Brexit talks have begun

We "hard core" Remainers are now in the majority according to the most recent opinion polls.

e.g:

http://survation.com/latest-polls-indicate-majority-support-soft-brexit/

A sample of only 1005 people, but the responses suggest a softening in people's attitudes towards Brexit. I think the first chinks of light of the dawning of realisation that we are about to let loose the rope and drift away from the dock are beginning to show.

Interesting to see that support for a second referendum (not on whether or not to leave) is growing. I think something so important needs the approval of the people. Going back and renegotiating a more appealing settlement would be better than accepting a bum deal.

Your interpretation is somewhat creative given what the poll reveals. And a soft Brexit is exactly what the Cabinet intends - a complete withdrawal but phased over 2 to 4 years.

I had an appraisal at the hospital on Friday including a consultation with a senior consultant who came up from Malta. A battery of tests was supervised by a more junior doctor which included an X-Ray and ECG. The results of both were displayed on the doctor's PC monitor when I saw her less than a minute after completing each test. When it was all over, I had to go to the Medical Billing Section and show my Certificate of Entitlement whereupon they handed me the invoice and asked me to sign it for services received. It was for rather a lot of money - it included a four months' supply of medication in addition to the doctors' and hospital fees. I am sure the NHS isn't any cheaper so I can easily imagine the magnitude of the charges it should be levying. Incidentally Victoria General Hospital, where I was seen, is currently in the process of being rebuilt and re-equipped as a training hospital and that's being paid for by Barts Hospital in London jointly with the London School of Medicine and Dentistry. The new inpatient reception area and entrance lobby would not be out of place in a 5 star hotel.

Two of Thatcher's opt-outs as I recall. I agree, had we signed both those treaties, our withdrawal would be impossible. Hard-core Remainers (especially the Lib Dems) would call for both to prevent any likelihood of the Brexit referendum being repeated.

Boris would be excellent and the other parties rubbish purely because they haven't anyone anything like as intelligent, well-read or charismatic as our Boris. Even his sister, Rachel, who deserted to the Lib Dems after the referendum in a hissy-fit, is rooting for him.

I run my own business mate, I'm not a DUP MP.

Some parents don't have the freedom to make those choices. That's the point. Just because you know some people who have been fortunate enough to have the ability to up sticks and move, it isn't acceptable that you use those rare examples as a stick to beat parents who cannot make that choice.

Take a look at the schools who face the largest cuts. Education is investment, not something to be sacrificed by austerity.

Going back to my own example, my mum cleaned houses, offices and public toilets for a pittance. My father was unemployed for 3 years. I was stuck in an asbestos ridden school with barely 15 text books for a class of 32. Where should my inconsiderate parents have moved to in those circumstances? Chelsea? Buckinghamshire?

That will be survation, the only pollsters to get close on the election predictions.

Boris for PM they cry.

I'll just leave this here.

But the discussion was about you, not your considerably less fortunate parents. You could move to a better catchment area if you chose to.

I used my scenario as an example. I thought it was clear that my argument was more general.

Which means, hopefully, we can get the debate back on track?

Brilliant. Boris for PM, if only for the entertainment value. I can't wait to see his official car

"Come on Everyone! The Conservative Party is the Best Party in Town! Huzzah!

Apparently the five yellow spots on Her Majesty's hat refer to the five continents represented in her beloved Commonwealth.

Not according to YouGov whose latest poll reveals that only 21% of the electorate don't want Brexit to go ahead.

Do you have a link for the poll please?

From the Express
Brexit bill BOMBSHELL:
Theresa May CAN walk away without paying a penny to EU, experts say

THERESA May can walk away from Brexit talks "without paying a penny" if Brussels tries to punish the UK

The Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA) said Britain can and should refuse to pay any Brexit bill if Eurocrats refuse to give her a "good deal".

European Union officials have claimed the UK's divorce fee could be as high as £90 billion. But a discussion paper published by the IEA described the sum put forward by European Commission officials as "going too far".

He argued that a compromise payment of up to £26billion to cover existing EU budget commitments and other liabilities including staff pensions.

He said there was no reason for the UK to pay more than £21bn for liabilities, and around £5 billion for pensions and other one-off items.

He said: "The Brexit negotiations will need to decide how much the UK will pay the EU to settle financial obligations undertaken while it was a member.

"Many Brits would suggest that the right figure is in the ballpark of 'zero'.

"However, some EU officials have suggested that the bill should be north of £85billion.

"A compromise towards the lower end of this range might be acceptable – a figure of around £26 billion could be justified using certain principles.

"But if the two sides fail to agree a good deal on the terms of any future relationship, the UK can, and should, walk away without paying a penny."

Mr Jessop's argued that Britain's exit from the EU should be treated like a member leaving a club rather than a "divorce".

He argued: "It is not therefore a simple matter of dividing up assets and liabilities in the same way as a divorcing couple might sell the family home or fight over custody of the dog."

Instead, he said, the UK simply needed to close its account on leaving the bloc in March 2019.

The economist also pointed out that the peers had concluded that "the UK would be on strong legal ground if it declined to pay any divorce bill at all".

Brexit negotiations between the UK and Brussels began last week But Mr Jessop warned that simply refusing to pay anything on departure could undermine the country's chances of getting a favourable trade deal.

He said: "A more flexible stance should increase the chances of getting better terms on other aspects of the negotiations which will ultimately be more important.

"Rather than sticking to the letter of the law, the UK could earn some goodwill - and tangible benefits – by focusing on the spirit of the past and future partnership."

Mr Jessop suggested the UK should meet long-term financial commitments previously agreed with the EU. This could mean continuing payments set out under the EU's existing seven-year budget framework up to 2020. He said: "A cut-off date of 2020 would be fair and reasonable. This is similar in principle to quitting a club.

"If you have signed up to a long-term subscription you might still be liable for the whole amount even if you decide to leave early."

More than 17 million Britons voted to leave the EU last summer

The economist also accused the European Commission of "padding the bill" to reach the eye-watering £90billion sum. Officials were demanding funds to cover the Common Agricultural Policy, long-term capital spending and for spending plans not even allocated yet.

Writing in a policy paper published to mark the launch of the IEA's new Brexit Unit, the IEA said: "Frankly, this is going too far.

"The EU needs to adjust its spending to reflect the fact that the UK is leaving and a grace period until the end of 2020 would surely be long enough.

"The EU is also asking the UK to make large upfront payments for contingencies that may never arise – and then wait years for a repayment."

That's what the House of Lords committees, constitutional experts and government lawyers have been saying for months! The EU refuses to take into account the value of all the assets the EU has accumulated over the last 40 years and that Britain has contributed towards. Oh and they want £58 million for a new Parliament building that they've suddenly decided that they want in Brussels regardless of the fact that there are already THREE fully-equipped Parliament buildings already, in Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg!

#DespiteBrexit

This has to be the biggest climb-down by any Remain supporter.

Bloomberg – a £250,000 donor to the Remain campaign – has declared the City of London "safe despite Brexit". In a hugely enjoyable volte-face, the site today published a piece concluding that the City will be fine even in the event of a no deal Brexit:

"Despite Brexit, London’s place as a leading global financial center looks safe. Ever since Britain voted to leave the European Union, analysts have debated the City’s fate… Fortunately for the U.K., Brexit itself won’t erode the significant advantages London currently enjoys. Perhaps more importantly, neither will it help European rivals build up similar advantages… These conditions aren’t easily replicated… [London’s] competitive advantages are substantial — and won’t be easily eroded even by a hard Brexit."​

The article goes onto list the comparative advantages of London over alternative European financial centres, long adduced by Leavers: strong institutions, the pound, English law, the language and lifestyle. It’s a far cry from Bloomberg’s previous analysis on Brexit, the most extreme of which was the now infamous “71% of economists” survey which predicted a post-Referendum recession in 2016.

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/docume...P-EN.pdf/8321df8a-ba1b-433e-9cdc-bfd81e3f4a45

Just think how much the average increases when we get our sorry asses out of there.