Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

After 3 days the House of Representatives is still without a Speaker – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,753
edited January 2023 in General
imageAfter 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.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • Options
    LennonLennon Posts: 1,747
    edited January 2023
    First. Unlike McCarthy.

    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)
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,906
    Dissolve the Congress, and hold a fresh general election.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,702
    edited January 2023
    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'
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,535

    Dissolve the Congress, and hold a fresh general election.

    How can you dissolve something which is yet to be constituted ?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,535
    Overheard a few minutes ago, George Santos walking through the speaker’s lobby: “You can’t make this crap up”
    https://mobile.twitter.com/jim_newell/status/1611153923942793217
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,458
    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
  • Options
    numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 5,642

    Dissolve the Congress, and hold a fresh general election.

    Ah the advantages of a Westminster system rather than the curious hodgepodge they have stateside….
  • Options
    IanB2 said:

    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.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,219
    An entirely new meaning of the word "gripping"?
  • Options
    IanB2 said:

    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.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,860
    Nigelb said:

    Overheard a few minutes ago, George Santos walking through the speaker’s lobby: “You can’t make this crap up”
    https://mobile.twitter.com/jim_newell/status/1611153923942793217

    That's almost as epically unselfaware as 'Trump now needs to say "you don't have the votes it's time to withdraw."'
  • Options
    DriverDriver Posts: 4,522

    IanB2 said:

    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.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,860
    'Without one it is very difficult for the House to function.'

    Impossible, surely? They can't be sworn in until one is elected.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,535
    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 ?)
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,860
    Nigelb said:

    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 ?)

    They have Firm commitments?
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,602
    I think Kev will eventually prevail. I have £10 at evens bid on Betfair if anybody with the opposite view wants to match me.
  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    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 ?)

    Could be worse, they might be closet Windsors.
  • Options
    kinabalu said:

    I think Kev will eventually prevail. I have £10 at evens bid on Betfair if anybody with the opposite view wants to match me.

    They need the full field. I want to lay the Donald!
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,120
    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Split sample: half asked..
    Rejoin EU 42%
    Stay out 33%
    Half asked about rejoining with the following conditions..
    Rejoin EU if it means [below] 38%
    Stay out 35% https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1611279112441667586/photo/1

    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.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,860
    edited January 2023

    kinabalu said:

    I think Kev will eventually prevail. I have £10 at evens bid on Betfair if anybody with the opposite view wants to match me.

    They need the full field. I want to lay the Donald!
    Could you keep your bizarre sexual fantasies to yourself please?
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,702
    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:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5192bvUS7k
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 5,173
    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 !
  • Options
    numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 5,642
    edited January 2023
    kinabalu said:

    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.
  • Options
    DriverDriver Posts: 4,522

    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Split sample: half asked..
    Rejoin EU 42%
    Stay out 33%
    Half asked about rejoining with the following conditions..
    Rejoin EU if it means [below] 38%
    Stay out 35% https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1611279112441667586/photo/1

    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.
    Yes, we see that often here. For instance:
    nico679 said:

    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 !

  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    kinabalu said:

    I think Kev will eventually prevail. I have £10 at evens bid on Betfair if anybody with the opposite view wants to match me.

    They need the full field. I want to lay the Donald!
    Could you keep your bizarre sexual fantasies to yourself please?
    You must love the hair at least? Not to mention the smooth classic charm?
  • Options
    PhilPhil Posts: 1,962
    HYUFD said:

    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...
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,242
    IanB2 said:

    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:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5192bvUS7k

    Does a hangover happen while you are still asleep?
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,242

    kinabalu said:

    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.....
  • Options
    numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 5,642
    edited January 2023
    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…
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,681

    IanB2 said:

    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:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5192bvUS7k

    Does a hangover happen while you are still asleep?
    Yes, but happily you don't know about it yet.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,242

    IanB2 said:

    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:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5192bvUS7k

    Does a hangover happen while you are still asleep?
    Yes, but happily you don't know about it yet.
    Was kinda my point. Don't you have to be conscious to wish you weren't?
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,242
    nico679 said:

    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Split sample: half asked..
    Rejoin EU 42%
    Stay out 33%
    Half asked about rejoining with the following conditions..
    Rejoin EU if it means [below] 38%
    Stay out 35% https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1611279112441667586/photo/1

    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....
  • Options
    DriverDriver Posts: 4,522
    .

    kinabalu said:

    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.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,681
    edited January 2023
    nico679 said:

    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Split sample: half asked..
    Rejoin EU 42%
    Stay out 33%
    Half asked about rejoining with the following conditions..
    Rejoin EU if it means [below] 38%
    Stay out 35% https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1611279112441667586/photo/1

    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.
  • Options
    mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,175

    IanB2 said:

    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:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5192bvUS7k

    Does a hangover happen while you are still asleep?
    ChatGPT has the hangover for you.
  • Options
    DriverDriver Posts: 4,522

    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.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,120
    nico679 said:

    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Split sample: half asked..
    Rejoin EU 42%
    Stay out 33%
    Half asked about rejoining with the following conditions..
    Rejoin EU if it means [below] 38%
    Stay out 35% https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1611279112441667586/photo/1

    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.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,068
    Hakeem Jefferies the value ?
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,242
    Driver said:

    .

    kinabalu said:

    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.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,681

    kinabalu said:

    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.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,702

    kinabalu said:

    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.....
    Not in the US
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 5,173

    nico679 said:

    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Split sample: half asked..
    Rejoin EU 42%
    Stay out 33%
    Half asked about rejoining with the following conditions..
    Rejoin EU if it means [below] 38%
    Stay out 35% https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1611279112441667586/photo/1

    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 .
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,702

    IanB2 said:

    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:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5192bvUS7k

    Does a hangover happen while you are still asleep?
    Does anything happen while you are asleep? ;)

    Maybe the simulation just resets forward and then itself goes into sleep mode until you wake up?
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,681
    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Split sample: half asked..
    Rejoin EU 42%
    Stay out 33%
    Half asked about rejoining with the following conditions..
    Rejoin EU if it means [below] 38%
    Stay out 35% https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1611279112441667586/photo/1

    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.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,535

    kinabalu said:

    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).
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 5,173

    nico679 said:

    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Split sample: half asked..
    Rejoin EU 42%
    Stay out 33%
    Half asked about rejoining with the following conditions..
    Rejoin EU if it means [below] 38%
    Stay out 35% https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1611279112441667586/photo/1

    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 .
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 33,819
    Since the speaker does not have to be a member of the House, maybe they should nominate Pelosi...
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,602

    kinabalu said:

    I think Kev will eventually prevail. I have £10 at evens bid on Betfair if anybody with the opposite view wants to match me.

    They need the full field. I want to lay the Donald!
    🙂 - That's always a good play.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,535

    Driver said:

    .

    kinabalu said:

    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.
  • Options
    IanB2 said:

    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.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,344
    nico679 said:

    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Split sample: half asked..
    Rejoin EU 42%
    Stay out 33%
    Half asked about rejoining with the following conditions..
    Rejoin EU if it means [below] 38%
    Stay out 35% https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1611279112441667586/photo/1

    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.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,702

    IanB2 said:

    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
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,602
    nico679 said:

    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Split sample: half asked..
    Rejoin EU 42%
    Stay out 33%
    Half asked about rejoining with the following conditions..
    Rejoin EU if it means [below] 38%
    Stay out 35% https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1611279112441667586/photo/1

    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.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 33,819
    Around 1 in 6 Leave voters now say the UK was wrong to vote to leave the EU. So why have these Leave voters changed their mind about Brexit?

    "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
  • Options
    LennonLennon Posts: 1,747
    Nigelb said:

    Driver said:

    .

    kinabalu said:

    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... ;)
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,120
    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Split sample: half asked..
    Rejoin EU 42%
    Stay out 33%
    Half asked about rejoining with the following conditions..
    Rejoin EU if it means [below] 38%
    Stay out 35% https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1611279112441667586/photo/1

    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.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,685
    ...

    nico679 said:

    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Split sample: half asked..
    Rejoin EU 42%
    Stay out 33%
    Half asked about rejoining with the following conditions..
    Rejoin EU if it means [below] 38%
    Stay out 35% https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1611279112441667586/photo/1

    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.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,535
    kinabalu said:

    nico679 said:

    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Split sample: half asked..
    Rejoin EU 42%
    Stay out 33%
    Half asked about rejoining with the following conditions..
    Rejoin EU if it means [below] 38%
    Stay out 35% https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1611279112441667586/photo/1

    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.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,760
    Phil said:

    HYUFD said:

    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?

    The Dirty Harry’s for me 🚬
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,602
    Phil said:

    HYUFD said:

    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...
    Marjorie Taylor Greene is in the moderates camp.

    Yikes.
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 5,173
    edited January 2023
    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 .
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,720

    nico679 said:

    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Split sample: half asked..
    Rejoin EU 42%
    Stay out 33%
    Half asked about rejoining with the following conditions..
    Rejoin EU if it means [below] 38%
    Stay out 35% https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1611279112441667586/photo/1

    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.

  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,535
    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

    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
  • Options
    DriverDriver Posts: 4,522
    .
    kamski said:

    nico679 said:

    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Split sample: half asked..
    Rejoin EU 42%
    Stay out 33%
    Half asked about rejoining with the following conditions..
    Rejoin EU if it means [below] 38%
    Stay out 35% https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1611279112441667586/photo/1

    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.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,458
    edited January 2023
    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    nico679 said:

    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Split sample: half asked..
    Rejoin EU 42%
    Stay out 33%
    Half asked about rejoining with the following conditions..
    Rejoin EU if it means [below] 38%
    Stay out 35% https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1611279112441667586/photo/1

    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
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,535

    Phil said:

    HYUFD said:

    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?

    The Dirty Harry’s for me 🚬
    The MAGGATS.
  • Options
    Phil said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 33,819
    Modest recovery for the Tories in the latest YouGov poll, both in headline numbers and in Sunak v Starmer. But:

    - 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
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 5,173
    Driver said:

    .

    kamski said:

    nico679 said:

    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Split sample: half asked..
    Rejoin EU 42%
    Stay out 33%
    Half asked about rejoining with the following conditions..
    Rejoin EU if it means [below] 38%
    Stay out 35% https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1611279112441667586/photo/1

    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 .
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,458
    Phil said:

    HYUFD said:

    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...
    Goetz nominated Trump for Speaker
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,458
    Cookie said:

    nico679 said:

    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Split sample: half asked..
    Rejoin EU 42%
    Stay out 33%
    Half asked about rejoining with the following conditions..
    Rejoin EU if it means [below] 38%
    Stay out 35% https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1611279112441667586/photo/1

    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

    https://www.fox-moving.com/top-10-countries-brits-emigrate/
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,702

    Phil said:

    HYUFD said:

    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"
  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    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.
  • Options
    numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 5,642
    Cookie said:

    nico679 said:

    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Split sample: half asked..
    Rejoin EU 42%
    Stay out 33%
    Half asked about rejoining with the following conditions..
    Rejoin EU if it means [below] 38%
    Stay out 35% https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1611279112441667586/photo/1

    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.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,535
    edited January 2023
    Even the most totalitarian of regimes struggle to hide the bleeding obvious.

    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"
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,120
    edited January 2023
    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    nico679 said:

    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Split sample: half asked..
    Rejoin EU 42%
    Stay out 33%
    Half asked about rejoining with the following conditions..
    Rejoin EU if it means [below] 38%
    Stay out 35% https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1611279112441667586/photo/1

    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

    https://www.fox-moving.com/top-10-countries-brits-emigrate/
    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.
  • Options
    Cookie said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Around 1 in 6 Leave voters now say the UK was wrong to vote to leave the EU. So why have these Leave voters changed their mind about Brexit?

    "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

    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!
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,602

    Cookie said:

    nico679 said:

    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Split sample: half asked..
    Rejoin EU 42%
    Stay out 33%
    Half asked about rejoining with the following conditions..
    Rejoin EU if it means [below] 38%
    Stay out 35% https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1611279112441667586/photo/1

    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.
    Good chance of that imo.
  • Options
    nico679 said:

    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.
  • Options
    mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,175
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    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:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5192bvUS7k

    Does a hangover happen while you are still asleep?
    Does anything happen while you are asleep? ;)

    Maybe the simulation just resets forward and then itself goes into sleep mode until you wake up?
    Same way the detailed simulation mechanics don't kick in until someone bothers to make observations at about the Planck length.
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    nico679 said:

    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Split sample: half asked..
    Rejoin EU 42%
    Stay out 33%
    Half asked about rejoining with the following conditions..
    Rejoin EU if it means [below] 38%
    Stay out 35% https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1611279112441667586/photo/1

    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
    Brexit was "the politics of envy" writ large.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,120
    mwadams said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    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:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5192bvUS7k

    Does a hangover happen while you are still asleep?
    Does anything happen while you are asleep? ;)

    Maybe the simulation just resets forward and then itself goes into sleep mode until you wake up?
    Same way the detailed simulation mechanics don't kick in until someone bothers to make observations at about the Planck length.
    "FFS - now we have to fire up a bunch of processes, the cloud bill for this month will be another fucking killer."
  • Options
    DriverDriver Posts: 4,522
    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    nico679 said:

    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Split sample: half asked..
    Rejoin EU 42%
    Stay out 33%
    Half asked about rejoining with the following conditions..
    Rejoin EU if it means [below] 38%
    Stay out 35% https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1611279112441667586/photo/1

    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

    https://www.fox-moving.com/top-10-countries-brits-emigrate/
    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.
  • Options
    PhilPhil Posts: 1,962
    Nigelb said:

    Phil said:

    HYUFD said:

    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?

    The Dirty Harry’s for me 🚬
    The MAGGATS.
    MagHats?
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,242
    Scott_xP said:

    Modest recovery for the Tories in the latest YouGov poll, both in headline numbers and in Sunak v Starmer. But:

    - 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

    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.

    Quite doable against Starmer.
  • Options
    Prince Harry is clearly going through a long running mental health crisis. I am not surprised at all the Royal Family didn’t properly support him.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,837
    Cookie said:

    nico679 said:

    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Split sample: half asked..
    Rejoin EU 42%
    Stay out 33%
    Half asked about rejoining with the following conditions..
    Rejoin EU if it means [below] 38%
    Stay out 35% https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1611279112441667586/photo/1

    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.

    How else would the media pages be filled?
  • Options
    Best PM only matters when it shows Keir behind
  • Options

    Cookie said:

    nico679 said:

    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Split sample: half asked..
    Rejoin EU 42%
    Stay out 33%
    Half asked about rejoining with the following conditions..
    Rejoin EU if it means [below] 38%
    Stay out 35% https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1611279112441667586/photo/1

    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.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,720
    kamski said:

    nico679 said:

    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Split sample: half asked..
    Rejoin EU 42%
    Stay out 33%
    Half asked about rejoining with the following conditions..
    Rejoin EU if it means [below] 38%
    Stay out 35% https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1611279112441667586/photo/1

    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.
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,822
    Cookie said:

    nico679 said:

    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Split sample: half asked..
    Rejoin EU 42%
    Stay out 33%
    Half asked about rejoining with the following conditions..
    Rejoin EU if it means [below] 38%
    Stay out 35% https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1611279112441667586/photo/1

    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.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,973

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Split sample: half asked..
    Rejoin EU 42%
    Stay out 33%
    Half asked about rejoining with the following conditions..
    Rejoin EU if it means [below] 38%
    Stay out 35% https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1611279112441667586/photo/1

    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?
This discussion has been closed.