Andrea Leadsom for new PM?

[Skaville]

Is she the one that coldly smiled like an inane robot during the debates? Thatcher Mark II. Excellent, I can't imagine a disingenuous ******** like her failing to unite the country.

 

[dingodan]

Is she the one that coldly smiled like an inane robot during the debates? Thatcher Mark II. Excellent, I can't imagine a disingenuous ******** like her failing to unite the country.

She's the one who calmly broke down the arguments, stuck to the issues, spoke with honesty & integrity in the debates and always spoke in a conciliatory and level headed way throughout the campaign.

If that is what you mean.

I don't know if you have ever actually listened to her speak, but she is precisely the person who I think would be able to unite the country. She is one of the few politicians who doesn't deal in spin or play politics, which is pretty rare and why the prospect of her as PM excites me so much.

I also think, out of all the potential candidates, she would be the least divisive and someone who could very easily win a general election.

 

[Bladders]

She's the one who calmly broke down the arguments, stuck to the issues, spoke with honesty & integrity in the debates and always spoke in a conciliatory and level headed way throughout the campaign.

If that is what you mean.

I don't know if you have ever actually listened to her speak, but she is precisely the person who I think would be able to unite the country. She is one of the few politicians who doesn't deal in spin or play politics, which is pretty rare and why the prospect of her as PM excites me so much.

I also think, out of all the potential candidates, she would be the least divisive and someone who could very easily win a general election.

A key point to consider.

 

[Wellesley]

Is she the one that coldly smiled like an inane robot during the debates? Thatcher Mark II. Excellent, I can't imagine a disingenuous ******** like her failing to unite the country.

I like the way she smiles when she talks and more importantly, I imagine she makes a lovely cup of tea and a really nice sandwich and I think that's what Britain needs right now. I'm in.

 

[Machiavelli]

She is now one of the favorites for the job. If she were to replace David Cameron it would be the first time in my life that we would have a PM I could admire and feel proud of.

Yes please.

Do you like her because she's small, local, old and particular?

 

[dingodan]

Do you like her because she's small, local, old and particular?

If only Boris had been a Remainer, he could be big, global, new and abstract!

 

[Triggaaar]

I imagine she makes a lovely cup of tea and a really nice sandwich and I think that's what Britain needs right now. I'm in.

**** yeah. What could be better than your lovely PM making you a sandwich and a cup of tea. The nation's coming back together, I can feel it.

 

[Machiavelli]

If only Boris had been a Remainer, he could be big, global, new and abstract!

Boris will be those one day, and then adopt Andrea's qualities the next, and then get really upset when the audience turn on him at the pantomime.
Oh the joy of it all.

 

[dingodan]

Boris will be those one day, and then adopt Andrea's qualities the next, and then get really upset when the audience turn on him at the pantomime.
Oh the joy of it all.

The reason I would chose Andrea over Boris in a heartbeat is because he is divisive. People love him or hate him, and that is unhelpful under current conditions. You want a leader who a majority of people can like and respect and she has that, where , much as I do like Boris, he doesn't.

Her experience in the City would also be very helpful because we could do with someone who can make the City and markets feel confident and reassured going into our pending negotiations.

 

[Machiavelli]

The reason I would chose Andrea over Boris in a heartbeat is because he is divisive. People love him or hate him, and that is unhelpful under current conditions. You want a leader who a majority of people can like and respect and she has that, where , much as I do like Boris, he doesn't.

Her experience in the City would also be very helpful because we could do with someone who can make the City and markets feel confident and reassured going into our pending negotiations.

Oh, I disagree on her (but not Boris), but your (abstract ) logic is faultless. It's your (particular) premises that I disagree on.

 

[Gwylan]

Hmmm. In six months time, we could be looking at three of the most powerful positions in the world being held by women (Leadsom, Clinton & Merkel). Personally, I find that quite intriguing, but obviously I await the inevitable insults from NSC's finest...
.

You could argue that Christine Lagarde and Janet Yellen are much more powerful than any of these (apart from the US president). And with a woman expected to be the new secretary general of the UN, we could have a situation where nearly all the most powerful positions in the world are held by women. We'd just need Putin to have a sex change for the complete set

 

[Triggaaar]

The only concern I have with her, is that she wants free trade with the EU, but not free movement - surely we can't get that? Although, to be fair, it's a good starting position for a negotiation.

 

[Triggaaar]

You could argue that Christine Lagarde and Janet Yellen are much more powerful than any of these (apart from the US president). And with a woman expected to be the new secretary general of the UN, we could have a situation where nearly all the most powerful positions in the world are held by women. We'd just need Putin to have a sex change for the complete set

Putin above Xi Jinping?

 

[Gwylan]

Putin above Xi Jinping?

In terms of making jokes about sex change, yes

 

[dingodan]

The only concern I have with her, is that she wants free trade with the EU, but not free movement - surely we can't get that? Although, to be fair, it's a good starting position for a negotiation.

It's funny, I hear that a lot but there is no reason why we would need free movement. You have to distinguish between the following:

a) Free movement would be a condition insisted on by the EU for a free trade agreement

&

b) Free movement is required for free trade.

a) is possibly true, but b) is absolutely false, there is no need for free movement in order to have free trade. Many free trade agreements are in place around the world without the nations party to the agreement having free movement of people between them.

Now if a) was to be the case, that would mean that the EU would be willing to walk away from a deal unless they secured something which is not actually required for the deal to work. In essense they would be putting a political and ideological principle that they like above their desire (or even need) for a trade deal. That doesn't make sense when you think about it. The EU does really need a good trade deal with us, and that deal is not, in practical terms contingent on free movement. If they were to walk away from a deal because we refused free movement, that would be a classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. I know they want free movement and believe in the principle, but trade negotiations are usually not based around extraneous factors. Trade is pragmatic, if it benefits both parties then other issues can be put aside. It would be madness for the EU to have no trade deal with the UK simply because we won't agree to free movement. It would also be madness for us to agree to free movement in order to secure a trade deal.

This is why it's important that we have a strong and determined negotiating team, there is no need for us to give up anything in trade negotiations. Unlike with some other forms of negotiation, trade deals don't really require compromise where the two parties have to give up any of their interests or principles. Trade deals are struck based on mutually beneficial arrangements. If I trade with you and it benefits us both, I really don't need to ask you to do something additional which you don't want to, or vice versa. We just agree on those things we both can agree that we do want to do, and in a trade deal - that's trade with each other.

 

[Triggaaar]

It's funny, I hear that a lot but there is no reason why would need free movement. You have to distinguish between the following:

a) Free movement would be a conditiality insisted on by the EU for a free trade agreement

&

b) Free movement is required for free trade.

a) is possibly true, but b) is absolutely false, there is no need for free movement in order to have free trade. Many free trade agreements are in place around the world without the nations party to the agreement having free movement of people between them.

But we're not talking about trade agreements elsewhere in the world, we're talking about the UK and the EU.

So while b) is theoretically possible, if a) is true, then by definition, so is b). If the EU insist, and won't back down, then we either have both or neither.

Some remainers argue that the EU will make an example of us and give us a terrible deal. While I'm sure the EU would like to do that, if we give them the ultimatum that it's free trade and free movement, or no trade (ie, tariffs that would make trade unworkable), I'm confident they'd accept the trade. If, however, we said it's free trade or no trade, and no free movement of people either way, I think they'd say no.

I accept that I don't know this, it's just my feeling. And I feel that way because it's what's reasonable. I don't think they can reasonably reject free trade with free movement, as it's what we already have.

Now if a) was to be the case, that would mean that the EU would be willing to walk away from a deal unless they secured something which is not actually required for the deal to work. In essense they would be putting a political and ideological principle that they like above their desire (or even need) for a trade deal. That doesn't make sense when you think about it. The EU does really need a good trade deal with us, and that deal is not, in practical terms contingent on free movement. If they were to walk away from a deal because we refused free movement, that would be a classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

But if they offered us free trade, but with free movement, and we said no, we'd be cutting off our nose to spite our face.

I know they want free movement and believe in the principle, but trade negotiations are usually not based around extraneous factors.

They are, that's why the deal with Norway and Switzerland includes the movement of people.

Trade is pragmatic, if it benefits both parties then other issues can be put aside.

That's not quite true. Some nations are more powerful than others, and they use that power to get better deals. Smaller nations depend more on larger nations, so they have no choice but to accept adverse terms.

It would be madness for the EU to have no trade deal with the UK simply because we won't agree to free movement.

But the EU have to try not to give us too much, or France and Germany might as well leave too.

It would also be madness for us to agree to free movement in order to secure a trade deal.

I disagree, I don't think that would be mad at all. I think it would be mad to not have free trade, just so we can prevent the free movement of people.

This is why it's important that we have a strong and determined negotiating team

Well I certainly agree there. It's the most important thing right now.

Unlike with some other forms of negotiation, trade deals don't really require compromise where the two parties have to give up any of their interests or principles. Trade deals are struck based on mutually beneficial arrangements. If I trade with you and it benefits us both, I really don't need to ask you to do something additional which you don't want to, or vice versa. We just agree on those things we both can agree that we do want to do, and in a trade deal - that's trade with each other.

As I've said, it's not that simple. If one side has more go gain/lose, they often have to give up more to get the deal. Why else do you think Norway and Switzerland have to accept the movement of people?

 

[Machiavelli]

Andrea was just on WATO and, when asked about leadership, indicated that she wasn't saying anything at this stage. The presenter, Martha Kearney, seemed to interpret this as a "yes, I will stand" as did I. We'll know by Thursday...
... and it will be nice to know something, even if it is only one thing, within 80 hours.

 

[dingodan]

But we're not talking about trade agreements elsewhere in the world, we're talking about the UK and the EU.

So while b) is theoretically possible, if a) is true, then by definition, so is b). If the EU insist, and won't back down, then we either have both or neither.

Some remainers argue that the EU will make an example of us and give us a terrible deal. While I'm sure the EU would like to do that, if we give them the ultimatum that it's free trade and free movement, or no trade (ie, tariffs that would make trade unworkable), I'm confident they'd accept the trade. If, however, we said it's free trade or no trade, and no free movement of people either way, I think they'd say no.

I accept that I don't know this, it's just my feeling. And I feel that way because it's what's reasonable. I don't think they can reasonably reject free trade with free movement, as it's what we already have.

It's what we have, but it's also what we have decided we no longer want, that's part of the results of the referendum. & no, b) is absolutely not true. I'm talking in practical terms, it's not required, it could only be insisted upon, but trade can take place unhindered without it, and that's why it should, and I hope will.

It would make no sense for them to refuse a deal on the basis of free movement being off the table. Free movement must be off the table. As long as that is clear and non-negotiable then if they really insist upon it, they will have to walk away from any deal. They will have to decide to end trade between the UK & the EU. That is actually politically unworkable. I guess what I am saying is that when it comes to free movement, we hold all the cards. They really cannot insist on it without conducting a trade negotiation which completely lacks pragmatism and good sense. Maybe there are some nihilistic politicians who, in their anger and bitterness towards us would be prepared to do that. But they would then have to answer to their own population, they would have to explain that they refused a deal with us because we wouldn't agree to something which, in respect of trade, is irrelevant. I just cannot see how they would be able to do that, the EU relies very heavily on trade with the UK, German manufacturers have already made strong representations to their government that trade between our two countries must continue unhindered.

There is politics and there is realism, in the world of politics it might make sense that the EU could insist on free movement, but in practical terms, they just can't. But we must not be so weak as to agree to it either, which I guess is a possibility.

We need strong negotiators, and we need to be willing to call their bluff. It would have to be a bluff, it would have to be politics. Trade simply does not work in the same way as politics does, thankfully, it's based on realism and pragmatism.

 

[dingodan]

Andrea was just on WATO and, when asked about leadership, indicated that she wasn't saying anything at this stage. The presenter, Martha Kearney, seemed to interpret this as a "yes, I will stand" as did I. We'll know by Thursday...
... and it will be nice to know something, even if it is only one thing, within 80 hours.

That sounds great. I have no worries about her winning the nomination, my only concern has been that she might decide not to run, or to accept the offer from another candidate of the position of Chancellor. For me she would make a great Chancellor, but we really need someone like her as PM, it would be so great for this country IMO.

 

[Eeyore]

I do hope she is a serious contender, Boris and Liam aren't PM material imo


Sent by 2 old baked bean cans and a piece of string

How do you attach that 'sent by' thing ? it's really funny.