No, you're all wrong on Mrs May and Brexit. The main issue wasn't her rhetoric or her mindset, it was the domestic politics of it. A soft Brexit meant SM which meant FOM. No Tory PM could have got that through the Brexit parliament and stayed PM. A Labour PM could but not a Tory one.
Why? Because a deal like that would have run counter to where the party's members and voters and a critical mass of their MPs were. It would have been VONC and out. She knew that. As would any other Tory politician in her place at that time in those circumstances.
Soft Brexit = Pipedream.
The point is she could have decoupled the two - done a quick, and soft Brexit to get out of the political structures and told the hardcore there would be plenty of room to revisit the economic ones (like the SM) after. There was a window of opportunity when Brexit was still undefined - and you could have set out a plan that sequenced it.
It was only later, and in part due to, May's speech that Brexit became that interminable conundrum where everyone could stymie each other by demanding the impossible, but never had the numbers to carry their preferred position.
Assuming that May's intention was to bring the UK out of the EU successfully, her issue was a deliberate policy of Hunt's (and we must assume May's, though the Treasury is an odd beast and can often defy the PM), not to provide the necessary resources to prepare the UK for the ramifications of leaving the EU without an FTA, or any agreement - the 'without a deal' scenario. Without those preparations in place, she was negotiating with zero credible threat of walking out. The eventual agreement was purely a case of how nice the EU wanted to be or not. This also ruined Johnson's negotiations. They tried to mutter and hint that a no deal scenario was possible, but it was bluff and the EU knew it.
'Necessary resources' or not it wasn't credible, because people don't vote to become poorer or go through national disasters. Blowing off your own foot isn't a credible threat whether or not you supply the bandages beforehand.
I you read your post through, you'll notice it's more emotional than logical. You dislike the idea of leaving the EU, so you have a tendency, as do so many like you, to talk about it in apocalyptical and really rather meaningless terms.
The UK is a global trading nation - in the vanishingly unlikely scenario that the EU would have deprived us of their exports (and foregone their extremely large divorce settlement, without which their finances would have gone south very quickly), we would have been completely fine. I also don't think there's any no deal preparation activity that would not also have proven useful in other ways, like making our borders more secure against illegal immigration. Not to prepare was an act of profound folly, and May deserved what happened to her premiership as an indirect result.
That's another fantasy. No Deal and No Deal preparation. Neither was ever happening. People tend to craft a load of nonsense onto how Brexit coulda shoulda turned out based on their own Brexit view going in. I'm quite unusual in not doing this.
Nuclear war is a fantasy, but we prepare for it so we're not subject to nuclear blackmail.
Wasn't aware of the event, but a quick look suggests the Irish constitution must contain some rather woolly, unnecessary fluff. A lean constitution wouldn't have this stuff to start with (not that the UK is in a position to judge constitutional leanness).
de Valera decided women should stay in the home. Oddly the vote says Ireland agrees with him.
Moral: Don't do referendums if the electorate is likely to use them as a way of saying "we're grumpy". Or, if you must, make sure that the referendum isn't consequential.
Or don't have all the main political parties agree to support a change and then put it to the population in a referendum.
Is there a precedent in any country for an opinion poll fail on such a scale? A month ago, Ipsos returned 53%-15% for yes-no in the family referendum, or 78%-22% among those who said which way they'd vote. The actual result will be close to 32%-68%.
It just goes to show how unpredictable and risky referendums can be.
Yes
No UK prime minister will ever call a referendum ever again, unless they are forced (eg in Ulster, or by ten SNP holyrood wins on the trot)
The political leason of referendums everywhere is: don’t have them
On the contrary, it's 'have them all the time, then people won't make such a big hairy deal about them'. The Swiss, as ever, show the way.
That's quite a case of Swissophilia you have there. Haven't you seen The Third Man?
Yes, I love it, and the quote, but I know where I'd rather be a common citizen.
Well I'd add Roger Federer to chocolate and cuckoo clocks.
Wasn't aware of the event, but a quick look suggests the Irish constitution must contain some rather woolly, unnecessary fluff. A lean constitution wouldn't have this stuff to start with (not that the UK is in a position to judge constitutional leanness).
de Valera decided women should stay in the home. Oddly the vote says Ireland agrees with him.
Moral: Don't do referendums if the electorate is likely to use them as a way of saying "we're grumpy". Or, if you must, make sure that the referendum isn't consequential.
Or don't have all the main political parties agree to support a change and then put it to the population in a referendum.
Is there a precedent in any country for an opinion poll fail on such a scale? A month ago, Ipsos returned 53%-15% for yes-no in the family referendum, or 78%-22% among those who said which way they'd vote. The actual result will be close to 32%-68%.
It just goes to show how unpredictable and risky referendums can be.
Yes
No UK prime minister will ever call a referendum ever again, unless they are forced (eg in Ulster, or by ten SNP holyrood wins on the trot)
The political leason of referendums everywhere is: don’t have them
On the contrary, it's 'have them all the time, then people won't make such a big hairy deal about them'. The Swiss, as ever, show the way.
Isn't the Californian system essentially a direct copy of the Swiss one? And they've got themselves into numerous muddles with referenda that have limited the ability to raise taxes whilst others have mandated spending money that doesn't exist...
No, you're all wrong on Mrs May and Brexit. The main issue wasn't her rhetoric or her mindset, it was the domestic politics of it. A soft Brexit meant SM which meant FOM. No Tory PM could have got that through the Brexit parliament and stayed PM. A Labour PM could but not a Tory one.
Why? Because a deal like that would have run counter to where the party's members and voters and a critical mass of their MPs were. It would have been VONC and out. She knew that. As would any other person in her place at that time in those circumstances.
Soft Brexit = Pipedream.
But also, soft Brexit loses if it's explicitly put to the public in 2016, because it means FOM. Where May ended up was "least economically damaging Brexit that stops FOM", which was probably a reasonable take on the main strand of what the 52% wanted.
But any real deal was bound to disappoint, because what the UK really wanted was for the EU to give us exactly what we wanted in exchange for the pleasure of our company. I'm sure there was a colourful metaphor involving post-divorce relationships.
How would people have voted if they’d known that immigration post-Brexit would be substantially higher?
If the Remain campaign had managed to convince people that a Leave vote would lead to higher immigration then it would have been a landslide for Remain.
But I can see why they didn't try that argument. They would have been ridiculed. I'm not sure how it has happened, particularly when we've had a decade, at least, of Conservative PMs pledged to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands.
Wasn't aware of the event, but a quick look suggests the Irish constitution must contain some rather woolly, unnecessary fluff. A lean constitution wouldn't have this stuff to start with (not that the UK is in a position to judge constitutional leanness).
de Valera decided women should stay in the home. Oddly the vote says Ireland agrees with him.
Moral: Don't do referendums if the electorate is likely to use them as a way of saying "we're grumpy". Or, if you must, make sure that the referendum isn't consequential.
Or don't have all the main political parties agree to support a change and then put it to the population in a referendum.
Is there a precedent in any country for an opinion poll fail on such a scale? A month ago, Ipsos returned 53%-15% for yes-no in the family referendum, or 78%-22% among those who said which way they'd vote. The actual result will be close to 32%-68%.
It just goes to show how unpredictable and risky referendums can be.
Yes
No UK prime minister will ever call a referendum ever again, unless they are forced (eg in Ulster, or by ten SNP holyrood wins on the trot)
The political leason of referendums everywhere is: don’t have them
On the contrary, it's 'have them all the time, then people won't make such a big hairy deal about them'. The Swiss, as ever, show the way.
That's quite a case of Swissophilia you have there. Haven't you seen The Third Man?
Yes, I love it, and the quote, but I know where I'd rather be a common citizen.
Well I'd add Roger Federer to chocolate and cuckoo clocks.
I worked there for a short time. Liked it, yes.
My Mum and Dad lived there for a few years and it was a frequent holiday as younger kids. We weren't luxury holidayers, we had family friends out there. It's just a very good place to live, and I firmly believe that to be caused by the fact that the people rule, and politicians come second. Of course this heightened civic awareness has some annoying aspects, like being dobbed into the police for jaywalking, but overall I think it's an acceptable trade off.
Wasn't aware of the event, but a quick look suggests the Irish constitution must contain some rather woolly, unnecessary fluff. A lean constitution wouldn't have this stuff to start with (not that the UK is in a position to judge constitutional leanness).
de Valera decided women should stay in the home. Oddly the vote says Ireland agrees with him.
Moral: Don't do referendums if the electorate is likely to use them as a way of saying "we're grumpy". Or, if you must, make sure that the referendum isn't consequential.
Or don't have all the main political parties agree to support a change and then put it to the population in a referendum.
Is there a precedent in any country for an opinion poll fail on such a scale? A month ago, Ipsos returned 53%-15% for yes-no in the family referendum, or 78%-22% among those who said which way they'd vote. The actual result will be close to 32%-68%.
It just goes to show how unpredictable and risky referendums can be.
Yes
No UK prime minister will ever call a referendum ever again, unless they are forced (eg in Ulster, or by ten SNP holyrood wins on the trot)
The political leason of referendums everywhere is: don’t have them
On the contrary, it's 'have them all the time, then people won't make such a big hairy deal about them'. The Swiss, as ever, show the way.
Isn't the Californian system essentially a direct copy of the Swiss one? And they've got themselves into numerous muddles with referenda that have limited the ability to raise taxes whilst others have mandated spending money that doesn't exist...
I am afraid I know next to nothing about the Californian system. If a referendum result nulifies the outcome of another one, that is of course an issue.
Wasn't aware of the event, but a quick look suggests the Irish constitution must contain some rather woolly, unnecessary fluff. A lean constitution wouldn't have this stuff to start with (not that the UK is in a position to judge constitutional leanness).
de Valera decided women should stay in the home. Oddly the vote says Ireland agrees with him.
Moral: Don't do referendums if the electorate is likely to use them as a way of saying "we're grumpy". Or, if you must, make sure that the referendum isn't consequential.
Or don't have all the main political parties agree to support a change and then put it to the population in a referendum.
Is there a precedent in any country for an opinion poll fail on such a scale? A month ago, Ipsos returned 53%-15% for yes-no in the family referendum, or 78%-22% among those who said which way they'd vote. The actual result will be close to 32%-68%.
It just goes to show how unpredictable and risky referendums can be.
Yes
No UK prime minister will ever call a referendum ever again, unless they are forced (eg in Ulster, or by ten SNP holyrood wins on the trot)
The political leason of referendums everywhere is: don’t have them
Unless you happen to be Swiss. Otherwise, no thanks.
Given that the Swiss are French, German, Italian and Romansch, therefore don't really share a common cultural hinterland, I think it's far more likely that they can handle popular democracy because they have popular democracy, not because of some bred-in characteristic.
It was not a serious comment. Obviously it can be made to work and it's not a national trait. I just do not think our political culture or institutions are set up for it, and, more crucially, I don't think there is any general public desire or will for that to change either.
Wasn't aware of the event, but a quick look suggests the Irish constitution must contain some rather woolly, unnecessary fluff. A lean constitution wouldn't have this stuff to start with (not that the UK is in a position to judge constitutional leanness).
de Valera decided women should stay in the home. Oddly the vote says Ireland agrees with him.
Moral: Don't do referendums if the electorate is likely to use them as a way of saying "we're grumpy". Or, if you must, make sure that the referendum isn't consequential.
Or don't have all the main political parties agree to support a change and then put it to the population in a referendum.
Is there a precedent in any country for an opinion poll fail on such a scale? A month ago, Ipsos returned 53%-15% for yes-no in the family referendum, or 78%-22% among those who said which way they'd vote. The actual result will be close to 32%-68%.
It just goes to show how unpredictable and risky referendums can be.
Yes
No UK prime minister will ever call a referendum ever again, unless they are forced (eg in Ulster, or by ten SNP holyrood wins on the trot)
The political leason of referendums everywhere is: don’t have them
On the contrary, it's 'have them all the time, then people won't make such a big hairy deal about them'. The Swiss, as ever, show the way.
That's quite a case of Swissophilia you have there. Haven't you seen The Third Man?
Yes, I love it, and the quote, but I know where I'd rather be a common citizen.
Well I'd add Roger Federer to chocolate and cuckoo clocks.
I worked there for a short time. Liked it, yes.
Funny place, Switzerland. Some aspects of it great (the transport system, the mountains, the proper devolution of power), others a bit weird (all the cantonal byelaws, the insularity, the ambivalent attitudes to dodgy money).
I get to go quite often and always enjoy my little jaunts.
It seems to be assumed that FoM was sine qua non for Brexiteers. Not for me. I was for leaving the EU but retaining FoM. Was I deluded?
I don't really care about FOM either. I think it was FOM combined with our universal benefits that was a pisstake. People sending child benefit home to Poland for their kids. Nope. That needed reform. As ever, Cameron failed.
No, you're all wrong on Mrs May and Brexit. The main issue wasn't her rhetoric or her mindset, it was the domestic politics of it. A soft Brexit meant SM which meant FOM. No Tory PM could have got that through the Brexit parliament and stayed PM. A Labour PM could but not a Tory one.
Why? Because a deal like that would have run counter to where the party's members and voters and a critical mass of their MPs were. It would have been VONC and out. She knew that. As would any other person in her place at that time in those circumstances.
Soft Brexit = Pipedream.
But also, soft Brexit loses if it's explicitly put to the public in 2016, because it means FOM. Where May ended up was "least economically damaging Brexit that stops FOM", which was probably a reasonable take on the main strand of what the 52% wanted.
But any real deal was bound to disappoint, because what the UK really wanted was for the EU to give us exactly what we wanted in exchange for the pleasure of our company. I'm sure there was a colourful metaphor involving post-divorce relationships.
How would people have voted if they’d known that immigration post-Brexit would be substantially higher?
If the Remain campaign had managed to convince people that a Leave vote would lead to higher immigration then it would have been a landslide for Remain.
But I can see why they didn't try that argument. They would have been ridiculed. I'm not sure how it has happened, particularly when we've had a decade, at least, of Conservative PMs pledged to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands.
This is a good question. How did it happen? How did a Conservative administration so explicitly desirous of lower immigration and having taken back control produce a situation with record high immigration?
No, you're all wrong on Mrs May and Brexit. The main issue wasn't her rhetoric or her mindset, it was the domestic politics of it. A soft Brexit meant SM which meant FOM. No Tory PM could have got that through the Brexit parliament and stayed PM. A Labour PM could but not a Tory one.
Why? Because a deal like that would have run counter to where the party's members and voters and a critical mass of their MPs were. It would have been VONC and out. She knew that. As would any other Tory politician in her place at that time in those circumstances.
Soft Brexit = Pipedream.
The point is she could have decoupled the two - done a quick, and soft Brexit to get out of the political structures and told the hardcore there would be plenty of room to revisit the economic ones (like the SM) after. There was a window of opportunity when Brexit was still undefined - and you could have set out a plan that sequenced it.
It was only later, and in part due to, May's speech that Brexit became that interminable conundrum where everyone could stymie each other by demanding the impossible, but never had the numbers to carry their preferred position.
Assuming that May's intention was to bring the UK out of the EU successfully, her issue was a deliberate policy of Hunt's (and we must assume May's, though the Treasury is an odd beast and can often defy the PM), not to provide the necessary resources to prepare the UK for the ramifications of leaving the EU without an FTA, or any agreement - the 'without a deal' scenario. Without those preparations in place, she was negotiating with zero credible threat of walking out. The eventual agreement was purely a case of how nice the EU wanted to be or not. This also ruined Johnson's negotiations. They tried to mutter and hint that a no deal scenario was possible, but it was bluff and the EU knew it.
'Necessary resources' or not it wasn't credible, because people don't vote to become poorer or go through national disasters. Blowing off your own foot isn't a credible threat whether or not you supply the bandages beforehand.
I you read your post through, you'll notice it's more emotional than logical. You dislike the idea of leaving the EU, so you have a tendency, as do so many like you, to talk about it in apocalyptical and really rather meaningless terms.
The UK is a global trading nation - in the vanishingly unlikely scenario that the EU would have deprived us of their exports (and foregone their extremely large divorce settlement, without which their finances would have gone south very quickly), we would have been completely fine. I also don't think there's any no deal preparation activity that would not also have proven useful in other ways, like making our borders more secure against illegal immigration. Not to prepare was an act of profound folly, and May deserved what happened to her premiership as an indirect result.
That's another fantasy. No Deal and No Deal preparation. Neither was ever happening. People tend to craft a load of nonsense onto how Brexit coulda shoulda turned out based on their own Brexit view going in. I'm quite unusual in not doing this.
Nuclear war is a fantasy, but we prepare for it so we're not subject to nuclear blackmail.
Trident as analogy to No Deal prep? As it happens Trident is a clear and obvious waste of money too, IMO, but let's not go there. Cost/benefit is the thing. With so many calls on public money and government focus there was no way we were going to make a serious investment in something with a zero real-world return. Zero because everyone on both sides (inc BoJo though he tried to bluff a bit) knew a deal would be done.
It seems to be assumed that FoM was sine qua non for Brexiteers. Not for me. I was for leaving the EU but retaining FoM. Was I deluded?
I don't really care about FOM either. I think it was FOM combined with our universal benefits that was a pisstake. People sending child benefit home to Poland for their kids. Nope. That needed reform. As ever, Cameron failed.
I never understood that. To claim CB you have to be the primary carer for the child. How can you be the primary carer in the UK when the child lives in Poland?
Sunak had a chance to reset the dial and demonstrate he could do grown up government, which could very easily have led him to a small defeat.
But he flubbed it by flip-flopping, weak leadership and appalling political judgement.
He has all the self preservation skills of a lemming.
You say he flubbed it. But it was obvious before he was elected that he wasn’t up to the job. I don’t know why you are surprised he’s useless - this was obvious in 2020.
And the shortlist for tonight’s Pastoral Group competition is….the Australian cattle dog, Australian shepherd dog, Briard, Puli, Norwegian Buhund, Old English Sheepdog, Pyrenean mountain dog, Samoyed, and the Welsh Corgi Pembroke.
And the winner is…Viking the popular Australian Shepherd.
It seems to be assumed that FoM was sine qua non for Brexiteers. Not for me. I was for leaving the EU but retaining FoM. Was I deluded?
I don't really care about FOM either. I think it was FOM combined with our universal benefits that was a pisstake. People sending child benefit home to Poland for their kids. Nope. That needed reform. As ever, Cameron failed.
I never understood that. To claim CB you have to be the primary carer for the child. How can you be the primary carer in the UK when the child lives in Poland?
No, you're all wrong on Mrs May and Brexit. The main issue wasn't her rhetoric or her mindset, it was the domestic politics of it. A soft Brexit meant SM which meant FOM. No Tory PM could have got that through the Brexit parliament and stayed PM. A Labour PM could but not a Tory one.
Why? Because a deal like that would have run counter to where the party's members and voters and a critical mass of their MPs were. It would have been VONC and out. She knew that. As would any other person in her place at that time in those circumstances.
Soft Brexit = Pipedream.
But also, soft Brexit loses if it's explicitly put to the public in 2016, because it means FOM. Where May ended up was "least economically damaging Brexit that stops FOM", which was probably a reasonable take on the main strand of what the 52% wanted.
But any real deal was bound to disappoint, because what the UK really wanted was for the EU to give us exactly what we wanted in exchange for the pleasure of our company. I'm sure there was a colourful metaphor involving post-divorce relationships.
How would people have voted if they’d known that immigration post-Brexit would be substantially higher?
If the Remain campaign had managed to convince people that a Leave vote would lead to higher immigration then it would have been a landslide for Remain.
But I can see why they didn't try that argument. They would have been ridiculed. I'm not sure how it has happened, particularly when we've had a decade, at least, of Conservative PMs pledged to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands.
This is a good question. How did it happen? How did a Conservative administration so explicitly desirous of lower immigration and having taken back control produce a situation with record high immigration?
Because ther is a higher demand foe immigration whuch the government is poor at resisting. I don't think it's credible to suggest that had we Remained immigration would ve lower than it is now. Not everything is because of Brexit.
What Cameron did was put two options on the ballot paper, one of which had been negotiated with the EU and was a concrete proposal, the other was a lovely catch all fantasy choice that could mean whatever anyone wanted it to mean.
His great failure was omitting to set out what his governments position would be if Brexit was voted for. He did this for an easy life from his backbenchers, and because he thought it wouldn’t matter because he’d win the referendum anyway.
If he’d had more guts, he should have said a leave vote would mean leaving the political institutions of the EU but that owing to the economic impacts CU and SM membership would have to be retained, with an exit clause so that future governments could propose withdrawal from both if they so wished. I expect the usual suspects would have seethed, but he was still on top of his game in late 2015/early 2016, and he could’ve faced down the criticism (I have a feeling he was always going to leave the scene before what would then have been the 2020 election anyway).
No, you're all wrong on Mrs May and Brexit. The main issue wasn't her rhetoric or her mindset, it was the domestic politics of it. A soft Brexit meant SM which meant FOM. No Tory PM could have got that through the Brexit parliament and stayed PM. A Labour PM could but not a Tory one.
Why? Because a deal like that would have run counter to where the party's members and voters and a critical mass of their MPs were. It would have been VONC and out. She knew that. As would any other Tory politician in her place at that time in those circumstances.
Soft Brexit = Pipedream.
The point is she could have decoupled the two - done a quick, and soft Brexit to get out of the political structures and told the hardcore there would be plenty of room to revisit the economic ones (like the SM) after. There was a window of opportunity when Brexit was still undefined - and you could have set out a plan that sequenced it.
It was only later, and in part due to, May's speech that Brexit became that interminable conundrum where everyone could stymie each other by demanding the impossible, but never had the numbers to carry their preferred position.
Assuming that May's intention was to bring the UK out of the EU successfully, her issue was a deliberate policy of Hunt's (and we must assume May's, though the Treasury is an odd beast and can often defy the PM), not to provide the necessary resources to prepare the UK for the ramifications of leaving the EU without an FTA, or any agreement - the 'without a deal' scenario. Without those preparations in place, she was negotiating with zero credible threat of walking out. The eventual agreement was purely a case of how nice the EU wanted to be or not. This also ruined Johnson's negotiations. They tried to mutter and hint that a no deal scenario was possible, but it was bluff and the EU knew it.
'Necessary resources' or not it wasn't credible, because people don't vote to become poorer or go through national disasters. Blowing off your own foot isn't a credible threat whether or not you supply the bandages beforehand.
I you read your post through, you'll notice it's more emotional than logical. You dislike the idea of leaving the EU, so you have a tendency, as do so many like you, to talk about it in apocalyptical and really rather meaningless terms.
The UK is a global trading nation - in the vanishingly unlikely scenario that the EU would have deprived us of their exports (and foregone their extremely large divorce settlement, without which their finances would have gone south very quickly), we would have been completely fine. I also don't think there's any no deal preparation activity that would not also have proven useful in other ways, like making our borders more secure against illegal immigration. Not to prepare was an act of profound folly, and May deserved what happened to her premiership as an indirect result.
What complete idiotic rot, that doesn't understand the nature of what 'No Deal' meant. We have had a tiny taste of it in terms of the various frictions that have been prompted by the deal we got in the end - problems in North Ireland, businesses struggling, messes at the ports - which we did the prep for.
We are a global trading nation (as is the rest of the EU), but you can't completely change your trading model and infrastructure (not to mention geography), so quickly without significant turmoil. Which is what No Deal would have meant. The way we have done Brexit is a fraction of that, and has by and large turned more people against the idea in the abstract, even as we're stuck with it for the foreseeable.
We could have prepared for it. But the idea the treasury earmarking and then spending vast sums of money to build new port infrastructure, hiring an army of new public sector workers to cope with new competencies and duties, imposing an even larger amount of paperwork on firms than has been the case, would have been survivable for a government's popularity is for the birds. 'No New Money For The NHS, Prepare For A No Deal Brexit Instead' would have been hilarious to see a government try. That's not to mention what on Earth would have happened in NI if you suddenly put up a hard border.
As a country of course we'd have got through it - every one does. But it would have made the government trying it incredibly unpopular and possibly imperilled the whole Brexit project. Hence why it was just never credible. The EU never believed it even when it was being heavily talked up. And I think the only remotely rational people who truly believed in it as an option were smash it all up nihilists like Cummings who believed the pain (that they'd be insulated from) would be worthwhile shock therapy. And even they stepped away from the edge.
I'd say you are the one who defies logic by allowing a fanatical emotional attachment to an idea to cause a delusion that others share that attachment and imposing a shedload of new costs and difficulties on people, businesses, and government would be survivable for a government. Most people are in the middle. They were OK with Brexit after the referendum result, but not at a price that hugely inconvenienced them. Every credible assessment of No Deal states it would have done more than that.
No, you're all wrong on Mrs May and Brexit. The main issue wasn't her rhetoric or her mindset, it was the domestic politics of it. A soft Brexit meant SM which meant FOM. No Tory PM could have got that through the Brexit parliament and stayed PM. A Labour PM could but not a Tory one.
Why? Because a deal like that would have run counter to where the party's members and voters and a critical mass of their MPs were. It would have been VONC and out. She knew that. As would any other person in her place at that time in those circumstances.
Soft Brexit = Pipedream.
But also, soft Brexit loses if it's explicitly put to the public in 2016, because it means FOM. Where May ended up was "least economically damaging Brexit that stops FOM", which was probably a reasonable take on the main strand of what the 52% wanted.
But any real deal was bound to disappoint, because what the UK really wanted was for the EU to give us exactly what we wanted in exchange for the pleasure of our company. I'm sure there was a colourful metaphor involving post-divorce relationships.
How would people have voted if they’d known that immigration post-Brexit would be substantially higher?
If the Remain campaign had managed to convince people that a Leave vote would lead to higher immigration then it would have been a landslide for Remain.
But I can see why they didn't try that argument. They would have been ridiculed. I'm not sure how it has happened, particularly when we've had a decade, at least, of Conservative PMs pledged to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands.
This is a good question. How did it happen? How did a Conservative administration so explicitly desirous of lower immigration and having taken back control produce a situation with record high immigration?
Can I be the third to frank this - yes how *did* that happen?
It seems to be assumed that FoM was sine qua non for Brexiteers. Not for me. I was for leaving the EU but retaining FoM. Was I deluded?
I don't really care about FOM either. I think it was FOM combined with our universal benefits that was a pisstake. People sending child benefit home to Poland for their kids. Nope. That needed reform. As ever, Cameron failed.
I never understood that. To claim CB you have to be the primary carer for the child. How can you be the primary carer in the UK when the child lives in Poland?
It’s nonsense straight out of the Daily Express
It's not. People did claim CB for children living in Poland
No, you're all wrong on Mrs May and Brexit. The main issue wasn't her rhetoric or her mindset, it was the domestic politics of it. A soft Brexit meant SM which meant FOM. No Tory PM could have got that through the Brexit parliament and stayed PM. A Labour PM could but not a Tory one.
Why? Because a deal like that would have run counter to where the party's members and voters and a critical mass of their MPs were. It would have been VONC and out. She knew that. As would any other Tory politician in her place at that time in those circumstances.
Soft Brexit = Pipedream.
The point is she could have decoupled the two - done a quick, and soft Brexit to get out of the political structures and told the hardcore there would be plenty of room to revisit the economic ones (like the SM) after. There was a window of opportunity when Brexit was still undefined - and you could have set out a plan that sequenced it.
It was only later, and in part due to, May's speech that Brexit became that interminable conundrum where everyone could stymie each other by demanding the impossible, but never had the numbers to carry their preferred position.
Assuming that May's intention was to bring the UK out of the EU successfully, her issue was a deliberate policy of Hunt's (and we must assume May's, though the Treasury is an odd beast and can often defy the PM), not to provide the necessary resources to prepare the UK for the ramifications of leaving the EU without an FTA, or any agreement - the 'without a deal' scenario. Without those preparations in place, she was negotiating with zero credible threat of walking out. The eventual agreement was purely a case of how nice the EU wanted to be or not. This also ruined Johnson's negotiations. They tried to mutter and hint that a no deal scenario was possible, but it was bluff and the EU knew it.
'Necessary resources' or not it wasn't credible, because people don't vote to become poorer or go through national disasters. Blowing off your own foot isn't a credible threat whether or not you supply the bandages beforehand.
I you read your post through, you'll notice it's more emotional than logical. You dislike the idea of leaving the EU, so you have a tendency, as do so many like you, to talk about it in apocalyptical and really rather meaningless terms.
The UK is a global trading nation - in the vanishingly unlikely scenario that the EU would have deprived us of their exports (and foregone their extremely large divorce settlement, without which their finances would have gone south very quickly), we would have been completely fine. I also don't think there's any no deal preparation activity that would not also have proven useful in other ways, like making our borders more secure against illegal immigration. Not to prepare was an act of profound folly, and May deserved what happened to her premiership as an indirect result.
That's another fantasy. No Deal and No Deal preparation. Neither was ever happening. People tend to craft a load of nonsense onto how Brexit coulda shoulda turned out based on their own Brexit view going in. I'm quite unusual in not doing this.
Nuclear war is a fantasy, but we prepare for it so we're not subject to nuclear blackmail.
Trident as analogy to No Deal prep? As it happens Trident is a clear and obvious waste of money too, IMO, but let's not go there. Cost/benefit is the thing. With so many calls on public money and government focus there was no way we were going to make a serious investment in something with a zero real-world return. Zero because everyone on both sides (inc BoJo though he tried to bluff a bit) knew a deal would be done.
On Trident we agree. However, I believe strongly that No Deal should have been prepared for as a potential scenario on the UK side, as to do otherwise was to send both Theresa May and Boris Johnson naked into the negotiating room.
Sunak had a chance to reset the dial and demonstrate he could do grown up government, which could very easily have led him to a small defeat.
But he flubbed it by flip-flopping, weak leadership and appalling political judgement.
He has all the self preservation skills of a lemming.
You say he flubbed it. But it was obvious before he was elected that he wasn’t up to the job. I don’t know why you are surprised he’s useless - this was obvious in 2020.
On the contrary, I’m not surprised he’s useless. I thought he was the wrong pick in the first leadership contest. They should’ve gone with Mordaunt - not that I expect that she would be leading them to victory, great sword in hand, right now - but because she was by far the best choice between the top 3, for her sheer presentation skills alone.
That said, I did think he could probably play at displaying competence at least to some extent, in which case I admit to having overestimated him.
Seattle Times - Boeing congressional lobbyist tries to discredit NTSB testimony
by ST aerospace correspondent Dominic Gates - An outside Boeing lobbyist on Capitol Hill sent an email to Republican members of Congress late Wednesday bluntly attempting to discredit the Senate testimony of National Transportation Safety Board Chair Jennifer Homendy.
After The Seattle Times asked about the email Friday, both Boeing and the lobbyist scrambled to undo the potential damage.
In a statement, Boeing said it “did not authorize this communication and regret that it was sent. We deeply respect the NTSB and will continue to cooperate fully and transparently with them.”
he lobbyist responded that the message had been sent out inadvertently and without Boeing’s knowledge.
Homendy had scathingly criticized Boeing for failing to produce documentation of the botched installation work on the door plug that blew out midair on Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 on Jan. 5.
She also testified that Boeing had not provided the names of all the employees involved, despite repeated requests, and that the NTSB had not been able to interview even the manager of the team involved.
The email was sent by former Republican U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston, now a lobbyist for Washington, D.C.-based Squire Patton Boggs, a prominent law firm that is among the largest lobbying companies in the world.
SSI - Kingston is longtime Republican Party reptile, and since 2016 leading Trump mouthpiece. Boeing no doubt needs to curry some favor with GOP nutbags and shills (frequently same) in Congress. However, NOT this far. Yet another sigh of corrupt - and stupid - Boeing corporate culture. And Kingston MUST be a lard-head for putting such crap into an EMAIL.
Seattle Times - Boeing admits it can’t find records on the Alaska Airlines door plug work
by ST aerospace correspondent Dominic Gates - Boeing leadership admitted Friday in a letter sent to Sen. Maria Cantwell that it cannot find any record of the work done on the 737 MAX final assembly line in Renton to open and reinstall the panel that blew out Jan. 5 on Alaska Airlines Flight 1282.
Boeing’s presumption is that no record was ever created.
“We have looked extensively and have not found any such documentation,” wrote Ziad Ojakli, Boeing executive vice president and the company’s chief government lobbyist.
He added Boeing’s “working hypothesis: that the documents required by our processes were not created when the door plug was opened.”
The letter, a copy of which was reviewed by The Seattle Times, is marked by Boeing, “Investigative Information — Do not release without prior approval of the NTSB,” referring to the National Transportation Safety Board.
It was sent Friday to Cantwell on behalf of Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun after a dramatic Senate Commerce Committee hearing Wednesday in which the chair of the NTSB, Jennifer Homendy, scathingly testified that Boeing was not fully cooperating in the federal safety agency’s investigation of the accident on that flight.
Homendy said Boeing had not provided records of the work or the names of all the employees involved. During the hearing, Cantwell, D-Wash., demanded a response from Boeing within 48 hours.
SSI - Note the "Do not release without prior approval" crap. Which Sen. Cantwell rightly treated with the respect it deserves - NIL.
No, you're all wrong on Mrs May and Brexit. The main issue wasn't her rhetoric or her mindset, it was the domestic politics of it. A soft Brexit meant SM which meant FOM. No Tory PM could have got that through the Brexit parliament and stayed PM. A Labour PM could but not a Tory one.
Why? Because a deal like that would have run counter to where the party's members and voters and a critical mass of their MPs were. It would have been VONC and out. She knew that. As would any other person in her place at that time in those circumstances.
Soft Brexit = Pipedream.
But also, soft Brexit loses if it's explicitly put to the public in 2016, because it means FOM. Where May ended up was "least economically damaging Brexit that stops FOM", which was probably a reasonable take on the main strand of what the 52% wanted.
But any real deal was bound to disappoint, because what the UK really wanted was for the EU to give us exactly what we wanted in exchange for the pleasure of our company. I'm sure there was a colourful metaphor involving post-divorce relationships.
How would people have voted if they’d known that immigration post-Brexit would be substantially higher?
If the Remain campaign had managed to convince people that a Leave vote would lead to higher immigration then it would have been a landslide for Remain.
But I can see why they didn't try that argument. They would have been ridiculed. I'm not sure how it has happened, particularly when we've had a decade, at least, of Conservative PMs pledged to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands.
This is a good question. How did it happen? How did a Conservative administration so explicitly desirous of lower immigration and having taken back control produce a situation with record high immigration?
Can I be the third to frank this - yes how *did* that happen?
Because Boris Johnson is the most liberal PM we've had. Certainly far more than Blair or Brown.
No, you're all wrong on Mrs May and Brexit. The main issue wasn't her rhetoric or her mindset, it was the domestic politics of it. A soft Brexit meant SM which meant FOM. No Tory PM could have got that through the Brexit parliament and stayed PM. A Labour PM could but not a Tory one.
Why? Because a deal like that would have run counter to where the party's members and voters and a critical mass of their MPs were. It would have been VONC and out. She knew that. As would any other person in her place at that time in those circumstances.
Soft Brexit = Pipedream.
But also, soft Brexit loses if it's explicitly put to the public in 2016, because it means FOM. Where May ended up was "least economically damaging Brexit that stops FOM", which was probably a reasonable take on the main strand of what the 52% wanted.
But any real deal was bound to disappoint, because what the UK really wanted was for the EU to give us exactly what we wanted in exchange for the pleasure of our company. I'm sure there was a colourful metaphor involving post-divorce relationships.
How would people have voted if they’d known that immigration post-Brexit would be substantially higher?
If the Remain campaign had managed to convince people that a Leave vote would lead to higher immigration then it would have been a landslide for Remain.
But I can see why they didn't try that argument. They would have been ridiculed. I'm not sure how it has happened, particularly when we've had a decade, at least, of Conservative PMs pledged to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands.
This is a good question. How did it happen? How did a Conservative administration so explicitly desirous of lower immigration and having taken back control produce a situation with record high immigration?
To be fair, in the past couple of years part of it has been Ukraine, part of it is HK Chinese, part of it is bounce-back from a pandemic-suppressed level in 2000. All of those factors would likely to have been the same, Brexit or not.
Exclude all those, and the underlying figure for net migration probably isn't that much higher than the 2015 peak of around 330k.
A long-term sustainable level for net immigration would likely be 270-320k (on top of the 600k live births) annually to keep us at roughly the same levels of population growth we had throughout the second half of the 20th century.
If Rishi doesn't call the election in soon, the 1922 will surely come for him and install a "caretaker" to oversee the defeat?
Lord Cameron, perhaps?
I just can’t see a peer being tenable. It would need to be someone who would be able to face the ignominy of usurping Lettuce Liz as the shortest serving PM. Or May, but she’s going.
So someone who would likely lose their seat anyway, and might as well have PM on their CV?
It seems to be assumed that FoM was sine qua non for Brexiteers. Not for me. I was for leaving the EU but retaining FoM. Was I deluded?
I don't really care about FOM either. I think it was FOM combined with our universal benefits that was a pisstake. People sending child benefit home to Poland for their kids. Nope. That needed reform. As ever, Cameron failed.
I never understood that. To claim CB you have to be the primary carer for the child. How can you be the primary carer in the UK when the child lives in Poland?
It’s nonsense straight out of the Daily Express
Guardian: More than 40,000 children living abroad receive UK child benefit
The Treasury defended the overseas payments, saying that they were obliged under European law, and pointed out that claims could only be made if at least one parent was working in the UK and paying National Insurance."
If Rishi doesn't call the election in soon, the 1922 will surely come for him and install a "caretaker" to oversee the defeat?
Lord Cameron, perhaps?
I just can’t see a peer being tenable. It would need to be someone who would be able to face the ignominy of usurping Lettuce Liz as the shortest serving PM. Or May, but she’s going.
So someone who would likely lose their seat anyway, and might as well have PM on their CV?
Don't give them ideas. I can't face the thought of Mogg as PM.
No, you're all wrong on Mrs May and Brexit. The main issue wasn't her rhetoric or her mindset, it was the domestic politics of it. A soft Brexit meant SM which meant FOM. No Tory PM could have got that through the Brexit parliament and stayed PM. A Labour PM could but not a Tory one.
Why? Because a deal like that would have run counter to where the party's members and voters and a critical mass of their MPs were. It would have been VONC and out. She knew that. As would any other Tory politician in her place at that time in those circumstances.
Soft Brexit = Pipedream.
The point is she could have decoupled the two - done a quick, and soft Brexit to get out of the political structures and told the hardcore there would be plenty of room to revisit the economic ones (like the SM) after. There was a window of opportunity when Brexit was still undefined - and you could have set out a plan that sequenced it.
It was only later, and in part due to, May's speech that Brexit became that interminable conundrum where everyone could stymie each other by demanding the impossible, but never had the numbers to carry their preferred position.
Assuming that May's intention was to bring the UK out of the EU successfully, her issue was a deliberate policy of Hunt's (and we must assume May's, though the Treasury is an odd beast and can often defy the PM), not to provide the necessary resources to prepare the UK for the ramifications of leaving the EU without an FTA, or any agreement - the 'without a deal' scenario. Without those preparations in place, she was negotiating with zero credible threat of walking out. The eventual agreement was purely a case of how nice the EU wanted to be or not. This also ruined Johnson's negotiations. They tried to mutter and hint that a no deal scenario was possible, but it was bluff and the EU knew it.
'Necessary resources' or not it wasn't credible, because people don't vote to become poorer or go through national disasters. Blowing off your own foot isn't a credible threat whether or not you supply the bandages beforehand.
I you read your post through, you'll notice it's more emotional than logical. You dislike the idea of leaving the EU, so you have a tendency, as do so many like you, to talk about it in apocalyptical and really rather meaningless terms.
The UK is a global trading nation - in the vanishingly unlikely scenario that the EU would have deprived us of their exports (and foregone their extremely large divorce settlement, without which their finances would have gone south very quickly), we would have been completely fine. I also don't think there's any no deal preparation activity that would not also have proven useful in other ways, like making our borders more secure against illegal immigration. Not to prepare was an act of profound folly, and May deserved what happened to her premiership as an indirect result.
What complete idiotic rot, that doesn't understand the nature of what 'No Deal' meant. We have had a tiny taste of it in terms of the various frictions that have been prompted by the deal we got in the end - problems in North Ireland, businesses struggling, messes at the ports - which we did the prep for.
We are a global trading nation (as is the rest of the EU), but you can't completely change your trading model and infrastructure (not to mention geography), so quickly without significant turmoil. Which is what No Deal would have meant. The way we have done Brexit is a fraction of that, and has by and large turned more people against the idea in the abstract, even as we're stuck with it for the foreseeable.
We could have prepared for it. But the idea the treasury earmarking and then spending vast sums of money to build new port infrastructure, hiring an army of new public sector workers to cope with new competencies and duties, imposing an even larger amount of paperwork on firms than has been the case, would have been survivable for a government's popularity is for the birds. 'No New Money For The NHS, Prepare For A No Deal Brexit Instead' would have been hilarious to see a government try. That's not to mention what on Earth would have happened in NI if you suddenly put up a hard border.
As a country of course we'd have got through it - every one does. But it would have made the government trying it incredibly unpopular and possibly imperilled the whole Brexit project. Hence why it was just never credible. The EU never believed it even when it was being heavily talked up. And I think the only remotely rational people who truly believed in it as an option were smash it all up nihilists like Cummings who believed the pain (that they'd be insulated from) would be worthwhile shock therapy. And even they stepped away from the edge.
I'd say you are the one who defies logic by allowing a fanatical emotional attachment to an idea to cause a delusion that others share that attachment and imposing a shedload of new costs and difficulties on people, businesses, and government would be survivable for a government. Most people are in the middle. They were OK with Brexit after the referendum result, but not at a price that hugely inconvenienced them. Every credible assessment of No Deal states it would have done more than that.
It was 'talked up' a little by the British side at the end of the Bojo negotiations, when everyone and their wife knew that no preparation had been done. That's precisely why the EU didn't believe it. Well done for proving my point.
As to the rest, I think you have to be straight with people. And as I've said, I don't think that a huge project to strengthen our border infrastructure would have proven to be money ill-spent, especially given what followed, firstly Covid and then the realisation that the policing of our borders is a bad joke.
And the shortlist for tonight’s Pastoral Group competition is….the Australian cattle dog, Australian shepherd dog, Briard, Puli, Norwegian Buhund, Old English Sheepdog, Pyrenean mountain dog, Samoyed, and the Welsh Corgi Pembroke.
And the winner is…Viking the popular Australian Shepherd.
Wasn't the prize supposed to go to a dog? Not some Ozzie sheep-shagger!
No, you're all wrong on Mrs May and Brexit. The main issue wasn't her rhetoric or her mindset, it was the domestic politics of it. A soft Brexit meant SM which meant FOM. No Tory PM could have got that through the Brexit parliament and stayed PM. A Labour PM could but not a Tory one.
Why? Because a deal like that would have run counter to where the party's members and voters and a critical mass of their MPs were. It would have been VONC and out. She knew that. As would any other Tory politician in her place at that time in those circumstances.
Soft Brexit = Pipedream.
The point is she could have decoupled the two - done a quick, and soft Brexit to get out of the political structures and told the hardcore there would be plenty of room to revisit the economic ones (like the SM) after. There was a window of opportunity when Brexit was still undefined - and you could have set out a plan that sequenced it.
It was only later, and in part due to, May's speech that Brexit became that interminable conundrum where everyone could stymie each other by demanding the impossible, but never had the numbers to carry their preferred position.
Assuming that May's intention was to bring the UK out of the EU successfully, her issue was a deliberate policy of Hunt's (and we must assume May's, though the Treasury is an odd beast and can often defy the PM), not to provide the necessary resources to prepare the UK for the ramifications of leaving the EU without an FTA, or any agreement - the 'without a deal' scenario. Without those preparations in place, she was negotiating with zero credible threat of walking out. The eventual agreement was purely a case of how nice the EU wanted to be or not. This also ruined Johnson's negotiations. They tried to mutter and hint that a no deal scenario was possible, but it was bluff and the EU knew it.
'Necessary resources' or not it wasn't credible, because people don't vote to become poorer or go through national disasters. Blowing off your own foot isn't a credible threat whether or not you supply the bandages beforehand.
I you read your post through, you'll notice it's more emotional than logical. You dislike the idea of leaving the EU, so you have a tendency, as do so many like you, to talk about it in apocalyptical and really rather meaningless terms.
The UK is a global trading nation - in the vanishingly unlikely scenario that the EU would have deprived us of their exports (and foregone their extremely large divorce settlement, without which their finances would have gone south very quickly), we would have been completely fine. I also don't think there's any no deal preparation activity that would not also have proven useful in other ways, like making our borders more secure against illegal immigration. Not to prepare was an act of profound folly, and May deserved what happened to her premiership as an indirect result.
What complete idiotic rot, that doesn't understand the nature of what 'No Deal' meant. We have had a tiny taste of it in terms of the various frictions that have been prompted by the deal we got in the end - problems in North Ireland, businesses struggling, messes at the ports - which we did the prep for.
We are a global trading nation (as is the rest of the EU), but you can't completely change your trading model and infrastructure (not to mention geography), so quickly without significant turmoil. Which is what No Deal would have meant. The way we have done Brexit is a fraction of that, and has by and large turned more people against the idea in the abstract, even as we're stuck with it for the foreseeable.
We could have prepared for it. But the idea the treasury earmarking and then spending vast sums of money to build new port infrastructure, hiring an army of new public sector workers to cope with new competencies and duties, imposing an even larger amount of paperwork on firms than has been the case, would have been survivable for a government's popularity is for the birds. 'No New Money For The NHS, Prepare For A No Deal Brexit Instead' would have been hilarious to see a government try. That's not to mention what on Earth would have happened in NI if you suddenly put up a hard border.
As a country of course we'd have got through it - every one does. But it would have made the government trying it incredibly unpopular and possibly imperilled the whole Brexit project. Hence why it was just never credible. The EU never believed it even when it was being heavily talked up. And I think the only remotely rational people who truly believed in it as an option were smash it all up nihilists like Cummings who believed the pain (that they'd be insulated from) would be worthwhile shock therapy. And even they stepped away from the edge.
I'd say you are the one who defies logic by allowing a fanatical emotional attachment to an idea to cause a delusion that others share that attachment and imposing a shedload of new costs and difficulties on people, businesses, and government would be survivable for a government. Most people are in the middle. They were OK with Brexit after the referendum result, but not at a price that hugely inconvenienced them. Every credible assessment of No Deal states it would have done more than that.
Totally. A fantasy. They abound on Brexit. (And I still think your Soft Brexit is, btw, but not as big a one as this No Deal - and prep - nonsense).
Shall we nail another Brexit fantasy while we're at it? Ok, so this idea we should have decided "What Leave Meant" before having the vote. In other words gone though all the rigmarole of negotiating the exit terms before we even knew we were exiting. I mean, c'mon.
Same applies to Sindy2 if and when that happens. Sindy will not be defined (ie quasi-negotiated) before the vote. Things don't work that way. You vote to exit and mandate your government to execute via the most favourable deal they can manage using best skill and efforts. That's how it was with us leaving the EU (although the skill was somewhat lacking). That's how it would be again with Scotland leaving us. It's the only way to do it.
It seems to be assumed that FoM was sine qua non for Brexiteers. Not for me. I was for leaving the EU but retaining FoM. Was I deluded?
I don't really care about FOM either. I think it was FOM combined with our universal benefits that was a pisstake. People sending child benefit home to Poland for their kids. Nope. That needed reform. As ever, Cameron failed.
I never understood that. To claim CB you have to be the primary carer for the child. How can you be the primary carer in the UK when the child lives in Poland?
It’s nonsense straight out of the Daily Express
It's not. People did claim CB for children living in Poland
It would not have been difficult would it have been to tighten the rules and administration to stop that.
No, you're all wrong on Mrs May and Brexit. The main issue wasn't her rhetoric or her mindset, it was the domestic politics of it. A soft Brexit meant SM which meant FOM. No Tory PM could have got that through the Brexit parliament and stayed PM. A Labour PM could but not a Tory one.
Why? Because a deal like that would have run counter to where the party's members and voters and a critical mass of their MPs were. It would have been VONC and out. She knew that. As would any other person in her place at that time in those circumstances.
Soft Brexit = Pipedream.
But also, soft Brexit loses if it's explicitly put to the public in 2016, because it means FOM. Where May ended up was "least economically damaging Brexit that stops FOM", which was probably a reasonable take on the main strand of what the 52% wanted.
But any real deal was bound to disappoint, because what the UK really wanted was for the EU to give us exactly what we wanted in exchange for the pleasure of our company. I'm sure there was a colourful metaphor involving post-divorce relationships.
How would people have voted if they’d known that immigration post-Brexit would be substantially higher?
If the Remain campaign had managed to convince people that a Leave vote would lead to higher immigration then it would have been a landslide for Remain.
But I can see why they didn't try that argument. They would have been ridiculed. I'm not sure how it has happened, particularly when we've had a decade, at least, of Conservative PMs pledged to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands.
This is a good question. How did it happen? How did a Conservative administration so explicitly desirous of lower immigration and having taken back control produce a situation with record high immigration?
Because Conservative administrations since Cameron have chosen to be performatively (and often crassly) right wing, but in practise left wing. And particularly performatively pro-British, but in practise pro-almost anyone else. The @Cookie paradox.
It seems to be assumed that FoM was sine qua non for Brexiteers. Not for me. I was for leaving the EU but retaining FoM. Was I deluded?
I don't really care about FOM either. I think it was FOM combined with our universal benefits that was a pisstake. People sending child benefit home to Poland for their kids. Nope. That needed reform. As ever, Cameron failed.
I never understood that. To claim CB you have to be the primary carer for the child. How can you be the primary carer in the UK when the child lives in Poland?
It’s nonsense straight out of the Daily Express
It's not. People did claim CB for children living in Poland
It would not have been difficult would it have been to tighten the rules and administration to stop that.
I agree. Cameron didn't want to reform our relationship with the EU to make it more acceptable to the people, he wanted to force people to acquiesce to the whole ugly hog, because they'd given it their democratic endorsement.
It seems to be assumed that FoM was sine qua non for Brexiteers. Not for me. I was for leaving the EU but retaining FoM. Was I deluded?
I don't really care about FOM either. I think it was FOM combined with our universal benefits that was a pisstake. People sending child benefit home to Poland for their kids. Nope. That needed reform. As ever, Cameron failed.
I never understood that. To claim CB you have to be the primary carer for the child. How can you be the primary carer in the UK when the child lives in Poland?
It’s nonsense straight out of the Daily Express
Guardian: More than 40,000 children living abroad receive UK child benefit
The Treasury defended the overseas payments, saying that they were obliged under European law, and pointed out that claims could only be made if at least one parent was working in the UK and paying National Insurance."
And about six times as many pensioners living in the EU who get paid UK state pension...
No, you're all wrong on Mrs May and Brexit. The main issue wasn't her rhetoric or her mindset, it was the domestic politics of it. A soft Brexit meant SM which meant FOM. No Tory PM could have got that through the Brexit parliament and stayed PM. A Labour PM could but not a Tory one.
Why? Because a deal like that would have run counter to where the party's members and voters and a critical mass of their MPs were. It would have been VONC and out. She knew that. As would any other person in her place at that time in those circumstances.
Soft Brexit = Pipedream.
But also, soft Brexit loses if it's explicitly put to the public in 2016, because it means FOM. Where May ended up was "least economically damaging Brexit that stops FOM", which was probably a reasonable take on the main strand of what the 52% wanted.
But any real deal was bound to disappoint, because what the UK really wanted was for the EU to give us exactly what we wanted in exchange for the pleasure of our company. I'm sure there was a colourful metaphor involving post-divorce relationships.
How would people have voted if they’d known that immigration post-Brexit would be substantially higher?
If the Remain campaign had managed to convince people that a Leave vote would lead to higher immigration then it would have been a landslide for Remain.
But I can see why they didn't try that argument. They would have been ridiculed. I'm not sure how it has happened, particularly when we've had a decade, at least, of Conservative PMs pledged to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands.
This is a good question. How did it happen? How did a Conservative administration so explicitly desirous of lower immigration and having taken back control produce a situation with record high immigration?
Can I be the third to frank this - yes how *did* that happen?
Because Boris Johnson is the most liberal PM we've had. Certainly far more than Blair or Brown.
No, you're all wrong on Mrs May and Brexit. The main issue wasn't her rhetoric or her mindset, it was the domestic politics of it. A soft Brexit meant SM which meant FOM. No Tory PM could have got that through the Brexit parliament and stayed PM. A Labour PM could but not a Tory one.
Why? Because a deal like that would have run counter to where the party's members and voters and a critical mass of their MPs were. It would have been VONC and out. She knew that. As would any other Tory politician in her place at that time in those circumstances.
Soft Brexit = Pipedream.
The point is she could have decoupled the two - done a quick, and soft Brexit to get out of the political structures and told the hardcore there would be plenty of room to revisit the economic ones (like the SM) after. There was a window of opportunity when Brexit was still undefined - and you could have set out a plan that sequenced it.
It was only later, and in part due to, May's speech that Brexit became that interminable conundrum where everyone could stymie each other by demanding the impossible, but never had the numbers to carry their preferred position.
Assuming that May's intention was to bring the UK out of the EU successfully, her issue was a deliberate policy of Hunt's (and we must assume May's, though the Treasury is an odd beast and can often defy the PM), not to provide the necessary resources to prepare the UK for the ramifications of leaving the EU without an FTA, or any agreement - the 'without a deal' scenario. Without those preparations in place, she was negotiating with zero credible threat of walking out. The eventual agreement was purely a case of how nice the EU wanted to be or not. This also ruined Johnson's negotiations. They tried to mutter and hint that a no deal scenario was possible, but it was bluff and the EU knew it.
'Necessary resources' or not it wasn't credible, because people don't vote to become poorer or go through national disasters. Blowing off your own foot isn't a credible threat whether or not you supply the bandages beforehand.
I you read your post through, you'll notice it's more emotional than logical. You dislike the idea of leaving the EU, so you have a tendency, as do so many like you, to talk about it in apocalyptical and really rather meaningless terms.
The UK is a global trading nation - in the vanishingly unlikely scenario that the EU would have deprived us of their exports (and foregone their extremely large divorce settlement, without which their finances would have gone south very quickly), we would have been completely fine. I also don't think there's any no deal preparation activity that would not also have proven useful in other ways, like making our borders more secure against illegal immigration. Not to prepare was an act of profound folly, and May deserved what happened to her premiership as an indirect result.
What complete idiotic rot, that doesn't understand the nature of what 'No Deal' meant. We have had a tiny taste of it in terms of the various frictions that have been prompted by the deal we got in the end - problems in North Ireland, businesses struggling, messes at the ports - which we did the prep for.
We are a global trading nation (as is the rest of the EU), but you can't completely change your trading model and infrastructure (not to mention geography), so quickly without significant turmoil. Which is what No Deal would have meant. The way we have done Brexit is a fraction of that, and has by and large turned more people against the idea in the abstract, even as we're stuck with it for the foreseeable.
We could have prepared for it. But the idea the treasury earmarking and then spending vast sums of money to build new port infrastructure, hiring an army of new public sector workers to cope with new competencies and duties, imposing an even larger amount of paperwork on firms than has been the case, would have been survivable for a government's popularity is for the birds. 'No New Money For The NHS, Prepare For A No Deal Brexit Instead' would have been hilarious to see a government try. That's not to mention what on Earth would have happened in NI if you suddenly put up a hard border.
As a country of course we'd have got through it - every one does. But it would have made the government trying it incredibly unpopular and possibly imperilled the whole Brexit project. Hence why it was just never credible. The EU never believed it even when it was being heavily talked up. And I think the only remotely rational people who truly believed in it as an option were smash it all up nihilists like Cummings who believed the pain (that they'd be insulated from) would be worthwhile shock therapy. And even they stepped away from the edge.
I'd say you are the one who defies logic by allowing a fanatical emotional attachment to an idea to cause a delusion that others share that attachment and imposing a shedload of new costs and difficulties on people, businesses, and government would be survivable for a government. Most people are in the middle. They were OK with Brexit after the referendum result, but not at a price that hugely inconvenienced them. Every credible assessment of No Deal states it would have done more than that.
Totally. A fantasy. They abound on Brexit. (And I still think your Soft Brexit is, btw, but not as big a one as this No Deal - and prep - nonsense).
Shall we nail another Brexit fantasy while we're at it? Ok, so this idea we should have decided "What Leave Meant" before having the vote. In other words gone though all the rigmarole of negotiating the exit terms before we even knew we were exiting. I mean, c'mon.
Same applies to Sindy2 if and when that happens. Sindy will not be defined (ie quasi-negotiated) before the vote. Things don't work that way. You vote to exit and mandate your government to execute via the most favourable deal they can manage using best skill and efforts. That's how it was with us leaving the EU (although the skill was somewhat lacking). That's how it would be again with Scotland leaving us. It's the only way to do it.
You seem to be under a fond misapprehension that you've 'nailed' anything in this debate. I'm not even aware that you've made an argument yet, let alone a convincing one.
Wasn't aware of the event, but a quick look suggests the Irish constitution must contain some rather woolly, unnecessary fluff. A lean constitution wouldn't have this stuff to start with (not that the UK is in a position to judge constitutional leanness).
de Valera decided women should stay in the home. Oddly the vote says Ireland agrees with him.
Moral: Don't do referendums if the electorate is likely to use them as a way of saying "we're grumpy". Or, if you must, make sure that the referendum isn't consequential.
Or don't have all the main political parties agree to support a change and then put it to the population in a referendum.
Is there a precedent in any country for an opinion poll fail on such a scale? A month ago, Ipsos returned 53%-15% for yes-no in the family referendum, or 78%-22% among those who said which way they'd vote. The actual result will be close to 32%-68%.
It just goes to show how unpredictable and risky referendums can be.
Yes
No UK prime minister will ever call a referendum ever again, unless they are forced (eg in Ulster, or by ten SNP holyrood wins on the trot)
The political leason of referendums everywhere is: don’t have them
On the contrary, it's 'have them all the time, then people won't make such a big hairy deal about them'. The Swiss, as ever, show the way.
Isn't the Californian system essentially a direct copy of the Swiss one? And they've got themselves into numerous muddles with referenda that have limited the ability to raise taxes whilst others have mandated spending money that doesn't exist...
Actually a more-or-less copy of the "Wisconsin System" of popular democracy, including initiatives, referendums AND recalls. Instituted under leadership of progressive Republican (when there WERE such) Governor Robert "Fighting Bob" La Follette in early years of 20th century, and gradually adopted in some form by many states.
La Follette was of course inspired by Switzerland, and adapted their system to Wisconsin/American conditions.
No, you're all wrong on Mrs May and Brexit. The main issue wasn't her rhetoric or her mindset, it was the domestic politics of it. A soft Brexit meant SM which meant FOM. No Tory PM could have got that through the Brexit parliament and stayed PM. A Labour PM could but not a Tory one.
Why? Because a deal like that would have run counter to where the party's members and voters and a critical mass of their MPs were. It would have been VONC and out. She knew that. As would any other Tory politician in her place at that time in those circumstances.
Soft Brexit = Pipedream.
The point is she could have decoupled the two - done a quick, and soft Brexit to get out of the political structures and told the hardcore there would be plenty of room to revisit the economic ones (like the SM) after. There was a window of opportunity when Brexit was still undefined - and you could have set out a plan that sequenced it.
It was only later, and in part due to, May's speech that Brexit became that interminable conundrum where everyone could stymie each other by demanding the impossible, but never had the numbers to carry their preferred position.
Assuming that May's intention was to bring the UK out of the EU successfully, her issue was a deliberate policy of Hunt's (and we must assume May's, though the Treasury is an odd beast and can often defy the PM), not to provide the necessary resources to prepare the UK for the ramifications of leaving the EU without an FTA, or any agreement - the 'without a deal' scenario. Without those preparations in place, she was negotiating with zero credible threat of walking out. The eventual agreement was purely a case of how nice the EU wanted to be or not. This also ruined Johnson's negotiations. They tried to mutter and hint that a no deal scenario was possible, but it was bluff and the EU knew it.
'Necessary resources' or not it wasn't credible, because people don't vote to become poorer or go through national disasters. Blowing off your own foot isn't a credible threat whether or not you supply the bandages beforehand.
I you read your post through, you'll notice it's more emotional than logical. You dislike the idea of leaving the EU, so you have a tendency, as do so many like you, to talk about it in apocalyptical and really rather meaningless terms.
The UK is a global trading nation - in the vanishingly unlikely scenario that the EU would have deprived us of their exports (and foregone their extremely large divorce settlement, without which their finances would have gone south very quickly), we would have been completely fine. I also don't think there's any no deal preparation activity that would not also have proven useful in other ways, like making our borders more secure against illegal immigration. Not to prepare was an act of profound folly, and May deserved what happened to her premiership as an indirect result.
What complete idiotic rot, that doesn't understand the nature of what 'No Deal' meant. We have had a tiny taste of it in terms of the various frictions that have been prompted by the deal we got in the end - problems in North Ireland, businesses struggling, messes at the ports - which we did the prep for.
We are a global trading nation (as is the rest of the EU), but you can't completely change your trading model and infrastructure (not to mention geography), so quickly without significant turmoil. Which is what No Deal would have meant. The way we have done Brexit is a fraction of that, and has by and large turned more people against the idea in the abstract, even as we're stuck with it for the foreseeable.
We could have prepared for it. But the idea the treasury earmarking and then spending vast sums of money to build new port infrastructure, hiring an army of new public sector workers to cope with new competencies and duties, imposing an even larger amount of paperwork on firms than has been the case, would have been survivable for a government's popularity is for the birds. 'No New Money For The NHS, Prepare For A No Deal Brexit Instead' would have been hilarious to see a government try. That's not to mention what on Earth would have happened in NI if you suddenly put up a hard border.
As a country of course we'd have got through it - every one does. But it would have made the government trying it incredibly unpopular and possibly imperilled the whole Brexit project. Hence why it was just never credible. The EU never believed it even when it was being heavily talked up. And I think the only remotely rational people who truly believed in it as an option were smash it all up nihilists like Cummings who believed the pain (that they'd be insulated from) would be worthwhile shock therapy. And even they stepped away from the edge.
I'd say you are the one who defies logic by allowing a fanatical emotional attachment to an idea to cause a delusion that others share that attachment and imposing a shedload of new costs and difficulties on people, businesses, and government would be survivable for a government. Most people are in the middle. They were OK with Brexit after the referendum result, but not at a price that hugely inconvenienced them. Every credible assessment of No Deal states it would have done more than that.
Totally. A fantasy. They abound on Brexit. (And I still think your Soft Brexit is, btw, but not as big a one as this No Deal - and prep - nonsense).
Shall we nail another Brexit fantasy while we're at it? Ok, so this idea we should have decided "What Leave Meant" before having the vote. In other words gone though all the rigmarole of negotiating the exit terms before we even knew we were exiting. I mean, c'mon.
Same applies to Sindy2 if and when that happens. Sindy will not be defined (ie quasi-negotiated) before the vote. Things don't work that way. You vote to exit and mandate your government to execute via the most favourable deal they can manage using best skill and efforts. That's how it was with us leaving the EU (although the skill was somewhat lacking). That's how it would be again with Scotland leaving us. It's the only way to do it.
You seem to be under a fond misapprehension that you've 'nailed' anything in this debate. I'm not even aware that you've made an argument yet, let alone a convincing one.
No, you're all wrong on Mrs May and Brexit. The main issue wasn't her rhetoric or her mindset, it was the domestic politics of it. A soft Brexit meant SM which meant FOM. No Tory PM could have got that through the Brexit parliament and stayed PM. A Labour PM could but not a Tory one.
Why? Because a deal like that would have run counter to where the party's members and voters and a critical mass of their MPs were. It would have been VONC and out. She knew that. As would any other person in her place at that time in those circumstances.
Soft Brexit = Pipedream.
But also, soft Brexit loses if it's explicitly put to the public in 2016, because it means FOM. Where May ended up was "least economically damaging Brexit that stops FOM", which was probably a reasonable take on the main strand of what the 52% wanted.
But any real deal was bound to disappoint, because what the UK really wanted was for the EU to give us exactly what we wanted in exchange for the pleasure of our company. I'm sure there was a colourful metaphor involving post-divorce relationships.
How would people have voted if they’d known that immigration post-Brexit would be substantially higher?
If the Remain campaign had managed to convince people that a Leave vote would lead to higher immigration then it would have been a landslide for Remain.
But I can see why they didn't try that argument. They would have been ridiculed. I'm not sure how it has happened, particularly when we've had a decade, at least, of Conservative PMs pledged to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands.
This is a good question. How did it happen? How did a Conservative administration so explicitly desirous of lower immigration and having taken back control produce a situation with record high immigration?
Because ther is a higher demand foe immigration whuch the government is poor at resisting. I don't think it's credible to suggest that had we Remained immigration would ve lower than it is now. Not everything is because of Brexit.
I'm guessing that the numbers would've been similar, but the mix of origins different.
It seems to be assumed that FoM was sine qua non for Brexiteers. Not for me. I was for leaving the EU but retaining FoM. Was I deluded?
I don't really care about FOM either. I think it was FOM combined with our universal benefits that was a pisstake. People sending child benefit home to Poland for their kids. Nope. That needed reform. As ever, Cameron failed.
I never understood that. To claim CB you have to be the primary carer for the child. How can you be the primary carer in the UK when the child lives in Poland?
It’s nonsense straight out of the Daily Express
Guardian: More than 40,000 children living abroad receive UK child benefit
The Treasury defended the overseas payments, saying that they were obliged under European law, and pointed out that claims could only be made if at least one parent was working in the UK and paying National Insurance."
It seems we're dealing with some 'low information voters'. Perhaps given that they were so ill-informed of the issues, the remain side should have really required a supermajority to have passed.
Seattle Times - Boeing admits it can’t find records on the Alaska Airlines door plug work
by ST aerospace correspondent Dominic Gates - Boeing leadership admitted Friday in a letter sent to Sen. Maria Cantwell that it cannot find any record of the work done on the 737 MAX final assembly line in Renton to open and reinstall the panel that blew out Jan. 5 on Alaska Airlines Flight 1282.
Boeing’s presumption is that no record was ever created.
“We have looked extensively and have not found any such documentation,” wrote Ziad Ojakli, Boeing executive vice president and the company’s chief government lobbyist.
He added Boeing’s “working hypothesis: that the documents required by our processes were not created when the door plug was opened.”
The letter, a copy of which was reviewed by The Seattle Times, is marked by Boeing, “Investigative Information — Do not release without prior approval of the NTSB,” referring to the National Transportation Safety Board.
It was sent Friday to Cantwell on behalf of Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun after a dramatic Senate Commerce Committee hearing Wednesday in which the chair of the NTSB, Jennifer Homendy, scathingly testified that Boeing was not fully cooperating in the federal safety agency’s investigation of the accident on that flight.
Homendy said Boeing had not provided records of the work or the names of all the employees involved. During the hearing, Cantwell, D-Wash., demanded a response from Boeing within 48 hours.
SSI - Note the "Do not release without prior approval" crap. Which Sen. Cantwell rightly treated with the respect it deserves - NIL.
As I understand it, the problem comes down to the fact that the door plug was "opened" rather than "removed" and so didn't require a documentation trail...
That makes sense for a door, which would only need to be unlatched, but not for a door plug - which needs to be unbolted.
Presumably someone, somewhere has a set of four unused door bolts that they're keeping very quiet about...
No, you're all wrong on Mrs May and Brexit. The main issue wasn't her rhetoric or her mindset, it was the domestic politics of it. A soft Brexit meant SM which meant FOM. No Tory PM could have got that through the Brexit parliament and stayed PM. A Labour PM could but not a Tory one.
Why? Because a deal like that would have run counter to where the party's members and voters and a critical mass of their MPs were. It would have been VONC and out. She knew that. As would any other person in her place at that time in those circumstances.
Soft Brexit = Pipedream.
But also, soft Brexit loses if it's explicitly put to the public in 2016, because it means FOM. Where May ended up was "least economically damaging Brexit that stops FOM", which was probably a reasonable take on the main strand of what the 52% wanted.
But any real deal was bound to disappoint, because what the UK really wanted was for the EU to give us exactly what we wanted in exchange for the pleasure of our company. I'm sure there was a colourful metaphor involving post-divorce relationships.
How would people have voted if they’d known that immigration post-Brexit would be substantially higher?
If the Remain campaign had managed to convince people that a Leave vote would lead to higher immigration then it would have been a landslide for Remain.
But I can see why they didn't try that argument. They would have been ridiculed. I'm not sure how it has happened, particularly when we've had a decade, at least, of Conservative PMs pledged to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands.
This is a good question. How did it happen? How did a Conservative administration so explicitly desirous of lower immigration and having taken back control produce a situation with record high immigration?
Can I be the third to frank this - yes how *did* that happen?
Because Boris Johnson is the most liberal PM we've had. Certainly far more than Blair or Brown.
Yes but seriously.
There have been some suggestions that people are exploiting our openness towards foreign students. The BBC had an interesting report on this:
One influencer wey tell BBC say Nigerians dey sign up for degrees for UK just to get visa for themselves and dia dependents don apologise.
"We don begin to see say a lot of pipo just hide behind di studentship. So di student thing no dey real, no be like say dem need di degrees," Emdee Tiamiyu tok for di interview.
Di Office for National Statistics (ONS) tok say one significant factor behind di high migration numbers in recent years na increase in foreign students and dia dependants wey dey follow dem come.
One fifth of UK student visas last year go to Nigerians - 120,000 in total, wit half for di students themself and half for partners and children.
Nigerians get more family visas for foreign students than any oda nationality, ONS tok.
Bloody Brexit, again. I wonder if Theresa May realises that her decision to stand down has led to a major revisiting of the Brexit debate on PB. After the vote seven (yes, seven, nearly) years ago, the argument rages on, with no new illumination.
I hope we never, ever, have another referendum on anything.
No, you're all wrong on Mrs May and Brexit. The main issue wasn't her rhetoric or her mindset, it was the domestic politics of it. A soft Brexit meant SM which meant FOM. No Tory PM could have got that through the Brexit parliament and stayed PM. A Labour PM could but not a Tory one.
Why? Because a deal like that would have run counter to where the party's members and voters and a critical mass of their MPs were. It would have been VONC and out. She knew that. As would any other Tory politician in her place at that time in those circumstances.
Soft Brexit = Pipedream.
The point is she could have decoupled the two - done a quick, and soft Brexit to get out of the political structures and told the hardcore there would be plenty of room to revisit the economic ones (like the SM) after. There was a window of opportunity when Brexit was still undefined - and you could have set out a plan that sequenced it.
It was only later, and in part due to, May's speech that Brexit became that interminable conundrum where everyone could stymie each other by demanding the impossible, but never had the numbers to carry their preferred position.
Assuming that May's intention was to bring the UK out of the EU successfully, her issue was a deliberate policy of Hunt's (and we must assume May's, though the Treasury is an odd beast and can often defy the PM), not to provide the necessary resources to prepare the UK for the ramifications of leaving the EU without an FTA, or any agreement - the 'without a deal' scenario. Without those preparations in place, she was negotiating with zero credible threat of walking out. The eventual agreement was purely a case of how nice the EU wanted to be or not. This also ruined Johnson's negotiations. They tried to mutter and hint that a no deal scenario was possible, but it was bluff and the EU knew it.
'Necessary resources' or not it wasn't credible, because people don't vote to become poorer or go through national disasters. Blowing off your own foot isn't a credible threat whether or not you supply the bandages beforehand.
I you read your post through, you'll notice it's more emotional than logical. You dislike the idea of leaving the EU, so you have a tendency, as do so many like you, to talk about it in apocalyptical and really rather meaningless terms.
The UK is a global trading nation - in the vanishingly unlikely scenario that the EU would have deprived us of their exports (and foregone their extremely large divorce settlement, without which their finances would have gone south very quickly), we would have been completely fine. I also don't think there's any no deal preparation activity that would not also have proven useful in other ways, like making our borders more secure against illegal immigration. Not to prepare was an act of profound folly, and May deserved what happened to her premiership as an indirect result.
What complete idiotic rot, that doesn't understand the nature of what 'No Deal' meant. We have had a tiny taste of it in terms of the various frictions that have been prompted by the deal we got in the end - problems in North Ireland, businesses struggling, messes at the ports - which we did the prep for.
We are a global trading nation (as is the rest of the EU), but you can't completely change your trading model and infrastructure (not to mention geography), so quickly without significant turmoil. Which is what No Deal would have meant. The way we have done Brexit is a fraction of that, and has by and large turned more people against the idea in the abstract, even as we're stuck with it for the foreseeable.
We could have prepared for it. But the idea the treasury earmarking and then spending vast sums of money to build new port infrastructure, hiring an army of new public sector workers to cope with new competencies and duties, imposing an even larger amount of paperwork on firms than has been the case, would have been survivable for a government's popularity is for the birds. 'No New Money For The NHS, Prepare For A No Deal Brexit Instead' would have been hilarious to see a government try. That's not to mention what on Earth would have happened in NI if you suddenly put up a hard border.
As a country of course we'd have got through it - every one does. But it would have made the government trying it incredibly unpopular and possibly imperilled the whole Brexit project. Hence why it was just never credible. The EU never believed it even when it was being heavily talked up. And I think the only remotely rational people who truly believed in it as an option were smash it all up nihilists like Cummings who believed the pain (that they'd be insulated from) would be worthwhile shock therapy. And even they stepped away from the edge.
I'd say you are the one who defies logic by allowing a fanatical emotional attachment to an idea to cause a delusion that others share that attachment and imposing a shedload of new costs and difficulties on people, businesses, and government would be survivable for a government. Most people are in the middle. They were OK with Brexit after the referendum result, but not at a price that hugely inconvenienced them. Every credible assessment of No Deal states it would have done more than that.
Totally. A fantasy. They abound on Brexit. (And I still think your Soft Brexit is, btw, but not as big a one as this No Deal - and prep - nonsense).
Shall we nail another Brexit fantasy while we're at it? Ok, so this idea we should have decided "What Leave Meant" before having the vote. In other words gone though all the rigmarole of negotiating the exit terms before we even knew we were exiting. I mean, c'mon.
Same applies to Sindy2 if and when that happens. Sindy will not be defined (ie quasi-negotiated) before the vote. Things don't work that way. You vote to exit and mandate your government to execute via the most favourable deal they can manage using best skill and efforts. That's how it was with us leaving the EU (although the skill was somewhat lacking). That's how it would be again with Scotland leaving us. It's the only way to do it.
You seem to be under a fond misapprehension that you've 'nailed' anything in this debate. I'm not even aware that you've made an argument yet, let alone a convincing one.
Horse to water etc ...
Yes, the water would need to be a good deal clearer and fresher to be in any way tempting.
It seems to be assumed that FoM was sine qua non for Brexiteers. Not for me. I was for leaving the EU but retaining FoM. Was I deluded?
I don't really care about FOM either. I think it was FOM combined with our universal benefits that was a pisstake. People sending child benefit home to Poland for their kids. Nope. That needed reform. As ever, Cameron failed.
I never understood that. To claim CB you have to be the primary carer for the child. How can you be the primary carer in the UK when the child lives in Poland?
It’s nonsense straight out of the Daily Express
It's not. People did claim CB for children living in Poland
This is what Cameron actually got, if anyone's interested
"What the final deal said:
On child benefit: A proposal to amend Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the coordination of social security systems in order to give Member States, with regard to the exportation of child benefits to a Member State other than that where the worker resides, an option to index such benefits to the conditions of the Member State where the child resides. This should apply only to new claims made by EU workers in the host Member State. However, as from 1 January 2020, all Member States may extend indexation to existing claims to child benefits already exported by EU workers. The Commission does not intend to propose that the future system of optional indexation of child benefits be extended to other types of exportable benefits, such as old-age pensions;"
"Assessment: Mr Cameron had to compromise on this aspect of the deal in the face of strong opposition from Poland and three other central European countries. He got the four-year "emergency brake" on in-work benefits he had set such store by - but new arrivals will have their tax credits phased in over four years. The brake will be in place for a maximum of seven years, rather than the 13 years Mr Cameron is thought to have wanted - but the EU has agreed it would be "justified" to trigger it without delay after the referendum if the UK votes to stay in the EU.
Mr Cameron failed in his original demand to ban migrant workers from sending child benefit money back home. Payments will instead be linked to the cost of living in the countries where the children live. The new rules will apply immediately for new arrivals, and for existing claimants from 2020."
regarding inflation in general, we are doing some building work to our block of flats. Mostly this is specialist building work but the question came up of treating and painting the wooden timber windows whilst the scaffold was up. There are some minor bits of rot so you need to dig out the damp wood, put in some wood hardener, let it dry, then fill it. And the scrape off the peeling paint and repaint the windows, 2 in total.
The quotes came through at close to £2000. In the end me and my neighbour just decided to do it ourselves over a couple of days. I've done this type of thing many times, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't; but you can't do that much harm, and the work that tradesmen do can also fail.
£2K is just way beyond the budget of the leaseholders, if it was replicated across every window in the building it would cost £16,000 just to paint the windows.
The massive deflation in prices for building and decorating has come to an end with a vengeance.
I commented, a while back about carpeting a (not huge) flat, in 1998 for £1.8k
My parents built their way round a wreck of a house in the 80s. Doing up one room at a time, even using a second hand carpet from a posh office a relative worked at.
Then came the years when many people didn’t bother with DIY - you could get people for less than minimum wage. Just a few years back, there would be a queue of men waiting for a job for the day outside the Polish Centre in Hammersmith - £40 a day for a labourer. 8-6 day at that.
Everyone was doing full rip outs and reworks of houses. Why not? A loft conversion cost £30k and put £100k on the value of your house.
In some ways, I think some of this is reality returning. Labour is expensive, fundamentally. Paying Eastern European rates in central London (and the like) could never last.
Much of it, though, is that the cost of housing has escalated even for the worst parts of the sector.
No, you're all wrong on Mrs May and Brexit. The main issue wasn't her rhetoric or her mindset, it was the domestic politics of it. A soft Brexit meant SM which meant FOM. No Tory PM could have got that through the Brexit parliament and stayed PM. A Labour PM could but not a Tory one.
Why? Because a deal like that would have run counter to where the party's members and voters and a critical mass of their MPs were. It would have been VONC and out. She knew that. As would any other person in her place at that time in those circumstances.
Soft Brexit = Pipedream.
But also, soft Brexit loses if it's explicitly put to the public in 2016, because it means FOM. Where May ended up was "least economically damaging Brexit that stops FOM", which was probably a reasonable take on the main strand of what the 52% wanted.
But any real deal was bound to disappoint, because what the UK really wanted was for the EU to give us exactly what we wanted in exchange for the pleasure of our company. I'm sure there was a colourful metaphor involving post-divorce relationships.
How would people have voted if they’d known that immigration post-Brexit would be substantially higher?
If the Remain campaign had managed to convince people that a Leave vote would lead to higher immigration then it would have been a landslide for Remain.
But I can see why they didn't try that argument. They would have been ridiculed. I'm not sure how it has happened, particularly when we've had a decade, at least, of Conservative PMs pledged to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands.
This is a good question. How did it happen? How did a Conservative administration so explicitly desirous of lower immigration and having taken back control produce a situation with record high immigration?
Can I be the third to frank this - yes how *did* that happen?
Because Boris Johnson is the most liberal PM we've had. Certainly far more than Blair or Brown.
Yes but seriously.
There have been some suggestions that people are exploiting our openness towards foreign students. The BBC had an interesting report on this:
One influencer wey tell BBC say Nigerians dey sign up for degrees for UK just to get visa for themselves and dia dependents don apologise.
"We don begin to see say a lot of pipo just hide behind di studentship. So di student thing no dey real, no be like say dem need di degrees," Emdee Tiamiyu tok for di interview.
Di Office for National Statistics (ONS) tok say one significant factor behind di high migration numbers in recent years na increase in foreign students and dia dependants wey dey follow dem come.
One fifth of UK student visas last year go to Nigerians - 120,000 in total, wit half for di students themself and half for partners and children.
Nigerians get more family visas for foreign students than any oda nationality, ONS tok.
My place 100% isn't sending people out to Africa to try and recruit students to make up for falling SE Asian numbers.
I'm sure he feels very smug and satisfied telling victims they need to be superior like him, and accept surrender for peace.
I get it, sometimes people may have no choice but to stop fighting. But it isn't inherently moral to love 'peace' to the extent of effectively saying any fighting is bad. Sometimes fighting is the better option.
Bloody Brexit, again. I wonder if Theresa May realises that her decision to stand down has led to a major revisiting of the Brexit debate on PB. After the vote seven (yes, seven, nearly) years ago, the argument rages on, with no new illumination.
I hope we never, ever, have another referendum on anything.
It is tedious and a lot of hot air
We have left and any attempt to rejoin will fail, but both Sunak and Starmer are correct in seeking closer relationships as per Sunak's WF and rejoing Horizon
Bloody Brexit, again. I wonder if Theresa May realises that her decision to stand down has led to a major revisiting of the Brexit debate on PB. After the vote seven (yes, seven, nearly) years ago, the argument rages on, with no new illumination.
I hope we never, ever, have another referendum on anything.
It is tedious and a lot of hot air
We have left and any attempt to rejoin will fail, but both Sunak and Starmer are correct in seeking closer relationships as per Sunak's WF and rejoing Horizon
No, you're all wrong on Mrs May and Brexit. The main issue wasn't her rhetoric or her mindset, it was the domestic politics of it. A soft Brexit meant SM which meant FOM. No Tory PM could have got that through the Brexit parliament and stayed PM. A Labour PM could but not a Tory one.
Why? Because a deal like that would have run counter to where the party's members and voters and a critical mass of their MPs were. It would have been VONC and out. She knew that. As would any other person in her place at that time in those circumstances.
Soft Brexit = Pipedream.
But also, soft Brexit loses if it's explicitly put to the public in 2016, because it means FOM. Where May ended up was "least economically damaging Brexit that stops FOM", which was probably a reasonable take on the main strand of what the 52% wanted.
But any real deal was bound to disappoint, because what the UK really wanted was for the EU to give us exactly what we wanted in exchange for the pleasure of our company. I'm sure there was a colourful metaphor involving post-divorce relationships.
How would people have voted if they’d known that immigration post-Brexit would be substantially higher?
If the Remain campaign had managed to convince people that a Leave vote would lead to higher immigration then it would have been a landslide for Remain.
But I can see why they didn't try that argument. They would have been ridiculed. I'm not sure how it has happened, particularly when we've had a decade, at least, of Conservative PMs pledged to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands.
This is a good question. How did it happen? How did a Conservative administration so explicitly desirous of lower immigration and having taken back control produce a situation with record high immigration?
Can I be the third to frank this - yes how *did* that happen?
Because Boris Johnson is the most liberal PM we've had. Certainly far more than Blair or Brown.
Yes but seriously.
There have been some suggestions that people are exploiting our openness towards foreign students. The BBC had an interesting report on this:
One influencer wey tell BBC say Nigerians dey sign up for degrees for UK just to get visa for themselves and dia dependents don apologise.
"We don begin to see say a lot of pipo just hide behind di studentship. So di student thing no dey real, no be like say dem need di degrees," Emdee Tiamiyu tok for di interview.
Di Office for National Statistics (ONS) tok say one significant factor behind di high migration numbers in recent years na increase in foreign students and dia dependants wey dey follow dem come.
One fifth of UK student visas last year go to Nigerians - 120,000 in total, wit half for di students themself and half for partners and children.
Nigerians get more family visas for foreign students than any oda nationality, ONS tok.
Bloody Brexit, again. I wonder if Theresa May realises that her decision to stand down has led to a major revisiting of the Brexit debate on PB. After the vote seven (yes, seven, nearly) years ago, the argument rages on, with no new illumination.
I hope we never, ever, have another referendum on anything.
I know time flies when you're having fun, but it was eight years ago!
I'm sure he feels very smug and satisfied telling victims they need to be superior like him, and accept surrender for peace.
I get it, sometimes people may have no choice but to stop fighting. But it isn't inherently moral to love 'peace' to the extent of effectively saying any fighting is bad. Sometimes fighting is the better option.
And whichever is the better option for the Ukrainians, shouldn't it be for them to decide - rather than for the leader of a religion followed by no more than 10% of the Ukrainian population?
I'm sure he feels very smug and satisfied telling victims they need to be superior like him, and accept surrender for peace.
I get it, sometimes people may have no choice but to stop fighting. But it isn't inherently moral to love 'peace' to the extent of effectively saying any fighting is bad. Sometimes fighting is the better option.
My first instinct is that he must be on the payroll.
I'm sure he feels very smug and satisfied telling victims they need to be superior like him, and accept surrender for peace.
I get it, sometimes people may have no choice but to stop fighting. But it isn't inherently moral to love 'peace' to the extent of effectively saying any fighting is bad. Sometimes fighting is the better option.
Isn't the point he's making that if he takes spiritual and inspirational guidance from the Pope, which good Catholics are supposed to do, then this could bleed into policy?
Personally, I don't think it would, but it's not anti-Catholic bigotry to say so. There are plenty of pious followers who would.
Seattle Times - Boeing admits it can’t find records on the Alaska Airlines door plug work
by ST aerospace correspondent Dominic Gates - Boeing leadership admitted Friday in a letter sent to Sen. Maria Cantwell that it cannot find any record of the work done on the 737 MAX final assembly line in Renton to open and reinstall the panel that blew out Jan. 5 on Alaska Airlines Flight 1282.
Boeing’s presumption is that no record was ever created.
“We have looked extensively and have not found any such documentation,” wrote Ziad Ojakli, Boeing executive vice president and the company’s chief government lobbyist.
He added Boeing’s “working hypothesis: that the documents required by our processes were not created when the door plug was opened.”
The letter, a copy of which was reviewed by The Seattle Times, is marked by Boeing, “Investigative Information — Do not release without prior approval of the NTSB,” referring to the National Transportation Safety Board.
It was sent Friday to Cantwell on behalf of Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun after a dramatic Senate Commerce Committee hearing Wednesday in which the chair of the NTSB, Jennifer Homendy, scathingly testified that Boeing was not fully cooperating in the federal safety agency’s investigation of the accident on that flight.
Homendy said Boeing had not provided records of the work or the names of all the employees involved. During the hearing, Cantwell, D-Wash., demanded a response from Boeing within 48 hours.
SSI - Note the "Do not release without prior approval" crap. Which Sen. Cantwell rightly treated with the respect it deserves - NIL.
As I understand it, the problem comes down to the fact that the door plug was "opened" rather than "removed" and so didn't require a documentation trail...
That makes sense for a door, which would only need to be unlatched, but not for a door plug - which needs to be unbolted.
Presumably someone, somewhere has a set of four unused door bolts that they're keeping very quiet about...
Whatever they did damn well DID require a "documentation trail" methinks.
More likely crap someone is "keeping very quiet about" is that someone deliberately - and criminally - destroyed evidence.
OF COURSE such a thing is totally unknown in UK. (IRONY KLAXON)
I'm sure he feels very smug and satisfied telling victims they need to be superior like him, and accept surrender for peace.
I get it, sometimes people may have no choice but to stop fighting. But it isn't inherently moral to love 'peace' to the extent of effectively saying any fighting is bad. Sometimes fighting is the better option.
Sometimes spouting off, wearing a gold cloak while you sit on your gold throne in a big gold building is also called for. Then telling the oppressed they should surrender.
I think I remember that passage in the bible. It was related to the parable of the 'falling out of the window' as I recall.
It seems to be assumed that FoM was sine qua non for Brexiteers. Not for me. I was for leaving the EU but retaining FoM. Was I deluded?
I don't really care about FOM either. I think it was FOM combined with our universal benefits that was a pisstake. People sending child benefit home to Poland for their kids. Nope. That needed reform. As ever, Cameron failed.
I never understood that. To claim CB you have to be the primary carer for the child. How can you be the primary carer in the UK when the child lives in Poland?
It’s nonsense straight out of the Daily Express
It's not. People did claim CB for children living in Poland
This is what Cameron actually got, if anyone's interested
"What the final deal said:
On child benefit: A proposal to amend Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the coordination of social security systems in order to give Member States, with regard to the exportation of child benefits to a Member State other than that where the worker resides, an option to index such benefits to the conditions of the Member State where the child resides. This should apply only to new claims made by EU workers in the host Member State. However, as from 1 January 2020, all Member States may extend indexation to existing claims to child benefits already exported by EU workers. The Commission does not intend to propose that the future system of optional indexation of child benefits be extended to other types of exportable benefits, such as old-age pensions;"
"Assessment: Mr Cameron had to compromise on this aspect of the deal in the face of strong opposition from Poland and three other central European countries. He got the four-year "emergency brake" on in-work benefits he had set such store by - but new arrivals will have their tax credits phased in over four years. The brake will be in place for a maximum of seven years, rather than the 13 years Mr Cameron is thought to have wanted - but the EU has agreed it would be "justified" to trigger it without delay after the referendum if the UK votes to stay in the EU.
Mr Cameron failed in his original demand to ban migrant workers from sending child benefit money back home. Payments will instead be linked to the cost of living in the countries where the children live. The new rules will apply immediately for new arrivals, and for existing claimants from 2020."
I'd argue we've probably lost far more money in lost economic growth anyway.
It's amazing that Cameron thought that half a crumb of half a crumb would cut it.
He'd have done better to invest time in a renegotiation across all EU members of Lisbon according to the Bloomberg principles and then called the vote towards the end of the Parliament.
Isn't the point he's making that if he takes spiritual and inspirational guidance from the Pope, which good Catholics are supposed to do, then this could bleed into policy?
Personally, I don't think it would, but it's not anti-Catholic bigotry to say so. There are plenty of pious followers who would.
In the past there’s been a lot of anti-Catholic bigotry aimed at Catholic presidential candidates, almost calling them fifth columnists.
It is a trend I thought had long gone until William revived it this evening.
Isn't the point he's making that if he takes spiritual and inspirational guidance from the Pope, which good Catholics are supposed to do, then this could bleed into policy?
Personally, I don't think it would, but it's not anti-Catholic bigotry to say so. There are plenty of pious followers who would.
In the past there’s been a lot of anti-Catholic bigotry aimed at Catholic presidential candidates, almost calling them fifth columnists.
It is a trend I thought had long gone until William revived it this evening.
I think you're overegging it a tad.
Pope's have been forces for good influence and bad over the years.
Isn't the point he's making that if he takes spiritual and inspirational guidance from the Pope, which good Catholics are supposed to do, then this could bleed into policy?
Personally, I don't think it would, but it's not anti-Catholic bigotry to say so. There are plenty of pious followers who would.
In the past there’s been a lot of anti-Catholic bigotry aimed at Catholic presidential candidates, almost calling them fifth columnists.
It is a trend I thought had long gone until William revived it this evening.
I think you're overegging it a tad.
Pope's have been forces for good influence and bad over the years.
Prominent Protestant spokesmen, led by Billy Graham and Norman Vincent Peale, organized Protestant ministers by warning that the pope would be giving orders to a Kennedy White House. Many established Evangelical groups were mobilized.
Two organizations took active roles, the National Conference of Citizens for Religious Freedom and Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Peale was blasted by the media for his anti-Catholicism and retreated, denying the facts of his organizing role. Graham pushed hard against Kennedy, keeping Nixon informed of his progress.
No, you're all wrong on Mrs May and Brexit. The main issue wasn't her rhetoric or her mindset, it was the domestic politics of it. A soft Brexit meant SM which meant FOM. No Tory PM could have got that through the Brexit parliament and stayed PM. A Labour PM could but not a Tory one.
Why? Because a deal like that would have run counter to where the party's members and voters and a critical mass of their MPs were. It would have been VONC and out. She knew that. As would any other person in her place at that time in those circumstances.
Soft Brexit = Pipedream.
But also, soft Brexit loses if it's explicitly put to the public in 2016, because it means FOM. Where May ended up was "least economically damaging Brexit that stops FOM", which was probably a reasonable take on the main strand of what the 52% wanted.
But any real deal was bound to disappoint, because what the UK really wanted was for the EU to give us exactly what we wanted in exchange for the pleasure of our company. I'm sure there was a colourful metaphor involving post-divorce relationships.
How would people have voted if they’d known that immigration post-Brexit would be substantially higher?
If the Remain campaign had managed to convince people that a Leave vote would lead to higher immigration then it would have been a landslide for Remain.
But I can see why they didn't try that argument. They would have been ridiculed. I'm not sure how it has happened, particularly when we've had a decade, at least, of Conservative PMs pledged to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands.
This is a good question. How did it happen? How did a Conservative administration so explicitly desirous of lower immigration and having taken back control produce a situation with record high immigration?
Can I be the third to frank this - yes how *did* that happen?
Because Boris Johnson is the most liberal PM we've had. Certainly far more than Blair or Brown.
Yes but seriously.
There have been some suggestions that people are exploiting our openness towards foreign students. The BBC had an interesting report on this:
One influencer wey tell BBC say Nigerians dey sign up for degrees for UK just to get visa for themselves and dia dependents don apologise.
"We don begin to see say a lot of pipo just hide behind di studentship. So di student thing no dey real, no be like say dem need di degrees," Emdee Tiamiyu tok for di interview.
Di Office for National Statistics (ONS) tok say one significant factor behind di high migration numbers in recent years na increase in foreign students and dia dependants wey dey follow dem come.
One fifth of UK student visas last year go to Nigerians - 120,000 in total, wit half for di students themself and half for partners and children.
Nigerians get more family visas for foreign students than any oda nationality, ONS tok.
My place 100% isn't sending people out to Africa to try and recruit students to make up for falling SE Asian numbers.
Just to be clear.
In case anyone was wondering.
Perhaps if Universities had to pay a couple of grand per year per dependent to the state the moral hazard could be reduced and the incentives fixed. A state school place for a dependent child is about £8k.
LLG vs Con/Ref - 58-36 so well in line with other polls.
With the methodology this looks very grim for the Tories.
I think the IFS was accurate when it said neither party are addressing the principle issue
He questioned how do you pay for tax cuts as per the conservatives, or how do you pay for better public services without tax rises as per labour?
Yet we have the economic illiteracy of the Mail arguing for more defence spending and tax cuts. Presumably they think we can fund this by getting everyone back to offices and getting rid of diversity officers at local councils.
I'm sure he feels very smug and satisfied telling victims they need to be superior like him, and accept surrender for peace.
I get it, sometimes people may have no choice but to stop fighting. But it isn't inherently moral to love 'peace' to the extent of effectively saying any fighting is bad. Sometimes fighting is the better option.
Sometimes spouting off, wearing a gold cloak while you sit on your gold throne in a big gold building is also called for. Then telling the oppressed they should surrender.
I think I remember that passage in the bible. It was related to the parable of the 'falling out of the window' as I recall.
It’s right next to the bit about charging the moneychangers in the temple 2.5% on gross.
Isn't the point he's making that if he takes spiritual and inspirational guidance from the Pope, which good Catholics are supposed to do, then this could bleed into policy?
Personally, I don't think it would, but it's not anti-Catholic bigotry to say so. There are plenty of pious followers who would.
"The point" being same argument made in 1928 and 1960 by . . . wait for it . . . anti-Catholic bigots.
Perhaps news to some folks? Who maybe never heard of Al Smith OR John F. Kennedy.
Isn't the point he's making that if he takes spiritual and inspirational guidance from the Pope, which good Catholics are supposed to do, then this could bleed into policy?
Personally, I don't think it would, but it's not anti-Catholic bigotry to say so. There are plenty of pious followers who would.
In the past there’s been a lot of anti-Catholic bigotry aimed at Catholic presidential candidates, almost calling them fifth columnists.
It is a trend I thought had long gone until William revived it this evening.
I think you're overegging it a tad.
Pope's have been forces for good influence and bad over the years.
LLG vs Con/Ref - 58-36 so well in line with other polls.
With the methodology this looks very grim for the Tories.
I think the IFS was accurate when it said neither party are addressing the principle issue
He questioned how do you pay for tax cuts as per the conservatives, or how do you pay for better public services without tax rises as per labour?
Yet we have the economic illiteracy of the Mail arguing for more defence spending and tax cuts. Presumably they think we can fund this by getting everyone back to offices and getting rid of diversity officers at local councils.
Comments
I can imagine they would have much in common.
I worked there for a short time. Liked it, yes.
But I can see why they didn't try that argument. They would have been ridiculed. I'm not sure how it has happened, particularly when we've had a decade, at least, of Conservative PMs pledged to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands.
I get to go quite often and always enjoy my little jaunts.
And the winner is…Viking the popular Australian Shepherd.
I don't think it's credible to suggest that had we Remained immigration would ve lower than it is now. Not everything is because of Brexit.
What Cameron did was put two options on the ballot paper, one of which had been negotiated with the EU and was a concrete proposal, the other was a lovely catch all fantasy choice that could mean whatever anyone wanted it to mean.
His great failure was omitting to set out what his governments position would be if Brexit was voted for. He did this for an easy life from his backbenchers, and because he thought it wouldn’t matter because he’d win the referendum anyway.
If he’d had more guts, he should have said a leave vote would mean leaving the political institutions of the EU but that owing to the economic impacts CU and SM membership would have to be retained, with an exit clause so that future governments could propose withdrawal from both if they so wished. I expect the usual suspects would have seethed, but he was still on top of his game in late 2015/early 2016, and he could’ve faced down the criticism (I have a feeling he was always going to leave the scene before what would then have been the 2020 election anyway).
We are a global trading nation (as is the rest of the EU), but you can't completely change your trading model and infrastructure (not to mention geography), so quickly without significant turmoil. Which is what No Deal would have meant. The way we have done Brexit is a fraction of that, and has by and large turned more people against the idea in the abstract, even as we're stuck with it for the foreseeable.
We could have prepared for it. But the idea the treasury earmarking and then spending vast sums of money to build new port infrastructure, hiring an army of new public sector workers to cope with new competencies and duties, imposing an even larger amount of paperwork on firms than has been the case, would have been survivable for a government's popularity is for the birds. 'No New Money For The NHS, Prepare For A No Deal Brexit Instead' would have been hilarious to see a government try. That's not to mention what on Earth would have happened in NI if you suddenly put up a hard border.
As a country of course we'd have got through it - every one does. But it would have made the government trying it incredibly unpopular and possibly imperilled the whole Brexit project. Hence why it was just never credible. The EU never believed it even when it was being heavily talked up. And I think the only remotely rational people who truly believed in it as an option were smash it all up nihilists like Cummings who believed the pain (that they'd be insulated from) would be worthwhile shock therapy. And even they stepped away from the edge.
I'd say you are the one who defies logic by allowing a fanatical emotional attachment to an idea to cause a delusion that others share that attachment and imposing a shedload of new costs and difficulties on people, businesses, and government would be survivable for a government. Most people are in the middle. They were OK with Brexit after the referendum result, but not at a price that hugely inconvenienced them. Every credible assessment of No Deal states it would have done more than that.
Oh, sorry, were you talking about Johnson? I thought that went without saying.
That said, I did think he could probably play at displaying competence at least to some extent, in which case I admit to having overestimated him.
by ST aerospace correspondent Dominic Gates - An outside Boeing lobbyist on Capitol Hill sent an email to Republican members of Congress late Wednesday bluntly attempting to discredit the Senate testimony of National Transportation Safety Board Chair Jennifer Homendy.
After The Seattle Times asked about the email Friday, both Boeing and the lobbyist scrambled to undo the potential damage.
In a statement, Boeing said it “did not authorize this communication and regret that it was sent. We deeply respect the NTSB and will continue to cooperate fully and transparently with them.”
he lobbyist responded that the message had been sent out inadvertently and without Boeing’s knowledge.
Homendy had scathingly criticized Boeing for failing to produce documentation of the botched installation work on the door plug that blew out midair on Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 on Jan. 5.
She also testified that Boeing had not provided the names of all the employees involved, despite repeated requests, and that the NTSB had not been able to interview even the manager of the team involved.
The email was sent by former Republican U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston, now a lobbyist for Washington, D.C.-based Squire Patton Boggs, a prominent law firm that is among the largest lobbying companies in the world.
SSI - Kingston is longtime Republican Party reptile, and since 2016 leading Trump mouthpiece. Boeing no doubt needs to curry some favor with GOP nutbags and shills (frequently same) in Congress. However, NOT this far. Yet another sigh of corrupt - and stupid - Boeing corporate culture. And Kingston MUST be a lard-head for putting such crap into an EMAIL.
Lord Cameron, perhaps?
Seattle Times - Boeing admits it can’t find records on the Alaska Airlines door plug work
by ST aerospace correspondent Dominic Gates - Boeing leadership admitted Friday in a letter sent to Sen. Maria Cantwell that it cannot find any record of the work done on the 737 MAX final assembly line in Renton to open and reinstall the panel that blew out Jan. 5 on Alaska Airlines Flight 1282.
Boeing’s presumption is that no record was ever created.
“We have looked extensively and have not found any such documentation,” wrote Ziad Ojakli, Boeing executive vice president and the company’s chief government lobbyist.
He added Boeing’s “working hypothesis: that the documents required by our processes were not created when the door plug was opened.”
The letter, a copy of which was reviewed by The Seattle Times, is marked by Boeing, “Investigative Information — Do not release without prior approval of the NTSB,” referring to the National Transportation Safety Board.
It was sent Friday to Cantwell on behalf of Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun after a dramatic Senate Commerce Committee hearing Wednesday in which the chair of the NTSB, Jennifer Homendy, scathingly testified that Boeing was not fully cooperating in the federal safety agency’s investigation of the accident on that flight.
Homendy said Boeing had not provided records of the work or the names of all the employees involved. During the hearing, Cantwell, D-Wash., demanded a response from Boeing within 48 hours.
SSI - Note the "Do not release without prior approval" crap. Which Sen. Cantwell rightly treated with the respect it deserves - NIL.
Exclude all those, and the underlying figure for net migration probably isn't that much higher than the 2015 peak of around 330k.
A long-term sustainable level for net immigration would likely be 270-320k (on top of the 600k live births) annually to keep us at roughly the same levels of population growth we had throughout the second half of the 20th century.
So someone who would likely lose their seat anyway, and might as well have PM on their CV?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/oct/23/child-benefit-payments-outside-uk
The Treasury defended the overseas payments, saying that they were obliged under European law, and pointed out that claims could only be made if at least one parent was working in the UK and paying National Insurance."
As to the rest, I think you have to be straight with people. And as I've said, I don't think that a huge project to strengthen our border infrastructure would have proven to be money ill-spent, especially given what followed, firstly Covid and then the realisation that the policing of our borders is a bad joke.
Shall we nail another Brexit fantasy while we're at it? Ok, so this idea we should have decided "What Leave Meant" before having the vote. In other words gone though all the rigmarole of negotiating the exit terms before we even knew we were exiting. I mean, c'mon.
Same applies to Sindy2 if and when that happens. Sindy will not be defined (ie quasi-negotiated) before the vote. Things don't work that way. You vote to exit and mandate your government to execute via the most favourable deal they can manage using best skill and efforts. That's how it was with us leaving the EU (although the skill was somewhat lacking). That's how it would be again with Scotland leaving us. It's the only way to do it.
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 41% (-1)
CON: 25% (-2)
REF: 11% (+1)
LDEM: 10% (-)
GRN: 7% (-)
via @OpiniumResearch, 06 - 08 Mar
https://x.com/britainelects/status/1766555985127129129
Rishi on course to win
Labour: 41% (-1)
Conservative: 25% (-2)
Reform: 11% (+1)
Liberal Democrats: 10% (nc)
Greens: 7% (nc)
LLG vs Con/Ref - 58-36 so well in line with other polls.
La Follette was of course inspired by Switzerland, and adapted their system to Wisconsin/American conditions.
L
Also Change 7 Same Old Same Old 87
That makes sense for a door, which would only need to be unlatched, but not for a door plug - which needs to be unbolted.
Presumably someone, somewhere has a set of four unused door bolts that they're keeping very quiet about...
https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/articles/c72jd22dzzno
One influencer wey tell BBC say Nigerians dey sign up for degrees for UK just to get visa for themselves and dia dependents don apologise.
"We don begin to see say a lot of pipo just hide behind di studentship. So di student thing no dey real, no be like say dem need di degrees," Emdee Tiamiyu tok for di interview.
Di Office for National Statistics (ONS) tok say one significant factor behind di high migration numbers in recent years na increase in foreign students and dia dependants wey dey follow dem come.
One fifth of UK student visas last year go to Nigerians - 120,000 in total, wit half for di students themself and half for partners and children.
Nigerians get more family visas for foreign students than any oda nationality, ONS tok.
I hope we never, ever, have another referendum on anything.
https://twitter.com/RichRaho/status/1766524272996987145
"What the final deal said:
On child benefit: A proposal to amend Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the coordination of social security systems in order to give Member States, with regard to the exportation of child benefits to a Member State other than that where the worker resides, an option to index such benefits to the conditions of the Member State where the child resides. This should apply only to new claims made by EU workers in the host Member State. However, as from 1 January 2020, all Member States may extend indexation to existing claims to child benefits already exported by EU workers. The Commission does not intend to propose that the future system of optional indexation of child benefits be extended to other types of exportable benefits, such as old-age pensions;"
"Assessment: Mr Cameron had to compromise on this aspect of the deal in the face of strong opposition from Poland and three other central European countries. He got the four-year "emergency brake" on in-work benefits he had set such store by - but new arrivals will have their tax credits phased in over four years. The brake will be in place for a maximum of seven years, rather than the 13 years Mr Cameron is thought to have wanted - but the EU has agreed it would be "justified" to trigger it without delay after the referendum if the UK votes to stay in the EU.
Mr Cameron failed in his original demand to ban migrant workers from sending child benefit money back home. Payments will instead be linked to the cost of living in the countries where the children live. The new rules will apply immediately for new arrivals, and for existing claimants from 2020."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105
I'd argue we've probably lost far more money in lost economic growth anyway.
The budget has is showing as much life as a Norwegian Blue.
I commented, a while back about carpeting a (not huge) flat, in 1998 for £1.8k
My parents built their way round a wreck of a house in the 80s. Doing up one room at a time, even using a second hand carpet from a posh office a relative worked at.
Then came the years when many people didn’t bother with DIY - you could get people for less than minimum wage. Just a few years back, there would be a queue of men waiting for a job for the day outside the Polish Centre in Hammersmith - £40 a day for a labourer. 8-6 day at that.
Everyone was doing full rip outs and reworks of houses. Why not? A loft conversion cost £30k and put £100k on the value of your house.
In some ways, I think some of this is reality returning. Labour is expensive, fundamentally. Paying Eastern European rates in central London (and the like) could never last.
Much of it, though, is that the cost of housing has escalated even for the worst parts of the sector.
Just to be clear.
In case anyone was wondering.
But you are better than this.
Retract it.
I'm sure he feels very smug and satisfied telling victims they need to be superior like him, and accept surrender for peace.
I get it, sometimes people may have no choice but to stop fighting. But it isn't inherently moral to love 'peace' to the extent of effectively saying any fighting is bad. Sometimes fighting is the better option.
Bring it on.
We have left and any attempt to rejoin will fail, but both Sunak and Starmer are correct in seeking closer relationships as per Sunak's WF and rejoing Horizon
@kateferguson4
May election "one million per cent NOT gonna happen", Govt insiders say...
He questioned how do you pay for tax cuts as per the conservatives, or how do you pay for better public services without tax rises as per labour?
Personally, I don't think it would, but it's not anti-Catholic bigotry to say so. There are plenty of pious followers who would.
More likely crap someone is "keeping very quiet about" is that someone deliberately - and criminally - destroyed evidence.
OF COURSE such a thing is totally unknown in UK. (IRONY KLAXON)
I think I remember that passage in the bible. It was related to the parable of the 'falling out of the window' as I recall.
He'd have done better to invest time in a renegotiation across all EU members of Lisbon according to the Bloomberg principles and then called the vote towards the end of the Parliament.
It is a trend I thought had long gone until William revived it this evening.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism_in_the_United_States#:~:text=To allay such Protestant fears,the Catholic candidate for President.
It's been a slippery slope since then. Some of them are even allowed to stand for office. It's woke gone made, I tell you.
Pope's have been forces for good influence and bad over the years.
For details, google "Matt Rosendale".
Hint - Kevin McCarthy still laughing his ass off.
Two organizations took active roles, the National Conference of Citizens for Religious Freedom and Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Peale was blasted by the media for his anti-Catholicism and retreated, denying the facts of his organizing role. Graham pushed hard against Kennedy, keeping Nixon informed of his progress.
Perhaps news to some folks? Who maybe never heard of Al Smith OR John F. Kennedy.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/cricketers/ollie-pope-887207