After 3 days the House of Representatives is still without a Speaker – politicalbetting.com
What has been gripping American politics throughout the whole week has still not resolved itself and that is the election of a Speaker to the House of Representatives.
Edit - and for clarification, they have now had 11 votes without an outcome. Also they don't need 50% of all representatives, they need 50% of all representatives who vote for somebody. (ie absent, or abstein reduces the threshold)
Gripping politics, although the spectacle of watching hundreds of representatives-elect voting one at a time almost entirely the same way nine times running has not, so far, been all that 'gripping'
What is clear is that the GOP establishment no longer have full control of the party. Trumpites can veto anything they propose, even their choice of Speaker
Gripping politics, although the spectacle of watching hundreds of representatives-elect voting one at a time almost entirely the same way nine times running has not, so far, been all that 'gripping'
The repitition means that it's possibly quite good to meditate to. Or one of those long real-time TV things the Norwegians do.
Gripping politics, although the spectacle of watching hundreds of representatives-elect voting one at a time almost entirely the same way nine times running has not, so far, been all that 'gripping'
Its a preposterous thing. Even having them seek re-election every 2 years is bonkers.
Gripping politics, although the spectacle of watching hundreds of representatives-elect voting one at a time almost entirely the same way nine times running has not, so far, been all that 'gripping'
Its a preposterous thing. Even having them seek re-election every 2 years is bonkers.
Especially since their election campaigns are abut two years long.
It's not completely impossible that a Democrat might get the gig...
Here’s another issue complicating matters and what could push speaker fight into next week: At least four Republican members have to leave town Friday because of some serious family issues they have to attend to, per source https://mobile.twitter.com/mkraju/status/1611123154658942977
(Btw, is that a euphemism for being in the mafia ?)
It's not completely impossible that a Democrat might get the gig...
Here’s another issue complicating matters and what could push speaker fight into next week: At least four Republican members have to leave town Friday because of some serious family issues they have to attend to, per source https://mobile.twitter.com/mkraju/status/1611123154658942977
(Btw, is that a euphemism for being in the mafia ?)
It's not completely impossible that a Democrat might get the gig...
Here’s another issue complicating matters and what could push speaker fight into next week: At least four Republican members have to leave town Friday because of some serious family issues they have to attend to, per source https://mobile.twitter.com/mkraju/status/1611123154658942977
(Btw, is that a euphemism for being in the mafia ?)
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
Exactly - if they want us and we don't want the €, they will find a way for us to stick with our own currency for yonks, like the Swedes have done. The question is whether they would want us, not what are the rules.
A minor derogation from FoM would have allowed 'Remain' to win in 2016. The EU would not do it. Yes, rules don't matter when the EU wants to do something, but when they don't they are a bunch of fundamentalists.
One problem is not seeing things from the other guys point of view.
In the case of the EU, the leading counties - France, Germany etc - saw FOM as a difficult thing. For them. The issues about wages for the low/no skilled apply there, as well as to the U.K.. Hence the riots in France on a regular basis.
What politicians, in those countries, saw was that if they compromised on FOM, everyone would want an “adjustment”.
The pro EU politicians involved saw FOM as something that they had jointly sacrificed for - a lynch pin of their wider vision for the EU.
While Leon is safely asleep hungover, perhaps it's safe to mention AI here? For fans of the Diplomacy game (but definitely of no interest to anyone else) this video of a guy speed-playing six versions of Meta's Cicero in a press game is worth a watch:
Just imagine the drama when it comes to raising the debt ceiling .
The Freedom Caucus alias a bunch of nutjobs will cause mayhem . They will want all manner of concessions to raise that which the Democrats will balk at .
It’s pretty clear that the GOP are a clear and present danger to the USA and it’s a tragedy that they have the majority in the House .
The stupidity of a section of voters to keep voting against their own interests beggars belief !
I think Kev will eventually prevail. I have £10 at evens bid on Betfair if anybody with the opposite view wants to match me.
From what I’ve read, McCarthy is absolutely desperate to be Speaker. It’s apparently been his political ambition ever since he interned on Capitol Hill years and years ago.
It is hard to see him backing down without serious moves by other GOP leaders to get him to step aside and by more of his caucus deserting him - as long as the current deadlock holds I don’t think he’s going anywhere.
Thing to watch for is if others start peeling away beyond the 20 - that’s when it gets serious for him.
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
Exactly - if they want us and we don't want the €, they will find a way for us to stick with our own currency for yonks, like the Swedes have done. The question is whether they would want us, not what are the rules.
A minor derogation from FoM would have allowed 'Remain' to win in 2016. The EU would not do it. Yes, rules don't matter when the EU wants to do something, but when they don't they are a bunch of fundamentalists.
One problem is not seeing things from the other guys point of view.
Just imagine the drama when it comes to raising the debt ceiling .
The Freedom Caucus alias a bunch of nutjobs will cause mayhem . They will want all manner of concessions to raise that which the Democrats will balk at .
It’s pretty clear that the GOP are a clear and present danger to the USA and it’s a tragedy that they have the majority in the House .
The stupidity of a section of voters to keep voting against their own interests beggars belief !
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
Exactly - if they want us and we don't want the €, they will find a way for us to stick with our own currency for yonks, like the Swedes have done. The question is whether they would want us, not what are the rules.
A minor derogation from FoM would have allowed 'Remain' to win in 2016. The EU would not do it. Yes, rules don't matter when the EU wants to do something, but when they don't they are a bunch of fundamentalists.
One problem is not seeing things from the other guys point of view.
In the case of the EU, the leading counties - France, Germany etc - saw FOM as a difficult thing. For them. The issues about wages for the low/no skilled apply there, as well as to the U.K.. Hence the riots in France on a regular basis.
What politicians, in those countries, saw was that if they compromised on FOM, everyone would want an “adjustment”.
The pro EU politicians involved saw FOM as something that they had jointly sacrificed for - a lynch pin of their wider vision for the EU.
So it was an unshakeable redline.
FOM is one of the greatest things about the EU and the right to live and work in 27 other countries is why I voted to Remain.
Thankfully I managed to protect that because of my family but am really sad that many younger people can no longer enjoy that.
Shame on all those so called loving grandparents who robbed their grandchildren of that freedom !
What is clear is that the GOP establishment no longer have full control of the party. Trumpites can veto anything they propose, even their choice of Speaker
Given that this bunch are competely ignoring Trump himself, are they even Trumpites at this point? We need a new name clearly...
While Leon is safely asleep hungover, perhaps it's safe to mention AI here? For fans of the Diplomacy game (but definitely of no interest to anyone else) this video of a guy speed-playing six versions of Meta's Cicero in a press game is worth a watch:
I think Kev will eventually prevail. I have £10 at evens bid on Betfair if anybody with the opposite view wants to match me.
From what I’ve read, McCarthy is absolutely desperate to be Speaker. It’s apparently been his political ambition ever since he interned on Capitol Hill years and years ago.
It is hard to see him backing down without serious moves by other GOP leaders to get him to step aside and by more of his caucus deserting him - as long as the current deadlock holds I don’t think he’s going anywhere.
Thing to watch for is if others start peeling away beyond the 20 - that’s when it gets serious for him.
What an ambition - to be Speaker!
It's like saying here you really, really want to be a Returning Officer.....
Off topic, and a bit of a weird thing to say on a politics site, but is anyone else feeling slightly “meh” about British politics at the moment?
In theory it’s an exciting time, but now Sunak has got his feet under the table and proven to be singularly uninspiring it feels like we’re now in a holding pattern where the Tories are still crap, Labour are still looking like the next government and the national outlook for the next 12 months isn’t feeling very rosy.
I am considering stepping away from everything politics-related for a few months, certainly on the UK side at least, until we get to the autumn and things start to get more real re the next GE. The last few years have just been exhausting politically. It seems like a sensible time to take a break…
While Leon is safely asleep hungover, perhaps it's safe to mention AI here? For fans of the Diplomacy game (but definitely of no interest to anyone else) this video of a guy speed-playing six versions of Meta's Cicero in a press game is worth a watch:
While Leon is safely asleep hungover, perhaps it's safe to mention AI here? For fans of the Diplomacy game (but definitely of no interest to anyone else) this video of a guy speed-playing six versions of Meta's Cicero in a press game is worth a watch:
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
Exactly - if they want us and we don't want the €, they will find a way for us to stick with our own currency for yonks, like the Swedes have done. The question is whether they would want us, not what are the rules.
A minor derogation from FoM would have allowed 'Remain' to win in 2016. The EU would not do it. Yes, rules don't matter when the EU wants to do something, but when they don't they are a bunch of fundamentalists.
One problem is not seeing things from the other guys point of view.
In the case of the EU, the leading counties - France, Germany etc - saw FOM as a difficult thing. For them. The issues about wages for the low/no skilled apply there, as well as to the U.K.. Hence the riots in France on a regular basis.
What politicians, in those countries, saw was that if they compromised on FOM, everyone would want an “adjustment”.
The pro EU politicians involved saw FOM as something that they had jointly sacrificed for - a lynch pin of their wider vision for the EU.
So it was an unshakeable redline.
FOM is one of the greatest things about the EU and the right to live and work in 27 other countries is why I voted to Remain.
Thankfully I managed to protect that because of my family but am really sad that many younger people can no longer enjoy that.
Shame on all those so called loving grandparents who robbed their grandchildren of that freedom !
The grandkids will just have to make do with the house....
I think Kev will eventually prevail. I have £10 at evens bid on Betfair if anybody with the opposite view wants to match me.
From what I’ve read, McCarthy is absolutely desperate to be Speaker. It’s apparently been his political ambition ever since he interned on Capitol Hill years and years ago.
It is hard to see him backing down without serious moves by other GOP leaders to get him to step aside and by more of his caucus deserting him - as long as the current deadlock holds I don’t think he’s going anywhere.
Thing to watch for is if others start peeling away beyond the 20 - that’s when it gets serious for him.
What an ambition - to be Speaker!
It's like saying here you really, really want to be a Returning Officer.....
No, not really. Speaker of the House is next in line to the presidency after the VP but, more importantly, when the House is controlled by the opposite party to the president it's effectively that party's leader.
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
Exactly - if they want us and we don't want the €, they will find a way for us to stick with our own currency for yonks, like the Swedes have done. The question is whether they would want us, not what are the rules.
A minor derogation from FoM would have allowed 'Remain' to win in 2016. The EU would not do it. Yes, rules don't matter when the EU wants to do something, but when they don't they are a bunch of fundamentalists.
One problem is not seeing things from the other guys point of view.
In the case of the EU, the leading counties - France, Germany etc - saw FOM as a difficult thing. For them. The issues about wages for the low/no skilled apply there, as well as to the U.K.. Hence the riots in France on a regular basis.
What politicians, in those countries, saw was that if they compromised on FOM, everyone would want an “adjustment”.
The pro EU politicians involved saw FOM as something that they had jointly sacrificed for - a lynch pin of their wider vision for the EU.
So it was an unshakeable redline.
FOM is one of the greatest things about the EU and the right to live and work in 27 other countries is why I voted to Remain.
Thankfully I managed to protect that because of my family but am really sad that many younger people can no longer enjoy that.
Shame on all those so called loving grandparents who robbed their grandchildren of that freedom !
The sad thing was that for many who voted for brexit it was never freedom of movement that was the issue, it was the perceived issues around benefits and the rights to housing. In the UK we opted to give benefits to all, whereas other states in the EU did not. I don't personally think that the benefit system was that big a draw, and mostly the Eastern European migration to the UK was driven by people wanting to work and be paid in the UK as this was significantly more lucrative than staying at home. But the perception was very different. The inability to obtain a council house came to be blamed on freedom of movement.
While Leon is safely asleep hungover, perhaps it's safe to mention AI here? For fans of the Diplomacy game (but definitely of no interest to anyone else) this video of a guy speed-playing six versions of Meta's Cicero in a press game is worth a watch:
Off topic, and a bit of a weird thing to say on a politics site, but is anyone else feeling slightly “meh” about British politics at the moment?
In theory it’s an exciting time, but now Sunak has got his feet under the table and proven to be singularly uninspiring it feels like we’re now in a holding pattern where the Tories are still crap, Labour are still looking like the next government and the national outlook for the next 12 months isn’t feeling very rosy.
I am considering stepping away from everything politics-related for a few months, certainly on the UK side at least, until we get to the autumn and things start to get more real re the next GE. The last few years have just been exhausting politically. It seems like a sensible time to take a break…
Yep. The Tories have run out of ideas and are going to lose to a party who also have no ideas.
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
Exactly - if they want us and we don't want the €, they will find a way for us to stick with our own currency for yonks, like the Swedes have done. The question is whether they would want us, not what are the rules.
A minor derogation from FoM would have allowed 'Remain' to win in 2016. The EU would not do it. Yes, rules don't matter when the EU wants to do something, but when they don't they are a bunch of fundamentalists.
One problem is not seeing things from the other guys point of view.
In the case of the EU, the leading counties - France, Germany etc - saw FOM as a difficult thing. For them. The issues about wages for the low/no skilled apply there, as well as to the U.K.. Hence the riots in France on a regular basis.
What politicians, in those countries, saw was that if they compromised on FOM, everyone would want an “adjustment”.
The pro EU politicians involved saw FOM as something that they had jointly sacrificed for - a lynch pin of their wider vision for the EU.
So it was an unshakeable redline.
FOM is one of the greatest things about the EU and the right to live and work in 27 other countries is why I voted to Remain.
Thankfully I managed to protect that because of my family but am really sad that many younger people can no longer enjoy that.
Shame on all those so called loving grandparents who robbed their grandchildren of that freedom !
Part of the problem is the unshakeable belief that admitting there is an issue from either side is verboten.
We got here via a series of decisions that built a structure. In the UK it was something like
1) Deregulated labour market 2) FOM 3) An insistence on a labour market with no barriers to entry. 4) Shout down anyone who raised issues. 5) Refusal to discuss changes to the labour market system 6) BREXIT
In France it was something like
1) Highly stratified labour market - part is incredibly protected. 2) FOM 3) Point at 1, ignore those not protected. 4) No FREXIT, but a bunch voting for the National Ramblers.
I think Kev will eventually prevail. I have £10 at evens bid on Betfair if anybody with the opposite view wants to match me.
From what I’ve read, McCarthy is absolutely desperate to be Speaker. It’s apparently been his political ambition ever since he interned on Capitol Hill years and years ago.
It is hard to see him backing down without serious moves by other GOP leaders to get him to step aside and by more of his caucus deserting him - as long as the current deadlock holds I don’t think he’s going anywhere.
Thing to watch for is if others start peeling away beyond the 20 - that’s when it gets serious for him.
What an ambition - to be Speaker!
It's like saying here you really, really want to be a Returning Officer.....
No, not really. Speaker of the House is next in line to the presidency after the VP but, more importantly, when the House is controlled by the opposite party to the president it's effectively that party's leader.
But as against the power of being President, it is a sideshow.
I think Kev will eventually prevail. I have £10 at evens bid on Betfair if anybody with the opposite view wants to match me.
From what I’ve read, McCarthy is absolutely desperate to be Speaker. It’s apparently been his political ambition ever since he interned on Capitol Hill years and years ago.
It is hard to see him backing down without serious moves by other GOP leaders to get him to step aside and by more of his caucus deserting him - as long as the current deadlock holds I don’t think he’s going anywhere.
Thing to watch for is if others start peeling away beyond the 20 - that’s when it gets serious for him.
What an ambition - to be Speaker!
It's like saying here you really, really want to be a Returning Officer.....
In the UK perhaps, but as discussed yesterday, in the US the Speaker is not a neutral arbiter.
I think Kev will eventually prevail. I have £10 at evens bid on Betfair if anybody with the opposite view wants to match me.
From what I’ve read, McCarthy is absolutely desperate to be Speaker. It’s apparently been his political ambition ever since he interned on Capitol Hill years and years ago.
It is hard to see him backing down without serious moves by other GOP leaders to get him to step aside and by more of his caucus deserting him - as long as the current deadlock holds I don’t think he’s going anywhere.
Thing to watch for is if others start peeling away beyond the 20 - that’s when it gets serious for him.
What an ambition - to be Speaker!
It's like saying here you really, really want to be a Returning Officer.....
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
Exactly - if they want us and we don't want the €, they will find a way for us to stick with our own currency for yonks, like the Swedes have done. The question is whether they would want us, not what are the rules.
A minor derogation from FoM would have allowed 'Remain' to win in 2016. The EU would not do it. Yes, rules don't matter when the EU wants to do something, but when they don't they are a bunch of fundamentalists.
One problem is not seeing things from the other guys point of view.
In the case of the EU, the leading counties - France, Germany etc - saw FOM as a difficult thing. For them. The issues about wages for the low/no skilled apply there, as well as to the U.K.. Hence the riots in France on a regular basis.
What politicians, in those countries, saw was that if they compromised on FOM, everyone would want an “adjustment”.
The pro EU politicians involved saw FOM as something that they had jointly sacrificed for - a lynch pin of their wider vision for the EU.
So it was an unshakeable redline.
FOM is one of the greatest things about the EU and the right to live and work in 27 other countries is why I voted to Remain.
Thankfully I managed to protect that because of my family but am really sad that many younger people can no longer enjoy that.
Shame on all those so called loving grandparents who robbed their grandchildren of that freedom !
The sad thing was that for many who voted for brexit it was never freedom of movement that was the issue, it was the perceived issues around benefits and the rights to housing. In the UK we opted to give benefits to all, whereas other states in the EU did not. I don't personally think that the benefit system was that big a draw, and mostly the Eastern European migration to the UK was driven by people wanting to work and be paid in the EU as this was significantly more lucrative than staying at home. But the perception was very different. The inability to obtain a council house came to be blamed on freedom of movement.
That’s an excellent post . And FOM was often portrayed as something the UK was subjected to and not that UK nationals could enjoy aswell .
Many of the failings blamed on the EU were in fact UK government failures to invest in services and not address the issue of how the benefit system worked .
While Leon is safely asleep hungover, perhaps it's safe to mention AI here? For fans of the Diplomacy game (but definitely of no interest to anyone else) this video of a guy speed-playing six versions of Meta's Cicero in a press game is worth a watch:
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
Exactly - if they want us and we don't want the €, they will find a way for us to stick with our own currency for yonks, like the Swedes have done. The question is whether they would want us, not what are the rules.
A minor derogation from FoM would have allowed 'Remain' to win in 2016. The EU would not do it. Yes, rules don't matter when the EU wants to do something, but when they don't they are a bunch of fundamentalists.
One problem is not seeing things from the other guys point of view.
In the case of the EU, the leading counties - France, Germany etc - saw FOM as a difficult thing. For them. The issues about wages for the low/no skilled apply there, as well as to the U.K.. Hence the riots in France on a regular basis.
What politicians, in those countries, saw was that if they compromised on FOM, everyone would want an “adjustment”.
The pro EU politicians involved saw FOM as something that they had jointly sacrificed for - a lynch pin of their wider vision for the EU.
So it was an unshakeable redline.
FOM is one of the greatest things about the EU and the right to live and work in 27 other countries is why I voted to Remain.
Thankfully I managed to protect that because of my family but am really sad that many younger people can no longer enjoy that.
Shame on all those so called loving grandparents who robbed their grandchildren of that freedom !
The sad thing was that for many who voted for brexit it was never freedom of movement that was the issue, it was the perceived issues around benefits and the rights to housing. In the UK we opted to give benefits to all, whereas other states in the EU did not. I don't personally think that the benefit system was that big a draw, and mostly the Eastern European migration to the UK was driven by people wanting to work and be paid in the EU as this was significantly more lucrative than staying at home. But the perception was very different. The inability to obtain a council house came to be blamed on freedom of movement.
That’s an excellent post . And FOM was often portrayed as something the UK was subjected to and not that UK nationals could enjoy aswell .
Many of the failings blamed on the EU were in fact UK government failures to invest in services and not address the issue of how the benefit system worked .
I don't think there has ever been much appetite for making the benefits system contributions based, and yet that works in other countries. The idea that your NI contributions, for instance, might lead to higher benefits if suddenly out of work if you have contributed more is not something we have here, but is available elsewhere.
I think Kev will eventually prevail. I have £10 at evens bid on Betfair if anybody with the opposite view wants to match me.
From what I’ve read, McCarthy is absolutely desperate to be Speaker. It’s apparently been his political ambition ever since he interned on Capitol Hill years and years ago.
It is hard to see him backing down without serious moves by other GOP leaders to get him to step aside and by more of his caucus deserting him - as long as the current deadlock holds I don’t think he’s going anywhere.
Thing to watch for is if others start peeling away beyond the 20 - that’s when it gets serious for him.
What an ambition - to be Speaker!
It's like saying here you really, really want to be a Returning Officer.....
It's not.
The Speaker in the House of Representatives is effectively a party political position, carrying a great deal of power (though not for McCarthy, since he has already bargained away a good deal of that power in an attempt to get elected).
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
Exactly - if they want us and we don't want the €, they will find a way for us to stick with our own currency for yonks, like the Swedes have done. The question is whether they would want us, not what are the rules.
A minor derogation from FoM would have allowed 'Remain' to win in 2016. The EU would not do it. Yes, rules don't matter when the EU wants to do something, but when they don't they are a bunch of fundamentalists.
One problem is not seeing things from the other guys point of view.
In the case of the EU, the leading counties - France, Germany etc - saw FOM as a difficult thing. For them. The issues about wages for the low/no skilled apply there, as well as to the U.K.. Hence the riots in France on a regular basis.
What politicians, in those countries, saw was that if they compromised on FOM, everyone would want an “adjustment”.
The pro EU politicians involved saw FOM as something that they had jointly sacrificed for - a lynch pin of their wider vision for the EU.
So it was an unshakeable redline.
FOM is one of the greatest things about the EU and the right to live and work in 27 other countries is why I voted to Remain.
Thankfully I managed to protect that because of my family but am really sad that many younger people can no longer enjoy that.
Shame on all those so called loving grandparents who robbed their grandchildren of that freedom !
Part of the problem is the unshakeable belief that admitting there is an issue from either side is verboten.
We got here via a series of decisions that built a structure. In the UK it was something like
1) Deregulated labour market 2) FOM 3) An insistence on a labour market with no barriers to entry. 4) Shout down anyone who raised issues. 5) Refusal to discuss changes to the labour market system 6) BREXIT
In France it was something like
1) Highly stratified labour market - part is incredibly protected. 2) FOM 3) Point at 1, ignore those not protected. 4) No FREXIT, but a bunch voting for the National Ramblers.
I by no means think the current FOM is perfect . And changes should be made but in other EU countries FOM isn’t such a divisive issue .
The immigration from outside the EU is the biggest issue .
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
Exactly - if they want us and we don't want the €, they will find a way for us to stick with our own currency for yonks, like the Swedes have done. The question is whether they would want us, not what are the rules.
A minor derogation from FoM would have allowed 'Remain' to win in 2016. The EU would not do it. Yes, rules don't matter when the EU wants to do something, but when they don't they are a bunch of fundamentalists.
One problem is not seeing things from the other guys point of view.
In the case of the EU, the leading counties - France, Germany etc - saw FOM as a difficult thing. For them. The issues about wages for the low/no skilled apply there, as well as to the U.K.. Hence the riots in France on a regular basis.
What politicians, in those countries, saw was that if they compromised on FOM, everyone would want an “adjustment”.
The pro EU politicians involved saw FOM as something that they had jointly sacrificed for - a lynch pin of their wider vision for the EU.
So it was an unshakeable redline.
FOM is one of the greatest things about the EU and the right to live and work in 27 other countries is why I voted to Remain.
Thankfully I managed to protect that because of my family but am really sad that many younger people can no longer enjoy that.
Shame on all those so called loving grandparents who robbed their grandchildren of that freedom !
I'd be interested to see the stats in where Brits have gone to work abroad pre- and post-Brexit.
My guess (and it is only a guess) is that both pre- and post-Brexit, most working abroad is in Anglophone countries.
There are numerous barriers to working abroad, and the administrative ones are fairly trivial compared to the barriers of language, of culture, of the sheer bloody hassle of uprooting a family and moving them to a different part of the world. If it is worth overcoming those latter barriers, overcoming the right to work issue is fairly minor.
The reality is that for the vast majority of Brits, going to live and work in a country where English is not the first language is such a large barrier to overcome that having the right to do so is irrelevant.
If we had the right to live and work in Australia and New Zealand and Canada, that would be a different matter. But I think we gave that up in 1974.
I think Kev will eventually prevail. I have £10 at evens bid on Betfair if anybody with the opposite view wants to match me.
From what I’ve read, McCarthy is absolutely desperate to be Speaker. It’s apparently been his political ambition ever since he interned on Capitol Hill years and years ago.
It is hard to see him backing down without serious moves by other GOP leaders to get him to step aside and by more of his caucus deserting him - as long as the current deadlock holds I don’t think he’s going anywhere.
Thing to watch for is if others start peeling away beyond the 20 - that’s when it gets serious for him.
What an ambition - to be Speaker!
It's like saying here you really, really want to be a Returning Officer.....
No, not really. Speaker of the House is next in line to the presidency after the VP but, more importantly, when the House is controlled by the opposite party to the president it's effectively that party's leader.
But as against the power of being President, it is a sideshow.
Since it requires quite a different set of skills to achieve the post - the electorate is solely members of the House - you can't compare the two things.
Most Speakers never had a realistic chance of being President.
Gripping politics, although the spectacle of watching hundreds of representatives-elect voting one at a time almost entirely the same way nine times running has not, so far, been all that 'gripping'
It is funny, though. And the humiliation for McCarthy every time, knowing after 50 or 60 votes that he can't win, but having to listen to the remaining 370 anyway.
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
Exactly - if they want us and we don't want the €, they will find a way for us to stick with our own currency for yonks, like the Swedes have done. The question is whether they would want us, not what are the rules.
A minor derogation from FoM would have allowed 'Remain' to win in 2016. The EU would not do it. Yes, rules don't matter when the EU wants to do something, but when they don't they are a bunch of fundamentalists.
One problem is not seeing things from the other guys point of view.
In the case of the EU, the leading counties - France, Germany etc - saw FOM as a difficult thing. For them. The issues about wages for the low/no skilled apply there, as well as to the U.K.. Hence the riots in France on a regular basis.
What politicians, in those countries, saw was that if they compromised on FOM, everyone would want an “adjustment”.
The pro EU politicians involved saw FOM as something that they had jointly sacrificed for - a lynch pin of their wider vision for the EU.
So it was an unshakeable redline.
FOM is one of the greatest things about the EU and the right to live and work in 27 other countries is why I voted to Remain.
Thankfully I managed to protect that because of my family but am really sad that many younger people can no longer enjoy that.
Shame on all those so called loving grandparents who robbed their grandchildren of that freedom !
Indeed surveys in EU countries including France and Germany show people are overwhelmingly in favour of EU freedom of movement, and for most people it's the most valuable thing about being in the EU.
Gripping politics, although the spectacle of watching hundreds of representatives-elect voting one at a time almost entirely the same way nine times running has not, so far, been all that 'gripping'
It is funny, though. And the humiliation for McCarthy every time, knowing after 50 or 60 votes that he can't win, but having to listen to the remaining 370 anyway.
Indeed. Once they get into the Cs it has already been obvious, each time, that there's an impasse
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
Exactly - if they want us and we don't want the €, they will find a way for us to stick with our own currency for yonks, like the Swedes have done. The question is whether they would want us, not what are the rules.
A minor derogation from FoM would have allowed 'Remain' to win in 2016. The EU would not do it. Yes, rules don't matter when the EU wants to do something, but when they don't they are a bunch of fundamentalists.
One problem is not seeing things from the other guys point of view.
In the case of the EU, the leading counties - France, Germany etc - saw FOM as a difficult thing. For them. The issues about wages for the low/no skilled apply there, as well as to the U.K.. Hence the riots in France on a regular basis.
What politicians, in those countries, saw was that if they compromised on FOM, everyone would want an “adjustment”.
The pro EU politicians involved saw FOM as something that they had jointly sacrificed for - a lynch pin of their wider vision for the EU.
So it was an unshakeable redline.
FOM is one of the greatest things about the EU and the right to live and work in 27 other countries is why I voted to Remain.
Thankfully I managed to protect that because of my family but am really sad that many younger people can no longer enjoy that.
Shame on all those so called loving grandparents who robbed their grandchildren of that freedom !
Yes. The very opposite of this "aspiration" thing I keep hearing from Tories.
I think Kev will eventually prevail. I have £10 at evens bid on Betfair if anybody with the opposite view wants to match me.
From what I’ve read, McCarthy is absolutely desperate to be Speaker. It’s apparently been his political ambition ever since he interned on Capitol Hill years and years ago.
It is hard to see him backing down without serious moves by other GOP leaders to get him to step aside and by more of his caucus deserting him - as long as the current deadlock holds I don’t think he’s going anywhere.
Thing to watch for is if others start peeling away beyond the 20 - that’s when it gets serious for him.
What an ambition - to be Speaker!
It's like saying here you really, really want to be a Returning Officer.....
No, not really. Speaker of the House is next in line to the presidency after the VP but, more importantly, when the House is controlled by the opposite party to the president it's effectively that party's leader.
But as against the power of being President, it is a sideshow.
Since it requires quite a different set of skills to achieve the post - the electorate is solely members of the House - you can't compare the two things.
Most Speakers never had a realistic chance of being President.
Given that McCarthy seemingly doesn't have a realistic chance of being Speaker, maybe he should go for President then...
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
Exactly - if they want us and we don't want the €, they will find a way for us to stick with our own currency for yonks, like the Swedes have done. The question is whether they would want us, not what are the rules.
A minor derogation from FoM would have allowed 'Remain' to win in 2016. The EU would not do it. Yes, rules don't matter when the EU wants to do something, but when they don't they are a bunch of fundamentalists.
One problem is not seeing things from the other guys point of view.
In the case of the EU, the leading counties - France, Germany etc - saw FOM as a difficult thing. For them. The issues about wages for the low/no skilled apply there, as well as to the U.K.. Hence the riots in France on a regular basis.
What politicians, in those countries, saw was that if they compromised on FOM, everyone would want an “adjustment”.
The pro EU politicians involved saw FOM as something that they had jointly sacrificed for - a lynch pin of their wider vision for the EU.
So it was an unshakeable redline.
FOM is one of the greatest things about the EU and the right to live and work in 27 other countries is why I voted to Remain.
Thankfully I managed to protect that because of my family but am really sad that many younger people can no longer enjoy that.
Shame on all those so called loving grandparents who robbed their grandchildren of that freedom !
Part of the problem is the unshakeable belief that admitting there is an issue from either side is verboten.
We got here via a series of decisions that built a structure. In the UK it was something like
1) Deregulated labour market 2) FOM 3) An insistence on a labour market with no barriers to entry. 4) Shout down anyone who raised issues. 5) Refusal to discuss changes to the labour market system 6) BREXIT
In France it was something like
1) Highly stratified labour market - part is incredibly protected. 2) FOM 3) Point at 1, ignore those not protected. 4) No FREXIT, but a bunch voting for the National Ramblers.
I by no means think the current FOM is perfect . And changes should be made but in other EU countries FOM isn’t such a divisive issue .
The immigration from outside the EU is the biggest issue .
The point was making, is that other countries adapted or had existing policies that altered the effects of FOM.
The UK chose, repeatedly, to do nothing about the issues which were raised.
If we do nothing about those issues, it is highly probable that FOM won't be reintroduced.
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
Exactly - if they want us and we don't want the €, they will find a way for us to stick with our own currency for yonks, like the Swedes have done. The question is whether they would want us, not what are the rules.
A minor derogation from FoM would have allowed 'Remain' to win in 2016. The EU would not do it. Yes, rules don't matter when the EU wants to do something, but when they don't they are a bunch of fundamentalists.
One problem is not seeing things from the other guys point of view.
In the case of the EU, the leading counties - France, Germany etc - saw FOM as a difficult thing. For them. The issues about wages for the low/no skilled apply there, as well as to the U.K.. Hence the riots in France on a regular basis.
What politicians, in those countries, saw was that if they compromised on FOM, everyone would want an “adjustment”.
The pro EU politicians involved saw FOM as something that they had jointly sacrificed for - a lynch pin of their wider vision for the EU.
So it was an unshakeable redline.
FOM is one of the greatest things about the EU and the right to live and work in 27 other countries is why I voted to Remain.
Thankfully I managed to protect that because of my family but am really sad that many younger people can no longer enjoy that.
Shame on all those so called loving grandparents who robbed their grandchildren of that freedom !
The grandkids will just have to make do with the house....
You'll be lucky after a few minutes of the next Labour Government, and you can't escape to the EU now, and anyway you'd never get there as you'll be driving at a maximum speed limit of 20mph on the nation's motorways.
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
Exactly - if they want us and we don't want the €, they will find a way for us to stick with our own currency for yonks, like the Swedes have done. The question is whether they would want us, not what are the rules.
A minor derogation from FoM would have allowed 'Remain' to win in 2016. The EU would not do it. Yes, rules don't matter when the EU wants to do something, but when they don't they are a bunch of fundamentalists.
One problem is not seeing things from the other guys point of view.
In the case of the EU, the leading counties - France, Germany etc - saw FOM as a difficult thing. For them. The issues about wages for the low/no skilled apply there, as well as to the U.K.. Hence the riots in France on a regular basis.
What politicians, in those countries, saw was that if they compromised on FOM, everyone would want an “adjustment”.
The pro EU politicians involved saw FOM as something that they had jointly sacrificed for - a lynch pin of their wider vision for the EU.
So it was an unshakeable redline.
FOM is one of the greatest things about the EU and the right to live and work in 27 other countries is why I voted to Remain.
Thankfully I managed to protect that because of my family but am really sad that many younger people can no longer enjoy that.
Shame on all those so called loving grandparents who robbed their grandchildren of that freedom !
Yes. The very opposite of this "aspiration" thing I keep hearing from Tories.
The aspiration is presumably to be sufficiently wealthy for FOM not to matter to you personally ?
It's far from the only reason for the generational divide on Brexit, but it is one where the division is stark.
What is clear is that the GOP establishment no longer have full control of the party. Trumpites can veto anything they propose, even their choice of Speaker
Given that this bunch are competely ignoring Trump himself, are they even Trumpites at this point? We need a new name clearly...
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly? The Fistful of Dollars? The Unforgiven? The Million Dollar Babies? The Dirty Harry’s?
What is clear is that the GOP establishment no longer have full control of the party. Trumpites can veto anything they propose, even their choice of Speaker
Given that this bunch are competely ignoring Trump himself, are they even Trumpites at this point? We need a new name clearly...
I think it’s not always a case of using a particular freedom but knowing it’s there if you’d like to .
No one likes to lose a freedom because of another’s vote .
Most GEs don’t encompass a fundamental change in the rights of citizens , this is why a drastic change in that front should need a super majority if it’s a referendum choice .
Of course because of the previous Scottish Indy ref that was set as a simple majority and then it became politically difficult to change the franchise for the EU ref. This might be unpopular with those who want independence but a decision of that magnitude needs a strong majority and it should need at least 55% .
Referendums can often be proxy votes for other things and there’s no denying that was an issue with the Brexit vote .
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
Exactly - if they want us and we don't want the €, they will find a way for us to stick with our own currency for yonks, like the Swedes have done. The question is whether they would want us, not what are the rules.
A minor derogation from FoM would have allowed 'Remain' to win in 2016. The EU would not do it. Yes, rules don't matter when the EU wants to do something, but when they don't they are a bunch of fundamentalists.
One problem is not seeing things from the other guys point of view.
In the case of the EU, the leading counties - France, Germany etc - saw FOM as a difficult thing. For them. The issues about wages for the low/no skilled apply there, as well as to the U.K.. Hence the riots in France on a regular basis.
What politicians, in those countries, saw was that if they compromised on FOM, everyone would want an “adjustment”.
The pro EU politicians involved saw FOM as something that they had jointly sacrificed for - a lynch pin of their wider vision for the EU.
So it was an unshakeable redline.
FOM is one of the greatest things about the EU and the right to live and work in 27 other countries is why I voted to Remain.
Thankfully I managed to protect that because of my family but am really sad that many younger people can no longer enjoy that.
Shame on all those so called loving grandparents who robbed their grandchildren of that freedom !
The grandkids will just have to make do with the house....
On which subject: I am seeing increasingly frantic reports in the media of falling house prices. This is being reported in the tone that falling house prices are a bad thing. My guess is that most people who have thought about the matter have a view on what the 'right' value of houses should be - no-one genuinely thinks it a good thing if house prices continue to significantly outpace inflation, nor to fall away to nothing. My view is that house prices are some way above this 'right' level*, and have been for some time - and therefore, falling house prices are to be welcomed (cautiously - clearly there are winners and losers to this, and we don't want too many losers losing too much too quickly - a 'rebalancing' is probably preferable to a 'shock'.) My guess is that this has gone from being a minority position (as it probably would have been, in say, 1992) to a majority position (i.e. most people would welcome lower house prices). But again, this is a guess, and I would be genuinely interested if there is any evidence to where the balance lies.
(I am (largely through good fortune) a homeowner, so am notionally well off as a result of high house prices - but it is entirely notional: I need exactly one house to live in; I have no particular desire to move to another house, but if I did that other house would be expensive too. But I would like, one day, my children to be able to afford to be homeowners.)
*The 'right' level, for me, is that a steady but not necessarily massively well-paid middle class job - teacher, say, or policeman - should pay enough to be able to afford a mortgage on a 'normal' house - a three bed semi in Timperley, say - without needing an inheritance or other intergenerational assistance.
Germany is now the third largest supplier of arms and aid to Ukraine. It's a shame the new determination didn't happen last summer; the war might otherwise be nearly over.
Germany's Marder IFV delivery to include Gepard anti-aircraft tanks - Spiegel
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
Exactly - if they want us and we don't want the €, they will find a way for us to stick with our own currency for yonks, like the Swedes have done. The question is whether they would want us, not what are the rules.
A minor derogation from FoM would have allowed 'Remain' to win in 2016. The EU would not do it. Yes, rules don't matter when the EU wants to do something, but when they don't they are a bunch of fundamentalists.
One problem is not seeing things from the other guys point of view.
In the case of the EU, the leading counties - France, Germany etc - saw FOM as a difficult thing. For them. The issues about wages for the low/no skilled apply there, as well as to the U.K.. Hence the riots in France on a regular basis.
What politicians, in those countries, saw was that if they compromised on FOM, everyone would want an “adjustment”.
The pro EU politicians involved saw FOM as something that they had jointly sacrificed for - a lynch pin of their wider vision for the EU.
So it was an unshakeable redline.
FOM is one of the greatest things about the EU and the right to live and work in 27 other countries is why I voted to Remain.
Thankfully I managed to protect that because of my family but am really sad that many younger people can no longer enjoy that.
Shame on all those so called loving grandparents who robbed their grandchildren of that freedom !
Indeed surveys in EU countries including France and Germany show people are overwhelmingly in favour of EU freedom of movement, and for most people it's the most valuable thing about being in the EU.
So valuable that the Remain campaign couldn't even try to sell it to the British people.
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
Exactly - if they want us and we don't want the €, they will find a way for us to stick with our own currency for yonks, like the Swedes have done. The question is whether they would want us, not what are the rules.
A minor derogation from FoM would have allowed 'Remain' to win in 2016. The EU would not do it. Yes, rules don't matter when the EU wants to do something, but when they don't they are a bunch of fundamentalists.
One problem is not seeing things from the other guys point of view.
In the case of the EU, the leading counties - France, Germany etc - saw FOM as a difficult thing. For them. The issues about wages for the low/no skilled apply there, as well as to the U.K.. Hence the riots in France on a regular basis.
What politicians, in those countries, saw was that if they compromised on FOM, everyone would want an “adjustment”.
The pro EU politicians involved saw FOM as something that they had jointly sacrificed for - a lynch pin of their wider vision for the EU.
So it was an unshakeable redline.
FOM is one of the greatest things about the EU and the right to live and work in 27 other countries is why I voted to Remain.
Thankfully I managed to protect that because of my family but am really sad that many younger people can no longer enjoy that.
Shame on all those so called loving grandparents who robbed their grandchildren of that freedom !
Yes. The very opposite of this "aspiration" thing I keep hearing from Tories.
The aspiration is presumably to be sufficiently wealthy for FOM not to matter to you personally ?
It's far from the only reason for the generational divide on Brexit, but it is one where the division is stark.
An often unnoticed fact is that while the age divide is most pronounced on voting intention eg over 65 graduates voted mostly Tory in 2019 and under 35 non graduates mostly voted Labour, on Brexit the divide was class.
Over 65 graduates voted mostly Remain in 2016 but under 35 non graduates mostly voted Leave
What is clear is that the GOP establishment no longer have full control of the party. Trumpites can veto anything they propose, even their choice of Speaker
Given that this bunch are competely ignoring Trump himself, are they even Trumpites at this point? We need a new name clearly...
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly? The Fistful of Dollars? The Unforgiven? The Million Dollar Babies? The Dirty Harry’s?
What is clear is that the GOP establishment no longer have full control of the party. Trumpites can veto anything they propose, even their choice of Speaker
Given that this bunch are competely ignoring Trump himself, are they even Trumpites at this point? We need a new name clearly...
At least McCarthyism has been give a new if entirely different lease of life. Much more entertaining this time round.
i.e. largely, we wish it was 2015 again, when we didn't have the hangover from covid lockdowns to pay for, or high energy prices due to a madman from Russia.
I would argue that fondness for the pre-Brexit era relates largely to issues which are not Brexit related.
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
Exactly - if they want us and we don't want the €, they will find a way for us to stick with our own currency for yonks, like the Swedes have done. The question is whether they would want us, not what are the rules.
A minor derogation from FoM would have allowed 'Remain' to win in 2016. The EU would not do it. Yes, rules don't matter when the EU wants to do something, but when they don't they are a bunch of fundamentalists.
One problem is not seeing things from the other guys point of view.
In the case of the EU, the leading counties - France, Germany etc - saw FOM as a difficult thing. For them. The issues about wages for the low/no skilled apply there, as well as to the U.K.. Hence the riots in France on a regular basis.
What politicians, in those countries, saw was that if they compromised on FOM, everyone would want an “adjustment”.
The pro EU politicians involved saw FOM as something that they had jointly sacrificed for - a lynch pin of their wider vision for the EU.
So it was an unshakeable redline.
FOM is one of the greatest things about the EU and the right to live and work in 27 other countries is why I voted to Remain.
Thankfully I managed to protect that because of my family but am really sad that many younger people can no longer enjoy that.
Shame on all those so called loving grandparents who robbed their grandchildren of that freedom !
Indeed surveys in EU countries including France and Germany show people are overwhelmingly in favour of EU freedom of movement, and for most people it's the most valuable thing about being in the EU.
So valuable that the Remain campaign couldn't even try to sell it to the British people.
The Remain campaign was woeful , something I think the vast majority would agree on .
What is clear is that the GOP establishment no longer have full control of the party. Trumpites can veto anything they propose, even their choice of Speaker
Given that this bunch are competely ignoring Trump himself, are they even Trumpites at this point? We need a new name clearly...
I think Kev will eventually prevail. I have £10 at evens bid on Betfair if anybody with the opposite view wants to match me.
Read that as 'Kiev' and thought: - there's betting on this?! how defined? how bad taste? - your're clearly a Russian troll for using 'Kiev', despite outwardly suggesting a Ukranian victory - but maybe you're really a sly Russian troll, meaning that 'Kiev' will prevail over 'Kyiv' - Am I overthinking this? - Oh, it's 'Kev' - This'll be the US House thing then
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
Exactly - if they want us and we don't want the €, they will find a way for us to stick with our own currency for yonks, like the Swedes have done. The question is whether they would want us, not what are the rules.
A minor derogation from FoM would have allowed 'Remain' to win in 2016. The EU would not do it. Yes, rules don't matter when the EU wants to do something, but when they don't they are a bunch of fundamentalists.
One problem is not seeing things from the other guys point of view.
In the case of the EU, the leading counties - France, Germany etc - saw FOM as a difficult thing. For them. The issues about wages for the low/no skilled apply there, as well as to the U.K.. Hence the riots in France on a regular basis.
What politicians, in those countries, saw was that if they compromised on FOM, everyone would want an “adjustment”.
The pro EU politicians involved saw FOM as something that they had jointly sacrificed for - a lynch pin of their wider vision for the EU.
So it was an unshakeable redline.
FOM is one of the greatest things about the EU and the right to live and work in 27 other countries is why I voted to Remain.
Thankfully I managed to protect that because of my family but am really sad that many younger people can no longer enjoy that.
Shame on all those so called loving grandparents who robbed their grandchildren of that freedom !
I'd be interested to see the stats in where Brits have gone to work abroad pre- and post-Brexit.
My guess (and it is only a guess) is that both pre- and post-Brexit, most working abroad is in Anglophone countries.
There are numerous barriers to working abroad, and the administrative ones are fairly trivial compared to the barriers of language, of culture, of the sheer bloody hassle of uprooting a family and moving them to a different part of the world. If it is worth overcoming those latter barriers, overcoming the right to work issue is fairly minor.
The reality is that for the vast majority of Brits, going to live and work in a country where English is not the first language is such a large barrier to overcome that having the right to do so is irrelevant.
If we had the right to live and work in Australia and New Zealand and Canada, that would be a different matter. But I think we gave that up in 1974.
Top 3 countries to emigrate to from the UK are Australia, the US and Canada. Even Spain only 4th
What is clear is that the GOP establishment no longer have full control of the party. Trumpites can veto anything they propose, even their choice of Speaker
Given that this bunch are competely ignoring Trump himself, are they even Trumpites at this point? We need a new name clearly...
At least McCarthyism has been give a new if entirely different lease of life. Much more entertaining this time round.
Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party? "No" Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party? "No" Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party? "No" Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party? "No" Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party? "No" Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party? "No" Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party? "No" Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party? "No" Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party? "No"
It's not completely impossible that a Democrat might get the gig...
Here’s another issue complicating matters and what could push speaker fight into next week: At least four Republican members have to leave town Friday because of some serious family issues they have to attend to, per source https://mobile.twitter.com/mkraju/status/1611123154658942977
(Btw, is that a euphemism for being in the mafia ?)
The three I've seen mentioned have been 1 medical, 1 funeral, 1 wife gave birth.
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
Exactly - if they want us and we don't want the €, they will find a way for us to stick with our own currency for yonks, like the Swedes have done. The question is whether they would want us, not what are the rules.
A minor derogation from FoM would have allowed 'Remain' to win in 2016. The EU would not do it. Yes, rules don't matter when the EU wants to do something, but when they don't they are a bunch of fundamentalists.
One problem is not seeing things from the other guys point of view.
In the case of the EU, the leading counties - France, Germany etc - saw FOM as a difficult thing. For them. The issues about wages for the low/no skilled apply there, as well as to the U.K.. Hence the riots in France on a regular basis.
What politicians, in those countries, saw was that if they compromised on FOM, everyone would want an “adjustment”.
The pro EU politicians involved saw FOM as something that they had jointly sacrificed for - a lynch pin of their wider vision for the EU.
So it was an unshakeable redline.
FOM is one of the greatest things about the EU and the right to live and work in 27 other countries is why I voted to Remain.
Thankfully I managed to protect that because of my family but am really sad that many younger people can no longer enjoy that.
Shame on all those so called loving grandparents who robbed their grandchildren of that freedom !
The grandkids will just have to make do with the house....
On which subject: I am seeing increasingly frantic reports in the media of falling house prices. This is being reported in the tone that falling house prices are a bad thing. My guess is that most people who have thought about the matter have a view on what the 'right' value of houses should be - no-one genuinely thinks it a good thing if house prices continue to significantly outpace inflation, nor to fall away to nothing. My view is that house prices are some way above this 'right' level*, and have been for some time - and therefore, falling house prices are to be welcomed (cautiously - clearly there are winners and losers to this, and we don't want too many losers losing too much too quickly - a 'rebalancing' is probably preferable to a 'shock'.) My guess is that this has gone from being a minority position (as it probably would have been, in say, 1992) to a majority position (i.e. most people would welcome lower house prices). But again, this is a guess, and I would be genuinely interested if there is any evidence to where the balance lies.
(I am (largely through good fortune) a homeowner, so am notionally well off as a result of high house prices - but it is entirely notional: I need exactly one house to live in; I have no particular desire to move to another house, but if I did that other house would be expensive too. But I would like, one day, my children to be able to afford to be homeowners.)
*The 'right' level, for me, is that a steady but not necessarily massively well-paid middle class job - teacher, say, or policeman - should pay enough to be able to afford a mortgage on a 'normal' house - a three bed semi in Timperley, say - without needing an inheritance or other intergenerational assistance.
The issues a significant drop would cause outweigh any benefits that would be felt apart from a few people in the right place at the right time, but a reduction of say 10% -and then stagnation for a couple of years feels like it would be a helpful rebalance.
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
Exactly - if they want us and we don't want the €, they will find a way for us to stick with our own currency for yonks, like the Swedes have done. The question is whether they would want us, not what are the rules.
A minor derogation from FoM would have allowed 'Remain' to win in 2016. The EU would not do it. Yes, rules don't matter when the EU wants to do something, but when they don't they are a bunch of fundamentalists.
One problem is not seeing things from the other guys point of view.
In the case of the EU, the leading counties - France, Germany etc - saw FOM as a difficult thing. For them. The issues about wages for the low/no skilled apply there, as well as to the U.K.. Hence the riots in France on a regular basis.
What politicians, in those countries, saw was that if they compromised on FOM, everyone would want an “adjustment”.
The pro EU politicians involved saw FOM as something that they had jointly sacrificed for - a lynch pin of their wider vision for the EU.
So it was an unshakeable redline.
FOM is one of the greatest things about the EU and the right to live and work in 27 other countries is why I voted to Remain.
Thankfully I managed to protect that because of my family but am really sad that many younger people can no longer enjoy that.
Shame on all those so called loving grandparents who robbed their grandchildren of that freedom !
I'd be interested to see the stats in where Brits have gone to work abroad pre- and post-Brexit.
My guess (and it is only a guess) is that both pre- and post-Brexit, most working abroad is in Anglophone countries.
There are numerous barriers to working abroad, and the administrative ones are fairly trivial compared to the barriers of language, of culture, of the sheer bloody hassle of uprooting a family and moving them to a different part of the world. If it is worth overcoming those latter barriers, overcoming the right to work issue is fairly minor.
The reality is that for the vast majority of Brits, going to live and work in a country where English is not the first language is such a large barrier to overcome that having the right to do so is irrelevant.
If we had the right to live and work in Australia and New Zealand and Canada, that would be a different matter. But I think we gave that up in 1974.
Top 3 countries to emigrate to from the UK are Australia, the US and Canada. Even Spain only 4th
To be honest I am astonished at the way that in nearly every high end business in Europe, they will conduct business in English, if there is a single English only speaker in the room.
Friends have commented that they have had to ask people to stop so that they can practise their language skills.
i.e. largely, we wish it was 2015 again, when we didn't have the hangover from covid lockdowns to pay for, or high energy prices due to a madman from Russia.
I would argue that fondness for the pre-Brexit era relates largely to issues which are not Brexit related.
That has a fair bit of truth to it, but in turn one might argue a fondness for the 1950s era largely on issues which are not central to the UK-EU relationship drove support for Brexit!
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
Exactly - if they want us and we don't want the €, they will find a way for us to stick with our own currency for yonks, like the Swedes have done. The question is whether they would want us, not what are the rules.
A minor derogation from FoM would have allowed 'Remain' to win in 2016. The EU would not do it. Yes, rules don't matter when the EU wants to do something, but when they don't they are a bunch of fundamentalists.
One problem is not seeing things from the other guys point of view.
In the case of the EU, the leading counties - France, Germany etc - saw FOM as a difficult thing. For them. The issues about wages for the low/no skilled apply there, as well as to the U.K.. Hence the riots in France on a regular basis.
What politicians, in those countries, saw was that if they compromised on FOM, everyone would want an “adjustment”.
The pro EU politicians involved saw FOM as something that they had jointly sacrificed for - a lynch pin of their wider vision for the EU.
So it was an unshakeable redline.
FOM is one of the greatest things about the EU and the right to live and work in 27 other countries is why I voted to Remain.
Thankfully I managed to protect that because of my family but am really sad that many younger people can no longer enjoy that.
Shame on all those so called loving grandparents who robbed their grandchildren of that freedom !
The grandkids will just have to make do with the house....
On which subject: I am seeing increasingly frantic reports in the media of falling house prices. This is being reported in the tone that falling house prices are a bad thing. My guess is that most people who have thought about the matter have a view on what the 'right' value of houses should be - no-one genuinely thinks it a good thing if house prices continue to significantly outpace inflation, nor to fall away to nothing. My view is that house prices are some way above this 'right' level*, and have been for some time - and therefore, falling house prices are to be welcomed (cautiously - clearly there are winners and losers to this, and we don't want too many losers losing too much too quickly - a 'rebalancing' is probably preferable to a 'shock'.) My guess is that this has gone from being a minority position (as it probably would have been, in say, 1992) to a majority position (i.e. most people would welcome lower house prices). But again, this is a guess, and I would be genuinely interested if there is any evidence to where the balance lies.
(I am (largely through good fortune) a homeowner, so am notionally well off as a result of high house prices - but it is entirely notional: I need exactly one house to live in; I have no particular desire to move to another house, but if I did that other house would be expensive too. But I would like, one day, my children to be able to afford to be homeowners.)
*The 'right' level, for me, is that a steady but not necessarily massively well-paid middle class job - teacher, say, or policeman - should pay enough to be able to afford a mortgage on a 'normal' house - a three bed semi in Timperley, say - without needing an inheritance or other intergenerational assistance.
The issues a significant drop would cause outweigh any benefits that would be felt apart from a few people in the right place at the right time, but a reduction of say 10% -and then stagnation for a couple of years feels like it would be a helpful rebalance.
I think it’s not always a case of using a particular freedom but knowing it’s there if you’d like to .
No one likes to lose a freedom because of another’s vote .
Most GEs don’t encompass a fundamental change in the rights of citizens , this is why a drastic change in that front should need a super majority if it’s a referendum choice .
Of course because of the previous Scottish Indy ref that was set as a simple majority and then it became politically difficult to change the franchise for the EU ref. This might be unpopular with those who want independence but a decision of that magnitude needs a strong majority and it should need at least 55% .
Referendums can often be proxy votes for other things and there’s no denying that was an issue with the Brexit vote .
I’m sure if a putative Scottish Indy ref was set at a minimum Yes vote of 55% and it ended up 54/46% Y/N that would settle the issue for another generation. Look how well finagling the 1979 devo ref worked out.
I’d adapt the old saw about democracy: 50% +1 is the worst form of referendum, apart from all the others.
While Leon is safely asleep hungover, perhaps it's safe to mention AI here? For fans of the Diplomacy game (but definitely of no interest to anyone else) this video of a guy speed-playing six versions of Meta's Cicero in a press game is worth a watch:
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
Exactly - if they want us and we don't want the €, they will find a way for us to stick with our own currency for yonks, like the Swedes have done. The question is whether they would want us, not what are the rules.
A minor derogation from FoM would have allowed 'Remain' to win in 2016. The EU would not do it. Yes, rules don't matter when the EU wants to do something, but when they don't they are a bunch of fundamentalists.
One problem is not seeing things from the other guys point of view.
In the case of the EU, the leading counties - France, Germany etc - saw FOM as a difficult thing. For them. The issues about wages for the low/no skilled apply there, as well as to the U.K.. Hence the riots in France on a regular basis.
What politicians, in those countries, saw was that if they compromised on FOM, everyone would want an “adjustment”.
The pro EU politicians involved saw FOM as something that they had jointly sacrificed for - a lynch pin of their wider vision for the EU.
So it was an unshakeable redline.
FOM is one of the greatest things about the EU and the right to live and work in 27 other countries is why I voted to Remain.
Thankfully I managed to protect that because of my family but am really sad that many younger people can no longer enjoy that.
Shame on all those so called loving grandparents who robbed their grandchildren of that freedom !
I'd be interested to see the stats in where Brits have gone to work abroad pre- and post-Brexit.
My guess (and it is only a guess) is that both pre- and post-Brexit, most working abroad is in Anglophone countries.
There are numerous barriers to working abroad, and the administrative ones are fairly trivial compared to the barriers of language, of culture, of the sheer bloody hassle of uprooting a family and moving them to a different part of the world. If it is worth overcoming those latter barriers, overcoming the right to work issue is fairly minor.
The reality is that for the vast majority of Brits, going to live and work in a country where English is not the first language is such a large barrier to overcome that having the right to do so is irrelevant.
If we had the right to live and work in Australia and New Zealand and Canada, that would be a different matter. But I think we gave that up in 1974.
Quite. FOM was great in theory for Brits, but in practice they voted with their feet. There are more Brits in Australia alone than in the entire EU.
FOM was great in practice for the EU as nearly 4 times as many EU citizens have made their lives in the U.K. than vice versa.
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
Exactly - if they want us and we don't want the €, they will find a way for us to stick with our own currency for yonks, like the Swedes have done. The question is whether they would want us, not what are the rules.
A minor derogation from FoM would have allowed 'Remain' to win in 2016. The EU would not do it. Yes, rules don't matter when the EU wants to do something, but when they don't they are a bunch of fundamentalists.
One problem is not seeing things from the other guys point of view.
In the case of the EU, the leading counties - France, Germany etc - saw FOM as a difficult thing. For them. The issues about wages for the low/no skilled apply there, as well as to the U.K.. Hence the riots in France on a regular basis.
What politicians, in those countries, saw was that if they compromised on FOM, everyone would want an “adjustment”.
The pro EU politicians involved saw FOM as something that they had jointly sacrificed for - a lynch pin of their wider vision for the EU.
So it was an unshakeable redline.
FOM is one of the greatest things about the EU and the right to live and work in 27 other countries is why I voted to Remain.
Thankfully I managed to protect that because of my family but am really sad that many younger people can no longer enjoy that.
Shame on all those so called loving grandparents who robbed their grandchildren of that freedom !
Yes. The very opposite of this "aspiration" thing I keep hearing from Tories.
The aspiration is presumably to be sufficiently wealthy for FOM not to matter to you personally ?
It's far from the only reason for the generational divide on Brexit, but it is one where the division is stark.
An often unnoticed fact is that while the age divide is most pronounced on voting intention eg over 65 graduates voted mostly Tory in 2019 and under 35 non graduates mostly voted Labour, on Brexit the divide was class.
Over 65 graduates voted mostly Remain in 2016 but under 35 non graduates mostly voted Leave
While Leon is safely asleep hungover, perhaps it's safe to mention AI here? For fans of the Diplomacy game (but definitely of no interest to anyone else) this video of a guy speed-playing six versions of Meta's Cicero in a press game is worth a watch:
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
Exactly - if they want us and we don't want the €, they will find a way for us to stick with our own currency for yonks, like the Swedes have done. The question is whether they would want us, not what are the rules.
A minor derogation from FoM would have allowed 'Remain' to win in 2016. The EU would not do it. Yes, rules don't matter when the EU wants to do something, but when they don't they are a bunch of fundamentalists.
One problem is not seeing things from the other guys point of view.
In the case of the EU, the leading counties - France, Germany etc - saw FOM as a difficult thing. For them. The issues about wages for the low/no skilled apply there, as well as to the U.K.. Hence the riots in France on a regular basis.
What politicians, in those countries, saw was that if they compromised on FOM, everyone would want an “adjustment”.
The pro EU politicians involved saw FOM as something that they had jointly sacrificed for - a lynch pin of their wider vision for the EU.
So it was an unshakeable redline.
FOM is one of the greatest things about the EU and the right to live and work in 27 other countries is why I voted to Remain.
Thankfully I managed to protect that because of my family but am really sad that many younger people can no longer enjoy that.
Shame on all those so called loving grandparents who robbed their grandchildren of that freedom !
I'd be interested to see the stats in where Brits have gone to work abroad pre- and post-Brexit.
My guess (and it is only a guess) is that both pre- and post-Brexit, most working abroad is in Anglophone countries.
There are numerous barriers to working abroad, and the administrative ones are fairly trivial compared to the barriers of language, of culture, of the sheer bloody hassle of uprooting a family and moving them to a different part of the world. If it is worth overcoming those latter barriers, overcoming the right to work issue is fairly minor.
The reality is that for the vast majority of Brits, going to live and work in a country where English is not the first language is such a large barrier to overcome that having the right to do so is irrelevant.
If we had the right to live and work in Australia and New Zealand and Canada, that would be a different matter. But I think we gave that up in 1974.
Top 3 countries to emigrate to from the UK are Australia, the US and Canada. Even Spain only 4th
A very interesting list. The top EU countries on it are Spain 4th (primarily not freedom of movement for work) and Ireland 7th (freedom of movement rights not deriving from EU membership). The top 10 is rounded out by Germany, Italy and Cyprus - I'd suspect that only one of these is primarily employment-driven.
What is clear is that the GOP establishment no longer have full control of the party. Trumpites can veto anything they propose, even their choice of Speaker
Given that this bunch are competely ignoring Trump himself, are they even Trumpites at this point? We need a new name clearly...
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly? The Fistful of Dollars? The Unforgiven? The Million Dollar Babies? The Dirty Harry’s?
Tories only need to increase an average of a point a month and Labour slip a point a month this year for Rishi to be back in the game for the election next year.
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
Exactly - if they want us and we don't want the €, they will find a way for us to stick with our own currency for yonks, like the Swedes have done. The question is whether they would want us, not what are the rules.
A minor derogation from FoM would have allowed 'Remain' to win in 2016. The EU would not do it. Yes, rules don't matter when the EU wants to do something, but when they don't they are a bunch of fundamentalists.
One problem is not seeing things from the other guys point of view.
In the case of the EU, the leading counties - France, Germany etc - saw FOM as a difficult thing. For them. The issues about wages for the low/no skilled apply there, as well as to the U.K.. Hence the riots in France on a regular basis.
What politicians, in those countries, saw was that if they compromised on FOM, everyone would want an “adjustment”.
The pro EU politicians involved saw FOM as something that they had jointly sacrificed for - a lynch pin of their wider vision for the EU.
So it was an unshakeable redline.
FOM is one of the greatest things about the EU and the right to live and work in 27 other countries is why I voted to Remain.
Thankfully I managed to protect that because of my family but am really sad that many younger people can no longer enjoy that.
Shame on all those so called loving grandparents who robbed their grandchildren of that freedom !
The grandkids will just have to make do with the house....
On which subject: I am seeing increasingly frantic reports in the media of falling house prices. This is being reported in the tone that falling house prices are a bad thing. My guess is that most people who have thought about the matter have a view on what the 'right' value of houses should be - no-one genuinely thinks it a good thing if house prices continue to significantly outpace inflation, nor to fall away to nothing. My view is that house prices are some way above this 'right' level*, and have been for some time - and therefore, falling house prices are to be welcomed (cautiously - clearly there are winners and losers to this, and we don't want too many losers losing too much too quickly - a 'rebalancing' is probably preferable to a 'shock'.) My guess is that this has gone from being a minority position (as it probably would have been, in say, 1992) to a majority position (i.e. most people would welcome lower house prices). But again, this is a guess, and I would be genuinely interested if there is any evidence to where the balance lies.
(I am (largely through good fortune) a homeowner, so am notionally well off as a result of high house prices - but it is entirely notional: I need exactly one house to live in; I have no particular desire to move to another house, but if I did that other house would be expensive too. But I would like, one day, my children to be able to afford to be homeowners.)
*The 'right' level, for me, is that a steady but not necessarily massively well-paid middle class job - teacher, say, or policeman - should pay enough to be able to afford a mortgage on a 'normal' house - a three bed semi in Timperley, say - without needing an inheritance or other intergenerational assistance.
To get with the programme you have to know that there are three things which are catastrophic:
Rising house prices Falling house prices Static house prices
and two things which are shameful, disastrous and the end of civilization:
Building more houses and Not building more houses.
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
Exactly - if they want us and we don't want the €, they will find a way for us to stick with our own currency for yonks, like the Swedes have done. The question is whether they would want us, not what are the rules.
A minor derogation from FoM would have allowed 'Remain' to win in 2016. The EU would not do it. Yes, rules don't matter when the EU wants to do something, but when they don't they are a bunch of fundamentalists.
One problem is not seeing things from the other guys point of view.
In the case of the EU, the leading counties - France, Germany etc - saw FOM as a difficult thing. For them. The issues about wages for the low/no skilled apply there, as well as to the U.K.. Hence the riots in France on a regular basis.
What politicians, in those countries, saw was that if they compromised on FOM, everyone would want an “adjustment”.
The pro EU politicians involved saw FOM as something that they had jointly sacrificed for - a lynch pin of their wider vision for the EU.
So it was an unshakeable redline.
FOM is one of the greatest things about the EU and the right to live and work in 27 other countries is why I voted to Remain.
Thankfully I managed to protect that because of my family but am really sad that many younger people can no longer enjoy that.
Shame on all those so called loving grandparents who robbed their grandchildren of that freedom !
I'd be interested to see the stats in where Brits have gone to work abroad pre- and post-Brexit.
My guess (and it is only a guess) is that both pre- and post-Brexit, most working abroad is in Anglophone countries.
There are numerous barriers to working abroad, and the administrative ones are fairly trivial compared to the barriers of language, of culture, of the sheer bloody hassle of uprooting a family and moving them to a different part of the world. If it is worth overcoming those latter barriers, overcoming the right to work issue is fairly minor.
The reality is that for the vast majority of Brits, going to live and work in a country where English is not the first language is such a large barrier to overcome that having the right to do so is irrelevant.
If we had the right to live and work in Australia and New Zealand and Canada, that would be a different matter. But I think we gave that up in 1974.
Quite. FOM was great in theory for Brits, but in practice they voted with their feet. There are more Brits in Australia alone than in the entire EU.
FOM was great in practice for the EU as nearly 4 times as many EU citizens have made their lives in the U.K. than vice versa.
But we need immigrants to come in due to our demographics......as UK plc we don't want our young to move to the EU but we do/should want them to come here.
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
Exactly - if they want us and we don't want the €, they will find a way for us to stick with our own currency for yonks, like the Swedes have done. The question is whether they would want us, not what are the rules.
A minor derogation from FoM would have allowed 'Remain' to win in 2016. The EU would not do it. Yes, rules don't matter when the EU wants to do something, but when they don't they are a bunch of fundamentalists.
One problem is not seeing things from the other guys point of view.
In the case of the EU, the leading counties - France, Germany etc - saw FOM as a difficult thing. For them. The issues about wages for the low/no skilled apply there, as well as to the U.K.. Hence the riots in France on a regular basis.
What politicians, in those countries, saw was that if they compromised on FOM, everyone would want an “adjustment”.
The pro EU politicians involved saw FOM as something that they had jointly sacrificed for - a lynch pin of their wider vision for the EU.
So it was an unshakeable redline.
FOM is one of the greatest things about the EU and the right to live and work in 27 other countries is why I voted to Remain.
Thankfully I managed to protect that because of my family but am really sad that many younger people can no longer enjoy that.
Shame on all those so called loving grandparents who robbed their grandchildren of that freedom !
Indeed surveys in EU countries including France and Germany show people are overwhelmingly in favour of EU freedom of movement, and for most people it's the most valuable thing about being in the EU.
But - genuine question - why? How many genuinely move? And how do they do it? Is language just not an issue for our continental counterparts? On my recent jaunt to the North of Finland, I met a Frenchman who had moved there from Lyon. (Lyon, was apparently, too crowded. He must have had a pretty low bar for 'too crowded' if he had to go all the way to Lapland for this criterion to be met. Anyway.) He had been there for 2 years. I asked him how he had managed with the language. He told me he liked a challenge, but had other things he wanted to do with his time than learn Finnish - he got by (including working) using English.
I am utterly baffled by this approach. How can you get by, working, when you don't have the same language as your co-workers? And indeed how can you get by using a language which is neither your first language nor theirs? And, as someone to whom foreign languages have always proved utterly ungraspable*, how do you begin to operate in a language which is not your own? Clearly people do. I just don't understand how.
*I got an A in GCSE German back in the early 90s. But this was based entirely on my ability to speak and write the language, which could be memorised with a bit of work. If I was trying to read or, especially, listen to the language, I largely had to guess what was going on. I just don't understand how people's brains can begin to process language which isn't their own.
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
Exactly - if they want us and we don't want the €, they will find a way for us to stick with our own currency for yonks, like the Swedes have done. The question is whether they would want us, not what are the rules.
A minor derogation from FoM would have allowed 'Remain' to win in 2016. The EU would not do it. Yes, rules don't matter when the EU wants to do something, but when they don't they are a bunch of fundamentalists.
One problem is not seeing things from the other guys point of view.
In the case of the EU, the leading counties - France, Germany etc - saw FOM as a difficult thing. For them. The issues about wages for the low/no skilled apply there, as well as to the U.K.. Hence the riots in France on a regular basis.
What politicians, in those countries, saw was that if they compromised on FOM, everyone would want an “adjustment”.
The pro EU politicians involved saw FOM as something that they had jointly sacrificed for - a lynch pin of their wider vision for the EU.
So it was an unshakeable redline.
FOM is one of the greatest things about the EU and the right to live and work in 27 other countries is why I voted to Remain.
Thankfully I managed to protect that because of my family but am really sad that many younger people can no longer enjoy that.
Shame on all those so called loving grandparents who robbed their grandchildren of that freedom !
The grandkids will just have to make do with the house....
On which subject: I am seeing increasingly frantic reports in the media of falling house prices. This is being reported in the tone that falling house prices are a bad thing. My guess is that most people who have thought about the matter have a view on what the 'right' value of houses should be - no-one genuinely thinks it a good thing if house prices continue to significantly outpace inflation, nor to fall away to nothing. My view is that house prices are some way above this 'right' level*, and have been for some time - and therefore, falling house prices are to be welcomed (cautiously - clearly there are winners and losers to this, and we don't want too many losers losing too much too quickly - a 'rebalancing' is probably preferable to a 'shock'.) My guess is that this has gone from being a minority position (as it probably would have been, in say, 1992) to a majority position (i.e. most people would welcome lower house prices). But again, this is a guess, and I would be genuinely interested if there is any evidence to where the balance lies.
(I am (largely through good fortune) a homeowner, so am notionally well off as a result of high house prices - but it is entirely notional: I need exactly one house to live in; I have no particular desire to move to another house, but if I did that other house would be expensive too. But I would like, one day, my children to be able to afford to be homeowners.)
*The 'right' level, for me, is that a steady but not necessarily massively well-paid middle class job - teacher, say, or policeman - should pay enough to be able to afford a mortgage on a 'normal' house - a three bed semi in Timperley, say - without needing an inheritance or other intergenerational assistance.
Apologies to keep bringing up same issue, but the fundamental problem is that house prices are falling, whilst build costs are rising, due to labour cost inflation and undersupply, and the rising cost of materials, and there is an increase in regulation around new building. Until build costs fall to the same degree as house prices, we are in deep trouble, because no houses can be built: the development industry will crash in large parts of the country. The only option open to the government is to deregulate, but they are heading in the opposite direction, more and more regulation, it is a bureaucrats bonanza - for instance, flats above a certain height now need to have two stairwells so there is an alternative fire exit.
I agree that house prices are too high, but ultimately house price inflation cannot be disentangled from general inflation. What I do think though is that undersupply in large parts of the country means that prices cannot fall that much, particularly given population increase.
Permission to be surprised how small that shift is, Sir?
OK, it's one data point, and People Polling has never been tested in battle. But if rejoin is ahead (albeit within MoE and with a lot of don't knows) on "rejoin even after all the downsides are listed", that feels significant.
Except they don't list all the downsides. A commitment to join the Euro should be added to that list because even though it is something we might try to delay indefinitely, it would still be a legal commitment.
I can see this issue is going to be a major battlefield once the rejoin campaign starts. As I've said previously, as someone who doesn't want us to join the euro in the foreseeable future, the legal commitment to join at some point - with the option to defer indefinitely - doesn't keep me awake at night.
You're very optimistic if you think we'll be offered that. The EU will not take any risks on us leaving for a second time, and the best way for them to ensure that is for us to join the euro on day one of membership.
That is impossible under the rules governing euro membership. These rules are designed to ensure that the euro isn't compromised by economies joining before they are ready. I actually think the EU will be quite wary of us joining the Euro given how we crashed out of the ERM. Protecting the Euro is much more important to the EU than stopping us leaving, they're not going to endanger the former in pursuit of the latter.
An interesting interpretation of the EU's historical actions. In particular "it's the rules" has never stopped them doing what they want to do.
Exactly - if they want us and we don't want the €, they will find a way for us to stick with our own currency for yonks, like the Swedes have done. The question is whether they would want us, not what are the rules.
A minor derogation from FoM would have allowed 'Remain' to win in 2016. The EU would not do it. Yes, rules don't matter when the EU wants to do something, but when they don't they are a bunch of fundamentalists.
One problem is not seeing things from the other guys point of view.
In the case of the EU, the leading counties - France, Germany etc - saw FOM as a difficult thing. For them. The issues about wages for the low/no skilled apply there, as well as to the U.K.. Hence the riots in France on a regular basis.
What politicians, in those countries, saw was that if they compromised on FOM, everyone would want an “adjustment”.
The pro EU politicians involved saw FOM as something that they had jointly sacrificed for - a lynch pin of their wider vision for the EU.
So it was an unshakeable redline.
FOM is one of the greatest things about the EU and the right to live and work in 27 other countries is why I voted to Remain.
Thankfully I managed to protect that because of my family but am really sad that many younger people can no longer enjoy that.
Shame on all those so called loving grandparents who robbed their grandchildren of that freedom !
Part of the problem is the unshakeable belief that admitting there is an issue from either side is verboten.
We got here via a series of decisions that built a structure. In the UK it was something like
1) Deregulated labour market 2) FOM 3) An insistence on a labour market with no barriers to entry. 4) Shout down anyone who raised issues. 5) Refusal to discuss changes to the labour market system 6) BREXIT
In France it was something like
1) Highly stratified labour market - part is incredibly protected. 2) FOM 3) Point at 1, ignore those not protected. 4) No FREXIT, but a bunch voting for the National Ramblers.
I by no means think the current FOM is perfect . And changes should be made but in other EU countries FOM isn’t such a divisive issue .
The immigration from outside the EU is the biggest issue .
The point was making, is that other countries adapted or had existing policies that altered the effects of FOM.
The UK chose, repeatedly, to do nothing about the issues which were raised.
If we do nothing about those issues, it is highly probable that FOM won't be reintroduced.
I agree - the reaction was one of perceived “unfairness”. “EU citizens coming over here and getting free health care, benefits, taking up school places and social housing.” The fact that the overwhelming majority were young workers making net contributions to the economy was not seen. Being denounced as racist for raising these issues (in one of the least racist countries on the planet) was not a persuasive argument. In many ways, like Trump, BREXIT was a brick through the window, NOW will you listen?
Comments
Edit - and for clarification, they have now had 11 votes without an outcome. Also they don't need 50% of all representatives, they need 50% of all representatives who vote for somebody. (ie absent, or abstein reduces the threshold)
https://mobile.twitter.com/jim_newell/status/1611153923942793217
Impossible, surely? They can't be sworn in until one is elected.
Here’s another issue complicating matters and what could push speaker fight into next week: At least four Republican members have to leave town Friday because of some serious family issues they have to attend to, per source
https://mobile.twitter.com/mkraju/status/1611123154658942977
(Btw, is that a euphemism for being in the mafia ?)
In the case of the EU, the leading counties - France, Germany etc - saw FOM as a difficult thing. For them. The issues about wages for the low/no skilled apply there, as well as to the U.K.. Hence the riots in France on a regular basis.
What politicians, in those countries, saw was that if they compromised on FOM, everyone would want an “adjustment”.
The pro EU politicians involved saw FOM as something that they had jointly sacrificed for - a lynch pin of their wider vision for the EU.
So it was an unshakeable redline.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5192bvUS7k
The Freedom Caucus alias a bunch of nutjobs will cause mayhem . They will want all manner of concessions to raise that which the Democrats will balk at .
It’s pretty clear that the GOP are a clear and present danger to the USA and it’s a tragedy that they have the majority in the House .
The stupidity of a section of voters to keep voting against their own interests beggars belief !
It is hard to see him backing down without serious moves by other GOP leaders to get him to step aside and by more of his caucus deserting him - as long as the current deadlock holds I don’t think he’s going anywhere.
Thing to watch for is if others start peeling away beyond the 20 - that’s when it gets serious for him.
Thankfully I managed to protect that because of my family but am really sad that many younger people can no longer enjoy that.
Shame on all those so called loving grandparents who robbed their grandchildren of that freedom !
It's like saying here you really, really want to be a Returning Officer.....
In theory it’s an exciting time, but now Sunak has got his feet under the table and proven to be singularly uninspiring it feels like we’re now in a holding pattern where the Tories are still crap, Labour are still looking like the next government and the national outlook for the next 12 months isn’t feeling very rosy.
I am considering stepping away from everything politics-related for a few months, certainly on the UK side at least, until we get to the autumn and things start to get more real re the next GE. The last few years have just been exhausting politically. It seems like a sensible time to take a break…
I don't personally think that the benefit system was that big a draw, and mostly the Eastern European migration to the UK was driven by people wanting to work and be paid in the UK as this was significantly more lucrative than staying at home. But the perception was very different. The inability to obtain a council house came to be blamed on freedom of movement.
We got here via a series of decisions that built a structure. In the UK it was something like
1) Deregulated labour market
2) FOM
3) An insistence on a labour market with no barriers to entry.
4) Shout down anyone who raised issues.
5) Refusal to discuss changes to the labour market system
6) BREXIT
In France it was something like
1) Highly stratified labour market - part is incredibly protected.
2) FOM
3) Point at 1, ignore those not protected.
4) No FREXIT, but a bunch voting for the National Ramblers.
Many of the failings blamed on the EU were in fact UK government failures to invest in services and not address the issue of how the benefit system worked .
Maybe the simulation just resets forward and then itself goes into sleep mode until you wake up?
The Speaker in the House of Representatives is effectively a party political position, carrying a great deal of power (though not for McCarthy, since he has already bargained away a good deal of that power in an attempt to get elected).
The immigration from outside the EU is the biggest issue .
My guess (and it is only a guess) is that both pre- and post-Brexit, most working abroad is in Anglophone countries.
There are numerous barriers to working abroad, and the administrative ones are fairly trivial compared to the barriers of language, of culture, of the sheer bloody hassle of uprooting a family and moving them to a different part of the world.
If it is worth overcoming those latter barriers, overcoming the right to work issue is fairly minor.
The reality is that for the vast majority of Brits, going to live and work in a country where English is not the first language is such a large barrier to overcome that having the right to do so is irrelevant.
If we had the right to live and work in Australia and New Zealand and Canada, that would be a different matter. But I think we gave that up in 1974.
Most Speakers never had a realistic chance of being President.
"Things have got worse": 25%
Economy/rising costs: 19%
"We were lied to" / hasn't turned out as expected: 11%
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2023/01/06/why-have-some-leave-voters-changed-their-mind-brex https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1611317751611641856/photo/1
The UK chose, repeatedly, to do nothing about the issues which were raised.
If we do nothing about those issues, it is highly probable that FOM won't be reintroduced.
It's far from the only reason for the generational divide on Brexit, but it is one where the division is stark.
The Fistful of Dollars?
The Unforgiven?
The Million Dollar Babies?
The Dirty Harry’s?
The Dirty Harry’s for me 🚬
Yikes.
No one likes to lose a freedom because of another’s vote .
Most GEs don’t encompass a fundamental change in the rights of citizens , this is why a drastic change in that front should need a super majority if it’s a referendum choice .
Of course because of the previous Scottish Indy ref that was set as a simple majority and then it became politically difficult to change the franchise for the EU ref. This might be unpopular with those who want independence but a decision of that magnitude needs a strong majority and it should need at least 55% .
Referendums can often be proxy votes for other things and there’s no denying that was an issue with the Brexit vote .
My guess is that most people who have thought about the matter have a view on what the 'right' value of houses should be - no-one genuinely thinks it a good thing if house prices continue to significantly outpace inflation, nor to fall away to nothing.
My view is that house prices are some way above this 'right' level*, and have been for some time - and therefore, falling house prices are to be welcomed (cautiously - clearly there are winners and losers to this, and we don't want too many losers losing too much too quickly - a 'rebalancing' is probably preferable to a 'shock'.)
My guess is that this has gone from being a minority position (as it probably would have been, in say, 1992) to a majority position (i.e. most people would welcome lower house prices). But again, this is a guess, and I would be genuinely interested if there is any evidence to where the balance lies.
(I am (largely through good fortune) a homeowner, so am notionally well off as a result of high house prices - but it is entirely notional: I need exactly one house to live in; I have no particular desire to move to another house, but if I did that other house would be expensive too. But I would like, one day, my children to be able to afford to be homeowners.)
*The 'right' level, for me, is that a steady but not necessarily massively well-paid middle class job - teacher, say, or policeman - should pay enough to be able to afford a mortgage on a 'normal' house - a three bed semi in Timperley, say - without needing an inheritance or other intergenerational assistance.
It's a shame the new determination didn't happen last summer; the war might otherwise be nearly over.
Germany's Marder IFV delivery to include Gepard anti-aircraft tanks - Spiegel
40 Marders will be supplied in Q1 2023, creating a mechanized battalion, acc to Spiegel. Additionally, Germany wants to provide more Gepards, in addition to 30 already delivered
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1611318469361864704
Over 65 graduates voted mostly Remain in 2016 but under 35 non graduates mostly voted Leave
- Lab still more than 20 points ahead;
- Starmer still leads on Best PM;
- Tories have Big deficits on approval on all main issues (see other polls). https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1611314689052483584
I would argue that fondness for the pre-Brexit era relates largely to issues which are not Brexit related.
- there's betting on this?! how defined? how bad taste?
- your're clearly a Russian troll for using 'Kiev', despite outwardly suggesting a Ukranian victory
- but maybe you're really a sly Russian troll, meaning that 'Kiev' will prevail over 'Kyiv'
- Am I overthinking this?
- Oh, it's 'Kev'
- This'll be the US House thing then
https://www.fox-moving.com/top-10-countries-brits-emigrate/
Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party? "No"
Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party? "No"
Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party? "No"
Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party? "No"
Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party? "No"
Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party? "No"
Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party? "No"
Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party? "No"
China Covid: wave of celebrity deaths sparks doubt over actual toll
Users of Chinese social media have questioned the country’s official statistics after a surge in the number of public figures dying
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/06/china-covid-wave-of-celebrity-deaths-sparks-concern-over-actual-death-toll
"China has recorded only 22 Covid deaths since December"
Friends have commented that they have had to ask people to stop so that they can practise their language skills.
I’d adapt the old saw about democracy: 50% +1 is the worst form of referendum, apart from all the others.
FOM was great in practice for the EU as nearly 4 times as many EU citizens have made their lives in the U.K. than vice versa.
Quite doable against Starmer.
Rising house prices
Falling house prices
Static house prices
and two things which are shameful, disastrous and the end of civilization:
Building more houses
and
Not building more houses.
How else would the media pages be filled?
On my recent jaunt to the North of Finland, I met a Frenchman who had moved there from Lyon. (Lyon, was apparently, too crowded. He must have had a pretty low bar for 'too crowded' if he had to go all the way to Lapland for this criterion to be met. Anyway.) He had been there for 2 years. I asked him how he had managed with the language. He told me he liked a challenge, but had other things he wanted to do with his time than learn Finnish - he got by (including working) using English.
I am utterly baffled by this approach. How can you get by, working, when you don't have the same language as your co-workers? And indeed how can you get by using a language which is neither your first language nor theirs? And, as someone to whom foreign languages have always proved utterly ungraspable*, how do you begin to operate in a language which is not your own?
Clearly people do. I just don't understand how.
*I got an A in GCSE German back in the early 90s. But this was based entirely on my ability to speak and write the language, which could be memorised with a bit of work. If I was trying to read or, especially, listen to the language, I largely had to guess what was going on. I just don't understand how people's brains can begin to process language which isn't their own.
I agree that house prices are too high, but ultimately house price inflation cannot be disentangled from general inflation. What I do think though is that undersupply in large parts of the country means that prices cannot fall that much, particularly given population increase.