I refer honourable PBers to my previous post. Not because it was any good, but because the link is important
Wolfgang Munchau (very astute on EU matters, and fairly EU-agnostic, by FT standards) nails the future. It will be Norway, and he explains why. I relink, here
Thalation increase which they attribute to EU membership is unsustainable.
Boris is pro-migration so is Hannan, I don't think Cash especially cares. Etc. For them it's all about sovereignty.
Besides the point is they will HAVE to do this, or face economic meltdown, the destruction of the City, desertion of party donors. Choices are narrowing, by the day.
This is just about the only solution which looks remotely democratic (i.e. we really are LEAVING) while saving the economy
For the people who just voted leave, the primary expression of lack of sovereignty is immigration. They are seriously playing with fire if this is on the table.
We're already playing with fire. The economy might burn down. Our choices are dwindling, as I say
I have never seen such panic as these latest posts on PB. It's frantic; it's manic, and SeanT, who should know better, is leader of the pack.
It's not panic, there is a clear and present danger to our economy. But it can be saved if we keep cool heads, and go for Norway, as Munchau says. That respects the vote - LEAVE, and keeps the single market intact.
It would secure 60% of the electorate in a vote.
What we can't do is just wait, and wait, and wait, and piddle about with all this non-triggering Article 50 stuff, or call a new referendum thingy, forever. It sound nice in theory, but in practise it means companies stop investing, money stops flowing, people stop spending, as they wait to see what happens. Paralysis. And that IS disaster.
On Sept 2 the new Tory leader should (and I reckon will) come out and say We're going for EEA, keeping the single market, and some new form of Free movement, with new restrictions on benefits.
Remember, that new Tory leader will HAVE to own a concrete and coherent plan. It will surely be this.
I think they'll need a general election first though (late September/early October) to get support from the electorate. What they don't want to risk is another referendum (unlike what the idiot Jeremy Hunt is saying) after the negotiation.
What we are witnessing is the death of the Labour party as a potential party of government. The Labour membership would prefer that to allowing a "Blairite" (ie, anyone who is not Jeremy Corbyn) to be leader. The comfort blanket is too warm, the membership - largely well-off and unaffected personally by Tory policy - too detached from real life. Labour will develop into a full-blown socialist party and will gradually wither away into complete irrelevance. A new centre-left party will take its place. All that, though, will take time.
Unfortunately, what it means is that a right wing Tory government that needs just 37% of the vote to stay in power will negotiate the terms of Brexit largely unscrutinised and unopposed. And that will result in a deal which will hurt ordinary voters and alienate them even further from the political process.
That's how decent Jeremy Corbyn is.
This is the deal the Tories will negotiate, under May (or maybe even Boris).
The Norway option, with Free movement and a promise of another vote in ten years.
There aren't enough die-hard anti-migrationists in the Tory party to stop it. Most Tory LEAVERS are in the Hannan camp: Sovereigntists. They will be content with this, the City will be content with this. Labour and UKIP wwc voters will not be content, but the Tories won't care
There is also a way for us to square the immigration circle. May (or Boris) should propose, along with joining EEA, that our benefits system becomes contributory, thus ending much of the pull factor
This would also be popular with quite a lot of voters, in itself.
The only way it works is if just British born citizens get auto benefits - everyone else is excluded. Even then, it's The Establishment trying to get around what the populace believed they voted for.
It does politicians no favours to subvert what the people decided. Sovereignty and control are inimical with FoM.
You can largely solve that by saying "anyone who's been resident here for eight years".
There is also a way for us to square the immigration circle. May (or Boris) should propose, along with joining EEA, that our benefits system becomes contributory, thus ending much of the pull factor
This would also be popular with quite a lot of voters, in itself.
The only way it works is if just British born citizens get auto benefits - everyone else is excluded. Even then, it's The Establishment trying to get around what the populace believed they voted for.
It does politicians no favours to subvert what the people decided. Sovereignty and control are inimical with FoM.
So not naturalized British citizens? Great way to divide society even further.
This isn't a select committee. The broad thrust of a contributory system has some merit. I just doubt our political masters have the balls to tackle health, pension and welfare reform.
I noticed from Cooper's remarks that she still doesn't get it. One million people every three years. It's not difficult to understand.
If we go for the Norway option we still have that. We may find that that is the best option available but it is going to be hugely unpopular. It was not in my top 3 concerns but no one can seriously argue that Leave was not about controlling immigration.
Could the new Prime Minister take the following approach.
1. Make it clear from the outset that for economic reasons they feel it is imperative to remain in the Single Market. This would placate the markets.
2. Say that they will strive to get a deal on Free Movement and contributions but that this may not be achievable in the short term.
3. Try to achieve 2. but if unsuccessful in the short term then sign up to EFTA/EEA, the Norway model.
4. Continue to negotiate for 2. after 3.
This would "honour" the outcome of the referendum. The UK would leave the EU. What alternative relationship the UK would have with the EU was not voted on in the referendum. A lot of people would be very unhappy re not achieving 2. in the short term but it would remain an aim of the government. However achieving both 1. and 2. in the short term is likely to be unachievable and so something has to give - and the new PM feels 1. has to trump 2.
Some right dafties on here - only one issue was decided last week - that we should leave the EU.
And it was very close.
Now for the government to set out a course - which due to the closeness of the result may well be a compromise on some topics - but if you don't like it vote against them in the next GE.
That's it - what Sir Bufton Tufton of Britain for Independence said on the hustings in Cleethorpes 2 months ago is utterly irrelevant.
I refer honourable PBers to my previous post. Not because it was any good, but because the link is important
Wolfgang Munchau (very astute on EU matters, and fairly EU-agnostic, by FT standards) nails the future. It will be Norway, and he explains why. I relink, here
That's very much a City view, though. When he says "A time-limited but speedily agreed Norway option would respect the will of the voters, the political reality in the UK and in the EU, prove economically least costly and it is flexible", he's right on the last two points, arguably right on the second, but completely wrong on the first.
Will it end up with anti-free-movement Leave voters being betrayed? Given the speed of buyers' remorse, which has frankly caught me by surprise, it's not unimaginable, as I thought it would be before the referendum. But there would certainly be one hell of a political cost to it.
Also, I don't think you are right that most Tory Leavers are Hannan-style libertarians. In my experience migration is one their strongest reasons for wanting to leave the EU, essentially because they think the population increase which they attribute to EU membership is unsustainable.
Boris is pro-migration so is Hannan, I don't think Cash especially cares. Etc. For them it's all about sovereignty.
Besides the point is they will HAVE to do this, or face economic meltdown, the destruction of the City, desertion of party donors. Choices are narrowing, by the day.
This is just about the only solution which looks remotely democratic (i.e. we really are LEAVING) while saving the economy
For the people who just voted leave, the primary expression of lack of sovereignty is immigration. They are seriously playing with fire if this is on the table.
We're already playing with fire. The economy might burn down. Our choices are dwindling, as I say
Oh FFS. Are you like this at home too?
Let's have Chinese. I've ordered it.
Oh, I think Indian would be nicer.
But I've ordered Chinese.
Actually, I fancy a pizza.
But the delivery guy will be here in 10 mins. Should I call to cancel my order? Will they hate me now?
Now ordered Indian. But what if the delivery guy didn't get the cancellation? How can I not tip him?
Norway means Open Borders. Munchau rarely (ever?) considers/sees a problem there. Some party will have to sell it to the People at an election/ref. Good luck with that.
It also means having to obey every EU single market directive, no matter how idiotic, and having no say in how they are made, doesn't it? Also making massive annual contributions. I can't see it working in the medium term, though it would undoubtedly calm industry and finance in the short term.
I think Switzerland is better than Norway, though hardly perfect.
R4 Wato stating Dan Jarvis has ruled himself out which leaves Eagle and Watson to fight it out for contender against Corbyn.Eagle is still the value bet but the price keeps contracting.25s will do me.
Yes, well she's the obvious choice, an oven-ready, Corbyn-untainted PM-in-waiting who could match Theresa May for seriousness and make Boris look like a smirking schoolboy.
Labour would be out of their minds not to choose her as Corbyn's replacement. So it won't be her, I guess.
I see there is talk of a Southgate/Hoddle dream ticket. A desire to go back to the relative glory days of the 90s when only penalties could stop England and the Prime minister was loved by everyone.
The PLP might buy into that - but they would have to find them a couple of safe seats first of course.
It's bound to be May. The horrific aftermath of Brexit and all that immigration duplicity can then be blamed on silly old Boris. The Tories need to put clear blue water now between themselves and the whole Leave racket.
Erm...apart from the fact that all the rhetoric on immigration came from UKIP. Boris and Gove fought hard to ensure Vote Leave was the voice of Leave and not Farage. They fought almost all on sovereignty. UKIP own the nastiness not Boris. He can easily distance himself from it, starting with Farage's somewhat incendiary (but not wrong) speech in the EU Parliament today.
I totally disagree. Vote Leave made the catastrophic attempt of thinking they could publicly differentiate themselves from Farage by excluding him, but in fact all they did is infuriate Farage's camp, and the anti-Brexit lobby made no distinction at all. Far better to have included him from the start and tried to keep him on message. I don't think any of the frothers think good Leaver bad Leaver - they are interchangeable. One of the most popular social media post-Brexit memes is Farage 'admitting' the £350million on the NHS was a mistake. It wasn't even his Bus.
The absolute crapness of Vote Leave is demonstrated by their total post-Brexit silence on social media. Look at their facebook - thanks for voting folks - bye. By comparison, Leave.EU are still pumping out very good content, debunking the disaster tales etc.
Norway means Open Borders. Munchau rarely (ever?) considers/sees a problem there. Some party will have to sell it to the People at an election/ref. Good luck with that.
It also means having to obey every EU single market directive, no matter how idiotic, and having no say in how they are made, doesn't it? Also making massive annual contributions. I can't see it working in the medium term, though it would undoubtedly calm industry and finance in the short term.
I think Switzerland is better than Norway, though hardly perfect.
The contribution would be far smaller than we pay now - both Robert Smithson and I using EFTA's own calculations came up with a total UK contribution of around £2 billion gross compared to £15 billion gross at the moment.
The amount of EU legislation that applies to the single market is less than 10% of what we are subjected to now.
Norway means Open Borders. Munchau rarely (ever?) considers/sees a problem there. Some party will have to sell it to the People at an election/ref. Good luck with that.
It also means having to obey every EU single market directive, no matter how idiotic, and having no say in how they are made, doesn't it? Also making massive annual contributions. I can't see it working in the medium term, though it would undoubtedly calm industry and finance in the short term.
I think Switzerland is better than Norway.
I think it's going to be a test of the EU. If they can't manage a custom deal for the UK, they're doomed (note for pedants: we might be doomed too of course).
The problem, as SeanT has pointed out, is that a custom deal takes years, during which there will be enormous uncertainty. As the two year mark ticks closer, those firms - particularly in financial services - who depend on Financial Passporting will have to move operations abroad "just in case".
So not naturalized British citizens? Great way to divide society even further.
They are both stupid ideas. Benefits should be payable only to those who have paid into the system for a minimum of 12 out of the last 24 months. Doesn't matter where you're from or what nationality you are. Naturalised, born here, commonwealth citizen, EU citizen. Everyone should get the same bloody treatment, let's just fix the fucking benefits system once and for all. I'm sick of hearing about how British citizens are out competed by EU citizens, until we have a benefits system that incentiveses work and an education system fit for purpose, everything else is just treating the symptoms. Mass immigration is caused by a badly designed benefits system and rubbish education system, let's fix those.
If Yvette is interested, I'll back her (again). Last time, I put her #1, unenthusiastically. Because both she and Burnham were being so careful as to what to say that they were coming up with "if on the one hand, ......."
I think she will have learnt from that. Plus Brexit has already happened. Representing a Yorkshire seat, she will have far more understanding of the Labour WWC proble.
She is definitely a ready-made package. But she won't get it.
Norway means Open Borders. Munchau rarely (ever?) considers/sees a problem there. Some party will have to sell it to the People at an election/ref. Good luck with that.
It also means having to obey every EU single market directive, no matter how idiotic, and having no say in how they are made, doesn't it? Also making massive annual contributions. I can't see it working in the medium term, though it would undoubtedly calm industry and finance in the short term.
I think Switzerland is better than Norway.
I think it's going to be a test of the EU. If they can't manage a custom deal for the UK, they're doomed (note for pedants: we might be doomed too of course).
Agree with that. The EU negotiations with the UK will reveal if the EU is really a prison or not. A shitty deal for the UK will seriously deepen the grief in countries like NL, France, Italy and Sweden. I have precisely zero faith that the EU machine is not just this stupid and dogmatic though. The EU is going to come apart and all this speculation will be moot.
I don't know why we bothered to vote Leave. If it is economically impossible to leave the EU, then we have already lost our sovereignty.
We have, and have always had, our Sovereignty. Even Brexiteer Chris Grayling said so last night
What we get as a member of the EU is economic leverage.
Hang on, on Wednesday night (when you thought "victory was at the hand for REMAIN) you was claiming the next time we have an "In/Out" referendum you'd have no problems "sticking it to the EU?"
Wow Kezia Dugdale actually giving a decent speach, feels raw, real and utterly heartfelt. Of course its cos she's attacking the Tories. Maybe she will learn.
"She said, only the Tories can be trusted to protect Britain. Well, Ruth, how's that going now?"
Norway means Open Borders. Munchau rarely (ever?) considers/sees a problem there. Some party will have to sell it to the People at an election/ref. Good luck with that.
It also means having to obey every EU single market directive, no matter how idiotic, and having no say in how they are made, doesn't it? Also making massive annual contributions. I can't see it working in the medium term, though it would undoubtedly calm industry and finance in the short term.
I think Switzerland is better than Norway.
I think it's going to be a test of the EU. If they can't manage a custom deal for the UK, they're doomed (note for pedants: we might be doomed too of course).
Quite. I find the notion that the UK needs to copy exactly what Norway does frankly bizarre.
We're the 5th largest economy on the planet. Norway is 16th.
I don't know why we bothered to vote Leave. If it is economically impossible to leave the EU, then we have already lost our sovereignty.
During the campaign Mr Hannan described Brexit as a process, rather than a sudden break.
Incremental change, at first looks a lot like membership, less so over time.
Yes, in 10 years time when the economy is much less reliant on the EU our membership of the single market may just look academic. Already the figures aren't far away, our exports to the EU account for 9.7% of GDP and their exports to the UK account for between 3.5% and 4% of EU GDP depending on who's figures you use. It won't be long until those figures are close enough to say that they need us more than we need them.
So not naturalized British citizens? Great way to divide society even further.
They are both stupid ideas. Benefits should be payable only to those who have paid into the system for a minimum of 12 out of the last 24 months. Doesn't matter where you're from or what nationality you are. Naturalised, born here, commonwealth citizen, EU citizen. Everyone should get the same bloody treatment, let's just fix the fucking benefits system once and for all. I'm sick of hearing about how British citizens are out competed by EU citizens, until we have a benefits system that incentiveses work and an education system fit for purpose, everything else is just treating the symptoms. Mass immigration is caused by a badly designed benefits system and rubbish education system, let's fix those.
Norway means Open Borders. Munchau rarely (ever?) considers/sees a problem there. Some party will have to sell it to the People at an election/ref. Good luck with that.
It also means having to obey every EU single market directive, no matter how idiotic, and having no say in how they are made, doesn't it? Also making massive annual contributions. I can't see it working in the medium term, though it would undoubtedly calm industry and finance in the short term.
I think Switzerland is better than Norway.
I think it's going to be a test of the EU. If they can't manage a custom deal for the UK, they're doomed (note for pedants: we might be doomed too of course).
The problem, as SeanT has pointed out, is that a custom deal takes years, during which there will be enormous uncertainty. As the two year mark ticks closer, those firms - particularly in financial services - who depend on Financial Passporting will have to move operations abroad "just in case".
OK, I've a lot of respect for your views in this space.
I'm still going to go and look at some of the bilateral trade flows - numbers are my thing. I suspect that our European trade will be dominated by six or seven countries - probably the same as those that host the European element of the British diaspora.
Labour MPs seem to forget that in a lot of their strongholds outside London (and even a couple within London, like Barking), people voted in droves to LEAVE, and so were more in tune with LABOUR LEAVE than LABOUR REMAIN.
F*cking immigrants - that's what it was all about - scary times ahead.
I have worked in both Newham and Redbridge within the last year and listened to complaints about street drinking, mini-cab drivers having their wages undercut, closed shops on employment, etc.
None of it from Tories, Kippers or white people.
Isn't it Uber rather than the immigrants that are cutting minicab wages? And Amazon is destroying High Street jobs everywhere.
Not in this case, Robert.
The closed shop was someone vociferously complaining that the community had changed and he could no longer find work in his trade because his face did not fit with the newly arrived community. Neither the community nor complainant were white British.
A lot of grievances cross racial lines but some pretend it's only a wwc thing.
Could the new Prime Minister take the following approach.
1. Make it clear from the outset that for economic reasons they feel it is imperative to remain in the Single Market. This would placate the markets.
2. Say that they will strive to get a deal on Free Movement and contributions but that this may not be achievable in the short term.
3. Try to achieve 2. but if unsuccessful in the short term then sign up to EFTA/EEA, the Norway model.
4. Continue to negotiate for 2. after 3.
This would "honour" the outcome of the referendum. The UK would leave the EU. What alternative relationship the UK would have with the EU was not voted on in the referendum. A lot of people would be very unhappy re not achieving 2. in the short term but it would remain an aim of the government. However achieving both 1. and 2. in the short term is likely to be unachievable and so something has to give - and the new PM feels 1. has to trump 2.
2. Say that they will strive to get a deal on Free Movement and contributions but that this may not be achievable in the short term.
I am sure that Diane Abbot could fill 2 or even 3 seats at a push.
Oh dear - so funny!
You know it is a cliché that sarcasm doesn't work over the internet but in this case I think you have cracked it. You're right, not one of my better efforts.
You misunderstood me - it really got me - I nearly embarrassed myself with mirth!
Norway means Open Borders. Munchau rarely (ever?) considers/sees a problem there. Some party will have to sell it to the People at an election/ref. Good luck with that.
It also means having to obey every EU single market directive, no matter how idiotic, and having no say in how they are made, doesn't it? Also making massive annual contributions. I can't see it working in the medium term, though it would undoubtedly calm industry and finance in the short term.
I think Switzerland is better than Norway, though hardly perfect.
The contribution would be far smaller than we pay now - both Robert Smithson and I using EFTA's own calculations came up with a total UK contribution of around £2 billion gross compared to £15 billion gross at the moment.
The amount of EU legislation that applies to the single market is less than 10% of what we are subjected to now.
The danger is that wider legislation gets labelled single market.
I think that's how the EU got round our social policy opt out.
If Yvette is interested, I'll back her (again). Last time, I put her #1, unenthusiastically. Because both she and Burnham were being so careful as to what to say that they were coming up with "if on the one hand, ......."
I think she will have learnt from that. Plus Brexit has already happened. Representing a Yorkshire seat, she will have far more understanding of the Labour WWC proble.
She is definitely a ready-made package. But she won't get it.
Am I the only one who thinks Yvette is quite... errrr... cute?
If Yvette is interested, I'll back her (again). Last time, I put her #1, unenthusiastically. Because both she and Burnham were being so careful as to what to say that they were coming up with "if on the one hand, ......."
I think she will have learnt from that. Plus Brexit has already happened. Representing a Yorkshire seat, she will have far more understanding of the Labour WWC proble.
She is definitely a ready-made package. But she won't get it.
Am I the only one who thinks quite... errrr... cute.
If Yvette is interested, I'll back her (again). Last time, I put her #1, unenthusiastically. Because both she and Burnham were being so careful as to what to say that they were coming up with "if on the one hand, ......."
I think she will have learnt from that. Plus Brexit has already happened. Representing a Yorkshire seat, she will have far more understanding of the Labour WWC proble.
She is definitely a ready-made package. But she won't get it.
Am I the only one who thinks Yvette is quite... errrr... cute?
You do realise that you are aligning yourself with Ed Balls with those comments...
Norway means Open Borders. Munchau rarely (ever?) considers/sees a problem there. Some party will have to sell it to the People at an election/ref. Good luck with that.
It also means having to obey every EU single market directive, no matter how idiotic, and having no say in how they are made, doesn't it? Also making massive annual contributions. I can't see it working in the medium term, though it would undoubtedly calm industry and finance in the short term.
I think Switzerland is better than Norway.
I think it's going to be a test of the EU. If they can't manage a custom deal for the UK, they're doomed (note for pedants: we might be doomed too of course).
The problem, as SeanT has pointed out, is that a custom deal takes years, during which there will be enormous uncertainty. As the two year mark ticks closer, those firms - particularly in financial services - who depend on Financial Passporting will have to move operations abroad "just in case".
Which is why I'm spending most of the summer in Paris thanks to you Brexiteers
I don't know why we bothered to vote Leave. If it is economically impossible to leave the EU, then we have already lost our sovereignty.
Reading Flexcit/The Market Solution might cheer you up. It makes EFTA membership step one of a phased process by which we reorient our global trade policy and rebuild the Single Market under UNECE supervision. By focusing on smaller scope, flexible bilateral trade and regulatory agreements, we construct an economy where the EU matters less and less.
Norway means Open Borders. Munchau rarely (ever?) considers/sees a problem there. Some party will have to sell it to the People at an election/ref. Good luck with that.
It also means having to obey every EU single market directive, no matter how idiotic, and having no say in how they are made, doesn't it? Also making massive annual contributions. I can't see it working in the medium term, though it would undoubtedly calm industry and finance in the short term.
I think Switzerland is better than Norway, though hardly perfect.
The contribution would be far smaller than we pay now - both Robert Smithson and I using EFTA's own calculations came up with a total UK contribution of around £2 billion gross compared to £15 billion gross at the moment.
The amount of EU legislation that applies to the single market is less than 10% of what we are subjected to now.
The danger is that wider legislation gets labelled single market.
However, Norway did veto EU oil regulation on these grounds that they weren't actually single market regulations.
What we are witnessing is the death of the Labour party as a potential party of government. The Labour membership would prefer that to allowing a "Blairite" (ie, anyone who is not Jeremy Corbyn) to be leader. The comfort blanket is too warm, the membership - largely well-off and unaffected personally by Tory policy - too detached from real life. Labour will develop into a full-blown socialist party and will gradually wither away into complete irrelevance. A new centre-left party will take its place. All that, though, will take time.
Unfortunately, what it means is that a right wing Tory government that needs just 37% of the vote to stay in power will negotiate the terms of Brexit largely unscrutinised and unopposed. And that will result in a deal which will hurt ordinary voters and alienate them even further from the political process.
That's how decent Jeremy Corbyn is.
This is the deal the Tories will negotiate, under May (or maybe even Boris).
The Norway option, with Free movement and a promise of another vote in ten years.
There aren't enough die-hard anti-migrationists in the Tory party to stop it. Most Tory LEAVERS are in the Hannan camp: Sovereigntists. They will be content with this, the City will be content with this. Labour and UKIP wwc voters will not be content, but the Tories won't care
There is also a way for us to square the immigration circle. May (or Boris) should propose, along with joining EEA, that our benefits system becomes contributory, thus ending much of the pull factor
This would also be popular with quite a lot of voters, in itself.
The only way it works is if just British born citizens get auto benefits - everyone else is excluded. Even then, it's The Establishment trying to get around what the populace believed they voted for.
It does politicians no favours to subvert what the people decided. Sovereignty and control are inimical with FoM.
You can largely solve that by saying "anyone who's been resident here for eight years".
You can't if the immigration and asylum system doesn't get rid of those ineligible to be here for a decade.
Now that's an organisational issue - but we need to restore faith in politics. Right now, only 5 days on - I see far too much *too hard tray* behaviour.
Norway means Open Borders. Munchau rarely (ever?) considers/sees a problem there. Some party will have to sell it to the People at an election/ref. Good luck with that.
It also means having to obey every EU single market directive, no matter how idiotic, and having no say in how they are made, doesn't it? Also making massive annual contributions. I can't see it working in the medium term, though it would undoubtedly calm industry and finance in the short term.
I think Switzerland is better than Norway, though hardly perfect.
The contribution would be far smaller than we pay now - both Robert Smithson and I using EFTA's own calculations came up with a total UK contribution of around £2 billion gross compared to £15 billion gross at the moment.
The amount of EU legislation that applies to the single market is less than 10% of what we are subjected to now.
The danger is that wider legislation gets labelled single market.
I think that's how the EU got round our social policy opt out.
The charter of fundamental rights will never be single market related, as an example. And it would only be applicable for business we do in the EU.
I am sure that Diane Abbot could fill 2 or even 3 seats at a push.
Oh dear - so funny!
You know it is a cliché that sarcasm doesn't work over the internet but in this case I think you have cracked it. You're right, not one of my better efforts.
You misunderstood me - it really got me - I nearly embarrassed myself with mirth!
Told you sarcasm doesn't work! There really should be an emoticon so we can tell.
I see there is talk of a Southgate/Hoddle dream ticket. A desire to go back to the relative glory days of the 90s when only penalties could stop England and the Prime minister was loved by everyone.
I would support that. Hoddle is a great tactician.
This Scottish Parliamentary debate is fantastic. Ruth is getting utterly eviscerated from all sides. The Tories seem cowed, they're unable to raise even a weak murmur of protest every time a new speaker rips into their leader and their party.
This Scottish Parliamentary debate is fantastic. Ruth is getting utterly eviscerated from all sides. The Tories seem cowed, they're unable to raise even a weak murmur of protest every time a new speaker rips into their leader and their party.
I don't know why we bothered to vote Leave. If it is economically impossible to leave the EU, then we have already lost our sovereignty.
Yes well you can't say you weren't warned. The entire idea that we could walk away from the single market and all would be tickety boo is and always was the stuff of deranged eurosceptic fantasy.
Two factions in my party - Progress and Momentum. Progress try and pretend that its still 2005 but at least they turn out and are active campaigners. Momentum try and pretend that its still 1945, but instead of doing any actual work spend too much time holding impromptu demonstrations and passing pointless resolutions.
Both sides are utterly incapable of recognising the other as the Labour Party. Progress thinks Momentum are trots and crazies. Momentum think anyone not Momentum is a Tory or a closet Tory. One or the other will leave the party in the coming weeks.
The sad thing is they could be great together. Momentum have great ideas and a genuine grasp on where the country has gone wrong and solutions to proffer, but couldn't run the proverbial piss-up in a brewery. Progress have nothing whatsoever left to say of their third way project but are great at organising (as long as they don't get too carried away and have the brewery privatised under a "what works" initiative.
They need each other. Sadly they appear to have decided that oblivion is better - rank arrogance and disdain from both sides. Perhaps a grand political realignment is needed. But not now. Not like this.
Yes, there's a lot in that, although I also know a lot of people in between who are simply party loyalists who wish the rival factions would STFU. There is VERY little sympathy for the people who have been destabilising the party from day 1, but equally even on the left there is some palpable doubt. What happens now will influence the leadership election and subsequent evevents. Regretfully forcing a leadership election will I think be largely tolerated. Public grandstanding like Watson pretending to be party leader at PMQs is another matter and would IMO be seen as the plotters trying to preempt the members' decision.
And yes, in reply to Tissue Price, there is plenty of time for deselections - nobody has been reselected yet. So far, Corbyn and McDonnell have held Momentum back from going for it, apart from a few fringe groups. But if open war breaks out, then I expect a serious effort. If a snap election is called while the process is still ongoing, the process is then controlled by the NEC, and, curiously, it may all come down to how the NEC elections that are about to be held work out. On paper the centre-left six should win at least 4 and maybe all 6 seats, which would give them a majority. In practice, who knows?
Labour MPs seem to forget that in a lot of their strongholds outside London (and even a couple within London, like Barking), people voted in droves to LEAVE, and so were more in tune with LABOUR LEAVE than LABOUR REMAIN.
F*cking immigrants - that's what it was all about - scary times ahead.
I have worked in both Newham and Redbridge within the last year and listened to complaints about street drinking, mini-cab drivers having their wages undercut, closed shops on employment, etc.
None of it from Tories, Kippers or white people.
Isn't it Uber rather than the immigrants that are cutting minicab wages? And Amazon is destroying High Street jobs everywhere.
Not in this case, Robert.
The closed shop was someone vociferously complaining that the community had changed and he could no longer find work in his trade because his face did not fit with the newly arrived community. Neither the community nor complainant were white British.
A lot of grievances cross racial lines but some pretend it's only a wwc thing.
That yougov poll that had party breakdown in terms of leave/remain had labour voters on 37% leave. Seems a tad low to me considering how big the Leave leads were in seats where they weigh the labour vote. Probably closer to 45% than 37%.
@SophyRidgeSky: Understand Labour MPs are currently deciding whether to back Tom Watson or Angela Eagle as Corbyn challenger. The other will then stand down
This Scottish Parliamentary debate is fantastic. Ruth is getting utterly eviscerated from all sides. The Tories seem cowed, they're unable to raise even a weak murmur of protest every time a new speaker rips into their leader and their party.
Wait wasn't she the PM in waiting ?
Ruth's in an utterly impossible situation and I don't think she even has the full backing of her party.
Willie Rennie just got up to speak. If he manages to score against her, then her future is looking quite bleak and the idea of the Tories as a "strong opposition" is holed below the water line.
The absolute crapness of Vote Leave is demonstrated by their total post-Brexit silence on social media.
They have completely deleted their website. All the lies, gone...
They won the referendum and then disbanded?
There must be someone to take on the Vote Leave facebook and twitter - even if it's Boris's bag carrier. I don't blame them for not implementing their 'plan for government' (not being IN government), but I do blame them for putting out nothing positive since the result.
UKIPs Top 100 seats to target by Percentage Points behind first place consists of
40 Labour seats plus 52 Conservative seats. As a Top 50 is 22 Labour and 23 Conservative
Top 100 by absolute votes behind consists of : 42 Labour and 49 Con As a Top 50 it's 26 Labour and 17 Con
Could you narrow that down to say 10 or 15% behind first place. I suspect the list would be rather short. UKIP were second in my constituency, but they were 41% behind.
The list of seats where UKIP was 15% or less behind the winner.
Boston & Skegness and that's it.
So 100% of the seats on the list are Conservative!
So not naturalized British citizens? Great way to divide society even further.
They are both stupid ideas. Benefits should be payable only to those who have paid into the system for a minimum of 12 out of the last 24 months. Doesn't matter where you're from or what nationality you are. Naturalised, born here, commonwealth citizen, EU citizen. Everyone should get the same bloody treatment, let's just fix the fucking benefits system once and for all. I'm sick of hearing about how British citizens are out competed by EU citizens, until we have a benefits system that incentiveses work and an education system fit for purpose, everything else is just treating the symptoms. Mass immigration is caused by a badly designed benefits system and rubbish education system, let's fix those.
Hear, hear.
I wonder why IDS didn't try to fix this when he was in charge?
If Yvette is interested, I'll back her (again). Last time, I put her #1, unenthusiastically. Because both she and Burnham were being so careful as to what to say that they were coming up with "if on the one hand, ......."
I think she will have learnt from that. Plus Brexit has already happened. Representing a Yorkshire seat, she will have far more understanding of the Labour WWC proble.
She is definitely a ready-made package. But she won't get it.
Am I the only one who thinks Yvette is quite... errrr... cute?
What we are witnessing is the death of the Labour party as a potential party of government. The Labour membership would prefer that to allowing a "Blairite" (ie, anyone who is not Jeremy Corbyn) to be leader. The comfort blanket is too warm, the membership - largely well-off and unaffected personally by Tory policy - too detached from real life. Labour will develop into a full-blown socialist party and will gradually wither away into complete irrelevance. A new centre-left party will take its place. All that, though, will take time.
Unfortunately, what it means is that a right wing Tory government that needs just 37% of the vote to stay in power will negotiate the terms of Brexit largely unscrutinised and unopposed. And that will result in a deal which will hurt ordinary voters and alienate them even further from the political process.
That's how decent Jeremy Corbyn is.
This is the deal the Tories will negotiate, under May (or maybe even Boris).
The Norway option, with Free movement and a promise of another vote in ten years.
There aren't enough die-hard anti-migrationists in the Tory party to stop it. Most Tory LEAVERS are in the Hannan camp: Sovereigntists. They will be content with this, the City will be content with this. Labour and UKIP wwc voters will not be content, but the Tories won't care
There is also a way for us to square the immigration circle. May (or Boris) should propose, along with joining EEA, that our benefits system becomes contributory, thus ending much of the pull factor
This would also be popular with quite a lot of voters, in itself.
The only way it works is if just British born citizens get auto benefits - everyone else is excluded. Even then, it's The Establishment trying to get around what the populace believed they voted for.
It does politicians no favours to subvert what the people decided. Sovereignty and control are inimical with FoM.
Lol - Plato fails to read detail in post shocker. you're going to have to nominate IDS now.
Willie Rennie "Ruth Davidson is not defending the Union, she is undermining it".
When even Willie Rennie is scoring point after point against you, your future is looking bleak. "Defending the Union" is Ruth's entire platform. The Scottish Tory surge has met its gotterdamerung.
If Yvette is interested, I'll back her (again). Last time, I put her #1, unenthusiastically. Because both she and Burnham were being so careful as to what to say that they were coming up with "if on the one hand, ......."
I think she will have learnt from that. Plus Brexit has already happened. Representing a Yorkshire seat, she will have far more understanding of the Labour WWC proble.
She is definitely a ready-made package. But she won't get it.
Am I the only one who thinks Yvette is quite... errrr... cute?
So not naturalized British citizens? Great way to divide society even further.
They are both stupid ideas. Benefits should be payable only to those who have paid into the system for a minimum of 12 out of the last 24 months. Doesn't matter where you're from or what nationality you are. Naturalised, born here, commonwealth citizen, EU citizen. Everyone should get the same bloody treatment, let's just fix the fucking benefits system once and for all. I'm sick of hearing about how British citizens are out competed by EU citizens, until we have a benefits system that incentiveses work and an education system fit for purpose, everything else is just treating the symptoms. Mass immigration is caused by a badly designed benefits system and rubbish education system, let's fix those.
Hear, hear.
I wonder why IDS didn't try to fix this when he was in charge?
I heard that he tried, but Lib Dems blocked a contributory principle to benefits, the idea wasn't revisited.
R4 Wato stating Dan Jarvis has ruled himself out which leaves Eagle and Watson to fight it out for contender against Corbyn.Eagle is still the value bet but the price keeps contracting.25s will do me.
Yes, well she's the obvious choice, an oven-ready, Corbyn-untainted PM-in-waiting who could match Theresa May for seriousness and make Boris look like a smirking schoolboy.
Labour would be out of their minds not to choose her as Corbyn's replacement. So it won't be her, I guess.
..errr.. were you on holiday at the last leader hustings. she was awful.. .
Well, yes, she was. Beggars can't be choosers, though. At least she's credible and grown-up.
I can only assume you must have a live betting slip with her name on it
And yes, in reply to Tissue Price, there is plenty of time for deselections - nobody has been reselected yet. So far, Corbyn and McDonnell have held Momentum back from going for it, apart from a few fringe groups. But if open war breaks out, then I expect a serious effort. If a snap election is called while the process is still ongoing, the process is then controlled by the NEC, and, curiously, it may all come down to how the NEC elections that are about to be held work out. On paper the centre-left six should win at least 4 and maybe all 6 seats, which would give them a majority. In practice, who knows?
Cheers Nick - wasn't sure how it worked if there was a snap election. Could be very interesting.
Norway means Open Borders. Munchau rarely (ever?) considers/sees a problem there. Some party will have to sell it to the People at an election/ref. Good luck with that.
It also means having to obey every EU single market directive, no matter how idiotic, and having no say in how they are made, doesn't it? Also making massive annual contributions. I can't see it working in the medium term, though it would undoubtedly calm industry and finance in the short term.
I think Switzerland is better than Norway, though hardly perfect.
Two factions in my party - Progress and Momentum. Progress try and pretend that its still 2005 but at least they turn out and are active campaigners. Momentum try and pretend that its still 1945, but instead of doing any actual work spend too much time holding impromptu demonstrations and passing pointless resolutions.
Both sides are utterly incapable of recognising the other as the Labour Party. Progress thinks Momentum are trots and crazies. Momentum think anyone not Momentum is a Tory or a closet Tory. One or the other will leave the party in the coming weeks.
The sad thing is they could be great together. Momentum have great ideas and a genuine grasp on where the country has gone wrong and solutions to proffer, but couldn't run the proverbial piss-up in a brewery. Progress have nothing whatsoever left to say of their third way project but are great at organising (as long as they don't get too carried away and have the brewery privatised under a "what works" initiative.
They need each other. Sadly they appear to have decided that oblivion is better - rank arrogance and disdain from both sides. Perhaps a grand political realignment is needed. But not now. Not like this.
Yes, there's a lot in that, although I also know a lot of people in between who are simply party loyalists who wish the rival factions would STFU. There is VERY little sympathy for the people who have been destabilising the party from day 1, but equally even on the left there is some palpable doubt. What happens now will influence the leadership election and subsequent evevents. Regretfully forcing a leadership election will I think be largely tolerated. Public grandstanding like Watson pretending to be party leader at PMQs is another matter and would IMO be seen as the plotters trying to preempt the members' decision.
And yes, in reply to Tissue Price, there is plenty of time for deselections - nobody has been reselected yet. So far, Corbyn and McDonnell have held Momentum back from going for it, apart from a few fringe groups. But if open war breaks out, then I expect a serious effort. If a snap election is called while the process is still ongoing, the process is then controlled by the NEC, and, curiously, it may all come down to how the NEC elections that are about to be held work out. On paper the centre-left six should win at least 4 and maybe all 6 seats, which would give them a majority. In practice, who knows?
It's very rich to talk about grandstanding Nick when Corbyn is trying to hold on despite losing a NCV by a landslide.
If that isn't grandstanding, I don't know what is.
If Yvette is interested, I'll back her (again). Last time, I put her #1, unenthusiastically. Because both she and Burnham were being so careful as to what to say that they were coming up with "if on the one hand, ......."
I think she will have learnt from that. Plus Brexit has already happened. Representing a Yorkshire seat, she will have far more understanding of the Labour WWC proble.
She is definitely a ready-made package. But she won't get it.
Am I the only one who thinks Yvette is quite... errrr... cute?
I've always thought that. Pixie like.
Oh no! Priti looks like she'd smile devilishly at you, Yvette would tut if you didn't fold your trousers first.
This Scottish Parliamentary debate is fantastic. Ruth is getting utterly eviscerated from all sides. The Tories seem cowed, they're unable to raise even a weak murmur of protest every time a new speaker rips into their leader and their party.
Wait wasn't she the PM in waiting ?
Ruth's in an utterly impossible situation and I don't think she even has the full backing of her party.
Willie Rennie just got up to speak. If he manages to score against her, then her future is looking quite bleak and the idea of the Tories as a "strong opposition" is holed below the water line.
Won't the Scottish Tories have a lot of overlap with the 55% and the 38% in Scotland. Those two groups must have a well aligned Venn diagram. I don't think it is terminal, you can't have a country where 38% of people have no representation.
I don't know why we bothered to vote Leave. If it is economically impossible to leave the EU, then we have already lost our sovereignty.
Reading Flexcit/The Market Solution might cheer you up. It makes EFTA membership step one of a phased process by which we reorient our global trade policy and rebuild the Single Market under UNECE supervision. By focusing on smaller scope, flexible bilateral trade and regulatory agreements, we construct an economy where the EU matters less and less.
Norway means Open Borders. Munchau rarely (ever?) considers/sees a problem there. Some party will have to sell it to the People at an election/ref. Good luck with that.
It also means having to obey every EU single market directive, no matter how idiotic, and having no say in how they are made, doesn't it? Also making massive annual contributions. I can't see it working in the medium term, though it would undoubtedly calm industry and finance in the short term.
I think Switzerland is better than Norway, though hardly perfect.
The contribution would be far smaller than we pay now - both Robert Smithson and I using EFTA's own calculations came up with a total UK contribution of around £2 billion gross compared to £15 billion gross at the moment.
The amount of EU legislation that applies to the single market is less than 10% of what we are subjected to now.
The danger is that wider legislation gets labelled single market.
However, Norway did veto EU oil regulation on these grounds that they weren't actually single market regulations.
They have also refused to implement directives in postal services and railways.
UKIPs Top 100 seats to target by Percentage Points behind first place consists of
40 Labour seats plus 52 Conservative seats. As a Top 50 is 22 Labour and 23 Conservative
Top 100 by absolute votes behind consists of : 42 Labour and 49 Con As a Top 50 it's 26 Labour and 17 Con
Could you narrow that down to say 10 or 15% behind first place. I suspect the list would be rather short. UKIP were second in my constituency, but they were 41% behind.
The list of seats where UKIP was 15% or less behind the winner.
Boston & Skegness and that's it.
So 100% of the seats on the list are Conservative!
List of seats where the SNP were within 15% of Labour pre-GE 2015:
Norway means Open Borders. Munchau rarely (ever?) considers/sees a problem there. Some party will have to sell it to the People at an election/ref. Good luck with that.
It also means having to obey every EU single market directive, no matter how idiotic, and having no say in how they are made, doesn't it? Also making massive annual contributions. I can't see it working in the medium term, though it would undoubtedly calm industry and finance in the short term.
I think Switzerland is better than Norway, though hardly perfect.
The contribution would be far smaller than we pay now - both Robert Smithson and I using EFTA's own calculations came up with a total UK contribution of around £2 billion gross compared to £15 billion gross at the moment.
The amount of EU legislation that applies to the single market is less than 10% of what we are subjected to now.
The danger is that wider legislation gets labelled single market.
I think that's how the EU got round our social policy opt out.
Not possible as the EFTA countries have a veto on that. Nothing can be added to the EEA agreement without explicit agreement from the EFTA countries. This is not a case of an internal body reinterpreting rules but of an external treaty that has to be agreed by both sides.
'This Scottish Parliamentary debate is fantastic.'
The SNP just need three things,get their independence,find a new currency & cut their £ 8 billion deficit to meet mandatory EU rules for joining the Euro.
Norway means Open Borders. Munchau rarely (ever?) considers/sees a problem there. Some party will have to sell it to the People at an election/ref. Good luck with that.
It also means having to obey every EU single market directive, no matter how idiotic, and having no say in how they are made, doesn't it? Also making massive annual contributions. I can't see it working in the medium term, though it would undoubtedly calm industry and finance in the short term.
I think Switzerland is better than Norway, though hardly perfect.
This Scottish Parliamentary debate is fantastic. Ruth is getting utterly eviscerated from all sides. The Tories seem cowed, they're unable to raise even a weak murmur of protest every time a new speaker rips into their leader and their party.
Wait wasn't she the PM in waiting ?
Ruth's in an utterly impossible situation and I don't think she even has the full backing of her party.
Willie Rennie just got up to speak. If he manages to score against her, then her future is looking quite bleak and the idea of the Tories as a "strong opposition" is holed below the water line.
Won't the Scottish Tories have a lot of overlap with the 55% and the 38% in Scotland. Those two groups must have a well aligned Venn diagram. I don't think it is terminal, you can't have a country where 38% of people have no representation.
The rural Leave may well help the Tories but the urban, WWC Leave will never help them. Ruth was a punching bag in Holyrood today, she's just there to take shots from everyone else and isn't coming out of it looking very good at all.
If we stay in the EEA we can limit migration via safeguard measures under Article 112. This can be done for years.
No we can't.
We could do it unilaterally on a temporary basis, to make that permanent we'd need agreement from the EU and other EEA nations. Switzerland are probably going to get something similar in a few months time.
Labour MPs seem to forget that in a lot of their strongholds outside London (and even a couple within London, like Barking), people voted in droves to LEAVE, and so were more in tune with LABOUR LEAVE than LABOUR REMAIN.
F*cking immigrants - that's what it was all about - scary times ahead.
I have worked in both Newham and Redbridge within the last year and listened to complaints about street drinking, mini-cab drivers having their wages undercut, closed shops on employment, etc.
None of it from Tories, Kippers or white people.
Isn't it Uber rather than the immigrants that are cutting minicab wages? And Amazon is destroying High Street jobs everywhere.
Not in this case, Robert.
The closed shop was someone vociferously complaining that the community had changed and he could no longer find work in his trade because his face did not fit with the newly arrived community. Neither the community nor complainant were white British.
A lot of grievances cross racial lines but some pretend it's only a wwc thing.
MPs are suggesting Angela Eagle is piling up nominations for the Labour leadership contest we’re expecting. Sources also say that there has been a high turnout for the no confidence ballot and that they expect an overwhelming result.
Comments
I don't know why we bothered to vote Leave. If it is economically impossible to leave the EU, then we have already lost our sovereignty.
Trouble is that the PLP will look like downtown Aleppo by then.
1. Make it clear from the outset that for economic reasons they feel it is imperative to remain in the Single Market. This would placate the markets.
2. Say that they will strive to get a deal on Free Movement and contributions but that this may not be achievable in the short term.
3. Try to achieve 2. but if unsuccessful in the short term then sign up to EFTA/EEA, the Norway model.
4. Continue to negotiate for 2. after 3.
This would "honour" the outcome of the referendum. The UK would leave the EU. What alternative relationship the UK would have with the EU was not voted on in the referendum. A lot of people would be very unhappy re not achieving 2. in the short term but it would remain an aim of the government. However achieving both 1. and 2. in the short term is likely to be unachievable and so something has to give - and the new PM feels 1. has to trump 2.
And it was very close.
Now for the government to set out a course - which due to the closeness of the result may well be a compromise on some topics - but if you don't like it vote against them in the next GE.
That's it - what Sir Bufton Tufton of Britain for Independence said on the hustings in Cleethorpes 2 months ago is utterly irrelevant.
Let's have Chinese. I've ordered it.
Oh, I think Indian would be nicer.
But I've ordered Chinese.
Actually, I fancy a pizza.
But the delivery guy will be here in 10 mins. Should I call to cancel my order? Will they hate me now?
Now ordered Indian. But what if the delivery guy didn't get the cancellation? How can I not tip him?
That pizza did sound tasty...
What we get as a member of the EU is economic leverage.
The absolute crapness of Vote Leave is demonstrated by their total post-Brexit silence on social media. Look at their facebook - thanks for voting folks - bye. By comparison, Leave.EU are still pumping out very good content, debunking the disaster tales etc.
The amount of EU legislation that applies to the single market is less than 10% of what we are subjected to now.
Incremental change, at first looks a lot like membership, less so over time.
I think she will have learnt from that. Plus Brexit has already happened. Representing a Yorkshire seat, she will have far more understanding of the Labour WWC proble.
She is definitely a ready-made package. But she won't get it.
"She said, only the Tories can be trusted to protect Britain. Well, Ruth, how's that going now?"
Brutal.
But lying aside, we can both agree they were shite.
We're the 5th largest economy on the planet. Norway is 16th.
I'm still going to go and look at some of the bilateral trade flows - numbers are my thing. I suspect that our European trade will be dominated by six or seven countries - probably the same as those that host the European element of the British diaspora.
The closed shop was someone vociferously complaining that the community had changed and he could no longer find work in his trade because his face did not fit with the newly arrived community. Neither the community nor complainant were white British.
A lot of grievances cross racial lines but some pretend it's only a wwc thing.
= Never in a million years (Yes Minister)
I think that's how the EU got round our social policy opt out.
Now that's an organisational issue - but we need to restore faith in politics. Right now, only 5 days on - I see far too much *too hard tray* behaviour.
I would support that. Hoddle is a great tactician.
You knew it and voted for it anyway.
You voted for a very large, permanent paycut in exchange for pulling up the drawbridge.
Yes well you can't say you weren't warned. The entire idea that we could walk away from the single market and all would be tickety boo is and always was the stuff of deranged eurosceptic fantasy.
And yes, in reply to Tissue Price, there is plenty of time for deselections - nobody has been reselected yet. So far, Corbyn and McDonnell have held Momentum back from going for it, apart from a few fringe groups. But if open war breaks out, then I expect a serious effort. If a snap election is called while the process is still ongoing, the process is then controlled by the NEC, and, curiously, it may all come down to how the NEC elections that are about to be held work out. On paper the centre-left six should win at least 4 and maybe all 6 seats, which would give them a majority. In practice, who knows?
Willie Rennie just got up to speak. If he manages to score against her, then her future is looking quite bleak and the idea of the Tories as a "strong opposition" is holed below the water line.
It's clear which was the real campaign...
Boston & Skegness
and
that's it.
So 100% of the seats on the list are Conservative!
Damning. Hilarious. And absolutely spot on.
When even Willie Rennie is scoring point after point against you, your future is looking bleak. "Defending the Union" is Ruth's entire platform. The Scottish Tory surge has met its gotterdamerung.
PS "if open war breaks out"? What's this then?
If that isn't grandstanding, I don't know what is.
I wonder how he voted.
P/S my spell checker recommends "corncob" for "Corbyn".
Welcome to pb.com, Mr. Plan
Ochil & Perthshire South
'This Scottish Parliamentary debate is fantastic.'
The SNP just need three things,get their independence,find a new currency & cut their £ 8 billion deficit to meet mandatory EU rules for joining the Euro.
I guess the debate is Sturgeon grandstanding.
MPs are suggesting Angela Eagle is piling up nominations for the Labour leadership contest we’re expecting. Sources also say that there has been a high turnout for the no confidence ballot and that they expect an overwhelming result.