Zarah Sultana on Kuenssberg proposes nationalisations of much of industry, a referendum on the monarchy and says Zelensky is not a friend of the working class
What does Zarah Sultana think about Putin's relationship with the working class?
That formulation has been doing the rounds on the European left a bit more recently and it's such a despicable cop-out.
In the current climate I don't think we can afford to have a government that is at best equivocal about Putin.
That rules out Reform, the Greens and the Fruit and Nuts for me. Will have to one of the 3 traditional parties but not sure which at this stage. Probably a tactical vote I expect.
I don't see Their Party going anywhere; imo it is too way far out, even for this climate. It's far too Trumpish - say something nuts, and the Great Brainwashed will believe it.
I think success for Zack (for whom wonder if we need Lilac Batman or Holy Toast Robin as a caricature, with "Bam", "Ker-Pow" and so on in bubbles) depends very much on bridging sensible greens and competing with the mainstream not the fruit-n-nuts on policy.
Perhaps someone can persuade Katie Lam or Laila Cunningham or Andrea Jenkins into a black leather catsuit to be complementary.
Watch out Europe, Trump is coming for your elections next MAGA’s mission to meddle in European politics should terrify Starmer, Macron and Merz. Will any of them fight back?
If you read the article it’s a great example of community justice (juries and magistrates).
The magistrate could have sent it back to the DVLA for a review or convicted her and given her an unconditional discharge.
Knowing public bureaucracies, a review would have caused her further stress and would have been unlikely to result in a different outcome. So he closed the case without any punishment. Yes she formally has a conviction but I doubt that will have much impact on her life at this point.
Given how shit a sporting weekend it has been so far for me, I fully expected Max Verstappen to complete the Devil's trifecta this afternoon by winning the F1 title.
Given how shit a sporting weekend it has been so far for me, I fully expected Max Verstappen to complete the Devil's trifecta this afternoon by winning the F1 title.
Sorry for pain. I’ve had a great weekend Swindon reached the 3rd round of the FA Cup with a 4-0 demolition of Bolton and then Bath dismantled Munster 40-14. Bonus point secured by 18 minutes.
Oh - much as I love the visiting Munster fans passion, what was all that hiding from the rain? It surely rains in Ireland too?
That suspicion will be that her relatives were previously named drivers on the policy and have continued to have access to the car. It's important that the police keep an eye on stuff like this IMO.
As long as they are themselves car owners and insured, they will be able to drive her car 3rd party insured. It seems a nonsense that you are required to insure a car if it is not driven or parked on the public highway. My car insurance expires while I'm away for 6 weeks, I will probably just renew it, why is it a problem if it sat on the drive for 4 weeks uninsured? Doing a Sorn for 4 weeks seems pointless
I am not sure this is right. Car owner and insured people whose policy allows them to drive other cars can only do so in respect of cars for which someone holds insurance.
Otherwise if you own 10 cars you only need to insure one of them, and we could all arrange our family lives to have many cars uninsured.
That suspicion will be that her relatives were previously named drivers on the policy and have continued to have access to the car. It's important that the police keep an eye on stuff like this IMO.
Did you hear about the robber who broke into the DVLA? He held everyone at gunpoint with a SORN-off shotgun.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Yes using data is poor form. Fair better to rely on ‘feels’ and gut instinct.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Yes using data is poor form. Fair better to rely on ‘feels’ and gut instinct.
I once heard someone described as “using data like a drunk uses a lamppost … for support rather than illumination”
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Yes using data is poor form. Fair better to rely on ‘feels’ and gut instinct.
Watch out Europe, Trump is coming for your elections next MAGA’s mission to meddle in European politics should terrify Starmer, Macron and Merz. Will any of them fight back?
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Data is facile, juvenile nonsense but the opinions of some economists is ok?
Well do please share.
Sorry, wasn't directed at you personally, just get frustrated by this kind of debate. It doesn't really help with anything.
For a betting website, the more important metric is what the rest of the population think.
Well for sure, if we were discussing a betting matter. But I have noticed that we do sometimes stray on to other things.
That suspicion will be that her relatives were previously named drivers on the policy and have continued to have access to the car. It's important that the police keep an eye on stuff like this IMO.
As long as they are themselves car owners and insured, they will be able to drive her car 3rd party insured. It seems a nonsense that you are required to insure a car if it is not driven or parked on the public highway. My car insurance expires while I'm away for 6 weeks, I will probably just renew it, why is it a problem if it sat on the drive for 4 weeks uninsured? Doing a Sorn for 4 weeks seems pointless
I am not sure this is right. Car owner and insured people whose policy allows them to drive other cars can only do so in respect of cars for which someone holds insurance.
Otherwise if you own 10 cars you only need to insure one of them, and we could all arrange our family lives to have many cars uninsured.
I handed back my driving licence earlier this year due to ill-health, and although my wife has been an additional driver for years, it’s been quite a job making her the main driver on renewal.
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Of course it is, and a family member should have sorted the SORN. The article underplays the fact that she was given what is describes as a 'discharge' - probably meaning an absolute discharge, which means the court is saying you have technically committed an offence but you haven't really done anything wrong.
The process state does a lot of wickeder things than giving absolute discharges to little old ladies when they have broken the law and their family hasn't come to the rescue.
I imagine the bulk prosecution system gives no attention at all to the public interest when deciding to proceed, it will all be 'Computer says yes'.
If it gave a chance to reply before prosecution, and a reply was given, then surely someone at some point had to read the reply and think "we will still prosecute anyway despite this reply".
The courts have a ridiculous backlog and we are wasting court time with this kind of petty crap.
Maybe instead of abolishing trial by jury, we could stop to think from time to time whether every pettifogging Process breach needs to go before a court?
To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm, their lawyers were so preoccupied by whether or not they could [prosecute], they didn't stop to think if they should.
The Evening Standard (& other journalistic investigation) has revealed that nobody reads the pleas for mitigation in a Single Justice Procedure prosecution before they get to court. That’s one of the major problems with it - cases that should have been dropped immediately for lack of public interest are ending up in court & criminalising vulnerable people who have made what, to most people, seem like minor technical oversights in law at worst.
In this particular case, the DVLA /had/ all the information required to point out that someone who had surrendered their driving licence still had a registered vehicle in their name & it was neither SORNed nor insured. There’s nothing stopping them from writing a letter to the registered address in this case & giving a small amount of leeway. Instead we’ve wasted the courts time & criminalised an 84 year old. What good does that do society? Not much, I’d argue.
That suspicion will be that her relatives were previously named drivers on the policy and have continued to have access to the car. It's important that the police keep an eye on stuff like this IMO.
As long as they are themselves car owners and insured, they will be able to drive her car 3rd party insured. It seems a nonsense that you are required to insure a car if it is not driven or parked on the public highway. My car insurance expires while I'm away for 6 weeks, I will probably just renew it, why is it a problem if it sat on the drive for 4 weeks uninsured? Doing a Sorn for 4 weeks seems pointless
Many policies nowadays do not allow that. I can't driver other people's cars on my policy.
Peppers spray assault on a number of people. Quite serious.
Commander Peter Stevens said: “At this stage, we believe the incident involved a group of people known to each other, with an argument escalating and resulting in a number of people being injured.
That suspicion will be that her relatives were previously named drivers on the policy and have continued to have access to the car. It's important that the police keep an eye on stuff like this IMO.
As long as they are themselves car owners and insured, they will be able to drive her car 3rd party insured. It seems a nonsense that you are required to insure a car if it is not driven or parked on the public highway. My car insurance expires while I'm away for 6 weeks, I will probably just renew it, why is it a problem if it sat on the drive for 4 weeks uninsured? Doing a Sorn for 4 weeks seems pointless
Many policies nowadays do not allow that. I can't driver other people's cars on my policy.
IIRC some of the ones that do require the vehicle in question to be insured for a different driver under a valid insurance policy.
Which means you can’t drive an uninsured vehicle - for that you need a different kind of insurance.
That suspicion will be that her relatives were previously named drivers on the policy and have continued to have access to the car. It's important that the police keep an eye on stuff like this IMO.
As long as they are themselves car owners and insured, they will be able to drive her car 3rd party insured. It seems a nonsense that you are required to insure a car if it is not driven or parked on the public highway. My car insurance expires while I'm away for 6 weeks, I will probably just renew it, why is it a problem if it sat on the drive for 4 weeks uninsured? Doing a Sorn for 4 weeks seems pointless
Many policies nowadays do not allow that. I can't driver other people's cars on my policy.
I have had difficulty adding my son in law onto my insurance as a temporary additional driver. I worked out much easier and cheaper for him to add my car onto his insurance temporarily. Mind you, I’m insured with the RAC who are useless. I won’t be renewing with them.
That suspicion will be that her relatives were previously named drivers on the policy and have continued to have access to the car. It's important that the police keep an eye on stuff like this IMO.
As long as they are themselves car owners and insured, they will be able to drive her car 3rd party insured. It seems a nonsense that you are required to insure a car if it is not driven or parked on the public highway. My car insurance expires while I'm away for 6 weeks, I will probably just renew it, why is it a problem if it sat on the drive for 4 weeks uninsured? Doing a Sorn for 4 weeks seems pointless
I am not sure this is right. Car owner and insured people whose policy allows them to drive other cars can only do so in respect of cars for which someone holds insurance.
Otherwise if you own 10 cars you only need to insure one of them, and we could all arrange our family lives to have many cars uninsured.
That suspicion will be that her relatives were previously named drivers on the policy and have continued to have access to the car. It's important that the police keep an eye on stuff like this IMO.
As long as they are themselves car owners and insured, they will be able to drive her car 3rd party insured. It seems a nonsense that you are required to insure a car if it is not driven or parked on the public highway. My car insurance expires while I'm away for 6 weeks, I will probably just renew it, why is it a problem if it sat on the drive for 4 weeks uninsured? Doing a Sorn for 4 weeks seems pointless
I am not sure this is right. Car owner and insured people whose policy allows them to drive other cars can only do so in respect of cars for which someone holds insurance.
Otherwise if you own 10 cars you only need to insure one of them, and we could all arrange our family lives to have many cars uninsured.
In retrospect, I think you're right
In terms of jamming up the courts, is there an argument that strict liability laws like this mean that, overall, there's less time required - there is no defence available in the first place. Then the sheriff/magistrate can use their discretion in terms of penalty.
Watch out Europe, Trump is coming for your elections next MAGA’s mission to meddle in European politics should terrify Starmer, Macron and Merz. Will any of them fight back?
Watch out Europe, Trump is coming for your elections next MAGA’s mission to meddle in European politics should terrify Starmer, Macron and Merz. Will any of them fight back?
Both Red Bull teams operate in a manner which might be described as deeply unsporting
Rightly penalised there
This is why Hamilton is better than Verstappen.
The only bit of shithousery Sir Lewis has ever done is in the 2016 final race as he tried to back up Nico Rosberg into traffic, at no time did he do anything to risk injury to Rosberg.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
The analysis is an as objective as possible statement of the economic impact of Brexit. It's perfectly valid to say the economic cost is a price worth paying for reasons that make sense to you.
The apparently firm consensus now is that Brexit was a mistake. Which I believe is the real problem because there's no similar consensus what to do about it. I think If Rejoin was easy we would be on a path to rejoin already. But it's not for a host of reasons, so we're in a situation where most people think Brexit a big mistake, aren't happy living with the mistake, but don't know what to do about it.
That suspicion will be that her relatives were previously named drivers on the policy and have continued to have access to the car. It's important that the police keep an eye on stuff like this IMO.
As long as they are themselves car owners and insured, they will be able to drive her car 3rd party insured. It seems a nonsense that you are required to insure a car if it is not driven or parked on the public highway. My car insurance expires while I'm away for 6 weeks, I will probably just renew it, why is it a problem if it sat on the drive for 4 weeks uninsured? Doing a Sorn for 4 weeks seems pointless
Many policies nowadays do not allow that. I can't driver other people's cars on my policy.
I have had difficulty adding my son in law onto my insurance as a temporary additional driver. I worked out much easier and cheaper for him to add my car onto his insurance temporarily. Mind you, I’m insured with the RAC who are useless. I won’t be renewing with them.
It's a minor grievance having to insure two cars when I can only drive one at a time, especially when they both sit in the garage 99% of the time without weighing heavily on Warwickshire CC's precious tarmac. In my view the overall risk for two cars (or ten) is no more than the risk for one. I don't expect much sympathy for my plight.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
The analysis is an as objective as possible statement of the economic impact of Brexit. It's perfectly valid to say the economic cost is a price worth paying for reasons that make sense to you.
The apparently firm consensus now is that Brexit was a mistake. Which I believe is the real problem because there's no similar consensus what to do about it. I think If Rejoin was easy we would be on a path to rejoin already. But it's not for a host of reasons, so we're in a situation where most people think Brexit a big mistake, aren't happy living with the mistake, but don't know what to do about it.
Elect the very people whose damn fool idea it was into majority government seems to be favourite.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
The analysis is an as objective as possible statement of the economic impact of Brexit. It's perfectly valid to say the economic cost is a price worth paying for reasons that make sense to you.
The apparently firm consensus now is that Brexit was a mistake. Which I believe is the real problem because there's no similar consensus what to do about it. I think If Rejoin was easy we would be on a path to rejoin already. But it's not for a host of reasons, so we're in a situation where most people think Brexit a big mistake, aren't happy living with the mistake, but don't know what to do about it.
One other thing- it's perfectly legitimate to say "Brexit has made us poorer in GDP terms, but richer in other (non-cash) ways." Same for immigration restrictions. It's arguable, but legitimate.
But it does lead to the question of who should pay the bill for that, and nobody seems keen.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
The analysis is an as objective as possible statement of the economic impact of Brexit. It's perfectly valid to say the economic cost is a price worth paying for reasons that make sense to you.
The apparently firm consensus now is that Brexit was a mistake. Which I believe is the real problem because there's no similar consensus what to do about it. I think If Rejoin was easy we would be on a path to rejoin already. But it's not for a host of reasons, so we're in a situation where most people think Brexit a big mistake, aren't happy living with the mistake, but don't know what to do about it.
One other thing- it's perfectly legitimate to say "Brexit has made us poorer in GDP terms, but richer in other (non-cash) ways." Same for immigration restrictions. It's arguable, but legitimate.
But it does lead to the question of who should pay the bill for that, and nobody seems keen.
If you give up your house and go live in a cave, you’re poorer in economic terms but at least you have a firmer bed.
Just had a message from one of my grandsons, currently bartending near Brisbane. Apparently soon after play ended it started raining. If an England team can’t rely on rain, the gods really have deserted them!
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
The analysis is an as objective as possible statement of the economic impact of Brexit. It's perfectly valid to say the economic cost is a price worth paying for reasons that make sense to you.
The apparently firm consensus now is that Brexit was a mistake. Which I believe is the real problem because there's no similar consensus what to do about it. I think If Rejoin was easy we would be on a path to rejoin already. But it's not for a host of reasons, so we're in a situation where most people think Brexit a big mistake, aren't happy living with the mistake, but don't know what to do about it.
One other thing- it's perfectly legitimate to say "Brexit has made us poorer in GDP terms, but richer in other (non-cash) ways." Same for immigration restrictions. It's arguable, but legitimate.
But it does lead to the question of who should pay the bill for that, and nobody seems keen.
Can you name any one of those non-cash richer ways, I am struggling big time.
We can all sleep easy at night knowing this criminal has been punished.
Meanwhile in high streets up and down the country people rob and pilfer stores, or plague high streets, with no come back at all
Trouble is, and you know this, if this regulation is shut down millions will abuse it and [edit] risk ending up committing motorised mayhem without any insurance cover. The first to [edit] kill people with his Grandad's car conveniently previously just sitting on the drive unused, the DM etc will be demanding, erm, this very regulation back.
Macron to Xi: "We are facing the risk of the disintegration of the international order that brought peace to the world for decades, and in this context, the dialogue between China and France is even more essential than ever."
F1: fun fact I've just discovered: I accidentally miscalculated/misremembered how much (or little, in fact) I bet on Piastri at long odds and would've been red if he'd won the title because I laid too much. Ahem.
F1: fun fact I've just discovered: I accidentally miscalculated/misremembered how much (or little, in fact) I bet on Piastri at long odds and would've been red if he'd won the title because I laid too much. Ahem.
F1: fun fact I've just discovered: I accidentally miscalculated/misremembered how much (or little, in fact) I bet on Piastri at long odds and would've been red if he'd won the title because I laid too much. Ahem.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
The analysis is an as objective as possible statement of the economic impact of Brexit. It's perfectly valid to say the economic cost is a price worth paying for reasons that make sense to you.
The apparently firm consensus now is that Brexit was a mistake. Which I believe is the real problem because there's no similar consensus what to do about it. I think If Rejoin was easy we would be on a path to rejoin already. But it's not for a host of reasons, so we're in a situation where most people think Brexit a big mistake, aren't happy living with the mistake, but don't know what to do about it.
Elect the very people whose damn fool idea it was into majority government seems to be favourite.
Yep. The Putin-loving Godfather of Brexit who hailed Ms Truss's as the best buget since 1986 as next PM.
Macron to Xi: "We are facing the risk of the disintegration of the international order that brought peace to the world for decades, and in this context, the dialogue between China and France is even more essential than ever."
That suspicion will be that her relatives were previously named drivers on the policy and have continued to have access to the car. It's important that the police keep an eye on stuff like this IMO.
As long as they are themselves car owners and insured, they will be able to drive her car 3rd party insured. It seems a nonsense that you are required to insure a car if it is not driven or parked on the public highway. My car insurance expires while I'm away for 6 weeks, I will probably just renew it, why is it a problem if it sat on the drive for 4 weeks uninsured? Doing a Sorn for 4 weeks seems pointless
Many policies nowadays do not allow that. I can't driver other people's cars on my policy.
I have had difficulty adding my son in law onto my insurance as a temporary additional driver. I worked out much easier and cheaper for him to add my car onto his insurance temporarily. Mind you, I’m insured with the RAC who are useless. I won’t be renewing with them.
IME Admiral are flexible with the stuff around main insured, owners and main drivers.
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Of course it is, and a family member should have sorted the SORN. The article underplays the fact that she was given what is describes as a 'discharge' - probably meaning an absolute discharge, which means the court is saying you have technically committed an offence but you haven't really done anything wrong.
The process state does a lot of wickeder things than giving absolute discharges to little old ladies when they have broken the law and their family hasn't come to the rescue.
I imagine the bulk prosecution system gives no attention at all to the public interest when deciding to proceed, it will all be 'Computer says yes'.
If it gave a chance to reply before prosecution, and a reply was given, then surely someone at some point had to read the reply and think "we will still prosecute anyway despite this reply".
The courts have a ridiculous backlog and we are wasting court time with this kind of petty crap.
Maybe instead of abolishing trial by jury, we could stop to think from time to time whether every pettifogging Process breach needs to go before a court?
To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm, their lawyers were so preoccupied by whether or not they could [prosecute], they didn't stop to think if they should.
The Evening Standard (& other journalistic investigation) has revealed that nobody reads the pleas for mitigation in a Single Justice Procedure prosecution before they get to court. That’s one of the major problems with it - cases that should have been dropped immediately for lack of public interest are ending up in court & criminalising vulnerable people who have made what, to most people, seem like minor technical oversights in law at worst.
In this particular case, the DVLA /had/ all the information required to point out that someone who had surrendered their driving licence still had a registered vehicle in their name & it was neither SORNed nor insured. There’s nothing stopping them from writing a letter to the registered address in this case & giving a small amount of leeway. Instead we’ve wasted the courts time & criminalised an 84 year old. What good does that do society? Not much, I’d argue.
Not disagreeing with your argument but as a point of fact minimal court time wasted. These are fast.
F1: fun fact I've just discovered: I accidentally miscalculated/misremembered how much (or little, in fact) I bet on Piastri at long odds and would've been red if he'd won the title because I laid too much. Ahem.
Piastri got to the podium, so it would be churlish not to credit you for a rare tip that actually paid off.
We can all sleep easy at night knowing this criminal has been punished.
Meanwhile in high streets up and down the country people rob and pilfer stores, or plague high streets, with no come back at all
Trouble is, and you know this, if this regulation is shut down millions will abuse it and [edit] risk ending up committing motorised mayhem without any insurance cover. The first to [edit] kill people with his Grandad's car conveniently previously just sitting on the drive unused, the DM etc will be demanding, erm, this very regulation back.
So why didn’t the magistrate read the mitigation and send it back to DVLA.
The problem is the SJP.
The regulation isn’t the problem. It’s the use of SJPs with magistrates not taking into account mitigation
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
The analysis is an as objective as possible statement of the economic impact of Brexit. It's perfectly valid to say the economic cost is a price worth paying for reasons that make sense to you.
The apparently firm consensus now is that Brexit was a mistake. Which I believe is the real problem because there's no similar consensus what to do about it. I think If Rejoin was easy we would be on a path to rejoin already. But it's not for a host of reasons, so we're in a situation where most people think Brexit a big mistake, aren't happy living with the mistake, but don't know what to do about it.
Most people don’t thing about it. But the media says it is so they kind of absorb that by political osmosis. But it’s only skin deep
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Of course it is, and a family member should have sorted the SORN. The article underplays the fact that she was given what is describes as a 'discharge' - probably meaning an absolute discharge, which means the court is saying you have technically committed an offence but you haven't really done anything wrong.
The process state does a lot of wickeder things than giving absolute discharges to little old ladies when they have broken the law and their family hasn't come to the rescue.
I imagine the bulk prosecution system gives no attention at all to the public interest when deciding to proceed, it will all be 'Computer says yes'.
If it gave a chance to reply before prosecution, and a reply was given, then surely someone at some point had to read the reply and think "we will still prosecute anyway despite this reply".
The courts have a ridiculous backlog and we are wasting court time with this kind of petty crap.
Maybe instead of abolishing trial by jury, we could stop to think from time to time whether every pettifogging Process breach needs to go before a court?
To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm, their lawyers were so preoccupied by whether or not they could [prosecute], they didn't stop to think if they should.
The Evening Standard (& other journalistic investigation) has revealed that nobody reads the pleas for mitigation in a Single Justice Procedure prosecution before they get to court. That’s one of the major problems with it - cases that should have been dropped immediately for lack of public interest are ending up in court & criminalising vulnerable people who have made what, to most people, seem like minor technical oversights in law at worst.
In this particular case, the DVLA /had/ all the information required to point out that someone who had surrendered their driving licence still had a registered vehicle in their name & it was neither SORNed nor insured. There’s nothing stopping them from writing a letter to the registered address in this case & giving a small amount of leeway. Instead we’ve wasted the courts time & criminalised an 84 year old. What good does that do society? Not much, I’d argue.
Not disagreeing with your argument but as a point of fact minimal court time wasted. These are fast.
Fuck justice and doing what’s right as long as it’s quick 👍
F1: fun fact I've just discovered: I accidentally miscalculated/misremembered how much (or little, in fact) I bet on Piastri at long odds and would've been red if he'd won the title because I laid too much. Ahem.
oops - but enjoy the extra drinks you've now got
Actually this reduces my winnings because Piastri paid out each way (fifth the odds) top three. But at least I'm green
F1: fun fact I've just discovered: I accidentally miscalculated/misremembered how much (or little, in fact) I bet on Piastri at long odds and would've been red if he'd won the title because I laid too much. Ahem.
Piastri got to the podium, so it would be churlish not to credit you for a rare tip that actually paid off.
If it makes you feel any better I did back Russell to top FP3 at 11 this weekend.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Macron to Xi: "We are facing the risk of the disintegration of the international order that brought peace to the world for decades, and in this context, the dialogue between China and France is even more essential than ever."
The disintegration is happening because China wants it to happen. Does Macron/French foreign policy have any relevance beyond looking important?
I think a wider caucus of medium sized countries (say G20 not G7) are important for rebuilding a functional international order. We may get the USA back when Trump, his cronies, and the current version of the GOP have been shat out of the other end of their system - or we may not.
France are one of those, as are we.
G20: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Plus EU plus African Union.
Left to me, I'd adjust the criteria slightly, and perhaps try for a G30 or a G40. Which would bring in the like of Netherlands, Taiwan, Switzerland, Poland and others.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
The analysis is an as objective as possible statement of the economic impact of Brexit. It's perfectly valid to say the economic cost is a price worth paying for reasons that make sense to you.
The apparently firm consensus now is that Brexit was a mistake. Which I believe is the real problem because there's no similar consensus what to do about it. I think If Rejoin was easy we would be on a path to rejoin already. But it's not for a host of reasons, so we're in a situation where most people think Brexit a big mistake, aren't happy living with the mistake, but don't know what to do about it.
Most people don’t thing about it. But the media says it is so they kind of absorb that by political osmosis. But it’s only skin deep
A fair comment up to a point. People expect governments to sort the tricky stuff out for them. And the EU relationship is a very tricky one for governments to deal with, made massively more difficult by Brexit. Which is why all UK governments are floundering on this issue.
We can all sleep easy at night knowing this criminal has been punished.
Meanwhile in high streets up and down the country people rob and pilfer stores, or plague high streets, with no come back at all
Trouble is, and you know this, if this regulation is shut down millions will abuse it and [edit] risk ending up committing motorised mayhem without any insurance cover. The first to [edit] kill people with his Grandad's car conveniently previously just sitting on the drive unused, the DM etc will be demanding, erm, this very regulation back.
So why didn’t the magistrate read the mitigation and send it back to DVLA.
The problem is the SJP.
The regulation isn’t the problem. It’s the use of SJPs with magistrates not taking into account mitigation
Because if he had the DVLA would have written to the woman, wasted her time, caused her stress and then prosecuted her again most likely.
Instead he gave her an absolute discharge - so a technical criminal record but no penalty
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Of course it is, and a family member should have sorted the SORN. The article underplays the fact that she was given what is describes as a 'discharge' - probably meaning an absolute discharge, which means the court is saying you have technically committed an offence but you haven't really done anything wrong.
The process state does a lot of wickeder things than giving absolute discharges to little old ladies when they have broken the law and their family hasn't come to the rescue.
I imagine the bulk prosecution system gives no attention at all to the public interest when deciding to proceed, it will all be 'Computer says yes'.
If it gave a chance to reply before prosecution, and a reply was given, then surely someone at some point had to read the reply and think "we will still prosecute anyway despite this reply".
The courts have a ridiculous backlog and we are wasting court time with this kind of petty crap.
Maybe instead of abolishing trial by jury, we could stop to think from time to time whether every pettifogging Process breach needs to go before a court?
To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm, their lawyers were so preoccupied by whether or not they could [prosecute], they didn't stop to think if they should.
The Evening Standard (& other journalistic investigation) has revealed that nobody reads the pleas for mitigation in a Single Justice Procedure prosecution before they get to court. That’s one of the major problems with it - cases that should have been dropped immediately for lack of public interest are ending up in court & criminalising vulnerable people who have made what, to most people, seem like minor technical oversights in law at worst.
In this particular case, the DVLA /had/ all the information required to point out that someone who had surrendered their driving licence still had a registered vehicle in their name & it was neither SORNed nor insured. There’s nothing stopping them from writing a letter to the registered address in this case & giving a small amount of leeway. Instead we’ve wasted the courts time & criminalised an 84 year old. What good does that do society? Not much, I’d argue.
Not disagreeing with your argument but as a point of fact minimal court time wasted. These are fast.
Fuck justice and doing what’s right as long as it’s quick 👍
We can all sleep easy at night knowing this criminal has been punished.
Meanwhile in high streets up and down the country people rob and pilfer stores, or plague high streets, with no come back at all
Trouble is, and you know this, if this regulation is shut down millions will abuse it and [edit] risk ending up committing motorised mayhem without any insurance cover. The first to [edit] kill people with his Grandad's car conveniently previously just sitting on the drive unused, the DM etc will be demanding, erm, this very regulation back.
So why didn’t the magistrate read the mitigation and send it back to DVLA.
The problem is the SJP.
The regulation isn’t the problem. It’s the use of SJPs with magistrates not taking into account mitigation
Because if he had the DVLA would have written to the woman, wasted her time, caused her stress and then prosecuted her again most likely.
Instead he gave her an absolute discharge - so a technical criminal record but no penalty
So a bed ridden woman gets a criminal record. Justice is served. Fantastic. Fuck the silly old woman. Can’t do the time don’t do,the crime, eh !
What a crock. I don’t know how anyone can defend this.
The DVLA could have simply dropped the prosecution, mitigation is never read. SJP cases are an utter disgrace.
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Of course it is, and a family member should have sorted the SORN. The article underplays the fact that she was given what is describes as a 'discharge' - probably meaning an absolute discharge, which means the court is saying you have technically committed an offence but you haven't really done anything wrong.
The process state does a lot of wickeder things than giving absolute discharges to little old ladies when they have broken the law and their family hasn't come to the rescue.
I imagine the bulk prosecution system gives no attention at all to the public interest when deciding to proceed, it will all be 'Computer says yes'.
If it gave a chance to reply before prosecution, and a reply was given, then surely someone at some point had to read the reply and think "we will still prosecute anyway despite this reply".
The courts have a ridiculous backlog and we are wasting court time with this kind of petty crap.
Maybe instead of abolishing trial by jury, we could stop to think from time to time whether every pettifogging Process breach needs to go before a court?
To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm, their lawyers were so preoccupied by whether or not they could [prosecute], they didn't stop to think if they should.
The Evening Standard (& other journalistic investigation) has revealed that nobody reads the pleas for mitigation in a Single Justice Procedure prosecution before they get to court. That’s one of the major problems with it - cases that should have been dropped immediately for lack of public interest are ending up in court & criminalising vulnerable people who have made what, to most people, seem like minor technical oversights in law at worst.
In this particular case, the DVLA /had/ all the information required to point out that someone who had surrendered their driving licence still had a registered vehicle in their name & it was neither SORNed nor insured. There’s nothing stopping them from writing a letter to the registered address in this case & giving a small amount of leeway. Instead we’ve wasted the courts time & criminalised an 84 year old. What good does that do society? Not much, I’d argue.
Not disagreeing with your argument but as a point of fact minimal court time wasted. These are fast.
Fuck justice and doing what’s right as long as it’s quick 👍
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Of course it is, and a family member should have sorted the SORN. The article underplays the fact that she was given what is describes as a 'discharge' - probably meaning an absolute discharge, which means the court is saying you have technically committed an offence but you haven't really done anything wrong.
The process state does a lot of wickeder things than giving absolute discharges to little old ladies when they have broken the law and their family hasn't come to the rescue.
I imagine the bulk prosecution system gives no attention at all to the public interest when deciding to proceed, it will all be 'Computer says yes'.
If it gave a chance to reply before prosecution, and a reply was given, then surely someone at some point had to read the reply and think "we will still prosecute anyway despite this reply".
The courts have a ridiculous backlog and we are wasting court time with this kind of petty crap.
Maybe instead of abolishing trial by jury, we could stop to think from time to time whether every pettifogging Process breach needs to go before a court?
To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm, their lawyers were so preoccupied by whether or not they could [prosecute], they didn't stop to think if they should.
The Evening Standard (& other journalistic investigation) has revealed that nobody reads the pleas for mitigation in a Single Justice Procedure prosecution before they get to court. That’s one of the major problems with it - cases that should have been dropped immediately for lack of public interest are ending up in court & criminalising vulnerable people who have made what, to most people, seem like minor technical oversights in law at worst.
In this particular case, the DVLA /had/ all the information required to point out that someone who had surrendered their driving licence still had a registered vehicle in their name & it was neither SORNed nor insured. There’s nothing stopping them from writing a letter to the registered address in this case & giving a small amount of leeway. Instead we’ve wasted the courts time & criminalised an 84 year old. What good does that do society? Not much, I’d argue.
Not disagreeing with your argument but as a point of fact minimal court time wasted. These are fast.
Fuck justice and doing what’s right as long as it’s quick 👍
In my view the magistrate delivered justice.
An absolute discharge
In your view, as you say.
I think the case should never have come to court. The mitigation should have been read and the case dismissed. Not in the public interest. You may think prosecuting bed ridden octogenrians needing carers four times a diary for car insurance offences is okay. I don’t.
Do you not think of the stress and worry this causes people as the process is often the punishment rather than the sentence. Course you don’t. That would require empathy.
Watch out Europe, Trump is coming for your elections next MAGA’s mission to meddle in European politics should terrify Starmer, Macron and Merz. Will any of them fight back?
F1: fun fact I've just discovered: I accidentally miscalculated/misremembered how much (or little, in fact) I bet on Piastri at long odds and would've been red if he'd won the title because I laid too much. Ahem.
Piastri got to the podium, so it would be churlish not to credit you for a rare tip that actually paid off.
If it makes you feel any better I did back Russell to top FP3 at 11 this weekend.
That was a good F1 season. Plenty of storylines and no single driver dominating. The best of my season bets was selling Lewis Hamilton. Only a small net profit overall though due to a couple of less inspired ones.
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Of course it is, and a family member should have sorted the SORN. The article underplays the fact that she was given what is describes as a 'discharge' - probably meaning an absolute discharge, which means the court is saying you have technically committed an offence but you haven't really done anything wrong.
The process state does a lot of wickeder things than giving absolute discharges to little old ladies when they have broken the law and their family hasn't come to the rescue.
I imagine the bulk prosecution system gives no attention at all to the public interest when deciding to proceed, it will all be 'Computer says yes'.
If it gave a chance to reply before prosecution, and a reply was given, then surely someone at some point had to read the reply and think "we will still prosecute anyway despite this reply".
The courts have a ridiculous backlog and we are wasting court time with this kind of petty crap.
Maybe instead of abolishing trial by jury, we could stop to think from time to time whether every pettifogging Process breach needs to go before a court?
To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm, their lawyers were so preoccupied by whether or not they could [prosecute], they didn't stop to think if they should.
The Evening Standard (& other journalistic investigation) has revealed that nobody reads the pleas for mitigation in a Single Justice Procedure prosecution before they get to court. That’s one of the major problems with it - cases that should have been dropped immediately for lack of public interest are ending up in court & criminalising vulnerable people who have made what, to most people, seem like minor technical oversights in law at worst.
In this particular case, the DVLA /had/ all the information required to point out that someone who had surrendered their driving licence still had a registered vehicle in their name & it was neither SORNed nor insured. There’s nothing stopping them from writing a letter to the registered address in this case & giving a small amount of leeway. Instead we’ve wasted the courts time & criminalised an 84 year old. What good does that do society? Not much, I’d argue.
Not disagreeing with your argument but as a point of fact minimal court time wasted. These are fast.
Fuck justice and doing what’s right as long as it’s quick 👍
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Of course it is, and a family member should have sorted the SORN. The article underplays the fact that she was given what is describes as a 'discharge' - probably meaning an absolute discharge, which means the court is saying you have technically committed an offence but you haven't really done anything wrong.
The process state does a lot of wickeder things than giving absolute discharges to little old ladies when they have broken the law and their family hasn't come to the rescue.
I imagine the bulk prosecution system gives no attention at all to the public interest when deciding to proceed, it will all be 'Computer says yes'.
If it gave a chance to reply before prosecution, and a reply was given, then surely someone at some point had to read the reply and think "we will still prosecute anyway despite this reply".
The courts have a ridiculous backlog and we are wasting court time with this kind of petty crap.
Maybe instead of abolishing trial by jury, we could stop to think from time to time whether every pettifogging Process breach needs to go before a court?
To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm, their lawyers were so preoccupied by whether or not they could [prosecute], they didn't stop to think if they should.
The Evening Standard (& other journalistic investigation) has revealed that nobody reads the pleas for mitigation in a Single Justice Procedure prosecution before they get to court. That’s one of the major problems with it - cases that should have been dropped immediately for lack of public interest are ending up in court & criminalising vulnerable people who have made what, to most people, seem like minor technical oversights in law at worst.
In this particular case, the DVLA /had/ all the information required to point out that someone who had surrendered their driving licence still had a registered vehicle in their name & it was neither SORNed nor insured. There’s nothing stopping them from writing a letter to the registered address in this case & giving a small amount of leeway. Instead we’ve wasted the courts time & criminalised an 84 year old. What good does that do society? Not much, I’d argue.
Not disagreeing with your argument but as a point of fact minimal court time wasted. These are fast.
Fuck justice and doing what’s right as long as it’s quick 👍
In my view the magistrate delivered justice.
An absolute discharge
In your view, as you say.
I think the case should never have come to court. The mitigation should have been read and the case dismissed. Not in the public interest. You may think prosecuting bed ridden octogenrians needing carers four times a diary for car insurance offences is okay. I don’t.
Do you not think of the stress and worry this causes people as the process is often the punishment rather than the sentence. Course you don’t. That would require empathy.
Justice is done on a budget with limited resources.
The outcome is the best possible one given that the pensioner / family had allowed the offence to occur
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Of course it is, and a family member should have sorted the SORN. The article underplays the fact that she was given what is describes as a 'discharge' - probably meaning an absolute discharge, which means the court is saying you have technically committed an offence but you haven't really done anything wrong.
The process state does a lot of wickeder things than giving absolute discharges to little old ladies when they have broken the law and their family hasn't come to the rescue.
I imagine the bulk prosecution system gives no attention at all to the public interest when deciding to proceed, it will all be 'Computer says yes'.
If it gave a chance to reply before prosecution, and a reply was given, then surely someone at some point had to read the reply and think "we will still prosecute anyway despite this reply".
The courts have a ridiculous backlog and we are wasting court time with this kind of petty crap.
Maybe instead of abolishing trial by jury, we could stop to think from time to time whether every pettifogging Process breach needs to go before a court?
To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm, their lawyers were so preoccupied by whether or not they could [prosecute], they didn't stop to think if they should.
The Evening Standard (& other journalistic investigation) has revealed that nobody reads the pleas for mitigation in a Single Justice Procedure prosecution before they get to court. That’s one of the major problems with it - cases that should have been dropped immediately for lack of public interest are ending up in court & criminalising vulnerable people who have made what, to most people, seem like minor technical oversights in law at worst.
In this particular case, the DVLA /had/ all the information required to point out that someone who had surrendered their driving licence still had a registered vehicle in their name & it was neither SORNed nor insured. There’s nothing stopping them from writing a letter to the registered address in this case & giving a small amount of leeway. Instead we’ve wasted the courts time & criminalised an 84 year old. What good does that do society? Not much, I’d argue.
One thing it does is makes people of a technocratic, bureaucratic mindset feel smug and superior.
Macron to Xi: "We are facing the risk of the disintegration of the international order that brought peace to the world for decades, and in this context, the dialogue between China and France is even more essential than ever."
The disintegration is happening because China wants it to happen. Does Macron/French foreign policy have any relevance beyond looking important?
It may not be relevant beyond France but it is very relevant to Macron, as it gives him a chance for a legacy since all his domestic goals have come to nothing and when he leaves office, presumably the year after next, he'll have essentially nothing to show for a decade in charge of France.
Watch out Europe, Trump is coming for your elections next MAGA’s mission to meddle in European politics should terrify Starmer, Macron and Merz. Will any of them fight back?
What's he going to do? Send MAGA activists to canvass voters?
Help Elon Musk’s Twitter and other social media companies pump out AI slop disinformation?
We can regulate those if we choose, but money is a huge problem too. See how Farage's enthiusiasm for crypto went through the roof when Ref UK received £9 million from crypto-man Chakrit Sakunkrit in August 2025, which he did not have to declare for (iirc) 3 months.
For the UK, one place to watch is the upcoming political funding reform bill.
Personally I think as per usual the Govt will be too timid. I would limit donations to maybe £500 per annum for individuals who live in the UK, and exclude all international donations, and all corporate donations, including Trades Unions.
And then include a measure of Govt funding, perhaps based around existing number of MPs.
We finished Gladiator earlier today because the kids are at my parents and the baby was napping. I don't understand why Hollywood doesn't make these movies any more. I hadn't watched it for over 20 years so it was almost like watching it again for the first time. Absolutely blown away by the storytelling, acting, writing, cinematography. Basically everything.
Comparing it to what wins awards today and it's genuinely just night and day. The quality of movies has really gone downhill and writing specifically is just awful.
I really hope that Odyssey doesn't shit the bed but early signs aren't good. Nolan is a great director and I really respect him so I'll give it a chance even though it's being adapted from a "modern" translation of the original work which has been widely discredited.
If Netflix does manage to take WB over then I think movie making as we know it will be finished. Long form content will now just be a series of carefully scripted dopamine hits to cater to tiktok addled kids who haven't got any attention spans.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
The analysis is an as objective as possible statement of the economic impact of Brexit. It's perfectly valid to say the economic cost is a price worth paying for reasons that make sense to you.
The apparently firm consensus now is that Brexit was a mistake. Which I believe is the real problem because there's no similar consensus what to do about it. I think If Rejoin was easy we would be on a path to rejoin already. But it's not for a host of reasons, so we're in a situation where most people think Brexit a big mistake, aren't happy living with the mistake, but don't know what to do about it.
A good place for us to start is to stop listening to anybody who was in favour of it.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
The analysis is an as objective as possible statement of the economic impact of Brexit. It's perfectly valid to say the economic cost is a price worth paying for reasons that make sense to you.
The apparently firm consensus now is that Brexit was a mistake. Which I believe is the real problem because there's no similar consensus what to do about it. I think If Rejoin was easy we would be on a path to rejoin already. But it's not for a host of reasons, so we're in a situation where most people think Brexit a big mistake, aren't happy living with the mistake, but don't know what to do about it.
A good place for us to start is to stop listening to anybody who was in favour of it.
Not sure ignoring people who disagree with you is the greatest way to persuade them to change their mind. The whole point of democracy is that different people can have different but valid opinions.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
The analysis is an as objective as possible statement of the economic impact of Brexit. It's perfectly valid to say the economic cost is a price worth paying for reasons that make sense to you.
The apparently firm consensus now is that Brexit was a mistake. Which I believe is the real problem because there's no similar consensus what to do about it. I think If Rejoin was easy we would be on a path to rejoin already. But it's not for a host of reasons, so we're in a situation where most people think Brexit a big mistake, aren't happy living with the mistake, but don't know what to do about it.
A good place for us to start is to stop listening to anybody who was in favour of it.
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Of course it is, and a family member should have sorted the SORN. The article underplays the fact that she was given what is describes as a 'discharge' - probably meaning an absolute discharge, which means the court is saying you have technically committed an offence but you haven't really done anything wrong.
The process state does a lot of wickeder things than giving absolute discharges to little old ladies when they have broken the law and their family hasn't come to the rescue.
I imagine the bulk prosecution system gives no attention at all to the public interest when deciding to proceed, it will all be 'Computer says yes'.
If it gave a chance to reply before prosecution, and a reply was given, then surely someone at some point had to read the reply and think "we will still prosecute anyway despite this reply".
The courts have a ridiculous backlog and we are wasting court time with this kind of petty crap.
Maybe instead of abolishing trial by jury, we could stop to think from time to time whether every pettifogging Process breach needs to go before a court?
To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm, their lawyers were so preoccupied by whether or not they could [prosecute], they didn't stop to think if they should.
The Evening Standard (& other journalistic investigation) has revealed that nobody reads the pleas for mitigation in a Single Justice Procedure prosecution before they get to court. That’s one of the major problems with it - cases that should have been dropped immediately for lack of public interest are ending up in court & criminalising vulnerable people who have made what, to most people, seem like minor technical oversights in law at worst.
In this particular case, the DVLA /had/ all the information required to point out that someone who had surrendered their driving licence still had a registered vehicle in their name & it was neither SORNed nor insured. There’s nothing stopping them from writing a letter to the registered address in this case & giving a small amount of leeway. Instead we’ve wasted the courts time & criminalised an 84 year old. What good does that do society? Not much, I’d argue.
Not disagreeing with your argument but as a point of fact minimal court time wasted. These are fast.
Fuck justice and doing what’s right as long as it’s quick 👍
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Of course it is, and a family member should have sorted the SORN. The article underplays the fact that she was given what is describes as a 'discharge' - probably meaning an absolute discharge, which means the court is saying you have technically committed an offence but you haven't really done anything wrong.
The process state does a lot of wickeder things than giving absolute discharges to little old ladies when they have broken the law and their family hasn't come to the rescue.
I imagine the bulk prosecution system gives no attention at all to the public interest when deciding to proceed, it will all be 'Computer says yes'.
If it gave a chance to reply before prosecution, and a reply was given, then surely someone at some point had to read the reply and think "we will still prosecute anyway despite this reply".
The courts have a ridiculous backlog and we are wasting court time with this kind of petty crap.
Maybe instead of abolishing trial by jury, we could stop to think from time to time whether every pettifogging Process breach needs to go before a court?
To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm, their lawyers were so preoccupied by whether or not they could [prosecute], they didn't stop to think if they should.
The Evening Standard (& other journalistic investigation) has revealed that nobody reads the pleas for mitigation in a Single Justice Procedure prosecution before they get to court. That’s one of the major problems with it - cases that should have been dropped immediately for lack of public interest are ending up in court & criminalising vulnerable people who have made what, to most people, seem like minor technical oversights in law at worst.
In this particular case, the DVLA /had/ all the information required to point out that someone who had surrendered their driving licence still had a registered vehicle in their name & it was neither SORNed nor insured. There’s nothing stopping them from writing a letter to the registered address in this case & giving a small amount of leeway. Instead we’ve wasted the courts time & criminalised an 84 year old. What good does that do society? Not much, I’d argue.
Not disagreeing with your argument but as a point of fact minimal court time wasted. These are fast.
Fuck justice and doing what’s right as long as it’s quick 👍
In my view the magistrate delivered justice.
An absolute discharge
In your view, as you say.
I think the case should never have come to court. The mitigation should have been read and the case dismissed. Not in the public interest. You may think prosecuting bed ridden octogenrians needing carers four times a diary for car insurance offences is okay. I don’t.
Do you not think of the stress and worry this causes people as the process is often the punishment rather than the sentence. Course you don’t. That would require empathy.
Justice is done on a budget with limited resources.
The outcome is the best possible one given that the pensioner / family had allowed the offence to occur
Indeed. Damn them all for this dreadful offence. We all sleep easier after this most just and fair prosecution.
A bedbound pensioner needing carers in four times a day to give her a modicum of a standard of living, How dare she and her family allow such a heinous offence to occur. She rightly goes to her grave with this on her. 👍Won’t be long either given her age and condition.
Comments
I think success for Zack (for whom wonder if we need Lilac Batman or Holy Toast Robin as a caricature, with "Bam", "Ker-Pow" and so on in bubbles) depends very much on bridging sensible greens and competing with the mainstream not the fruit-n-nuts on policy.
Perhaps someone can persuade Katie Lam or Laila Cunningham or Andrea Jenkins into a black leather catsuit to be complementary.
The magistrate could have sent it back to the DVLA for a review or convicted her and given her an unconditional discharge.
Knowing public bureaucracies, a review would have caused her further stress and would have been unlikely to result in a different outcome. So he closed the case without any punishment. Yes she formally has a conviction but I doubt that will have much impact on her life at this point.
Oh - much as I love the visiting Munster fans passion, what was all that hiding from the rain? It surely rains in Ireland too?
Otherwise if you own 10 cars you only need to insure one of them, and we could all arrange our family lives to have many cars uninsured.
Always stuck with me as a phrase
Ditto Norris.
Piastri is on the hards.
In this particular case, the DVLA /had/ all the information required to point out that someone who had surrendered their driving licence still had a registered vehicle in their name & it was neither SORNed nor insured. There’s nothing stopping them from writing a letter to the registered address in this case & giving a small amount of leeway. Instead we’ve wasted the courts time & criminalised an 84 year old. What good does that do society? Not much, I’d argue.
Commander Peter Stevens said: “At this stage, we believe the incident involved a group of people known to each other, with an argument escalating and resulting in a number of people being injured.
Which means you can’t drive an uninsured vehicle - for that you need a different kind of insurance.
Rightly penalised there
The access allowed to Russian bots is one example.
The only bit of shithousery Sir Lewis has ever done is in the 2016 final race as he tried to back up Nico Rosberg into traffic, at no time did he do anything to risk injury to Rosberg.
The apparently firm consensus now is that Brexit was a mistake. Which I believe is the real problem because there's no similar consensus what to do about it. I think If Rejoin was easy we would be on a path to rejoin already. But it's not for a host of reasons, so we're in a situation where most people think Brexit a big mistake, aren't happy living with the mistake, but don't know what to do about it.
Meanwhile in high streets up and down the country people rob and pilfer stores, or plague high streets, with no come back at all
But it does lead to the question of who should pay the bill for that, and nobody seems keen.
If an England team can’t rely on rain, the gods really have deserted them!
https://x.com/ulrichspeck/status/1997395746031579195
The disintegration is happening because China wants it to happen. Does Macron/French foreign policy have any relevance beyond looking important?
What could possibly go wrong?
Preserving NCD is another tricky area.
The problem is the SJP.
The regulation isn’t the problem. It’s the use of SJPs with magistrates not taking into account mitigation
Putin’s army seizing land at one of its fastest rates since war began, research suggests
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/12/07/russia-rapidly-gaining-territory-ukraine-peace-talks-stall/ (£££)
France are one of those, as are we.
G20: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Plus EU plus African Union.
Left to me, I'd adjust the criteria slightly, and perhaps try for a G30 or a G40. Which would bring in the like of Netherlands, Taiwan, Switzerland, Poland and others.
Instead he gave her an absolute discharge - so a technical criminal record but no penalty
An absolute discharge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3_WOtyg9Dw
What a crock. I don’t know how anyone can defend this.
The DVLA could have simply dropped the prosecution, mitigation is never read. SJP cases are an utter disgrace.
I think the case should never have come to court. The mitigation should have been read and the case dismissed. Not in the public interest. You may think prosecuting bed ridden octogenrians needing carers four times a diary for car insurance offences is okay. I don’t.
Do you not think of the stress and worry this causes people as the process is often the punishment rather than the sentence. Course you don’t. That would require empathy.
The outcome is the best possible one given that the pensioner / family had allowed the offence to occur
Beware a middle-aged man in a hurry ...
For the UK, one place to watch is the upcoming political funding reform bill.
Personally I think as per usual the Govt will be too timid. I would limit donations to maybe £500 per annum for individuals who live in the UK, and exclude all international donations, and all corporate donations, including Trades Unions.
And then include a measure of Govt funding, perhaps based around existing number of MPs.
Comparing it to what wins awards today and it's genuinely just night and day. The quality of movies has really gone downhill and writing specifically is just awful.
I really hope that Odyssey doesn't shit the bed but early signs aren't good. Nolan is a great director and I really respect him so I'll give it a chance even though it's being adapted from a "modern" translation of the original work which has been widely discredited.
If Netflix does manage to take WB over then I think movie making as we know it will be finished. Long form content will now just be a series of carefully scripted dopamine hits to cater to tiktok addled kids who haven't got any attention spans.
A bedbound pensioner needing carers in four times a day to give her a modicum of a standard of living, How dare she and her family allow such a heinous offence to occur. She rightly goes to her grave with this on her. 👍Won’t be long either given her age and condition.