Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The Wednesday afternoon open thread – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited June 13 in General
imageThe Wednesday afternoon open thread – politicalbetting.com

I’m travelling today so not much time for me write a new piece.

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 17,005
    On topic!
  • Off topic!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,824
    There's a topic?
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 4,536
    DavidL said:

    There's a topic?

    Brexit.

    Its always Brexit.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,923
    LET’S TALK ABOUT BOTTOMS
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,824
    At the end of the last thread I asked if SKS had once again proven himself to be the Stuart Pearce of penalty kickers (other English players are available) and the response seemed to be that this was a cunning plan to allow Boris to survive and cause yet more damage to the Tories.

    I don't like the cliche, "well, its a theory" (there are many others that I will use with relish) but it does cover the situation. What I think we need to do is look for evidence in support of that theory, like the many occasions when SKS has used a rapier of wit to devastating effect. And I am kind of struggling.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 5,877
    eek said:

    dixiedean said:

    I didn't watch either.
    But. Do Labour want the PM strengthened or weakened at this moment?

    Excellent point. PB Tories moaning like hell Starmer didn’t knock Boris out for them. The Tories should have done that themselves! No point blaming others who have their own self serving game to play.
    Starmer asked the right questions but wasn't a compelling speaker. Though some of the gags (e.g. 24 hours in A+E) might clip well for the evening news.

    Johnson's answers were garbage, but garbage delivered with oomph and brio.

    You pays your money and you takes your choice.

    (None of this matters at all if the economy really tanks.)
    Governments have stayed put in recessions before. Recession in 92 kept Labour out of power. Economy simply tanking shouldn’t assume is great for oppositions. Only governments can act, if they get things right they can claim getting the big calls right. Meanwhile voters may already be nervous about changing PM and government when country in cost of living and economic crisis so should be easy to help voters along that way by making change and opposition sound scary. Labour would have more chance of winning next election if the country wasn’t in crisis. It’s harder work now for Labour to convince such big change is safe and not making it worse or wrecking the recovery, and hard work to tie things that’s international to the domestic government - any mistakes government have made they will so easily now blame on international situation out of their control as the line between the two will be very blurred.
    on that basis 92 is a VERY interesting election. On the one hand you have the seriously competent John Smith as shadow Chancellor let down by Neil Kinnock's image and on the other hand you have John Major and Norman Lamont
    You might not be right. I say might be because it’s a bit counterfactual - but polls and elections for years didn’t pick up on Kinnock image make labour unelectable, he did take a hammering in the press didn’t he? But John Smith who I hasn’t seen on video but looks cocky in pictures brought out a tax raising shadow budget during the campaign, that was a bit like handing the Tory’s the howitzers which blew the Labour chances away?

    We can’t rule out a very similar thing happening this time.

    PS did anyone watch Wes Streetings car crash in commons today. I don’t rate him at all, he was so rubbish today. If Streeting takes over from Starmer this summer Labour definitely lose. Starmer’s the best option they have from that front bench.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 8,148
    Well, OHG does have a reputation for succinct headers.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 41,037
    edited June 8
    Eurovision – making EUR mind up
    (part 1)
    Well, another year, another Eurovision! This article isn’t intended as a music review, but just an insight as to how Ukraine and the UK fought it out for the top spot on Saturday night May 14th. Obviously, with the war still raging in Ukraine, that country did garner sympathy votes, but their song “Stefania” by the Kaluch Orchestra was a strong entry, and, unusually, so was the UK entry, “Spaceman” by Sam Ryder. “Slomo” by Spain’s Chanel was also a bookie favourite.

    I think most of you will agree, the overall quality of the 25 finalists was very high, the highest for several years. The voting is always, shall we say, “interesting”. Though in recent years, neighbours voting for neighbours has been tempered by having the votes being split evenly between television audiences and professional “juries” for each nation. For example, this year, the UK Jury comprised Nicki Chapman, Tom Aspaul, Michelle Gayle, Aisha Jawando and Ross Gautreau.

    The Jury votes were actually cast on Friday 13th during a dress rehearsal for Saturday’s show. The Jury votes account for 50% of the votes, and the audience tele-voting for the other 50%, phoning in live after the last country’s performance on Saturday. Rank order is straightforward, the top country in each nation’s vote preference gets 12 points, second-place gets 10 points, then 8 points for third, and then 7 points down to 1 for positions fourth to tenth.

    The Jury vote
    The UK got no less than eight 12-points from the national Juries, the joint highest with Spain. The following lovely, gorgeous countries' Juries gave us 12 points:

    Austria
    Azerbaijan
    Belgium
    Czechia
    France
    Georgia
    Germany
    Ukraine

    Wait, I hear you cry! France AND Germany gave us 12 points? Surely not! But it’s true – they did! Although they didn’t qualify for the final, the Irish did at least give us 8 points.
    Our Jury gave our 12 points to Sweden (but the Swedes gave us only 8 points!). However, the UK jury didn’t give Ukraine anything! Naughty! On the other hand, the following four reprobate countries gave the UK nul points in the Jury vote:

    Greece
    Armenia
    Croatia
    Australia

    Australia? Don't you mean Austria, Sunil? Surely? No, it's not a typo. The Aussies really didn't give us any Jury points!

    At any rate, we Brits were in pole position at the conclusion of the Jury vote declaration, with 283 points. Sweden got 258 points, and Spain 231. Ukraine, by contrast, only had 192 points, with 12 points from the Juries from only Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova and Poland. The Ukrainians actually got nul points from the following:

    Austria
    Bulgaria
    Estonia
    Finland
    Greece
    Italy
    Malta
    Netherlands
    North Macedonia
    Serbia
    Spain
    Sweden
    UK

    (part 2 to follow)


  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 41,037
    edited June 8
    Part 2:

    The Tele-vote

    However, in terms of the audience tele-vote, only the delightful Malta gave the UK 12 points. The Irish gave us only 6 points. Our audience gave Ukraine 12 points (Ukraine gave us only 7 points, as did the Aussies!).

    The UK tele-vote total of 183 points across 39 countries meant only an average of 4.7 points per country. The following five reprobate countries gave the UK nul points in the tele-vote:

    Croatia
    Montenegro
    North Macedonia
    Serbia
    Slovenia

    Croatia, hang your head in shame! Giving us nul points in BOTH votes!

    Ukraine got 12 points from all countries' tele-votes apart from:

    Albania (10)
    Armenia (10)
    Croatia (10)
    Greece (10)
    Montenegro (10)
    Romania (10)
    Slovenia (10)
    Switzerland (10)
    North Macedonia (8)
    Malta (8)
    Serbia (7)

    Naughty Serbia!

    UKR first, UK second

    Anyway, with a whopping 439 audience points to add to their 192 Jury points, Ukraine easily came top with 631 total points, their third victory since they first entered the contest in 2003, the other triumphs being 2004 and 2016. The UK came a very strong second, with 466 points. It was our best placing since 1998, though we did win for the fifth and last time the previous year (1997).
    The Top 5 were:

    Ukraine 631
    UK 466
    Spain 459
    Sweden 438
    Serbia 312

    Can the UK go one better and get a sixth victory next year? Well, we'll just have to wait and see!

    Full data tables can be found on Wikipedia at:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurovision_Song_Contest_2022

  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 7,841
    DavidL said:

    At the end of the last thread I asked if SKS had once again proven himself to be the Stuart Pearce of penalty kickers (other English players are available) and the response seemed to be that this was a cunning plan to allow Boris to survive and cause yet more damage to the Tories.

    I don't like the cliche, "well, its a theory" (there are many others that I will use with relish) but it does cover the situation. What I think we need to do is look for evidence in support of that theory, like the many occasions when SKS has used a rapier of wit to devastating effect. And I am kind of struggling.

    I'm not sure a politician's nature would allow him to be crap at PMQs just to protect his opponent. For example, IDS's crapness in this regard probably contributed to his ousting, but I saw no evidence of Tone pulling his punches, even though it would have been better for Labour to have IDS in place.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 5,877
    edited June 8
    On topic. I’ve finally got round to tidying up the flat today after Sundays party. 😌

    The other half wasn’t happy, she likes it a bit tidy whilst I’m happy to live in the woods with herd of pigs. So I will be back in good books again, so if i’m not posting much this evening I’ll leave you with this 😉
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 17,005
    DavidL said:

    At the end of the last thread I asked if SKS had once again proven himself to be the Stuart Pearce of penalty kickers (other English players are available) and the response seemed to be that this was a cunning plan to allow Boris to survive and cause yet more damage to the Tories.

    I don't like the cliche, "well, its a theory" (there are many others that I will use with relish) but it does cover the situation. What I think we need to do is look for evidence in support of that theory, like the many occasions when SKS has used a rapier of wit to devastating effect. And I am kind of struggling.

    Makes no odds. SKS s don't win elections phatbois lose them. He is pretty useless though not faking it
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,266
    edited June 8
    DavidL said:

    At the end of the last thread I asked if SKS had once again proven himself to be the Stuart Pearce of penalty kickers (other English players are available) and the response seemed to be that this was a cunning plan to allow Boris to survive and cause yet more damage to the Tories.

    I don't like the cliche, "well, its a theory" (there are many others that I will use with relish) but it does cover the situation. What I think we need to do is look for evidence in support of that theory, like the many occasions when SKS has used a rapier of wit to devastating effect. And I am kind of struggling.

    @DavidL In all my years dealing with lawyers (mostly international law), I have observed they fall somewhere on a grid with two parameters:
    - those who get caught in the weeds vs those who look at the big picture
    - those who find reasons why not to vs those who find reasons to justify

    Strikes me that SKS is a weeds why not, whereas I'd want a big picture, justify to inspire a political movement.

    Your thoughts?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 28,848
    My old lappy has conked after 11 and a half wonderful years.

    Homing in on the HP Envy 14 as a replacement. The "14" refers to screen size.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,824
    IshmaelZ said:

    DavidL said:

    At the end of the last thread I asked if SKS had once again proven himself to be the Stuart Pearce of penalty kickers (other English players are available) and the response seemed to be that this was a cunning plan to allow Boris to survive and cause yet more damage to the Tories.

    I don't like the cliche, "well, its a theory" (there are many others that I will use with relish) but it does cover the situation. What I think we need to do is look for evidence in support of that theory, like the many occasions when SKS has used a rapier of wit to devastating effect. And I am kind of struggling.

    Makes no odds. SKS s don't win elections phatbois lose them. He is pretty useless though not faking it
    Which was my point, such as it was. Imagine what a Blair or a Hague or a Cameron would be doing to this government.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,189
    DavidL said:

    At the end of the last thread I asked if SKS had once again proven himself to be the Stuart Pearce of penalty kickers (other English players are available) and the response seemed to be that this was a cunning plan to allow Boris to survive and cause yet more damage to the Tories.

    I don't like the cliche, "well, its a theory" (there are many others that I will use with relish) but it does cover the situation. What I think we need to do is look for evidence in support of that theory, like the many occasions when SKS has used a rapier of wit to devastating effect. And I am kind of struggling.

    I know it is Guido reporting but the press are not good when he had such an open goal

    Sir Keir’s PMQs performance today was less of an own goal, more like a player running up to take a penalty and then missing the ball. There weren’t very high expectations for the Labour leader going into the session this lunchtime, just a case of pouring salt in the wounds opened by Tory MPs on Monday, and yet he decided to do a very low energy set of questions on health funding. Looking down the timeline, it looks like LOTO may have to accept a misstep today…

    Times’ Henry Zeffman: “Not sure Labour MPs will think Starmer’s showing at PMQs quite met the level of the PM’s peril”

    Mail’s David Wilcock: “‘This line of attack is not working,’ Boris Johnson tells Keir Starmer at #PMQs – and he may have a point.”

    Daily Mail’s Henry Deedes: “This should be the #pmqs of the year. Starmer’s moment. And he’s already killed it. The chamber now devoid of atmosphere.”

    Telegraph’s Christopher Hope: “Keir Starmer is missing his open goal”

    CityAM’s Stefan Boscia: “Half way through and Keir is missing an open goal here”

    TalkTV’s Kate McCann: “Labour benches are silent, many not even looking at their leader as he speaks. Many dislike PMQs pantomime, but I’m not sure this Labour approach works”

    JOE Politics’ Oli Dugmore:“Is Keir just really bad at politics? Is this some kind of master stroke I don’t understand? Feels like Boris is wiping the floor with him today”

    New Statesman’s Ben Walker: “This isn’t 4D chess, this is just ineffective.”

    The i’s Paul Waugh: “His troops, rebels and loyalists alike, were always going to be behind @BorisJohnson today but he is enjoying himself at #PMQs. Clearly delighted at Starmer’s failure to land blows and dismissive of Blackford.”

    Adam Boulton: “Starmer’s inability to ad lib, reply to taunts or deviate from his pre-cooked plan not helping him.”

    Times Radio’s Matt Chorley: “I genuinely think this is one of the worst PMQs Starmer has had… Hopeless.”
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,266
    kinabalu said:

    My old lappy has conked after 11 and a half wonderful years.

    Homing in on the HP Envy 14 as a replacement. The "14" refers to screen size.

    If you travel a lot, weight and battery life are big considerations (they are for me)
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,923
    DavidL said:

    At the end of the last thread I asked if SKS had once again proven himself to be the Stuart Pearce of penalty kickers (other English players are available) and the response seemed to be that this was a cunning plan to allow Boris to survive and cause yet more damage to the Tories.

    I don't like the cliche, "well, its a theory" (there are many others that I will use with relish) but it does cover the situation. What I think we need to do is look for evidence in support of that theory, like the many occasions when SKS has used a rapier of wit to devastating effect. And I am kind of struggling.

    Starmer isn’t good at PMQs, or anything involving quick wit, imagination or eloquence. However he can, if he tries hard, raise a head of steam with that *forensic* shtick, where he zeroes in on a point and doesn’t let it go. But it happens rarely, so it must take an effort, and maybe some luck?

    It is better for Labour if Boris stays in office. I can therefore see Starmer deciding not to try REALLY hard, and just give his normal uninspiring performance. Boris takes no more damage. Job done
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,824

    DavidL said:

    At the end of the last thread I asked if SKS had once again proven himself to be the Stuart Pearce of penalty kickers (other English players are available) and the response seemed to be that this was a cunning plan to allow Boris to survive and cause yet more damage to the Tories.

    I don't like the cliche, "well, its a theory" (there are many others that I will use with relish) but it does cover the situation. What I think we need to do is look for evidence in support of that theory, like the many occasions when SKS has used a rapier of wit to devastating effect. And I am kind of struggling.

    I'm not sure a politician's nature would allow him to be crap at PMQs just to protect his opponent. For example, IDS's crapness in this regard probably contributed to his ousting, but I saw no evidence of Tone pulling his punches, even though it would have been better for Labour to have IDS in place.
    Its a slightly unfair example. Who, let alone Tone, could possibly resist giving that face a slap at every opportunity? IDS, at times, made Corbyn look good.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,434
    kinabalu said:

    My old lappy has conked after 11 and a half wonderful years.

    Homing in on the HP Envy 14 as a replacement. The "14" refers to screen size.

    I'm very happy with it.
  • eekeek Posts: 19,261
    edited June 8
    TimT said:

    kinabalu said:

    My old lappy has conked after 11 and a half wonderful years.

    Homing in on the HP Envy 14 as a replacement. The "14" refers to screen size.

    If you travel a lot, weight and battery life are big considerations (they are for me)
    https://www.box.co.uk/21A00013UK-Lenovo-ThinkPad-P14s-Gen-2-Ryzen-5-16GB-_3850560.html is stupidly cheap for the money - the only thing you may want to do is to replace the nvme drive with a bigger one. Some comments at https://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/lenovo-thinkpad-p14s-gen-2-ryzen-5-16gb-ram-256gb-ssd-windows-10-pro-14-laptop-ps62399-3946095
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 28,848
    TimT said:

    kinabalu said:

    My old lappy has conked after 11 and a half wonderful years.

    Homing in on the HP Envy 14 as a replacement. The "14" refers to screen size.

    If you travel a lot, weight and battery life are big considerations (they are for me)
    I don't these days. But this one would be ok for that. Quite light and big battery.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 17,005
    kinabalu said:

    My old lappy has conked after 11 and a half wonderful years.

    Homing in on the HP Envy 14 as a replacement. The "14" refers to screen size.

    Thank god you clarified that

  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,923
    Berlin update

    NOT an accident. Perhaps terror, perhaps murder?

    Many confusing details. And still they say he is 29, when he looks 39 or even 49

    “Berlin police confirmed they had arrested a 29-year-old German-Armenian man living in Berlin.
    BILD reports that the man, named only as Gor H, left a confession letter in the car.”

    https://twitter.com/dfallamhain/status/1534537334078812160?s=21&t=JQPBplDtRKIsungNMSGVHg
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 28,848
    rkrkrk said:

    kinabalu said:

    My old lappy has conked after 11 and a half wonderful years.

    Homing in on the HP Envy 14 as a replacement. The "14" refers to screen size.

    I'm very happy with it.
    Ah good to hear. If you are I'm bound to be.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 5,483
    edited June 8
    Questions. My assumption is that once 54 letters went in Boris's days are numbered and everyone knows it. The only issue being when.

    1) Is this correct
    2) If correct, what reason is there for Tory MPs to prolong their (and our) agony for months, knowing the Boris cause is hopeless -'if were done when tis done' etc
    3) Is there a cunning plan and if so what.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 16,541
    FPT
    Leon said:

    As a Leave voter I have to say the UK quitting/being kicked out of Horizon, the EU science fund, seems pretty bloody sub-optimal

    Get this fucker Boris out of Number 10 and find someone who will deal pragmatically with the EU. Yes the EU is boorish and overbearing, at times, but we have to rub along with it

    On the contrary, I think most of our EU problems stem from a failure to be sufficiently resolute. It's like training a dog. Let it run rings around you all the time and it will never learn.
  • pingping Posts: 2,208

    Today’s Inside Politics: some thoughts on a risk to Boris Johnson I missed yesterday, plus this chart. What could be different about Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK outside London, I wonder? https://t.co/gD2sNUaJs1 pic.twitter.com/x0eZ3JEZ2p

    — Stephen Bush (@stephenkb) June 8, 2022
    I hadn’t realised how terrible the West Midlands’ economic performance has been.
    -10% GDP is bloody awful.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,913

    DavidL said:

    There's a topic?

    Brexit.

    Its always Brexit.
    Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?

    By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
  • eekeek Posts: 19,261
    edited June 8
    ping said:

    Today’s Inside Politics: some thoughts on a risk to Boris Johnson I missed yesterday, plus this chart. What could be different about Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK outside London, I wonder? https://t.co/gD2sNUaJs1 pic.twitter.com/x0eZ3JEZ2p

    — Stephen Bush (@stephenkb) June 8, 2022

    I hadn’t realised how terrible the West Midlands’ economic performance has been.
    -10% GDP is bloody awful.
    Rather better than the North East's though as we once again bump along the bottom.
  • pingping Posts: 2,208
    ping said:

    Today’s Inside Politics: some thoughts on a risk to Boris Johnson I missed yesterday, plus this chart. What could be different about Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK outside London, I wonder? https://t.co/gD2sNUaJs1 pic.twitter.com/x0eZ3JEZ2p

    — Stephen Bush (@stephenkb) June 8, 2022
    I hadn’t realised how terrible the West Midlands’ economic performance has been.
    -10% GDP is bloody awful.

    Linked graph;


  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,923

    DavidL said:

    There's a topic?

    Brexit.

    Its always Brexit.
    Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?

    By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
    No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU

    We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 19,419
    Good news for @TSE as I become an O2 customer
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 1,614

    eek said:

    dixiedean said:

    I didn't watch either.
    But. Do Labour want the PM strengthened or weakened at this moment?

    Excellent point. PB Tories moaning like hell Starmer didn’t knock Boris out for them. The Tories should have done that themselves! No point blaming others who have their own self serving game to play.
    Starmer asked the right questions but wasn't a compelling speaker. Though some of the gags (e.g. 24 hours in A+E) might clip well for the evening news.

    Johnson's answers were garbage, but garbage delivered with oomph and brio.

    You pays your money and you takes your choice.

    (None of this matters at all if the economy really tanks.)
    Governments have stayed put in recessions before. Recession in 92 kept Labour out of power. Economy simply tanking shouldn’t assume is great for oppositions. Only governments can act, if they get things right they can claim getting the big calls right. Meanwhile voters may already be nervous about changing PM and government when country in cost of living and economic crisis so should be easy to help voters along that way by making change and opposition sound scary. Labour would have more chance of winning next election if the country wasn’t in crisis. It’s harder work now for Labour to convince such big change is safe and not making it worse or wrecking the recovery, and hard work to tie things that’s international to the domestic government - any mistakes government have made they will so easily now blame on international situation out of their control as the line between the two will be very blurred.
    on that basis 92 is a VERY interesting election. On the one hand you have the seriously competent John Smith as shadow Chancellor let down by Neil Kinnock's image and on the other hand you have John Major and Norman Lamont
    You might not be right. I say might be because it’s a bit counterfactual - but polls and elections for years didn’t pick up on Kinnock image make labour unelectable, he did take a hammering in the press didn’t he? But John Smith who I hasn’t seen on video but looks cocky in pictures brought out a tax raising shadow budget during the campaign, that was a bit like handing the Tory’s the howitzers which blew the Labour chances away?

    We can’t rule out a very similar thing happening this time.

    PS did anyone watch Wes Streetings car crash in commons today. I don’t rate him at all, he was so rubbish today. If Streeting takes over from Starmer this summer Labour definitely lose. Starmer’s the best option they have from that front bench.
    Wes needs to develop his statesmanship skills between now and the next GE 👍
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,824
    TimT said:

    DavidL said:

    At the end of the last thread I asked if SKS had once again proven himself to be the Stuart Pearce of penalty kickers (other English players are available) and the response seemed to be that this was a cunning plan to allow Boris to survive and cause yet more damage to the Tories.

    I don't like the cliche, "well, its a theory" (there are many others that I will use with relish) but it does cover the situation. What I think we need to do is look for evidence in support of that theory, like the many occasions when SKS has used a rapier of wit to devastating effect. And I am kind of struggling.

    @DavidL In all my years dealing with lawyers (mostly international law), I have observed they fall somewhere on a grid with two parameters:
    - those who get caught in the weeds vs those who look at the big picture
    - those who find reasons why not to vs those who find reasons to justify

    Strikes me that SKS is a weeds why not, whereas I'd want a big picture, justify to inspire a political movement.

    Your thoughts?
    In my experience there are many kinds of lawyers, most of them rather dull. But amongst court lawyers there are those who are good at analysis and preparing clever arguments with lots of thinking time and those who are much better on their feet, spontaneous and seizing opportunities as they arise. Most of the former spend most of their time doing debates or appeals, where those tiresome witnesses don't get in the road. Most of the latter are criminal lawyers, usually defence.

    The weird thing about SKS is that he was DPP. He ought to have developed some skills or abilities to seize the moment but, to me, he comes very firmly in the former camp. He's clever and methodical but dull. Worthy but boring. It's not a skill set for a successful politician or a good campaigner. If I was a Labour supporter it would trouble me more than a bit.

    Working on the basis that the Tories are obsessed with not so much hitting the self-destruct button but battering it out of existence may well work. But it might not.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 1,082
    ping said:

    ping said:

    Today’s Inside Politics: some thoughts on a risk to Boris Johnson I missed yesterday, plus this chart. What could be different about Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK outside London, I wonder? https://t.co/gD2sNUaJs1 pic.twitter.com/x0eZ3JEZ2p

    — Stephen Bush (@stephenkb) June 8, 2022
    I hadn’t realised how terrible the West Midlands’ economic performance has been.
    -10% GDP is bloody awful.
    Linked graph;




    Aha - so this is what "levelling up" means!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 101,701

    Good news for @TSE as I become an O2 customer

    I'm an EE customer mostly these days.

    Primary (e)sim in my phone is from EE and the second sim is o2.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 20,937
    algarkirk said:

    Questions. My assumption is that once 54 letters went in Boris's days are numbered and everyone knows it. The only issue being when.

    1) Is this correct
    2) If correct, what reason is there for Tory MPs to prolong their (and our) agony for months, knowing the Boris cause is hopeless -'if were done when tis done' etc
    3) Is there a cunning plan and if so what.

    1) I think yes. The only thing which can save him is winning an election.
    2) There isn't a reason because there is no organised opposition in the Tory Party. Nor any successor to coalesce around.
    3) See above
  • StockyStocky Posts: 8,148

    Part 2:

    The Tele-vote

    However, in terms of the audience tele-vote, only the delightful Malta gave the UK 12 points. The Irish gave us only 6 points. Our audience gave Ukraine 12 points (Ukraine gave us only 7 points, as did the Aussies!).

    The UK tele-vote total of 183 points across 39 countries meant only an average of 4.7 points per country. The following five reprobate countries gave the UK nul points in the tele-vote:

    Croatia
    Montenegro
    North Macedonia
    Serbia
    Slovenia

    Croatia, hang your head in shame! Giving us nul points in BOTH votes!

    Ukraine got 12 points from all countries' tele-votes apart from:

    Albania (10)
    Armenia (10)
    Croatia (10)
    Greece (10)
    Montenegro (10)
    Romania (10)
    Slovenia (10)
    Switzerland (10)
    North Macedonia (8)
    Malta (8)
    Serbia (7)

    Naughty Serbia!

    UKR first, UK second

    Anyway, with a whopping 439 audience points to add to their 192 Jury points, Ukraine easily came top with 631 total points, their third victory since they first entered the contest in 2003, the other triumphs being 2004 and 2016. The UK came a very strong second, with 466 points. It was our best placing since 1998, though we did win for the fifth and last time the previous year (1997).
    The Top 5 were:

    Ukraine 631
    UK 466
    Spain 459
    Sweden 438
    Serbia 312

    Can the UK go one better and get a sixth victory next year? Well, we'll just have to wait and see!

    Full data tables can be found on Wikipedia at:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurovision_Song_Contest_2022

    Do you know about the six-country voting cartel, investigated by Eurovision but not disclosed until afterwards?

    Viewers will have noticed that some countries had - ahem - communication problems when giving their results on the night so the hosts just stated them. This was pretence.

    https://eurovisionworld.com/esc/eurovision-2022-votes-from-six-national-juries-removed
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 28,848
    algarkirk said:

    Questions. My assumption is that once 54 letters went in Boris's days are numbered and everyone knows it. The only issue being when.

    1) Is this correct
    2) If correct, what reason is there for Tory MPs to prolong their (and our) agony for months, knowing the Boris cause is hopeless -'if were done when tis done' etc
    3) Is there a cunning plan and if so what.

    I'd say his days ARE numbered because the Cons are going to be booted out at the GE but imo there's still a good chance he'll be the one leading them to that defeat. The betting thinks so too. He's only 2.68 to survive to the GE. If that were to drift above 3 I'd be lumping on. As it is I think it's about right.

    OTOH you think he's so tarnished that surely they'll swap him out. OTOH there's no clear mechanism now the conf vote has gone. The cabinet could do it if there were people of strength and integrity there. Fatal snag with this? There aren't because those 2 qualities rule you out of a Boris Johnson cabinet.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 101,701
    edited June 8
    DavidL said:

    At the end of the last thread I asked if SKS had once again proven himself to be the Stuart Pearce of penalty kickers (other English players are available) and the response seemed to be that this was a cunning plan to allow Boris to survive and cause yet more damage to the Tories.

    I don't like the cliche, "well, its a theory" (there are many others that I will use with relish) but it does cover the situation. What I think we need to do is look for evidence in support of that theory, like the many occasions when SKS has used a rapier of wit to devastating effect. And I am kind of struggling.

    With your barrister's wig on, he's playing the long game.

    You don't win trials with great starts but you can lose with them bad openings.

    He's got those idiotic comments from Dorries to place Boris Johnson in awkward position.

    I expect a full throated defence from Hunt soon (plus Dave and George) which leads to more blue on blue which is great for SKS.

    You know those comments will be used heavily during the next GE campaign.
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 1,494
    ping said:

    ping said:

    Today’s Inside Politics: some thoughts on a risk to Boris Johnson I missed yesterday, plus this chart. What could be different about Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK outside London, I wonder? https://t.co/gD2sNUaJs1 pic.twitter.com/x0eZ3JEZ2p

    — Stephen Bush (@stephenkb) June 8, 2022
    I hadn’t realised how terrible the West Midlands’ economic performance has been.
    -10% GDP is bloody awful.
    Linked graph;




    In spite of which Brum can't recruit enough staff for the Commonwealth Games and are negotiating with the army for a couple of spare regiments to plug the gaps.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-61721577
  • DavidL said:

    At the end of the last thread I asked if SKS had once again proven himself to be the Stuart Pearce of penalty kickers (other English players are available) and the response seemed to be that this was a cunning plan to allow Boris to survive and cause yet more damage to the Tories.

    I don't like the cliche, "well, its a theory" (there are many others that I will use with relish) but it does cover the situation. What I think we need to do is look for evidence in support of that theory, like the many occasions when SKS has used a rapier of wit to devastating effect. And I am kind of struggling.

    Pearce at least hit the target and forced the keeper into a save...
  • StockyStocky Posts: 8,148
    kinabalu said:

    rkrkrk said:

    kinabalu said:

    My old lappy has conked after 11 and a half wonderful years.

    Homing in on the HP Envy 14 as a replacement. The "14" refers to screen size.

    I'm very happy with it.
    Ah good to hear. If you are I'm bound to be.
    It gets good reviews:

    https://www.techradar.com/uk/reviews/hp-envy-14-eb0000na
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 101,701
    On topic, if that OECD prediction turns out correct then you might as well start backing a Labour majority.

    Jeez.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 1,698
    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    At the end of the last thread I asked if SKS had once again proven himself to be the Stuart Pearce of penalty kickers (other English players are available) and the response seemed to be that this was a cunning plan to allow Boris to survive and cause yet more damage to the Tories.

    I don't like the cliche, "well, its a theory" (there are many others that I will use with relish) but it does cover the situation. What I think we need to do is look for evidence in support of that theory, like the many occasions when SKS has used a rapier of wit to devastating effect. And I am kind of struggling.

    Starmer isn’t good at PMQs, or anything involving quick wit, imagination or eloquence. However he can, if he tries hard, raise a head of steam with that *forensic* shtick, where he zeroes in on a point and doesn’t let it go. But it happens rarely, so it must take an effort, and maybe some luck?

    It is better for Labour if Boris stays in office. I can therefore see Starmer deciding not to try REALLY hard, and just give his normal uninspiring performance. Boris takes no more damage. Job done
    I'm not sure about that. Certainly, should be good if Boris stays for Labour, but I can't help thinking that if Starmer remains so unconvincing and dull will people really turn out for him? There has to be a bit of push and pull, surely.

    And let's not forget what Corbyn did to Theresa during the campaign in 2017. Another week and he might have won.

    I really think that Boris imagines he can boom his way to a win, particularly against a nonentity. Sheer force of personality and energy. He loves getting out of scrapes, and is pretty good at it. Who's to gainsay him?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,824

    DavidL said:

    At the end of the last thread I asked if SKS had once again proven himself to be the Stuart Pearce of penalty kickers (other English players are available) and the response seemed to be that this was a cunning plan to allow Boris to survive and cause yet more damage to the Tories.

    I don't like the cliche, "well, its a theory" (there are many others that I will use with relish) but it does cover the situation. What I think we need to do is look for evidence in support of that theory, like the many occasions when SKS has used a rapier of wit to devastating effect. And I am kind of struggling.

    With your barrister's wig on, he's playing the long game.

    You don't win trials with great starts but you can lose with them bad openings.

    He's got those idiotic comments from Dorries to place Boris Johnson in awkward position.

    I expect a full throated defence from Hunt soon (plus Dave and George) which leads to more blue on blue which is great for SKS.

    You know those comments will be used heavily during the next GE campaign.
    By which time too many will have forgotten what she was talking about and the remainder will know that she is Mad Nad so, so what? When you have amunition that is current you use it. And it is remarkable how many proofs or trials are resolved with the cross examination of the plaintiff or the complainer. Everything else is usually tidying up and supporting or challenging what he or she said.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 16,541
    Fpt:
    dixiedean said:

    algarkirk said:

    Questions. My assumption is that once 54 letters went in Boris's days are numbered and everyone knows it. The only issue being when.

    1) Is this correct
    2) If correct, what reason is there for Tory MPs to prolong their (and our) agony for months, knowing the Boris cause is hopeless -'if were done when tis done' etc
    3) Is there a cunning plan and if so what.

    1) I think yes. The only thing which can save him is winning an election.
    2) There isn't a reason because there is no organised opposition in the Tory Party. Nor any successor to coalesce around.
    3) See above
    I would like Rishi to resign and (somehow) trigger a leadership contest, which Penny wins. A fabulous choreography of events, leading to a PM we can be proud of. #pm4pm
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 7,841
    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    There's a topic?

    Brexit.

    Its always Brexit.
    Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?

    By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
    No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU

    We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
    Can we just join EFTA 'tomorrow'? My understanding is that the existing members have a veto and have previously been none too keen on us just barging in and ruling the roost as the biggest economy. I suspect a new solution for the UK-Europe relations will be formulated eventually. But the likes of Boris and Farage will need to be long gone, and it will take decades to negotiate and finalize.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 101,701
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    At the end of the last thread I asked if SKS had once again proven himself to be the Stuart Pearce of penalty kickers (other English players are available) and the response seemed to be that this was a cunning plan to allow Boris to survive and cause yet more damage to the Tories.

    I don't like the cliche, "well, its a theory" (there are many others that I will use with relish) but it does cover the situation. What I think we need to do is look for evidence in support of that theory, like the many occasions when SKS has used a rapier of wit to devastating effect. And I am kind of struggling.

    With your barrister's wig on, he's playing the long game.

    You don't win trials with great starts but you can lose with them bad openings.

    He's got those idiotic comments from Dorries to place Boris Johnson in awkward position.

    I expect a full throated defence from Hunt soon (plus Dave and George) which leads to more blue on blue which is great for SKS.

    You know those comments will be used heavily during the next GE campaign.
    By which time too many will have forgotten what she was talking about and the remainder will know that she is Mad Nad so, so what? When you have amunition that is current you use it. And it is remarkable how many proofs or trials are resolved with the cross examination of the plaintiff or the complainer. Everything else is usually tidying up and supporting or challenging what he or she said.
    But are the jury as attentive as the electorate potentially two and a half years away from the general election?
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 279
    algarkirk said:

    Questions. My assumption is that once 54 letters went in Boris's days are numbered and everyone knows it. The only issue being when.

    1) Is this correct
    2) If correct, what reason is there for Tory MPs to prolong their (and our) agony for months, knowing the Boris cause is hopeless -'if were done when tis done' etc
    3) Is there a cunning plan and if so what.

    Not that I know anything, but I don't think that's correct myself. I think there are several broad futures that might happen:

    1: the government drifts along, mostly concentrating on keeping Boris in office; it does manage to get some things done, but finds it hard to pass anything significant and therefore controversial. On the other hand no major event (blunder, sudden opinion poll plummet) or rise of a clear alternative leader ever happens, so Boris is able to drift along until 2024, when he loses the election.

    2. drift, etc, but there *is* some trigger -- an event, an alternative leader that opposition coalescese around, or perhaps 6 months of drift come to seem unbearable. Then Boris is out. For Boris to be kicked out there must be some reason for 50 or so MPs who voted for him today to change their minds and believe that there is some better alternative.

    3. Events, but the other way around -- maybe Starmer gets that FPN, or Russia suffers a massive setback in Ukraine and oil prices fall again. Maybe partygate finally gets pushed out of voters' minds by something else.

    There's no cunning plan -- it's just 359 individual MPs with their own takes on future events, their own personal ambitions, and so on.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 28,848
    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    rkrkrk said:

    kinabalu said:

    My old lappy has conked after 11 and a half wonderful years.

    Homing in on the HP Envy 14 as a replacement. The "14" refers to screen size.

    I'm very happy with it.
    Ah good to hear. If you are I'm bound to be.
    It gets good reviews:

    https://www.techradar.com/uk/reviews/hp-envy-14-eb0000na
    Yep. Compact but enough power to run all my models.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,923

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    At the end of the last thread I asked if SKS had once again proven himself to be the Stuart Pearce of penalty kickers (other English players are available) and the response seemed to be that this was a cunning plan to allow Boris to survive and cause yet more damage to the Tories.

    I don't like the cliche, "well, its a theory" (there are many others that I will use with relish) but it does cover the situation. What I think we need to do is look for evidence in support of that theory, like the many occasions when SKS has used a rapier of wit to devastating effect. And I am kind of struggling.

    Starmer isn’t good at PMQs, or anything involving quick wit, imagination or eloquence. However he can, if he tries hard, raise a head of steam with that *forensic* shtick, where he zeroes in on a point and doesn’t let it go. But it happens rarely, so it must take an effort, and maybe some luck?

    It is better for Labour if Boris stays in office. I can therefore see Starmer deciding not to try REALLY hard, and just give his normal uninspiring performance. Boris takes no more damage. Job done
    I'm not sure about that. Certainly, should be good if Boris stays for Labour, but I can't help thinking that if Starmer remains so unconvincing and dull will people really turn out for him? There has to be a bit of push and pull, surely.

    And let's not forget what Corbyn did to Theresa during the campaign in 2017. Another week and he might have won.

    I really think that Boris imagines he can boom his way to a win, particularly against a nonentity. Sheer force of personality and energy. He loves getting out of scrapes, and is pretty good at it. Who's to gainsay him?
    It’s not impossible. A lot of people have lost folding money betting against Boris

    But more likely - much more likely, to my mind - is that his continued presence makes people angrier and angrier. There is, after all, no such rage as love to hatred turned. The voters want him gone. Yet he squats there. The charm no longer works. He’s like a dinner guest who earlier in the evening told brilliant jokes, albeit bawdy, but is now boorishly drunk at the table at midnight and won’t fuck off despite all the hints

    That can make a person quite furious
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,824

    ping said:

    ping said:

    Today’s Inside Politics: some thoughts on a risk to Boris Johnson I missed yesterday, plus this chart. What could be different about Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK outside London, I wonder? https://t.co/gD2sNUaJs1 pic.twitter.com/x0eZ3JEZ2p

    — Stephen Bush (@stephenkb) June 8, 2022
    I hadn’t realised how terrible the West Midlands’ economic performance has been.
    -10% GDP is bloody awful.
    Linked graph;


    Aha - so this is what "levelling up" means!

    Big broad generalities but those areas that make things are generally finding it harder than service industries to recover, often because the supply chain is still shot. Computer chips being a major example.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,266
    eek said:

    TimT said:

    kinabalu said:

    My old lappy has conked after 11 and a half wonderful years.

    Homing in on the HP Envy 14 as a replacement. The "14" refers to screen size.

    If you travel a lot, weight and battery life are big considerations (they are for me)
    https://www.box.co.uk/21A00013UK-Lenovo-ThinkPad-P14s-Gen-2-Ryzen-5-16GB-_3850560.html is stupidly cheap for the money - the only thing you may want to do is to replace the nvme drive with a bigger one. Some comments at https://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/lenovo-thinkpad-p14s-gen-2-ryzen-5-16gb-ram-256gb-ssd-windows-10-pro-14-laptop-ps62399-3946095
    Price looks really good, but 3.24 lb and 9.7 hour battery; I'll stick with my more expensive and more solid MacBook Air at 2.7 lb and 15 hours. But horses for courses.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 70,233
    DavidL said:

    ping said:

    ping said:

    Today’s Inside Politics: some thoughts on a risk to Boris Johnson I missed yesterday, plus this chart. What could be different about Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK outside London, I wonder? https://t.co/gD2sNUaJs1 pic.twitter.com/x0eZ3JEZ2p

    — Stephen Bush (@stephenkb) June 8, 2022
    I hadn’t realised how terrible the West Midlands’ economic performance has been.
    -10% GDP is bloody awful.
    Linked graph;


    Aha - so this is what "levelling up" means!
    Big broad generalities but those areas that make things are generally finding it harder than service industries to recover, often because the supply chain is still shot. Computer chips being a major example.

    We make stuff, supply chains are a hair raising experience at the moment. Both with cost and delivery times. Service led business doesn't have this to worry about.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 8,368
    DavidL said:

    ping said:

    ping said:

    Today’s Inside Politics: some thoughts on a risk to Boris Johnson I missed yesterday, plus this chart. What could be different about Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK outside London, I wonder? https://t.co/gD2sNUaJs1 pic.twitter.com/x0eZ3JEZ2p

    — Stephen Bush (@stephenkb) June 8, 2022
    I hadn’t realised how terrible the West Midlands’ economic performance has been.
    -10% GDP is bloody awful.
    Linked graph;


    Aha - so this is what "levelling up" means!
    Big broad generalities but those areas that make things are generally finding it harder than service industries to recover, often because the supply chain is still shot. Computer chips being a major example.

    Can't think of any other reason why areas with a large number of exporters might be struggling right now.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 26,096

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    There's a topic?

    Brexit.

    Its always Brexit.
    Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?

    By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
    No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU

    We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
    Can we just join EFTA 'tomorrow'? My understanding is that the existing members have a veto and have previously been none too keen on us just barging in and ruling the roost as the biggest economy. I suspect a new solution for the UK-Europe relations will be formulated eventually. But the likes of Boris and Farage will need to be long gone, and it will take decades to negotiate and finalize.
    True. They do have a veto and no, I am sure we can't just say we are joining and get accepted. But the day after the vote I wrote an article for PB which ended with the following paragraph

    "Finally I mentioned three potential barriers to such a deal. The third of course is EFTA itself which is why I hope someone from the Leave campaign is already in discussions with Kristinn Árnason, the current General Secretary to discuss the attitude of the four current EFTA members to the possible arrival of a fifth member in the near future."

    We have wasted 6 years on this when a sensible Government, supported by a sensible opposition, would have been laying the groundwork for a long term sustainable relationship with the rest of Europe instead of looking at the issue for pure short term gain and pandering to the fanatics on both sides.

    As an aside, the then Icelandic Government did say they would welcome us in EFTA after the referendum. But they are only one of 4 members.
  • eekeek Posts: 19,261

    On topic, if that OECD prediction turns out correct then you might as well start backing a Labour majority.

    Jeez.

    Bozo lost the election when he decided that infrastructure investment wasn't something that this country needed and let the Treasury put the kibosh on everything.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 101,701
    Flashed up on my work laptop.

    Man with weapon detained near Brett Kavanaugh's home. He allegedly told police he wanted to kill the Supreme Court justice.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,923
    DavidL said:

    ping said:

    ping said:

    Today’s Inside Politics: some thoughts on a risk to Boris Johnson I missed yesterday, plus this chart. What could be different about Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK outside London, I wonder? https://t.co/gD2sNUaJs1 pic.twitter.com/x0eZ3JEZ2p

    — Stephen Bush (@stephenkb) June 8, 2022
    I hadn’t realised how terrible the West Midlands’ economic performance has been.
    -10% GDP is bloody awful.
    Linked graph;


    Aha - so this is what "levelling up" means!
    Big broad generalities but those areas that make things are generally finding it harder than service industries to recover, often because the supply chain is still shot. Computer chips being a major example.

    ++++


    The graphic doesn’t seem right. The UK economy as a whole, we are told, is now larger than it was pre-pandemic


    https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-economy-finally-bigger-than-before-pandemic-november-2022-01-14/


    And yet this FT graphic says 80% of the country is, economically, still much reduced

    I know London predominates economically, but to this extent? Really?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,923

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    There's a topic?

    Brexit.

    Its always Brexit.
    Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?

    By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
    No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU

    We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
    Can we just join EFTA 'tomorrow'? My understanding is that the existing members have a veto and have previously been none too keen on us just barging in and ruling the roost as the biggest economy. I suspect a new solution for the UK-Europe relations will be formulated eventually. But the likes of Boris and Farage will need to be long gone, and it will take decades to negotiate and finalize.
    We would find it much easier now that every Scandi country has realised how useful Britain is, in a fight
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,824
    edited June 8
    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    ping said:

    ping said:

    Today’s Inside Politics: some thoughts on a risk to Boris Johnson I missed yesterday, plus this chart. What could be different about Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK outside London, I wonder? https://t.co/gD2sNUaJs1 pic.twitter.com/x0eZ3JEZ2p

    — Stephen Bush (@stephenkb) June 8, 2022
    I hadn’t realised how terrible the West Midlands’ economic performance has been.
    -10% GDP is bloody awful.
    Linked graph;


    Aha - so this is what "levelling up" means!
    Big broad generalities but those areas that make things are generally finding it harder than service industries to recover, often because the supply chain is still shot. Computer chips being a major example.
    ++++


    The graphic doesn’t seem right. The UK economy as a whole, we are told, is now larger than it was pre-pandemic


    https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-economy-finally-bigger-than-before-pandemic-november-2022-01-14/


    And yet this FT graphic says 80% of the country is, economically, still much reduced

    I know London predominates economically, but to this extent? Really?


    +++++++
    Yes, I was looking for a date, thinking it might have reflected the position at the beginning of the year rather than now.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 26,096
    edited June 8
    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    There's a topic?

    Brexit.

    Its always Brexit.
    Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?

    By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
    No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU

    We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
    Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.

    There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.

    EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.

    So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.

    I hope that is clear as mud :)

    Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 2,916

    Flashed up on my work laptop.

    Man with weapon detained near Brett Kavanaugh's home. He allegedly told police he wanted to kill the Supreme Court justice.

    Arrested and taken in without incident apparently
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 101,701
    eek said:


    On topic, if that OECD prediction turns out correct then you might as well start backing a Labour majority.

    Jeez.

    Bozo lost the election when he decided that infrastructure investment wasn't something that this country needed and let the Treasury put the kibosh on everything.
    I'm going to come up with a new analogy for just how fucked the Tory party is.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 4,536

    Flashed up on my work laptop.

    Man with weapon detained near Brett Kavanaugh's home. He allegedly told police he wanted to kill the Supreme Court justice.

    If that had succeeded . . .

    I wonder if Congress would have started taking gun laws seriously, if the GOP start finding their recently gained "for life" Justices don't have as long a life expectancy as they thought?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,824

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    At the end of the last thread I asked if SKS had once again proven himself to be the Stuart Pearce of penalty kickers (other English players are available) and the response seemed to be that this was a cunning plan to allow Boris to survive and cause yet more damage to the Tories.

    I don't like the cliche, "well, its a theory" (there are many others that I will use with relish) but it does cover the situation. What I think we need to do is look for evidence in support of that theory, like the many occasions when SKS has used a rapier of wit to devastating effect. And I am kind of struggling.

    With your barrister's wig on, he's playing the long game.

    You don't win trials with great starts but you can lose with them bad openings.

    He's got those idiotic comments from Dorries to place Boris Johnson in awkward position.

    I expect a full throated defence from Hunt soon (plus Dave and George) which leads to more blue on blue which is great for SKS.

    You know those comments will be used heavily during the next GE campaign.
    By which time too many will have forgotten what she was talking about and the remainder will know that she is Mad Nad so, so what? When you have amunition that is current you use it. And it is remarkable how many proofs or trials are resolved with the cross examination of the plaintiff or the complainer. Everything else is usually tidying up and supporting or challenging what he or she said.
    But are the jury as attentive as the electorate potentially two and a half years away from the general election?
    One of the things that the Judge tells the jury is that they shouldn't make up their minds until they have heard all the evidence. They say that a lot. For a reason. On Boris the jury is potentially decided, his personal scores are appalling. SKS needs to keep reminding people why.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 101,701
    A California man carrying at least one weapon near Brett M. Kavanaugh’s Maryland home has been taken into custody by police after telling officers he wanted to kill the Supreme Court justice, according to people familiar with the investigation.

    The man, described as being in his mid-20s, was found to be carrying at least one weapon and burglary tools, these people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation. Police were apparently notified that the person might pose a threat to the justice, but it was not immediately clear who provided the initial tip, these people said. The man apparently did not make it onto Kavanaugh’s property in Montgomery County but was stopped on a nearby street, these people said.

    Two people familiar with the investigation said the initial evidence indicates that the man was angry about the leaked draft of an opinion by the Supreme Court signaling that the court is preparing to overturn Roe. v. Wade, the 49-year-old decision that guaranteed the constitutional right to have an abortion. He was also angry over a recent spate of mass shootings, these people said.

    The man was arrested at about 1:50 a.m. today, Supreme Court spokeswoman Patricia McCabe said in a statement.

    “The man was armed and made threats against Justice Kavanaugh,” McCabe said. “He was transported to Montgomery County Police 2nd District.”

    The story is developing and will be updated.


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/06/08/kavanaugh-threat-arrest-justice/
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 70,233
    edited June 8
    Edit: Blockquotes screwed up
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,923
    edited June 8

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    There's a topic?

    Brexit.

    Its always Brexit.
    Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?

    By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
    No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU

    We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
    Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.

    There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.

    EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.

    So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.

    I hope that is clear as mud :)

    Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
    It is clear. And always was. You want to be in the Single Market, you have to accept Freedom of Movement. The four freedoms are indivisible. The EU Commission was always explicit on this point, and never budged
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 26,096
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    There's a topic?

    Brexit.

    Its always Brexit.
    Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?

    By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
    No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU

    We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
    Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.

    There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.

    EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.

    So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.

    I hope that is clear as mud :)

    Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
    It is clear. And always was. You want to be in the Single Market, you have to accept Freedom of Movement. The four freedoms are indivisible. The EU Commission was always explicit on this point, and never budged
    Yep. I was just clarifying the fact that EFTA membership in itself is not EEA/Single Market membership.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 28,848

    Fpt:

    dixiedean said:

    algarkirk said:

    Questions. My assumption is that once 54 letters went in Boris's days are numbered and everyone knows it. The only issue being when.

    1) Is this correct
    2) If correct, what reason is there for Tory MPs to prolong their (and our) agony for months, knowing the Boris cause is hopeless -'if were done when tis done' etc
    3) Is there a cunning plan and if so what.

    1) I think yes. The only thing which can save him is winning an election.
    2) There isn't a reason because there is no organised opposition in the Tory Party. Nor any successor to coalesce around.
    3) See above
    I would like Rishi to resign and (somehow) trigger a leadership contest, which Penny wins. A fabulous choreography of events, leading to a PM we can be proud of. #pm4pm
    I'm on her at 60s - so not unhappy with the hype - but I'm intrigued by your sudden enthusiasm for her. Why aren't you getting behind Patel?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 7,861
    kinabalu said:

    My old lappy has conked after 11 and a half wonderful years.

    Homing in on the HP Envy 14 as a replacement. The "14" refers to screen size.

    I have my eyes on this option for when I need a new laptop. I like the idea of something designed for repairability and ease of upgrade.

    https://frame.work/gb/en
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,824

    A California man carrying at least one weapon near Brett M. Kavanaugh’s Maryland home has been taken into custody by police after telling officers he wanted to kill the Supreme Court justice, according to people familiar with the investigation.

    The man, described as being in his mid-20s, was found to be carrying at least one weapon and burglary tools, these people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation. Police were apparently notified that the person might pose a threat to the justice, but it was not immediately clear who provided the initial tip, these people said. The man apparently did not make it onto Kavanaugh’s property in Montgomery County but was stopped on a nearby street, these people said.

    Two people familiar with the investigation said the initial evidence indicates that the man was angry about the leaked draft of an opinion by the Supreme Court signaling that the court is preparing to overturn Roe. v. Wade, the 49-year-old decision that guaranteed the constitutional right to have an abortion. He was also angry over a recent spate of mass shootings, these people said.

    The man was arrested at about 1:50 a.m. today, Supreme Court spokeswoman Patricia McCabe said in a statement.

    “The man was armed and made threats against Justice Kavanaugh,” McCabe said. “He was transported to Montgomery County Police 2nd District.”

    The story is developing and will be updated.


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/06/08/kavanaugh-threat-arrest-justice/

    Was he arrested because he was only carrying 1 gun?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 101,701
    DavidL said:

    A California man carrying at least one weapon near Brett M. Kavanaugh’s Maryland home has been taken into custody by police after telling officers he wanted to kill the Supreme Court justice, according to people familiar with the investigation.

    The man, described as being in his mid-20s, was found to be carrying at least one weapon and burglary tools, these people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation. Police were apparently notified that the person might pose a threat to the justice, but it was not immediately clear who provided the initial tip, these people said. The man apparently did not make it onto Kavanaugh’s property in Montgomery County but was stopped on a nearby street, these people said.

    Two people familiar with the investigation said the initial evidence indicates that the man was angry about the leaked draft of an opinion by the Supreme Court signaling that the court is preparing to overturn Roe. v. Wade, the 49-year-old decision that guaranteed the constitutional right to have an abortion. He was also angry over a recent spate of mass shootings, these people said.

    The man was arrested at about 1:50 a.m. today, Supreme Court spokeswoman Patricia McCabe said in a statement.

    “The man was armed and made threats against Justice Kavanaugh,” McCabe said. “He was transported to Montgomery County Police 2nd District.”

    The story is developing and will be updated.


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/06/08/kavanaugh-threat-arrest-justice/

    Was he arrested because he was only carrying 1 gun?
    Guilty LOL.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,824
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    There's a topic?

    Brexit.

    Its always Brexit.
    Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?

    By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
    No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU

    We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
    Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.

    There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.

    EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.

    So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.

    I hope that is clear as mud :)

    Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
    It is clear. And always was. You want to be in the Single Market, you have to accept Freedom of Movement. The four freedoms are indivisible. The EU Commission was always explicit on this point, and never budged
    Except in Mrs May's backstop. Which was therefore a considerable lost opportunity.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,381

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    There's a topic?

    Brexit.

    Its always Brexit.
    Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?

    By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
    No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU

    We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
    Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.

    There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.

    EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.

    So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.

    I hope that is clear as mud :)

    Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
    It is worth noting that EFTA does confer EFTA FoM... but given we'd be (by quite some margin) the poorest country in EFTA, that probably wouldn't be a problem for us.

    It might be a problem for the other EFTA states (admitting a very large, relatively poor neighbour), who don't want their countries overrun by Brits looking for higher wages... but as all the EFTA countries had FoM with the UK historically, I think they'd be able to get over it.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 40,434

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    There's a topic?

    Brexit.

    Its always Brexit.
    Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?

    By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
    No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU

    We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
    Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.

    There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.

    EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.

    So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.

    I hope that is clear as mud :)

    Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
    The EEA was created as a temporary alternative for countries that weren't yet politically willing to join the EU in full, but the ultimate goal (even if it takes decades) was still the same.

    I really don't see the attraction of leaving our former status in favour of the EEA as it would prevent us having different sectoral policies and limit our ability to champion new alliances or new forms of cooperation.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,434
    kinabalu said:

    rkrkrk said:

    kinabalu said:

    My old lappy has conked after 11 and a half wonderful years.

    Homing in on the HP Envy 14 as a replacement. The "14" refers to screen size.

    I'm very happy with it.
    Ah good to hear. If you are I'm bound to be.
    HP envy is my work laptop.

    Personal one I went cheaper but similar specs and have had more problems (might just be bad luck).
    I'm still getting a k_mode_excepted error and blue screen of death every time I don't shut it down and just close the lid. Have tried the top 3 internet solutions to no avail, which is generally my limit before I give up, so need to find someone who knows what they are doing.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,381

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    There's a topic?

    Brexit.

    Its always Brexit.
    Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?

    By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
    No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU

    We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
    Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.

    There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.

    EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.

    So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.

    I hope that is clear as mud :)

    Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
    The EEA was created as a temporary alternative for countries that weren't yet politically willing to join the EU in full, but the ultimate goal (even if it takes decades) was still the same.

    I really don't see the attraction of leaving our former status in favour of the EEA as it would prevent us having different sectoral policies and limit our ability to champion new alliances or new forms of cooperation.
    Richard is proposing joining EFTA, not the EEA.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 6,008

    eek said:


    On topic, if that OECD prediction turns out correct then you might as well start backing a Labour majority.

    Jeez.

    Bozo lost the election when he decided that infrastructure investment wasn't something that this country needed and let the Treasury put the kibosh on everything.
    I'm going to come up with a new analogy for just how fucked the Tory party is.
    Does the Turkish Army conscript stepmoms?

    I could check, I suppose, but I'd rather not.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 5,877

    DavidL said:

    At the end of the last thread I asked if SKS had once again proven himself to be the Stuart Pearce of penalty kickers (other English players are available) and the response seemed to be that this was a cunning plan to allow Boris to survive and cause yet more damage to the Tories.

    I don't like the cliche, "well, its a theory" (there are many others that I will use with relish) but it does cover the situation. What I think we need to do is look for evidence in support of that theory, like the many occasions when SKS has used a rapier of wit to devastating effect. And I am kind of struggling.

    I know it is Guido reporting but the press are not good when he had such an open goal

    Sir Keir’s PMQs performance today was less of an own goal, more like a player running up to take a penalty and then missing the ball. There weren’t very high expectations for the Labour leader going into the session this lunchtime, just a case of pouring salt in the wounds opened by Tory MPs on Monday, and yet he decided to do a very low energy set of questions on health funding. Looking down the timeline, it looks like LOTO may have to accept a misstep today…

    Times’ Henry Zeffman: “Not sure Labour MPs will think Starmer’s showing at PMQs quite met the level of the PM’s peril”

    Mail’s David Wilcock: “‘This line of attack is not working,’ Boris Johnson tells Keir Starmer at #PMQs – and he may have a point.”

    Daily Mail’s Henry Deedes: “This should be the #pmqs of the year. Starmer’s moment. And he’s already killed it. The chamber now devoid of atmosphere.”

    Telegraph’s Christopher Hope: “Keir Starmer is missing his open goal”

    CityAM’s Stefan Boscia: “Half way through and Keir is missing an open goal here”

    TalkTV’s Kate McCann: “Labour benches are silent, many not even looking at their leader as he speaks. Many dislike PMQs pantomime, but I’m not sure this Labour approach works”

    JOE Politics’ Oli Dugmore:“Is Keir just really bad at politics? Is this some kind of master stroke I don’t understand? Feels like Boris is wiping the floor with him today”

    New Statesman’s Ben Walker: “This isn’t 4D chess, this is just ineffective.”

    The i’s Paul Waugh: “His troops, rebels and loyalists alike, were always going to be behind @BorisJohnson today but he is enjoying himself at #PMQs. Clearly delighted at Starmer’s failure to land blows and dismissive of Blackford.”

    Adam Boulton: “Starmer’s inability to ad lib, reply to taunts or deviate from his pre-cooked plan not helping him.”

    Times Radio’s Matt Chorley: “I genuinely think this is one of the worst PMQs Starmer has had… Hopeless.”
    I watched it. It was fine to me. I liked the strategy of ignoring what is called an open goal. Labour need to talk more about years of Tory failure now not Boris failure, in case Boris does go, though it’s looking very unlikely he will go before general election now.

    It’s up to Tories to remove Boris, not Starmer. Boris is Opposition parties prize asset at ballot box now. But opposition still need to paint picture of Tory failure, not Boris failure in case Boris goes, the change voters need to want from Labour perspective, is change of government not change of Tory leader.

    Labours campaigning this summer will quite rightly be about years of Tory failure on domestic policy, not Boris failure. Labour won’t mention partygate or Boris all summer now, but they will talk about conditions in hospitals, waiting lists, ambulance response times, crime up, less doctors, etc.

    The 148 and friends in media are just going to have to get used to it 😁
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 40,434
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    There's a topic?

    Brexit.

    Its always Brexit.
    Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?

    By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
    No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU

    We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
    Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.

    There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.

    EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.

    So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.

    I hope that is clear as mud :)

    Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
    The EEA was created as a temporary alternative for countries that weren't yet politically willing to join the EU in full, but the ultimate goal (even if it takes decades) was still the same.

    I really don't see the attraction of leaving our former status in favour of the EEA as it would prevent us having different sectoral policies and limit our ability to champion new alliances or new forms of cooperation.
    Richard is proposing joining EFTA, not the EEA.
    I believe he's using EFTA as a synonym for EFTA/EEA. Joining EFTA on its own wouldn't change our current relationship with the EU.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,072
    NEW: Tory peer Baroness Morrissey out as Foreign Office adviser just hours after telling LBC: "I'd rather Boris Johnson didn't carry on."

    She resigned as lead non exec after talk with Perm Sec.

    Sources say Truss believed comments made job "untenable".

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/18820731/defiant-boris-johnson-cheered-by-tory-mps/ https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1534549201979428864/photo/1
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,923
    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    There's a topic?

    Brexit.

    Its always Brexit.
    Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?

    By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
    No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU

    We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
    Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.

    There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.

    EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.

    So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.

    I hope that is clear as mud :)

    Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
    It is clear. And always was. You want to be in the Single Market, you have to accept Freedom of Movement. The four freedoms are indivisible. The EU Commission was always explicit on this point, and never budged
    Except in Mrs May's backstop. Which was therefore a considerable lost opportunity.
    Was it? I’m a boffin on EU affairs compared to 99.3% of the population but by the time we got to the Arguments Over The Backstop I confess my eyes glazed over and I missed details. Tho that seems like quite a big detail

    ANYWAY it is a criminal indictment of our politics that we, as a nation, did not sit down, and have not sat down, and discussed all these options, from the hardest Brexit to EEA/EFTA

    We’re like someone who got divorced but paid no heed to our own situation after the divorce and so we’ve ended up sleeping in the car. All sides are to blame for this,. The Hard Brexiteers who told lies because they worried the voters would say Remain if they thought about it, the Remainers who tried to overturn the referendum when they could have been doing exactly THIS: arguing passionately for EFTA/EEA (and surely winning the day), and of course all the lying governments that denied us prior plebiscites on the EU

    But mistakes can be rectified. We need a national conversation now as to what we do. Boris and Starmer both need to go, before we can do this
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 13,699
    TimT said:

    eek said:

    TimT said:

    kinabalu said:

    My old lappy has conked after 11 and a half wonderful years.

    Homing in on the HP Envy 14 as a replacement. The "14" refers to screen size.

    If you travel a lot, weight and battery life are big considerations (they are for me)
    https://www.box.co.uk/21A00013UK-Lenovo-ThinkPad-P14s-Gen-2-Ryzen-5-16GB-_3850560.html is stupidly cheap for the money - the only thing you may want to do is to replace the nvme drive with a bigger one. Some comments at https://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/lenovo-thinkpad-p14s-gen-2-ryzen-5-16gb-ram-256gb-ssd-windows-10-pro-14-laptop-ps62399-3946095
    Price looks really good, but 3.24 lb and 9.7 hour battery; I'll stick with my more expensive and more solid MacBook Air at 2.7 lb and 15 hours. But horses for courses.
    Once you Mac, you don't go back.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 4,536

    Farooq said:

    Mr. Pete, one does wonder what was going through Labour's collective head on that.

    Did they think if May got ousted the Conservatives would do anything but move in a more sceptical direction?

    May's deal was the most pro-EU one they were going to get.

    They thought they could overturn the result of the referendum
    They were hoping the Tories would come to their senses and support a softer Brexit of the kind now being advocated by noted Remoaner Daniel Hannan. Unfortunately the Tories whipped their MPs to vote those options down, replaced May with psychopathic liar Boris Johnson, and came up with a plan even dafter than May's, which they are now trying to unpick.
    But yes, clearly all of this is the fault of the Labour Party.
    Dan Hannan always advocated the sort of soft Brexit I wanted. He has not changed his view on that.

    But yes it is amusing and a little sad that it was the actions of the irreconciled Remain fanatics that allowed the narrative, and the type of Brexit, to be driven by the hard Brexiteers.

    Were they primarily or even largely responsible for where we are now? No.

    Did they help contribute to it and could they have helped to prevent it if they had not been so hell bent on reversing the referendum? Undoubtedly yes.

    The type of Brexit we ended up with was born of hardliners on both sides. They both made sure there could be no compromise.
    The Labour Party voted for compromise, the Tories whipped their MPs to oppose it. Those are the facts.
    No the Labour Party did not vote for compromise.

    Looking at the breakdowns for the indicative proposals see if you can spot which one the Labour MPs preferred

    Proposal H - EFTA and EEA only 4 Labour MPs supported it. If they all had it would have passed.
    Proposal L - Revoke article 50 - 111 Labour MPs supported it.
    Proposal M - Rerun the referendum - 198 Labour MPs supported it.

    Of the other 5 proposals 2 were effectively No Deal and 3 demanded we stayed in the Customs Union which was impossible without us remaining as full members of the EU.

    So much for Labour supporting compromise.
    This is such a dishonest post, sorry. I cannot let it stand without correcting the record.

    The purpose of negotiating a customs union with the EU was to protect free trade the Irish border. You will note that Johnson's deal only achieved this goal by erecting trade barriers in the Irish Sea, which he is now trying to dismantle. In other words, a worthy goal that the government has failed to properly deliver.

    For the first round of indicative votes:

    Almost all Labour MPs voted for Ken Clarke's amendment K to negotiate a customs union as part of any deal. It was defeated by the Tories voting overwhelmingly against, with only a handful of Tories supporting it.

    Almost all Labour MPs voted for Nick Boles's Common Market 2.0, ammendment D, which proposed EEA/Efta membership and a comprehensive customs arrangement. It was defeated by the Tories. Only a handful of Tory MPs supported it.

    Almost all Labour MPs voted for the Labour Party's own compromise calling for close economic alignment with the EU, ammendment K. Voted down by the Tories.

    The revocation amendment was supported by a minority of Labour MPs and some Tory MPs but in any case was only in case of no deal to avoid a catastrophic economic impact.

    The confirmatory public vote wasn't a rerun of the referendum - it simply said the public should have a say on any Brexit deal that was negotiated. A reasonable way of breaking the parliamentary deadlock.

    George Eustice's EEA/Efta deal (amendment H) received little support from any party as without anything to say on a customs union it had no solution to the Irish border. Only 65 MPs voted for it.

    Yes, Labour voted for compromise. The Tories voted against.
    Wrong. You are arguing from a point of profound ignorance.

    The Customs Union proposals were complete non starters. Membership of the Customs Union requires membership of the EU. There are strange little exceptions for some of the tiny principalities like Monaco but they were never on offer to the UK.

    Nick Boles, Ken Clarkes and the Labour proposals all included Customs Union Membership. The Labour proposal was explicitly The Customs Union since it included the UK having a say in EU third party trade deals. Even though this was impossible.

    These proposals were just as dishonest as you are now being in trying to misrepresent them.

    Your party voted for chaos because they refused to accept the referendum result and that is exactly what they got.

    Wrong. You can be in a customs union with the EU without being in the EU, like Turkey. Is this perfect? No. That's why we shouldn't have left.
    Not all the proposals called explicitly for a customs union, they were calling for a customs arrangement of some kind to deal with the Irish border question. Otherwise, how is that problem solved? Not by the current deal, which the government is currently tearing up. What solution do you have?
    What compromise did Tory MPs vote for? None. Labour MPs voted for every compromise on offer, except for the one that failed to deliver a solution to the (still) main outstanding problem.
    I already addressed that. Stop creating straw men.

    And the Labour proposal was specifically for membership of The Customs Union because they said they wanted to have say over EU trade deals. They were either profoundly ignorant or profoundly dishonest.

    And you are telling outright lies. Labour did not vote for every compromise on offer. The most obvious compromise was the EFTA/EEA membership and only 4 Labour MPs supported that.

    Dragging in how the Tories voted is immaterial because I have not been supporting their stance either. They ere just as bad. I was specifically calling you out for your utter drivel about Labour supporting compromise. They didn't. They only supported proposals that were either impossible or which negated the referendum result.

    It is clear from your opening paragraph that you also would rather have reversed the referendum result which is why you deserve nothing from scorn for your dishonesty.
    It feels like you're the one being dishonest though. You enumerated the Labour votes on some of the indicative votes, but dismissed the customs union one as "impossible". Now we see it wasn't "impossible" but merely undesirable in your opinion.
    No, as set out they were impossible. Membership of the Customs Union requires full EU membership. The Labour proposal particularly was clearly for membership of The Customs Union not just 'a' customs union as they argued for UK input to EU third party trade agreements.
    Labour's proposal was for *a* customs union not membership of *the* customs union.
    The only customs union that would allow the UK to have a say on EU third party trade deals (which was explict in their proposal) would be 'The' Customs Union. It was typical political dishonesty to try and dress it up any other way. Something you are repeating now.
    Or the UK and EU could have negotiated a new customs union between the UK and EU that gave the UK some say. That should have been possible given that we always hold all the cards in these negotiations.
    We never held all the cards. I deal with realities, not pipe dreams. You are more interested in defending your beloved party than in finding an actual solution to these issues.
    I have literally provided a solution: Efta plus a customs arrangement similar to Turkey's to allow for frictionless trade GB/NI/EU. This is the compromise that Labour voted for. It isn't perfect but it protects the GFA, protects trade and honours the referendum. What is your solution? And what compromise did the Tories vote for?
    Its odd how you view only getting what you want as a compromise.

    From the meaningful votes the "compromises" that significant numbers of Tories backed were No Deal, and the option nicknamed 'managed no deal'.

    In the end we got the compromise of a new deal, which Parliament was able to accept, so all's well that ends well.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,824

    Flashed up on my work laptop.

    Man with weapon detained near Brett Kavanaugh's home. He allegedly told police he wanted to kill the Supreme Court justice.

    Arrested and taken in without incident apparently
    So not black then.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 28,848

    kinabalu said:

    My old lappy has conked after 11 and a half wonderful years.

    Homing in on the HP Envy 14 as a replacement. The "14" refers to screen size.

    I have my eyes on this option for when I need a new laptop. I like the idea of something designed for repairability and ease of upgrade.

    https://frame.work/gb/en
    That looks great. Yes, I also like to keep repairing things instead of replacing. Car 29 years old. Laptop (until now) 11 years. Most of my clothes at least 15 years. If everyone was like me the economy would sink without trace.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,381

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    There's a topic?

    Brexit.

    Its always Brexit.
    Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?

    By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
    No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU

    We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
    Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.

    There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.

    EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.

    So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.

    I hope that is clear as mud :)

    Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
    The EEA was created as a temporary alternative for countries that weren't yet politically willing to join the EU in full, but the ultimate goal (even if it takes decades) was still the same.

    I really don't see the attraction of leaving our former status in favour of the EEA as it would prevent us having different sectoral policies and limit our ability to champion new alliances or new forms of cooperation.
    Richard is proposing joining EFTA, not the EEA.
    I believe he's using EFTA as a synonym for EFTA/EEA. Joining EFTA on its own wouldn't change our current relationship with the EU.
    No, he really isn't.

    He's proposing we join EFTA, but only EFTA.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,923

    TimT said:

    eek said:

    TimT said:

    kinabalu said:

    My old lappy has conked after 11 and a half wonderful years.

    Homing in on the HP Envy 14 as a replacement. The "14" refers to screen size.

    If you travel a lot, weight and battery life are big considerations (they are for me)
    https://www.box.co.uk/21A00013UK-Lenovo-ThinkPad-P14s-Gen-2-Ryzen-5-16GB-_3850560.html is stupidly cheap for the money - the only thing you may want to do is to replace the nvme drive with a bigger one. Some comments at https://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/lenovo-thinkpad-p14s-gen-2-ryzen-5-16gb-ram-256gb-ssd-windows-10-pro-14-laptop-ps62399-3946095
    Price looks really good, but 3.24 lb and 9.7 hour battery; I'll stick with my more expensive and more solid MacBook Air at 2.7 lb and 15 hours. But horses for courses.
    Once you Mac, you don't go back.

    I did. Hated my Mac
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 6,008
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    There's a topic?

    Brexit.

    Its always Brexit.
    Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?

    By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
    No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU

    We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
    Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.

    There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.

    EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.

    So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.

    I hope that is clear as mud :)

    Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
    The EEA was created as a temporary alternative for countries that weren't yet politically willing to join the EU in full, but the ultimate goal (even if it takes decades) was still the same.

    I really don't see the attraction of leaving our former status in favour of the EEA as it would prevent us having different sectoral policies and limit our ability to champion new alliances or new forms of cooperation.
    Richard is proposing joining EFTA, not the EEA.
    The underlying problem is that everyone wanted to repatriate different powers. Trade deals, standards, migration, fish...

    And the only way to keep everyone happy was to repatriate powers over everything. That's the logic of the government's position, and why it's not surprising we ended up passing through here and now.

    It has problems that we haven't solved in terms of the resulting faff at borders, but that's another story.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,821

    Flashed up on my work laptop.

    Man with weapon detained near Brett Kavanaugh's home. He allegedly told police he wanted to kill the Supreme Court justice.

    Just the one, dear?
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 4,536

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    There's a topic?

    Brexit.

    Its always Brexit.
    Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?

    By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
    No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU

    We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
    Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.

    There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.

    EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.

    So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.

    I hope that is clear as mud :)

    Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
    It is clear. And always was. You want to be in the Single Market, you have to accept Freedom of Movement. The four freedoms are indivisible. The EU Commission was always explicit on this point, and never budged
    Yep. I was just clarifying the fact that EFTA membership in itself is not EEA/Single Market membership.
    Considering we already have a free trade agreement with the EU, and you object to the customs union out of principle, what do you consider the main advantages of the EFTA over the TCA?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 5,483
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    There's a topic?

    Brexit.

    Its always Brexit.
    Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?

    By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
    No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU

    We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
    Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.

    There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.

    EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.

    So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.

    I hope that is clear as mud :)

    Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
    It is clear. And always was. You want to be in the Single Market, you have to accept Freedom of Movement. The four freedoms are indivisible. The EU Commission was always explicit on this point, and never budged
    Yes.

    The reality of island of Ireland politics + the Brexit vote is why both sides should make this a special case.

    The Brexit vote swung the way it did because of FoM. Neither side campaigned in Ref2016 on the basis that exiting the EU was impossible because of Ireland - merely that it was a problem to resolve. Events have shown it's insoluble both practically and politically.

    Therefore both sides should give way. The UK should give way on SM membership (via EEA or Swiss arrangement) and, uniquely, the EU should give way on FoM.

    Peace in Ireland matters more than either of these things.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 40,434
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    There's a topic?

    Brexit.

    Its always Brexit.
    Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?

    By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
    No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU

    We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
    Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.

    There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.

    EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.

    So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.

    I hope that is clear as mud :)

    Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
    The EEA was created as a temporary alternative for countries that weren't yet politically willing to join the EU in full, but the ultimate goal (even if it takes decades) was still the same.

    I really don't see the attraction of leaving our former status in favour of the EEA as it would prevent us having different sectoral policies and limit our ability to champion new alliances or new forms of cooperation.
    Richard is proposing joining EFTA, not the EEA.
    I believe he's using EFTA as a synonym for EFTA/EEA. Joining EFTA on its own wouldn't change our current relationship with the EU.
    No, he really isn't.

    He's proposing we join EFTA, but only EFTA.
    Hopefully Richard can clarify, but his posts in this thread are clearly advocating the EEA, not just EFTA.

    https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/3961955/#Comment_3961955
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,824
    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    There's a topic?

    Brexit.

    Its always Brexit.
    Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?

    By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
    No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU

    We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
    Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.

    There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.

    EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.

    So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.

    I hope that is clear as mud :)

    Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
    It is clear. And always was. You want to be in the Single Market, you have to accept Freedom of Movement. The four freedoms are indivisible. The EU Commission was always explicit on this point, and never budged
    Except in Mrs May's backstop. Which was therefore a considerable lost opportunity.
    Was it? I’m a boffin on EU affairs compared to 99.3% of the population but by the time we got to the Arguments Over The Backstop I confess my eyes glazed over and I missed details. Tho that seems like quite a big detail

    ANYWAY it is a criminal indictment of our politics that we, as a nation, did not sit down, and have not sat down, and discussed all these options, from the hardest Brexit to EEA/EFTA

    We’re like someone who got divorced but paid no heed to our own situation after the divorce and so we’ve ended up sleeping in the car. All sides are to blame for this,. The Hard Brexiteers who told lies because they worried the voters would say Remain if they thought about it, the Remainers who tried to overturn the referendum when they could have been doing exactly THIS: arguing passionately for EFTA/EEA (and surely winning the day), and of course all the lying governments that denied us prior plebiscites on the EU

    But mistakes can be rectified. We need a national conversation now as to what we do. Boris and Starmer both need to go, before we can do this
    Yes, the EU justified it as a "temporary measure", presumably like the temporary ceasefire between North and South Korea signed in 1953. It really gave us exactly what I think the majority wanted, away from all that ridiculous politics nonsense in the EU, a control on freedom of movement and free trade. Why SKS did not see this and get Labour to vote for it en masse is yet another question mark on his judgment.
This discussion has been closed.