I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
Okay. I’ll engage as thoughtfully I can with the asylum seeker problem, and offer my solutions.
This problem is as bad as it is due entirely to talentless clueless incompetents the Tory’s put in charge of mangling it. There’s no magic bullet, it’s true, though here’s my list of things that will reduce the problem for sure,
1. For starters, The incompetents managing it don’t understand the problem they are dealing with - it’s as simple of that - we know this as fact as they talk about 70% or more are economic migrants, bogus asylum seekers. Back in the real world do you really believe Undocumented economic migrants deliver themselves into the hands of Home Office officials as soon as they reach UK soil? Hence, 4% processing comes from setting up for 70%+ economic migrants, not genuine asylum claims. According the governments own figures, the majority of asylum claims are found to be legitimate Almost two-thirds (64%) of asylum claims end in a grant of protection. Of those rejected that went on to appeal, 48% were successfully overturned. They are clearly tackling the backlog with the wrong mindset and wrong prioritising.
2. Secondly, on basis you now realise how many are genuine asylum claims bogged down in your two year backlog, Set up a Department for International Development (DfID) to strengthen the infrastructures of fragile countries and increase stability there. Where do you want to spend the money, DfID, or 5 star hotels? You do the math.
3. Enable safe, legal routes for resettlement of genuine refugees. Would they even need a long stay in a processing centre on UK soil after dangerous water crossing, if you took safe, legal routes for resettlement more seriously? Take as example the priority given to Ukraine refugees, and how abysmal this home office under this government was at managing Ukrainian processing - sending them here and there, where no one was there to help them. And that’s what we call our gold star fast Lane process. Despite Tories paying lip service to liking safe, legal routes, the number of people resettled under the government’s UK resettlement scheme was 1,171 in the 12 months to September 2021, down by about 45% year on year.
4. This is the idea I like best. Process UK humanitarian visas on French soil, and bring them across on ferries. Genuine asylum seekers in northern France hoping to reach the UK to claim asylum, so happy to place themselves into the hands of our home office, could register their claim with UK officials and then be placed on ferries to be brought to the UK while their claim is processed. You want the Rwanda scheme because you are led to believe it hurts the business model of the people smugglers? The simple MoonRabbits Ferry to Freedom Solution utterly smashes through the business model of the people smugglers does it not?
Yes, throwing the doors open and charging nothing certainly does smash through the business model of the people smugglers.
Do you even see a difference between economic migrants in search of a job, and genuine refugee’s seeking asylum and safety? Or are you happy to repeatedly blur and box all this together, just as Braverman and Sunak have been doing?
I think basically CR believes that none are genuine refugees, even those that our courts rule are.
I don't think that's fair. CR simply has a different definition of what level of victimisation by a country would be required to qualify as a refugee.
So, for example, I think he'd accept that someone like Navalny, who is a political prisoner in Russia who narrowly survived an attempted assassination by the Russian regime, would qualify as a refugee.
But he doesn't accept that a homosexual from Uganda would qualify as a refugee, due to the lack of gay rights in Uganda. He might point out that, at the time the UN Convention on Refugees was signed (1951, I think), one could still be imprisoned or chemically castrated in the UK for homosexual "crimes". Analogously, what about an American citizen at risk of prosecution over abortion - would they qualify as a refugee?
I think we can disagree on what constitutes the definition of a refugee without being nasty about it.
I agree. No reason at all for point scoring or getting overheated, no reason not to discuss it calmly and politely, and come to agreement on this.
I don’t think there is anyone posting on PB that couldn’t join in a consensus what the problem actually is, and what solutions best to tackle it.
4. Process UK humanitarian visas on French soil, and bring them across on ferries. Genuine asylum seekers in northern France hoping to reach the UK to claim asylum, so happy to place themselves into the hands of our home office, could register their claim with UK officials and then be placed on ferries to be brought to the UK while their claim is processed. This would hurt the business model of the people smugglers and the criminal gangs working the camps.
Could you imagine the optics of this? Political suicide. That cumstain Patrick Christys would gouge his own eyes out live on GB News as the first ferry full of Balkan Bodybuilders came alongside at Dover.
Does that make it wrong? 😟
You've yet to suggest anything that would make it right.
“We want the people traffickers to stop because we want the people to stop. Your solution is like saying we should get the police to stab everyone on sight because it would put all the criminal stabbers out of business. It would, but all it would do is replace freelancers with a taxpayer funded service. What on earth would be the point.”
“because we want the people to stop”
You would be happy with us accepting no asylum claims?
I'd be happy if there were no claims, but no, I don't want a blanket ban on granting asylum.
I have yet to hear a credible policy on dealing with the asylum claims issue. Makes me think that the best thing for now would be to throw more resources at it to speed up dealing with the claims which might reduce the attractiveness to the chancers.
IIRC, asylum seekers are only barred from payed work for the first year. With this backlog, the ability to work legally is a pull. Probably still true that it's not the first choice for boat arrivals though - that is not to get caught in the first place.
The pull of working here. And it’s input in “THE INVASION’
When it comes to protecting British interests and economic migration, what makes us attractive and dangerous so that boat crossings not a show stopper? People can try to spin us the vast majority of people coming across on boats are Albanian, are nothing but gang members and drug runners, but we all know the more nuanced truth, UK would also be the pull of well paying skilled work they know they can do, and they know it here for them. For the example of some Albanians trying to get in right now, many may be doing so becuase of the opportunities they know are here in our construction industry. They are not without skills, as they built most of the Balkans and are highly skilled builders. And don’t we have shortage of building workers in the UK? and subcontractors in our building industry would be keen to use such skills ASAP.
I’m not saying it’s caused by Brexit. It is not the fault of Brexit our building industry is struggling for these skills, because our government has always had that power to grant visa or similar to support industrys with such skill shortages. So why then is the governments philosophy not to use that power of work visa to help industry and UK business? by not doing so, the government actually adding fuel to the migrant boat problem?
one thing fuelling problem of migrant boats packed to the “rafters” could be actually be our current governments policy resistance to grant visas, to allow industry and business to fill skill gaps. Are you certain if Sunak allowed building industry and businesses more visas to hire skilled workers, this would not at all lower the numbers making illegal crossings?
The nuance here is harder the line on legitimate work visas, the greater the invasion from the channel. The governments dogmatic position on work visas creating the invasion.
Your thoughts?
I do very much like your thinking on these issues. Not sure how the hell we get them enacted though give the attitudes of both the political parties and the press on this issue.
Cookie, here's a direct answer to your question: "Similarly, even if at the individual level, wealth is positively correlated to tendency to vote Republican, we observe that wealthier states tend to vote Democratic. For example, in 2004, the Republican candidate, George W. Bush, won the fifteen poorest states, and the Democratic candidate, John Kerry, won 9 of the 11 wealthiest states. Yet 62% of voters with annual incomes over $200,000 voted for Bush, but only 36% of voters with annual incomes of $15,000 or less voted for Bush.[4] Aggregate-level correlation will differ from individual-level correlation if voting preferences are affected by the total wealth of the state even after controlling for individual wealth." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy
Have we had a discussion on Strictly betting? SCD is huge in our house as the Ukrainians are obsessed with it. They tell me that Dianne Buswell is the best 'pro' and they should know as they have both been competitive dancers. So maybe Tyler West is value at 11/1? #teamtydi
A team called “tydi” is bound to clean up, is it not ?
Tyler is 16/1 on BFx. I have a dabble on both Elli's at long odds. It the year of the PRG, and both can dance and are improving. Will is doing well, but Fleur keeps getting voted into the dance off by the public. Hamza is rightly the odds on favourite, can dance deftly and I suspect the public voting over earlier rounds has leaked to betting markets.
"some advertisers, which provide 90 percent of Twitter’s revenue, have paused their spending on the platform, citing fears over how the site’s content might change under Mr. Musk. That pullback accelerated on Friday as advertisers like Volkswagen Group joined the growing boycott. Civil rights groups have repeatedly warned that loosening Twitter’s content rules might lead to a rise in toxic speech."
It's not a stealth tax if it's on the front page of the Telegraph. True ones are freezing thresholds. Virtually no one notices them, or calls them what they are. A tax increase. See also pay freezes and years of below inflation pay rises. Barely ever called pay cuts.
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
No, the EU is democratic, and we used to have a say in those laws, and trade policies.
No country or organisation record is impeccable, but recent EU efforts like the Everything But Arms trade arrangements have been very positive for Africa.
Also. From earlier. We're having increasing difficulty getting supply teachers. Let alone filling vacant roles with permanent staff. As for supply TA's... 16% more at Aldi, and pay in the holidays too. You can imagine.
Also. From earlier. We're having increasing difficulty getting supply teachers. Let alone filling vacant roles with permanent staff. Let alone supply TA's.
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
In essence saying that trade with Africa should end, and retail prices for its people should rise, because some lobbyists and left-wing charities prefer a development model where a vanguard Afro-nationalist Marxist party controls the economy and forces people to buy from the local crony-run factory. Brexit may have been many things but I wasn't aware it was an endorsement of literally the worst opinions in development economics.
It's not a stealth tax if it's on the front page of the Telegraph. True ones are freezing thresholds. Virtually no one notices them, or calls them what they are. A tax increase. See also pay freezes and years of below inflation pay rises. Barely ever called pay cuts.
Those frozen lifetime allowances are driving a lot of my colleagues to retire, as are the way annual allowances are calculated in terms of pension input in relation to inflation.
I seemed to be on course for the sweetspot of maxing out at my 60th birthday.
Okay. I’ll engage as thoughtfully I can with the asylum seeker problem, and offer my solutions.
This problem is as bad as it is due entirely to talentless clueless incompetents the Tory’s put in charge of mangling it. There’s no magic bullet, it’s true, though here’s my list of things that will reduce the problem for sure,
1. For starters, The incompetents managing it don’t understand the problem they are dealing with - it’s as simple of that - we know this as fact as they talk about 70% or more are economic migrants, bogus asylum seekers. Back in the real world do you really believe Undocumented economic migrants deliver themselves into the hands of Home Office officials as soon as they reach UK soil? Hence, 4% processing comes from setting up for 70%+ economic migrants, not genuine asylum claims. According the governments own figures, the majority of asylum claims are found to be legitimate Almost two-thirds (64%) of asylum claims end in a grant of protection. Of those rejected that went on to appeal, 48% were successfully overturned. They are clearly tackling the backlog with the wrong mindset and wrong prioritising.
2. Secondly, on basis you now realise how many are genuine asylum claims bogged down in your two year backlog, Set up a Department for International Development (DfID) to strengthen the infrastructures of fragile countries and increase stability there. Where do you want to spend the money, DfID, or 5 star hotels? You do the math.
3. Enable safe, legal routes for resettlement of genuine refugees. Would they even need a long stay in a processing centre on UK soil after dangerous water crossing, if you took safe, legal routes for resettlement more seriously? Take as example the priority given to Ukraine refugees, and how abysmal this home office under this government was at managing Ukrainian processing - sending them here and there, where no one was there to help them. And that’s what we call our gold star fast Lane process. Despite Tories paying lip service to liking safe, legal routes, the number of people resettled under the government’s UK resettlement scheme was 1,171 in the 12 months to September 2021, down by about 45% year on year.
4. This is the idea I like best. Process UK humanitarian visas on French soil, and bring them across on ferries. Genuine asylum seekers in northern France hoping to reach the UK to claim asylum, so happy to place themselves into the hands of our home office, could register their claim with UK officials and then be placed on ferries to be brought to the UK while their claim is processed. You want the Rwanda scheme because you are led to believe it hurts the business model of the people smugglers? The simple MoonRabbits Ferry to Freedom Solution utterly smashes through the business model of the people smugglers does it not?
Yes, throwing the doors open and charging nothing certainly does smash through the business model of the people smugglers.
Do you even see a difference between economic migrants in search of a job, and genuine refugee’s seeking asylum and safety? Or are you happy to repeatedly blur and box all this together, just as Braverman and Sunak have been doing?
I think basically CR believes that none are genuine refugees, even those that our courts rule are.
I don't think that's fair. CR simply has a different definition of what level of victimisation by a country would be required to qualify as a refugee.
So, for example, I think he'd accept that someone like Navalny, who is a political prisoner in Russia who narrowly survived an attempted assassination by the Russian regime, would qualify as a refugee.
But he doesn't accept that a homosexual from Uganda would qualify as a refugee, due to the lack of gay rights in Uganda. He might point out that, at the time the UN Convention on Refugees was signed (1951, I think), one could still be imprisoned or chemically castrated in the UK for homosexual "crimes". Analogously, what about an American citizen at risk of prosecution over abortion - would they qualify as a refugee?
I think we can disagree on what constitutes the definition of a refugee without being nasty about it.
I am not being nasty, but clearly CR doesn't believe that our courts are right in granting asylum to so many. It sounds as if you agree.
I would much prefer a world without border controls, but I think it's impossible to debate these issues if you mischaracterise the opinions of those who disagree with you.
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
No, the EU is democratic, and we used to have a say in those laws.
No country or organisation record is impeccable, but recent EU efforts like the Everything But Arms trade arrangements have been very positive for Africa.
None of the other organisations you listed could impose new laws against our will. Having a say is no good if that say is ignored and they can still impose the laws even if our own Parliament disagrees with them. That is not democracy.
And your blindness to the faults of the EU mean you are excusing policies, still in existence right now, which are driving the migration crisis by making African countries poorer and less competitive in the global market. It is a callous and sick attitude.
"some advertisers, which provide 90 percent of Twitter’s revenue, have paused their spending on the platform, citing fears over how the site’s content might change under Mr. Musk. That pullback accelerated on Friday as advertisers like Volkswagen Group joined the growing boycott. Civil rights groups have repeatedly warned that loosening Twitter’s content rules might lead to a rise in toxic speech."
NY Times
Free speech is great as long as I agree with what you say.
Okay. I’ll engage as thoughtfully I can with the asylum seeker problem, and offer my solutions.
This problem is as bad as it is due entirely to talentless clueless incompetents the Tory’s put in charge of mangling it. There’s no magic bullet, it’s true, though here’s my list of things that will reduce the problem for sure,
1. For starters, The incompetents managing it don’t understand the problem they are dealing with - it’s as simple of that - we know this as fact as they talk about 70% or more are economic migrants, bogus asylum seekers. Back in the real world do you really believe Undocumented economic migrants deliver themselves into the hands of Home Office officials as soon as they reach UK soil? Hence, 4% processing comes from setting up for 70%+ economic migrants, not genuine asylum claims. According the governments own figures, the majority of asylum claims are found to be legitimate Almost two-thirds (64%) of asylum claims end in a grant of protection. Of those rejected that went on to appeal, 48% were successfully overturned. They are clearly tackling the backlog with the wrong mindset and wrong prioritising.
2. Secondly, on basis you now realise how many are genuine asylum claims bogged down in your two year backlog, Set up a Department for International Development (DfID) to strengthen the infrastructures of fragile countries and increase stability there. Where do you want to spend the money, DfID, or 5 star hotels? You do the math.
3. Enable safe, legal routes for resettlement of genuine refugees. Would they even need a long stay in a processing centre on UK soil after dangerous water crossing, if you took safe, legal routes for resettlement more seriously? Take as example the priority given to Ukraine refugees, and how abysmal this home office under this government was at managing Ukrainian processing - sending them here and there, where no one was there to help them. And that’s what we call our gold star fast Lane process. Despite Tories paying lip service to liking safe, legal routes, the number of people resettled under the government’s UK resettlement scheme was 1,171 in the 12 months to September 2021, down by about 45% year on year.
4. This is the idea I like best. Process UK humanitarian visas on French soil, and bring them across on ferries. Genuine asylum seekers in northern France hoping to reach the UK to claim asylum, so happy to place themselves into the hands of our home office, could register their claim with UK officials and then be placed on ferries to be brought to the UK while their claim is processed. You want the Rwanda scheme because you are led to believe it hurts the business model of the people smugglers? The simple MoonRabbits Ferry to Freedom Solution utterly smashes through the business model of the people smugglers does it not?
Yes, throwing the doors open and charging nothing certainly does smash through the business model of the people smugglers.
Do you even see a difference between economic migrants in search of a job, and genuine refugee’s seeking asylum and safety? Or are you happy to repeatedly blur and box all this together, just as Braverman and Sunak have been doing?
I think basically CR believes that none are genuine refugees, even those that our courts rule are.
I don't think that's fair. CR simply has a different definition of what level of victimisation by a country would be required to qualify as a refugee.
So, for example, I think he'd accept that someone like Navalny, who is a political prisoner in Russia who narrowly survived an attempted assassination by the Russian regime, would qualify as a refugee.
But he doesn't accept that a homosexual from Uganda would qualify as a refugee, due to the lack of gay rights in Uganda. He might point out that, at the time the UN Convention on Refugees was signed (1951, I think), one could still be imprisoned or chemically castrated in the UK for homosexual "crimes". Analogously, what about an American citizen at risk of prosecution over abortion - would they qualify as a refugee?
I think we can disagree on what constitutes the definition of a refugee without being nasty about it.
I am not being nasty, but clearly CR doesn't believe that our courts are right in granting asylum to so many. It sounds as if you agree.
I would much prefer a world without border controls, but I think it's impossible to debate these issues if you mischaracterise the opinions of those who disagree with you.
I don't think I am mischaracterising.
Or do you accept that all those granted asylum or exceptional leave to remain by our courts are legitimate refugees? If so then I apologise for misunderstanding your comments.
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
In essence saying that trade with Africa should end, and retail prices for its people should rise, because some lobbyists and left-wing charities prefer a development model where a vanguard Afro-nationalist Marxist party controls the economy and forces people to buy from the local crony-run factory. Brexit may have been many things but I wasn't aware it was an endorsement of literally the worst opinions in development economics.
Nope, saying that the policies that are enacted now are crippling African countries and only help the EU. EU fishing policy empties the seas of Africa and is an environmental and economic catastrophe for the continent. The spin you put on it is perverse.
4. Process UK humanitarian visas on French soil, and bring them across on ferries. Genuine asylum seekers in northern France hoping to reach the UK to claim asylum, so happy to place themselves into the hands of our home office, could register their claim with UK officials and then be placed on ferries to be brought to the UK while their claim is processed. This would hurt the business model of the people smugglers and the criminal gangs working the camps.
Could you imagine the optics of this? Political suicide. That cumstain Patrick Christys would gouge his own eyes out live on GB News as the first ferry full of Balkan Bodybuilders came alongside at Dover.
Does that make it wrong? 😟
You've yet to suggest anything that would make it right.
“We want the people traffickers to stop because we want the people to stop. Your solution is like saying we should get the police to stab everyone on sight because it would put all the criminal stabbers out of business. It would, but all it would do is replace freelancers with a taxpayer funded service. What on earth would be the point.”
“because we want the people to stop”
You would be happy with us accepting no asylum claims?
I'd be happy if there were no claims, but no, I don't want a blanket ban on granting asylum.
Excellent. We are inching towards agreement.
At the end of the day, If anyone is of mind not one coming across channel in dingy is legitimate asylum claimant - that they are all “invaders”, this will not be thinking or acting In the British interest. thinking like that is against who we are as a fair, generous Christian/charitable nation, and safeguarding our reputation for being generous, caring and law abiding should be important to everyone of us.
The next step after not wanting a blanket ban on granting asylum, is recognising what is wrong with the Rwanda plan. Basically put, it’s not in the interest of UK to be thought of as those who do the Rwanda plan.
When it comes to the British interest, making it important to process the boat people and give asylum here, is because the Rwanda plan actually deports people who have no chance to appeal, or reunite with family in Britain, they have had no consideration of their actual asylum claim, recognition of their medical or other needs, or any attempt to understand their actual predicament. Once placed on a plane, they would be the responsibility of the Rwandan government. And that is so wholly wrong for UK to be seen doing.
We cannot offer asylum to everyone, yet equally we cannot outsource our ethical responsibilities or discard international law and our obligations to it — which protects the right to claim asylum.
Our Christian heritage should inspire us to treat asylum seekers with compassion, fairness and justice, just as we have for centuries.
Of those recently processed by this government, 87% of Iranians, Eritreans and Sudanese seeking asylum are allowed to stay - so why no safe routes only dangerous journeys to the UK, that sets them up to be called invaders? This immoral scapegoating of asylum seekers by this British government is never in the National Interest whenever it shames Britain.
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
No, the EU is democratic, and we used to have a say in those laws.
No country or organisation record is impeccable, but recent EU efforts like the Everything But Arms trade arrangements have been very positive for Africa.
None of the other organisations you listed could impose new laws against our will. Having a say is no good if that say is ignored and they can still impose the laws even if our own Parliament disagrees with them. That is not democracy.
And your blindness to the faults of the EU mean you are excusing policies, still in existence right now, which are driving the migration crisis by making African countries poorer and less competitive in the global market. It is a callous and sick attitude.
The UK agreed to join the EU institutions, so it wasn't against the UK's will, any more than when the UK abides by other treaties it signs.
So you agree that the UK shouldn't trade with African countries, to force them to adopt a socialist / Afro-nationalist development model? Because this is what your academic references like Mark Langan are saying.
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
No, the EU is democratic, and we used to have a say in those laws.
No country or organisation record is impeccable, but recent EU efforts like the Everything But Arms trade arrangements have been very positive for Africa.
None of the other organisations you listed could impose new laws against our will. Having a say is no good if that say is ignored and they can still impose the laws even if our own Parliament disagrees with them. That is not democracy.
And your blindness to the faults of the EU mean you are excusing policies, still in existence right now, which are driving the migration crisis by making African countries poorer and less competitive in the global market. It is a callous and sick attitude.
The UK agreed to join the EU institutions, so it wasn't against the UK's will, any more than when the UK abides by other treaties it signs.
So you agree that the UK shouldn't trade with African countries, to force them to adopt a socialist / Afro-nationalist development model? Because this is what your academic references like Mark Langan are saying.
No I think we should stop the neo imperialism which leads to us viewing Africa and its people as a resource to be exploited. The evidence is overwhelming and it is only the apologists for the EU who are blind to it.
And when we sign a treaty we do so in the knowledge that the terms cannot be changed and no new laws can be imposed after we have signed. That is not the case with the EU.
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
In essence saying that trade with Africa should end, and retail prices for its people should rise, because some lobbyists and left-wing charities prefer a development model where a vanguard Afro-nationalist Marxist party controls the economy and forces people to buy from the local crony-run factory. Brexit may have been many things but I wasn't aware it was an endorsement of literally the worst opinions in development economics.
Nope, saying that the policies that are enacted now are crippling African countries and only help the EU. EU fishing policy empties the seas of Africa and is an environmental and economic catastrophe for the continent. The spin you put on it is perverse.
Well, countries don't get rich through fish, rather mainly on land - except the lucky few with oil rigs. So this is a side point. Your references were primarily saying that trade in consumer goods was bad because traditional African agri-businesses and small-scale manufacturers were finding it difficult to compete, but this is like saying that they need to continue to do things that are consistent with low-tech poverty until some magic happens and they become rich. If Ghanaians themselves wanted this, they would buy from the local mogul instead of vile Europeans, but they seem to prefer the same things everyone else does - consumer goods at a low price, from the EU, China or wherever.
I have yet to hear a credible policy on dealing with the asylum claims issue. Makes me think that the best thing for now would be to throw more resources at it to speed up dealing with the claims which might reduce the attractiveness to the chancers.
IIRC, asylum seekers are only barred from payed work for the first year. With this backlog, the ability to work legally is a pull. Probably still true that it's not the first choice for boat arrivals though - that is not to get caught in the first place.
The pull of working here. And it’s input in “THE INVASION’
When it comes to protecting British interests and economic migration, what makes us attractive and dangerous so that boat crossings not a show stopper? People can try to spin us the vast majority of people coming across on boats are Albanian, are nothing but gang members and drug runners, but we all know the more nuanced truth, UK would also be the pull of well paying skilled work they know they can do, and they know it here for them. For the example of some Albanians trying to get in right now, many may be doing so becuase of the opportunities they know are here in our construction industry. They are not without skills, as they built most of the Balkans and are highly skilled builders. And don’t we have shortage of building workers in the UK? and subcontractors in our building industry would be keen to use such skills ASAP.
I’m not saying it’s caused by Brexit. It is not the fault of Brexit our building industry is struggling for these skills, because our government has always had that power to grant visa or similar to support industrys with such skill shortages. So why then is the governments philosophy not to use that power of work visa to help industry and UK business? by not doing so, the government actually adding fuel to the migrant boat problem?
one thing fuelling problem of migrant boats packed to the “rafters” could be actually be our current governments policy resistance to grant visas, to allow industry and business to fill skill gaps. Are you certain if Sunak allowed building industry and businesses more visas to hire skilled workers, this would not at all lower the numbers making illegal crossings?
The nuance here is harder the line on legitimate work visas, the greater the invasion from the channel. The governments dogmatic position on work visas creating the invasion.
Your thoughts?
I do very much like your thinking on these issues. Not sure how the hell we get them enacted though give the attitudes of both the political parties and the press on this issue.
4. Process UK humanitarian visas on French soil, and bring them across on ferries. Genuine asylum seekers in northern France hoping to reach the UK to claim asylum, so happy to place themselves into the hands of our home office, could register their claim with UK officials and then be placed on ferries to be brought to the UK while their claim is processed. This would hurt the business model of the people smugglers and the criminal gangs working the camps.
Could you imagine the optics of this? Political suicide. That cumstain Patrick Christys would gouge his own eyes out live on GB News as the first ferry full of Balkan Bodybuilders came alongside at Dover.
Does that make it wrong? 😟
You've yet to suggest anything that would make it right.
“We want the people traffickers to stop because we want the people to stop. Your solution is like saying we should get the police to stab everyone on sight because it would put all the criminal stabbers out of business. It would, but all it would do is replace freelancers with a taxpayer funded service. What on earth would be the point.”
“because we want the people to stop”
You would be happy with us accepting no asylum claims?
I'd be happy if there were no claims, but no, I don't want a blanket ban on granting asylum.
Excellent. We are inching towards agreement.
At the end of the day, If anyone is of mind not one coming across channel in dingy is legitimate asylum claimant - that they are all “invaders”, this will not be thinking or acting In the British interest. thinking like that is against who we are as a fair, generous Christian/charitable nation, and safeguarding our reputation for being generous, caring and law abiding should be important to everyone of us.
The next step after not wanting a blanket ban on granting asylum, is recognising what is wrong with the Rwanda plan. Basically put, it’s not in the interest of UK to be thought of as those who do the Rwanda plan.
When it comes to the British interest, making it important to process the boat people and give asylum here, is because the Rwanda plan actually deports people who have no chance to appeal, or reunite with family in Britain, they have had no consideration of their actual asylum claim, recognition of their medical or other needs, or any attempt to understand their actual predicament. Once placed on a plane, they would be the responsibility of the Rwandan government. And that is so wholly wrong for UK to be seen doing.
We cannot offer asylum to everyone, yet equally we cannot outsource our ethical responsibilities or discard international law and our obligations to it — which protects the right to claim asylum.
Our Christian heritage should inspire us to treat asylum seekers with compassion, fairness and justice, just as we have for centuries.
Of those recently processed by this government, 87% of Iranians, Eritreans and Sudanese seeking asylum are allowed to stay - so why no safe routes only dangerous journeys to the UK, that sets them up to be called invaders? This immoral scapegoating of asylum seekers by this British government is never in the National Interest whenever it shames Britain.
From my cushy middle class existence my attitude is to think not processing and thus granting legitimate claims is worse than having to deal with the fall out of what is clearly a big issue of loads of other claims, many of which are not legitimate.
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
In essence saying that trade with Africa should end, and retail prices for its people should rise, because some lobbyists and left-wing charities prefer a development model where a vanguard Afro-nationalist Marxist party controls the economy and forces people to buy from the local crony-run factory. Brexit may have been many things but I wasn't aware it was an endorsement of literally the worst opinions in development economics.
Nope, saying that the policies that are enacted now are crippling African countries and only help the EU. EU fishing policy empties the seas of Africa and is an environmental and economic catastrophe for the continent. The spin you put on it is perverse.
Well, countries don't get rich through fish, rather mainly on land - except the lucky few with oil rigs. So this is a side point. Your references were primarily saying that trade in consumer goods was bad because traditional African agri-businesses and small-scale manufacturers were finding it difficult to compete, but this is like saying that they need to continue to do things that are consistent with low-tech poverty until some magic happens and they become rich.
Communities that rely upon fishing for their survival get poor very quickly when you take all that fish away. Hence the reason there was such a massive exodus from Senegal to the Canaries. You are in denial.
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
No, the EU is democratic, and we used to have a say in those laws.
No country or organisation record is impeccable, but recent EU efforts like the Everything But Arms trade arrangements have been very positive for Africa.
None of the other organisations you listed could impose new laws against our will. Having a say is no good if that say is ignored and they can still impose the laws even if our own Parliament disagrees with them. That is not democracy.
And your blindness to the faults of the EU mean you are excusing policies, still in existence right now, which are driving the migration crisis by making African countries poorer and less competitive in the global market. It is a callous and sick attitude.
The UK agreed to join the EU institutions, so it wasn't against the UK's will, any more than when the UK abides by other treaties it signs.
So you agree that the UK shouldn't trade with African countries, to force them to adopt a socialist / Afro-nationalist development model? Because this is what your academic references like Mark Langan are saying.
No I think we should stop the neo imperialism which leads to us viewing Africa and its people as a resource to be exploited. The evidence is overwhelming and it is only the apologists for the EU who are blind to it.
And when we sign a treaty we do so in the knowledge that the terms cannot be changed and no new laws can be imposed after we have signed. That is not the case with the EU.
Right, so you can't explain what the EU does and the UK doesn't that is so evil, now that you exclude the possibility that its people need to be forced into socialist poverty for the vicarious kicks of Western academics.
That's not true - the EU treaties that the UK signed up to explicitly authorised institutions that would create new laws. It's fine to not support those, but don't say that it wasn't agreed in the treaties.
What would you do if an old friend clearly-accidentally forwarded some voicemails from someone else - and because you are an inquisitive bastard - you opened them - and they revealed this friend was in an absolutely toxic relationship?
Not violent, but highly abusive
Keep quiet? Because you should not have listened to the voicemails? Or say something, to the friend or other friends who might help?
Probably not an accident.
I'd ask the person how things are, in a way that clearly offers them an opportunity to unburden themselves if they want to. If they choose not to, they choose not to.
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
No, the EU is democratic, and we used to have a say in those laws.
No country or organisation record is impeccable, but recent EU efforts like the Everything But Arms trade arrangements have been very positive for Africa.
None of the other organisations you listed could impose new laws against our will. Having a say is no good if that say is ignored and they can still impose the laws even if our own Parliament disagrees with them. That is not democracy.
And your blindness to the faults of the EU mean you are excusing policies, still in existence right now, which are driving the migration crisis by making African countries poorer and less competitive in the global market. It is a callous and sick attitude.
The UK agreed to join the EU institutions, so it wasn't against the UK's will, any more than when the UK abides by other treaties it signs.
So you agree that the UK shouldn't trade with African countries, to force them to adopt a socialist / Afro-nationalist development model? Because this is what your academic references like Mark Langan are saying.
And when we sign a treaty we do so in the knowledge that the terms cannot be changed and no new laws can be imposed after we have signed. That is not the case with the EU.
The way that we are refusing to honour the NI protocol that we freely agreed to shows that our government is as mendacious as any other.
A rather dangerous precedent for a country so reliant on the rule of law.
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
No, the EU is democratic, and we used to have a say in those laws.
No country or organisation record is impeccable, but recent EU efforts like the Everything But Arms trade arrangements have been very positive for Africa.
None of the other organisations you listed could impose new laws against our will. Having a say is no good if that say is ignored and they can still impose the laws even if our own Parliament disagrees with them. That is not democracy.
And your blindness to the faults of the EU mean you are excusing policies, still in existence right now, which are driving the migration crisis by making African countries poorer and less competitive in the global market. It is a callous and sick attitude.
The UK agreed to join the EU institutions, so it wasn't against the UK's will, any more than when the UK abides by other treaties it signs.
So you agree that the UK shouldn't trade with African countries, to force them to adopt a socialist / Afro-nationalist development model? Because this is what your academic references like Mark Langan are saying.
No I think we should stop the neo imperialism which leads to us viewing Africa and its people as a resource to be exploited. The evidence is overwhelming and it is only the apologists for the EU who are blind to it.
And when we sign a treaty we do so in the knowledge that the terms cannot be changed and no new laws can be imposed after we have signed. That is not the case with the EU.
Right, so you can't explain what the EU does and the UK doesn't that is so evil, now that you exclude the possibility that its people need to be forced into socialist poverty for the vicarious kicks of Western academics.
That's not true - the EU treaties that the UK signed up to explicitly authorised institutions that would create new laws. It's fine to not support those, but don't say that it wasn't agreed in the treaties.
It was the EU that made the fishing agreements with the African countries - I do wonder how large the bribes were that helped oil those wheels. And I am sure the UK is just as guilty. But the claim from Foxy was that we need to be part of the Eu to solve these problems when actually they are using the size to create these problems.
And on EU membership that is exactly my point. The EU is unique in being able to pass laws which member Parliaments cannot veto. I don't care which fucked up UK Government signed up to it, it is undemocratic. And as such Foxy was wrong to conflate membership of the EU with the other international organisations she listed.
Okay. I’ll engage as thoughtfully I can with the asylum seeker problem, and offer my solutions.
This problem is as bad as it is due entirely to talentless clueless incompetents the Tory’s put in charge of mangling it. There’s no magic bullet, it’s true, though here’s my list of things that will reduce the problem for sure,
1. For starters, The incompetents managing it don’t understand the problem they are dealing with - it’s as simple of that - we know this as fact as they talk about 70% or more are economic migrants, bogus asylum seekers. Back in the real world do you really believe Undocumented economic migrants deliver themselves into the hands of Home Office officials as soon as they reach UK soil? Hence, 4% processing comes from setting up for 70%+ economic migrants, not genuine asylum claims. According the governments own figures, the majority of asylum claims are found to be legitimate Almost two-thirds (64%) of asylum claims end in a grant of protection. Of those rejected that went on to appeal, 48% were successfully overturned. They are clearly tackling the backlog with the wrong mindset and wrong prioritising.
2. Secondly, on basis you now realise how many are genuine asylum claims bogged down in your two year backlog, Set up a Department for International Development (DfID) to strengthen the infrastructures of fragile countries and increase stability there. Where do you want to spend the money, DfID, or 5 star hotels? You do the math.
3. Enable safe, legal routes for resettlement of genuine refugees. Would they even need a long stay in a processing centre on UK soil after dangerous water crossing, if you took safe, legal routes for resettlement more seriously? Take as example the priority given to Ukraine refugees, and how abysmal this home office under this government was at managing Ukrainian processing - sending them here and there, where no one was there to help them. And that’s what we call our gold star fast Lane process. Despite Tories paying lip service to liking safe, legal routes, the number of people resettled under the government’s UK resettlement scheme was 1,171 in the 12 months to September 2021, down by about 45% year on year.
4. This is the idea I like best. Process UK humanitarian visas on French soil, and bring them across on ferries. Genuine asylum seekers in northern France hoping to reach the UK to claim asylum, so happy to place themselves into the hands of our home office, could register their claim with UK officials and then be placed on ferries to be brought to the UK while their claim is processed. You want the Rwanda scheme because you are led to believe it hurts the business model of the people smugglers? The simple MoonRabbits Ferry to Freedom Solution utterly smashes through the business model of the people smugglers does it not?
Yes, throwing the doors open and charging nothing certainly does smash through the business model of the people smugglers.
Do you even see a difference between economic migrants in search of a job, and genuine refugee’s seeking asylum and safety? Or are you happy to repeatedly blur and box all this together, just as Braverman and Sunak have been doing?
I think basically CR believes that none are genuine refugees, even those that our courts rule are.
I don't think that's fair. CR simply has a different definition of what level of victimisation by a country would be required to qualify as a refugee.
So, for example, I think he'd accept that someone like Navalny, who is a political prisoner in Russia who narrowly survived an attempted assassination by the Russian regime, would qualify as a refugee.
But he doesn't accept that a homosexual from Uganda would qualify as a refugee, due to the lack of gay rights in Uganda. He might point out that, at the time the UN Convention on Refugees was signed (1951, I think), one could still be imprisoned or chemically castrated in the UK for homosexual "crimes". Analogously, what about an American citizen at risk of prosecution over abortion - would they qualify as a refugee?
I think we can disagree on what constitutes the definition of a refugee without being nasty about it.
I am not being nasty, but clearly CR doesn't believe that our courts are right in granting asylum to so many. It sounds as if you agree.
I would much prefer a world without border controls, but I think it's impossible to debate these issues if you mischaracterise the opinions of those who disagree with you.
I don't think I am mischaracterising.
Or do you accept that all those granted asylum or exceptional leave to remain by our courts are legitimate refugees? If so then I apologise for misunderstanding your comments.
I have no reason to think that the UK courts are applying the law wrongly, and in general, in my experience of the refugee system in the UK, a lot of people who I would define as refugees are treated appallingly badly, have their claims rejected out of hand and suffer appalling destitution and mental distress as a result.
But I'm willing to accept that someone else can disagree with me on where to draw the line between someone who is being persecuted by their government and so qualifies as a refugee, and someone who is having a raw deal because of their government, but not to the extent, or for a reason, that they would define as justifying us providing refuge.
In that case such a person could think that the UK courts have been provided with the wrong criteria by which to judge the question, "Is a person a refugee?"
I recognise that as a distinct position to "none are refugees", although I disagree with both.
Okay. I’ll engage as thoughtfully I can with the asylum seeker problem, and offer my solutions.
This problem is as bad as it is due entirely to talentless clueless incompetents the Tory’s put in charge of mangling it. There’s no magic bullet, it’s true, though here’s my list of things that will reduce the problem for sure,
1. For starters, The incompetents managing it don’t understand the problem they are dealing with - it’s as simple of that - we know this as fact as they talk about 70% or more are economic migrants, bogus asylum seekers. Back in the real world do you really believe Undocumented economic migrants deliver themselves into the hands of Home Office officials as soon as they reach UK soil? Hence, 4% processing comes from setting up for 70%+ economic migrants, not genuine asylum claims. According the governments own figures, the majority of asylum claims are found to be legitimate Almost two-thirds (64%) of asylum claims end in a grant of protection. Of those rejected that went on to appeal, 48% were successfully overturned. They are clearly tackling the backlog with the wrong mindset and wrong prioritising.
2. Secondly, on basis you now realise how many are genuine asylum claims bogged down in your two year backlog, Set up a Department for International Development (DfID) to strengthen the infrastructures of fragile countries and increase stability there. Where do you want to spend the money, DfID, or 5 star hotels? You do the math.
3. Enable safe, legal routes for resettlement of genuine refugees. Would they even need a long stay in a processing centre on UK soil after dangerous water crossing, if you took safe, legal routes for resettlement more seriously? Take as example the priority given to Ukraine refugees, and how abysmal this home office under this government was at managing Ukrainian processing - sending them here and there, where no one was there to help them. And that’s what we call our gold star fast Lane process. Despite Tories paying lip service to liking safe, legal routes, the number of people resettled under the government’s UK resettlement scheme was 1,171 in the 12 months to September 2021, down by about 45% year on year.
4. This is the idea I like best. Process UK humanitarian visas on French soil, and bring them across on ferries. Genuine asylum seekers in northern France hoping to reach the UK to claim asylum, so happy to place themselves into the hands of our home office, could register their claim with UK officials and then be placed on ferries to be brought to the UK while their claim is processed. You want the Rwanda scheme because you are led to believe it hurts the business model of the people smugglers? The simple MoonRabbits Ferry to Freedom Solution utterly smashes through the business model of the people smugglers does it not?
1. I don't believe a single word of what is coming out of the Home Office on this issue. If 70% of these people are succeeding in their asylum claims, that's a scandal in itself, and hardly surprising that asylum is a chosen route for so many. The Home Secretary doesn't seem to believe it either.
2. The evidence shows that increasing levels of wealth in developing countries leads to more economic migration away from them, not less, as smartphones and the internet open up new possibilities. Stability would be nice, but it's not within our gift. We'll do whatever the US decides; if that includes bombing AN other Middle Eastern country, that's what will happen. And it's maths.
3. Safe, legal routes, YES, but the application, processing, and validation of the asylum claim must be done in situ before they get on that safe legal route. Otherwise it's just inviting a stampede.
4. We want the people traffickers to stop because we want the people to stop. Your solution is like saying we should get the police to stab everyone on sight because it would put all the criminal stabbers out of business. It would, but all it would do is replace freelancers with a taxpayer funded service. What on earth would be the point.
Sorry it took me a while to come back to you, we went to the big game (how to make a Swiss role? Just gently brush one in a contact sport) and I’ve been Christmas shopping.
Do these people coming here in boats across the channel, either for work or asylum, have any legitimacy at all in what they are doing, in your opinion? 😕
I have nothing personal against people wanting to better themselves, I think it's admirable (I exclude people who have come with criminal intentions). However, it's OK for the destination country to say no, and if one is going to say no, it's best and kindest to say it clearly and unequivocally, to prevent such journeys being attempted.
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
No, the EU is democratic, and we used to have a say in those laws.
No country or organisation record is impeccable, but recent EU efforts like the Everything But Arms trade arrangements have been very positive for Africa.
None of the other organisations you listed could impose new laws against our will. Having a say is no good if that say is ignored and they can still impose the laws even if our own Parliament disagrees with them. That is not democracy.
And your blindness to the faults of the EU mean you are excusing policies, still in existence right now, which are driving the migration crisis by making African countries poorer and less competitive in the global market. It is a callous and sick attitude.
The UK agreed to join the EU institutions, so it wasn't against the UK's will, any more than when the UK abides by other treaties it signs.
So you agree that the UK shouldn't trade with African countries, to force them to adopt a socialist / Afro-nationalist development model? Because this is what your academic references like Mark Langan are saying.
No I think we should stop the neo imperialism which leads to us viewing Africa and its people as a resource to be exploited. The evidence is overwhelming and it is only the apologists for the EU who are blind to it.
And when we sign a treaty we do so in the knowledge that the terms cannot be changed and no new laws can be imposed after we have signed. That is not the case with the EU.
Right, so you can't explain what the EU does and the UK doesn't that is so evil, now that you exclude the possibility that its people need to be forced into socialist poverty for the vicarious kicks of Western academics.
That's not true - the EU treaties that the UK signed up to explicitly authorised institutions that would create new laws. It's fine to not support those, but don't say that it wasn't agreed in the treaties.
I think it quite possible to argue that protective trade barriers have been a key part of development strategy in a number of countries, notably China, India, South Korea etc.
Far from a guarantee of development though, and a major drag on many African economies as well as a source of corruption over the last decades.
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
No, the EU is democratic, and we used to have a say in those laws.
No country or organisation record is impeccable, but recent EU efforts like the Everything But Arms trade arrangements have been very positive for Africa.
None of the other organisations you listed could impose new laws against our will. Having a say is no good if that say is ignored and they can still impose the laws even if our own Parliament disagrees with them. That is not democracy.
And your blindness to the faults of the EU mean you are excusing policies, still in existence right now, which are driving the migration crisis by making African countries poorer and less competitive in the global market. It is a callous and sick attitude.
The UK agreed to join the EU institutions, so it wasn't against the UK's will, any more than when the UK abides by other treaties it signs.
So you agree that the UK shouldn't trade with African countries, to force them to adopt a socialist / Afro-nationalist development model? Because this is what your academic references like Mark Langan are saying.
And when we sign a treaty we do so in the knowledge that the terms cannot be changed and no new laws can be imposed after we have signed. That is not the case with the EU.
The way that we are refusing to honour the NI protocol that we freely agreed to shows that our government is as mendacious as any other.
A rather dangerous precedent for a country so reliant on the rule of law.
I agree completely. But again you are conflating arguments. Just because our own Government is wrong on this particular treaty, does not make the EU right in being able to impose laws on member countries. Thankfully we have now left so that is no longer an issue.
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
No, the EU is democratic, and we used to have a say in those laws.
No country or organisation record is impeccable, but recent EU efforts like the Everything But Arms trade arrangements have been very positive for Africa.
None of the other organisations you listed could impose new laws against our will. Having a say is no good if that say is ignored and they can still impose the laws even if our own Parliament disagrees with them. That is not democracy.
And your blindness to the faults of the EU mean you are excusing policies, still in existence right now, which are driving the migration crisis by making African countries poorer and less competitive in the global market. It is a callous and sick attitude.
The UK agreed to join the EU institutions, so it wasn't against the UK's will, any more than when the UK abides by other treaties it signs.
So you agree that the UK shouldn't trade with African countries, to force them to adopt a socialist / Afro-nationalist development model? Because this is what your academic references like Mark Langan are saying.
No I think we should stop the neo imperialism which leads to us viewing Africa and its people as a resource to be exploited. The evidence is overwhelming and it is only the apologists for the EU who are blind to it.
And when we sign a treaty we do so in the knowledge that the terms cannot be changed and no new laws can be imposed after we have signed. That is not the case with the EU.
Right, so you can't explain what the EU does and the UK doesn't that is so evil, now that you exclude the possibility that its people need to be forced into socialist poverty for the vicarious kicks of Western academics.
That's not true - the EU treaties that the UK signed up to explicitly authorised institutions that would create new laws. It's fine to not support those, but don't say that it wasn't agreed in the treaties.
It was the EU that made the fishing agreements with the African countries - I do wonder how large the bribes were that helped oil those wheels. And I am sure the UK is just as guilty. But the claim from Foxy was that we need to be part of the Eu to solve these problems when actually they are using the size to create these problems.
And on EU membership that is exactly my point. The EU is unique in being able to pass laws which member Parliaments cannot veto. I don't care which fucked up UK Government signed up to it, it is undemocratic. And as such Foxy was wrong to conflate membership of the EU with the other international organisations she listed.
It's fine to not want to be in the EU - the vast majority of countries in the world aren't. The problem was claiming that this was a problem with the treaties allowing EU membership, when in reality it was the freely-agreed condition of EU membership, and the reason why a treaty was required.
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
No, the EU is democratic, and we used to have a say in those laws.
No country or organisation record is impeccable, but recent EU efforts like the Everything But Arms trade arrangements have been very positive for Africa.
None of the other organisations you listed could impose new laws against our will. Having a say is no good if that say is ignored and they can still impose the laws even if our own Parliament disagrees with them. That is not democracy.
And your blindness to the faults of the EU mean you are excusing policies, still in existence right now, which are driving the migration crisis by making African countries poorer and less competitive in the global market. It is a callous and sick attitude.
The UK agreed to join the EU institutions, so it wasn't against the UK's will, any more than when the UK abides by other treaties it signs.
So you agree that the UK shouldn't trade with African countries, to force them to adopt a socialist / Afro-nationalist development model? Because this is what your academic references like Mark Langan are saying.
No I think we should stop the neo imperialism which leads to us viewing Africa and its people as a resource to be exploited. The evidence is overwhelming and it is only the apologists for the EU who are blind to it.
And when we sign a treaty we do so in the knowledge that the terms cannot be changed and no new laws can be imposed after we have signed. That is not the case with the EU.
Right, so you can't explain what the EU does and the UK doesn't that is so evil, now that you exclude the possibility that its people need to be forced into socialist poverty for the vicarious kicks of Western academics.
That's not true - the EU treaties that the UK signed up to explicitly authorised institutions that would create new laws. It's fine to not support those, but don't say that it wasn't agreed in the treaties.
I think it quite possible to argue that protective trade barriers have been a key part of development strategy in a number of countries, notably China, India, South Korea etc.
Far from a guarantee of development though, and a major drag on many African economies as well as a source of corruption over the last decades.
Certainly - you could add Japan to improve the "hit rate" though you'd have to add a few misses too. In general, it is the result of a political battle between domestic industrial interests versus everyone else. In Africa, where local sovereignty is poor, governments naturally struggle to impose economic control over industry against all the powerful foreign and domestic interests that would benefit from trade.
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
No, the EU is democratic, and we used to have a say in those laws.
No country or organisation record is impeccable, but recent EU efforts like the Everything But Arms trade arrangements have been very positive for Africa.
None of the other organisations you listed could impose new laws against our will. Having a say is no good if that say is ignored and they can still impose the laws even if our own Parliament disagrees with them. That is not democracy.
And your blindness to the faults of the EU mean you are excusing policies, still in existence right now, which are driving the migration crisis by making African countries poorer and less competitive in the global market. It is a callous and sick attitude.
The UK agreed to join the EU institutions, so it wasn't against the UK's will, any more than when the UK abides by other treaties it signs.
So you agree that the UK shouldn't trade with African countries, to force them to adopt a socialist / Afro-nationalist development model? Because this is what your academic references like Mark Langan are saying.
No I think we should stop the neo imperialism which leads to us viewing Africa and its people as a resource to be exploited. The evidence is overwhelming and it is only the apologists for the EU who are blind to it.
And when we sign a treaty we do so in the knowledge that the terms cannot be changed and no new laws can be imposed after we have signed. That is not the case with the EU.
Right, so you can't explain what the EU does and the UK doesn't that is so evil, now that you exclude the possibility that its people need to be forced into socialist poverty for the vicarious kicks of Western academics.
That's not true - the EU treaties that the UK signed up to explicitly authorised institutions that would create new laws. It's fine to not support those, but don't say that it wasn't agreed in the treaties.
It was the EU that made the fishing agreements with the African countries - I do wonder how large the bribes were that helped oil those wheels. And I am sure the UK is just as guilty. But the claim from Foxy was that we need to be part of the Eu to solve these problems when actually they are using the size to create these problems.
And on EU membership that is exactly my point. The EU is unique in being able to pass laws which member Parliaments cannot veto. I don't care which fucked up UK Government signed up to it, it is undemocratic. And as such Foxy was wrong to conflate membership of the EU with the other international organisations she listed.
It's fine to not want to be in the EU - the vast majority of countries in the world aren't. The problem was claiming that this was a problem with the treaties allowing EU membership, when in reality it was the freely-agreed condition of EU membership, and the reason why a treaty was required.
It was not a condition of membership when we originally joined. And that is why it was right to leave. I would have no problem with EU membership if it was based on the same principles as other international organisations where we have a veto. Once we moved to QMV and it was possible to impose new laws against the wishes of the UK government it ceased to be a democratic institution.
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
No, the EU is democratic, and we used to have a say in those laws.
No country or organisation record is impeccable, but recent EU efforts like the Everything But Arms trade arrangements have been very positive for Africa.
None of the other organisations you listed could impose new laws against our will. Having a say is no good if that say is ignored and they can still impose the laws even if our own Parliament disagrees with them. That is not democracy.
And your blindness to the faults of the EU mean you are excusing policies, still in existence right now, which are driving the migration crisis by making African countries poorer and less competitive in the global market. It is a callous and sick attitude.
The UK agreed to join the EU institutions, so it wasn't against the UK's will, any more than when the UK abides by other treaties it signs.
So you agree that the UK shouldn't trade with African countries, to force them to adopt a socialist / Afro-nationalist development model? Because this is what your academic references like Mark Langan are saying.
And when we sign a treaty we do so in the knowledge that the terms cannot be changed and no new laws can be imposed after we have signed. That is not the case with the EU.
The way that we are refusing to honour the NI protocol that we freely agreed to shows that our government is as mendacious as any other.
A rather dangerous precedent for a country so reliant on the rule of law.
I agree completely. But again you are conflating arguments. Just because our own Government is wrong on this particular treaty, does not make the EU right in being able to impose laws on member countries. Thankfully we have now left so that is no longer an issue.
The EU democratically decides laws. It doesn't impose them. Or do you consider that over the last 12 years laws have been imposed undemocratically on Merseyside and Scotland by Westminster? Or in the 13 years before that by Merseyside and Scotland on South Lincs?
Sometimes in a democracy you get outvoted, but history shows that we very rarely voted against EU laws under governments of any stripe.
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
No, the EU is democratic, and we used to have a say in those laws.
No country or organisation record is impeccable, but recent EU efforts like the Everything But Arms trade arrangements have been very positive for Africa.
None of the other organisations you listed could impose new laws against our will. Having a say is no good if that say is ignored and they can still impose the laws even if our own Parliament disagrees with them. That is not democracy.
And your blindness to the faults of the EU mean you are excusing policies, still in existence right now, which are driving the migration crisis by making African countries poorer and less competitive in the global market. It is a callous and sick attitude.
The UK agreed to join the EU institutions, so it wasn't against the UK's will, any more than when the UK abides by other treaties it signs.
So you agree that the UK shouldn't trade with African countries, to force them to adopt a socialist / Afro-nationalist development model? Because this is what your academic references like Mark Langan are saying.
No I think we should stop the neo imperialism which leads to us viewing Africa and its people as a resource to be exploited. The evidence is overwhelming and it is only the apologists for the EU who are blind to it.
And when we sign a treaty we do so in the knowledge that the terms cannot be changed and no new laws can be imposed after we have signed. That is not the case with the EU.
Right, so you can't explain what the EU does and the UK doesn't that is so evil, now that you exclude the possibility that its people need to be forced into socialist poverty for the vicarious kicks of Western academics.
That's not true - the EU treaties that the UK signed up to explicitly authorised institutions that would create new laws. It's fine to not support those, but don't say that it wasn't agreed in the treaties.
I think it quite possible to argue that protective trade barriers have been a key part of development strategy in a number of countries, notably China, India, South Korea etc.
Far from a guarantee of development though, and a major drag on many African economies as well as a source of corruption over the last decades.
Certainly - you could add Japan to improve the "hit rate" though you'd have to add a few misses too. In general, it is the result of a political battle between domestic industrial interests versus everyone else. In Africa, where local sovereignty is poor, governments naturally struggle to impose economic control over industry against all the powerful foreign and domestic interests that would benefit from trade.
And the EU (and others) rush in to take advantage of that. They are part of the problem, not the solution.
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
No, the EU is democratic, and we used to have a say in those laws.
No country or organisation record is impeccable, but recent EU efforts like the Everything But Arms trade arrangements have been very positive for Africa.
None of the other organisations you listed could impose new laws against our will. Having a say is no good if that say is ignored and they can still impose the laws even if our own Parliament disagrees with them. That is not democracy.
And your blindness to the faults of the EU mean you are excusing policies, still in existence right now, which are driving the migration crisis by making African countries poorer and less competitive in the global market. It is a callous and sick attitude.
The UK agreed to join the EU institutions, so it wasn't against the UK's will, any more than when the UK abides by other treaties it signs.
So you agree that the UK shouldn't trade with African countries, to force them to adopt a socialist / Afro-nationalist development model? Because this is what your academic references like Mark Langan are saying.
No I think we should stop the neo imperialism which leads to us viewing Africa and its people as a resource to be exploited. The evidence is overwhelming and it is only the apologists for the EU who are blind to it.
And when we sign a treaty we do so in the knowledge that the terms cannot be changed and no new laws can be imposed after we have signed. That is not the case with the EU.
Right, so you can't explain what the EU does and the UK doesn't that is so evil, now that you exclude the possibility that its people need to be forced into socialist poverty for the vicarious kicks of Western academics.
That's not true - the EU treaties that the UK signed up to explicitly authorised institutions that would create new laws. It's fine to not support those, but don't say that it wasn't agreed in the treaties.
It was the EU that made the fishing agreements with the African countries - I do wonder how large the bribes were that helped oil those wheels. And I am sure the UK is just as guilty. But the claim from Foxy was that we need to be part of the Eu to solve these problems when actually they are using the size to create these problems.
And on EU membership that is exactly my point. The EU is unique in being able to pass laws which member Parliaments cannot veto. I don't care which fucked up UK Government signed up to it, it is undemocratic. And as such Foxy was wrong to conflate membership of the EU with the other international organisations she listed.
You’ve found yourself in the middle of the two most interesting discussions of this evening: a debate on the principles of the EU, and the question of economic migration vs asylum.
On the EU and democracy I think ultimately this is an identity thing, no matter the policies or economics. That’s why it’s so intractable. For a pro-European like me it’s akin to a Texan talking about US policy. I see the EU as “us” and I also see the UK as “us” Others see the EU as “them”. It’s deep down and, at root (for both sides) heart not head.
On migration I agree with moonrabbit. Opening up significantly more working visas to Albania would seem like a very sensible win-win. Nobody sees people turning up at Stansted with a work permit as an invasion. That’s the cinematic power of the small boats again. Unfortunately I’m not convinced the government are politically incentivised to solve the problem though. There are paradoxically probably more votes in the continued chaos.
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
No, the EU is democratic, and we used to have a say in those laws.
No country or organisation record is impeccable, but recent EU efforts like the Everything But Arms trade arrangements have been very positive for Africa.
None of the other organisations you listed could impose new laws against our will. Having a say is no good if that say is ignored and they can still impose the laws even if our own Parliament disagrees with them. That is not democracy.
And your blindness to the faults of the EU mean you are excusing policies, still in existence right now, which are driving the migration crisis by making African countries poorer and less competitive in the global market. It is a callous and sick attitude.
The UK agreed to join the EU institutions, so it wasn't against the UK's will, any more than when the UK abides by other treaties it signs.
So you agree that the UK shouldn't trade with African countries, to force them to adopt a socialist / Afro-nationalist development model? Because this is what your academic references like Mark Langan are saying.
No I think we should stop the neo imperialism which leads to us viewing Africa and its people as a resource to be exploited. The evidence is overwhelming and it is only the apologists for the EU who are blind to it.
And when we sign a treaty we do so in the knowledge that the terms cannot be changed and no new laws can be imposed after we have signed. That is not the case with the EU.
Right, so you can't explain what the EU does and the UK doesn't that is so evil, now that you exclude the possibility that its people need to be forced into socialist poverty for the vicarious kicks of Western academics.
That's not true - the EU treaties that the UK signed up to explicitly authorised institutions that would create new laws. It's fine to not support those, but don't say that it wasn't agreed in the treaties.
I think it quite possible to argue that protective trade barriers have been a key part of development strategy in a number of countries, notably China, India, South Korea etc.
Far from a guarantee of development though, and a major drag on many African economies as well as a source of corruption over the last decades.
Certainly - you could add Japan to improve the "hit rate" though you'd have to add a few misses too. In general, it is the result of a political battle between domestic industrial interests versus everyone else. In Africa, where local sovereignty is poor, governments naturally struggle to impose economic control over industry against all the powerful foreign and domestic interests that would benefit from trade.
And the EU (and others) rush in to take advantage of that. They are part of the problem, not the solution.
The EU isn’t going away though so if there’s a problem isn’t the solution to influence EU policy?
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
No, the EU is democratic, and we used to have a say in those laws.
No country or organisation record is impeccable, but recent EU efforts like the Everything But Arms trade arrangements have been very positive for Africa.
None of the other organisations you listed could impose new laws against our will. Having a say is no good if that say is ignored and they can still impose the laws even if our own Parliament disagrees with them. That is not democracy.
And your blindness to the faults of the EU mean you are excusing policies, still in existence right now, which are driving the migration crisis by making African countries poorer and less competitive in the global market. It is a callous and sick attitude.
The UK agreed to join the EU institutions, so it wasn't against the UK's will, any more than when the UK abides by other treaties it signs.
So you agree that the UK shouldn't trade with African countries, to force them to adopt a socialist / Afro-nationalist development model? Because this is what your academic references like Mark Langan are saying.
And when we sign a treaty we do so in the knowledge that the terms cannot be changed and no new laws can be imposed after we have signed. That is not the case with the EU.
The way that we are refusing to honour the NI protocol that we freely agreed to shows that our government is as mendacious as any other.
A rather dangerous precedent for a country so reliant on the rule of law.
I agree completely. But again you are conflating arguments. Just because our own Government is wrong on this particular treaty, does not make the EU right in being able to impose laws on member countries. Thankfully we have now left so that is no longer an issue.
The EU democratically decides laws. It doesn't impose them. Or do you consider that over the last 12 years laws have been imposed undemocratically on Merseyside and Scotland by Westminster? Or in the 13 years before that by Merseyside and Scotland on South Lincs?
Sometimes in a democracy you get outvoted, but history shows that we very rarely voted against EU laws under government's of any stripe.
We are a Parliamentary democracy and as such it is Parliament that should have the last word on all laws passed in this country. Not least because the members of that Parliament are directly elected by the people. Parliament has many faults which need rectifying but it was pointless to do that whilst we were part of an organisation that could simply override our Parliament whenever it felt like it.
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
No, the EU is democratic, and we used to have a say in those laws.
No country or organisation record is impeccable, but recent EU efforts like the Everything But Arms trade arrangements have been very positive for Africa.
None of the other organisations you listed could impose new laws against our will. Having a say is no good if that say is ignored and they can still impose the laws even if our own Parliament disagrees with them. That is not democracy.
And your blindness to the faults of the EU mean you are excusing policies, still in existence right now, which are driving the migration crisis by making African countries poorer and less competitive in the global market. It is a callous and sick attitude.
The UK agreed to join the EU institutions, so it wasn't against the UK's will, any more than when the UK abides by other treaties it signs.
So you agree that the UK shouldn't trade with African countries, to force them to adopt a socialist / Afro-nationalist development model? Because this is what your academic references like Mark Langan are saying.
No I think we should stop the neo imperialism which leads to us viewing Africa and its people as a resource to be exploited. The evidence is overwhelming and it is only the apologists for the EU who are blind to it.
And when we sign a treaty we do so in the knowledge that the terms cannot be changed and no new laws can be imposed after we have signed. That is not the case with the EU.
Right, so you can't explain what the EU does and the UK doesn't that is so evil, now that you exclude the possibility that its people need to be forced into socialist poverty for the vicarious kicks of Western academics.
That's not true - the EU treaties that the UK signed up to explicitly authorised institutions that would create new laws. It's fine to not support those, but don't say that it wasn't agreed in the treaties.
It was the EU that made the fishing agreements with the African countries - I do wonder how large the bribes were that helped oil those wheels. And I am sure the UK is just as guilty. But the claim from Foxy was that we need to be part of the Eu to solve these problems when actually they are using the size to create these problems.
And on EU membership that is exactly my point. The EU is unique in being able to pass laws which member Parliaments cannot veto. I don't care which fucked up UK Government signed up to it, it is undemocratic. And as such Foxy was wrong to conflate membership of the EU with the other international organisations she listed.
It's fine to not want to be in the EU - the vast majority of countries in the world aren't. The problem was claiming that this was a problem with the treaties allowing EU membership, when in reality it was the freely-agreed condition of EU membership, and the reason why a treaty was required.
It was not a condition of membership when we originally joined. And that is why it was right to leave. I would have no problem with EU membership if it was based on the same principles as other international organisations where we have a veto. Once we moved to QMV and it was possible to impose new laws against the wishes of the UK government it ceased to be a democratic institution.
It was a condition freely agreed by the government of the UK when acceding to the treaties of the Union, and adhered to for decades. And QMV is more democratic than the national veto, in the sense that most people get what they want, more often. Again, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with wanting to be outside the EU, but it sounds like you were hostile to a more-democratic EU where the people's democratically-expressed will was more often imposed rather than being frustrated by a Malta or a Hungary.
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
No, the EU is democratic, and we used to have a say in those laws.
No country or organisation record is impeccable, but recent EU efforts like the Everything But Arms trade arrangements have been very positive for Africa.
None of the other organisations you listed could impose new laws against our will. Having a say is no good if that say is ignored and they can still impose the laws even if our own Parliament disagrees with them. That is not democracy.
And your blindness to the faults of the EU mean you are excusing policies, still in existence right now, which are driving the migration crisis by making African countries poorer and less competitive in the global market. It is a callous and sick attitude.
The UK agreed to join the EU institutions, so it wasn't against the UK's will, any more than when the UK abides by other treaties it signs.
So you agree that the UK shouldn't trade with African countries, to force them to adopt a socialist / Afro-nationalist development model? Because this is what your academic references like Mark Langan are saying.
No I think we should stop the neo imperialism which leads to us viewing Africa and its people as a resource to be exploited. The evidence is overwhelming and it is only the apologists for the EU who are blind to it.
And when we sign a treaty we do so in the knowledge that the terms cannot be changed and no new laws can be imposed after we have signed. That is not the case with the EU.
Right, so you can't explain what the EU does and the UK doesn't that is so evil, now that you exclude the possibility that its people need to be forced into socialist poverty for the vicarious kicks of Western academics.
That's not true - the EU treaties that the UK signed up to explicitly authorised institutions that would create new laws. It's fine to not support those, but don't say that it wasn't agreed in the treaties.
I think it quite possible to argue that protective trade barriers have been a key part of development strategy in a number of countries, notably China, India, South Korea etc.
Far from a guarantee of development though, and a major drag on many African economies as well as a source of corruption over the last decades.
Certainly - you could add Japan to improve the "hit rate" though you'd have to add a few misses too. In general, it is the result of a political battle between domestic industrial interests versus everyone else. In Africa, where local sovereignty is poor, governments naturally struggle to impose economic control over industry against all the powerful foreign and domestic interests that would benefit from trade.
And the EU (and others) rush in to take advantage of that. They are part of the problem, not the solution.
The EU isn’t going away though so if there’s a problem isn’t the solution to influence EU policy?
We tried that for decades and got nowhere. In the end we at least have a chance as citizens of influencing UK policy, something that was not the case when we were part of a larger organisation.
Rail strikes called off, Is tomorrows Telegraph declaring Tory victory over the striking rail workers, by suggesting working practices are not part of the settlement? If it’s true a ballot taken not yet made public reveals Lynch losing union member support for his strike, he needs a deal soon - so maybe the government should not give him one? If Lynch is prepared to trade now, the government should hold out and get an even better deal in the coming days and weeks?
Maybe not just Sunak in search of a backbone - Mick Lynch is searching for one too now, as he begins to cave!
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
No, the EU is democratic, and we used to have a say in those laws.
No country or organisation record is impeccable, but recent EU efforts like the Everything But Arms trade arrangements have been very positive for Africa.
None of the other organisations you listed could impose new laws against our will. Having a say is no good if that say is ignored and they can still impose the laws even if our own Parliament disagrees with them. That is not democracy.
And your blindness to the faults of the EU mean you are excusing policies, still in existence right now, which are driving the migration crisis by making African countries poorer and less competitive in the global market. It is a callous and sick attitude.
The UK agreed to join the EU institutions, so it wasn't against the UK's will, any more than when the UK abides by other treaties it signs.
So you agree that the UK shouldn't trade with African countries, to force them to adopt a socialist / Afro-nationalist development model? Because this is what your academic references like Mark Langan are saying.
And when we sign a treaty we do so in the knowledge that the terms cannot be changed and no new laws can be imposed after we have signed. That is not the case with the EU.
The way that we are refusing to honour the NI protocol that we freely agreed to shows that our government is as mendacious as any other.
A rather dangerous precedent for a country so reliant on the rule of law.
I agree completely. But again you are conflating arguments. Just because our own Government is wrong on this particular treaty, does not make the EU right in being able to impose laws on member countries. Thankfully we have now left so that is no longer an issue.
The EU democratically decides laws. It doesn't impose them. Or do you consider that over the last 12 years laws have been imposed undemocratically on Merseyside and Scotland by Westminster? Or in the 13 years before that by Merseyside and Scotland on South Lincs?
Sometimes in a democracy you get outvoted, but history shows that we very rarely voted against EU laws under government's of any stripe.
We are a Parliamentary democracy and as such it is Parliament that should have the last word on all laws passed in this country. Not least because the members of that Parliament are directly elected by the people. Parliament has many faults which need rectifying but it was pointless to do that whilst we were part of an organisation that could simply override our Parliament whenever it felt like it.
The UK wasn't a Parliamentary democracy when it was in the EU - it had devolved some sovereignty to the EU. Perhaps you mean you'd prefer it to be a Parliamentary democracy, which is an argument about tastes over international collaboration. It seems that sometimes you resort to arguments that appear to be unimpeachably pointing out breaches of the rules, which in reality reduce to different tastes for the extent of cooperation, which is an area where valid disagreement exists and not just simple unilateral solutions.
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
No, the EU is democratic, and we used to have a say in those laws.
No country or organisation record is impeccable, but recent EU efforts like the Everything But Arms trade arrangements have been very positive for Africa.
None of the other organisations you listed could impose new laws against our will. Having a say is no good if that say is ignored and they can still impose the laws even if our own Parliament disagrees with them. That is not democracy.
And your blindness to the faults of the EU mean you are excusing policies, still in existence right now, which are driving the migration crisis by making African countries poorer and less competitive in the global market. It is a callous and sick attitude.
The UK agreed to join the EU institutions, so it wasn't against the UK's will, any more than when the UK abides by other treaties it signs.
So you agree that the UK shouldn't trade with African countries, to force them to adopt a socialist / Afro-nationalist development model? Because this is what your academic references like Mark Langan are saying.
No I think we should stop the neo imperialism which leads to us viewing Africa and its people as a resource to be exploited. The evidence is overwhelming and it is only the apologists for the EU who are blind to it.
And when we sign a treaty we do so in the knowledge that the terms cannot be changed and no new laws can be imposed after we have signed. That is not the case with the EU.
Right, so you can't explain what the EU does and the UK doesn't that is so evil, now that you exclude the possibility that its people need to be forced into socialist poverty for the vicarious kicks of Western academics.
That's not true - the EU treaties that the UK signed up to explicitly authorised institutions that would create new laws. It's fine to not support those, but don't say that it wasn't agreed in the treaties.
It was the EU that made the fishing agreements with the African countries - I do wonder how large the bribes were that helped oil those wheels. And I am sure the UK is just as guilty. But the claim from Foxy was that we need to be part of the Eu to solve these problems when actually they are using the size to create these problems.
And on EU membership that is exactly my point. The EU is unique in being able to pass laws which member Parliaments cannot veto. I don't care which fucked up UK Government signed up to it, it is undemocratic. And as such Foxy was wrong to conflate membership of the EU with the other international organisations she listed.
You’ve found yourself in the middle of the two most interesting discussions of this evening: a debate on the principles of the EU, and the question of economic migration vs asylum.
On the EU and democracy I think ultimately this is an identity thing, no matter the policies or economics. That’s why it’s so intractable. For a pro-European like me it’s akin to a Texan talking about US policy. I see the EU as “us” and I also see the UK as “us” Others see the EU as “them”. It’s deep down and, at root (for both sides) heart not head.
On migration I agree with moonrabbit. Opening up significantly more working visas to Albania would seem like a very sensible win-win. Nobody sees people turning up at Stansted with a work permit as an invasion. That’s the cinematic power of the small boats again. Unfortunately I’m not convinced the government are politically incentivised to solve the problem though. There are paradoxically probably more votes in the continued chaos.
Well at least we agree 50% If I were dictator for life (or at least a couple of weeks) I would have a massive increase in legal migration and asylum. But I would probably deservedly spend the rest of my life in jail (or worse) as I would be a terrible dictator. I wouldn't even be a good local councillor.
With regards the EU, it is not a case of us and them. It is a case of distant (organisationally) and unaccountable government. I would genuinely be just as opposed if the whole edifice were based in London. It is why I favour Scottish independence and why I see Brexit as just the first step in a long fight for fundamental reform of our democratic system - though as usual I disagree with most other commentators on how as to how that should be done.
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
No, the EU is democratic, and we used to have a say in those laws.
No country or organisation record is impeccable, but recent EU efforts like the Everything But Arms trade arrangements have been very positive for Africa.
None of the other organisations you listed could impose new laws against our will. Having a say is no good if that say is ignored and they can still impose the laws even if our own Parliament disagrees with them. That is not democracy.
And your blindness to the faults of the EU mean you are excusing policies, still in existence right now, which are driving the migration crisis by making African countries poorer and less competitive in the global market. It is a callous and sick attitude.
The UK agreed to join the EU institutions, so it wasn't against the UK's will, any more than when the UK abides by other treaties it signs.
So you agree that the UK shouldn't trade with African countries, to force them to adopt a socialist / Afro-nationalist development model? Because this is what your academic references like Mark Langan are saying.
No I think we should stop the neo imperialism which leads to us viewing Africa and its people as a resource to be exploited. The evidence is overwhelming and it is only the apologists for the EU who are blind to it.
And when we sign a treaty we do so in the knowledge that the terms cannot be changed and no new laws can be imposed after we have signed. That is not the case with the EU.
Right, so you can't explain what the EU does and the UK doesn't that is so evil, now that you exclude the possibility that its people need to be forced into socialist poverty for the vicarious kicks of Western academics.
That's not true - the EU treaties that the UK signed up to explicitly authorised institutions that would create new laws. It's fine to not support those, but don't say that it wasn't agreed in the treaties.
I think it quite possible to argue that protective trade barriers have been a key part of development strategy in a number of countries, notably China, India, South Korea etc.
Far from a guarantee of development though, and a major drag on many African economies as well as a source of corruption over the last decades.
Certainly - you could add Japan to improve the "hit rate" though you'd have to add a few misses too. In general, it is the result of a political battle between domestic industrial interests versus everyone else. In Africa, where local sovereignty is poor, governments naturally struggle to impose economic control over industry against all the powerful foreign and domestic interests that would benefit from trade.
The reasons that Africa has remained under-developed are complex, but a large part has been by the continued domination of African industry by companies based overseas, usually in former colonial powers. These pay little tax locally, though do spend a fair amount in corruption to minimise the amount of environmental and social regulation applied. The oil, and mining companies are often examples of this
The profits are declared overseas, often in tax-havens, so not in our country either, as we saw with BP this week. Nationalisation has rarely worked well, as these are very capital intensive businesses, and heavily reliant on imported equipment and expertise. A university friend of mine worked for a while in Angola, being paid six figures of pounds in one of the poorest countries on earth, in the oil industry. In practice not very different to the life of Cecil Rhodes.
Five years or one year? "The number of homicides in the United States spiked almost 30% during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, a phenomenon seen in both cities and rural areas, and in Republican and Democratic-leaning states.
The proliferation of guns, pandemic stress and diminished public trust in the police all contributed to the increase in homicides nationwide, according to Justin Nix, an associate professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Nebraska Omaha." source: https://www.voanews.com/a/why-homicide-rates-spiked-30-during-the-pandemic-/6420391.html
Five years or one year? "The number of homicides in the United States spiked almost 30% during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, a phenomenon seen in both cities and rural areas, and in Republican and Democratic-leaning states.
The proliferation of guns, pandemic stress and diminished public trust in the police all contributed to the increase in homicides nationwide, according to Justin Nix, an associate professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Nebraska Omaha." source: https://www.voanews.com/a/why-homicide-rates-spiked-30-during-the-pandemic-/6420391.html
London has a population of 9 million and usually has around 100 homicides each year. I wonder how that compares with most American cities.
Rail strikes called off, Is tomorrows Telegraph declaring Tory victory over the striking rail workers, by suggesting working practices are not part of the settlement? If it’s true a ballot taken not yet made public reveals Lynch losing union member support for his strike, he needs a deal soon - so maybe the government should not give him one? If Lynch is prepared to trade now, the government should hold out and get an even better deal in the coming days and weeks?
Maybe not just Sunak in search of a backbone - Mick Lynch is searching for one too now, as he begins to cave!
Both sides will claim that they got what they wanted, and more than likely both will be right. That is how these negotiations generally work.
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
No, the EU is democratic, and we used to have a say in those laws.
No country or organisation record is impeccable, but recent EU efforts like the Everything But Arms trade arrangements have been very positive for Africa.
None of the other organisations you listed could impose new laws against our will. Having a say is no good if that say is ignored and they can still impose the laws even if our own Parliament disagrees with them. That is not democracy.
And your blindness to the faults of the EU mean you are excusing policies, still in existence right now, which are driving the migration crisis by making African countries poorer and less competitive in the global market. It is a callous and sick attitude.
The UK agreed to join the EU institutions, so it wasn't against the UK's will, any more than when the UK abides by other treaties it signs.
So you agree that the UK shouldn't trade with African countries, to force them to adopt a socialist / Afro-nationalist development model? Because this is what your academic references like Mark Langan are saying.
And when we sign a treaty we do so in the knowledge that the terms cannot be changed and no new laws can be imposed after we have signed. That is not the case with the EU.
The way that we are refusing to honour the NI protocol that we freely agreed to shows that our government is as mendacious as any other.
A rather dangerous precedent for a country so reliant on the rule of law.
I agree completely. But again you are conflating arguments. Just because our own Government is wrong on this particular treaty, does not make the EU right in being able to impose laws on member countries. Thankfully we have now left so that is no longer an issue.
The EU democratically decides laws. It doesn't impose them. Or do you consider that over the last 12 years laws have been imposed undemocratically on Merseyside and Scotland by Westminster? Or in the 13 years before that by Merseyside and Scotland on South Lincs?
Sometimes in a democracy you get outvoted, but history shows that we very rarely voted against EU laws under government's of any stripe.
We are a Parliamentary democracy and as such it is Parliament that should have the last word on all laws passed in this country. Not least because the members of that Parliament are directly elected by the people. Parliament has many faults which need rectifying but it was pointless to do that whilst we were part of an organisation that could simply override our Parliament whenever it felt like it.
The UK wasn't a Parliamentary democracy when it was in the EU - it had devolved some sovereignty to the EU. Perhaps you mean you'd prefer it to be a Parliamentary democracy, which is an argument about tastes over international collaboration. It seems that sometimes you resort to arguments that appear to be unimpeachably pointing out breaches of the rules, which in reality reduce to different tastes for the extent of cooperation, which is an area where valid disagreement exists and not just simple unilateral solutions.
At least you are honest about the change that membership of the EU brought about. You are perhaps unique amongst defenders of the EU in admitting that. I think that form of Governance is the best of a bad lot. It certainly beats a technocracy or other forms of oligarchy. The ability to directly vote out your law makers seems a fundamental principle of any form of democracy and Parliamentary democracy within a nation state is, for me, the best way of ensuring that.
Excuse the neo-colonial paternalism here but I feel sub Saharan Africa really needs a globally connected hub to act as a gravitational pull for capital. A Singapore or for that matter a Dubai. A holding company location, listing destination, strong tax treaty network, liquid capital market and a draw for regional immigration. Yes that might cause some brain drainage in some areas (as does Singapore) but I think the benefits would outweigh the costs.
At the moment it only has Mauritius, which does its best but is still an island not actually on the continent, and as much an entrepôt for India as for Africa.
It needs to be in the heart of Africa - SA is too far South. There are a few candidates but all are flawed. Lagos too dominated by oil industry and its own huge domestic market, Nairobi a bit distant from West Africa but otherwise promising, Addis more manufacturing focused, several others hamstrung by French language. Rwanda might actually be a player here. Small enough, not dominated by an industry or a huge national hinterland, central. A bit authoritarian but then so are Singapore and Dubai.
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
No, the EU is democratic, and we used to have a say in those laws.
No country or organisation record is impeccable, but recent EU efforts like the Everything But Arms trade arrangements have been very positive for Africa.
None of the other organisations you listed could impose new laws against our will. Having a say is no good if that say is ignored and they can still impose the laws even if our own Parliament disagrees with them. That is not democracy.
And your blindness to the faults of the EU mean you are excusing policies, still in existence right now, which are driving the migration crisis by making African countries poorer and less competitive in the global market. It is a callous and sick attitude.
The UK agreed to join the EU institutions, so it wasn't against the UK's will, any more than when the UK abides by other treaties it signs.
So you agree that the UK shouldn't trade with African countries, to force them to adopt a socialist / Afro-nationalist development model? Because this is what your academic references like Mark Langan are saying.
No I think we should stop the neo imperialism which leads to us viewing Africa and its people as a resource to be exploited. The evidence is overwhelming and it is only the apologists for the EU who are blind to it.
And when we sign a treaty we do so in the knowledge that the terms cannot be changed and no new laws can be imposed after we have signed. That is not the case with the EU.
Right, so you can't explain what the EU does and the UK doesn't that is so evil, now that you exclude the possibility that its people need to be forced into socialist poverty for the vicarious kicks of Western academics.
That's not true - the EU treaties that the UK signed up to explicitly authorised institutions that would create new laws. It's fine to not support those, but don't say that it wasn't agreed in the treaties.
I think it quite possible to argue that protective trade barriers have been a key part of development strategy in a number of countries, notably China, India, South Korea etc.
Far from a guarantee of development though, and a major drag on many African economies as well as a source of corruption over the last decades.
Certainly - you could add Japan to improve the "hit rate" though you'd have to add a few misses too. In general, it is the result of a political battle between domestic industrial interests versus everyone else. In Africa, where local sovereignty is poor, governments naturally struggle to impose economic control over industry against all the powerful foreign and domestic interests that would benefit from trade.
The reasons that Africa has remained under-developed are complex, but a large part has been by the continued domination of African industry by companies based overseas, usually in former colonial powers. These pay little tax locally, though do spend a fair amount in corruption to minimise the amount of environmental and social regulation applied. The oil, and mining companies are often examples of this
The profits are declared overseas, often in tax-havens, so not in our country either, as we saw with BP this week. Nationalisation has rarely worked well, as these are very capital intensive businesses, and heavily reliant on imported equipment and expertise. A university friend of mine worked for a while in Angola, being paid six figures of pounds in one of the poorest countries on earth, in the oil industry. In practice not very different to the life of Cecil Rhodes.
Since neither foreign investment nor nationalisation works well, it suggests neither is really the reason for relatively poor development outcomes compared to South and SE Asia for example.
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
No, the EU is democratic, and we used to have a say in those laws.
No country or organisation record is impeccable, but recent EU efforts like the Everything But Arms trade arrangements have been very positive for Africa.
None of the other organisations you listed could impose new laws against our will. Having a say is no good if that say is ignored and they can still impose the laws even if our own Parliament disagrees with them. That is not democracy.
And your blindness to the faults of the EU mean you are excusing policies, still in existence right now, which are driving the migration crisis by making African countries poorer and less competitive in the global market. It is a callous and sick attitude.
The UK agreed to join the EU institutions, so it wasn't against the UK's will, any more than when the UK abides by other treaties it signs.
So you agree that the UK shouldn't trade with African countries, to force them to adopt a socialist / Afro-nationalist development model? Because this is what your academic references like Mark Langan are saying.
And when we sign a treaty we do so in the knowledge that the terms cannot be changed and no new laws can be imposed after we have signed. That is not the case with the EU.
The way that we are refusing to honour the NI protocol that we freely agreed to shows that our government is as mendacious as any other.
A rather dangerous precedent for a country so reliant on the rule of law.
I agree completely. But again you are conflating arguments. Just because our own Government is wrong on this particular treaty, does not make the EU right in being able to impose laws on member countries. Thankfully we have now left so that is no longer an issue.
The EU democratically decides laws. It doesn't impose them. Or do you consider that over the last 12 years laws have been imposed undemocratically on Merseyside and Scotland by Westminster? Or in the 13 years before that by Merseyside and Scotland on South Lincs?
Sometimes in a democracy you get outvoted, but history shows that we very rarely voted against EU laws under government's of any stripe.
We are a Parliamentary democracy and as such it is Parliament that should have the last word on all laws passed in this country. Not least because the members of that Parliament are directly elected by the people. Parliament has many faults which need rectifying but it was pointless to do that whilst we were part of an organisation that could simply override our Parliament whenever it felt like it.
The UK wasn't a Parliamentary democracy when it was in the EU - it had devolved some sovereignty to the EU. Perhaps you mean you'd prefer it to be a Parliamentary democracy, which is an argument about tastes over international collaboration. It seems that sometimes you resort to arguments that appear to be unimpeachably pointing out breaches of the rules, which in reality reduce to different tastes for the extent of cooperation, which is an area where valid disagreement exists and not just simple unilateral solutions.
At least you are honest about the change that membership of the EU brought about. You are perhaps unique amongst defenders of the EU in admitting that. I think that form of Governance is the best of a bad lot. It certainly beats a technocracy or other forms of oligarchy. The ability to directly vote out your law makers seems a fundamental principle of any form of democracy and Parliamentary democracy within a nation state is, for me, the best way of ensuring that.
In the EU, if enough people vote a certain way, they can easily replace the Parliament and Commission with a different one. They don't just magically fall out of the sky. So again, what appears to be an argument about the rules of the game (voting) is really about the appropriate geographic scale of shared sovereignty.
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
No, the EU is democratic, and we used to have a say in those laws.
No country or organisation record is impeccable, but recent EU efforts like the Everything But Arms trade arrangements have been very positive for Africa.
None of the other organisations you listed could impose new laws against our will. Having a say is no good if that say is ignored and they can still impose the laws even if our own Parliament disagrees with them. That is not democracy.
And your blindness to the faults of the EU mean you are excusing policies, still in existence right now, which are driving the migration crisis by making African countries poorer and less competitive in the global market. It is a callous and sick attitude.
The UK agreed to join the EU institutions, so it wasn't against the UK's will, any more than when the UK abides by other treaties it signs.
So you agree that the UK shouldn't trade with African countries, to force them to adopt a socialist / Afro-nationalist development model? Because this is what your academic references like Mark Langan are saying.
No I think we should stop the neo imperialism which leads to us viewing Africa and its people as a resource to be exploited. The evidence is overwhelming and it is only the apologists for the EU who are blind to it.
And when we sign a treaty we do so in the knowledge that the terms cannot be changed and no new laws can be imposed after we have signed. That is not the case with the EU.
Right, so you can't explain what the EU does and the UK doesn't that is so evil, now that you exclude the possibility that its people need to be forced into socialist poverty for the vicarious kicks of Western academics.
That's not true - the EU treaties that the UK signed up to explicitly authorised institutions that would create new laws. It's fine to not support those, but don't say that it wasn't agreed in the treaties.
I think it quite possible to argue that protective trade barriers have been a key part of development strategy in a number of countries, notably China, India, South Korea etc.
Far from a guarantee of development though, and a major drag on many African economies as well as a source of corruption over the last decades.
Certainly - you could add Japan to improve the "hit rate" though you'd have to add a few misses too. In general, it is the result of a political battle between domestic industrial interests versus everyone else. In Africa, where local sovereignty is poor, governments naturally struggle to impose economic control over industry against all the powerful foreign and domestic interests that would benefit from trade.
The reasons that Africa has remained under-developed are complex, but a large part has been by the continued domination of African industry by companies based overseas, usually in former colonial powers. These pay little tax locally, though do spend a fair amount in corruption to minimise the amount of environmental and social regulation applied. The oil, and mining companies are often examples of this
The profits are declared overseas, often in tax-havens, so not in our country either, as we saw with BP this week. Nationalisation has rarely worked well, as these are very capital intensive businesses, and heavily reliant on imported equipment and expertise. A university friend of mine worked for a while in Angola, being paid six figures of pounds in one of the poorest countries on earth, in the oil industry. In practice not very different to the life of Cecil Rhodes.
Since neither foreign investment nor nationalisation works well, it suggests neither is really the reason for relatively poor development outcomes compared to South and SE Asia for example.
No, I would say that both are useful tools, just ones that are as often misused as used correctly. Some African countries have managed the balancing act well. Ghana, Botswana and Mauritius all spring to mind.
Rail strikes called off, Is tomorrows Telegraph declaring Tory victory over the striking rail workers, by suggesting working practices are not part of the settlement? If it’s true a ballot taken not yet made public reveals Lynch losing union member support for his strike, he needs a deal soon - so maybe the government should not give him one? If Lynch is prepared to trade now, the government should hold out and get an even better deal in the coming days and weeks?
Maybe not just Sunak in search of a backbone - Mick Lynch is searching for one too now, as he begins to cave!
Both sides will claim that they got what they wanted, and more than likely both will be right. That is how these negotiations generally work.
Makes me think of some of the more extreme sides in the Brexit deal negotiations, where in so many words they would say something like 'If EU/UK would agree to a deal, it's not a deal we could accept', which seemed to fundamentally miss the point of negotiations.
It certainly felt like it was seen more on the Brexit side of things, but the 'no cherry picking at all' on the other side was definitely played way too hard, since again a negotiation is about trying to pick cherries, you may just have to be realistic about how many you will be able to get, yet it was often used as if to even ask for anything beyond what was offered was inherently unreasonable, no matter what it was.
It's not a stealth tax if it's on the front page of the Telegraph. True ones are freezing thresholds. Virtually no one notices them, or calls them what they are. A tax increase. See also pay freezes and years of below inflation pay rises. Barely ever called pay cuts.
Those frozen lifetime allowances are driving a lot of my colleagues to retire, as are the way annual allowances are calculated in terms of pension input in relation to inflation.
I seemed to be on course for the sweetspot of maxing out at my 60th birthday.
Clearly getting paid too much, to hit the lifetime allowance so prematurely. Need a paycut so that the lifetime allowance is hit later. 😉
There is evidence that the US E-Verify program reduces illegal economic migrants to the US: "E-Verify is a United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) website that allows businesses to determine the eligibility of their employees, both U.S. and foreign citizens, to work in the United States.[1] No federal law mandates use of E-Verify. . . . Research shows that E-Verify harms the labor market outcomes of illegal immigrants and improves the labor market outcomes of Mexican legal immigrants and U.S.-born Hispanics, but has no impact on labor market outcomes for non-Hispanic white Americans.[6] A 2016 study suggests that E-Verify reduces the number of illegal immigrants in states that have mandated use of E-Verify for all employers, and further notes that the program may deter illegal immigration to the United States in general." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Verify
The issue of illegal immigration is so hotly debated in the US that I would not say those conclusions are certain, but they seem plausible.
I have no idea whether a similar program might help in the UK.
It's not a stealth tax if it's on the front page of the Telegraph. True ones are freezing thresholds. Virtually no one notices them, or calls them what they are. A tax increase. See also pay freezes and years of below inflation pay rises. Barely ever called pay cuts.
Those frozen lifetime allowances are driving a lot of my colleagues to retire, as are the way annual allowances are calculated in terms of pension input in relation to inflation.
I seemed to be on course for the sweetspot of maxing out at my 60th birthday.
Clearly getting paid too much, to hit the lifetime allowance so prematurely. Need a paycut so that the lifetime allowance is hit later. 😉
Nah, I was astute enough to spot the problem and leave the pension scheme 4 years ago, so max out on pension at the right time, and have had a significant effective payrise in the meantime.
The Mcloud judgement does complicate things slightly, but does probably entitle me to a substantial tax rebate, and also gives the possibility of retrospectively changing my decision and getting those 4 years credited if I choose.
“Over the past year, one in six UK adults has had a pressing need for medical examination or treatment and been unable to get access, with almost half of these cases due to the length of waiting lists”
This just got personal for me today. I’ve got a very painful, infected wisdom tooth and my mouth has swelled up. Several rounds of antibiotics haven’t worked. My NHS dentist can’t operate because theres too much of a risk of nerve damage.
Referred to the hospital with the shortest waiting list:
18 months.
My dentist thinks there’s a private dentist who may be prepared to operate in six weeks’ time, at a cost of £110 for the initial consultation, £400-700 for the operation + potentially another £250 for scans.
I have no choice but to pay, do I?
I can’t be in pretty bad pain, with my mouth swollen up and an untreated infection for 18 months, can I?!!
The provision of emergency NHS dentistry has all but evaporated.
“You can’t trust the tories with the NHS” is proving true for millions, like me, across the UK. They deserve to be trounced at the next election.
It's not a stealth tax if it's on the front page of the Telegraph. True ones are freezing thresholds. Virtually no one notices them, or calls them what they are. A tax increase. See also pay freezes and years of below inflation pay rises. Barely ever called pay cuts.
Those frozen lifetime allowances are driving a lot of my colleagues to retire, as are the way annual allowances are calculated in terms of pension input in relation to inflation.
I seemed to be on course for the sweetspot of maxing out at my 60th birthday.
But if they take their pension early (any age after 55, currently, soon to rise), the actuarial reduction will reduce its assessed value for the LA, since this is based on a simple multiple of the annual pension, plus any lump sum, both of which reduce if paid early. And with the additional advantage that the inflation uplift is applied to the pension in payment after the LA assessment has been done, avoiding what would otherwise be a huge hit as the deferred pension’s value rises by 10% (or commonly 5%, in a capped scheme) come April.
Yet they’ll effectively receive the same money spread over more years (obvs depending on life expectancy). And there is nothing to stop someone taking their pension and continuing in employment - no-one is “driven” to retire, in terms of stopping work.
“Over the past year, one in six UK adults has had a pressing need for medical examination or treatment and been unable to get access, with almost half of these cases due to the length of waiting lists”
This just got personal for me today. I’ve got a very painful, infected wisdom tooth and my mouth has swelled up. Several rounds of antibiotics haven’t worked. My NHS dentist can’t operate because theres too much of a risk of nerve damage.
Referred to the hospital with the shortest waiting list:
18 months.
My dentist thinks there’s a private dentist who may be prepared to operate in six weeks’ time, at a cost of £110 for the initial consultation, £400-700 for the operation + potentially another £250 for scans.
I have no choice but to pay, do I?
The provision of emergency NHS dentistry has all but evaporated.
“You can’t trust the tories with the NHS” is proving true for millions, like me, across the UK. They deserve to be trounced at the next election.
It's unlikely to be personal stewardship of the NHS, so much as a lack of money. It depends on whether people will vote themselves several pence in the pound poorer to pay for more medical services, on top of the upcoming budget-balancing taxes.
“Over the past year, one in six UK adults has had a pressing need for medical examination or treatment and been unable to get access, with almost half of these cases due to the length of waiting lists”
This just got personal for me today. I’ve got a very painful, infected wisdom tooth and my mouth has swelled up. Several rounds of antibiotics haven’t worked. My NHS dentist can’t operate because theres too much of a risk of nerve damage.
Referred to the hospital with the shortest waiting list.
18 months.
My dentist thinks there’s a private dentist who may be prepared to operate, at a cost of £110 for the initial consultation, £400-700 for the operation + potentially another £250 for scans.
I have no choice but to pay, do I?
The provision of emergency NHS dentistry has all but evaporated.
“You can’t trust the tories with the NHS” is proving true for millions, like me, across the UK. They deserve to be trounced at the next election.
Sounds painful, and financially painful too.
Successive governments made NHS dentistry unviable over the years by reimbursing at rates that were uneconomic. The same pattern is being repeated in a number of surgical specialities now. It is part of the reason some specialities cannot fill posts, as graduates go straight to the private sector, often doing NHS contract work for ISTCs that skim off the straightforward stuff.
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
No, the EU is democratic, and we used to have a say in those laws.
No country or organisation record is impeccable, but recent EU efforts like the Everything But Arms trade arrangements have been very positive for Africa.
None of the other organisations you listed could impose new laws against our will. Having a say is no good if that say is ignored and they can still impose the laws even if our own Parliament disagrees with them. That is not democracy.
And your blindness to the faults of the EU mean you are excusing policies, still in existence right now, which are driving the migration crisis by making African countries poorer and less competitive in the global market. It is a callous and sick attitude.
The UK agreed to join the EU institutions, so it wasn't against the UK's will, any more than when the UK abides by other treaties it signs.
So you agree that the UK shouldn't trade with African countries, to force them to adopt a socialist / Afro-nationalist development model? Because this is what your academic references like Mark Langan are saying.
No I think we should stop the neo imperialism which leads to us viewing Africa and its people as a resource to be exploited. The evidence is overwhelming and it is only the apologists for the EU who are blind to it.
And when we sign a treaty we do so in the knowledge that the terms cannot be changed and no new laws can be imposed after we have signed. That is not the case with the EU.
Right, so you can't explain what the EU does and the UK doesn't that is so evil, now that you exclude the possibility that its people need to be forced into socialist poverty for the vicarious kicks of Western academics.
That's not true - the EU treaties that the UK signed up to explicitly authorised institutions that would create new laws. It's fine to not support those, but don't say that it wasn't agreed in the treaties.
I think it quite possible to argue that protective trade barriers have been a key part of development strategy in a number of countries, notably China, India, South Korea etc.
Far from a guarantee of development though, and a major drag on many African economies as well as a source of corruption over the last decades.
Certainly - you could add Japan to improve the "hit rate" though you'd have to add a few misses too. In general, it is the result of a political battle between domestic industrial interests versus everyone else. In Africa, where local sovereignty is poor, governments naturally struggle to impose economic control over industry against all the powerful foreign and domestic interests that would benefit from trade.
The reasons that Africa has remained under-developed are complex, but a large part has been by the continued domination of African industry by companies based overseas, usually in former colonial powers. These pay little tax locally, though do spend a fair amount in corruption to minimise the amount of environmental and social regulation applied. The oil, and mining companies are often examples of this
The profits are declared overseas, often in tax-havens, so not in our country either, as we saw with BP this week. Nationalisation has rarely worked well, as these are very capital intensive businesses, and heavily reliant on imported equipment and expertise. A university friend of mine worked for a while in Angola, being paid six figures of pounds in one of the poorest countries on earth, in the oil industry. In practice not very different to the life of Cecil Rhodes.
The effective tax rates of most oil majors and large mining organisations are 30%+, often touching 40% or more. The vast majority of those taxes are paid in the countries of extraction. In many cases they are also in joint ventures with government sharing revenue 50:50 and if not they are also paying mineral royalties.
The same companies generally make huge losses at UK or other HQ level because that’s where all the R&D and exploration is funded, and if it goes nowhere it’s written off at HQ.
Very few of them use tax havens in any material way, and post pillar-2 even the small areas where they are still used, such as captive insurance, will be taxed at 15%. And most won’t be used. Tax havens are overwhelmingly used by individuals and funds, not multinationals. The tax world in MNCs is nothing like the way it’s portrayed in the media.
Agriculture is a much bigger problem in terms of equity. Margins are low, there are very few regulatory controls, and the vast agricultural potential of the continent is exploited - though most remains untapped - for the benefit of US, European and Chinese corporates.
I think we’ll see Africa get substantially richer both in absolute terms and relatively in the next few decades, but they need to keep control of their agricultural resources, as Brazil has done.
It's not a stealth tax if it's on the front page of the Telegraph. True ones are freezing thresholds. Virtually no one notices them, or calls them what they are. A tax increase. See also pay freezes and years of below inflation pay rises. Barely ever called pay cuts.
Those frozen lifetime allowances are driving a lot of my colleagues to retire, as are the way annual allowances are calculated in terms of pension input in relation to inflation.
I seemed to be on course for the sweetspot of maxing out at my 60th birthday.
But if they take their pension early (any age after 55, currently, soon to rise), the actuarial reduction will reduce its assessed value for the LA, since this is based on a simple multiple of the annual pension, plus any lump sum, both of which reduce if paid early. And with the additional advantage that the inflation uplift is applied to the pension in payment after the LA assessment has been done, avoiding what would otherwise be a huge hit as the deferred pension’s value rises by 10% (or commonly 5%, in a capped scheme) come April.
Yet they’ll effectively receive the same money spread over more years (obvs depending on life expectancy). And there is nothing to stop someone taking their pension and continuing in employment - no-one is “driven” to retire, in terms of stopping work.
Indeed early retirement is one way of avoiding breaching the lifetime allowance by that actuarial reduction.
There are rules on pension abatement that mean that a return to work is nearly always part time.
Rail strikes called off, Is tomorrows Telegraph declaring Tory victory over the striking rail workers, by suggesting working practices are not part of the settlement? If it’s true a ballot taken not yet made public reveals Lynch losing union member support for his strike, he needs a deal soon - so maybe the government should not give him one? If Lynch is prepared to trade now, the government should hold out and get an even better deal in the coming days and weeks?
Maybe not just Sunak in search of a backbone - Mick Lynch is searching for one too now, as he begins to cave!
Both sides will claim that they got what they wanted, and more than likely both will be right. That is how these negotiations generally work.
Makes me think of some of the more extreme sides in the Brexit deal negotiations, where in so many words they would say something like 'If EU/UK would agree to a deal, it's not a deal we could accept', which seemed to fundamentally miss the point of negotiations.
It certainly felt like it was seen more on the Brexit side of things, but the 'no cherry picking at all' on the other side was definitely played way too hard, since again a negotiation is about trying to pick cherries, you may just have to be realistic about how many you will be able to get, yet it was often used as if to even ask for anything beyond what was offered was inherently unreasonable, no matter what it was.
The EU could do what they liked in the Brexit negotiations, because the UK couldn't walk away, and they knew it, and we knew they knew it. That's at the basis of May's flawed deal, and the flawed Boris deal we got.
Personally, I would have negotiated the bare bones divorce, with no FTA, and as I've said, placed a moratorium on signing any FTAs with anyone for 5 years. It would have been costly, but would have got us used to trading as a 3rd country under WTO rules. We would then have begun negotiations knowing that walking away was possible, and with both the UK and the EU approaching the negotiations positively, without so much baggage, and both with the same goal in mind - eliminating restrictions to trade.
Rail strikes called off, Is tomorrows Telegraph declaring Tory victory over the striking rail workers, by suggesting working practices are not part of the settlement? If it’s true a ballot taken not yet made public reveals Lynch losing union member support for his strike, he needs a deal soon - so maybe the government should not give him one? If Lynch is prepared to trade now, the government should hold out and get an even better deal in the coming days and weeks?
Maybe not just Sunak in search of a backbone - Mick Lynch is searching for one too now, as he begins to cave!
Both sides will claim that they got what they wanted, and more than likely both will be right. That is how these negotiations generally work.
Makes me think of some of the more extreme sides in the Brexit deal negotiations, where in so many words they would say something like 'If EU/UK would agree to a deal, it's not a deal we could accept', which seemed to fundamentally miss the point of negotiations.
It certainly felt like it was seen more on the Brexit side of things, but the 'no cherry picking at all' on the other side was definitely played way too hard, since again a negotiation is about trying to pick cherries, you may just have to be realistic about how many you will be able to get, yet it was often used as if to even ask for anything beyond what was offered was inherently unreasonable, no matter what it was.
The EU could do what they liked in the Brexit negotiations, because the UK couldn't walk away, and they knew it, and we knew they knew it. That's at the basis of May's flawed deal, and the flawed Boris deal we got.
Personally, I would have negotiated the bare bones divorce, with no FTA, and as I've said, placed a moratorium on signing any FTAs with anyone for 5 years. It would have been costly, but would have got us used to trading as a 3rd country under WTO rules. We would then have begun negotiations knowing that walking away was possible, and with both the UK and the EU approaching the negotiations positively, without so much baggage, and both with the same goal in mind - eliminating restrictions to trade.
I would have stepped gently into an EFTA type arrangement, taken a couple of years to draw breath and scan the horizon, and then decidedy on the next steps. It would have removed most of the emotion from the situation.
There is evidence that the US E-Verify program reduces illegal economic migrants to the US: "E-Verify is a United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) website that allows businesses to determine the eligibility of their employees, both U.S. and foreign citizens, to work in the United States.[1] No federal law mandates use of E-Verify. . . . Research shows that E-Verify harms the labor market outcomes of illegal immigrants and improves the labor market outcomes of Mexican legal immigrants and U.S.-born Hispanics, but has no impact on labor market outcomes for non-Hispanic white Americans.[6] A 2016 study suggests that E-Verify reduces the number of illegal immigrants in states that have mandated use of E-Verify for all employers, and further notes that the program may deter illegal immigration to the United States in general." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Verify
The issue of illegal immigration is so hotly debated in the US that I would not say those conclusions are certain, but they seem plausible.
I have no idea whether a similar program might help in the UK.
I'm a massive fan of e-verify, because it reduces demand pull.
Rail strikes called off, Is tomorrows Telegraph declaring Tory victory over the striking rail workers, by suggesting working practices are not part of the settlement? If it’s true a ballot taken not yet made public reveals Lynch losing union member support for his strike, he needs a deal soon - so maybe the government should not give him one? If Lynch is prepared to trade now, the government should hold out and get an even better deal in the coming days and weeks?
Maybe not just Sunak in search of a backbone - Mick Lynch is searching for one too now, as he begins to cave!
Both sides will claim that they got what they wanted, and more than likely both will be right. That is how these negotiations generally work.
Makes me think of some of the more extreme sides in the Brexit deal negotiations, where in so many words they would say something like 'If EU/UK would agree to a deal, it's not a deal we could accept', which seemed to fundamentally miss the point of negotiations.
It certainly felt like it was seen more on the Brexit side of things, but the 'no cherry picking at all' on the other side was definitely played way too hard, since again a negotiation is about trying to pick cherries, you may just have to be realistic about how many you will be able to get, yet it was often used as if to even ask for anything beyond what was offered was inherently unreasonable, no matter what it was.
The EU could do what they liked in the Brexit negotiations, because the UK couldn't walk away, and they knew it, and we knew they knew it. That's at the basis of May's flawed deal, and the flawed Boris deal we got.
Personally, I would have negotiated the bare bones divorce, with no FTA, and as I've said, placed a moratorium on signing any FTAs with anyone for 5 years. It would have been costly, but would have got us used to trading as a 3rd country under WTO rules. We would then have begun negotiations knowing that walking away was possible, and with both the UK and the EU approaching the negotiations positively, without so much baggage, and both with the same goal in mind - eliminating restrictions to trade.
I would have stepped gently into an EFTA type arrangement, taken a couple of years to draw breath and scan the horizon, and then decidedy on the next steps. It would have removed most of the emotion from the situation.
That could also have worked. At the moment I feel we have the worst of both worlds.
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
No, the EU is democratic, and we used to have a say in those laws, and trade policies.
No country or organisation record is impeccable, but recent EU efforts like the Everything But Arms trade arrangements have been very positive for Africa.
If 100% of UK voters opposed a policy, as well as all the main political parties, and yet it still became law, hie is that democratic?
“Over the past year, one in six UK adults has had a pressing need for medical examination or treatment and been unable to get access, with almost half of these cases due to the length of waiting lists”
This just got personal for me today. I’ve got a very painful, infected wisdom tooth and my mouth has swelled up. Several rounds of antibiotics haven’t worked. My NHS dentist can’t operate because theres too much of a risk of nerve damage.
Referred to the hospital with the shortest waiting list:
18 months.
My dentist thinks there’s a private dentist who may be prepared to operate in six weeks’ time, at a cost of £110 for the initial consultation, £400-700 for the operation + potentially another £250 for scans.
I have no choice but to pay, do I?
I can’t be in pretty bad pain, with my mouth swollen up and an untreated infection for 18 months, can I?!!
The provision of emergency NHS dentistry has all but evaporated.
“You can’t trust the tories with the NHS” is proving true for millions, like me, across the UK. They deserve to be trounced at the next election.
Consider a flight to Bangkok. Seriously. It’s what I do for major dental needs
The dentists are excellent, gentle and American trained. The treatment is usually 30-35% the price of what you pay in the UK. So you can sometimes save money AND have a week or two in the Thai sunshine, plus hotel
I recommend the Novotel on Soi 4 Sukhumvit, ten minutes from Bumrungrad Hospital
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
No, the EU is democratic, and we used to have a say in those laws, and trade policies.
No country or organisation record is impeccable, but recent EU efforts like the Everything But Arms trade arrangements have been very positive for Africa.
If 100% of UK voters opposed a policy, as well as all the main political parties, and yet it still became law, hie is that democratic?
I assume that's a hypothetical?
Anyway the answer is quite easy, that in a non-direct democracy you lock in to outcomes which the demos may not want at the time but is stuck with because rules are rules. In the heyday of the Truss premiership possibly 80% of the electorate wanted a general election and didn't get one. How is that democratic? Because it is in accordance with trhe rules under which our democracy operates.
“Over the past year, one in six UK adults has had a pressing need for medical examination or treatment and been unable to get access, with almost half of these cases due to the length of waiting lists”
This just got personal for me today. I’ve got a very painful, infected wisdom tooth and my mouth has swelled up. Several rounds of antibiotics haven’t worked. My NHS dentist can’t operate because theres too much of a risk of nerve damage.
Referred to the hospital with the shortest waiting list:
18 months.
My dentist thinks there’s a private dentist who may be prepared to operate in six weeks’ time, at a cost of £110 for the initial consultation, £400-700 for the operation + potentially another £250 for scans.
I have no choice but to pay, do I?
I can’t be in pretty bad pain, with my mouth swollen up and an untreated infection for 18 months, can I?!!
The provision of emergency NHS dentistry has all but evaporated.
“You can’t trust the tories with the NHS” is proving true for millions, like me, across the UK. They deserve to be trounced at the next election.
Consider a flight to Bangkok. Seriously. It’s what I do for major dental needs
The dentists are excellent, gentle and American trained. The treatment is usually 30-35% the price of what you pay in the UK. So you can sometimes save money AND have a week or two in the Thai sunshine, plus hotel
I recommend the Novotel on Soi 4 Sukhumvit, ten minutes from Bumrungrad Hospital
Also Goa. I lost a filling at Heathrow on my way there on the day Brown officially bottled his election and went to get it fixed when I got there. Equipment and treatment which made private UK dentists look third world.
“Over the past year, one in six UK adults has had a pressing need for medical examination or treatment and been unable to get access, with almost half of these cases due to the length of waiting lists”
This just got personal for me today. I’ve got a very painful, infected wisdom tooth and my mouth has swelled up. Several rounds of antibiotics haven’t worked. My NHS dentist can’t operate because theres too much of a risk of nerve damage.
Referred to the hospital with the shortest waiting list:
18 months.
My dentist thinks there’s a private dentist who may be prepared to operate in six weeks’ time, at a cost of £110 for the initial consultation, £400-700 for the operation + potentially another £250 for scans.
I have no choice but to pay, do I?
I can’t be in pretty bad pain, with my mouth swollen up and an untreated infection for 18 months, can I?!!
The provision of emergency NHS dentistry has all but evaporated.
“You can’t trust the tories with the NHS” is proving true for millions, like me, across the UK. They deserve to be trounced at the next election.
Consider a flight to Bangkok. Seriously. It’s what I do for major dental needs
The dentists are excellent, gentle and American trained. The treatment is usually 30-35% the price of what you pay in the UK. So you can sometimes save money AND have a week or two in the Thai sunshine, plus hotel
I recommend the Novotel on Soi 4 Sukhumvit, ten minutes from Bumrungrad Hospital
Also Goa. I lost a filling at Heathrow on my way there on the day Brown officially bottled his election and went to get it fixed when I got there. Equipment and treatment which made private UK dentists look third world.
In Bangkok you will also have gogo dancers and superb restaurants, rather than Woke wank ageing Gen X hippies in pyjamas, a la Goa
“Over the past year, one in six UK adults has had a pressing need for medical examination or treatment and been unable to get access, with almost half of these cases due to the length of waiting lists”
This just got personal for me today. I’ve got a very painful, infected wisdom tooth and my mouth has swelled up. Several rounds of antibiotics haven’t worked. My NHS dentist can’t operate because theres too much of a risk of nerve damage.
Referred to the hospital with the shortest waiting list:
18 months.
My dentist thinks there’s a private dentist who may be prepared to operate in six weeks’ time, at a cost of £110 for the initial consultation, £400-700 for the operation + potentially another £250 for scans.
I have no choice but to pay, do I?
I can’t be in pretty bad pain, with my mouth swollen up and an untreated infection for 18 months, can I?!!
The provision of emergency NHS dentistry has all but evaporated.
“You can’t trust the tories with the NHS” is proving true for millions, like me, across the UK. They deserve to be trounced at the next election.
Consider a flight to Bangkok. Seriously. It’s what I do for major dental needs
The dentists are excellent, gentle and American trained. The treatment is usually 30-35% the price of what you pay in the UK. So you can sometimes save money AND have a week or two in the Thai sunshine, plus hotel
I recommend the Novotel on Soi 4 Sukhumvit, ten minutes from Bumrungrad Hospital
Also Goa. I lost a filling at Heathrow on my way there on the day Brown officially bottled his election and went to get it fixed when I got there. Equipment and treatment which made private UK dentists look third world.
In Bangkok you will also have gogo dancers and superb restaurants, rather than Woke wank ageing Gen X hippies in pyjamas, a la Goa
“Over the past year, one in six UK adults has had a pressing need for medical examination or treatment and been unable to get access, with almost half of these cases due to the length of waiting lists”
This just got personal for me today. I’ve got a very painful, infected wisdom tooth and my mouth has swelled up. Several rounds of antibiotics haven’t worked. My NHS dentist can’t operate because theres too much of a risk of nerve damage.
Referred to the hospital with the shortest waiting list:
18 months.
My dentist thinks there’s a private dentist who may be prepared to operate in six weeks’ time, at a cost of £110 for the initial consultation, £400-700 for the operation + potentially another £250 for scans.
I have no choice but to pay, do I?
I can’t be in pretty bad pain, with my mouth swollen up and an untreated infection for 18 months, can I?!!
The provision of emergency NHS dentistry has all but evaporated.
“You can’t trust the tories with the NHS” is proving true for millions, like me, across the UK. They deserve to be trounced at the next election.
Consider a flight to Bangkok. Seriously. It’s what I do for major dental needs
The dentists are excellent, gentle and American trained. The treatment is usually 30-35% the price of what you pay in the UK. So you can sometimes save money AND have a week or two in the Thai sunshine, plus hotel
I recommend the Novotel on Soi 4 Sukhumvit, ten minutes from Bumrungrad Hospital
Also Goa. I lost a filling at Heathrow on my way there on the day Brown officially bottled his election and went to get it fixed when I got there. Equipment and treatment which made private UK dentists look third world.
In Bangkok you will also have gogo dancers and superb restaurants, rather than Woke wank ageing Gen X hippies in pyjamas, a la Goa
Goa has ELEPHANTS
You can’t fuck an elephant. Not even a Dartmoor man can fuck an elephant
“Over the past year, one in six UK adults has had a pressing need for medical examination or treatment and been unable to get access, with almost half of these cases due to the length of waiting lists”
This just got personal for me today. I’ve got a very painful, infected wisdom tooth and my mouth has swelled up. Several rounds of antibiotics haven’t worked. My NHS dentist can’t operate because theres too much of a risk of nerve damage.
Referred to the hospital with the shortest waiting list:
18 months.
My dentist thinks there’s a private dentist who may be prepared to operate in six weeks’ time, at a cost of £110 for the initial consultation, £400-700 for the operation + potentially another £250 for scans.
I have no choice but to pay, do I?
I can’t be in pretty bad pain, with my mouth swollen up and an untreated infection for 18 months, can I?!!
The provision of emergency NHS dentistry has all but evaporated.
“You can’t trust the tories with the NHS” is proving true for millions, like me, across the UK. They deserve to be trounced at the next election.
Consider a flight to Bangkok. Seriously. It’s what I do for major dental needs
The dentists are excellent, gentle and American trained. The treatment is usually 30-35% the price of what you pay in the UK. So you can sometimes save money AND have a week or two in the Thai sunshine, plus hotel
I recommend the Novotel on Soi 4 Sukhumvit, ten minutes from Bumrungrad Hospital
Also Goa. I lost a filling at Heathrow on my way there on the day Brown officially bottled his election and went to get it fixed when I got there. Equipment and treatment which made private UK dentists look third world.
In Bangkok you will also have gogo dancers and superb restaurants, rather than Woke wank ageing Gen X hippies in pyjamas, a la Goa
Goa has ELEPHANTS
You can’t fuck an elephant. Not even a Dartmoor man can fuck an elephant
“Over the past year, one in six UK adults has had a pressing need for medical examination or treatment and been unable to get access, with almost half of these cases due to the length of waiting lists”
This just got personal for me today. I’ve got a very painful, infected wisdom tooth and my mouth has swelled up. Several rounds of antibiotics haven’t worked. My NHS dentist can’t operate because theres too much of a risk of nerve damage.
Referred to the hospital with the shortest waiting list:
18 months.
My dentist thinks there’s a private dentist who may be prepared to operate in six weeks’ time, at a cost of £110 for the initial consultation, £400-700 for the operation + potentially another £250 for scans.
I have no choice but to pay, do I?
I can’t be in pretty bad pain, with my mouth swollen up and an untreated infection for 18 months, can I?!!
The provision of emergency NHS dentistry has all but evaporated.
“You can’t trust the tories with the NHS” is proving true for millions, like me, across the UK. They deserve to be trounced at the next election.
Don't believe a word the NHS dentist says without corroborating it. There may be other hospitals with shorter NHS waiting times.
He seems to know a lot about his private colleague's diary and charges. I hope it wasn't on NHS time that he found it all out.
That private dentist who may be able to do it in 6 weeks' time may be the same dentist who'll do it on the NHS in 18 months' time. Many dentists have no shame.
Sadly you may end up having to pay the sums mentioned, though, or more, because you can't be expected to be in agony for 18 months.
Might be worth considering the turn up at A&E and scream blue murder option.
But NHS dentistry has been shit for DECADES, hasn’t it? Has it got any worse? It has always been crap in my experience and most people go quasi-private
Rail strikes called off, Is tomorrows Telegraph declaring Tory victory over the striking rail workers, by suggesting working practices are not part of the settlement? If it’s true a ballot taken not yet made public reveals Lynch losing union member support for his strike, he needs a deal soon - so maybe the government should not give him one? If Lynch is prepared to trade now, the government should hold out and get an even better deal in the coming days and weeks?
Maybe not just Sunak in search of a backbone - Mick Lynch is searching for one too now, as he begins to cave!
Both sides will claim that they got what they wanted, and more than likely both will be right. That is how these negotiations generally work.
Makes me think of some of the more extreme sides in the Brexit deal negotiations, where in so many words they would say something like 'If EU/UK would agree to a deal, it's not a deal we could accept', which seemed to fundamentally miss the point of negotiations.
It certainly felt like it was seen more on the Brexit side of things, but the 'no cherry picking at all' on the other side was definitely played way too hard, since again a negotiation is about trying to pick cherries, you may just have to be realistic about how many you will be able to get, yet it was often used as if to even ask for anything beyond what was offered was inherently unreasonable, no matter what it was.
The EU could do what they liked in the Brexit negotiations, because the UK couldn't walk away, and they knew it, and we knew they knew it. That's at the basis of May's flawed deal, and the flawed Boris deal we got.
Personally, I would have negotiated the bare bones divorce, with no FTA, and as I've said, placed a moratorium on signing any FTAs with anyone for 5 years. It would have been costly, but would have got us used to trading as a 3rd country under WTO rules. We would then have begun negotiations knowing that walking away was possible, and with both the UK and the EU approaching the negotiations positively, without so much baggage, and both with the same goal in mind - eliminating restrictions to trade.
What would happen to Northern Ireland under this 'bare bones divorce?'
But NHS dentistry has been shit for DECADES, hasn’t it? Has it got any worse? It has always been crap in my experience and most people go quasi-private
Do look at options in Asia
It is quite serious shit. I got on an NHS list 5 yearsago, had 2 years of "checkups," realised I had problems and went back to a private dentist and spent over £2,000 fixing problems the NHS had glossed over.
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
No, the EU is democratic, and we used to have a say in those laws.
No country or organisation record is impeccable, but recent EU efforts like the Everything But Arms trade arrangements have been very positive for Africa.
None of the other organisations you listed could impose new laws against our will. Having a say is no good if that say is ignored and they can still impose the laws even if our own Parliament disagrees with them. That is not democracy.
And your blindness to the faults of the EU mean you are excusing policies, still in existence right now, which are driving the migration crisis by making African countries poorer and less competitive in the global market. It is a callous and sick attitude.
The UK agreed to join the EU institutions, so it wasn't against the UK's will, any more than when the UK abides by other treaties it signs.
So you agree that the UK shouldn't trade with African countries, to force them to adopt a socialist / Afro-nationalist development model? Because this is what your academic references like Mark Langan are saying.
And when we sign a treaty we do so in the knowledge that the terms cannot be changed and no new laws can be imposed after we have signed. That is not the case with the EU.
The way that we are refusing to honour the NI protocol that we freely agreed to shows that our government is as mendacious as any other.
A rather dangerous precedent for a country so reliant on the rule of law.
I agree completely. But again you are conflating arguments. Just because our own Government is wrong on this particular treaty, does not make the EU right in being able to impose laws on member countries. Thankfully we have now left so that is no longer an issue.
The EU democratically decides laws. It doesn't impose them. Or do you consider that over the last 12 years laws have been imposed undemocratically on Merseyside and Scotland by Westminster? Or in the 13 years before that by Merseyside and Scotland on South Lincs?
Sometimes in a democracy you get outvoted, but history shows that we very rarely voted against EU laws under government's of any stripe.
We are a Parliamentary democracy and as such it is Parliament that should have the last word on all laws passed in this country. Not least because the members of that Parliament are directly elected by the people. Parliament has many faults which need rectifying but it was pointless to do that whilst we were part of an organisation that could simply override our Parliament whenever it felt like it.
The UK wasn't a Parliamentary democracy when it was in the EU - it had devolved some sovereignty to the EU. Perhaps you mean you'd prefer it to be a Parliamentary democracy, which is an argument about tastes over international collaboration. It seems that sometimes you resort to arguments that appear to be unimpeachably pointing out breaches of the rules, which in reality reduce to different tastes for the extent of cooperation, which is an area where valid disagreement exists and not just simple unilateral solutions.
At least you are honest about the change that membership of the EU brought about. You are perhaps unique amongst defenders of the EU in admitting that. I think that form of Governance is the best of a bad lot. It certainly beats a technocracy or other forms of oligarchy. The ability to directly vote out your law makers seems a fundamental principle of any form of democracy and Parliamentary democracy within a nation state is, for me, the best way of ensuring that.
In the EU, if enough people vote a certain way, they can easily replace the Parliament and Commission with a different one. They don't just magically fall out of the sky. So again, what appears to be an argument about the rules of the game (voting) is really about the appropriate geographic scale of shared sovereignty.
Given that the only EU body an EU citizen can vote for is the Parliament which has no law making abilities (it can only block laws), this is clearly a false claim. And given my whole argument is about distant and unrepresentative law making the Commission is typical of the sort of body that should be opposed.
Okay. I’ll engage as thoughtfully I can with the asylum seeker problem, and offer my solutions.
This problem is as bad as it is due entirely to talentless clueless incompetents the Tory’s put in charge of mangling it. There’s no magic bullet, it’s true, though here’s my list of things that will reduce the problem for sure,
1. For starters, The incompetents managing it don’t understand the problem they are dealing with - it’s as simple of that - we know this as fact as they talk about 70% or more are economic migrants, bogus asylum seekers. Back in the real world do you really believe Undocumented economic migrants deliver themselves into the hands of Home Office officials as soon as they reach UK soil? Hence, 4% processing comes from setting up for 70%+ economic migrants, not genuine asylum claims. According the governments own figures, the majority of asylum claims are found to be legitimate Almost two-thirds (64%) of asylum claims end in a grant of protection. Of those rejected that went on to appeal, 48% were successfully overturned. They are clearly tackling the backlog with the wrong mindset and wrong prioritising.
2. Secondly, on basis you now realise how many are genuine asylum claims bogged down in your two year backlog, Set up a Department for International Development (DfID) to strengthen the infrastructures of fragile countries and increase stability there. Where do you want to spend the money, DfID, or 5 star hotels? You do the math.
3. Enable safe, legal routes for resettlement of genuine refugees. Would they even need a long stay in a processing centre on UK soil after dangerous water crossing, if you took safe, legal routes for resettlement more seriously? Take as example the priority given to Ukraine refugees, and how abysmal this home office under this government was at managing Ukrainian processing - sending them here and there, where no one was there to help them. And that’s what we call our gold star fast Lane process. Despite Tories paying lip service to liking safe, legal routes, the number of people resettled under the government’s UK resettlement scheme was 1,171 in the 12 months to September 2021, down by about 45% year on year.
4. This is the idea I like best. Process UK humanitarian visas on French soil, and bring them across on ferries. Genuine asylum seekers in northern France hoping to reach the UK to claim asylum, so happy to place themselves into the hands of our home office, could register their claim with UK officials and then be placed on ferries to be brought to the UK while their claim is processed. You want the Rwanda scheme because you are led to believe it hurts the business model of the people smugglers? The simple MoonRabbits Ferry to Freedom Solution utterly smashes through the business model of the people smugglers does it not?
Yes, throwing the doors open and charging nothing certainly does smash through the business model of the people smugglers.
Do you even see a difference between economic migrants in search of a job, and genuine refugee’s seeking asylum and safety? Or are you happy to repeatedly blur and box all this together, just as Braverman and Sunak have been doing?
I think basically CR believes that none are genuine refugees, even those that our courts rule are.
CR appears to distrust and fear people from outside Basingstoke, so actual refugees don’t stand a snowball’s with him.
Excuse the neo-colonial paternalism here but I feel sub Saharan Africa really needs a globally connected hub to act as a gravitational pull for capital. A Singapore or for that matter a Dubai. A holding company location, listing destination, strong tax treaty network, liquid capital market and a draw for regional immigration. Yes that might cause some brain drainage in some areas (as does Singapore) but I think the benefits would outweigh the costs.
At the moment it only has Mauritius, which does its best but is still an island not actually on the continent, and as much an entrepôt for India as for Africa.
It needs to be in the heart of Africa - SA is too far South. There are a few candidates but all are flawed. Lagos too dominated by oil industry and its own huge domestic market, Nairobi a bit distant from West Africa but otherwise promising, Addis more manufacturing focused, several others hamstrung by French language. Rwanda might actually be a player here. Small enough, not dominated by an industry or a huge national hinterland, central. A bit authoritarian but then so are Singapore and Dubai.
But NHS dentistry has been shit for DECADES, hasn’t it? Has it got any worse? It has always been crap in my experience and most people go quasi-private
Do look at options in Asia
It is quite serious shit. I got on an NHS list 5 yearsago, had 2 years of "checkups," realised I had problems and went back to a private dentist and spent over £2,000 fixing problems the NHS had glossed over.
Yes. I have entirely abandoned the NHS for dentistry (despite paying for it with my taxes) and rely on private dentists - mainly in Bangkok, occasionally in London
NHS Dentistry probably only survives - if it indeed survives - because of people like me and you who can afford to just give up on it
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
No, the EU is democratic, and we used to have a say in those laws, and trade policies.
No country or organisation record is impeccable, but recent EU efforts like the Everything But Arms trade arrangements have been very positive for Africa.
If 100% of UK voters opposed a policy, as well as all the main political parties, and yet it still became law, hie is that democratic?
Yes, if the electorate includes more than UK voters.
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
No, the EU is democratic, and we used to have a say in those laws.
No country or organisation record is impeccable, but recent EU efforts like the Everything But Arms trade arrangements have been very positive for Africa.
None of the other organisations you listed could impose new laws against our will. Having a say is no good if that say is ignored and they can still impose the laws even if our own Parliament disagrees with them. That is not democracy.
And your blindness to the faults of the EU mean you are excusing policies, still in existence right now, which are driving the migration crisis by making African countries poorer and less competitive in the global market. It is a callous and sick attitude.
The UK agreed to join the EU institutions, so it wasn't against the UK's will, any more than when the UK abides by other treaties it signs.
So you agree that the UK shouldn't trade with African countries, to force them to adopt a socialist / Afro-nationalist development model? Because this is what your academic references like Mark Langan are saying.
And when we sign a treaty we do so in the knowledge that the terms cannot be changed and no new laws can be imposed after we have signed. That is not the case with the EU.
The way that we are refusing to honour the NI protocol that we freely agreed to shows that our government is as mendacious as any other.
A rather dangerous precedent for a country so reliant on the rule of law.
I agree completely. But again you are conflating arguments. Just because our own Government is wrong on this particular treaty, does not make the EU right in being able to impose laws on member countries. Thankfully we have now left so that is no longer an issue.
The EU democratically decides laws. It doesn't impose them. Or do you consider that over the last 12 years laws have been imposed undemocratically on Merseyside and Scotland by Westminster? Or in the 13 years before that by Merseyside and Scotland on South Lincs?
Sometimes in a democracy you get outvoted, but history shows that we very rarely voted against EU laws under government's of any stripe.
We are a Parliamentary democracy and as such it is Parliament that should have the last word on all laws passed in this country. Not least because the members of that Parliament are directly elected by the people. Parliament has many faults which need rectifying but it was pointless to do that whilst we were part of an organisation that could simply override our Parliament whenever it felt like it.
The UK wasn't a Parliamentary democracy when it was in the EU - it had devolved some sovereignty to the EU. Perhaps you mean you'd prefer it to be a Parliamentary democracy, which is an argument about tastes over international collaboration. It seems that sometimes you resort to arguments that appear to be unimpeachably pointing out breaches of the rules, which in reality reduce to different tastes for the extent of cooperation, which is an area where valid disagreement exists and not just simple unilateral solutions.
At least you are honest about the change that membership of the EU brought about. You are perhaps unique amongst defenders of the EU in admitting that. I think that form of Governance is the best of a bad lot. It certainly beats a technocracy or other forms of oligarchy. The ability to directly vote out your law makers seems a fundamental principle of any form of democracy and Parliamentary democracy within a nation state is, for me, the best way of ensuring that.
In the EU, if enough people vote a certain way, they can easily replace the Parliament and Commission with a different one. They don't just magically fall out of the sky. So again, what appears to be an argument about the rules of the game (voting) is really about the appropriate geographic scale of shared sovereignty.
Given that the only EU body an EU citizen can vote for is the Parliament which has no law making abilities (it can only block laws), this is clearly a false claim. And given my whole argument is about distant and unrepresentative law making the Commission is typical of the sort of body that should be opposed.
The elected Parliament can reject a Commission, the Commission is nominated by national governments, and you can't vote for the membership of the UK government either, so I don't see the problem.
I think it not impossible that a routed Conservative party after the next election works its way back to electoral success by reverting to its pre 2016 pro-business, pro-EU position.
Perhaps over a 15-20 year period in the wilderness that will be the case but it will need a herculean cleaning of the stables to clear out the influence of the anti-EU viewpoint in the party.
It's almost impossible to conceive of the next manifestation of conservatism - I agree it will be a reversion to a more classic one nation approach possibly (I'd argue) tinged with a very strong environmentalist nuance by which I don't mean eco-authoritarianism or State related eco-interventionism but more about how individuals and business can continue to improve environment credentials via innovation and technology.
By the mid to late 2030s the implications of climate change will be that bit more obvious and that bit more alarming.
The slogan might be the "Green Light of Technology" (with apologies to Harold Wilson).
Yes, I am not expecting us to Rejoin this decade. The 2030's is very possible, perhaps via a revitalised pro-Single Market Thatcherite Conservative Party.
I am interested - if the UK were everything that you wanted; open, fair, prosperous, well-organised, tolerant, left-leaning, and able to afford a significant public sector, would you still want to rejoin the EU? I am just trying to work out whether there's an ideological issue with the concept of the UK as an independent nation or whether you feel rejoining would be the solution to perceived deficiencies.
The UK has always been an independent country, but I do believe that we have a long and glorious history of founding and joining international bodies to tackle international issues: NATO, UN, IMF, WB, EU, GATT etc etc. All these impact on sovereignty, but we gain more by pooling it than we lose.
The EU is unique amongst those organisations you list in its ability to pass new laws and regulations which we have no ability to veto or refuse to enact even if we had voted against them within the EU. That is undemocratic and is, in itself, good enough reason not to be a member.
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
No, the EU is democratic, and we used to have a say in those laws, and trade policies.
No country or organisation record is impeccable, but recent EU efforts like the Everything But Arms trade arrangements have been very positive for Africa.
If 100% of UK voters opposed a policy, as well as all the main political parties, and yet it still became law, hie is that democratic?
I assume that's a hypothetical?
Anyway the answer is quite easy, that in a non-direct democracy you lock in to outcomes which the demos may not want at the time but is stuck with because rules are rules. In the heyday of the Truss premiership possibly 80% of the electorate wanted a general election and didn't get one. How is that democratic? Because it is in accordance with trhe rules under which our democracy operates.
It’s entirely hypothetical but you pick on the point why @Foxy and @Richard_Tyndall will never agree. It comes down to the definition of the demos.
If you think that Europe is the demos then EU is a flawed democracy. If you think the UK is the demos then the EU is undemocratic
Comments
Moreover, the EU is the cause of (or at least makes worse), many of the international issues that you claim it should be tackling - not least with its attitude towards and actions in Africa which have helped to drive the migration crisis.
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/world/africa/14fishing.html
https://www.greenpeace.org/africa/en/press/12666/europe-wants-senegals-fish-but-rejects-its-migrants/
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/the-paradox-of-eu-trade-policy-and-migration-from-africa
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/entangled-eu-trade-and-migration-policies-harm-not-help-north-africans-oxfam
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23340460.2021.1969669
I don’t think there is anyone posting on PB that couldn’t join in a consensus what the problem actually is, and what solutions best to tackle it.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy
"some advertisers, which provide 90 percent of Twitter’s revenue, have paused their spending on the platform, citing fears over how the site’s content might change under Mr. Musk. That pullback accelerated on Friday as advertisers like Volkswagen Group joined the growing boycott. Civil rights groups have repeatedly warned that loosening Twitter’s content rules might lead to a rise in toxic speech."
NY Times
True ones are freezing thresholds. Virtually no one notices them, or calls them what they are. A tax increase.
See also pay freezes and years of below inflation pay rises. Barely ever called pay cuts.
No country or organisation record is impeccable, but recent EU efforts like the Everything But Arms trade arrangements have been very positive for Africa.
Let alone filling vacant roles with permanent staff.
As for supply TA's...
16% more at Aldi, and pay in the holidays too. You can imagine.
I seemed to be on course for the sweetspot of maxing out at my 60th birthday.
Is this the Norman Wisdom factor.
And your blindness to the faults of the EU mean you are excusing policies, still in existence right now, which are driving the migration crisis by making African countries poorer and less competitive in the global market. It is a callous and sick attitude.
Sanna Marin: Partying Finnish PM cleared of neglecting duties
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63517303
Or do you accept that all those granted asylum or exceptional leave to remain by our courts are legitimate refugees? If so then I apologise for misunderstanding your comments.
At the end of the day, If anyone is of mind not one coming across channel in dingy is legitimate asylum claimant - that they are all “invaders”, this will not be thinking or acting In the British interest. thinking like that is against who we are as a fair, generous Christian/charitable nation, and safeguarding our reputation for being generous, caring and law abiding should be important to everyone of us.
The next step after not wanting a blanket ban on granting asylum, is recognising what is wrong with the Rwanda plan. Basically put, it’s not in the interest of UK to be thought of as those who do the Rwanda plan.
When it comes to the British interest, making it important to process the boat people and give asylum here, is because the Rwanda plan actually deports people who have no chance to appeal, or reunite with family in Britain, they have had no consideration of their actual asylum claim, recognition of their medical or other needs, or any attempt to understand their actual predicament. Once placed on a plane, they would be the responsibility of the Rwandan government. And that is so wholly wrong for UK to be seen doing.
We cannot offer asylum to everyone, yet equally we cannot outsource our ethical responsibilities or discard international law and our obligations to it — which protects the right to claim asylum.
Our Christian heritage should inspire us to treat asylum seekers with compassion, fairness and justice, just as we have for centuries.
Of those recently processed by this government, 87% of Iranians, Eritreans and Sudanese seeking asylum are allowed to stay - so why no safe routes only dangerous journeys to the UK, that sets them up to be called invaders? This immoral scapegoating of asylum seekers by this British government is never in the National Interest whenever it shames Britain.
Actually I've checked their messages and though they do say pay cut, they don't hammer the phrase all that much, as I'd expect.
So you agree that the UK shouldn't trade with African countries, to force them to adopt a socialist / Afro-nationalist development model? Because this is what your academic references like Mark Langan are saying.
And when we sign a treaty we do so in the knowledge that the terms cannot be changed and no new laws can be imposed after we have signed. That is not the case with the EU.
That's not true - the EU treaties that the UK signed up to explicitly authorised institutions that would create new laws. It's fine to not support those, but don't say that it wasn't agreed in the treaties.
I'd ask the person how things are, in a way that clearly offers them an opportunity to unburden themselves if they want to. If they choose not to, they choose not to.
A rather dangerous precedent for a country so reliant on the rule of law.
And on EU membership that is exactly my point. The EU is unique in being able to pass laws which member Parliaments cannot veto. I don't care which fucked up UK Government signed up to it, it is undemocratic. And as such Foxy was wrong to conflate membership of the EU with the other international organisations she listed.
But I'm willing to accept that someone else can disagree with me on where to draw the line between someone who is being persecuted by their government and so qualifies as a refugee, and someone who is having a raw deal because of their government, but not to the extent, or for a reason, that they would define as justifying us providing refuge.
In that case such a person could think that the UK courts have been provided with the wrong criteria by which to judge the question, "Is a person a refugee?"
I recognise that as a distinct position to "none are refugees", although I disagree with both.
Far from a guarantee of development though, and a major drag on many African economies as well as a source of corruption over the last decades.
Sometimes in a democracy you get outvoted, but history shows that we very rarely voted against EU laws under governments of any stripe.
On the EU and democracy I think ultimately this is an identity thing, no matter the policies or economics. That’s why it’s so intractable. For a pro-European like me it’s akin to a Texan talking about US policy. I see the EU as “us” and I also see the UK as “us” Others see the EU as “them”. It’s deep down and, at root (for both sides) heart not head.
On migration I agree with moonrabbit. Opening up significantly more working visas to Albania would seem like a very sensible win-win. Nobody sees people turning up at Stansted with a work permit as an invasion. That’s the cinematic power of the small boats again. Unfortunately I’m not convinced the government are politically incentivised to solve the problem though. There are paradoxically probably more votes in the continued chaos.
Maybe not just Sunak in search of a backbone - Mick Lynch is searching for one too now, as he begins to cave!
Apparently Hunt has found a discarded copy of one of John McDonnell's shadow budgets and decided to give it a spin.
With regards the EU, it is not a case of us and them. It is a case of distant (organisationally) and unaccountable government. I would genuinely be just as opposed if the whole edifice were based in London. It is why I favour Scottish independence and why I see Brexit as just the first step in a long fight for fundamental reform of our democratic system - though as usual I disagree with most other commentators on how as to how that should be done.
The profits are declared overseas, often in tax-havens, so not in our country either, as we saw with BP this week. Nationalisation has rarely worked well, as these are very capital intensive businesses, and heavily reliant on imported equipment and expertise. A university friend of mine worked for a while in Angola, being paid six figures of pounds in one of the poorest countries on earth, in the oil industry. In practice not very different to the life of Cecil Rhodes.
The proliferation of guns, pandemic stress and diminished public trust in the police all contributed to the increase in homicides nationwide, according to Justin Nix, an associate professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Nebraska Omaha."
source: https://www.voanews.com/a/why-homicide-rates-spiked-30-during-the-pandemic-/6420391.html
At the moment it only has Mauritius, which does its best but is still an island not actually
on the continent, and as much an entrepôt for India as for Africa.
It needs to be in the heart of Africa - SA is too far South. There are a few candidates but all are flawed. Lagos too dominated by oil industry and its own huge domestic market, Nairobi a bit distant from West Africa but otherwise promising, Addis more manufacturing focused, several others hamstrung by French language. Rwanda might actually be a player here. Small enough, not dominated by an industry or a huge national hinterland, central. A bit authoritarian but then so are Singapore and Dubai.
It certainly felt like it was seen more on the Brexit side of things, but the 'no cherry picking at all' on the other side was definitely played way too hard, since again a negotiation is about trying to pick cherries, you may just have to be realistic about how many you will be able to get, yet it was often used as if to even ask for anything beyond what was offered was inherently unreasonable, no matter what it was.
. . .
Research shows that E-Verify harms the labor market outcomes of illegal immigrants and improves the labor market outcomes of Mexican legal immigrants and U.S.-born Hispanics, but has no impact on labor market outcomes for non-Hispanic white Americans.[6] A 2016 study suggests that E-Verify reduces the number of illegal immigrants in states that have mandated use of E-Verify for all employers, and further notes that the program may deter illegal immigration to the United States in general."
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Verify
The issue of illegal immigration is so hotly debated in the US that I would not say those conclusions are certain, but they seem plausible.
I have no idea whether a similar program might help in the UK.
And yes, folks, I did unwittingly lock myself into a fixed tariff this spring that is significantly higher than the actual government price cap.
The Mcloud judgement does complicate things slightly, but does probably entitle me to a substantial tax rebate, and also gives the possibility of retrospectively changing my decision and getting those 4 years credited if I choose.
https://www.ft.com/content/de8fc348-0025-4821-9ec5-d50b4bbacc8d
This just got personal for me today. I’ve got a very painful, infected wisdom tooth and my mouth has swelled up. Several rounds of antibiotics haven’t worked. My NHS dentist can’t operate because theres too much of a risk of nerve damage.
Referred to the hospital with the shortest waiting list:
18 months.
My dentist thinks there’s a private dentist who may be prepared to operate in six weeks’ time, at a cost of £110 for the initial consultation, £400-700 for the operation + potentially another £250 for scans.
I have no choice but to pay, do I?
I can’t be in pretty bad pain, with my mouth swollen up and an untreated infection for 18 months, can I?!!
The provision of emergency NHS dentistry has all but evaporated.
“You can’t trust the tories with the NHS” is proving true for millions, like me, across the UK. They deserve to be trounced at the next election.
Yet they’ll effectively receive the same money spread over more years (obvs depending on life expectancy). And there is nothing to stop someone taking their pension and continuing in employment - no-one is “driven” to retire, in terms of stopping work.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/senate/
Successive governments made NHS dentistry unviable over the years by reimbursing at rates that were uneconomic. The same pattern is being repeated in a number of surgical specialities now. It is part of the reason some specialities cannot fill posts, as graduates go straight to the private sector, often doing NHS contract work for ISTCs that skim off the straightforward stuff.
The same companies generally make huge losses at UK or other HQ level because that’s where all the R&D and exploration is funded, and if it goes nowhere it’s written off at HQ.
Very few of them use tax havens in any material way, and post pillar-2 even the small areas where they are still used, such as captive insurance, will be taxed at 15%. And most won’t be used. Tax havens are overwhelmingly used by individuals and funds, not multinationals. The tax world in MNCs is nothing like the way it’s portrayed in the media.
Agriculture is a much bigger problem in terms of equity. Margins are low, there are very few regulatory controls, and the vast agricultural potential of the continent is exploited - though most remains untapped - for the benefit of US, European and Chinese corporates.
I think we’ll see Africa get substantially richer both in absolute terms and relatively in the next few decades, but they need to keep control of their agricultural resources, as Brazil has done.
There are rules on pension abatement that mean that a return to work is nearly always part time.
Personally, I would have negotiated the bare bones divorce, with no FTA, and as I've said, placed a moratorium on signing any FTAs with anyone for 5 years. It would have been costly, but would have got us used to trading as a 3rd country under WTO rules. We would then have begun negotiations knowing that walking away was possible, and with both the UK and the EU approaching the negotiations positively, without so much baggage, and both with the same goal in mind - eliminating restrictions to trade.
The dentists are excellent, gentle and American
trained. The treatment is usually 30-35% the price of what you pay in the UK. So you can sometimes save money AND have a week or two in the Thai sunshine, plus hotel
I recommend the Novotel on Soi 4 Sukhumvit, ten minutes from Bumrungrad Hospital
Anyway the answer is quite easy, that in a non-direct democracy you lock in to outcomes which the demos may not want at the time but is stuck with because rules are rules. In the heyday of the Truss premiership possibly 80% of the electorate wanted a general election and didn't get one. How is that democratic? Because it is in accordance with trhe rules under which our democracy operates.
He seems to know a lot about his private colleague's diary and charges. I hope it wasn't on NHS time that he found it all out.
That private dentist who may be able to do it in 6 weeks' time may be the same dentist who'll do it on the NHS in 18 months' time. Many dentists have no shame.
Sadly you may end up having to pay the sums mentioned, though, or more, because you can't be expected to be in agony for 18 months.
Might be worth considering the turn up at A&E and scream blue murder option.
But NHS dentistry has been shit for DECADES, hasn’t it? Has it got any worse? It has always been crap in my experience and most people go quasi-private
Do look at options in Asia
NHS Dentistry probably only survives - if it indeed survives - because of people like me and you who can afford to just give up on it
If you think that Europe is the demos then EU is a flawed democracy. If you think the UK is the demos then the EU is undemocratic
This boils my p*ss. Accessibility matters, and is also hard to do. But I daresay Musk doesn't want the blind, or deaf, to easily use his platform.