower electorates than Southern commuter ones. That means when boundary reviews take place, it tends to result in seats in northern cities being abolished and new seats in the south being created.

Fifth – MPs whose seats are “abolished” are not necessarily in any trouble. When boundary recommendations come out the first thing lots of people look for is big name MPs who appear to have lost their seats. It’s normally more complicated that that – parts of their seat will have gone into neighbouring seats and it will often be easily to work out a place for everyone to stand with a few retirements or peerages to help ease the way. While the reduction from 650 to 600 would make this review a little more challenging than usual, in the case of past reviews the vast majority of MPs who have seen their seats “abolished” have actually ended up staying on in a neighbouring seat. In short, Jeremy Corbyn is unlikely to struggle to find a Labour seat willing to take him.


1,017 Responses to “Some notes on tomorrow’s Boundary Review recommendations”

1 2 3 4 21
  1. London is a developed competitive advantage and it is at risk due to Brexit as I have said. We are not going to unilaterally shut EU out of London but if they don’t continue passporting from Mar’19 they have very little time to prepare. IMHO they are planning for putting UK into EEA and then taking the EU parts of London back within the EU which will seriously damage UK economy.

    Trade liberalisation in goods with THE Customs Union is very well established, not so much in services – painfully slow by comparison. Look at CETA to see the same kind of thing in EU trade deals.

    It’s not a threat I won’t to see played out – as I have said

    I’m happy with no deal outcome so why explain further.

    @ PTRP – Services covers low productivity jobs as well as high productivity jobs. I agree manufacturing is a value-add job hence why I’m happy to see tariffs put in place for German cars if EU block passporting or deny Equivalence+. If we could get past the bill stage then we might be able to agree an amicable outcome but if we just act like a bunny in the headlights, we’ll be run over.

  2. @CHARLES

    “@Carfrew – thanks for the additions to my list. I had meant to cover the ‘EU is going to break up anyway’ with the word ‘moribund’. The other points were not there and should have been as they resonate with some people.”

    ———-

    No probs Charles, happy to do my bit, and welcome the comprehensive approach. I’ve thought of another since: the EU has certain rules on state aid that those who might wish more state investment in strategic business might wish to escape.

  3. PASSTHEROCKPLEASE

    “I do not agree with idea that liberal democrats and green have become a laughing stock per se. I believe that Labour have parked their tanks on their lawn and more importantly everyone accepts their vote is wasted by voting for these parties if they reality is they choice between Tories and Labour. The return to two aprty politics is due to the fact that we have the FPTP system more than any party is out of favour per se. Although I do believe the Lib Dems are in the wilderness in the areas where they were once seen as a reasonable alternative to the Tories.”

    ———-

    Well, I didn’t say anything about the laughing stock thing, though some have had some mirth at the expense of the lib Dems.

    FPTP didn’t stop a move to three, four or even five party politics so it’s not necessarily responsible for a shift back.

    There has been a shift, the replacement of Osborne’s avowed liberalism, by Hammond and May’s more interventionist approach, and the replacement of liberal Nulab with Corbynism.

    In an era in which more and more people are struggling with inflated rent, utilities, rail costs, tuition fees, alonside zero hours etc. you would expect a move away from liberalism.

  4. @PTRP

    Still another example of the move away from liberalism is the Brexit vote of course.

  5. @Charles

    Also…
    – fears we’d get sucked into creeping federalism and even joining the Euro!
    – What happened to Greece and Italy etc.
    – the concern that insufficient transfer funds are made to the less robust economies, and consequent knock-on effects
    – security issues with open or porous borders
    – dominance of Germany considered to be benefiting economically at expense of others
    – some aren’t too happy about EU policy regarding the Ukraine

  6. @Charles

    Imposing standards or regulations that don’t really apply to us. E.g. my tutor complaining to me about the pressure to lengthen the degree beyond three years, because the degrees in other EU countries were five years.

    How can your three year degree Cover as much as our five year degree, they exclaimed.

    Because we specialise earlier, actually.

  7. @Jim Jam

    The use of registered voters, not population, has been the case in the UK since the 1948 boundary review. The change was brought in by Herbert Morrison. So why should it be changed now? How does it constitute an advantage to the Tories to stick with the established method?

    And why should my vote have greater value than yours just because I happen to live in an area with more children and more foreign nationals living there?

  8. Charles, thanks, I realised it was embellishment, but then isn’t it all just that really? TOH believes we are heading for a land of unpasteurised gold top and friendly bees, others would prefer to continue living in a land where most can have access to newfangled luxuries such as running water and electricity.

    I’m struggling to follow a lot of what’s on here today, since some of the posts are losing me by about chapter six, so I thought I’d try a little experiment

    Too much here to read
    Haiku is the way ahead
    In my opin yun

  9. @WHS
    I thought the argument was between using registered voters versus using persons eligible to register.

    The argument being that people who choose not to register to register are still deserving of parliamentary representation, just as much as those who register but choose not to vote.

    I don’t think anyone is proposing to use absolute number of residents including foreign nationals and children.

  10. WHS
    People are moving around more regularly, and tending to register when an election is pending, rather than doing it each time they move. I work closely with the election team at the council where I work, so this isn’t just anecdotal.

    This leads to a false reading on the numbers registered, depending on which register is taken into account, so it’s not a case of anyone’s vote being worth more or less, more garbage in, garbage out

  11. @Trevor Warne
    The Euro clearing horse has pretty already bolted – many banks are already moving capability abroad, the only question is whether all or simply much of Euro clearing is done in the EU centres.

    Euro clearing capabilities already exist in Frankfurt, Paris etc; In fact Euro clearing can be done almost anywhere, as it is a ‘virtualised’ service. The question is where the experienced staff live and work, and they are already moving and thereby increasing the capacity and sophistication of these rival centres at London’s expense…

  12. I know many brexiters will dismiss the OECD as just another bunch of know-nothing ‘experts’, but if their report on the consequences of a no-deal Brexit gets fairly reported, it might contribute to the movement towards bregret amongst C2DE voters. According to the BBC today:

    As well as foreseeing a fall in the pound and a freezing of business investment, it says heightened price pressures would “choke off” private consumption.

    It also says the current account deficit could be harder to finance, as a fall in the UK’s credit rating could lead to higher interest rates to attract lenders from other countries.

    The OECD’s position is underlined by its view that “In case Brexit gets reversed by political decision… the positive impact on growth would be significant.”

    That last point really is a killer: drop brexit and you get a boost. Go ahead with no-deal and you get a slump.

  13. Macron+Merkel are reforging a ‘reformed’ EU.

    The exact future form is uncertain but we can look at the need to call in IMF to bail out Eurozone countries, Trump’s threats over conditional NATO support, etc to see why EU are worried about being reliant on external bodies.

    From EFSF to becoming the EMF to Juncker’s army the move to a federal state and the EU desire to stand alone seems difficult to ignore. Possibly a multiple speed state and hopefully we stay linked in an outer orbit. France’s passion for the super-state is tempered by Germany’s desire to bankroll and underwrite the process, as always, but a federal super state was always the political objective, made most clear by the rush to create the Euro and the Masstricht treaty.

    The talk abut EU taking back Eurozone clearing etc was always simply a matter of time IMHO. They can’t stop NY or Singapore right now due to equivalence rules and existing pacts so one card we have is the EU being slow to act. However, if Brexit had not happened then I have very little doubt that Eurozone clearing would have been drawn back inside the EA19 at some point. The loses to London from that move need to be offset IMHO – it was always going to happen, Brexit or not, its just a matter of timing.

    However, London is still the global financial capital. The best growth opportunities lie outside of the EU. We were unlikely to stay as the biggest Eurozone financial fish in the ever decreasing pond of EU global GDP share. In 20yrs time the size of the EUs GDP share will be insignificant compared to the global opportunities. London can remain the global capital of finance due to our democracy and strong legal system, flexible and skilled workforce, competitive regulatory and taxation policies, soft issue like language and a great city to live in, plus simple inertia, etc. We have a significant developed competitive advantage that is not easily taken away but the piranha’s will always try to take bites.

    Rebalancing our economy via reshoring manufacturing and agriculture with appropriate tariff+quota protections from the EU as well as new partners is also possible if we put the necessary energy and focus into attracting, retaining and developing domestic industry.

    Good piece from Economist on EU future:
    https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2017/05/completing-euro-zone

  14. Another argument for why Norway is so bad an outcome for UK is that Norway pay with no say but inside the EU they would still have had barely any say.

    UK has 29 votes in the EU Council (Norway would probably have had 7) and inside the full EU we could form part of a blocking minority or achieve a veto as we have done in the past. QMV rules have widened so veto is much harder from 1Apr’17 but full EU membership would still give us some ability to protect ourselves from future federalisation. The EU parliament is an example of democratic authoritarianism IMHO and in that regard I agree with Scottish Independence or preferably Scottish chosing what would be the equivalent of a Swiss+ arrangement with the UK in the same way I’d ideally like a Swiss+ arrangement with EU – but the UK, like Scotland are democracies and should be entitled to chose their own destinies.

    I think we will end up needing a referendum on the EU terms in late 2018 and can’t see how it would work in any other way than parliament have a meaningful debate, meaningful vote, gridlock and then a simple EU proposed deal, HMG proposed deal ballot. First things first though, we need to know what the EU deal actually is so who blinks first in the accelerated deadlock?

  15. Norbold

    “Good news for those on state pensions then!”

    Yes and for those on private pensions with September RPI as the uprating determiner at 3.9%. However clearly not good news for many people. I expect the rate to start falling by the end of the year.

  16. I think the agenda has moved on.

    It seems to me that the priority now for May-and the one she took to dinner last night-is More Time; aka the Transitional Period after Mar. 2019.

    If UK plc gets to Q1 2018 with no business environment certainty & a year to go-it will start to make its own plans . And the Government won’t like them.

    There is clearly no way that a FTA is going to be agreed by Q1-so more time would provide the only certainty for them.Thats what May wants now-desperately.

    Reading between the lines ( or mis-reading ?) they are going to spend three months thinking about what a Transitional Period should look like ( thats probably quite quick for them) from their pov -and then -if we come across with the dosh by then-we get it- business has three years ahead before change , and hopefully files all those plans to pull out.

    Everyone breaths a sigh of relief , the Sherpas start grinding through the detail & the Michel & Dave show gets a Second Season of monthly outings.

  17. @dalek

    To summarise:

    Remainers winning
    Trev and Colin fighting hard
    Howard knows he’s right

  18. Automod sure sucks
    But not as much as taxes
    On storage units

  19. Colin,
    “Sadly-for both you & I-what matters is whether “its about the money” for EU-and it looks as though it is.”
    Its not about the money. The UK might pay 50bn leaving fees but that only is a few years subscription. Any amount the Uk pays is only going to provide a transitional period for the EU. After that they have to resolve their own budgets anyway.

    Similalry the Uk government doesnt care about the money either. It only cares because Leave made it a voter issue in the campaign. Of course, the government isnt bothered about immigrants either and I doubt it cares about what role the european court might play in the future. They are probably more worried about the Uk courts.

    Its all a bunch of people who dont care about the issue negotiating something they dont believe in or want to do.

  20. Colin

    I think that the phoney war is coming to and end and the pressure from business not only in the UK but within the EU will begin to exert pressure on the negotiation teams on both sides to get on with it.
    We hear a good deal about British business but sometimes forget that within Europe there is also a desire by business to have certainty.
    I think we have to except that in the EU the only two countries that matter are France and Germany without them it would collapse. I don’t see either of those countries wanting to give the UK much of a deal, however both countries are run by people who will look at any economic downturn in the EU’s fortunes caused by brexit including how much trade they will lose and how much extra they will have to stump up between them to pay for the UK’s missing future contributions, against how much politically they want to make an example of the UK.

  21. Trevor Warne,
    “However, London is still the global financial capital. The best growth opportunities lie outside of the EU.”

    Its interesting you should say that. London got to its current position for historical reasons which no longer apply. What is keeping it at the top is inertia. Europe will establish an alternative outward looking financial centre. London has held this back because it was the EUs very own world centre. The EU will now push its own rival on the world stage, and all the ancillary services which move to Europe, because they must, mean that expertise becomes based there. China isnt going to allow western nations to take over its finances, and it too will be seeking to expand its influence world wide. The US is hardly going to take this lying down. Competition for world business will intensify, not reduce, and London will be less well equipped to capture it.

  22. @ BFR – we seem to agree that the horse has bolted. I wrote my post before reading yours as stuck waiting for someone stuck in traffic. Now waiting for something else so a more tailored reply.

    For many Leave we took a look at the future of EA-EU and considered our withering position sat in the EU/non-EA circle and decided we’d like what has been exaggerated as ‘cake and eat it’ rather than being drawn in closer to the political aspects of ‘the project’. We’d like to keep a foot in the vast majority of EU areas (as the Swiss do) but a little more freedom to avoid some of the future project plans and a little more freedom to participate with rWorld in the way that suited our economy rather than the EU axis economies. We’d even pay to move orbits and pay a little for the new position. That was Plan A! That was not Minford, Farage or Boris’s plan it was a thought out appreciation of our geo-political and economic power in the negotiation process. Many like myself were very happy when May got the job over Boris – at the time!! She promised a sensible approach to leaving starting with a strong negotiating position but was probably willing to compromise when and where required. The added bonus was she was supposed to be a Red Tory who despite talking firm in H.Office only ever paid lip service to immigration targets, etc

    Remaining in EU, or worse moving to EEA, is not about the opportunities we’d lose in current terms by leaving (we’d lose those anyway all in good time) but what we’d lose in the future by staying (a more flexible position in the global market and able to avoid any future EU policy disasters in the same way we avoided Euro and Schengen) – IMO anyway.

    The reason the bulk of London jobs will stay in London is that we are still the GLOBAL capital and the economy of the planet is shifting focus – we need to move with the times. As you correctly point out some business is already done in Frankfurt, Dublin, etc. The reason the bulk has stayed in London is due to the centuries of developed competitive advantage as I pointed out above – you can’t just photocopy London but you can certainly erode it’s advantages to the point where the critical mass might shift (e.g. implement a tax on financial transactions)

    However, London does rely to a large extent on critical mass and soft issues like language, great Unis, etc and that is why we should not be complacent. As the GDP of the World shifts to developing nations we need to realign our focus. Asian banks and business are more than replacing the lost Eurozone business and related job losses – if I find the data I’ll post it. It won’t be a smooth switch but London is well accustomed to riding out crisis and it is absolutely vital we do not get lost in transition as this is delaying investments but doing nothing to avoid the ‘Brexodus’.

    Lost in transition (or EEA) combined with a LAB govt is looking like quite a likely outcome at the moment – that kind of perfect storm could end London’s global role. IMHO of course. An appropriate transition with clear destination should unlock the investment backlog and we can ride out that storm. EEA + LAB = death. IMHO of course.

  23. My afternoon about to get busy. Here’s just one of many examples of Asia replacing EU as a focus for London:

    https://www.bdo.co.uk/en-gb/insights/advisory/international-advisory-services/spotlight-on-asian-business-report-2017

    I’m tied a little to that one so know a lot about it. It’s not China. They are also buying into London and lots of info on that via Google. Obama followed by Trump in the White House also shows the risk of NY. Of course May followed by Corbyn would be a risk for London!!!

  24. “Generally speaking, the population in Northern inner cities (that tend to vote Labour) is falling relative to commuter areas in the South (that tend to vote Conservative). Therefore over time the electorate in the northern cities falls, the electorate in the home countries rises and we end up with Northern urban seats having lower electorates than Southern commuter ones. ”

    Does this necessarily always favour the Tories, though?

    More people tend to move more often than in previous decades, for work, for university, for whatever reason.

    A Labour voter moving ‘down south’ is unlikely to suddenly become a Tory voter. Yes, it may happen over time as minds are changed, but, certainly not immediately. Also, voting habits that do change do not necessarily change in one direction.

    To my mind, more people moving from one place to another would, if anything, add to the spread of votes, making less Labour seats strongholds, but, also making less Tory seats strongholds.

    Thinking aloud, this gives me an idea. A proportional representation sort of an idea.

    We keep the FPTP system for individual seats, thus, keeping the link between an MP and their constituants.

    But, what we also do is add up the total votes for each party, divide the total number of votes cast by 650, divide this figure by the total number of votes each party gets, then that is the number of parliamentary MPs they get. Starting with those that have the biggest percentage of majority.

    This would have on anomaly in that it would create two types of MP. A ‘parliamentary MP’, and a ‘sitting local MP’, with some of the closest constituancies having both.

    Just thinking aloud here…..not even sure this is a good idea, just one that came to me as I was typing.

  25. @ Dalek

    Leavers drop like flies
    But we will still rule England
    Under the oak tree

  26. @CARFREW

    I believe the greens would not be called liberal they would be seen as decidely left wing and if you read the GE2010 LD manifesto it was more left wing than the either main party.

    They were not ‘liberal’ but left wing which is why many ex labour metropolitan supporters voted for them in 2010

    What happened afterwards was part of their downfall. None of those voters will trust the idea of voting for the LD would not invite a tory government. Indeed the DUP have shown real caution in terms of basically backing their voters while giving the Tories the minimum of cover and the fact that Corbyn steered clear of co operating with Cameron. it was not helped by the Tory party’s schizophrenic approach, for example accusing Khan of support Islamic fundamentalists in arliament and then needing Khan to be on the same platform as him make no sense even in the rough and tumble of politics it was just ugly. What was interesting was that no one seemed to care. This has however meant that oru politics is now much more divided and I also believe that people now understand that winning becomes more important than principle somethign that centre left often did not consider.

    I accept you did not say that the liberal democrats and the greens were a laughing stock I think it was said in reply to you original post so apologies it was not directed at yourself per se.

  27. @PTRP

    “I believe the greens would not be called liberal they would be seen as decidely left wing and if you read the GE2010 LD manifesto it was more left wing than the either main party.
    They were not ‘liberal’ but left wing which is why many ex labour metropolitan supporters voted for them in 2010”

    ———–

    I never claimed the Greens were liberals. Thus their improvement is consistent with the retreat of liberalism.

  28. @PTRP

    “What happened afterwards was part of their downfall. None of those voters will trust the idea of voting for the LD would not invite a tory government. Indeed the DUP have shown real caution in terms of basically backing their voters while giving the Tories the minimum of cover and the fact that Corbyn steered clear of co operating with Cameron. it was not helped by the Tory party’s schizophrenic approach, for example accusing Khan of support Islamic fundamentalists in arliament and then needing Khan to be on the same platform as him make no sense even in the rough and tumble of politics it was just ugly. What was interesting was that no one seemed to care. This has however meant that oru politics is now much more divided and I also believe that people now understand that winning becomes more important than principle somethign that centre left often did not consider.”

    ———-

    Sure the LDs did themselves over, and this aided the demise of liberalism. And DUP have been more cautious knowing liberalism is hardly flavour of the month. But they also know breaking promises or allying too closely will also lilkely be problematic.

    It’s easier for people to appreciate winning is more important when they have something they want to vote for. Voting for Nulab was voting for more rent increases, zero hours etc. and only a cap on bills if lucky. That’s not a kind of winning likely to appeal to those JAMs etc.

  29. @Mark

    As a system that’s not that dissimilar to the German one; they get two votes, one for a local MP and one for Party, and more MPs are added to match to the Party vote percentage, with no fixed number of MPs.

    Still has the problem of cronies on party lists of course; STV is better.

  30. Lots of chest beating from Mr Johnson in the HoC. One can just begin to discern the possibility of a cut-and -run election under Mr Johnson.
    Trevor Warne feels it necessary to express his reservations about Mr Corbyn, I can tell him they don’t even come close to mine re the mendaci0us sc0undrel Mr Johnson.

  31. Good afternoon from Devon where there is still the orange glow of Saharan sand in the air, and some claim a faint smell of urine from a largely retired population…

    Regarding Brexit, the money is not the problem. We can pay a very large sum over a period of many years, and still be reducing our net contribution. Plus, the Government can reduce our overseas aid budget accordingly, claiming to be helping impoverished Greece, Portugal, etc.

    We are currently spending £13 billion pa on overseas aid: a lot more than Germany, France or Italy as a percentage of GDP. We could halve that figure, and give £6.5 billion to the EU for, say, ten years.

    A sad option, given our pretty admirable record in this area, but I think one that HMG might well pursue.

  32. OK maybe the bill isn’t as big an issue for voters as it might appear – all comes down to the phrasing and how it is spun. Just remembered this AW piece. The CON-Leave crossbreak is however strong cause for concern given May’s reliance on the extreme Brexiteers in her own party.

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/09/14/why-amount-brexit-divorce-bill-doesnt-matter-much/

    CON need an Alastair Campbell!

    Maybe the day to break the 80bn divorce bill is 22Nov when Christopher Robin drops his turn at being Eeyore and turns briefly into Tigger to grab the news cycle and then settles as Rabbit the next day? It might cost May her job but if its agreed and we move quickly to phase2 that is a price worth paying IMHO!

    P.S. Rudd is Owl (see her 2016 CON conference speech!). Mayb0tch has three alternatives: either Winnie the Pooh (lengthy explantion reqd), Roo (with Green as Kanga) or a new character suffering from PTSD. Others see Boris as Winnie the Pooh and then Gove as piglet. I saw an Indy piece that had it all wrong so thought I’d offer the CON/city gossip corrections. All very childish, low political correctness, etc but just FYI – with very little happening in the investment World right now, folks amusing themselves in other areas :)

    @ MILLIE – I see it the same as you, sadly May doesn’t think charity begins at home and has committed to keeping foreign aid at 0.7% although Boris is keen to redefine the OECD definition.

  33. Trevor Warne,
    “CON need an Alastair Campbell!”
    It is possibly worse than that. I think they need a JC.

  34. TURK

    THanks

    I certainly think UK Industry will be laying down the law to our politicians.

    Hopefully the same over there.

    I year to prepare for complete but undefined economic change is clearly ridiculous-wherever you are running a business from.

  35. Trevor is Warne out
    Computer is extinguished
    Silence is golden.

  36. Coiln,

    Your 1.08 is spot on imo,

    As you know my view is that there is little to choose between May/Davis and Corbyn/Starmer in terms of the desire for a transition(or interim) period more or less continuing as now.

    Length and one or 2 details but essentially both have understood this necessity since autumn 2016. Politics just made it harder for HMG to go public with this earlier as it where.

    The view of the final destination post 2021 (or 22 after a transition extension) will differ more but the 2 years allows both parties (especially Labour in opposition) to see how public opinion, EU Governments and the Commissions views develop.

  37. WHS – I think BFR and The EXT D answered you point.

  38. @Trevor Warne

    The divorce bill will be easy to spin:

    “The vindictive EU wanted us to pay the outrageous sum of £80 Billion, but our fantastic British negotiators beat them and we’re only paying £30 Billion, and they’ve limped back to Brussels in shame. ”

    Insert whatever figures you like, as long as it’s portrayed as a good deal for the UK and a bad deal for the EU, people will buy it.

  39. JIM JAM

    Thanks.

    From what I read the EU are going to scope out their ideas on a Transitional period & be ready to agree it by Christmas.

    But I think money will be required-so May & DD will have to define how much they are prepared to contribute to RAL and all the other non-budget contribution items in the EU list. I’m guessing they will agree if they get the transition.

    Whilst this should take some of the panic out of business planners , extra time is available to everyone-including Barnier & co-who can use it to their advantage in the Trade talks.

    Those guys on both sides have a huge responsibility & they all need to avoid a breakdown of talks. That would imo be disastrous.Business confidence would evaporate.

    We have to go into 2018 with the three “historic” issues agreed, AND Transition agreed-or the S*it will hit a lot of fans.

    If it is go by Jan 2018- a helluva lot of work to do on trade. They will not make it easy because Trade by a non-member cannot be seen to be as “good” as trade by a member.

  40. Well, you probably know all about this by now. The detail, I think, is always important. So here is what will happen to milk in Ireland – a billion litres of it.

    http://brexitborder.com/find-new-home-billion-litres-milk/

  41. For those who think that money isn’t important to the EU-just read what Barnier actually said a week ago after the last round of negotiations :-

    “‘On this question we have reached a state of deadlock which is very disturbing for thousands of project promoters in Europe and it’s disturbing also for taxpayers.’

    Translation:- There are thousands of projects being started, being finished, being planned across the EU, which member states have been promised will be funded from future Budget rounds.
    We cannot tell their promoters that they must cancel any of them, and we cannot tell member states that their share of the funding will go up-just because UK is leaving the EU.

    The total sum involved is over £250 bn.

  42. Brexit will become as unpopular as a f*rt in a lift that is stuck for hours.

    OECD say UK economy would receive a boost if Brexit were cancelled.

    Given the years of work that would be required to implement changes brought about by Brexit at a significant cost, people will start questioning this cost. Probably over the next 10 years, the overall cost will be much more than what would have been paid to the EU.

    I read a list online which appears in the FT, which shows over 300 international agreements on a wide range of issues that will stop being effective on Brexit day. Before Brexit day, Government will have to do the leg work, to get the agreements sorted out, ready to take effect under UK administration. For example, one agreement might relate to imports from another country and without a new agreement, there might be an issue. David Davis said today that there will have to be more Brexit related legislation and i question whether they have the time.

    There is going to be a legal challenge against Government to release all of the Brexit risk assessments and if this is granted, then it will cause a major rethink by people who unsure are about Brexit continuing,

  43. I assume the strategy now for leave will be to ensure that the deadline for withdrawing notice to leave passes and the UK does leave, whatever transitional period is then allowed for further negotiations. Whereas remainers will presumably wish either to withdraw notice before then, or ensure that negotiations are formally extended so the date for leaving is delayed, leaving open the option to withdraw.

    Comments on here have been rather apocalyptic of late, even showing a consensus. There are potential up sides to shrinking the Uk economy (no, I do not mean the ones leave claim), but it seems to me the average UK voter isnt going to appreciate any of them, and did not sign up for them if he chose leave. I have been banging on for ages that most remain voters expected a bad economic outcome from Brexit while most leave voters expected a good/neutral economic outcome.

    The Uk is in the position of a city financier, complete with pampered spouse, kids and private school fees, big house and mortgage, fancy German cars, who suddenly decides the limitations of his lifestyle are too much and hands in his resignation. Plans to go self sufficient growing his own food. Well sure he can do it, but is the family really going to accept it? Just how long will they accept growing vegetables of an evening instead of surfing the internet and arguing politics?

    I continue to maintain this is the key to how views will go. People comment on all sorts of reasons for their choices but it always comes back to money.

    The discussion above about small farming and local produce was similarly an argument about whether people will pay more for a premium product. yes, they will, but not reliably. Reliably, price always matters and is frequently the overriding consideration. So with Brexit.

  44. Howard wants answers
    Tho’ his questions make no sense
    Outside Brexit-land

  45. Valerie

    “Trevor is Warne out”

    On balance, probably not.

  46. Colin,
    “Translation:- There are thousands of projects being started, being finished, being planned across the EU, which member states have been promised will be funded from future Budget rounds.”
    Translation:- there are lost of projects where the EU is overcommitted and the Uk leaving is a golden opportunity to cancel them and blame it on the British. Sort of like the promised money for the NHS being spend ten times over, only in reverse.

  47. DANNY

    No-I don’t think so at all.

    They have enough of a headache with rejigging contributions to the Payments Budget after we stop paying into it. Having to renege on their forward committments under RAL is something they will not want to do.

    Barnier makes that absolutely clear.

  48. Colin,
    ” Having to renege on their forward committments under RAL is something they will not want to do.”

    But this tactical haggling cuts both ways. The British keep hyping how indispensible their contributions are, so the EU just has to agree and say the British have forced cuts upon them by refusing to meet their commitments. Might be good for 10x the real sums involved if a little belt tighening is needed. They could sharply improve theier budget position by the Uk leaving.

    funny how these things work out.

  49. My Hykoo

    [The mystical 1/2/2 variation]

    “Pomes

    are for

    Cissies,”

1 2 3 4 21