We'll keep working our way back to eu babe - with a burning desire to rectify a serious mistake but all in the fullness of time and without the stress and angst that came with leaving.
No you won't, and if you did, we'd just take us out straight away again.
You fuckers aren't going to win.
But if support for Brexit remains where it is, let alone sinks further, surely the issue will be re-opened at some point?
The big advantage Brexiteers have at the the moment is that support for rejoining seems to shrink when people realise the terms on which we would need to re-enter (i.e money and free movement).
No. Your total failure to read the tea leaves correctly and think in only one dimension is your problem.
Not mine.
Nobody wants to go back to status quo ante referendum because the last decade would look a complete waste of time and effort.
The minor flaw in that argument is that it was a complete waste of time and effort.
From the header,
The reporting is quite balanced: about 8/10 Labour voters would rejoin, including pluralities in all the Leave-voting constituencies. But there is reluctance to reopen divisive debates. (This could be a brake on Labour rejoiners - though exhaustion also a brake on Reform in places like Makerfield)
In other words, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom that we're stuck with for fear of a family argument leading to the rewriting of someone's will. As I may have said before.
Then the questions become:
Is there a threshold where the pushback on joining doesn't have to be feared?
If so, what is that threshold?
If so, will passive factors cause that threshold to be reached?
If so, when?
If so, what do we all do in the meantime?
Other questions:
Brexit has been unpopular because its implementation is associated with some disastrous policies on immigration, and a general feeling of drift, malaise, and decline. What's the expiry date on this equation?
Is it feasible as time passes to continue to blame the country's many problems on some barriers to trade that came in in 2019?
How can a Government perform well and still leave room for 'everything being shit due to Brexit'?
Is is not inevitable that any Government that wants to govern well run into retained EU legislation, or things like the ECHR, and want to alter these laws to prevent bat tunnels, theme parks being stopped due to jumping spiders, and the other EU-origin absurdities making Britain ungovernable and uneconomical?
there are high speed railways being built all over EU countries with no bat tunnels, think you need to re-assess where our troubles lie.
France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and many other EU countries are all capable of building infrastructure at a fraction of the cost we do in the UK.
Something other than EU membership hampers our ability to invest in this country!!!
These days, Germany is having a lot of the same issues as the UK with building stuff. The rate of high speed rail, particularly actually making the rolling stock, is absolutely glacial compared to China. China have taken the car production model, modernised it, and applied it to train production.
Indeed, but not remotely EU related, more the Merkel years saw very low capex investment in the countries infrastructure.
If you want us to become more efficient and effictive at spending money you have a constant, reliable, guarenteed long term stream of cash, do not turn it on and off.
HS2 is a great example of a hugely complex scheme which we simply did not have the skills for in the country.
In 10 years we will, we should already be planning what to do next, making use of those skills to do it more effectively and miles cheaper.
Nothing wahtsoever to do with the EU.
HS2 should have started somewhere simple (Leeds to Sheffield / Nottingham) while the skills were built up and then a 20-30 year schedule of projects created as HS2 in full and HS3/ NPR were built.
Instead we start a project and then go make the set of newly competent skilled workers unemployed as we don’t have the next project ready to go
We'll keep working our way back to eu babe - with a burning desire to rectify a serious mistake but all in the fullness of time and without the stress and angst that came with leaving.
No you won't, and if you did, we'd just take us out straight away again.
You fuckers aren't going to win.
But if support for Brexit remains where it is, let alone sinks further, surely the issue will be re-opened at some point?
The big advantage Brexiteers have at the the moment is that support for rejoining seems to shrink when people realise the terms on which we would need to re-enter (i.e money and free movement).
No. Your total failure to read the tea leaves correctly and think in only one dimension is your problem.
Not mine.
Nobody wants to go back to status quo ante referendum because the last decade would look a complete waste of time and effort.
The minor flaw in that argument is that it was a complete waste of time and effort.
From the header,
The reporting is quite balanced: about 8/10 Labour voters would rejoin, including pluralities in all the Leave-voting constituencies. But there is reluctance to reopen divisive debates. (This could be a brake on Labour rejoiners - though exhaustion also a brake on Reform in places like Makerfield)
In other words, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom that we're stuck with for fear of a family argument leading to the rewriting of someone's will. As I may have said before.
Then the questions become:
Is there a threshold where the pushback on joining doesn't have to be feared?
If so, what is that threshold?
If so, will passive factors cause that threshold to be reached?
If so, when?
If so, what do we all do in the meantime?
Other questions:
Brexit has been unpopular because its implementation is associated with some disastrous policies on immigration, and a general feeling of drift, malaise, and decline. What's the expiry date on this equation?
Is it feasible as time passes to continue to blame the country's many problems on some barriers to trade that came in in 2019?
How can a Government perform well and still leave room for 'everything being shit due to Brexit'?
Is is not inevitable that any Government that wants to govern well run into retained EU legislation, or things like the ECHR, and want to alter these laws to prevent bat tunnels, theme parks being stopped due to jumping spiders, and the other EU-origin absurdities making Britain ungovernable and uneconomical?
there are high speed railways being built all over EU countries with no bat tunnels, think you need to re-assess where our troubles lie.
France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and many other EU countries are all capable of building infrastructure at a fraction of the cost we do in the UK.
Something other than EU membership hampers our ability to invest in this country!!!
These days, Germany is having a lot of the same issues as the UK with building stuff. The rate of high speed rail, particularly actually making the rolling stock, is absolutely glacial compared to China. China have taken the car production model, modernised it, and applied it to train production.
Indeed, but not remotely EU related, more the Merkel years saw very low capex investment in the countries infrastructure.
If you want us to become more efficient and effictive at spending money you have a constant, reliable, guarenteed long term stream of cash, do not turn it on and off.
HS2 is a great example of a hugely complex scheme which we simply did not have the skills for in the country.
In 10 years we will, we should already be planning what to do next, making use of those skills to do it more effectively and miles cheaper.
Nothing wahtsoever to do with the EU.
HS2 should have started somewhere simple (Leeds to Sheffield / Nottingham) while the skills were built up and then a 20-30 year schedule of projects created as HS2 in full and HS3/ NPR were built.
Instead we start a project and then go make the set of newly competent skilled workers unemployed as we don’t have the next project ready to go
We'll keep working our way back to eu babe - with a burning desire to rectify a serious mistake but all in the fullness of time and without the stress and angst that came with leaving.
No you won't, and if you did, we'd just take us out straight away again.
You fuckers aren't going to win.
But if support for Brexit remains where it is, let alone sinks further, surely the issue will be re-opened at some point?
The big advantage Brexiteers have at the the moment is that support for rejoining seems to shrink when people realise the terms on which we would need to re-enter (i.e money and free movement).
No. Your total failure to read the tea leaves correctly and think in only one dimension is your problem.
Not mine.
Nobody wants to go back to status quo ante referendum because the last decade would look a complete waste of time and effort.
The minor flaw in that argument is that it was a complete waste of time and effort.
From the header,
The reporting is quite balanced: about 8/10 Labour voters would rejoin, including pluralities in all the Leave-voting constituencies. But there is reluctance to reopen divisive debates. (This could be a brake on Labour rejoiners - though exhaustion also a brake on Reform in places like Makerfield)
In other words, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom that we're stuck with for fear of a family argument leading to the rewriting of someone's will. As I may have said before.
Then the questions become:
Is there a threshold where the pushback on joining doesn't have to be feared?
If so, what is that threshold?
If so, will passive factors cause that threshold to be reached?
If so, when?
If so, what do we all do in the meantime?
Other questions:
Brexit has been unpopular because its implementation is associated with some disastrous policies on immigration, and a general feeling of drift, malaise, and decline. What's the expiry date on this equation?
Is it feasible as time passes to continue to blame the country's many problems on some barriers to trade that came in in 2019?
How can a Government perform well and still leave room for 'everything being shit due to Brexit'?
Is is not inevitable that any Government that wants to govern well run into retained EU legislation, or things like the ECHR, and want to alter these laws to prevent bat tunnels, theme parks being stopped due to jumping spiders, and the other EU-origin absurdities making Britain ungovernable and uneconomical?
there are high speed railways being built all over EU countries with no bat tunnels, think you need to re-assess where our troubles lie.
France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and many other EU countries are all capable of building infrastructure at a fraction of the cost we do in the UK.
Something other than EU membership hampers our ability to invest in this country!!!
It has nothing to do with 'ability to invest' - the bat tunnel was a direct result of Natural England enforcing the EU's 2017 Habitats and Species Regulations, which are part of retained EU law.
If we wish to prevent future bat tunnels, we need to remove the retained law, and remove Natural England's legal right to enforce such laws without reference to Ministers. Doing so would mean we would no longer be aligned with EU species regulations, and make the prospect of rejoining harder and less attractive. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue that we should keep the country in a Miss Havisham-like state of being ready to marry the EU in the future, when their laws are serving our needs so poorly.
Yet these things do not arise anywhere else in the EU.
There are loads of km of high speed rail built all over Europe without any worries about bat tunnels.
Why can those other countries manage to build railways, countries with bats, without the need for tunnels ?
I will give you a clue, it is nothing to do with the EU.
It’s not clear to me whether the relegation of the Tories into the Lib-Dems of the Right will hold long term. But if it does the Tories becoming an essentially southern, upper middle class, free market party will soften their stance down from the hardest of Brexits only over time. Already some 40% of their voters polled said they’d vote Rejoin in a referendum. https://x.com/b_judah/status/2058451267316281511
I’ve always said that the Tories won’t get back to dominant status until they have a leader from the upcoming generation who is prepared to take the party back to its traditional pragmatic pro-European stance.
Part of me wonders if Brexit was really the end of half a century of Heathism with Thatcher being a slight aberration.
We'll keep working our way back to eu babe - with a burning desire to rectify a serious mistake but all in the fullness of time and without the stress and angst that came with leaving.
No you won't, and if you did, we'd just take us out straight away again.
You fuckers aren't going to win.
But if support for Brexit remains where it is, let alone sinks further, surely the issue will be re-opened at some point?
The big advantage Brexiteers have at the the moment is that support for rejoining seems to shrink when people realise the terms on which we would need to re-enter (i.e money and free movement).
No. Your total failure to read the tea leaves correctly and think in only one dimension is your problem.
Not mine.
Nobody wants to go back to status quo ante referendum because the last decade would look a complete waste of time and effort.
The minor flaw in that argument is that it was a complete waste of time and effort.
From the header,
The reporting is quite balanced: about 8/10 Labour voters would rejoin, including pluralities in all the Leave-voting constituencies. But there is reluctance to reopen divisive debates. (This could be a brake on Labour rejoiners - though exhaustion also a brake on Reform in places like Makerfield)
In other words, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom that we're stuck with for fear of a family argument leading to the rewriting of someone's will. As I may have said before.
Then the questions become:
Is there a threshold where the pushback on joining doesn't have to be feared?
If so, what is that threshold?
If so, will passive factors cause that threshold to be reached?
If so, when?
If so, what do we all do in the meantime?
Other questions:
Brexit has been unpopular because its implementation is associated with some disastrous policies on immigration, and a general feeling of drift, malaise, and decline. What's the expiry date on this equation?
Is it feasible as time passes to continue to blame the country's many problems on some barriers to trade that came in in 2019?
How can a Government perform well and still leave room for 'everything being shit due to Brexit'?
Is is not inevitable that any Government that wants to govern well run into retained EU legislation, or things like the ECHR, and want to alter these laws to prevent bat tunnels, theme parks being stopped due to jumping spiders, and the other EU-origin absurdities making Britain ungovernable and uneconomical?
there are high speed railways being built all over EU countries with no bat tunnels, think you need to re-assess where our troubles lie.
France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and many other EU countries are all capable of building infrastructure at a fraction of the cost we do in the UK.
Something other than EU membership hampers our ability to invest in this country!!!
It has nothing to do with 'ability to invest' - the bat tunnel was a direct result of Natural England enforcing the EU's 2017 Habitats and Species Regulations, which are part of retained EU law.
If we wish to prevent future bat tunnels, we need to remove the retained law, and remove Natural England's legal right to enforce such laws without reference to Ministers. Doing so would mean we would no longer be aligned with EU species regulations, and make the prospect of rejoining harder and less attractive. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue that we should keep the country in a Miss Havisham-like state of being ready to marry the EU in the future, when their laws are serving our needs so poorly.
Yet these things do not arise anywhere else in the EU.
There are loads of km of high speed rail built all over Europe without any worries about bat tunnels.
Why can those other countries manage to build railways, countries with bats, without the need for tunnels ?
I will give you a clue, it is nothing to do with the EU.
They don't have so much tunneling through Tory constituencies imposed on them, either.
We'll keep working our way back to eu babe - with a burning desire to rectify a serious mistake but all in the fullness of time and without the stress and angst that came with leaving.
No you won't, and if you did, we'd just take us out straight away again.
You fuckers aren't going to win.
But if support for Brexit remains where it is, let alone sinks further, surely the issue will be re-opened at some point?
The big advantage Brexiteers have at the the moment is that support for rejoining seems to shrink when people realise the terms on which we would need to re-enter (i.e money and free movement).
No. Your total failure to read the tea leaves correctly and think in only one dimension is your problem.
Not mine.
Nobody wants to go back to status quo ante referendum because the last decade would look a complete waste of time and effort.
The minor flaw in that argument is that it was a complete waste of time and effort.
From the header,
The reporting is quite balanced: about 8/10 Labour voters would rejoin, including pluralities in all the Leave-voting constituencies. But there is reluctance to reopen divisive debates. (This could be a brake on Labour rejoiners - though exhaustion also a brake on Reform in places like Makerfield)
In other words, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom that we're stuck with for fear of a family argument leading to the rewriting of someone's will. As I may have said before.
Then the questions become:
Is there a threshold where the pushback on joining doesn't have to be feared?
If so, what is that threshold?
If so, will passive factors cause that threshold to be reached?
If so, when?
If so, what do we all do in the meantime?
Other questions:
Brexit has been unpopular because its implementation is associated with some disastrous policies on immigration, and a general feeling of drift, malaise, and decline. What's the expiry date on this equation?
Is it feasible as time passes to continue to blame the country's many problems on some barriers to trade that came in in 2019?
How can a Government perform well and still leave room for 'everything being shit due to Brexit'?
Is is not inevitable that any Government that wants to govern well run into retained EU legislation, or things like the ECHR, and want to alter these laws to prevent bat tunnels, theme parks being stopped due to jumping spiders, and the other EU-origin absurdities making Britain ungovernable and uneconomical?
there are high speed railways being built all over EU countries with no bat tunnels, think you need to re-assess where our troubles lie.
France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and many other EU countries are all capable of building infrastructure at a fraction of the cost we do in the UK.
Something other than EU membership hampers our ability to invest in this country!!!
It has nothing to do with 'ability to invest' - the bat tunnel was a direct result of Natural England enforcing the EU's 2017 Habitats and Species Regulations, which are part of retained EU law.
If we wish to prevent future bat tunnels, we need to remove the retained law, and remove Natural England's legal right to enforce such laws without reference to Ministers. Doing so would mean we would no longer be aligned with EU species regulations, and make the prospect of rejoining harder and less attractive. But it is becoming increasingly hard to argue that we should keep the country in a Miss Havisham-like state of being ready to marry the EU in the future, when their laws are serving our needs so poorly.
Or we do what the rest of the EU does and ignore the bits that are awkward / expensive / pointless and use some other means of mitigation
We have shown ourselves completely incapable of taking that laissez faire attitude, ever since trading standards prowled the greengrocers of the land searching for people selling bananas by the pound.
It was hard then, but would be impossible now, with quangos that are established for the sole reason of enforcing these things, and staffed by people obsessed with doing so. Ministers have no legal right to intervene with these people and say 'come on son'. So how, practically, would we do what you suggest?
We'll keep working our way back to eu babe - with a burning desire to rectify a serious mistake but all in the fullness of time and without the stress and angst that came with leaving.
No you won't, and if you did, we'd just take us out straight away again.
You fuckers aren't going to win.
But if support for Brexit remains where it is, let alone sinks further, surely the issue will be re-opened at some point?
The big advantage Brexiteers have at the the moment is that support for rejoining seems to shrink when people realise the terms on which we would need to re-enter (i.e money and free movement).
No. Your total failure to read the tea leaves correctly and think in only one dimension is your problem.
Not mine.
Nobody wants to go back to status quo ante referendum because the last decade would look a complete waste of time and effort.
The minor flaw in that argument is that it was a complete waste of time and effort.
From the header,
The reporting is quite balanced: about 8/10 Labour voters would rejoin, including pluralities in all the Leave-voting constituencies. But there is reluctance to reopen divisive debates. (This could be a brake on Labour rejoiners - though exhaustion also a brake on Reform in places like Makerfield)
In other words, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom that we're stuck with for fear of a family argument leading to the rewriting of someone's will. As I may have said before.
Then the questions become:
Is there a threshold where the pushback on joining doesn't have to be feared?
If so, what is that threshold?
If so, will passive factors cause that threshold to be reached?
If so, when?
If so, what do we all do in the meantime?
Other questions:
Brexit has been unpopular because its implementation is associated with some disastrous policies on immigration, and a general feeling of drift, malaise, and decline. What's the expiry date on this equation?
Is it feasible as time passes to continue to blame the country's many problems on some barriers to trade that came in in 2019?
How can a Government perform well and still leave room for 'everything being shit due to Brexit'?
Is is not inevitable that any Government that wants to govern well run into retained EU legislation, or things like the ECHR, and want to alter these laws to prevent bat tunnels, theme parks being stopped due to jumping spiders, and the other EU-origin absurdities making Britain ungovernable and uneconomical?
there are high speed railways being built all over EU countries with no bat tunnels, think you need to re-assess where our troubles lie.
France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and many other EU countries are all capable of building infrastructure at a fraction of the cost we do in the UK.
Something other than EU membership hampers our ability to invest in this country!!!
It has nothing to do with 'ability to invest' - the bat tunnel was a direct result of Natural England enforcing the EU's 2017 Habitats and Species Regulations, which are part of retained EU law.
If we wish to prevent future bat tunnels, we need to remove the retained law, and remove Natural England's legal right to enforce such laws without reference to Ministers. Doing so would mean we would no longer be aligned with EU species regulations, and make the prospect of rejoining harder and less attractive. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue that we should keep the country in a Miss Havisham-like state of being ready to marry the EU in the future, when their laws are serving our needs so poorly.
Yet these things do not arise anywhere else in the EU.
There are loads of km of high speed rail built all over Europe without any worries about bat tunnels.
Why can those other countries manage to build railways, countries with bats, without the need for tunnels ?
I will give you a clue, it is nothing to do with the EU.
They don't have so much tunneling through Tory constituencies imposed On them, either.
The bat tunnels are on sections where HS2 is not in a tunnel.
Neither of which are anything whatsoever to do with the EU, all down to decisions taken by the (Conservative led) HS2 Phase 1 Committee that reviewed the original bill.
We'll keep working our way back to eu babe - with a burning desire to rectify a serious mistake but all in the fullness of time and without the stress and angst that came with leaving.
No you won't, and if you did, we'd just take us out straight away again.
You fuckers aren't going to win.
But if support for Brexit remains where it is, let alone sinks further, surely the issue will be re-opened at some point?
The big advantage Brexiteers have at the the moment is that support for rejoining seems to shrink when people realise the terms on which we would need to re-enter (i.e money and free movement).
No. Your total failure to read the tea leaves correctly and think in only one dimension is your problem.
Not mine.
Nobody wants to go back to status quo ante referendum because the last decade would look a complete waste of time and effort.
The minor flaw in that argument is that it was a complete waste of time and effort.
From the header,
The reporting is quite balanced: about 8/10 Labour voters would rejoin, including pluralities in all the Leave-voting constituencies. But there is reluctance to reopen divisive debates. (This could be a brake on Labour rejoiners - though exhaustion also a brake on Reform in places like Makerfield)
In other words, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom that we're stuck with for fear of a family argument leading to the rewriting of someone's will. As I may have said before.
Then the questions become:
Is there a threshold where the pushback on joining doesn't have to be feared?
If so, what is that threshold?
If so, will passive factors cause that threshold to be reached?
If so, when?
If so, what do we all do in the meantime?
Other questions:
Brexit has been unpopular because its implementation is associated with some disastrous policies on immigration, and a general feeling of drift, malaise, and decline. What's the expiry date on this equation?
Is it feasible as time passes to continue to blame the country's many problems on some barriers to trade that came in in 2019?
How can a Government perform well and still leave room for 'everything being shit due to Brexit'?
Is is not inevitable that any Government that wants to govern well run into retained EU legislation, or things like the ECHR, and want to alter these laws to prevent bat tunnels, theme parks being stopped due to jumping spiders, and the other EU-origin absurdities making Britain ungovernable and uneconomical?
there are high speed railways being built all over EU countries with no bat tunnels, think you need to re-assess where our troubles lie.
France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and many other EU countries are all capable of building infrastructure at a fraction of the cost we do in the UK.
Something other than EU membership hampers our ability to invest in this country!!!
It has nothing to do with 'ability to invest' - the bat tunnel was a direct result of Natural England enforcing the EU's 2017 Habitats and Species Regulations, which are part of retained EU law.
If we wish to prevent future bat tunnels, we need to remove the retained law, and remove Natural England's legal right to enforce such laws without reference to Ministers. Doing so would mean we would no longer be aligned with EU species regulations, and make the prospect of rejoining harder and less attractive. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue that we should keep the country in a Miss Havisham-like state of being ready to marry the EU in the future, when their laws are serving our needs so poorly.
Yet these things do not arise anywhere else in the EU.
There are loads of km of high speed rail built all over Europe without any worries about bat tunnels.
Why can those other countries manage to build railways, countries with bats, without the need for tunnels ?
I will give you a clue, it is nothing to do with the EU.
They don't have so much tunneling through Tory constituencies imposed On them, either.
The bat tunnels are on sections where HS2 is not in a tunnel.
Neither of which are anything whatsoever to do with the EU, all down to decisions taken by the (Conservative led) HS2 Phase 1 Committee that reviewed the original bill.
You may want that to be true, and I don't blame you, but it isn't. Natural England has acknowledged advising HS2 that the bat tunnel would comply with the law - the only reason for even considering such a structure.
We'll keep working our way back to eu babe - with a burning desire to rectify a serious mistake but all in the fullness of time and without the stress and angst that came with leaving.
No you won't, and if you did, we'd just take us out straight away again.
You fuckers aren't going to win.
But if support for Brexit remains where it is, let alone sinks further, surely the issue will be re-opened at some point?
The big advantage Brexiteers have at the the moment is that support for rejoining seems to shrink when people realise the terms on which we would need to re-enter (i.e money and free movement).
No. Your total failure to read the tea leaves correctly and think in only one dimension is your problem.
Not mine.
Nobody wants to go back to status quo ante referendum because the last decade would look a complete waste of time and effort.
The minor flaw in that argument is that it was a complete waste of time and effort.
From the header,
The reporting is quite balanced: about 8/10 Labour voters would rejoin, including pluralities in all the Leave-voting constituencies. But there is reluctance to reopen divisive debates. (This could be a brake on Labour rejoiners - though exhaustion also a brake on Reform in places like Makerfield)
In other words, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom that we're stuck with for fear of a family argument leading to the rewriting of someone's will. As I may have said before.
Then the questions become:
Is there a threshold where the pushback on joining doesn't have to be feared?
If so, what is that threshold?
If so, will passive factors cause that threshold to be reached?
If so, when?
If so, what do we all do in the meantime?
Other questions:
Brexit has been unpopular because its implementation is associated with some disastrous policies on immigration, and a general feeling of drift, malaise, and decline. What's the expiry date on this equation?
Is it feasible as time passes to continue to blame the country's many problems on some barriers to trade that came in in 2019?
How can a Government perform well and still leave room for 'everything being shit due to Brexit'?
Is is not inevitable that any Government that wants to govern well run into retained EU legislation, or things like the ECHR, and want to alter these laws to prevent bat tunnels, theme parks being stopped due to jumping spiders, and the other EU-origin absurdities making Britain ungovernable and uneconomical?
there are high speed railways being built all over EU countries with no bat tunnels, think you need to re-assess where our troubles lie.
France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and many other EU countries are all capable of building infrastructure at a fraction of the cost we do in the UK.
Something other than EU membership hampers our ability to invest in this country!!!
It has nothing to do with 'ability to invest' - the bat tunnel was a direct result of Natural England enforcing the EU's 2017 Habitats and Species Regulations, which are part of retained EU law.
If we wish to prevent future bat tunnels, we need to remove the retained law, and remove Natural England's legal right to enforce such laws without reference to Ministers. Doing so would mean we would no longer be aligned with EU species regulations, and make the prospect of rejoining harder and less attractive. But it is becoming increasingly hard to argue that we should keep the country in a Miss Havisham-like state of being ready to marry the EU in the future, when their laws are serving our needs so poorly.
Or we do what the rest of the EU does and ignore the bits that are awkward / expensive / pointless and use some other means of mitigation
We have shown ourselves completely incapable of taking that laissez faire attitude, ever since trading standards prowled the greengrocers of the land searching for people selling bananas by the pound.
It was hard then, but would be impossible now, with quangos that are established for the sole reason of enforcing these things, and staffed by people obsessed with doing so. Ministers have no legal right to intervene with these people and say 'come on son'. So how, practically, would we do what you suggest?
So it is in reality a UK problem then rather than an EU issue ?
If we could sort ourselves out locally, like the other 27 countries, it would not be a problem ?
So Byline Times say they have an archive of Reform Candidate former twitter account. If that's as bad as it gets, I am sure the Guardian types will be outraged (just as they were about him joking about rugby players with big knockers and water boarding people who eat their chips by the sea), but it isn't exactly that different from stuff Farage tweets (albeit he is usually a bit more careful to leave some wiggle room).
Reform candidate leans heavily anti-immigration and tweets at the likes of Dapper Laughs and Dan Wooton isn't exactly even takes £5 million off a crypto billionaire.
There're trying to make somthing of him calling for the police to release the name of the Southport suspect in this tweet. Invoking the Bulger case was supposedly "incendiary".
They can name him if it’s in the public’s interest, like they did with the Bulger killers.
It’s not clear to me whether the relegation of the Tories into the Lib-Dems of the Right will hold long term. But if it does the Tories becoming an essentially southern, upper middle class, free market party will soften their stance down from the hardest of Brexits only over time. Already some 40% of their voters polled said they’d vote Rejoin in a referendum. https://x.com/b_judah/status/2058451267316281511
I’ve always said that the Tories won’t get back to dominant status until they have a leader from the upcoming generation who is prepared to take the party back to its traditional pragmatic pro-European stance.
There is no point the Tories being LDs 2. Maybe accepting a return to the single market eventually but only after a generation has passed
Fairly warm even here in downtown East London where the smell of the barbecue mixes with the hint of a breeze off the Estuary.
As one of that rare breed, a 2015 LD voter who voted Leave in 2016 (apparently not as rare as I think, 30% of the admittedly small 2015 LD vote did the same), I find the sheer reflexive defensiveness of those on the "winning" side curious.
We aren't going back, certainly any time soon yet the slightest hint of even the possibility provokes a near Pavlovian response.
I didn't vote Leave for notions of a Global Britain akin to the Crimson Permanent Assurance but simply because we couldn't go on as we were with our half-hearted, rebate obsessed membership. Ever since Messina, there have only been two credible positions - either completely in, leading the way, enthusiastically forEuropean Union or completely out, on the sidelines but wishing the project well.
Thanks to the Conservative Party of blessed memory, we ended up doing neither the one nor the other.
We wasted so much time and effort while the much more serious problems of the country went neglected and unresolved.
God help me, I'm starting to sound like Reform or Restore but the answer to the last 50 years isn't to blame civil servants or deport large numbers of the population - we all know that.
It’s not clear to me whether the relegation of the Tories into the Lib-Dems of the Right will hold long term. But if it does the Tories becoming an essentially southern, upper middle class, free market party will soften their stance down from the hardest of Brexits only over time. Already some 40% of their voters polled said they’d vote Rejoin in a referendum. https://x.com/b_judah/status/2058451267316281511
I’ve always said that the Tories won’t get back to dominant status until they have a leader from the upcoming generation who is prepared to take the party back to its traditional pragmatic pro-European stance.
There is no point the Tories being LDs 2. Maybe accepting a return to the single market eventually but only after a generation has passed
FPT - I think I'd prefer another Labour majority to either a Labour-Green coalition or a Labour-LD one.
Any of them would encourage Labour to pander to its nutter progressive side, and do really stupid shit.
I wouldn’t, I don’t want a Labour government hammering us with tax thanks. I would only prefer a Labour majority to a Labour Green or Labour SNP government which would be even worse
A Labour-LD coalition would let men with penises into women's toilets by 9am on day one, and would be on the very next flight out of Heathrow to group trombone Maroš Šefčovič before nightfall.
This would continue for months, all the while filled with the repulsive pomposity LDs display on a daily basis until the whole population of the UK felt physically sick and was begging for the atom bomb to end it all.
No thanks.
I am not as bothered by trans lib from the LDs than I am about higher tax from a Burnham majority government
We'll keep working our way back to eu babe - with a burning desire to rectify a serious mistake but all in the fullness of time and without the stress and angst that came with leaving.
No you won't, and if you did, we'd just take us out straight away again.
You fuckers aren't going to win.
But if support for Brexit remains where it is, let alone sinks further, surely the issue will be re-opened at some point?
The big advantage Brexiteers have at the the moment is that support for rejoining seems to shrink when people realise the terms on which we would need to re-enter (i.e money and free movement).
No. Your total failure to read the tea leaves correctly and think in only one dimension is your problem.
Not mine.
Nobody wants to go back to status quo ante referendum because the last decade would look a complete waste of time and effort.
The minor flaw in that argument is that it was a complete waste of time and effort.
From the header,
The reporting is quite balanced: about 8/10 Labour voters would rejoin, including pluralities in all the Leave-voting constituencies. But there is reluctance to reopen divisive debates. (This could be a brake on Labour rejoiners - though exhaustion also a brake on Reform in places like Makerfield)
In other words, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom that we're stuck with for fear of a family argument leading to the rewriting of someone's will. As I may have said before.
Then the questions become:
Is there a threshold where the pushback on joining doesn't have to be feared?
If so, what is that threshold?
If so, will passive factors cause that threshold to be reached?
If so, when?
If so, what do we all do in the meantime?
Other questions:
Brexit has been unpopular because its implementation is associated with some disastrous policies on immigration, and a general feeling of drift, malaise, and decline. What's the expiry date on this equation?
Is it feasible as time passes to continue to blame the country's many problems on some barriers to trade that came in in 2019?
How can a Government perform well and still leave room for 'everything being shit due to Brexit'?
Is is not inevitable that any Government that wants to govern well run into retained EU legislation, or things like the ECHR, and want to alter these laws to prevent bat tunnels, theme parks being stopped due to jumping spiders, and the other EU-origin absurdities making Britain ungovernable and uneconomical?
there are high speed railways being built all over EU countries with no bat tunnels, think you need to re-assess where our troubles lie.
France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and many other EU countries are all capable of building infrastructure at a fraction of the cost we do in the UK.
Something other than EU membership hampers our ability to invest in this country!!!
It has nothing to do with 'ability to invest' - the bat tunnel was a direct result of Natural England enforcing the EU's 2017 Habitats and Species Regulations, which are part of retained EU law.
If we wish to prevent future bat tunnels, we need to remove the retained law, and remove Natural England's legal right to enforce such laws without reference to Ministers. Doing so would mean we would no longer be aligned with EU species regulations, and make the prospect of rejoining harder and less attractive. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue that we should keep the country in a Miss Havisham-like state of being ready to marry the EU in the future, when their laws are serving our needs so poorly.
Yet these things do not arise anywhere else in the EU.
There are loads of km of high speed rail built all over Europe without any worries about bat tunnels.
Why can those other countries manage to build railways, countries with bats, without the need for tunnels ?
I will give you a clue, it is nothing to do with the EU.
They don't have so much tunneling through Tory constituencies imposed On them, either.
The bat tunnels are on sections where HS2 is not in a tunnel.
Neither of which are anything whatsoever to do with the EU, all down to decisions taken by the (Conservative led) HS2 Phase 1 Committee that reviewed the original bill.
You may want that to be true, and I don't blame you, but it isn't. Natural England has acknowledged advising HS2 that the bat tunnel would comply with the law - the only reason for even considering such a structure.
There's a law against people illegelly migrating to the UK. Why isn't that law enforced in the same way?
It’s not clear to me whether the relegation of the Tories into the Lib-Dems of the Right will hold long term. But if it does the Tories becoming an essentially southern, upper middle class, free market party will soften their stance down from the hardest of Brexits only over time. Already some 40% of their voters polled said they’d vote Rejoin in a referendum. https://x.com/b_judah/status/2058451267316281511
I’ve always said that the Tories won’t get back to dominant status until they have a leader from the upcoming generation who is prepared to take the party back to its traditional pragmatic pro-European stance.
There is no point the Tories being LDs 2. Maybe accepting a return to the single market eventually but only after a generation has passed
I never said that the Tories coming to their senses would happen quickly. It will take the next generation, untainted by the recent long decade of scandal and failure, to be able to do it.
It’s not clear to me whether the relegation of the Tories into the Lib-Dems of the Right will hold long term. But if it does the Tories becoming an essentially southern, upper middle class, free market party will soften their stance down from the hardest of Brexits only over time. Already some 40% of their voters polled said they’d vote Rejoin in a referendum. https://x.com/b_judah/status/2058451267316281511
I’ve always said that the Tories won’t get back to dominant status until they have a leader from the upcoming generation who is prepared to take the party back to its traditional pragmatic pro-European stance.
There is no point the Tories being LDs 2. Maybe accepting a return to the single market eventually but only after a generation has passed
There is if you believe in a Heathite consensus.
Not happening while Farage believes he is Maggie 2 and Burnham is more Wilson than Heath
We'll keep working our way back to eu babe - with a burning desire to rectify a serious mistake but all in the fullness of time and without the stress and angst that came with leaving.
No you won't, and if you did, we'd just take us out straight away again.
You fuckers aren't going to win.
But if support for Brexit remains where it is, let alone sinks further, surely the issue will be re-opened at some point?
The big advantage Brexiteers have at the the moment is that support for rejoining seems to shrink when people realise the terms on which we would need to re-enter (i.e money and free movement).
No. Your total failure to read the tea leaves correctly and think in only one dimension is your problem.
Not mine.
Nobody wants to go back to status quo ante referendum because the last decade would look a complete waste of time and effort.
The minor flaw in that argument is that it was a complete waste of time and effort.
From the header,
The reporting is quite balanced: about 8/10 Labour voters would rejoin, including pluralities in all the Leave-voting constituencies. But there is reluctance to reopen divisive debates. (This could be a brake on Labour rejoiners - though exhaustion also a brake on Reform in places like Makerfield)
In other words, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom that we're stuck with for fear of a family argument leading to the rewriting of someone's will. As I may have said before.
Then the questions become:
Is there a threshold where the pushback on joining doesn't have to be feared?
If so, what is that threshold?
If so, will passive factors cause that threshold to be reached?
If so, when?
If so, what do we all do in the meantime?
Other questions:
Brexit has been unpopular because its implementation is associated with some disastrous policies on immigration, and a general feeling of drift, malaise, and decline. What's the expiry date on this equation?
Is it feasible as time passes to continue to blame the country's many problems on some barriers to trade that came in in 2019?
How can a Government perform well and still leave room for 'everything being shit due to Brexit'?
Is is not inevitable that any Government that wants to govern well run into retained EU legislation, or things like the ECHR, and want to alter these laws to prevent bat tunnels, theme parks being stopped due to jumping spiders, and the other EU-origin absurdities making Britain ungovernable and uneconomical?
there are high speed railways being built all over EU countries with no bat tunnels, think you need to re-assess where our troubles lie.
France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and many other EU countries are all capable of building infrastructure at a fraction of the cost we do in the UK.
Something other than EU membership hampers our ability to invest in this country!!!
It has nothing to do with 'ability to invest' - the bat tunnel was a direct result of Natural England enforcing the EU's 2017 Habitats and Species Regulations, which are part of retained EU law.
If we wish to prevent future bat tunnels, we need to remove the retained law, and remove Natural England's legal right to enforce such laws without reference to Ministers. Doing so would mean we would no longer be aligned with EU species regulations, and make the prospect of rejoining harder and less attractive. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue that we should keep the country in a Miss Havisham-like state of being ready to marry the EU in the future, when their laws are serving our needs so poorly.
Yet these things do not arise anywhere else in the EU.
There are loads of km of high speed rail built all over Europe without any worries about bat tunnels.
Why can those other countries manage to build railways, countries with bats, without the need for tunnels ?
I will give you a clue, it is nothing to do with the EU.
They don't have so much tunneling through Tory constituencies imposed On them, either.
The bat tunnels are on sections where HS2 is not in a tunnel.
Neither of which are anything whatsoever to do with the EU, all down to decisions taken by the (Conservative led) HS2 Phase 1 Committee that reviewed the original bill.
You may want that to be true, and I don't blame you, but it isn't. Natural England has acknowledged advising HS2 that the bat tunnel would comply with the law - the only reason for even considering such a structure.
But the cost of UK infrastructure has nothing to do with the EU law.
I will repeat, 27 other EU countries do not have this problem.
You many want this to be true, but the reality is every other EU country can build infrastructure at a cost much lower than the UK irrespective of EU law.
The problem is local to the UK and you are chasing a false enemy to blame the EU.
We'll keep working our way back to eu babe - with a burning desire to rectify a serious mistake but all in the fullness of time and without the stress and angst that came with leaving.
No you won't, and if you did, we'd just take us out straight away again.
You fuckers aren't going to win.
But if support for Brexit remains where it is, let alone sinks further, surely the issue will be re-opened at some point?
The big advantage Brexiteers have at the the moment is that support for rejoining seems to shrink when people realise the terms on which we would need to re-enter (i.e money and free movement).
No. Your total failure to read the tea leaves correctly and think in only one dimension is your problem.
Not mine.
Nobody wants to go back to status quo ante referendum because the last decade would look a complete waste of time and effort.
The minor flaw in that argument is that it was a complete waste of time and effort.
From the header,
The reporting is quite balanced: about 8/10 Labour voters would rejoin, including pluralities in all the Leave-voting constituencies. But there is reluctance to reopen divisive debates. (This could be a brake on Labour rejoiners - though exhaustion also a brake on Reform in places like Makerfield)
In other words, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom that we're stuck with for fear of a family argument leading to the rewriting of someone's will. As I may have said before.
Then the questions become:
Is there a threshold where the pushback on joining doesn't have to be feared?
If so, what is that threshold?
If so, will passive factors cause that threshold to be reached?
If so, when?
If so, what do we all do in the meantime?
Other questions:
Brexit has been unpopular because its implementation is associated with some disastrous policies on immigration, and a general feeling of drift, malaise, and decline. What's the expiry date on this equation?
Is it feasible as time passes to continue to blame the country's many problems on some barriers to trade that came in in 2019?
How can a Government perform well and still leave room for 'everything being shit due to Brexit'?
Is is not inevitable that any Government that wants to govern well run into retained EU legislation, or things like the ECHR, and want to alter these laws to prevent bat tunnels, theme parks being stopped due to jumping spiders, and the other EU-origin absurdities making Britain ungovernable and uneconomical?
there are high speed railways being built all over EU countries with no bat tunnels, think you need to re-assess where our troubles lie.
France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and many other EU countries are all capable of building infrastructure at a fraction of the cost we do in the UK.
Something other than EU membership hampers our ability to invest in this country!!!
These days, Germany is having a lot of the same issues as the UK with building stuff. The rate of high speed rail, particularly actually making the rolling stock, is absolutely glacial compared to China. China have taken the car production model, modernised it, and applied it to train production.
Indeed, but not remotely EU related, more the Merkel years saw very low capex investment in the countries infrastructure.
If you want us to become more efficient and effictive at spending money you have a constant, reliable, guarenteed long term stream of cash, do not turn it on and off.
HS2 is a great example of a hugely complex scheme which we simply did not have the skills for in the country.
In 10 years we will, we should already be planning what to do next, making use of those skills to do it more effectively and miles cheaper.
Nothing wahtsoever to do with the EU.
HS2 should have started somewhere simple (Leeds to Sheffield / Nottingham) while the skills were built up and then a 20-30 year schedule of projects created as HS2 in full and HS3/ NPR were built.
Instead we start a project and then go make the set of newly competent skilled workers unemployed as we don’t have the next project ready to go
We'll keep working our way back to eu babe - with a burning desire to rectify a serious mistake but all in the fullness of time and without the stress and angst that came with leaving.
No you won't, and if you did, we'd just take us out straight away again.
You fuckers aren't going to win.
But if support for Brexit remains where it is, let alone sinks further, surely the issue will be re-opened at some point?
The big advantage Brexiteers have at the the moment is that support for rejoining seems to shrink when people realise the terms on which we would need to re-enter (i.e money and free movement).
No. Your total failure to read the tea leaves correctly and think in only one dimension is your problem.
Not mine.
Nobody wants to go back to status quo ante referendum because the last decade would look a complete waste of time and effort.
The minor flaw in that argument is that it was a complete waste of time and effort.
From the header,
The reporting is quite balanced: about 8/10 Labour voters would rejoin, including pluralities in all the Leave-voting constituencies. But there is reluctance to reopen divisive debates. (This could be a brake on Labour rejoiners - though exhaustion also a brake on Reform in places like Makerfield)
In other words, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom that we're stuck with for fear of a family argument leading to the rewriting of someone's will. As I may have said before.
Then the questions become:
Is there a threshold where the pushback on joining doesn't have to be feared?
If so, what is that threshold?
If so, will passive factors cause that threshold to be reached?
If so, when?
If so, what do we all do in the meantime?
Other questions:
Brexit has been unpopular because its implementation is associated with some disastrous policies on immigration, and a general feeling of drift, malaise, and decline. What's the expiry date on this equation?
Is it feasible as time passes to continue to blame the country's many problems on some barriers to trade that came in in 2019?
How can a Government perform well and still leave room for 'everything being shit due to Brexit'?
Is is not inevitable that any Government that wants to govern well run into retained EU legislation, or things like the ECHR, and want to alter these laws to prevent bat tunnels, theme parks being stopped due to jumping spiders, and the other EU-origin absurdities making Britain ungovernable and uneconomical?
there are high speed railways being built all over EU countries with no bat tunnels, think you need to re-assess where our troubles lie.
France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and many other EU countries are all capable of building infrastructure at a fraction of the cost we do in the UK.
Something other than EU membership hampers our ability to invest in this country!!!
It has nothing to do with 'ability to invest' - the bat tunnel was a direct result of Natural England enforcing the EU's 2017 Habitats and Species Regulations, which are part of retained EU law.
If we wish to prevent future bat tunnels, we need to remove the retained law, and remove Natural England's legal right to enforce such laws without reference to Ministers. Doing so would mean we would no longer be aligned with EU species regulations, and make the prospect of rejoining harder and less attractive. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue that we should keep the country in a Miss Havisham-like state of being ready to marry the EU in the future, when their laws are serving our needs so poorly.
Yet these things do not arise anywhere else in the EU.
There are loads of km of high speed rail built all over Europe without any worries about bat tunnels.
Why can those other countries manage to build railways, countries with bats, without the need for tunnels ?
I will give you a clue, it is nothing to do with the EU.
They don't have so much tunneling through Tory constituencies imposed On them, either.
The bat tunnels are on sections where HS2 is not in a tunnel.
Neither of which are anything whatsoever to do with the EU, all down to decisions taken by the (Conservative led) HS2 Phase 1 Committee that reviewed the original bill.
You may want that to be true, and I don't blame you, but it isn't. Natural England has acknowledged advising HS2 that the bat tunnel would comply with the law - the only reason for even considering such a structure.
But the cost of UK infrastructure has nothing to do with the EU law.
I will repeat, 27 other EU countries do not have this problem.
You many want this to be true, but the reality is every other EU country can build infrastructure at a cost much lower than the UK irrespective of EU law.
The problem is local to the UK and you are chasing a false enemy to blame the EU.
It is not solely due to EU law, but EU law is a problem. One of many.
Other EU countries do have this problem. Other developed EU nations are also struggling to invest in infrastructure.
The problem is governments, both domestic and EU, have piled on layer after layer of paperwork all with good intentions but now it is almost impossible to do anything because of it.
And we interpret EU law with a dogmatic "the law must be applied" mentality which some EU nations take more flexibly.
We'll keep working our way back to eu babe - with a burning desire to rectify a serious mistake but all in the fullness of time and without the stress and angst that came with leaving.
No you won't, and if you did, we'd just take us out straight away again.
You fuckers aren't going to win.
But if support for Brexit remains where it is, let alone sinks further, surely the issue will be re-opened at some point?
The big advantage Brexiteers have at the the moment is that support for rejoining seems to shrink when people realise the terms on which we would need to re-enter (i.e money and free movement).
No. Your total failure to read the tea leaves correctly and think in only one dimension is your problem.
Not mine.
Nobody wants to go back to status quo ante referendum because the last decade would look a complete waste of time and effort.
The minor flaw in that argument is that it was a complete waste of time and effort.
From the header,
The reporting is quite balanced: about 8/10 Labour voters would rejoin, including pluralities in all the Leave-voting constituencies. But there is reluctance to reopen divisive debates. (This could be a brake on Labour rejoiners - though exhaustion also a brake on Reform in places like Makerfield)
In other words, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom that we're stuck with for fear of a family argument leading to the rewriting of someone's will. As I may have said before.
Then the questions become:
Is there a threshold where the pushback on joining doesn't have to be feared?
If so, what is that threshold?
If so, will passive factors cause that threshold to be reached?
If so, when?
If so, what do we all do in the meantime?
Other questions:
Brexit has been unpopular because its implementation is associated with some disastrous policies on immigration, and a general feeling of drift, malaise, and decline. What's the expiry date on this equation?
Is it feasible as time passes to continue to blame the country's many problems on some barriers to trade that came in in 2019?
How can a Government perform well and still leave room for 'everything being shit due to Brexit'?
Is is not inevitable that any Government that wants to govern well run into retained EU legislation, or things like the ECHR, and want to alter these laws to prevent bat tunnels, theme parks being stopped due to jumping spiders, and the other EU-origin absurdities making Britain ungovernable and uneconomical?
there are high speed railways being built all over EU countries with no bat tunnels, think you need to re-assess where our troubles lie.
France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and many other EU countries are all capable of building infrastructure at a fraction of the cost we do in the UK.
Something other than EU membership hampers our ability to invest in this country!!!
These days, Germany is having a lot of the same issues as the UK with building stuff. The rate of high speed rail, particularly actually making the rolling stock, is absolutely glacial compared to China. China have taken the car production model, modernised it, and applied it to train production.
Indeed, but not remotely EU related, more the Merkel years saw very low capex investment in the countries infrastructure.
If you want us to become more efficient and effictive at spending money you have a constant, reliable, guarenteed long term stream of cash, do not turn it on and off.
HS2 is a great example of a hugely complex scheme which we simply did not have the skills for in the country.
In 10 years we will, we should already be planning what to do next, making use of those skills to do it more effectively and miles cheaper.
Nothing wahtsoever to do with the EU.
HS2 should have started somewhere simple (Leeds to Sheffield / Nottingham) while the skills were built up and then a 20-30 year schedule of projects created as HS2 in full and HS3/ NPR were built.
Instead we start a project and then go make the set of newly competent skilled workers unemployed as we don’t have the next project ready to go
everything has to be London centric
Blame the treasury Green Book, any party that can genuienly fix the London centric nature of all treasury funding that comes through that process, goiving a fairer share to the regions, will become popular quite quickly. (I have hope that Burnham has this in his targets).
We'll keep working our way back to eu babe - with a burning desire to rectify a serious mistake but all in the fullness of time and without the stress and angst that came with leaving.
No you won't, and if you did, we'd just take us out straight away again.
You fuckers aren't going to win.
But if support for Brexit remains where it is, let alone sinks further, surely the issue will be re-opened at some point?
The big advantage Brexiteers have at the the moment is that support for rejoining seems to shrink when people realise the terms on which we would need to re-enter (i.e money and free movement).
No. Your total failure to read the tea leaves correctly and think in only one dimension is your problem.
Not mine.
Nobody wants to go back to status quo ante referendum because the last decade would look a complete waste of time and effort.
The minor flaw in that argument is that it was a complete waste of time and effort.
From the header,
The reporting is quite balanced: about 8/10 Labour voters would rejoin, including pluralities in all the Leave-voting constituencies. But there is reluctance to reopen divisive debates. (This could be a brake on Labour rejoiners - though exhaustion also a brake on Reform in places like Makerfield)
In other words, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom that we're stuck with for fear of a family argument leading to the rewriting of someone's will. As I may have said before.
Then the questions become:
Is there a threshold where the pushback on joining doesn't have to be feared?
If so, what is that threshold?
If so, will passive factors cause that threshold to be reached?
If so, when?
If so, what do we all do in the meantime?
Other questions:
Brexit has been unpopular because its implementation is associated with some disastrous policies on immigration, and a general feeling of drift, malaise, and decline. What's the expiry date on this equation?
Is it feasible as time passes to continue to blame the country's many problems on some barriers to trade that came in in 2019?
How can a Government perform well and still leave room for 'everything being shit due to Brexit'?
Is is not inevitable that any Government that wants to govern well run into retained EU legislation, or things like the ECHR, and want to alter these laws to prevent bat tunnels, theme parks being stopped due to jumping spiders, and the other EU-origin absurdities making Britain ungovernable and uneconomical?
there are high speed railways being built all over EU countries with no bat tunnels, think you need to re-assess where our troubles lie.
France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and many other EU countries are all capable of building infrastructure at a fraction of the cost we do in the UK.
Something other than EU membership hampers our ability to invest in this country!!!
These days, Germany is having a lot of the same issues as the UK with building stuff. The rate of high speed rail, particularly actually making the rolling stock, is absolutely glacial compared to China. China have taken the car production model, modernised it, and applied it to train production.
Indeed, but not remotely EU related, more the Merkel years saw very low capex investment in the countries infrastructure.
If you want us to become more efficient and effictive at spending money you have a constant, reliable, guarenteed long term stream of cash, do not turn it on and off.
HS2 is a great example of a hugely complex scheme which we simply did not have the skills for in the country.
In 10 years we will, we should already be planning what to do next, making use of those skills to do it more effectively and miles cheaper.
Nothing wahtsoever to do with the EU.
HS2 should have started somewhere simple (Leeds to Sheffield / Nottingham) while the skills were built up and then a 20-30 year schedule of projects created as HS2 in full and HS3/ NPR were built.
Instead we start a project and then go make the set of newly competent skilled workers unemployed as we don’t have the next project ready to go
everything has to be London centric
Blame the treasury Green Book, any party that can genuienly fix the London centric nature of all treasury funding that comes through that process, goiving a fairer share to the regions, will become popular quite quickly. (I have hope that Burnham has this in his targets).
We'll keep working our way back to eu babe - with a burning desire to rectify a serious mistake but all in the fullness of time and without the stress and angst that came with leaving.
No you won't, and if you did, we'd just take us out straight away again.
You fuckers aren't going to win.
But if support for Brexit remains where it is, let alone sinks further, surely the issue will be re-opened at some point?
The big advantage Brexiteers have at the the moment is that support for rejoining seems to shrink when people realise the terms on which we would need to re-enter (i.e money and free movement).
No. Your total failure to read the tea leaves correctly and think in only one dimension is your problem.
Not mine.
Nobody wants to go back to status quo ante referendum because the last decade would look a complete waste of time and effort.
The minor flaw in that argument is that it was a complete waste of time and effort.
From the header,
The reporting is quite balanced: about 8/10 Labour voters would rejoin, including pluralities in all the Leave-voting constituencies. But there is reluctance to reopen divisive debates. (This could be a brake on Labour rejoiners - though exhaustion also a brake on Reform in places like Makerfield)
In other words, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom that we're stuck with for fear of a family argument leading to the rewriting of someone's will. As I may have said before.
Then the questions become:
Is there a threshold where the pushback on joining doesn't have to be feared?
If so, what is that threshold?
If so, will passive factors cause that threshold to be reached?
If so, when?
If so, what do we all do in the meantime?
Other questions:
Brexit has been unpopular because its implementation is associated with some disastrous policies on immigration, and a general feeling of drift, malaise, and decline. What's the expiry date on this equation?
Is it feasible as time passes to continue to blame the country's many problems on some barriers to trade that came in in 2019?
How can a Government perform well and still leave room for 'everything being shit due to Brexit'?
Is is not inevitable that any Government that wants to govern well run into retained EU legislation, or things like the ECHR, and want to alter these laws to prevent bat tunnels, theme parks being stopped due to jumping spiders, and the other EU-origin absurdities making Britain ungovernable and uneconomical?
there are high speed railways being built all over EU countries with no bat tunnels, think you need to re-assess where our troubles lie.
France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and many other EU countries are all capable of building infrastructure at a fraction of the cost we do in the UK.
Something other than EU membership hampers our ability to invest in this country!!!
These days, Germany is having a lot of the same issues as the UK with building stuff. The rate of high speed rail, particularly actually making the rolling stock, is absolutely glacial compared to China. China have taken the car production model, modernised it, and applied it to train production.
Indeed, but not remotely EU related, more the Merkel years saw very low capex investment in the countries infrastructure.
If you want us to become more efficient and effictive at spending money you have a constant, reliable, guarenteed long term stream of cash, do not turn it on and off.
HS2 is a great example of a hugely complex scheme which we simply did not have the skills for in the country.
In 10 years we will, we should already be planning what to do next, making use of those skills to do it more effectively and miles cheaper.
Nothing wahtsoever to do with the EU.
HS2 should have started somewhere simple (Leeds to Sheffield / Nottingham) while the skills were built up and then a 20-30 year schedule of projects created as HS2 in full and HS3/ NPR were built.
Instead we start a project and then go make the set of newly competent skilled workers unemployed as we don’t have the next project ready to go
everything has to be London centric
Blame the treasury Green Book, any party that can genuienly fix the London centric nature of all treasury funding that comes through that process, goiving a fairer share to the regions, will become popular quite quickly. (I have hope that Burnham has this in his targets).
We'll keep working our way back to eu babe - with a burning desire to rectify a serious mistake but all in the fullness of time and without the stress and angst that came with leaving.
No you won't, and if you did, we'd just take us out straight away again.
You fuckers aren't going to win.
But if support for Brexit remains where it is, let alone sinks further, surely the issue will be re-opened at some point?
The big advantage Brexiteers have at the the moment is that support for rejoining seems to shrink when people realise the terms on which we would need to re-enter (i.e money and free movement).
No. Your total failure to read the tea leaves correctly and think in only one dimension is your problem.
Not mine.
Nobody wants to go back to status quo ante referendum because the last decade would look a complete waste of time and effort.
The minor flaw in that argument is that it was a complete waste of time and effort.
From the header,
The reporting is quite balanced: about 8/10 Labour voters would rejoin, including pluralities in all the Leave-voting constituencies. But there is reluctance to reopen divisive debates. (This could be a brake on Labour rejoiners - though exhaustion also a brake on Reform in places like Makerfield)
In other words, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom that we're stuck with for fear of a family argument leading to the rewriting of someone's will. As I may have said before.
Then the questions become:
Is there a threshold where the pushback on joining doesn't have to be feared?
If so, what is that threshold?
If so, will passive factors cause that threshold to be reached?
If so, when?
If so, what do we all do in the meantime?
Other questions:
Brexit has been unpopular because its implementation is associated with some disastrous policies on immigration, and a general feeling of drift, malaise, and decline. What's the expiry date on this equation?
Is it feasible as time passes to continue to blame the country's many problems on some barriers to trade that came in in 2019?
How can a Government perform well and still leave room for 'everything being shit due to Brexit'?
Is is not inevitable that any Government that wants to govern well run into retained EU legislation, or things like the ECHR, and want to alter these laws to prevent bat tunnels, theme parks being stopped due to jumping spiders, and the other EU-origin absurdities making Britain ungovernable and uneconomical?
there are high speed railways being built all over EU countries with no bat tunnels, think you need to re-assess where our troubles lie.
France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and many other EU countries are all capable of building infrastructure at a fraction of the cost we do in the UK.
Something other than EU membership hampers our ability to invest in this country!!!
It has nothing to do with 'ability to invest' - the bat tunnel was a direct result of Natural England enforcing the EU's 2017 Habitats and Species Regulations, which are part of retained EU law.
If we wish to prevent future bat tunnels, we need to remove the retained law, and remove Natural England's legal right to enforce such laws without reference to Ministers. Doing so would mean we would no longer be aligned with EU species regulations, and make the prospect of rejoining harder and less attractive. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue that we should keep the country in a Miss Havisham-like state of being ready to marry the EU in the future, when their laws are serving our needs so poorly.
Yet these things do not arise anywhere else in the EU.
There are loads of km of high speed rail built all over Europe without any worries about bat tunnels.
Why can those other countries manage to build railways, countries with bats, without the need for tunnels ?
I will give you a clue, it is nothing to do with the EU.
They don't have so much tunneling through Tory constituencies imposed On them, either.
The bat tunnels are on sections where HS2 is not in a tunnel.
Neither of which are anything whatsoever to do with the EU, all down to decisions taken by the (Conservative led) HS2 Phase 1 Committee that reviewed the original bill.
You may want that to be true, and I don't blame you, but it isn't. Natural England has acknowledged advising HS2 that the bat tunnel would comply with the law - the only reason for even considering such a structure.
But the cost of UK infrastructure has nothing to do with the EU law.
I will repeat, 27 other EU countries do not have this problem.
You many want this to be true, but the reality is every other EU country can build infrastructure at a cost much lower than the UK irrespective of EU law.
The problem is local to the UK and you are chasing a false enemy to blame the EU.
It is not solely due to EU law, but EU law is a problem. One of many.
Other EU countries do have this problem. Other developed EU nations are also struggling to invest in infrastructure.
The problem is governments, both domestic and EU, have piled on layer after layer of paperwork all with good intentions but now it is almost impossible to do anything because of it.
And we interpret EU law with a dogmatic "the law must be applied" mentality which some EU nations take more flexibly.
but in the case of high speed railway, I assume you agree that we in the UK are miles more expensive that just about every country within the EU that builds high speed railways ?
Spain, France, Italy and Poland are having no trouble building new high speed railways in recent years (whilst HS2 has been under construction), every one of them has EU law layered on their state.
We'll keep working our way back to eu babe - with a burning desire to rectify a serious mistake but all in the fullness of time and without the stress and angst that came with leaving.
No you won't, and if you did, we'd just take us out straight away again.
You fuckers aren't going to win.
But if support for Brexit remains where it is, let alone sinks further, surely the issue will be re-opened at some point?
The big advantage Brexiteers have at the the moment is that support for rejoining seems to shrink when people realise the terms on which we would need to re-enter (i.e money and free movement).
No. Your total failure to read the tea leaves correctly and think in only one dimension is your problem.
Not mine.
Nobody wants to go back to status quo ante referendum because the last decade would look a complete waste of time and effort.
The minor flaw in that argument is that it was a complete waste of time and effort.
From the header,
The reporting is quite balanced: about 8/10 Labour voters would rejoin, including pluralities in all the Leave-voting constituencies. But there is reluctance to reopen divisive debates. (This could be a brake on Labour rejoiners - though exhaustion also a brake on Reform in places like Makerfield)
In other words, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom that we're stuck with for fear of a family argument leading to the rewriting of someone's will. As I may have said before.
Then the questions become:
Is there a threshold where the pushback on joining doesn't have to be feared?
If so, what is that threshold?
If so, will passive factors cause that threshold to be reached?
If so, when?
If so, what do we all do in the meantime?
Other questions:
Brexit has been unpopular because its implementation is associated with some disastrous policies on immigration, and a general feeling of drift, malaise, and decline. What's the expiry date on this equation?
Is it feasible as time passes to continue to blame the country's many problems on some barriers to trade that came in in 2019?
How can a Government perform well and still leave room for 'everything being shit due to Brexit'?
Is is not inevitable that any Government that wants to govern well run into retained EU legislation, or things like the ECHR, and want to alter these laws to prevent bat tunnels, theme parks being stopped due to jumping spiders, and the other EU-origin absurdities making Britain ungovernable and uneconomical?
there are high speed railways being built all over EU countries with no bat tunnels, think you need to re-assess where our troubles lie.
France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and many other EU countries are all capable of building infrastructure at a fraction of the cost we do in the UK.
Something other than EU membership hampers our ability to invest in this country!!!
These days, Germany is having a lot of the same issues as the UK with building stuff. The rate of high speed rail, particularly actually making the rolling stock, is absolutely glacial compared to China. China have taken the car production model, modernised it, and applied it to train production.
Indeed, but not remotely EU related, more the Merkel years saw very low capex investment in the countries infrastructure.
If you want us to become more efficient and effictive at spending money you have a constant, reliable, guarenteed long term stream of cash, do not turn it on and off.
HS2 is a great example of a hugely complex scheme which we simply did not have the skills for in the country.
In 10 years we will, we should already be planning what to do next, making use of those skills to do it more effectively and miles cheaper.
Nothing wahtsoever to do with the EU.
HS2 should have started somewhere simple (Leeds to Sheffield / Nottingham) while the skills were built up and then a 20-30 year schedule of projects created as HS2 in full and HS3/ NPR were built.
Instead we start a project and then go make the set of newly competent skilled workers unemployed as we don’t have the next project ready to go
everything has to be London centric
Blame the treasury Green Book, any party that can genuienly fix the London centric nature of all treasury funding that comes through that process, goiving a fairer share to the regions, will become popular quite quickly. (I have hope that Burnham has this in his targets).
I will not hold my breath on that one
at least he acknowledges the problem
literally never heard any other politician suggest it needs major reform
We'll keep working our way back to eu babe - with a burning desire to rectify a serious mistake but all in the fullness of time and without the stress and angst that came with leaving.
No you won't, and if you did, we'd just take us out straight away again.
You fuckers aren't going to win.
But if support for Brexit remains where it is, let alone sinks further, surely the issue will be re-opened at some point?
The big advantage Brexiteers have at the the moment is that support for rejoining seems to shrink when people realise the terms on which we would need to re-enter (i.e money and free movement).
No. Your total failure to read the tea leaves correctly and think in only one dimension is your problem.
Not mine.
Nobody wants to go back to status quo ante referendum because the last decade would look a complete waste of time and effort.
The minor flaw in that argument is that it was a complete waste of time and effort.
From the header,
The reporting is quite balanced: about 8/10 Labour voters would rejoin, including pluralities in all the Leave-voting constituencies. But there is reluctance to reopen divisive debates. (This could be a brake on Labour rejoiners - though exhaustion also a brake on Reform in places like Makerfield)
In other words, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom that we're stuck with for fear of a family argument leading to the rewriting of someone's will. As I may have said before.
Then the questions become:
Is there a threshold where the pushback on joining doesn't have to be feared?
If so, what is that threshold?
If so, will passive factors cause that threshold to be reached?
If so, when?
If so, what do we all do in the meantime?
Other questions:
Brexit has been unpopular because its implementation is associated with some disastrous policies on immigration, and a general feeling of drift, malaise, and decline. What's the expiry date on this equation?
Is it feasible as time passes to continue to blame the country's many problems on some barriers to trade that came in in 2019?
How can a Government perform well and still leave room for 'everything being shit due to Brexit'?
Is is not inevitable that any Government that wants to govern well run into retained EU legislation, or things like the ECHR, and want to alter these laws to prevent bat tunnels, theme parks being stopped due to jumping spiders, and the other EU-origin absurdities making Britain ungovernable and uneconomical?
there are high speed railways being built all over EU countries with no bat tunnels, think you need to re-assess where our troubles lie.
France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and many other EU countries are all capable of building infrastructure at a fraction of the cost we do in the UK.
Something other than EU membership hampers our ability to invest in this country!!!
These days, Germany is having a lot of the same issues as the UK with building stuff. The rate of high speed rail, particularly actually making the rolling stock, is absolutely glacial compared to China. China have taken the car production model, modernised it, and applied it to train production.
Indeed, but not remotely EU related, more the Merkel years saw very low capex investment in the countries infrastructure.
If you want us to become more efficient and effictive at spending money you have a constant, reliable, guarenteed long term stream of cash, do not turn it on and off.
HS2 is a great example of a hugely complex scheme which we simply did not have the skills for in the country.
In 10 years we will, we should already be planning what to do next, making use of those skills to do it more effectively and miles cheaper.
Nothing wahtsoever to do with the EU.
HS2 should have started somewhere simple (Leeds to Sheffield / Nottingham) while the skills were built up and then a 20-30 year schedule of projects created as HS2 in full and HS3/ NPR were built.
Instead we start a project and then go make the set of newly competent skilled workers unemployed as we don’t have the next project ready to go
everything has to be London centric
Blame the treasury Green Book, any party that can genuienly fix the London centric nature of all treasury funding that comes through that process, goiving a fairer share to the regions, will become popular quite quickly. (I have hope that Burnham has this in his targets).
Burnham hasn’t even won the byelection yet
Andy will win it comfortably, for us, and then save us all.
An “embarrassing” tranche of messages set to be released will expose the “cosy relationship” between Government ministers and disgraced peer Lord Peter Mandelson
So Byline Times say they have an archive of Reform Candidate former twitter account. If that's as bad as it gets, I am sure the Guardian types will be outraged (just as they were about him joking about rugby players with big knockers and water boarding people who eat their chips by the sea), but it isn't exactly that different from stuff Farage tweets (albeit he is usually a bit more careful to leave some wiggle room).
Reform candidate leans heavily anti-immigration and tweets at the likes of Dapper Laughs and Dan Wooton isn't exactly even takes £5 million off a crypto billionaire.
There're trying to make somthing of him calling for the police to release the name of the Southport suspect in this tweet. Invoking the Bulger case was supposedly "incendiary".
They can name him if it’s in the public’s interest, like they did with the Bulger killers.
The league and the refs can go fuck themselves. We've been up against them all season because they wanted their story of a big club getting relegated.
Think Blues, Wrexham, Sheffield United, Millwall, Norwich, and plenty of other Championship teams are breathing a sigh of relief Spurs stayed up to be honest. You might have well beaten our 111 EPL points record if you'd gone down.
We'll keep working our way back to eu babe - with a burning desire to rectify a serious mistake but all in the fullness of time and without the stress and angst that came with leaving.
No you won't, and if you did, we'd just take us out straight away again.
You fuckers aren't going to win.
But if support for Brexit remains where it is, let alone sinks further, surely the issue will be re-opened at some point?
The big advantage Brexiteers have at the the moment is that support for rejoining seems to shrink when people realise the terms on which we would need to re-enter (i.e money and free movement).
No. Your total failure to read the tea leaves correctly and think in only one dimension is your problem.
Not mine.
Nobody wants to go back to status quo ante referendum because the last decade would look a complete waste of time and effort.
The minor flaw in that argument is that it was a complete waste of time and effort.
From the header,
The reporting is quite balanced: about 8/10 Labour voters would rejoin, including pluralities in all the Leave-voting constituencies. But there is reluctance to reopen divisive debates. (This could be a brake on Labour rejoiners - though exhaustion also a brake on Reform in places like Makerfield)
In other words, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom that we're stuck with for fear of a family argument leading to the rewriting of someone's will. As I may have said before.
Then the questions become:
Is there a threshold where the pushback on joining doesn't have to be feared?
If so, what is that threshold?
If so, will passive factors cause that threshold to be reached?
If so, when?
If so, what do we all do in the meantime?
Other questions:
Brexit has been unpopular because its implementation is associated with some disastrous policies on immigration, and a general feeling of drift, malaise, and decline. What's the expiry date on this equation?
Is it feasible as time passes to continue to blame the country's many problems on some barriers to trade that came in in 2019?
How can a Government perform well and still leave room for 'everything being shit due to Brexit'?
Is is not inevitable that any Government that wants to govern well run into retained EU legislation, or things like the ECHR, and want to alter these laws to prevent bat tunnels, theme parks being stopped due to jumping spiders, and the other EU-origin absurdities making Britain ungovernable and uneconomical?
there are high speed railways being built all over EU countries with no bat tunnels, think you need to re-assess where our troubles lie.
France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and many other EU countries are all capable of building infrastructure at a fraction of the cost we do in the UK.
Something other than EU membership hampers our ability to invest in this country!!!
It has nothing to do with 'ability to invest' - the bat tunnel was a direct result of Natural England enforcing the EU's 2017 Habitats and Species Regulations, which are part of retained EU law.
If we wish to prevent future bat tunnels, we need to remove the retained law, and remove Natural England's legal right to enforce such laws without reference to Ministers. Doing so would mean we would no longer be aligned with EU species regulations, and make the prospect of rejoining harder and less attractive. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue that we should keep the country in a Miss Havisham-like state of being ready to marry the EU in the future, when their laws are serving our needs so poorly.
Yet these things do not arise anywhere else in the EU.
There are loads of km of high speed rail built all over Europe without any worries about bat tunnels.
Why can those other countries manage to build railways, countries with bats, without the need for tunnels ?
I will give you a clue, it is nothing to do with the EU.
They don't have so much tunneling through Tory constituencies imposed On them, either.
The bat tunnels are on sections where HS2 is not in a tunnel.
Neither of which are anything whatsoever to do with the EU, all down to decisions taken by the (Conservative led) HS2 Phase 1 Committee that reviewed the original bill.
You may want that to be true, and I don't blame you, but it isn't. Natural England has acknowledged advising HS2 that the bat tunnel would comply with the law - the only reason for even considering such a structure.
But the cost of UK infrastructure has nothing to do with the EU law.
I will repeat, 27 other EU countries do not have this problem.
You many want this to be true, but the reality is every other EU country can build infrastructure at a cost much lower than the UK irrespective of EU law.
The problem is local to the UK and you are chasing a false enemy to blame the EU.
It is not solely due to EU law, but EU law is a problem. One of many.
Other EU countries do have this problem. Other developed EU nations are also struggling to invest in infrastructure.
The problem is governments, both domestic and EU, have piled on layer after layer of paperwork all with good intentions but now it is almost impossible to do anything because of it.
And we interpret EU law with a dogmatic "the law must be applied" mentality which some EU nations take more flexibly.
but in the case of high speed railway, I assume you agree that we in the UK are miles more expensive that just about every country within the EU that builds high speed railways ?
Spain, France, Italy and Poland are having no trouble building new high speed railways in recent years (whilst HS2 has been under construction), every one of them has EU law layered on their state.
Absolutely, through a multitude of reasons, some in and some out of our control.
Spain have done really well building high speed rail in recent years, but high speed rail serves them well. They need to travel vast distances to travel around the country and it is being built across largely low value, uninhabited land.
Whereas we travel small distances across high value high planning restrictions land.
We should not be obsessing over speed. We need capacity and connections.
We should be connecting cities like across the North that are not well connected, not obsessing with speed on routes that are already connected.
We need to deal with our planning system. That gold plates all regulations including EU.
We'll keep working our way back to eu babe - with a burning desire to rectify a serious mistake but all in the fullness of time and without the stress and angst that came with leaving.
No you won't, and if you did, we'd just take us out straight away again.
You fuckers aren't going to win.
But if support for Brexit remains where it is, let alone sinks further, surely the issue will be re-opened at some point?
The big advantage Brexiteers have at the the moment is that support for rejoining seems to shrink when people realise the terms on which we would need to re-enter (i.e money and free movement).
No. Your total failure to read the tea leaves correctly and think in only one dimension is your problem.
Not mine.
Nobody wants to go back to status quo ante referendum because the last decade would look a complete waste of time and effort.
The minor flaw in that argument is that it was a complete waste of time and effort.
From the header,
The reporting is quite balanced: about 8/10 Labour voters would rejoin, including pluralities in all the Leave-voting constituencies. But there is reluctance to reopen divisive debates. (This could be a brake on Labour rejoiners - though exhaustion also a brake on Reform in places like Makerfield)
In other words, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom that we're stuck with for fear of a family argument leading to the rewriting of someone's will. As I may have said before.
Then the questions become:
Is there a threshold where the pushback on joining doesn't have to be feared?
If so, what is that threshold?
If so, will passive factors cause that threshold to be reached?
If so, when?
If so, what do we all do in the meantime?
Other questions:
Brexit has been unpopular because its implementation is associated with some disastrous policies on immigration, and a general feeling of drift, malaise, and decline. What's the expiry date on this equation?
Is it feasible as time passes to continue to blame the country's many problems on some barriers to trade that came in in 2019?
How can a Government perform well and still leave room for 'everything being shit due to Brexit'?
Is is not inevitable that any Government that wants to govern well run into retained EU legislation, or things like the ECHR, and want to alter these laws to prevent bat tunnels, theme parks being stopped due to jumping spiders, and the other EU-origin absurdities making Britain ungovernable and uneconomical?
there are high speed railways being built all over EU countries with no bat tunnels, think you need to re-assess where our troubles lie.
France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and many other EU countries are all capable of building infrastructure at a fraction of the cost we do in the UK.
Something other than EU membership hampers our ability to invest in this country!!!
These days, Germany is having a lot of the same issues as the UK with building stuff. The rate of high speed rail, particularly actually making the rolling stock, is absolutely glacial compared to China. China have taken the car production model, modernised it, and applied it to train production.
Indeed, but not remotely EU related, more the Merkel years saw very low capex investment in the countries infrastructure.
If you want us to become more efficient and effictive at spending money you have a constant, reliable, guarenteed long term stream of cash, do not turn it on and off.
HS2 is a great example of a hugely complex scheme which we simply did not have the skills for in the country.
In 10 years we will, we should already be planning what to do next, making use of those skills to do it more effectively and miles cheaper.
Nothing wahtsoever to do with the EU.
HS2 should have started somewhere simple (Leeds to Sheffield / Nottingham) while the skills were built up and then a 20-30 year schedule of projects created as HS2 in full and HS3/ NPR were built.
Instead we start a project and then go make the set of newly competent skilled workers unemployed as we don’t have the next project ready to go
everything has to be London centric
Blame the treasury Green Book, any party that can genuienly fix the London centric nature of all treasury funding that comes through that process, goiving a fairer share to the regions, will become popular quite quickly. (I have hope that Burnham has this in his targets).
Burnham hasn’t even won the byelection yet
Andy will win it comfortably, for us, and then save us all.
I'd check your tea. This is entirely not the thoughts I imagined from you.
We'll keep working our way back to eu babe - with a burning desire to rectify a serious mistake but all in the fullness of time and without the stress and angst that came with leaving.
No you won't, and if you did, we'd just take us out straight away again.
You fuckers aren't going to win.
But if support for Brexit remains where it is, let alone sinks further, surely the issue will be re-opened at some point?
The big advantage Brexiteers have at the the moment is that support for rejoining seems to shrink when people realise the terms on which we would need to re-enter (i.e money and free movement).
No. Your total failure to read the tea leaves correctly and think in only one dimension is your problem.
Not mine.
Nobody wants to go back to status quo ante referendum because the last decade would look a complete waste of time and effort.
The minor flaw in that argument is that it was a complete waste of time and effort.
From the header,
The reporting is quite balanced: about 8/10 Labour voters would rejoin, including pluralities in all the Leave-voting constituencies. But there is reluctance to reopen divisive debates. (This could be a brake on Labour rejoiners - though exhaustion also a brake on Reform in places like Makerfield)
In other words, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom that we're stuck with for fear of a family argument leading to the rewriting of someone's will. As I may have said before.
Then the questions become:
Is there a threshold where the pushback on joining doesn't have to be feared?
If so, what is that threshold?
If so, will passive factors cause that threshold to be reached?
If so, when?
If so, what do we all do in the meantime?
Other questions:
Brexit has been unpopular because its implementation is associated with some disastrous policies on immigration, and a general feeling of drift, malaise, and decline. What's the expiry date on this equation?
Is it feasible as time passes to continue to blame the country's many problems on some barriers to trade that came in in 2019?
How can a Government perform well and still leave room for 'everything being shit due to Brexit'?
Is is not inevitable that any Government that wants to govern well run into retained EU legislation, or things like the ECHR, and want to alter these laws to prevent bat tunnels, theme parks being stopped due to jumping spiders, and the other EU-origin absurdities making Britain ungovernable and uneconomical?
there are high speed railways being built all over EU countries with no bat tunnels, think you need to re-assess where our troubles lie.
France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and many other EU countries are all capable of building infrastructure at a fraction of the cost we do in the UK.
Something other than EU membership hampers our ability to invest in this country!!!
It has nothing to do with 'ability to invest' - the bat tunnel was a direct result of Natural England enforcing the EU's 2017 Habitats and Species Regulations, which are part of retained EU law.
If we wish to prevent future bat tunnels, we need to remove the retained law, and remove Natural England's legal right to enforce such laws without reference to Ministers. Doing so would mean we would no longer be aligned with EU species regulations, and make the prospect of rejoining harder and less attractive. But it is becoming increasingly hard to argue that we should keep the country in a Miss Havisham-like state of being ready to marry the EU in the future, when their laws are serving our needs so poorly.
Or we do what the rest of the EU does and ignore the bits that are awkward / expensive / pointless and use some other means of mitigation
We have shown ourselves completely incapable of taking that laissez faire attitude, ever since trading standards prowled the greengrocers of the land searching for people selling bananas by the pound.
It was hard then, but would be impossible now, with quangos that are established for the sole reason of enforcing these things, and staffed by people obsessed with doing so. Ministers have no legal right to intervene with these people and say 'come on son'. So how, practically, would we do what you suggest?
So it is in reality a UK problem then rather than an EU issue ?
If we could sort ourselves out locally, like the other 27 countries, it would not be a problem ?
The law is legally binding, meaning even if we did do a wink wink nudge nudge fudge, some newt-botherer could still sue and hold things up. I don't know how (or whether) they manage this on the Continent, but I don't see how we successfully manage to have a whole load of laws that we don't enforce.
We'll keep working our way back to eu babe - with a burning desire to rectify a serious mistake but all in the fullness of time and without the stress and angst that came with leaving.
No you won't, and if you did, we'd just take us out straight away again.
You fuckers aren't going to win.
But if support for Brexit remains where it is, let alone sinks further, surely the issue will be re-opened at some point?
The big advantage Brexiteers have at the the moment is that support for rejoining seems to shrink when people realise the terms on which we would need to re-enter (i.e money and free movement).
No. Your total failure to read the tea leaves correctly and think in only one dimension is your problem.
Not mine.
Nobody wants to go back to status quo ante referendum because the last decade would look a complete waste of time and effort.
The minor flaw in that argument is that it was a complete waste of time and effort.
From the header,
The reporting is quite balanced: about 8/10 Labour voters would rejoin, including pluralities in all the Leave-voting constituencies. But there is reluctance to reopen divisive debates. (This could be a brake on Labour rejoiners - though exhaustion also a brake on Reform in places like Makerfield)
In other words, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom that we're stuck with for fear of a family argument leading to the rewriting of someone's will. As I may have said before.
Then the questions become:
Is there a threshold where the pushback on joining doesn't have to be feared?
If so, what is that threshold?
If so, will passive factors cause that threshold to be reached?
If so, when?
If so, what do we all do in the meantime?
Other questions:
Brexit has been unpopular because its implementation is associated with some disastrous policies on immigration, and a general feeling of drift, malaise, and decline. What's the expiry date on this equation?
Is it feasible as time passes to continue to blame the country's many problems on some barriers to trade that came in in 2019?
How can a Government perform well and still leave room for 'everything being shit due to Brexit'?
Is is not inevitable that any Government that wants to govern well run into retained EU legislation, or things like the ECHR, and want to alter these laws to prevent bat tunnels, theme parks being stopped due to jumping spiders, and the other EU-origin absurdities making Britain ungovernable and uneconomical?
there are high speed railways being built all over EU countries with no bat tunnels, think you need to re-assess where our troubles lie.
France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and many other EU countries are all capable of building infrastructure at a fraction of the cost we do in the UK.
Something other than EU membership hampers our ability to invest in this country!!!
It has nothing to do with 'ability to invest' - the bat tunnel was a direct result of Natural England enforcing the EU's 2017 Habitats and Species Regulations, which are part of retained EU law.
If we wish to prevent future bat tunnels, we need to remove the retained law, and remove Natural England's legal right to enforce such laws without reference to Ministers. Doing so would mean we would no longer be aligned with EU species regulations, and make the prospect of rejoining harder and less attractive. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue that we should keep the country in a Miss Havisham-like state of being ready to marry the EU in the future, when their laws are serving our needs so poorly.
Yet these things do not arise anywhere else in the EU.
There are loads of km of high speed rail built all over Europe without any worries about bat tunnels.
Why can those other countries manage to build railways, countries with bats, without the need for tunnels ?
I will give you a clue, it is nothing to do with the EU.
They don't have so much tunneling through Tory constituencies imposed On them, either.
The bat tunnels are on sections where HS2 is not in a tunnel.
Neither of which are anything whatsoever to do with the EU, all down to decisions taken by the (Conservative led) HS2 Phase 1 Committee that reviewed the original bill.
You may want that to be true, and I don't blame you, but it isn't. Natural England has acknowledged advising HS2 that the bat tunnel would comply with the law - the only reason for even considering such a structure.
But the cost of UK infrastructure has nothing to do with the EU law.
I will repeat, 27 other EU countries do not have this problem.
You many want this to be true, but the reality is every other EU country can build infrastructure at a cost much lower than the UK irrespective of EU law.
The problem is local to the UK and you are chasing a false enemy to blame the EU.
It is not solely due to EU law, but EU law is a problem. One of many.
Other EU countries do have this problem. Other developed EU nations are also struggling to invest in infrastructure.
The problem is governments, both domestic and EU, have piled on layer after layer of paperwork all with good intentions but now it is almost impossible to do anything because of it.
And we interpret EU law with a dogmatic "the law must be applied" mentality which some EU nations take more flexibly.
but in the case of high speed railway, I assume you agree that we in the UK are miles more expensive that just about every country within the EU that builds high speed railways ?
Spain, France, Italy and Poland are having no trouble building new high speed railways in recent years (whilst HS2 has been under construction), every one of them has EU law layered on their state.
Absolutely, through a multitude of reasons, some in and some out of our control.
Spain have done really well building high speed rail in recent years, but high speed rail serves them well. They need to travel vast distances to travel around the country and it is being built across largely low value, uninhabited land.
Whereas we travel small distances across high value high planning restrictions land.
We should not be obsessing over speed. We need capacity and connections.
We should be connecting cities like across the North that are not well connected, not obsessing with speed on routes that are already connected.
We need to deal with our planning system. That gold plates all regulations including EU.
There are massive capacity issues between Manchester and Birmingham, there are massive capacity issues heading into Manchester and Birmingham.
Reality is, if you came up with the optimal design to meet what you suggest needs addressing it would include HS2 Phase 2B along with NPR from Liverpool to Manchester (which shares HS2 tracks).
If you are going to build a new railway which will carry passengers between cities apart the distance Manchester is to Brum you are going to build something that can run ~320km/h in 2026.
We'll keep working our way back to eu babe - with a burning desire to rectify a serious mistake but all in the fullness of time and without the stress and angst that came with leaving.
No you won't, and if you did, we'd just take us out straight away again.
You fuckers aren't going to win.
But if support for Brexit remains where it is, let alone sinks further, surely the issue will be re-opened at some point?
The big advantage Brexiteers have at the the moment is that support for rejoining seems to shrink when people realise the terms on which we would need to re-enter (i.e money and free movement).
No. Your total failure to read the tea leaves correctly and think in only one dimension is your problem.
Not mine.
Nobody wants to go back to status quo ante referendum because the last decade would look a complete waste of time and effort.
The minor flaw in that argument is that it was a complete waste of time and effort.
From the header,
The reporting is quite balanced: about 8/10 Labour voters would rejoin, including pluralities in all the Leave-voting constituencies. But there is reluctance to reopen divisive debates. (This could be a brake on Labour rejoiners - though exhaustion also a brake on Reform in places like Makerfield)
In other words, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom that we're stuck with for fear of a family argument leading to the rewriting of someone's will. As I may have said before.
Then the questions become:
Is there a threshold where the pushback on joining doesn't have to be feared?
If so, what is that threshold?
If so, will passive factors cause that threshold to be reached?
If so, when?
If so, what do we all do in the meantime?
Other questions:
Brexit has been unpopular because its implementation is associated with some disastrous policies on immigration, and a general feeling of drift, malaise, and decline. What's the expiry date on this equation?
Is it feasible as time passes to continue to blame the country's many problems on some barriers to trade that came in in 2019?
How can a Government perform well and still leave room for 'everything being shit due to Brexit'?
Is is not inevitable that any Government that wants to govern well run into retained EU legislation, or things like the ECHR, and want to alter these laws to prevent bat tunnels, theme parks being stopped due to jumping spiders, and the other EU-origin absurdities making Britain ungovernable and uneconomical?
there are high speed railways being built all over EU countries with no bat tunnels, think you need to re-assess where our troubles lie.
France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and many other EU countries are all capable of building infrastructure at a fraction of the cost we do in the UK.
Something other than EU membership hampers our ability to invest in this country!!!
It has nothing to do with 'ability to invest' - the bat tunnel was a direct result of Natural England enforcing the EU's 2017 Habitats and Species Regulations, which are part of retained EU law.
If we wish to prevent future bat tunnels, we need to remove the retained law, and remove Natural England's legal right to enforce such laws without reference to Ministers. Doing so would mean we would no longer be aligned with EU species regulations, and make the prospect of rejoining harder and less attractive. But it is becoming increasingly hard to argue that we should keep the country in a Miss Havisham-like state of being ready to marry the EU in the future, when their laws are serving our needs so poorly.
Or we do what the rest of the EU does and ignore the bits that are awkward / expensive / pointless and use some other means of mitigation
We have shown ourselves completely incapable of taking that laissez faire attitude, ever since trading standards prowled the greengrocers of the land searching for people selling bananas by the pound.
It was hard then, but would be impossible now, with quangos that are established for the sole reason of enforcing these things, and staffed by people obsessed with doing so. Ministers have no legal right to intervene with these people and say 'come on son'. So how, practically, would we do what you suggest?
So it is in reality a UK problem then rather than an EU issue ?
If we could sort ourselves out locally, like the other 27 countries, it would not be a problem ?
The law is legally binding, meaning even if we did do a wink wink nudge nudge fudge, some newt-botherer could still sue and hold things up. I don't know how (or whether) they manage this on the Continent, but I don't see how we successfully manage to have a whole load of laws that we don't enforce.
I think a lot of it is simply overzealous officials and Parliament being too scared to tell the courts to go fuck themselves by using primary legislation to override adverse rulings.
It’s not clear to me whether the relegation of the Tories into the Lib-Dems of the Right will hold long term. But if it does the Tories becoming an essentially southern, upper middle class, free market party will soften their stance down from the hardest of Brexits only over time. Already some 40% of their voters polled said they’d vote Rejoin in a referendum. https://x.com/b_judah/status/2058451267316281511
Sounds like a description of the Liberal Party pre LibDems
We'll keep working our way back to eu babe - with a burning desire to rectify a serious mistake but all in the fullness of time and without the stress and angst that came with leaving.
No you won't, and if you did, we'd just take us out straight away again.
You fuckers aren't going to win.
But if support for Brexit remains where it is, let alone sinks further, surely the issue will be re-opened at some point?
The big advantage Brexiteers have at the the moment is that support for rejoining seems to shrink when people realise the terms on which we would need to re-enter (i.e money and free movement).
No. Your total failure to read the tea leaves correctly and think in only one dimension is your problem.
Not mine.
Nobody wants to go back to status quo ante referendum because the last decade would look a complete waste of time and effort.
The minor flaw in that argument is that it was a complete waste of time and effort.
From the header,
The reporting is quite balanced: about 8/10 Labour voters would rejoin, including pluralities in all the Leave-voting constituencies. But there is reluctance to reopen divisive debates. (This could be a brake on Labour rejoiners - though exhaustion also a brake on Reform in places like Makerfield)
In other words, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom that we're stuck with for fear of a family argument leading to the rewriting of someone's will. As I may have said before.
Then the questions become:
Is there a threshold where the pushback on joining doesn't have to be feared?
If so, what is that threshold?
If so, will passive factors cause that threshold to be reached?
If so, when?
If so, what do we all do in the meantime?
Other questions:
Brexit has been unpopular because its implementation is associated with some disastrous policies on immigration, and a general feeling of drift, malaise, and decline. What's the expiry date on this equation?
Is it feasible as time passes to continue to blame the country's many problems on some barriers to trade that came in in 2019?
How can a Government perform well and still leave room for 'everything being shit due to Brexit'?
Is is not inevitable that any Government that wants to govern well run into retained EU legislation, or things like the ECHR, and want to alter these laws to prevent bat tunnels, theme parks being stopped due to jumping spiders, and the other EU-origin absurdities making Britain ungovernable and uneconomical?
there are high speed railways being built all over EU countries with no bat tunnels, think you need to re-assess where our troubles lie.
France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and many other EU countries are all capable of building infrastructure at a fraction of the cost we do in the UK.
Something other than EU membership hampers our ability to invest in this country!!!
It has nothing to do with 'ability to invest' - the bat tunnel was a direct result of Natural England enforcing the EU's 2017 Habitats and Species Regulations, which are part of retained EU law.
If we wish to prevent future bat tunnels, we need to remove the retained law, and remove Natural England's legal right to enforce such laws without reference to Ministers. Doing so would mean we would no longer be aligned with EU species regulations, and make the prospect of rejoining harder and less attractive. But it is becoming increasingly hard to argue that we should keep the country in a Miss Havisham-like state of being ready to marry the EU in the future, when their laws are serving our needs so poorly.
Or we do what the rest of the EU does and ignore the bits that are awkward / expensive / pointless and use some other means of mitigation
We have shown ourselves completely incapable of taking that laissez faire attitude, ever since trading standards prowled the greengrocers of the land searching for people selling bananas by the pound.
It was hard then, but would be impossible now, with quangos that are established for the sole reason of enforcing these things, and staffed by people obsessed with doing so. Ministers have no legal right to intervene with these people and say 'come on son'. So how, practically, would we do what you suggest?
So it is in reality a UK problem then rather than an EU issue ?
If we could sort ourselves out locally, like the other 27 countries, it would not be a problem ?
The law is legally binding, meaning even if we did do a wink wink nudge nudge fudge, some newt-botherer could still sue and hold things up. I don't know how (or whether) they manage this on the Continent, but I don't see how we successfully manage to have a whole load of laws that we don't enforce.
We need to remind newt botherers that newt botherers are not a protected species and could be culled if they are causing a nuisance.
Once again Raducanu will never win a second Grand Slam. Simply not up to it.
Even if that's true, one grand slam is one more than the great majority of British players have achieved.
It is, and she will always have that. It’s such a shame as when she broke through it looked like she could be an all time great, but I don’t think she has enough grit in here. Murray made the most of what he had, worked himself doubly hard in order to try to be near the level of the big three. I see little evidence that Raducanu has the same level of drive. That and her inability to stick with a coach sends a message.
We'll keep working our way back to eu babe - with a burning desire to rectify a serious mistake but all in the fullness of time and without the stress and angst that came with leaving.
No you won't, and if you did, we'd just take us out straight away again.
You fuckers aren't going to win.
But if support for Brexit remains where it is, let alone sinks further, surely the issue will be re-opened at some point?
The big advantage Brexiteers have at the the moment is that support for rejoining seems to shrink when people realise the terms on which we would need to re-enter (i.e money and free movement).
No. Your total failure to read the tea leaves correctly and think in only one dimension is your problem.
Not mine.
Nobody wants to go back to status quo ante referendum because the last decade would look a complete waste of time and effort.
The minor flaw in that argument is that it was a complete waste of time and effort.
From the header,
The reporting is quite balanced: about 8/10 Labour voters would rejoin, including pluralities in all the Leave-voting constituencies. But there is reluctance to reopen divisive debates. (This could be a brake on Labour rejoiners - though exhaustion also a brake on Reform in places like Makerfield)
In other words, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom that we're stuck with for fear of a family argument leading to the rewriting of someone's will. As I may have said before.
Then the questions become:
Is there a threshold where the pushback on joining doesn't have to be feared?
If so, what is that threshold?
If so, will passive factors cause that threshold to be reached?
If so, when?
If so, what do we all do in the meantime?
Other questions:
Brexit has been unpopular because its implementation is associated with some disastrous policies on immigration, and a general feeling of drift, malaise, and decline. What's the expiry date on this equation?
Is it feasible as time passes to continue to blame the country's many problems on some barriers to trade that came in in 2019?
How can a Government perform well and still leave room for 'everything being shit due to Brexit'?
Is is not inevitable that any Government that wants to govern well run into retained EU legislation, or things like the ECHR, and want to alter these laws to prevent bat tunnels, theme parks being stopped due to jumping spiders, and the other EU-origin absurdities making Britain ungovernable and uneconomical?
there are high speed railways being built all over EU countries with no bat tunnels, think you need to re-assess where our troubles lie.
France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and many other EU countries are all capable of building infrastructure at a fraction of the cost we do in the UK.
Something other than EU membership hampers our ability to invest in this country!!!
It has nothing to do with 'ability to invest' - the bat tunnel was a direct result of Natural England enforcing the EU's 2017 Habitats and Species Regulations, which are part of retained EU law.
If we wish to prevent future bat tunnels, we need to remove the retained law, and remove Natural England's legal right to enforce such laws without reference to Ministers. Doing so would mean we would no longer be aligned with EU species regulations, and make the prospect of rejoining harder and less attractive. But it is becoming increasingly hard to argue that we should keep the country in a Miss Havisham-like state of being ready to marry the EU in the future, when their laws are serving our needs so poorly.
Or we do what the rest of the EU does and ignore the bits that are awkward / expensive / pointless and use some other means of mitigation
We have shown ourselves completely incapable of taking that laissez faire attitude, ever since trading standards prowled the greengrocers of the land searching for people selling bananas by the pound.
It was hard then, but would be impossible now, with quangos that are established for the sole reason of enforcing these things, and staffed by people obsessed with doing so. Ministers have no legal right to intervene with these people and say 'come on son'. So how, practically, would we do what you suggest?
So it is in reality a UK problem then rather than an EU issue ?
If we could sort ourselves out locally, like the other 27 countries, it would not be a problem ?
The law is legally binding, meaning even if we did do a wink wink nudge nudge fudge, some newt-botherer could still sue and hold things up. I don't know how (or whether) they manage this on the Continent, but I don't see how we successfully manage to have a whole load of laws that we don't enforce.
I think a lot of it is simply overzealous officials and Parliament being too scared to tell the courts to go fuck themselves by using primary legislation to override adverse rulings.
Idea
For the next infrastructure project, Parliament declares that the route/site is French territory for x years.
It’s not clear to me whether the relegation of the Tories into the Lib-Dems of the Right will hold long term. But if it does the Tories becoming an essentially southern, upper middle class, free market party will soften their stance down from the hardest of Brexits only over time. Already some 40% of their voters polled said they’d vote Rejoin in a referendum. https://x.com/b_judah/status/2058451267316281511
It's not as simple as Ben Judah suggests.
The similarity between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats is both now inhabit small areas of strength surrounded by vast oceans of weakness. Occasionally, the LD and Conservative areas overlap as in Godalming and Farnham to give a couple of examples but in London for example the areas of LD strength in the south west saw the Conservatives almost excised at the beginning of the month.
Conversely, the Conservatives prospered in the south east and other parts of the other suburbs as well as inner south west London where the LDs are non existant and of course both parties have largely been removed from inner east London and even outer east London saw the Conservatives trounced in Havering.
The majority of the Conservatives and Lib Dems now in the Commons will be hard for the other three main parties to shift and indeed form a significant bloc to a majority Government.
So Byline Times say they have an archive of Reform Candidate former twitter account. If that's as bad as it gets, I am sure the Guardian types will be outraged (just as they were about him joking about rugby players with big knockers and water boarding people who eat their chips by the sea), but it isn't exactly that different from stuff Farage tweets (albeit he is usually a bit more careful to leave some wiggle room).
Reform candidate leans heavily anti-immigration and tweets at the likes of Dapper Laughs and Dan Wooton isn't exactly even takes £5 million off a crypto billionaire.
There're trying to make somthing of him calling for the police to release the name of the Southport suspect in this tweet. Invoking the Bulger case was supposedly "incendiary".
They can name him if it’s in the public’s interest, like they did with the Bulger killers.
So Byline Times say they have an archive of Reform Candidate former twitter account. If that's as bad as it gets, I am sure the Guardian types will be outraged (just as they were about him joking about rugby players with big knockers and water boarding people who eat their chips by the sea), but it isn't exactly that different from stuff Farage tweets (albeit he is usually a bit more careful to leave some wiggle room).
Reform candidate leans heavily anti-immigration and tweets at the likes of Dapper Laughs and Dan Wooton isn't exactly even takes £5 million off a crypto billionaire.
There're trying to make somthing of him calling for the police to release the name of the Southport suspect in this tweet. Invoking the Bulger case was supposedly "incendiary".
They can name him if it’s in the public’s interest, like they did with the Bulger killers.
We'll keep working our way back to eu babe - with a burning desire to rectify a serious mistake but all in the fullness of time and without the stress and angst that came with leaving.
No you won't, and if you did, we'd just take us out straight away again.
You fuckers aren't going to win.
But if support for Brexit remains where it is, let alone sinks further, surely the issue will be re-opened at some point?
The big advantage Brexiteers have at the the moment is that support for rejoining seems to shrink when people realise the terms on which we would need to re-enter (i.e money and free movement).
No. Your total failure to read the tea leaves correctly and think in only one dimension is your problem.
Not mine.
Nobody wants to go back to status quo ante referendum because the last decade would look a complete waste of time and effort.
The minor flaw in that argument is that it was a complete waste of time and effort.
From the header,
The reporting is quite balanced: about 8/10 Labour voters would rejoin, including pluralities in all the Leave-voting constituencies. But there is reluctance to reopen divisive debates. (This could be a brake on Labour rejoiners - though exhaustion also a brake on Reform in places like Makerfield)
In other words, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom that we're stuck with for fear of a family argument leading to the rewriting of someone's will. As I may have said before.
Then the questions become:
Is there a threshold where the pushback on joining doesn't have to be feared?
If so, what is that threshold?
If so, will passive factors cause that threshold to be reached?
If so, when?
If so, what do we all do in the meantime?
Other questions:
Brexit has been unpopular because its implementation is associated with some disastrous policies on immigration, and a general feeling of drift, malaise, and decline. What's the expiry date on this equation?
Is it feasible as time passes to continue to blame the country's many problems on some barriers to trade that came in in 2019?
How can a Government perform well and still leave room for 'everything being shit due to Brexit'?
Is is not inevitable that any Government that wants to govern well run into retained EU legislation, or things like the ECHR, and want to alter these laws to prevent bat tunnels, theme parks being stopped due to jumping spiders, and the other EU-origin absurdities making Britain ungovernable and uneconomical?
there are high speed railways being built all over EU countries with no bat tunnels, think you need to re-assess where our troubles lie.
France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and many other EU countries are all capable of building infrastructure at a fraction of the cost we do in the UK.
Something other than EU membership hampers our ability to invest in this country!!!
It has nothing to do with 'ability to invest' - the bat tunnel was a direct result of Natural England enforcing the EU's 2017 Habitats and Species Regulations, which are part of retained EU law.
If we wish to prevent future bat tunnels, we need to remove the retained law, and remove Natural England's legal right to enforce such laws without reference to Ministers. Doing so would mean we would no longer be aligned with EU species regulations, and make the prospect of rejoining harder and less attractive. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue that we should keep the country in a Miss Havisham-like state of being ready to marry the EU in the future, when their laws are serving our needs so poorly.
Yet these things do not arise anywhere else in the EU.
There are loads of km of high speed rail built all over Europe without any worries about bat tunnels.
Why can those other countries manage to build railways, countries with bats, without the need for tunnels ?
I will give you a clue, it is nothing to do with the EU.
They don't have so much tunneling through Tory constituencies imposed On them, either.
The bat tunnels are on sections where HS2 is not in a tunnel.
Neither of which are anything whatsoever to do with the EU, all down to decisions taken by the (Conservative led) HS2 Phase 1 Committee that reviewed the original bill.
You may want that to be true, and I don't blame you, but it isn't. Natural England has acknowledged advising HS2 that the bat tunnel would comply with the law - the only reason for even considering such a structure.
There's a law against people illegelly migrating to the UK. Why isn't that law enforced in the same way?
About 60,000 have been deported since the election.
We'll keep working our way back to eu babe - with a burning desire to rectify a serious mistake but all in the fullness of time and without the stress and angst that came with leaving.
No you won't, and if you did, we'd just take us out straight away again.
You fuckers aren't going to win.
But if support for Brexit remains where it is, let alone sinks further, surely the issue will be re-opened at some point?
The big advantage Brexiteers have at the the moment is that support for rejoining seems to shrink when people realise the terms on which we would need to re-enter (i.e money and free movement).
No. Your total failure to read the tea leaves correctly and think in only one dimension is your problem.
Not mine.
Nobody wants to go back to status quo ante referendum because the last decade would look a complete waste of time and effort.
The minor flaw in that argument is that it was a complete waste of time and effort.
From the header,
The reporting is quite balanced: about 8/10 Labour voters would rejoin, including pluralities in all the Leave-voting constituencies. But there is reluctance to reopen divisive debates. (This could be a brake on Labour rejoiners - though exhaustion also a brake on Reform in places like Makerfield)
In other words, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom that we're stuck with for fear of a family argument leading to the rewriting of someone's will. As I may have said before.
Then the questions become:
Is there a threshold where the pushback on joining doesn't have to be feared?
If so, what is that threshold?
If so, will passive factors cause that threshold to be reached?
If so, when?
If so, what do we all do in the meantime?
Other questions:
Brexit has been unpopular because its implementation is associated with some disastrous policies on immigration, and a general feeling of drift, malaise, and decline. What's the expiry date on this equation?
Is it feasible as time passes to continue to blame the country's many problems on some barriers to trade that came in in 2019?
How can a Government perform well and still leave room for 'everything being shit due to Brexit'?
Is is not inevitable that any Government that wants to govern well run into retained EU legislation, or things like the ECHR, and want to alter these laws to prevent bat tunnels, theme parks being stopped due to jumping spiders, and the other EU-origin absurdities making Britain ungovernable and uneconomical?
there are high speed railways being built all over EU countries with no bat tunnels, think you need to re-assess where our troubles lie.
France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and many other EU countries are all capable of building infrastructure at a fraction of the cost we do in the UK.
Something other than EU membership hampers our ability to invest in this country!!!
It has nothing to do with 'ability to invest' - the bat tunnel was a direct result of Natural England enforcing the EU's 2017 Habitats and Species Regulations, which are part of retained EU law.
If we wish to prevent future bat tunnels, we need to remove the retained law, and remove Natural England's legal right to enforce such laws without reference to Ministers. Doing so would mean we would no longer be aligned with EU species regulations, and make the prospect of rejoining harder and less attractive. But it is becoming increasingly hard to argue that we should keep the country in a Miss Havisham-like state of being ready to marry the EU in the future, when their laws are serving our needs so poorly.
Or we do what the rest of the EU does and ignore the bits that are awkward / expensive / pointless and use some other means of mitigation
We have shown ourselves completely incapable of taking that laissez faire attitude, ever since trading standards prowled the greengrocers of the land searching for people selling bananas by the pound.
It was hard then, but would be impossible now, with quangos that are established for the sole reason of enforcing these things, and staffed by people obsessed with doing so. Ministers have no legal right to intervene with these people and say 'come on son'. So how, practically, would we do what you suggest?
So it is in reality a UK problem then rather than an EU issue ?
If we could sort ourselves out locally, like the other 27 countries, it would not be a problem ?
The law is legally binding, meaning even if we did do a wink wink nudge nudge fudge, some newt-botherer could still sue and hold things up. I don't know how (or whether) they manage this on the Continent, but I don't see how we successfully manage to have a whole load of laws that we don't enforce.
I think a lot of it is simply overzealous officials and Parliament being too scared to tell the courts to go fuck themselves by using primary legislation to override adverse rulings.
Idea
For the next infrastructure project, Parliament declares that the route/site is French territory for x years.
Then we try other legal jurisdictions in rotation
The easiest way of passing an unchallengeable infrastructure project is to bring the whole thing in under primary legislation. That’s how railways were built in the 19th century. They would be a long and detailed bills but that’s the sort of oversight MPs are supposed to give. The habit of successive governments to delegate to themselves powers that were the preserve of Parliament is the reason why we get bogged down in the so-called “process state”. The ability of the law, through the courts, to challenge the executive makes that inevitable when the executive has been challengable since Magna Carta.
Once again Raducanu will never win a second Grand Slam. Simply not up to it.
Even if that's true, one grand slam is one more than the great majority of British players have achieved.
Indeed. Just look at Neil Armstrong, walked on the moon once. Never repeated the feat but he dined out on it for the rest of his life.
Yes. Support the one time wonders. Bob Massie at Lords 1972. 16 for 137. Test debut. Nothing much after. Emily Bronte only writes one novel. Just a better one than anyone else. Keats's annus mirabilis of 1819, aged 23 dying soon after.
We'll keep working our way back to eu babe - with a burning desire to rectify a serious mistake but all in the fullness of time and without the stress and angst that came with leaving.
No you won't, and if you did, we'd just take us out straight away again.
You fuckers aren't going to win.
But if support for Brexit remains where it is, let alone sinks further, surely the issue will be re-opened at some point?
The big advantage Brexiteers have at the the moment is that support for rejoining seems to shrink when people realise the terms on which we would need to re-enter (i.e money and free movement).
No. Your total failure to read the tea leaves correctly and think in only one dimension is your problem.
Not mine.
Nobody wants to go back to status quo ante referendum because the last decade would look a complete waste of time and effort.
The minor flaw in that argument is that it was a complete waste of time and effort.
From the header,
The reporting is quite balanced: about 8/10 Labour voters would rejoin, including pluralities in all the Leave-voting constituencies. But there is reluctance to reopen divisive debates. (This could be a brake on Labour rejoiners - though exhaustion also a brake on Reform in places like Makerfield)
In other words, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom that we're stuck with for fear of a family argument leading to the rewriting of someone's will. As I may have said before.
Then the questions become:
Is there a threshold where the pushback on joining doesn't have to be feared?
If so, what is that threshold?
If so, will passive factors cause that threshold to be reached?
If so, when?
If so, what do we all do in the meantime?
Other questions:
Brexit has been unpopular because its implementation is associated with some disastrous policies on immigration, and a general feeling of drift, malaise, and decline. What's the expiry date on this equation?
Is it feasible as time passes to continue to blame the country's many problems on some barriers to trade that came in in 2019?
How can a Government perform well and still leave room for 'everything being shit due to Brexit'?
Is is not inevitable that any Government that wants to govern well run into retained EU legislation, or things like the ECHR, and want to alter these laws to prevent bat tunnels, theme parks being stopped due to jumping spiders, and the other EU-origin absurdities making Britain ungovernable and uneconomical?
there are high speed railways being built all over EU countries with no bat tunnels, think you need to re-assess where our troubles lie.
France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and many other EU countries are all capable of building infrastructure at a fraction of the cost we do in the UK.
Something other than EU membership hampers our ability to invest in this country!!!
It has nothing to do with 'ability to invest' - the bat tunnel was a direct result of Natural England enforcing the EU's 2017 Habitats and Species Regulations, which are part of retained EU law.
If we wish to prevent future bat tunnels, we need to remove the retained law, and remove Natural England's legal right to enforce such laws without reference to Ministers. Doing so would mean we would no longer be aligned with EU species regulations, and make the prospect of rejoining harder and less attractive. But it is becoming increasingly hard to argue that we should keep the country in a Miss Havisham-like state of being ready to marry the EU in the future, when their laws are serving our needs so poorly.
Or we do what the rest of the EU does and ignore the bits that are awkward / expensive / pointless and use some other means of mitigation
We have shown ourselves completely incapable of taking that laissez faire attitude, ever since trading standards prowled the greengrocers of the land searching for people selling bananas by the pound.
It was hard then, but would be impossible now, with quangos that are established for the sole reason of enforcing these things, and staffed by people obsessed with doing so. Ministers have no legal right to intervene with these people and say 'come on son'. So how, practically, would we do what you suggest?
So it is in reality a UK problem then rather than an EU issue ?
If we could sort ourselves out locally, like the other 27 countries, it would not be a problem ?
The law is legally binding, meaning even if we did do a wink wink nudge nudge fudge, some newt-botherer could still sue and hold things up. I don't know how (or whether) they manage this on the Continent, but I don't see how we successfully manage to have a whole load of laws that we don't enforce.
I think a lot of it is simply overzealous officials and Parliament being too scared to tell the courts to go fuck themselves by using primary legislation to override adverse rulings.
Idea
For the next infrastructure project, Parliament declares that the route/site is French territory for x years.
Then we try other legal jurisdictions in rotation
The easiest way of passing an unchallengeable infrastructure project is to bring the whole thing in under primary legislation. That’s how railways were built in the 19th century. They would be a long and detailed bills but that’s the sort of oversight MPs are supposed to give. The habit of successive governments to delegate to themselves powers that were the preserve of Parliament is the reason why we get bogged down in the so-called “process state”. The ability of the law, through the courts, to challenge the executive makes that inevitable when the executive has been challengable since Magna Carta.
Yup - I’ve long advocated a return to the Railway Act style of legislation for big infrastructure projects.
I’ve heard it said that the modern legal profession would try and challenge such - which makes the law makers hesitant to start a legal fight on the primacy of Parliament.
I've been considering the header. No doubt the gears could be heard from dark corners.
So... as I've previously said Burnham will be a disaster. Full on faceplant. What he'll also do is propel Reform into government because his EU stance. (Actually his silly on the fence stance - in, out, do the hokey cokey, and there's still the grinning loon Burnham. FFS turn around!)
Once again Raducanu will never win a second Grand Slam. Simply not up to it.
Even if that's true, one grand slam is one more than the great majority of British players have achieved.
Indeed. Just look at Neil Armstrong, walked on the moon once. Never repeated the feat but he dined out on it for the rest of his life.
Yes. Support the one time wonders. Bob Massie at Lords 1972. 16 for 137. Test debut. Nothing much after. Emily Bronte only writes one novel. Just a better one than anyone else. Keats's annus mirabilis of 1819, aged 23 dying soon after.
And, of course, who could forget Babylon Zoo's seminal Spaceman.
Once again Raducanu will never win a second Grand Slam. Simply not up to it.
Even if that's true, one grand slam is one more than the great majority of British players have achieved.
It is, and she will always have that. It’s such a shame as when she broke through it looked like she could be an all time great, but I don’t think she has enough grit in here. Murray made the most of what he had, worked himself doubly hard in order to try to be near the level of the big three. I see little evidence that Raducanu has the same level of drive. That and her inability to stick with a coach sends a message.
She took her chance when it came. She didn't choose who she had to play against. She added enormously to the gaiety of nations. She won one more major than me and one more than Tim Henman. She is the 37th best woman player in the world out of a female population of four billion. Give her a break.
Report in the Sunday Times that some civil service unions might refuse to cooperate with an incoming Reform government.
I'm not Reform, but this yanks my chain.
The voters are in charge. If they elect a Reform government you bloody well jump to it, same as Green, Labour, LD, Conservative, YourParty or anyone else.
I think it would be a mistake. The ability of the British State to capture political movements, and moderate them, is a defining feature! Look at the Labour Party, or even the SNP cohort in Westminster. Wasn't one of them looking for a seat in the Lords recently? If Reform are denied their proper place, victory would make them even angrier than it normally does.
Civil Servants are obviously free to resign if they don't want to, or feel they are unable to, implement the policies of a Reform Government.
If the Civil Service or even a fraction of it failed to co-operate then that is Gold for the government. Serious sackings and probably removal of accrued pension rights.
The story is rolling strikes because Reform is threatening job losses. Of course that’s not the actual reason but it stays the right side of the law
It’s not clear to me whether the relegation of the Tories into the Lib-Dems of the Right will hold long term. But if it does the Tories becoming an essentially southern, upper middle class, free market party will soften their stance down from the hardest of Brexits only over time. Already some 40% of their voters polled said they’d vote Rejoin in a referendum. https://x.com/b_judah/status/2058451267316281511
It's not as simple as Ben Judah suggests.
The similarity between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats is both now inhabit small areas of strength surrounded by vast oceans of weakness. Occasionally, the LD and Conservative areas overlap as in Godalming and Farnham to give a couple of examples but in London for example the areas of LD strength in the south west saw the Conservatives almost excised at the beginning of the month.
Conversely, the Conservatives prospered in the south east and other parts of the other suburbs as well as inner south west London where the LDs are non existant and of course both parties have largely been removed from inner east London and even outer east London saw the Conservatives trounced in Havering.
The majority of the Conservatives and Lib Dems now in the Commons will be hard for the other three main parties to shift and indeed form a significant bloc to a majority Government.
While I agree with the general thesis, do you think the Conservatives are still going to have about 120 seats at the next election? My sense is that they are likely to be in the 90-150 range so 120 is definitely possible - but they could equally be 25% down or 25% up.
Once again Raducanu will never win a second Grand Slam. Simply not up to it.
Even if that's true, one grand slam is one more than the great majority of British players have achieved.
Indeed. Just look at Neil Armstrong, walked on the moon once. Never repeated the feat but he dined out on it for the rest of his life.
Yes. Support the one time wonders. Bob Massie at Lords 1972. 16 for 137. Test debut. Nothing much after. Emily Bronte only writes one novel. Just a better one than anyone else. Keats's annus mirabilis of 1819, aged 23 dying soon after.
And, of course, who could forget Babylon Zoo's seminal Spaceman.
Once again Raducanu will never win a second Grand Slam. Simply not up to it.
Even if that's true, one grand slam is one more than the great majority of British players have achieved.
Indeed. Just look at Neil Armstrong, walked on the moon once. Never repeated the feat but he dined out on it for the rest of his life.
Yes. Support the one time wonders. Bob Massie at Lords 1972. 16 for 137. Test debut. Nothing much after. Emily Bronte only writes one novel. Just a better one than anyone else. Keats's annus mirabilis of 1819, aged 23 dying soon after.
And, of course, who could forget Babylon Zoo's seminal Spaceman.
And Joe Dolce “Shaddup a ya face.”
Ultravox will certainly never forget that one.
Though, of course, Joe's effort was the better song.
We'll keep working our way back to eu babe - with a burning desire to rectify a serious mistake but all in the fullness of time and without the stress and angst that came with leaving.
No you won't, and if you did, we'd just take us out straight away again.
You fuckers aren't going to win.
But if support for Brexit remains where it is, let alone sinks further, surely the issue will be re-opened at some point?
The big advantage Brexiteers have at the the moment is that support for rejoining seems to shrink when people realise the terms on which we would need to re-enter (i.e money and free movement).
No. Your total failure to read the tea leaves correctly and think in only one dimension is your problem.
Not mine.
Nobody wants to go back to status quo ante referendum because the last decade would look a complete waste of time and effort.
The minor flaw in that argument is that it was a complete waste of time and effort.
From the header,
The reporting is quite balanced: about 8/10 Labour voters would rejoin, including pluralities in all the Leave-voting constituencies. But there is reluctance to reopen divisive debates. (This could be a brake on Labour rejoiners - though exhaustion also a brake on Reform in places like Makerfield)
In other words, Brexit is a ghastly heirloom that we're stuck with for fear of a family argument leading to the rewriting of someone's will. As I may have said before.
Then the questions become:
Is there a threshold where the pushback on joining doesn't have to be feared?
If so, what is that threshold?
If so, will passive factors cause that threshold to be reached?
If so, when?
If so, what do we all do in the meantime?
Other questions:
Brexit has been unpopular because its implementation is associated with some disastrous policies on immigration, and a general feeling of drift, malaise, and decline. What's the expiry date on this equation?
Is it feasible as time passes to continue to blame the country's many problems on some barriers to trade that came in in 2019?
How can a Government perform well and still leave room for 'everything being shit due to Brexit'?
Is is not inevitable that any Government that wants to govern well run into retained EU legislation, or things like the ECHR, and want to alter these laws to prevent bat tunnels, theme parks being stopped due to jumping spiders, and the other EU-origin absurdities making Britain ungovernable and uneconomical?
there are high speed railways being built all over EU countries with no bat tunnels, think you need to re-assess where our troubles lie.
France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and many other EU countries are all capable of building infrastructure at a fraction of the cost we do in the UK.
Something other than EU membership hampers our ability to invest in this country!!!
It has nothing to do with 'ability to invest' - the bat tunnel was a direct result of Natural England enforcing the EU's 2017 Habitats and Species Regulations, which are part of retained EU law.
If we wish to prevent future bat tunnels, we need to remove the retained law, and remove Natural England's legal right to enforce such laws without reference to Ministers. Doing so would mean we would no longer be aligned with EU species regulations, and make the prospect of rejoining harder and less attractive. But it is becoming increasingly hard to argue that we should keep the country in a Miss Havisham-like state of being ready to marry the EU in the future, when their laws are serving our needs so poorly.
Or we do what the rest of the EU does and ignore the bits that are awkward / expensive / pointless and use some other means of mitigation
We have shown ourselves completely incapable of taking that laissez faire attitude, ever since trading standards prowled the greengrocers of the land searching for people selling bananas by the pound.
It was hard then, but would be impossible now, with quangos that are established for the sole reason of enforcing these things, and staffed by people obsessed with doing so. Ministers have no legal right to intervene with these people and say 'come on son'. So how, practically, would we do what you suggest?
So it is in reality a UK problem then rather than an EU issue ?
If we could sort ourselves out locally, like the other 27 countries, it would not be a problem ?
The law is legally binding, meaning even if we did do a wink wink nudge nudge fudge, some newt-botherer could still sue and hold things up. I don't know how (or whether) they manage this on the Continent, but I don't see how we successfully manage to have a whole load of laws that we don't enforce.
I think a lot of it is simply overzealous officials and Parliament being too scared to tell the courts to go fuck themselves by using primary legislation to override adverse rulings.
They are overzealous, but the entire point of these quangos is to enforce these laws without reference to parliament or ministers. You could legislate to take that away, but effectively you are still disapplying retained EU law.
Comments
Instead we start a project and then go make the set of newly competent skilled workers unemployed as we don’t have the next project ready to go
Instead we start a project and then go make the set of newly competent skilled workers unemployed as we don’t have the next project ready to go
There are loads of km of high speed rail built all over Europe without any worries about bat tunnels.
Why can those other countries manage to build railways, countries with bats, without the need for tunnels ?
I will give you a clue, it is nothing to do with the EU.
It was hard then, but would be impossible now, with quangos that are established for the sole reason of enforcing these things, and staffed by people obsessed with doing so. Ministers have no legal right to intervene with these people and say 'come on son'. So how, practically, would we do what you suggest?
Neither of which are anything whatsoever to do with the EU, all down to decisions taken by the (Conservative led) HS2 Phase 1 Committee that reviewed the original bill.
Is that the Essex rifles arriving to take up their positions, in a commandeered train?
Leeds 0
If we could sort ourselves out locally, like the other 27 countries, it would not be a problem ?
They can name him if it’s in the public’s interest, like they did with the Bulger killers.
@Makerfield_RFK to @OliLondonTV — 29 July 2024
Fairly warm even here in downtown East London where the smell of the barbecue mixes with the hint of a breeze off the Estuary.
As one of that rare breed, a 2015 LD voter who voted Leave in 2016 (apparently not as rare as I think, 30% of the admittedly small 2015 LD vote did the same), I find the sheer reflexive defensiveness of those on the "winning" side curious.
We aren't going back, certainly any time soon yet the slightest hint of even the possibility provokes a near Pavlovian response.
I didn't vote Leave for notions of a Global Britain akin to the Crimson Permanent Assurance but simply because we couldn't go on as we were with our half-hearted, rebate obsessed membership. Ever since Messina, there have only been two credible positions - either completely in, leading the way, enthusiastically forEuropean Union or completely out, on the sidelines but wishing the project well.
Thanks to the Conservative Party of blessed memory, we ended up doing neither the one nor the other.
We wasted so much time and effort while the much more serious problems of the country went neglected and unresolved.
God help me, I'm starting to sound like Reform or Restore but the answer to the last 50 years isn't to blame civil servants or deport large numbers of the population - we all know that.
Aston Villa 2, Man City 1
I will repeat, 27 other EU countries do not have this problem.
You many want this to be true, but the reality is every other EU country can build infrastructure at a cost much lower than the UK irrespective of EU law.
The problem is local to the UK and you are chasing a false enemy to blame the EU.
Other EU countries do have this problem. Other developed EU nations are also struggling to invest in infrastructure.
The problem is governments, both domestic and EU, have piled on layer after layer of paperwork all with good intentions but now it is almost impossible to do anything because of it.
And we interpret EU law with a dogmatic "the law must be applied" mentality which some EU nations take more flexibly.
Spain, France, Italy and Poland are having no trouble building new high speed railways in recent years (whilst HS2 has been under construction), every one of them has EU law layered on their state.
literally never heard any other politician suggest it needs major reform
Davey Moyes sure took his revenge today, didn't he?
An “embarrassing” tranche of messages set to be released will expose the “cosy relationship” between Government ministers and disgraced peer Lord Peter Mandelson
Spain have done really well building high speed rail in recent years, but high speed rail serves them well. They need to travel vast distances to travel around the country and it is being built across largely low value, uninhabited land.
Whereas we travel small distances across high value high planning restrictions land.
We should not be obsessing over speed. We need capacity and connections.
We should be connecting cities like across the North that are not well connected, not obsessing with speed on routes that are already connected.
We need to deal with our planning system. That gold plates all regulations including EU.
Burnham will be a scourge - way worse than Leon.
https://swingometer.substack.com/p/the-makerfield-by-election-high-risk
Reality is, if you came up with the optimal design to meet what you suggest needs addressing it would include HS2 Phase 2B along with NPR from Liverpool to Manchester (which shares HS2 tracks).
If you are going to build a new railway which will carry passengers between cities apart the distance Manchester is to Brum you are going to build something that can run ~320km/h in 2026.
(I do vaguely know what you might be alluding to, but rather choose not)
For the next infrastructure project, Parliament declares that the route/site is French territory for x years.
Then we try other legal jurisdictions in rotation
The similarity between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats is both now inhabit small areas of strength surrounded by vast oceans of weakness. Occasionally, the LD and Conservative areas overlap as in Godalming and Farnham to give a couple of examples but in London for example the areas of LD strength in the south west saw the Conservatives almost excised at the beginning of the month.
Conversely, the Conservatives prospered in the south east and other parts of the other suburbs as well as inner south west London where the LDs are non existant and of course both parties have largely been removed from inner east London and even outer east London saw the Conservatives trounced in Havering.
The majority of the Conservatives and Lib Dems now in the Commons will be hard for the other three main parties to shift and indeed form a significant bloc to a majority Government.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3pxqgQ6dTg&t=438s
Here’s one they managed -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/Will4/6-7/75/pdfs/ukla_18360075_en.pdf
I’ve heard it said that the modern legal profession would try and challenge such - which makes the law makers hesitant to start a legal fight on the primacy of Parliament.
So... as I've previously said Burnham will be a disaster. Full on faceplant. What he'll also do is propel Reform into government because his EU stance. (Actually his silly on the fence stance - in, out, do the hokey cokey, and there's still the grinning loon Burnham. FFS turn around!)
“US and Iran agree in principle to a deal, then disagree on every single clause.” a European official speaking to Faytuks Network says
Though, of course, Joe's effort was the better song.