Nah his ancestors are from the wrong part of cornwall
Come, now. You two enjoyed connecting yesterday.
Cornwall is a celtic area
There are no one celts love fighting except each other until someone gangs up on us then we unite to fight them before going back to kicking the shit out of each other....cultural failing maybe but we enjoy it
The idea that any kind of negotation with the EU is somehow a betrayal of Brexit sets a new high bar for fuckwittedness.
It's only *because* of Brexit that one gets to deal *with* the EU as an outside party rather than as a part *of* the EU.
If Kemi tries to spin this as the narrative she's going to lose even more support from the vaguely intelligent voter. Including, in all likelihood, many Eurosceptics who aren't complete fucking idiots.
I don't like Starmer and I don't like the EU, but the chance of me buying into this kind of nonsense was always zero.
Equally idiotic is her notion that extending the exact same deal on fish quotas that Boris conceded, in return for being able to export more easily all the fish we catch but don’t want to eat, is somehow betraying an industry.
Nah his ancestors are from the wrong part of cornwall
Come, now. You two enjoyed connecting yesterday.
Cornwall is a celtic area
There are no one celts love fighting except each other until someone gangs up on us then we unite to fight them before going back to kicking the shit out of each other....cultural failing maybe but we enjoy it
It certainly helps explain the absence of a Celtic empire from the history books.
Nah his ancestors are from the wrong part of cornwall
Come, now. You two enjoyed connecting yesterday.
Cornwall is a celtic area
There are no one celts love fighting except each other until someone gangs up on us then we unite to fight them before going back to kicking the shit out of each other....cultural failing maybe but we enjoy it
It certainly helps explain the absence of a Celtic empire from the history books.
Well we never called it an empire but celts ruled most of europe for quite a while we just didnt make a big deal out of it and call it an empire
Firstly, who are the people who want to join the EU but don't want to join the Customs Union or Single Market?
Secondly, agreeing that Brexit has been a failure is different from thinking it was a bad idea. It was a good idea, poorly executed by the Tories. Labour are now attempting to turn the crap Tory version of Brexit into a positive Labour version of Brexit.
(I appreciate that some will thing that there is no such thing as a good version of Brexit; here we will differ.)
There are a lot of people who would prefer full Rejoin to simply joining the CU or SM because that would give us a say in deciding policy and writing the rules rather than merely following them.
Also there are a lot more DKs for CU or SM rather than full Rejoin, presumably as not clear on quite what is involved. Fewer objections too.
Brexit was a bad idea poorly executed. That's why it is the albatross around the neck of the Tory party. If Reform campaigns against closer relations with the EU then they are mining a very thin seam of support (though one popular with the PB Blimps) compared to the parties campaigning for closer links.
The charts in the header show once more how detached a lot of PB comment is from public opinion. Shouting louder is not the same as winning an argument.
Firstly, who are the people who want to join the EU but don't want to join the Customs Union or Single Market?
Secondly, agreeing that Brexit has been a failure is different from thinking it was a bad idea. It was a good idea, poorly executed by the Tories. Labour are now attempting to turn the crap Tory version of Brexit into a positive Labour version of Brexit.
(I appreciate that some will thing that there is no such thing as a good version of Brexit; here we will differ.)
There are a lot of people who would prefer full Rejoin to simply joining the CU or SM because that would give us a say in deciding policy and writing the rules rather than merely following them.
Also there are a lot more DKs for CU or SM rather than full Rejoin, presumably as not clear on quite what is involved. Fewer objections too.
Brexit was a bad idea poorly executed. That's why it is the albatross around the neck of the Tory party. If Reform campaigns against closer relations with the EU then they are mining a very thin seam of support (though one popular with the PB Blimps) compared to the parties campaigning for closer links.
The charts in the header show once more how detached a lot of PB comment is from public opinion. Shouting louder is not the same as winning an argument.
We actually have more say in a lot of eu rules now, a lot of rules handed down are adopted from ISO, when we were in the eu they were on the commitee setting the rules we weren't. Now we are back at that table with an equal say to the von der leydens
Firstly, who are the people who want to join the EU but don't want to join the Customs Union or Single Market?
Secondly, agreeing that Brexit has been a failure is different from thinking it was a bad idea. It was a good idea, poorly executed by the Tories. Labour are now attempting to turn the crap Tory version of Brexit into a positive Labour version of Brexit.
(I appreciate that some will thing that there is no such thing as a good version of Brexit; here we will differ.)
I'm baffled by the idea that "Brexit has been a failure". Brexit simply meant leaving the EU, no longer paying money into the EU, no longer having a say in how the EU evolves and so on. That has been completed successfully. People believe it has been a failure because they feel that they are worse off now than before Brexit. The trouble is we have two ginormous confounders - Covid and a major war in Europe that mask the effects of Brexit. Too often this is not accounted for. Too often the negative of Brexit seems to devolve to "I had to queue at the airport while others just breezed through".
If the only reason for voting for Brexit was that you believed it would be economically in Britain's interest to do so then you may proclaim it a failure. But that was never the case.
It's not an easy thing to assess. At the price of a smaller economy (duly delivered) there was meant to be the intangible benefit of people feeling more sovereign and in control. This does not seem to have transpired. They're as grumpy as ever. But it could be an improved type of grumpiness now we're outside the EU. A grumpiness leavened by a sense of freedom and autonomy. If so, and you feel this outweighs the economic hit, you can argue Brexit has been a success.
Media saying raise threshold to £15k or £17.5k etc.
But DWP does not know the income of every pensioner.
They surely aren't going to create the admin chaos that there is with Child Benefit with people getting it and having to declare it on their tax return so they can repay it.
I wonder if the plan is actually to restore Winter Fuel to everybody.
But Starmer will use it as a bargaining chip with backbenchers - ie "we will restore Winter Fuel but in return we will have to make other welfare cuts to offset cost".
Firstly, who are the people who want to join the EU but don't want to join the Customs Union or Single Market?
Secondly, agreeing that Brexit has been a failure is different from thinking it was a bad idea. It was a good idea, poorly executed by the Tories. Labour are now attempting to turn the crap Tory version of Brexit into a positive Labour version of Brexit.
(I appreciate that some will thing that there is no such thing as a good version of Brexit; here we will differ.)
I'm baffled by the idea that "Brexit has been a failure". Brexit simply meant leaving the EU, no longer paying money into the EU, no longer having a say in how the EU evolves and so on. That has been completed successfully. People believe it has been a failure because they feel that they are worse off now than before Brexit. The trouble is we have two ginormous confounders - Covid and a major war in Europe that mask the effects of Brexit. Too often this is not accounted for. Too often the negative of Brexit seems to devolve to "I had to queue at the airport while others just breezed through".
If the only reason for voting for Brexit was that you believed it would be economically in Britain's interest to do so then you may proclaim it a failure. But that was never the case.
It's not an easy thing to assess. At the price of a smaller economy (duly delivered) there was meant to be the intangible benefit of people feeling more sovereign and in control. This does not seem to have transpired. They're as grumpy as ever. But it could be an improved type of grumpiness now we're outside the EU. A grumpiness leavened by a sense of freedom and autonomy. If so, and you feel this outweighs the economic hit, you can argue Brexit has been a success.
We dont however have a smaller economy gdp has grown year on year by about the same as it did when we were in the EU. This idea we lost 4 percent gdp assumes we would have grown at a rate faster than we ever did in the EU....its a prediction of what may have happened from a europhillic organistation
The idea that any kind of negotation with the EU is somehow a betrayal of Brexit sets a new high bar for fuckwittedness.
It's only *because* of Brexit that one gets to deal *with* the EU as an outside party rather than as a part *of* the EU.
If Kemi tries to spin this as the narrative she's going to lose even more support from the vaguely intelligent voter. Including, in all likelihood, many Eurosceptics who aren't complete fucking idiots.
I don't like Starmer and I don't like the EU, but the chance of me buying into this kind of nonsense was always zero.
Equally idiotic is her notion that extending the exact same deal on fish quotas that Boris conceded, in return for being able to export more easily all the fish we catch but don’t want to eat, is somehow betraying an industry.
The Fishing industry has been apoplectic about the arrangements since 2020. Shoving another 12 years on is, Indeed, a betrayal. Tory garbage deal tripled in length by Starmer for no gain in quotas. Very poor.
Media saying raise threshold to £15k or £17.5k etc.
But DWP does not know the income of every pensioner.
They surely aren't going to create the admin chaos that there is with Child Benefit with people getting it and having to declare it on their tax return so they can repay it.
I wonder if the plan is actually to restore Winter Fuel to everybody.
But Starmer will use it as a bargaining chip with backbenchers - ie "we will restore Winter Fuel but in return we will have to make other welfare cuts to offset cost".
Probably need to be claimed, like the Pension credit. Cross referenced to tax record, paid for by shoving NI onto Pensioners and tipping a few more of us disabled out of wheelchairs and telling us to get to work. Something Laboury like that.
Media saying raise threshold to £15k or £17.5k etc.
But DWP does not know the income of every pensioner.
They surely aren't going to create the admin chaos that there is with Child Benefit with people getting it and having to declare it on their tax return so they can repay it.
I wonder if the plan is actually to restore Winter Fuel to everybody.
But Starmer will use it as a bargaining chip with backbenchers - ie "we will restore Winter Fuel but in return we will have to make other welfare cuts to offset cost".
Money saving expert man is suggesting linking it to council tax property banded A, B or C. As a way to exclude wealthy pensioners. Crude but simple.
The idea that any kind of negotation with the EU is somehow a betrayal of Brexit sets a new high bar for fuckwittedness.
It's only *because* of Brexit that one gets to deal *with* the EU as an outside party rather than as a part *of* the EU.
If Kemi tries to spin this as the narrative she's going to lose even more support from the vaguely intelligent voter. Including, in all likelihood, many Eurosceptics who aren't complete fucking idiots.
I don't like Starmer and I don't like the EU, but the chance of me buying into this kind of nonsense was always zero.
Equally idiotic is her notion that extending the exact same deal on fish quotas that Boris conceded, in return for being able to export more easily all the fish we catch but don’t want to eat, is somehow betraying an industry.
The Fishing industry has been apoplectic about the arrangements since 2020. Shoving another 12 years on is, Indeed, a betrayal. Tory garbage deal tripled in length by Starmer for no gain in quotas. Very poor.
We have no leverage, when the industry employs a tiny number of people and the large majority of what they catch in British waters has then to be sold back to the EU. Hence why Johnson got such a crap deal in the first place. Removing the barriers to export is a significant win - a fair few British shellfish small enterprises have gone out of business altogether since the calamity of Brexit.
Nah his ancestors are from the wrong part of cornwall
Careful. They were, on my father's side (probably my mum's too) hardrock miners in Breage and Wendron. Tough fuckers
And my granny (mum's side) smashed rocks with hammers, barefoot, by the mineshafts on the St Agnes cliffs, age 10!!
Didn't claim they were bad people just mentioned they were from foreign parts
Hell port isaac was 5 miles from us growing up, they called us town crows we called them yarney goats and thats just 5 miles redruth was definitely foreign
Firstly, who are the people who want to join the EU but don't want to join the Customs Union or Single Market?
Secondly, agreeing that Brexit has been a failure is different from thinking it was a bad idea. It was a good idea, poorly executed by the Tories. Labour are now attempting to turn the crap Tory version of Brexit into a positive Labour version of Brexit.
(I appreciate that some will thing that there is no such thing as a good version of Brexit; here we will differ.)
I'm baffled by the idea that "Brexit has been a failure". Brexit simply meant leaving the EU, no longer paying money into the EU, no longer having a say in how the EU evolves and so on. That has been completed successfully. People believe it has been a failure because they feel that they are worse off now than before Brexit. The trouble is we have two ginormous confounders - Covid and a major war in Europe that mask the effects of Brexit. Too often this is not accounted for. Too often the negative of Brexit seems to devolve to "I had to queue at the airport while others just breezed through".
If the only reason for voting for Brexit was that you believed it would be economically in Britain's interest to do so then you may proclaim it a failure. But that was never the case.
It's not an easy thing to assess. At the price of a smaller economy (duly delivered) there was meant to be the intangible benefit of people feeling more sovereign and in control. This does not seem to have transpired. They're as grumpy as ever. But it could be an improved type of grumpiness now we're outside the EU. A grumpiness leavened by a sense of freedom and autonomy. If so, and you feel this outweighs the economic hit, you can argue Brexit has been a success.
We dont however have a smaller economy gdp has grown year on year by about the same as it did when we were in the EU. This idea we lost 4 percent gdp assumes we would have grown at a rate faster than we ever did in the EU....its a prediction of what may have happened from a europhillic organistation
Yes, I believe the UK has grown faster than France or Germany. Who remained inside the EU. Bregret is a factor of the last 8 years being shit. But that is a factor of Covid and Ukraine. The last 8 years have been shit everywhere.
Don't the powers-that-be realise what they are doing? These idiot lawyers? These wanker judges?
Maybe they do, and they simply do not care
So we send the nasty whatsit back to face certain death? However nasty he is, however vile his crime?
He isn't facing "certain death".
"Your sentence has been commuted from certain death to probable death!"
What are the rights of the current UK residents who’s risk of being assaulted have increased as a result of this judgement?
Strangely perhaps in view of my earlier comment, but I agree with this. Just saying 'he can't go back 'cos he'll be killed' is only part of it. Somehow he has to be stopped from re-offending...... re-educated so that he doesn't, or restrained in some way. Maybe if he's Moslem 'we' should be engaging more with people in that community who can make a difference. And/or religious and social leaders in that community should be encouraged to spell out even more clearly to their communities that this sort of behaviour isn't tolerated anywhere.
The idea that any kind of negotation with the EU is somehow a betrayal of Brexit sets a new high bar for fuckwittedness.
It's only *because* of Brexit that one gets to deal *with* the EU as an outside party rather than as a part *of* the EU.
If Kemi tries to spin this as the narrative she's going to lose even more support from the vaguely intelligent voter. Including, in all likelihood, many Eurosceptics who aren't complete fucking idiots.
I don't like Starmer and I don't like the EU, but the chance of me buying into this kind of nonsense was always zero.
Equally idiotic is her notion that extending the exact same deal on fish quotas that Boris conceded, in return for being able to export more easily all the fish we catch but don’t want to eat, is somehow betraying an industry.
The Fishing industry has been apoplectic about the arrangements since 2020. Shoving another 12 years on is, Indeed, a betrayal. Tory garbage deal tripled in length by Starmer for no gain in quotas. Very poor.
We have no leverage, when the industry employs a tiny number of people and the large majority of what they catch in British waters has then to be sold back to the EU. Hence why Johnson got such a crap deal in the first place.
Yes, Starmer has calculated that 'fuck em' isn't too electorally damaging
A White House official says talks with the House Freedom Caucus have not yet yielded progress.
"There was no deal. The White House presented HFC with policy options that the Administration can live with, provided they can get the votes, but they cannot get the votes," the official said "There was no deal. The HFC will meet with the President at 3pm to hopefully strike one"
Don't the powers-that-be realise what they are doing? These idiot lawyers? These wanker judges?
Maybe they do, and they simply do not care
So we send the nasty whatsit back to face certain death? However nasty he is, however vile his crime?
He isn't facing "certain death".
"Your sentence has been commuted from certain death to probable death!"
What are the rights of the current UK residents who’s risk of being assaulted have increased as a result of this judgement?
Strangely perhaps in view of my earlier comment, but I agree with this. Just saying 'he can't go back 'cos he'll be killed' is only part of it. Somehow he has to be stopped from re-offending...... re-educated so that he doesn't, or restrained in some way. Maybe if he's Moslem 'we' should be engaging more with people in that community who can make a difference. And/or religious and social leaders in that community should be encouraged to spell out even more clearly to their communities that this sort of behaviour isn't tolerated anywhere.
We could reeducate him by slamming a couple of bricks together and crushing his testicles would that be acceptable?
Don't the powers-that-be realise what they are doing? These idiot lawyers? These wanker judges?
Maybe they do, and they simply do not care
So we send the nasty whatsit back to face certain death? However nasty he is, however vile his crime?
He isn't facing "certain death".
"Your sentence has been commuted from certain death to probable death!"
What are the rights of the current UK residents who’s risk of being assaulted have increased as a result of this judgement?
Strangely perhaps in view of my earlier comment, but I agree with this. Just saying 'he can't go back 'cos he'll be killed' is only part of it. Somehow he has to be stopped from re-offending...... re-educated so that he doesn't, or restrained in some way. Maybe if he's Moslem 'we' should be engaging more with people in that community who can make a difference. And/or religious and social leaders in that community should be encouraged to spell out even more clearly to their communities that this sort of behaviour isn't tolerated anywhere.
Much simpler just not to let in people who consider that sort of behaviour acceptable.
Don't the powers-that-be realise what they are doing? These idiot lawyers? These wanker judges?
Maybe they do, and they simply do not care
So we send the nasty whatsit back to face certain death? However nasty he is, however vile his crime?
He isn't facing "certain death".
"Your sentence has been commuted from certain death to probable death!"
What are the rights of the current UK residents who’s risk of being assaulted have increased as a result of this judgement?
Strangely perhaps in view of my earlier comment, but I agree with this. Just saying 'he can't go back 'cos he'll be killed' is only part of it. Somehow he has to be stopped from re-offending...... re-educated so that he doesn't, or restrained in some way. Maybe if he's Moslem 'we' should be engaging more with people in that community who can make a difference. And/or religious and social leaders in that community should be encouraged to spell out even more clearly to their communities that this sort of behaviour isn't tolerated anywhere.
His last conviction was 2013. Has he reoffended since?
Don't the powers-that-be realise what they are doing? These idiot lawyers? These wanker judges?
Maybe they do, and they simply do not care
So we send the nasty whatsit back to face certain death? However nasty he is, however vile his crime?
He isn't facing "certain death".
"Your sentence has been commuted from certain death to probable death!"
What are the rights of the current UK residents who’s risk of being assaulted have increased as a result of this judgement?
Strangely perhaps in view of my earlier comment, but I agree with this. Just saying 'he can't go back 'cos he'll be killed' is only part of it. Somehow he has to be stopped from re-offending...... re-educated so that he doesn't, or restrained in some way. Maybe if he's Moslem 'we' should be engaging more with people in that community who can make a difference. And/or religious and social leaders in that community should be encouraged to spell out even more clearly to their communities that this sort of behaviour isn't tolerated anywhere.
His last conviction was 2013. Has he reoffended since?
Probably never seen anyone claim paedophiles could be rehabilitated
Firstly, who are the people who want to join the EU but don't want to join the Customs Union or Single Market?
Secondly, agreeing that Brexit has been a failure is different from thinking it was a bad idea. It was a good idea, poorly executed by the Tories. Labour are now attempting to turn the crap Tory version of Brexit into a positive Labour version of Brexit.
(I appreciate that some will thing that there is no such thing as a good version of Brexit; here we will differ.)
I'm baffled by the idea that "Brexit has been a failure". Brexit simply meant leaving the EU, no longer paying money into the EU, no longer having a say in how the EU evolves and so on. That has been completed successfully. People believe it has been a failure because they feel that they are worse off now than before Brexit. The trouble is we have two ginormous confounders - Covid and a major war in Europe that mask the effects of Brexit. Too often this is not accounted for. Too often the negative of Brexit seems to devolve to "I had to queue at the airport while others just breezed through".
If the only reason for voting for Brexit was that you believed it would be economically in Britain's interest to do so then you may proclaim it a failure. But that was never the case.
It's not an easy thing to assess. At the price of a smaller economy (duly delivered) there was meant to be the intangible benefit of people feeling more sovereign and in control. This does not seem to have transpired. They're as grumpy as ever. But it could be an improved type of grumpiness now we're outside the EU. A grumpiness leavened by a sense of freedom and autonomy. If so, and you feel this outweighs the economic hit, you can argue Brexit has been a success.
We dont however have a smaller economy gdp has grown year on year by about the same as it did when we were in the EU. This idea we lost 4 percent gdp assumes we would have grown at a rate faster than we ever did in the EU....its a prediction of what may have happened from a europhillic organistation
You can never prove the impact because there's no counterfactual - but that leaving the EU was economically damaging (since it introduced a load of friction into trade/commerce between us and our single largest counterparty) is about as close to a fact as you can get in these choppy waters. The vast majority of informed opinion (which excludes both you and I) says so and the vast majority of informed opinion on anything is usually right.
Don't the powers-that-be realise what they are doing? These idiot lawyers? These wanker judges?
Maybe they do, and they simply do not care
So we send the nasty whatsit back to face certain death? However nasty he is, however vile his crime?
He isn't facing "certain death".
"Your sentence has been commuted from certain death to probable death!"
What are the rights of the current UK residents who’s risk of being assaulted have increased as a result of this judgement?
Strangely perhaps in view of my earlier comment, but I agree with this. Just saying 'he can't go back 'cos he'll be killed' is only part of it. Somehow he has to be stopped from re-offending...... re-educated so that he doesn't, or restrained in some way. Maybe if he's Moslem 'we' should be engaging more with people in that community who can make a difference. And/or religious and social leaders in that community should be encouraged to spell out even more clearly to their communities that this sort of behaviour isn't tolerated anywhere.
We could reeducate him by slamming a couple of bricks together and crushing his testicles would that be acceptable?
Not quite as crudely perhaps but castration of such offenders, whether ethnic majority or minority could be an answer.
Firstly, who are the people who want to join the EU but don't want to join the Customs Union or Single Market?
Secondly, agreeing that Brexit has been a failure is different from thinking it was a bad idea. It was a good idea, poorly executed by the Tories. Labour are now attempting to turn the crap Tory version of Brexit into a positive Labour version of Brexit.
(I appreciate that some will thing that there is no such thing as a good version of Brexit; here we will differ.)
I'm baffled by the idea that "Brexit has been a failure". Brexit simply meant leaving the EU, no longer paying money into the EU, no longer having a say in how the EU evolves and so on. That has been completed successfully. People believe it has been a failure because they feel that they are worse off now than before Brexit. The trouble is we have two ginormous confounders - Covid and a major war in Europe that mask the effects of Brexit. Too often this is not accounted for. Too often the negative of Brexit seems to devolve to "I had to queue at the airport while others just breezed through".
If the only reason for voting for Brexit was that you believed it would be economically in Britain's interest to do so then you may proclaim it a failure. But that was never the case.
It's not an easy thing to assess. At the price of a smaller economy (duly delivered) there was meant to be the intangible benefit of people feeling more sovereign and in control. This does not seem to have transpired. They're as grumpy as ever. But it could be an improved type of grumpiness now we're outside the EU. A grumpiness leavened by a sense of freedom and autonomy. If so, and you feel this outweighs the economic hit, you can argue Brexit has been a success.
We dont however have a smaller economy gdp has grown year on year by about the same as it did when we were in the EU. This idea we lost 4 percent gdp assumes we would have grown at a rate faster than we ever did in the EU....its a prediction of what may have happened from a europhillic organistation
You can never prove the impact because there's no counterfactual - but that leaving the EU was economically damaging (since it introduced a load of friction into trade/commerce between us and our single largest counterparty) is about as close to a fact as you can get in these choppy waters. The vast majority of informed opinion (which excludes both you and I) says so and the vast majority of informed opinion on anything is usually right.
Then you can show figures showing our gdp fell, our trade with the eu fell....oh right you cant because it didn't happen all you can do is claim it would have been higher....thats a counter factual
Don't the powers-that-be realise what they are doing? These idiot lawyers? These wanker judges?
Maybe they do, and they simply do not care
So we send the nasty whatsit back to face certain death? However nasty he is, however vile his crime?
He isn't facing "certain death".
"Your sentence has been commuted from certain death to probable death!"
What are the rights of the current UK residents who’s risk of being assaulted have increased as a result of this judgement?
Strangely perhaps in view of my earlier comment, but I agree with this. Just saying 'he can't go back 'cos he'll be killed' is only part of it. Somehow he has to be stopped from re-offending...... re-educated so that he doesn't, or restrained in some way. Maybe if he's Moslem 'we' should be engaging more with people in that community who can make a difference. And/or religious and social leaders in that community should be encouraged to spell out even more clearly to their communities that this sort of behaviour isn't tolerated anywhere.
Much simpler just not to let in people who consider that sort of behaviour acceptable.
It's not only people from minority communities who indulge such disgusting behaviour.
Don't the powers-that-be realise what they are doing? These idiot lawyers? These wanker judges?
Maybe they do, and they simply do not care
So we send the nasty whatsit back to face certain death? However nasty he is, however vile his crime?
He isn't facing "certain death".
"Your sentence has been commuted from certain death to probable death!"
What are the rights of the current UK residents who’s risk of being assaulted have increased as a result of this judgement?
Strangely perhaps in view of my earlier comment, but I agree with this. Just saying 'he can't go back 'cos he'll be killed' is only part of it. Somehow he has to be stopped from re-offending...... re-educated so that he doesn't, or restrained in some way. Maybe if he's Moslem 'we' should be engaging more with people in that community who can make a difference. And/or religious and social leaders in that community should be encouraged to spell out even more clearly to their communities that this sort of behaviour isn't tolerated anywhere.
Much simpler just not to let in people who consider that sort of behaviour acceptable.
It's not only people from minority communities who indulge such disgusting behaviour.
No it certainly isnt paedophilia is a pan ethnic problem. Doesn't mean we shouldnt minimise our exposure by expelling those that are known. I believe paedophiles have the highest recidivism rate except for politicians
Firstly, who are the people who want to join the EU but don't want to join the Customs Union or Single Market?
Secondly, agreeing that Brexit has been a failure is different from thinking it was a bad idea. It was a good idea, poorly executed by the Tories. Labour are now attempting to turn the crap Tory version of Brexit into a positive Labour version of Brexit.
(I appreciate that some will thing that there is no such thing as a good version of Brexit; here we will differ.)
I'm baffled by the idea that "Brexit has been a failure". Brexit simply meant leaving the EU, no longer paying money into the EU, no longer having a say in how the EU evolves and so on. That has been completed successfully. People believe it has been a failure because they feel that they are worse off now than before Brexit. The trouble is we have two ginormous confounders - Covid and a major war in Europe that mask the effects of Brexit. Too often this is not accounted for. Too often the negative of Brexit seems to devolve to "I had to queue at the airport while others just breezed through".
If the only reason for voting for Brexit was that you believed it would be economically in Britain's interest to do so then you may proclaim it a failure. But that was never the case.
It's not an easy thing to assess. At the price of a smaller economy (duly delivered) there was meant to be the intangible benefit of people feeling more sovereign and in control. This does not seem to have transpired. They're as grumpy as ever. But it could be an improved type of grumpiness now we're outside the EU. A grumpiness leavened by a sense of freedom and autonomy. If so, and you feel this outweighs the economic hit, you can argue Brexit has been a success.
We dont however have a smaller economy gdp has grown year on year by about the same as it did when we were in the EU. This idea we lost 4 percent gdp assumes we would have grown at a rate faster than we ever did in the EU....its a prediction of what may have happened from a europhillic organistation
You can never prove the impact because there's no counterfactual - but that leaving the EU was economically damaging (since it introduced a load of friction into trade/commerce between us and our single largest counterparty) is about as close to a fact as you can get in these choppy waters. The vast majority of informed opinion (which excludes both you and I) says so and the vast majority of informed opinion on anything is usually right.
You're assuming that ever easier trade with a group the UK has a massive trade deficit with is always a good thing.
Media saying raise threshold to £15k or £17.5k etc.
But DWP does not know the income of every pensioner.
They surely aren't going to create the admin chaos that there is with Child Benefit with people getting it and having to declare it on their tax return so they can repay it.
I wonder if the plan is actually to restore Winter Fuel to everybody.
But Starmer will use it as a bargaining chip with backbenchers - ie "we will restore Winter Fuel but in return we will have to make other welfare cuts to offset cost".
Money saving expert man is suggesting linking it to council tax property banded A, B or C. As a way to exclude wealthy pensioners. Crude but simple.
Thanks - that looks like the obvious answer.
From memory some of the extra Covid payments were linked to Council Tax band.
Firstly, who are the people who want to join the EU but don't want to join the Customs Union or Single Market?
Secondly, agreeing that Brexit has been a failure is different from thinking it was a bad idea. It was a good idea, poorly executed by the Tories. Labour are now attempting to turn the crap Tory version of Brexit into a positive Labour version of Brexit.
(I appreciate that some will thing that there is no such thing as a good version of Brexit; here we will differ.)
I'm baffled by the idea that "Brexit has been a failure". Brexit simply meant leaving the EU, no longer paying money into the EU, no longer having a say in how the EU evolves and so on. That has been completed successfully. People believe it has been a failure because they feel that they are worse off now than before Brexit. The trouble is we have two ginormous confounders - Covid and a major war in Europe that mask the effects of Brexit. Too often this is not accounted for. Too often the negative of Brexit seems to devolve to "I had to queue at the airport while others just breezed through".
If the only reason for voting for Brexit was that you believed it would be economically in Britain's interest to do so then you may proclaim it a failure. But that was never the case.
It's not an easy thing to assess. At the price of a smaller economy (duly delivered) there was meant to be the intangible benefit of people feeling more sovereign and in control. This does not seem to have transpired. They're as grumpy as ever. But it could be an improved type of grumpiness now we're outside the EU. A grumpiness leavened by a sense of freedom and autonomy. If so, and you feel this outweighs the economic hit, you can argue Brexit has been a success.
We dont however have a smaller economy gdp has grown year on year by about the same as it did when we were in the EU. This idea we lost 4 percent gdp assumes we would have grown at a rate faster than we ever did in the EU....its a prediction of what may have happened from a europhillic organistation
You can never prove the impact because there's no counterfactual - but that leaving the EU was economically damaging (since it introduced a load of friction into trade/commerce between us and our single largest counterparty) is about as close to a fact as you can get in these choppy waters. The vast majority of informed opinion (which excludes both you and I) says so and the vast majority of informed opinion on anything is usually right.
You're assuming that ever easier trade with a group the UK has a massive trade deficit with is always a good thing.
The idea that any kind of negotation with the EU is somehow a betrayal of Brexit sets a new high bar for fuckwittedness.
It's only *because* of Brexit that one gets to deal *with* the EU as an outside party rather than as a part *of* the EU.
If Kemi tries to spin this as the narrative she's going to lose even more support from the vaguely intelligent voter. Including, in all likelihood, many Eurosceptics who aren't complete fucking idiots.
I don't like Starmer and I don't like the EU, but the chance of me buying into this kind of nonsense was always zero.
Equally idiotic is her notion that extending the exact same deal on fish quotas that Boris conceded, in return for being able to export more easily all the fish we catch but don’t want to eat, is somehow betraying an industry.
The Fishing industry has been apoplectic about the arrangements since 2020. Shoving another 12 years on is, Indeed, a betrayal. Tory garbage deal tripled in length by Starmer for no gain in quotas. Very poor.
We have no leverage, when the industry employs a tiny number of people and the large majority of what they catch in British waters has then to be sold back to the EU. Hence why Johnson got such a crap deal in the first place.
Yes, Starmer has calculated that 'fuck em' isn't too electorally damaging
While Sea Fishing gets a worse deal, Salmon fishing actually gains quite a bit. There is a decent chance that aquaculture will overtake sea fishing in both revenues and employment in the next 10 years.
The idea that any kind of negotation with the EU is somehow a betrayal of Brexit sets a new high bar for fuckwittedness.
It's only *because* of Brexit that one gets to deal *with* the EU as an outside party rather than as a part *of* the EU.
If Kemi tries to spin this as the narrative she's going to lose even more support from the vaguely intelligent voter. Including, in all likelihood, many Eurosceptics who aren't complete fucking idiots.
I don't like Starmer and I don't like the EU, but the chance of me buying into this kind of nonsense was always zero.
Equally idiotic is her notion that extending the exact same deal on fish quotas that Boris conceded, in return for being able to export more easily all the fish we catch but don’t want to eat, is somehow betraying an industry.
The Fishing industry has been apoplectic about the arrangements since 2020. Shoving another 12 years on is, Indeed, a betrayal. Tory garbage deal tripled in length by Starmer for no gain in quotas. Very poor.
We have no leverage, when the industry employs a tiny number of people and the large majority of what they catch in British waters has then to be sold back to the EU. Hence why Johnson got such a crap deal in the first place.
Yes, Starmer has calculated that 'fuck em' isn't too electorally damaging
While Sea Fishing gets a worse deal, Salmon fishing actually gains quite a bit. There is a decent chance that aquaculture will overtake sea fishing in both revenues and employment in the next 10 years.
The difference between the taste of wild salmon and farmed salmon it the same as the difference between prime steak and tofu.
The idea that any kind of negotation with the EU is somehow a betrayal of Brexit sets a new high bar for fuckwittedness.
It's only *because* of Brexit that one gets to deal *with* the EU as an outside party rather than as a part *of* the EU.
If Kemi tries to spin this as the narrative she's going to lose even more support from the vaguely intelligent voter. Including, in all likelihood, many Eurosceptics who aren't complete fucking idiots.
I don't like Starmer and I don't like the EU, but the chance of me buying into this kind of nonsense was always zero.
Equally idiotic is her notion that extending the exact same deal on fish quotas that Boris conceded, in return for being able to export more easily all the fish we catch but don’t want to eat, is somehow betraying an industry.
The Fishing industry has been apoplectic about the arrangements since 2020. Shoving another 12 years on is, Indeed, a betrayal. Tory garbage deal tripled in length by Starmer for no gain in quotas. Very poor.
We have no leverage, when the industry employs a tiny number of people and the large majority of what they catch in British waters has then to be sold back to the EU. Hence why Johnson got such a crap deal in the first place.
Yes, Starmer has calculated that 'fuck em' isn't too electorally damaging
While Sea Fishing gets a worse deal, Salmon fishing actually gains quite a bit. There is a decent chance that aquaculture will overtake sea fishing in both revenues and employment in the next 10 years.
Perhaps, perhaps. Locally the deal guarantees Lowestoft is a Reform gain in 2029 (unless Rupert Lowe starts a new party and secures the seat next to his too)
Media saying raise threshold to £15k or £17.5k etc.
But DWP does not know the income of every pensioner.
They surely aren't going to create the admin chaos that there is with Child Benefit with people getting it and having to declare it on their tax return so they can repay it.
I wonder if the plan is actually to restore Winter Fuel to everybody.
But Starmer will use it as a bargaining chip with backbenchers - ie "we will restore Winter Fuel but in return we will have to make other welfare cuts to offset cost".
Those who get WFA again will not thank Labour.
Those who don't get WFA again will be even more angry with Labour.
The younger generations who are losing out because of X, Y or Z will be even more annoyed with Labour.
Its been a masterclass of political incompetence over what is a pretty trivial amount of money.
Firstly, who are the people who want to join the EU but don't want to join the Customs Union or Single Market?
Secondly, agreeing that Brexit has been a failure is different from thinking it was a bad idea. It was a good idea, poorly executed by the Tories. Labour are now attempting to turn the crap Tory version of Brexit into a positive Labour version of Brexit.
(I appreciate that some will thing that there is no such thing as a good version of Brexit; here we will differ.)
I'm baffled by the idea that "Brexit has been a failure". Brexit simply meant leaving the EU, no longer paying money into the EU, no longer having a say in how the EU evolves and so on. That has been completed successfully. People believe it has been a failure because they feel that they are worse off now than before Brexit. The trouble is we have two ginormous confounders - Covid and a major war in Europe that mask the effects of Brexit. Too often this is not accounted for. Too often the negative of Brexit seems to devolve to "I had to queue at the airport while others just breezed through".
If the only reason for voting for Brexit was that you believed it would be economically in Britain's interest to do so then you may proclaim it a failure. But that was never the case.
It's not an easy thing to assess. At the price of a smaller economy (duly delivered) there was meant to be the intangible benefit of people feeling more sovereign and in control. This does not seem to have transpired. They're as grumpy as ever. But it could be an improved type of grumpiness now we're outside the EU. A grumpiness leavened by a sense of freedom and autonomy. If so, and you feel this outweighs the economic hit, you can argue Brexit has been a success.
We dont however have a smaller economy gdp has grown year on year by about the same as it did when we were in the EU. This idea we lost 4 percent gdp assumes we would have grown at a rate faster than we ever did in the EU....its a prediction of what may have happened from a europhillic organistation
You can never prove the impact because there's no counterfactual - but that leaving the EU was economically damaging (since it introduced a load of friction into trade/commerce between us and our single largest counterparty) is about as close to a fact as you can get in these choppy waters. The vast majority of informed opinion (which excludes both you and I) says so and the vast majority of informed opinion on anything is usually right.
Then you can show figures showing our gdp fell, our trade with the eu fell....oh right you cant because it didn't happen all you can do is claim it would have been higher....thats a counter factual
Our trade with the EU has fallen by a large amount. The data is there for that. But what I mean by the counterfactual is us voting Remain in 2016 and staying in the EU. We didn't, so there isn't one.
Media saying raise threshold to £15k or £17.5k etc.
But DWP does not know the income of every pensioner.
They surely aren't going to create the admin chaos that there is with Child Benefit with people getting it and having to declare it on their tax return so they can repay it.
I wonder if the plan is actually to restore Winter Fuel to everybody.
But Starmer will use it as a bargaining chip with backbenchers - ie "we will restore Winter Fuel but in return we will have to make other welfare cuts to offset cost".
Those who get WFA again will not thank Labour.
Those who don't get WFA again will be even more angry with Labour.
The younger generations who are losing out because of X, Y or Z will be even more annoyed with Labour.
Its been a masterclass of political incompetence over what is a pretty trivial amount of money.
Media saying raise threshold to £15k or £17.5k etc.
But DWP does not know the income of every pensioner.
They surely aren't going to create the admin chaos that there is with Child Benefit with people getting it and having to declare it on their tax return so they can repay it.
I wonder if the plan is actually to restore Winter Fuel to everybody.
But Starmer will use it as a bargaining chip with backbenchers - ie "we will restore Winter Fuel but in return we will have to make other welfare cuts to offset cost".
Those who get WFA again will not thank Labour.
Those who don't get WFA again will be even more angry with Labour.
The younger generations who are losing out because of X, Y or Z will be even more annoyed with Labour.
Its been a masterclass of political incompetence over what is a pretty trivial amount of money.
IFS cost it at 1.5 billion
Chump change. You couldn’t even buy the Chagos islands for that.
Media saying raise threshold to £15k or £17.5k etc.
But DWP does not know the income of every pensioner.
They surely aren't going to create the admin chaos that there is with Child Benefit with people getting it and having to declare it on their tax return so they can repay it.
I wonder if the plan is actually to restore Winter Fuel to everybody.
But Starmer will use it as a bargaining chip with backbenchers - ie "we will restore Winter Fuel but in return we will have to make other welfare cuts to offset cost".
Those who get WFA again will not thank Labour.
Those who don't get WFA again will be even more angry with Labour.
The younger generations who are losing out because of X, Y or Z will be even more annoyed with Labour.
Its been a masterclass of political incompetence over what is a pretty trivial amount of money.
It's not that trivial. Roughly 3% 'pay cut' on the State Pension. The problem with the 'council tax band' solution is that Pensioners are much more likely to be equity rich and cash flow poor. Leads us into conversations about 'encouraging' downsizing (by which we mean force by policy decisions)
Don't the powers-that-be realise what they are doing? These idiot lawyers? These wanker judges?
Maybe they do, and they simply do not care
So we send the nasty whatsit back to face certain death? However nasty he is, however vile his crime?
He isn't facing "certain death".
"Your sentence has been commuted from certain death to probable death!"
What are the rights of the current UK residents who’s risk of being assaulted have increased as a result of this judgement?
Strangely perhaps in view of my earlier comment, but I agree with this. Just saying 'he can't go back 'cos he'll be killed' is only part of it. Somehow he has to be stopped from re-offending...... re-educated so that he doesn't, or restrained in some way. Maybe if he's Moslem 'we' should be engaging more with people in that community who can make a difference. And/or religious and social leaders in that community should be encouraged to spell out even more clearly to their communities that this sort of behaviour isn't tolerated anywhere.
Much simpler just not to let in people who consider that sort of behaviour acceptable.
It's not only people from minority communities who indulge such disgusting behaviour.
No, but the authorities have been willing to overlook such behaviour for certain communities because of 'cultural differences' and 'community relations'.
And once the authorities start tolerating criminal behaviour its likely to increase - see the current situation with shoplifting.
There's a certain number of people who will break the law under any circumstances but there are much greater numbers willing to do so if they think they're sure to get away with it.
Media saying raise threshold to £15k or £17.5k etc.
But DWP does not know the income of every pensioner.
They surely aren't going to create the admin chaos that there is with Child Benefit with people getting it and having to declare it on their tax return so they can repay it.
I wonder if the plan is actually to restore Winter Fuel to everybody.
But Starmer will use it as a bargaining chip with backbenchers - ie "we will restore Winter Fuel but in return we will have to make other welfare cuts to offset cost".
Those who get WFA again will not thank Labour.
Those who don't get WFA again will be even more angry with Labour.
The younger generations who are losing out because of X, Y or Z will be even more annoyed with Labour.
Its been a masterclass of political incompetence over what is a pretty trivial amount of money.
IFS cost it at 1.5 billion
Chump change. You couldn’t even buy the Chagos islands for that.
Or give them away to the New Mauritius Empire for that
Firstly, who are the people who want to join the EU but don't want to join the Customs Union or Single Market?
Secondly, agreeing that Brexit has been a failure is different from thinking it was a bad idea. It was a good idea, poorly executed by the Tories. Labour are now attempting to turn the crap Tory version of Brexit into a positive Labour version of Brexit.
(I appreciate that some will thing that there is no such thing as a good version of Brexit; here we will differ.)
I'm baffled by the idea that "Brexit has been a failure". Brexit simply meant leaving the EU, no longer paying money into the EU, no longer having a say in how the EU evolves and so on. That has been completed successfully. People believe it has been a failure because they feel that they are worse off now than before Brexit. The trouble is we have two ginormous confounders - Covid and a major war in Europe that mask the effects of Brexit. Too often this is not accounted for. Too often the negative of Brexit seems to devolve to "I had to queue at the airport while others just breezed through".
If the only reason for voting for Brexit was that you believed it would be economically in Britain's interest to do so then you may proclaim it a failure. But that was never the case.
It's not an easy thing to assess. At the price of a smaller economy (duly delivered) there was meant to be the intangible benefit of people feeling more sovereign and in control. This does not seem to have transpired. They're as grumpy as ever. But it could be an improved type of grumpiness now we're outside the EU. A grumpiness leavened by a sense of freedom and autonomy. If so, and you feel this outweighs the economic hit, you can argue Brexit has been a success.
We dont however have a smaller economy gdp has grown year on year by about the same as it did when we were in the EU. This idea we lost 4 percent gdp assumes we would have grown at a rate faster than we ever did in the EU....its a prediction of what may have happened from a europhillic organistation
You can never prove the impact because there's no counterfactual - but that leaving the EU was economically damaging (since it introduced a load of friction into trade/commerce between us and our single largest counterparty) is about as close to a fact as you can get in these choppy waters. The vast majority of informed opinion (which excludes both you and I) says so and the vast majority of informed opinion on anything is usually right.
Then you can show figures showing our gdp fell, our trade with the eu fell....oh right you cant because it didn't happen all you can do is claim it would have been higher....thats a counter factual
Our trade with the EU has fallen by a large amount. The data is there for that. But what I mean by the counterfactual is us voting Remain in 2016 and staying in the EU. We didn't, so there isn't one.
Highest value for our exports to the eu were q4 2022...thats a bit after brexit crippled us
In quarter 2 before the referendum our exports were 34,179 billion
In q4 2022 they were 55,066 billion
Now have our exports dropped since then yes but so have our imports and its not down to brexit
Firstly, who are the people who want to join the EU but don't want to join the Customs Union or Single Market?
Secondly, agreeing that Brexit has been a failure is different from thinking it was a bad idea. It was a good idea, poorly executed by the Tories. Labour are now attempting to turn the crap Tory version of Brexit into a positive Labour version of Brexit.
(I appreciate that some will thing that there is no such thing as a good version of Brexit; here we will differ.)
I'm baffled by the idea that "Brexit has been a failure". Brexit simply meant leaving the EU, no longer paying money into the EU, no longer having a say in how the EU evolves and so on. That has been completed successfully. People believe it has been a failure because they feel that they are worse off now than before Brexit. The trouble is we have two ginormous confounders - Covid and a major war in Europe that mask the effects of Brexit. Too often this is not accounted for. Too often the negative of Brexit seems to devolve to "I had to queue at the airport while others just breezed through".
If the only reason for voting for Brexit was that you believed it would be economically in Britain's interest to do so then you may proclaim it a failure. But that was never the case.
It's not an easy thing to assess. At the price of a smaller economy (duly delivered) there was meant to be the intangible benefit of people feeling more sovereign and in control. This does not seem to have transpired. They're as grumpy as ever. But it could be an improved type of grumpiness now we're outside the EU. A grumpiness leavened by a sense of freedom and autonomy. If so, and you feel this outweighs the economic hit, you can argue Brexit has been a success.
We dont however have a smaller economy gdp has grown year on year by about the same as it did when we were in the EU. This idea we lost 4 percent gdp assumes we would have grown at a rate faster than we ever did in the EU....its a prediction of what may have happened from a europhillic organistation
You can never prove the impact because there's no counterfactual - but that leaving the EU was economically damaging (since it introduced a load of friction into trade/commerce between us and our single largest counterparty) is about as close to a fact as you can get in these choppy waters. The vast majority of informed opinion (which excludes both you and I) says so and the vast majority of informed opinion on anything is usually right.
You're assuming that ever easier trade with a group the UK has a massive trade deficit with is always a good thing.
I'm not assuming anything. I just don't feel empowered to go against the overwhelming informed consensus on Brexit being a hit to the UK economy.
But as I say, there is hopefully the intangible benefit of people feeling more sovereign. I don't, I must admit, but perhaps those who voted Leave do.
Oh, you know. Big in the Eighties. Had a bit of a comeback in the 2010s but they haven't released anything good in ages. Haven't really developed since their heyday and the lineup keeps changing.
The optics on this are about as bad as possible for Starmer
"Migrant boat forces Dunkirk flotilla to divert
A flotilla of “Little Ships” crossing the English Channel to commemorate the Dunkirk evacuation was forced to divert so Border Force could escort a migrant boat.
The fleet of 66 boats set sail from Ramsgate, Kent, to Dunkirk at 6am on Wednesday to commemorate the 85th anniversary of Operation Dynamo.
It was intended as a “poignant tribute to the bravery and sacrifice” of the Dunkirk evacuations, where 1,000 British pleasure boats were used in the rescue of more than 300,000 Allied soldiers from the Nazi advance.
But the commemorations were disrupted when Border Force and the French navy demanded that the flotilla be diverted to provide a one-nautical mile exclusion zone for a migrant boat."
If Ramsay loses it might make Waveney Valley a bit more competitive next time (especially if he flounces if Polanski takes the Greens down radical nutjob avenue)
The optics on this are about as bad as possible for Starmer
"Migrant boat forces Dunkirk flotilla to divert
A flotilla of “Little Ships” crossing the English Channel to commemorate the Dunkirk evacuation was forced to divert so Border Force could escort a migrant boat.
The fleet of 66 boats set sail from Ramsgate, Kent, to Dunkirk at 6am on Wednesday to commemorate the 85th anniversary of Operation Dynamo.
It was intended as a “poignant tribute to the bravery and sacrifice” of the Dunkirk evacuations, where 1,000 British pleasure boats were used in the rescue of more than 300,000 Allied soldiers from the Nazi advance.
But the commemorations were disrupted when Border Force and the French navy demanded that the flotilla be diverted to provide a one-nautical mile exclusion zone for a migrant boat."
Telegraph
Bad time for Nigel to be sunbathing, Reform need to make hay with that
The optics on this are about as bad as possible for Starmer
"Migrant boat forces Dunkirk flotilla to divert
A flotilla of “Little Ships” crossing the English Channel to commemorate the Dunkirk evacuation was forced to divert so Border Force could escort a migrant boat.
The fleet of 66 boats set sail from Ramsgate, Kent, to Dunkirk at 6am on Wednesday to commemorate the 85th anniversary of Operation Dynamo.
It was intended as a “poignant tribute to the bravery and sacrifice” of the Dunkirk evacuations, where 1,000 British pleasure boats were used in the rescue of more than 300,000 Allied soldiers from the Nazi advance.
But the commemorations were disrupted when Border Force and the French navy demanded that the flotilla be diverted to provide a one-nautical mile exclusion zone for a migrant boat."
Telegraph
Shakes head I think starmer wants to lose the next election as he realised being in charge is hard
Means testing the giveaways Pensioner's get is a policy every single PBer backs though, as alternative is arguing for universal payments, winter fuel allowance to King Charles etc, which is not a country living within its means.
Firstly, who are the people who want to join the EU but don't want to join the Customs Union or Single Market?
Secondly, agreeing that Brexit has been a failure is different from thinking it was a bad idea. It was a good idea, poorly executed by the Tories. Labour are now attempting to turn the crap Tory version of Brexit into a positive Labour version of Brexit.
(I appreciate that some will thing that there is no such thing as a good version of Brexit; here we will differ.)
I'm baffled by the idea that "Brexit has been a failure". Brexit simply meant leaving the EU, no longer paying money into the EU, no longer having a say in how the EU evolves and so on. That has been completed successfully. People believe it has been a failure because they feel that they are worse off now than before Brexit. The trouble is we have two ginormous confounders - Covid and a major war in Europe that mask the effects of Brexit. Too often this is not accounted for. Too often the negative of Brexit seems to devolve to "I had to queue at the airport while others just breezed through".
If the only reason for voting for Brexit was that you believed it would be economically in Britain's interest to do so then you may proclaim it a failure. But that was never the case.
It's not an easy thing to assess. At the price of a smaller economy (duly delivered) there was meant to be the intangible benefit of people feeling more sovereign and in control. This does not seem to have transpired. They're as grumpy as ever. But it could be an improved type of grumpiness now we're outside the EU. A grumpiness leavened by a sense of freedom and autonomy. If so, and you feel this outweighs the economic hit, you can argue Brexit has been a success.
We dont however have a smaller economy gdp has grown year on year by about the same as it did when we were in the EU. This idea we lost 4 percent gdp assumes we would have grown at a rate faster than we ever did in the EU....its a prediction of what may have happened from a europhillic organistation
You can never prove the impact because there's no counterfactual - but that leaving the EU was economically damaging (since it introduced a load of friction into trade/commerce between us and our single largest counterparty) is about as close to a fact as you can get in these choppy waters. The vast majority of informed opinion (which excludes both you and I) says so and the vast majority of informed opinion on anything is usually right.
You're assuming that ever easier trade with a group the UK has a massive trade deficit with is always a good thing.
I'm not assuming anything. I just don't feel empowered to go against the overwhelming informed consensus on Brexit being a hit to the UK economy.
But as I say, there is hopefully the intangible benefit of people feeling more sovereign. I don't, I must admit, but perhaps those who voted Leave do.
Do PB Leavers feel more sovereign?
You might not feel sovereign but we are now more sovereign.
And with that comes extra power and extra responsibility for our political leaders.
There is less scope for them to hide behind 'EU decisions' now, its their responsibility and their decisions.
The optics on this are about as bad as possible for Starmer
"Migrant boat forces Dunkirk flotilla to divert
A flotilla of “Little Ships” crossing the English Channel to commemorate the Dunkirk evacuation was forced to divert so Border Force could escort a migrant boat.
The fleet of 66 boats set sail from Ramsgate, Kent, to Dunkirk at 6am on Wednesday to commemorate the 85th anniversary of Operation Dynamo.
It was intended as a “poignant tribute to the bravery and sacrifice” of the Dunkirk evacuations, where 1,000 British pleasure boats were used in the rescue of more than 300,000 Allied soldiers from the Nazi advance.
But the commemorations were disrupted when Border Force and the French navy demanded that the flotilla be diverted to provide a one-nautical mile exclusion zone for a migrant boat."
Telegraph
We should just sink all boats approaching UK shores without permission. A careful management of the policy might mean that we'd never actually have to sink a single boat. It'd also allow us to sink any Russian subs that carelessly showed their skins in UK waters.
The optics on this are about as bad as possible for Starmer
"Migrant boat forces Dunkirk flotilla to divert
A flotilla of “Little Ships” crossing the English Channel to commemorate the Dunkirk evacuation was forced to divert so Border Force could escort a migrant boat.
The fleet of 66 boats set sail from Ramsgate, Kent, to Dunkirk at 6am on Wednesday to commemorate the 85th anniversary of Operation Dynamo.
It was intended as a “poignant tribute to the bravery and sacrifice” of the Dunkirk evacuations, where 1,000 British pleasure boats were used in the rescue of more than 300,000 Allied soldiers from the Nazi advance.
But the commemorations were disrupted when Border Force and the French navy demanded that the flotilla be diverted to provide a one-nautical mile exclusion zone for a migrant boat."
Means testing the giveaways Pensioner's get is a policy every single PBer backs though, as alternative is arguing for universal payments, winter fuel allowance to King Charles etc, which is not a country living within its means.
I don't want to means test some of the benefits to oldies, I want to stop them for all pensioners.
The optics on this are about as bad as possible for Starmer
"Migrant boat forces Dunkirk flotilla to divert
A flotilla of “Little Ships” crossing the English Channel to commemorate the Dunkirk evacuation was forced to divert so Border Force could escort a migrant boat.
The fleet of 66 boats set sail from Ramsgate, Kent, to Dunkirk at 6am on Wednesday to commemorate the 85th anniversary of Operation Dynamo.
It was intended as a “poignant tribute to the bravery and sacrifice” of the Dunkirk evacuations, where 1,000 British pleasure boats were used in the rescue of more than 300,000 Allied soldiers from the Nazi advance.
But the commemorations were disrupted when Border Force and the French navy demanded that the flotilla be diverted to provide a one-nautical mile exclusion zone for a migrant boat."
Telegraph
That last word just spoiled it all.
It does seem another news calamity for Starmer no matter who the messenger is
The optics on this are about as bad as possible for Starmer
"Migrant boat forces Dunkirk flotilla to divert
A flotilla of “Little Ships” crossing the English Channel to commemorate the Dunkirk evacuation was forced to divert so Border Force could escort a migrant boat.
The fleet of 66 boats set sail from Ramsgate, Kent, to Dunkirk at 6am on Wednesday to commemorate the 85th anniversary of Operation Dynamo.
It was intended as a “poignant tribute to the bravery and sacrifice” of the Dunkirk evacuations, where 1,000 British pleasure boats were used in the rescue of more than 300,000 Allied soldiers from the Nazi advance.
But the commemorations were disrupted when Border Force and the French navy demanded that the flotilla be diverted to provide a one-nautical mile exclusion zone for a migrant boat."
Telegraph
That last word just spoiled it all.
The Telegraph is a journalistic catastrophe at the moment. Other than the FT, which is different but has always been a bit crap, especially on finance, there seems to be little left of Fleet Street.
Of course if we were in Schengen like Switzerland is, we wouldn’t even need e-gates, and the small boat crossings would stop overnight.
That's like saying that we could stop the small boat crossings by sending a big boat to collect everyone.
Well Tim’s a Lib Dem and I don’t doubt that is something the Lib Dem’s would rather do than stop the boats or limit the numbers.
Been away, doing work and all that, so thought I’d come back to see the reactions to my Schengen suggestion. Good to see Taz dropping the L-word again.
I am only partly suggesting this in jest. The fact is the most iniquitous part of irregular migration to the UK - the bit most associated with organised crime, death, coercion and general crapness - is the dangerous boat crossings made by people camped out on the French coast.
If we were in Schengen the total numbers arriving in Britain would almost certainly rise. But I chose Switzerland as an example because it has a border you can just walk or drive across, but pretty strict immigration and asylum laws. It manages illegal immigration through policing of the black market, access to services and the right to work. People talk warmly of Denmark’s tough immigration rules. It’s in Schengen. There are no small illegal boat crossings across the Kiel canal.
Join Schengen and there are no more boat crossings. People just take the ferry. No more jungle in Calais. No more payments to France to police crossings. Instead, you’d need an overhaul of what happens when people arrive: a properly funded asylum system, a returns agreement with continental neighbours, all the other tools of the trade. The only gangs you’d need to smash would be those employing illegal workers in Britain, not the people smugglers.
So give Schengen another look. It’s something at least one otherwise decidedly right wing flint knapping poster has advocated in recent history.
Means testing the giveaways Pensioner's get is a policy every single PBer backs though, as alternative is arguing for universal payments, winter fuel allowance to King Charles etc, which is not a country living within its means.
Some are missing that it was going to means tested. They're just re-considering what means it should be.
I'm getting extremely fed up with the phrase "asset rich, cash poor". Since when has shite financial planning been an excuse? If my taxes go up for a cash benefit for anyone who is "asset rich" I'll be extremely pissed off.
Firstly, who are the people who want to join the EU but don't want to join the Customs Union or Single Market?
Secondly, agreeing that Brexit has been a failure is different from thinking it was a bad idea. It was a good idea, poorly executed by the Tories. Labour are now attempting to turn the crap Tory version of Brexit into a positive Labour version of Brexit.
(I appreciate that some will thing that there is no such thing as a good version of Brexit; here we will differ.)
I'm baffled by the idea that "Brexit has been a failure". Brexit simply meant leaving the EU, no longer paying money into the EU, no longer having a say in how the EU evolves and so on. That has been completed successfully. People believe it has been a failure because they feel that they are worse off now than before Brexit. The trouble is we have two ginormous confounders - Covid and a major war in Europe that mask the effects of Brexit. Too often this is not accounted for. Too often the negative of Brexit seems to devolve to "I had to queue at the airport while others just breezed through".
If the only reason for voting for Brexit was that you believed it would be economically in Britain's interest to do so then you may proclaim it a failure. But that was never the case.
It's not an easy thing to assess. At the price of a smaller economy (duly delivered) there was meant to be the intangible benefit of people feeling more sovereign and in control. This does not seem to have transpired. They're as grumpy as ever. But it could be an improved type of grumpiness now we're outside the EU. A grumpiness leavened by a sense of freedom and autonomy. If so, and you feel this outweighs the economic hit, you can argue Brexit has been a success.
We dont however have a smaller economy gdp has grown year on year by about the same as it did when we were in the EU. This idea we lost 4 percent gdp assumes we would have grown at a rate faster than we ever did in the EU....its a prediction of what may have happened from a europhillic organistation
You can never prove the impact because there's no counterfactual - but that leaving the EU was economically damaging (since it introduced a load of friction into trade/commerce between us and our single largest counterparty) is about as close to a fact as you can get in these choppy waters. The vast majority of informed opinion (which excludes both you and I) says so and the vast majority of informed opinion on anything is usually right.
You're assuming that ever easier trade with a group the UK has a massive trade deficit with is always a good thing.
I'm not assuming anything. I just don't feel empowered to go against the overwhelming informed consensus on Brexit being a hit to the UK economy.
But as I say, there is hopefully the intangible benefit of people feeling more sovereign. I don't, I must admit, but perhaps those who voted Leave do.
Do PB Leavers feel more sovereign?
You might not feel sovereign but we are now more sovereign.
And with that comes extra power and extra responsibility for our political leaders.
There is less scope for them to hide behind 'EU decisions' now, its their responsibility and their decisions.
Ah ok, so you do feel more sovereign. That's good to hear. What a nonsense the whole thing would have been otherwise.
So, these now intrinsically more important GEs of ours (since we're more sovereign). You'd expect it to be reflected in turnout. More people going to the polls because it means a lot more. So far it's not the case (the last one nearly set a record for an all time low) but hopefully that was a blip.
Of course if we were in Schengen like Switzerland is, we wouldn’t even need e-gates, and the small boat crossings would stop overnight.
That's like saying that we could stop the small boat crossings by sending a big boat to collect everyone.
Well Tim’s a Lib Dem and I don’t doubt that is something the Lib Dem’s would rather do than stop the boats or limit the numbers.
Been away, doing work and all that, so thought I’d come back to see the reactions to my Schengen suggestion. Good to see Taz dropping the L-word again.
I am only partly suggesting this in jest. The fact is the most iniquitous part of irregular migration to the UK - the bit most associated with organised crime, death, coercion and general crapness - is the dangerous boat crossings made by people camped out on the French coast.
If we were in Schengen the total numbers arriving in Britain would almost certainly rise. But I chose Switzerland as an example because it has a border you can just walk or drive across, but pretty strict immigration and asylum laws. It manages illegal immigration through policing of the black market, access to services and the right to work. People talk warmly of Denmark’s tough immigration rules. It’s in Schengen. There are no small illegal boat crossings across the Kiel canal.
Join Schengen and there are no more boat crossings. People just take the ferry. No more jungle in Calais. No more payments to France to police crossings. Instead, you’d need an overhaul of what happens when people arrive: a properly funded asylum system, a returns agreement with continental neighbours, all the other tools of the trade. The only gangs you’d need to smash would be those employing illegal workers in Britain, not the people smugglers.
So give Schengen another look. It’s something at least one otherwise decidedly right wing flint knapping poster has advocated in recent history.
The optics on this are about as bad as possible for Starmer
"Migrant boat forces Dunkirk flotilla to divert
A flotilla of “Little Ships” crossing the English Channel to commemorate the Dunkirk evacuation was forced to divert so Border Force could escort a migrant boat.
The fleet of 66 boats set sail from Ramsgate, Kent, to Dunkirk at 6am on Wednesday to commemorate the 85th anniversary of Operation Dynamo.
It was intended as a “poignant tribute to the bravery and sacrifice” of the Dunkirk evacuations, where 1,000 British pleasure boats were used in the rescue of more than 300,000 Allied soldiers from the Nazi advance.
But the commemorations were disrupted when Border Force and the French navy demanded that the flotilla be diverted to provide a one-nautical mile exclusion zone for a migrant boat."
Telegraph
That last word just spoiled it all.
It does seem another news calamity for Starmer no matter who the messenger is
Not really. PB recently seems overly focused on the short term. Aren’t we supposed to be people at least trying to see the longer picture?
The optics on this are about as bad as possible for Starmer
"Migrant boat forces Dunkirk flotilla to divert
A flotilla of “Little Ships” crossing the English Channel to commemorate the Dunkirk evacuation was forced to divert so Border Force could escort a migrant boat.
The fleet of 66 boats set sail from Ramsgate, Kent, to Dunkirk at 6am on Wednesday to commemorate the 85th anniversary of Operation Dynamo.
It was intended as a “poignant tribute to the bravery and sacrifice” of the Dunkirk evacuations, where 1,000 British pleasure boats were used in the rescue of more than 300,000 Allied soldiers from the Nazi advance.
But the commemorations were disrupted when Border Force and the French navy demanded that the flotilla be diverted to provide a one-nautical mile exclusion zone for a migrant boat."
Telegraph
That last word just spoiled it all.
It does seem another news calamity for Starmer no matter who the messenger is
Nevertheless most of the Telegraph’s core demographic is dead already.
The optics on this are about as bad as possible for Starmer
"Migrant boat forces Dunkirk flotilla to divert
A flotilla of “Little Ships” crossing the English Channel to commemorate the Dunkirk evacuation was forced to divert so Border Force could escort a migrant boat.
The fleet of 66 boats set sail from Ramsgate, Kent, to Dunkirk at 6am on Wednesday to commemorate the 85th anniversary of Operation Dynamo.
It was intended as a “poignant tribute to the bravery and sacrifice” of the Dunkirk evacuations, where 1,000 British pleasure boats were used in the rescue of more than 300,000 Allied soldiers from the Nazi advance.
But the commemorations were disrupted when Border Force and the French navy demanded that the flotilla be diverted to provide a one-nautical mile exclusion zone for a migrant boat."
Telegraph
That last word just spoiled it all.
It does seem another news calamity for Starmer no matter who the messenger is
Not really. PB recently seems overly focused on the short term. Aren’t we supposed to be people at least trying to see the longer picture?
It's all relative. The Dunkirk small boats ramming and drowning migrants would be just a bit worse.
Of course if we were in Schengen like Switzerland is, we wouldn’t even need e-gates, and the small boat crossings would stop overnight.
That's like saying that we could stop the small boat crossings by sending a big boat to collect everyone.
Well Tim’s a Lib Dem and I don’t doubt that is something the Lib Dem’s would rather do than stop the boats or limit the numbers.
Been away, doing work and all that, so thought I’d come back to see the reactions to my Schengen suggestion. Good to see Taz dropping the L-word again.
I am only partly suggesting this in jest. The fact is the most iniquitous part of irregular migration to the UK - the bit most associated with organised crime, death, coercion and general crapness - is the dangerous boat crossings made by people camped out on the French coast.
If we were in Schengen the total numbers arriving in Britain would almost certainly rise. But I chose Switzerland as an example because it has a border you can just walk or drive across, but pretty strict immigration and asylum laws. It manages illegal immigration through policing of the black market, access to services and the right to work. People talk warmly of Denmark’s tough immigration rules. It’s in Schengen. There are no small illegal boat crossings across the Kiel canal.
Join Schengen and there are no more boat crossings. People just take the ferry. No more jungle in Calais. No more payments to France to police crossings. Instead, you’d need an overhaul of what happens when people arrive: a properly funded asylum system, a returns agreement with continental neighbours, all the other tools of the trade. The only gangs you’d need to smash would be those employing illegal workers in Britain, not the people smugglers.
So give Schengen another look. It’s something at least one otherwise decidedly right wing flint knapping poster has advocated in recent history.
But you can do all that without joining Schengen!
You couldn’t because passport control means someone can’t get on the ferry or Eurostar in the first place, so they take a small boat instead. And the people smugglers are quids in.
Of course if we were in Schengen like Switzerland is, we wouldn’t even need e-gates, and the small boat crossings would stop overnight.
That's like saying that we could stop the small boat crossings by sending a big boat to collect everyone.
Well Tim’s a Lib Dem and I don’t doubt that is something the Lib Dem’s would rather do than stop the boats or limit the numbers.
Been away, doing work and all that, so thought I’d come back to see the reactions to my Schengen suggestion. Good to see Taz dropping the L-word again.
I am only partly suggesting this in jest. The fact is the most iniquitous part of irregular migration to the UK - the bit most associated with organised crime, death, coercion and general crapness - is the dangerous boat crossings made by people camped out on the French coast.
If we were in Schengen the total numbers arriving in Britain would almost certainly rise. But I chose Switzerland as an example because it has a border you can just walk or drive across, but pretty strict immigration and asylum laws. It manages illegal immigration through policing of the black market, access to services and the right to work. People talk warmly of Denmark’s tough immigration rules. It’s in Schengen. There are no small illegal boat crossings across the Kiel canal.
Join Schengen and there are no more boat crossings. People just take the ferry. No more jungle in Calais. No more payments to France to police crossings. Instead, you’d need an overhaul of what happens when people arrive: a properly funded asylum system, a returns agreement with continental neighbours, all the other tools of the trade. The only gangs you’d need to smash would be those employing illegal workers in Britain, not the people smugglers.
So give Schengen another look. It’s something at least one otherwise decidedly right wing flint knapping poster has advocated in recent history.
And the Euro while we're at it. It's time for another vibe shift.
Of course if we were in Schengen like Switzerland is, we wouldn’t even need e-gates, and the small boat crossings would stop overnight.
That's like saying that we could stop the small boat crossings by sending a big boat to collect everyone.
Well Tim’s a Lib Dem and I don’t doubt that is something the Lib Dem’s would rather do than stop the boats or limit the numbers.
Been away, doing work and all that, so thought I’d come back to see the reactions to my Schengen suggestion. Good to see Taz dropping the L-word again.
I am only partly suggesting this in jest. The fact is the most iniquitous part of irregular migration to the UK - the bit most associated with organised crime, death, coercion and general crapness - is the dangerous boat crossings made by people camped out on the French coast.
If we were in Schengen the total numbers arriving in Britain would almost certainly rise. But I chose Switzerland as an example because it has a border you can just walk or drive across, but pretty strict immigration and asylum laws. It manages illegal immigration through policing of the black market, access to services and the right to work. People talk warmly of Denmark’s tough immigration rules. It’s in Schengen. There are no small illegal boat crossings across the Kiel canal.
Join Schengen and there are no more boat crossings. People just take the ferry. No more jungle in Calais. No more payments to France to police crossings. Instead, you’d need an overhaul of what happens when people arrive: a properly funded asylum system, a returns agreement with continental neighbours, all the other tools of the trade. The only gangs you’d need to smash would be those employing illegal workers in Britain, not the people smugglers.
So give Schengen another look. It’s something at least one otherwise decidedly right wing flint knapping poster has advocated in recent history.
We could solve the problem equally by nuking france and leaving it a radioactive wasteland...your solution seems to be solve the problem letting them in thats not going to fly
Of course if we were in Schengen like Switzerland is, we wouldn’t even need e-gates, and the small boat crossings would stop overnight.
That's like saying that we could stop the small boat crossings by sending a big boat to collect everyone.
Well Tim’s a Lib Dem and I don’t doubt that is something the Lib Dem’s would rather do than stop the boats or limit the numbers.
Been away, doing work and all that, so thought I’d come back to see the reactions to my Schengen suggestion. Good to see Taz dropping the L-word again.
I am only partly suggesting this in jest. The fact is the most iniquitous part of irregular migration to the UK - the bit most associated with organised crime, death, coercion and general crapness - is the dangerous boat crossings made by people camped out on the French coast.
If we were in Schengen the total numbers arriving in Britain would almost certainly rise. But I chose Switzerland as an example because it has a border you can just walk or drive across, but pretty strict immigration and asylum laws. It manages illegal immigration through policing of the black market, access to services and the right to work. People talk warmly of Denmark’s tough immigration rules. It’s in Schengen. There are no small illegal boat crossings across the Kiel canal.
Join Schengen and there are no more boat crossings. People just take the ferry. No more jungle in Calais. No more payments to France to police crossings. Instead, you’d need an overhaul of what happens when people arrive: a properly funded asylum system, a returns agreement with continental neighbours, all the other tools of the trade. The only gangs you’d need to smash would be those employing illegal workers in Britain, not the people smugglers.
So give Schengen another look. It’s something at least one otherwise decidedly right wing flint knapping poster has advocated in recent history.
But you can do all that without joining Schengen!
You couldn’t because passport control means someone can’t get on the ferry or Eurostar in the first place, so they take a small boat instead. And the people smugglers are quids in.
But the proposal was to tighten control for people living/working in the country without permission. That can be done now. Joining Schengen would probably facilitate more mostly economic migrants coming to claim asylum, not reduce it.
Of course if we were in Schengen like Switzerland is, we wouldn’t even need e-gates, and the small boat crossings would stop overnight.
That's like saying that we could stop the small boat crossings by sending a big boat to collect everyone.
Well Tim’s a Lib Dem and I don’t doubt that is something the Lib Dem’s would rather do than stop the boats or limit the numbers.
Been away, doing work and all that, so thought I’d come back to see the reactions to my Schengen suggestion. Good to see Taz dropping the L-word again.
I am only partly suggesting this in jest. The fact is the most iniquitous part of irregular migration to the UK - the bit most associated with organised crime, death, coercion and general crapness - is the dangerous boat crossings made by people camped out on the French coast.
If we were in Schengen the total numbers arriving in Britain would almost certainly rise. But I chose Switzerland as an example because it has a border you can just walk or drive across, but pretty strict immigration and asylum laws. It manages illegal immigration through policing of the black market, access to services and the right to work. People talk warmly of Denmark’s tough immigration rules. It’s in Schengen. There are no small illegal boat crossings across the Kiel canal.
Join Schengen and there are no more boat crossings. People just take the ferry. No more jungle in Calais. No more payments to France to police crossings. Instead, you’d need an overhaul of what happens when people arrive: a properly funded asylum system, a returns agreement with continental neighbours, all the other tools of the trade. The only gangs you’d need to smash would be those employing illegal workers in Britain, not the people smugglers.
So give Schengen another look. It’s something at least one otherwise decidedly right wing flint knapping poster has advocated in recent history.
But you can do all that without joining Schengen!
You couldn’t because passport control means someone can’t get on the ferry or Eurostar in the first place, so they take a small boat instead. And the people smugglers are quids in.
But the proposal was to tighten control for people living/working in the country without permission. That can be done now. Joining Schengen would probably facilitate more mostly economic migrants coming to claim asylum, not reduce it.
Yes you could do that. But you still wouldn’t stop the boats. If you want to stop the boats, you stop the need for the boats.
It would facilitate more claims, but not necessarily more successful claims.
Of course if we were in Schengen like Switzerland is, we wouldn’t even need e-gates, and the small boat crossings would stop overnight.
That's like saying that we could stop the small boat crossings by sending a big boat to collect everyone.
Well Tim’s a Lib Dem and I don’t doubt that is something the Lib Dem’s would rather do than stop the boats or limit the numbers.
Been away, doing work and all that, so thought I’d come back to see the reactions to my Schengen suggestion. Good to see Taz dropping the L-word again.
I am only partly suggesting this in jest. The fact is the most iniquitous part of irregular migration to the UK - the bit most associated with organised crime, death, coercion and general crapness - is the dangerous boat crossings made by people camped out on the French coast.
If we were in Schengen the total numbers arriving in Britain would almost certainly rise. But I chose Switzerland as an example because it has a border you can just walk or drive across, but pretty strict immigration and asylum laws. It manages illegal immigration through policing of the black market, access to services and the right to work. People talk warmly of Denmark’s tough immigration rules. It’s in Schengen. There are no small illegal boat crossings across the Kiel canal.
Join Schengen and there are no more boat crossings. People just take the ferry. No more jungle in Calais. No more payments to France to police crossings. Instead, you’d need an overhaul of what happens when people arrive: a properly funded asylum system, a returns agreement with continental neighbours, all the other tools of the trade. The only gangs you’d need to smash would be those employing illegal workers in Britain, not the people smugglers.
So give Schengen another look. It’s something at least one otherwise decidedly right wing flint knapping poster has advocated in recent history.
But you can do all that without joining Schengen!
You couldn’t because passport control means someone can’t get on the ferry or Eurostar in the first place, so they take a small boat instead. And the people smugglers are quids in.
But the proposal was to tighten control for people living/working in the country without permission. That can be done now. Joining Schengen would probably facilitate more mostly economic migrants coming to claim asylum, not reduce it.
btw I wasnt seriously proposing nuking france but proposing a solution to migration that increases it, well I had to propose an equally stupid one
Of course if we were in Schengen like Switzerland is, we wouldn’t even need e-gates, and the small boat crossings would stop overnight.
That's like saying that we could stop the small boat crossings by sending a big boat to collect everyone.
Well Tim’s a Lib Dem and I don’t doubt that is something the Lib Dem’s would rather do than stop the boats or limit the numbers.
Been away, doing work and all that, so thought I’d come back to see the reactions to my Schengen suggestion. Good to see Taz dropping the L-word again.
I am only partly suggesting this in jest. The fact is the most iniquitous part of irregular migration to the UK - the bit most associated with organised crime, death, coercion and general crapness - is the dangerous boat crossings made by people camped out on the French coast.
If we were in Schengen the total numbers arriving in Britain would almost certainly rise. But I chose Switzerland as an example because it has a border you can just walk or drive across, but pretty strict immigration and asylum laws. It manages illegal immigration through policing of the black market, access to services and the right to work. People talk warmly of Denmark’s tough immigration rules. It’s in Schengen. There are no small illegal boat crossings across the Kiel canal.
Join Schengen and there are no more boat crossings. People just take the ferry. No more jungle in Calais. No more payments to France to police crossings. Instead, you’d need an overhaul of what happens when people arrive: a properly funded asylum system, a returns agreement with continental neighbours, all the other tools of the trade. The only gangs you’d need to smash would be those employing illegal workers in Britain, not the people smugglers.
So give Schengen another look. It’s something at least one otherwise decidedly right wing flint knapping poster has advocated in recent history.
But you can do all that without joining Schengen!
You couldn’t because passport control means someone can’t get on the ferry or Eurostar in the first place, so they take a small boat instead. And the people smugglers are quids in.
But the proposal was to tighten control for people living/working in the country without permission. That can be done now. Joining Schengen would probably facilitate more mostly economic migrants coming to claim asylum, not reduce it.
Yes you could do that. But you still wouldn’t stop the boats. If you want to stop the boats, you stop the need for the boats.
It would facilitate more claims, but not necessarily more successful claims.
Each claim whether it succeeds or not costs us money, we dont have money to spare
Of course if we were in Schengen like Switzerland is, we wouldn’t even need e-gates, and the small boat crossings would stop overnight.
That's like saying that we could stop the small boat crossings by sending a big boat to collect everyone.
Well Tim’s a Lib Dem and I don’t doubt that is something the Lib Dem’s would rather do than stop the boats or limit the numbers.
Been away, doing work and all that, so thought I’d come back to see the reactions to my Schengen suggestion. Good to see Taz dropping the L-word again.
I am only partly suggesting this in jest. The fact is the most iniquitous part of irregular migration to the UK - the bit most associated with organised crime, death, coercion and general crapness - is the dangerous boat crossings made by people camped out on the French coast.
If we were in Schengen the total numbers arriving in Britain would almost certainly rise. But I chose Switzerland as an example because it has a border you can just walk or drive across, but pretty strict immigration and asylum laws. It manages illegal immigration through policing of the black market, access to services and the right to work. People talk warmly of Denmark’s tough immigration rules. It’s in Schengen. There are no small illegal boat crossings across the Kiel canal.
Join Schengen and there are no more boat crossings. People just take the ferry. No more jungle in Calais. No more payments to France to police crossings. Instead, you’d need an overhaul of what happens when people arrive: a properly funded asylum system, a returns agreement with continental neighbours, all the other tools of the trade. The only gangs you’d need to smash would be those employing illegal workers in Britain, not the people smugglers.
So give Schengen another look. It’s something at least one otherwise decidedly right wing flint knapping poster has advocated in recent history.
But you can do all that without joining Schengen!
You couldn’t because passport control means someone can’t get on the ferry or Eurostar in the first place, so they take a small boat instead. And the people smugglers are quids in.
But the proposal was to tighten control for people living/working in the country without permission. That can be done now. Joining Schengen would probably facilitate more mostly economic migrants coming to claim asylum, not reduce it.
Yes you could do that. But you still wouldn’t stop the boats. If you want to stop the boats, you stop the need for the boats.
It would facilitate more claims, but not necessarily more successful claims.
You could if you made it clear it would be a futile journey, which involves many of the changes for access to work/benefits that you described. But the previous proposed deterrence was scrapped, and now crossings are higher than ever.
Of course if we were in Schengen like Switzerland is, we wouldn’t even need e-gates, and the small boat crossings would stop overnight.
That's like saying that we could stop the small boat crossings by sending a big boat to collect everyone.
Well Tim’s a Lib Dem and I don’t doubt that is something the Lib Dem’s would rather do than stop the boats or limit the numbers.
Been away, doing work and all that, so thought I’d come back to see the reactions to my Schengen suggestion. Good to see Taz dropping the L-word again.
I am only partly suggesting this in jest. The fact is the most iniquitous part of irregular migration to the UK - the bit most associated with organised crime, death, coercion and general crapness - is the dangerous boat crossings made by people camped out on the French coast.
If we were in Schengen the total numbers arriving in Britain would almost certainly rise. But I chose Switzerland as an example because it has a border you can just walk or drive across, but pretty strict immigration and asylum laws. It manages illegal immigration through policing of the black market, access to services and the right to work. People talk warmly of Denmark’s tough immigration rules. It’s in Schengen. There are no small illegal boat crossings across the Kiel canal.
Join Schengen and there are no more boat crossings. People just take the ferry. No more jungle in Calais. No more payments to France to police crossings. Instead, you’d need an overhaul of what happens when people arrive: a properly funded asylum system, a returns agreement with continental neighbours, all the other tools of the trade. The only gangs you’d need to smash would be those employing illegal workers in Britain, not the people smugglers.
So give Schengen another look. It’s something at least one otherwise decidedly right wing flint knapping poster has advocated in recent history.
But you can do all that without joining Schengen!
You couldn’t because passport control means someone can’t get on the ferry or Eurostar in the first place, so they take a small boat instead. And the people smugglers are quids in.
But the proposal was to tighten control for people living/working in the country without permission. That can be done now. Joining Schengen would probably facilitate more mostly economic migrants coming to claim asylum, not reduce it.
Yes you could do that. But you still wouldn’t stop the boats. If you want to stop the boats, you stop the need for the boats.
It would facilitate more claims, but not necessarily more successful claims.
Each claim whether it succeeds or not costs us money, we dont have money to spare
You have a labour government here telling people we cant afford to spend so much money on you and you are suggesting spending more on foreigners.....and you wonder why I despise lib dems
The Mad King is having an even madder than usual one in the Oval Office right now
Just shown the South African President a video about genocide of white farmers, Ramphosa probably the only world leader treating farmers worse than Starmer now. The South African Agriculture Minister though says most white farmers still want to stay rather than leave (CNN has a piece on Orania, a separatist “Afrikaner-only” settlement in the country’s Northern Cape) and the government is tackling livestock theft.
A week is a long time in politics . But 24hrs can be aswell . Tomorrow’s ONS immigration update is likely to show a record fall in net migration. We all know this is mainly down to the Tories new rules but it won’t stop the government trying to take credit for that .
A week is a long time in politics . But 24hrs can be aswell . Tomorrow’s ONS immigration update is likely to show a record fall in net migration. We all know this is mainly down to the Tories new rules but it won’t stop the government trying to take credit for that .
Depends on the drop, they wont get any credit for a drop from x to y if y is still more than people want which it will be. I expect the new figures to be circa 450k
SA official paints a grim picture of the country for Trump: "There is no doubt about it that we are a violent nation. If you go into the rural areas where there is black majority, you would find black elderly women with their throats slit who have been raped multiple times. It is not necessarily about race but it is about crime."
The optics on this are about as bad as possible for Starmer
"Migrant boat forces Dunkirk flotilla to divert
A flotilla of “Little Ships” crossing the English Channel to commemorate the Dunkirk evacuation was forced to divert so Border Force could escort a migrant boat.
The fleet of 66 boats set sail from Ramsgate, Kent, to Dunkirk at 6am on Wednesday to commemorate the 85th anniversary of Operation Dynamo.
It was intended as a “poignant tribute to the bravery and sacrifice” of the Dunkirk evacuations, where 1,000 British pleasure boats were used in the rescue of more than 300,000 Allied soldiers from the Nazi advance.
But the commemorations were disrupted when Border Force and the French navy demanded that the flotilla be diverted to provide a one-nautical mile exclusion zone for a migrant boat."
Telegraph
That last word just spoiled it all.
It does seem another news calamity for Starmer no matter who the messenger is
Not really. PB recently seems overly focused on the short term. Aren’t we supposed to be people at least trying to see the longer picture?
It's all relative. The Dunkirk small boats ramming and drowning migrants would be just a bit worse.
Comments
There are no one celts love fighting except each other until someone gangs up on us then we unite to fight them before going back to kicking the shit out of each other....cultural failing maybe but we enjoy it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts
Also there are a lot more DKs for CU or SM rather than full Rejoin, presumably as not clear on quite what is involved. Fewer objections too.
Brexit was a bad idea poorly executed. That's why it is the albatross around the neck of the Tory party. If Reform campaigns against closer relations with the EU then they are mining a very thin seam of support (though one popular with the PB Blimps) compared to the parties campaigning for closer links.
The charts in the header show once more how detached a lot of PB comment is from public opinion. Shouting louder is not the same as winning an argument.
Media saying raise threshold to £15k or £17.5k etc.
But DWP does not know the income of every pensioner.
They surely aren't going to create the admin chaos that there is with Child Benefit with people getting it and having to declare it on their tax return so they can repay it.
I wonder if the plan is actually to restore Winter Fuel to everybody.
But Starmer will use it as a bargaining chip with backbenchers - ie "we will restore Winter Fuel but in return we will have to make other welfare cuts to offset cost".
And my granny (mum's side) smashed rocks with hammers, barefoot, by the mineshafts on the St Agnes cliffs, age 10!!
Liz Truss was sacked for less
Bregret is a factor of the last 8 years being shit. But that is a factor of Covid and Ukraine. The last 8 years have been shit everywhere.
Maybe if he's Moslem 'we' should be engaging more with people in that community who can make a difference. And/or religious and social leaders in that community should be encouraged to spell out even more clearly to their communities that this sort of behaviour isn't tolerated anywhere.
“We’re very close,” Trump said just now about passing his “big, beautiful bill.”
@alaynatreene
A White House official says talks with the House Freedom Caucus have not yet yielded progress.
"There was no deal. The White House presented HFC with policy options that the Administration can live with, provided they can get the votes, but they cannot get the votes," the official said "There was no deal. The HFC will meet with the President at 3pm to hopefully strike one"
The crown can make a case for deportation again.
It's not only people from minority communities who indulge such disgusting behaviour.
From memory some of the extra Covid payments were linked to Council Tax band.
US formally accepts 747 from Qatar
You do wonder why Starmer has opened this can of worms rather, as Reeves said to camera this morning , there will be no changes to WFP
He really lacks a backbone
https://ifs.org.uk/articles/expanding-winter-fuel-payment-eligibility
Those who don't get WFA again will be even more angry with Labour.
The younger generations who are losing out because of X, Y or Z will be even more annoyed with Labour.
Its been a masterclass of political incompetence over what is a pretty trivial amount of money.
29% good
26% bad
16% neither good or bad
30% don’t know
The problem with the 'council tax band' solution is that Pensioners are much more likely to be equity rich and cash flow poor. Leads us into conversations about 'encouraging' downsizing (by which we mean force by policy decisions)
And once the authorities start tolerating criminal behaviour its likely to increase - see the current situation with shoplifting.
There's a certain number of people who will break the law under any circumstances but there are much greater numbers willing to do so if they think they're sure to get away with it.
In quarter 2 before the referendum our exports were 34,179 billion
In q4 2022 they were 55,066 billion
Now have our exports dropped since then yes but so have our imports and its not down to brexit
But as I say, there is hopefully the intangible benefit of people feeling more sovereign. I don't, I must admit, but perhaps those who voted Leave do.
Do PB Leavers feel more sovereign?
"Migrant boat forces Dunkirk flotilla to divert
A flotilla of “Little Ships” crossing the English Channel to commemorate the Dunkirk evacuation was forced to divert so Border Force could escort a migrant boat.
The fleet of 66 boats set sail from Ramsgate, Kent, to Dunkirk at 6am on Wednesday to commemorate the 85th anniversary of Operation Dynamo.
It was intended as a “poignant tribute to the bravery and sacrifice” of the Dunkirk evacuations, where 1,000 British pleasure boats were used in the rescue of more than 300,000 Allied soldiers from the Nazi advance.
But the commemorations were disrupted when Border Force and the French navy demanded that the flotilla be diverted to provide a one-nautical mile exclusion zone for a migrant boat."
Telegraph
Now they are what Labour are about to become
And with that comes extra power and extra responsibility for our political leaders.
There is less scope for them to hide behind 'EU decisions' now, its their responsibility and their decisions.
WFA and pension credits to begin with.
I am only partly suggesting this in jest. The fact is the most iniquitous part of irregular migration to the UK - the bit most associated with organised crime, death, coercion and general crapness - is the dangerous boat crossings made by people camped out on the French coast.
If we were in Schengen the total numbers arriving in Britain would almost certainly rise. But I chose Switzerland as an example because it has a border you can just walk or drive across, but pretty strict immigration and asylum laws. It manages illegal immigration through policing of the black market, access to services and the right to work. People talk warmly of Denmark’s tough immigration rules. It’s in Schengen. There are no small illegal boat crossings across the Kiel canal.
Join Schengen and there are no more boat crossings. People just take the ferry. No more jungle in Calais. No more payments to France to police crossings. Instead, you’d need an overhaul of what happens when people arrive: a properly funded asylum system, a returns agreement with continental neighbours, all the other tools of the trade. The only gangs you’d need to smash would be those employing illegal workers in Britain, not the people smugglers.
So give Schengen another look. It’s something at least one otherwise decidedly right wing flint knapping poster has advocated in recent history.
I'm getting extremely fed up with the phrase "asset rich, cash poor". Since when has shite financial planning been an excuse? If my taxes go up for a cash benefit for anyone who is "asset rich" I'll be extremely pissed off.
So, these now intrinsically more important GEs of ours (since we're more sovereign). You'd expect it to be reflected in turnout. More people going to the polls because it means a lot more. So far it's not the case (the last one nearly set a record for an all time low) but hopefully that was a blip.
It would facilitate more claims, but not necessarily more successful claims.
Bloody hell - what on earth will the SA press say tomorrow?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cpqe7rp388vt
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/05/21/africa/trump-resettling-south-africas-afrikaners-intl