To reiterate. Nearly half the households in this country have less than £1500 in savings. Almost half the population don't even holiday abroad. We're not a nation of share owners. Only 10 million people are even members of occupational pension schemes. A tenth of the workforce gets the minimum wage.
Which I agree with what you say here, it does piss me off.
I live in a third world country, almost no one goes abroad in their entire life, almost no one has a pension scheme, when I adopted my first daughter she was 6 years old and had never had a birthday or christmas in her life, because her parents could not afford the celebration or a gift. The government does very little for most people, and yet they have general elections with turn outs over 70% almost every time, and people have both civic and national pride. You shouldn't need money, or investments, or pensions to care what happens to your country.
So no surprise if the activists again choose the person who they love but is at the same time unelectable. They may think that doesn't matter as she'll beat Corbyn but if Labour get a decent leader it's blindingly obvious that May would be far stronger at the next GE
I don't think it's obvious at all. May is not a proven campaigner and Leadsom is likely to win a large chunk of the UKIP vote (and would-be UKIP switchers from Labour) which will provide a buffer in many marginals.
The problem with that is that winning a GE is about winning seats, not votes.
And you maximise seats by winning the middle ground floating voters - which is why Blair had such a brilliant votes to seats conversion rate and why Cameron has now got Con into a much more favourable votes to seats conversion rate than Lab.
Picking up the old buffer UKIP vote won't gain net seats if floating votes are lost directly over to Lab - which they will be with Leadsom's social policies.
Crisis what crisis?, we have beaten the Argies at their own game:
Bloomberg - Pound Overtakes Argentine Peso to Become 2016’s Worst Performer http://bloom.bg/29n0s5x
"That the pound surpassed the Argentine peso as the world’s worst performer is all the more remarkable given that the South American nation’s economy shrank in 2014 and that President Mauricio Macri has removed most of the currency controls that had been propping up the exchange rate. It’s only in December that the peso was devalued"
The wisdom in holidaying in Suffolk this year is vindicated.
That's bull. The reason its worse performing this year is precisely because December is LAST YEAR. If you take a 12 month comparison or longer that includes the most recent devaluation the peso performs much, much worse *rolleyes*
"Sterling doing worse than devalued currency if you only look at after the devaluation" shocker.
I am sure sterling has done worse than the Argentine peso since June 24th, whcih is when the referendum took place.
@PickardJE: About to break: Tata is in talks with German rival Thyssenkrupp about a joint venture for their European assets, including Port Talbot.
@rupertevelyn: BREAK: Port Talbot to stay with Tata but I understand 100 million pound cost cutting to follow. Expect job losses
hmm
a JV just means theyll close the british plants and move production to Germany.
Tata owns two steel mills. Thyssenkrupp is interested in the Netherlands one because it is profitable, in the EU and uses their technology, unlike the Welsh plant. From what I read
The former Hoogovens plant at Ijmuiden is too expensive to close.
Asset strip the UK because its easier
True, Brexit is only one of the reasons to close the Welsh plant. It probably would have happened anyway.
They had every chance to keep Leadsom off the ballot and didn't take it.
Carbon copy of Labour MPs and Corbyn.
So no surprise if the activists again choose the person who they love but is at the same time unelectable. They may think that doesn't matter as she'll beat Corbyn but if Labour get a decent leader it's blindingly obvious that May would be far stronger at the next GE.
I guess the only difference is that if this happens, Con MPs have the option of removing Leadsom in a straight MPs vote and if they do so she is 100% out.
Except Leadsom isn't anything like Corbyn or unelectable.
The new vote would have to be on the leave proposal after negotiations, an election isn't enough as It confuses that decision with too many other factors. A simple question with a binary choice this time, this or stay.
It can't be that.
We can't stay if we have triggered Article 50, and we can't negotiate until we do.
Then we're stuffed. These people really didn't think the nature of e vote through at all. Maybe a vote on whether to trigger article 50 then, with two actual proposals, stay or what we think we can get, rather then what we have versus pie in the sky. It's a total disaster the way the question was asked.
Actually the question was quite clear, whether or not we should leave the EU. The result was we should, so we should.
As I said, an idiotically formed question. We are now in no man's land, out but with no clue as to what that means.
They had every chance to keep Leadsom off the ballot and didn't take it.
Carbon copy of Labour MPs and Corbyn.
So no surprise if the activists again choose the person who they love but is at the same time unelectable. They may think that doesn't matter as she'll beat Corbyn but if Labour get a decent leader it's blindingly obvious that May would be far stronger at the next GE.
I guess the only difference is that if this happens, Con MPs have the option of removing Leadsom in a straight MPs vote and if they do so she is 100% out.
Except Leadsom isn't anything like Corbyn or unelectable.
She doesn't need to be electable, unlike Corbyn. If party members choose her she will be PM without any election.
Crisis what crisis?, we have beaten the Argies at their own game:
Bloomberg - Pound Overtakes Argentine Peso to Become 2016’s Worst Performer http://bloom.bg/29n0s5x
"That the pound surpassed the Argentine peso as the world’s worst performer is all the more remarkable given that the South American nation’s economy shrank in 2014 and that President Mauricio Macri has removed most of the currency controls that had been propping up the exchange rate. It’s only in December that the peso was devalued"
The wisdom in holidaying in Suffolk this year is vindicated.
That's bull. The reason its worse performing this year is precisely because December is LAST YEAR. If you take a 12 month comparison or longer that includes the most recent devaluation the peso performs much, much worse *rolleyes*
"Sterling doing worse than devalued currency if you only look at after the devaluation" shocker.
I am sure sterling has done worse than the Argentine peso since June 24th, whcih is when the referendum took place.
It is also utterly irrelevant because devaluing currencies like the peso move in step changes. If you ignore all steps then of course you'll get a different result than if you look at the big picture.
And you maximise seats by winning the middle ground floating voters - which is why Blair had such a brilliant votes to seats conversion rate and why Cameron has now got Con into a much more favourable votes to seats conversion rate than Lab.
You need the middle ground floating voters and your core vote, which is why Blair got stuffed later on when Labour voters sat on their hands over Iraq. Its also why Cameron make the referendum offer to stop his right flank drifting off to UKIP otherwise he would have lost as well.
They had every chance to keep Leadsom off the ballot and didn't take it.
Carbon copy of Labour MPs and Corbyn.
So no surprise if the activists again choose the person who they love but is at the same time unelectable. They may think that doesn't matter as she'll beat Corbyn but if Labour get a decent leader it's blindingly obvious that May would be far stronger at the next GE.
I guess the only difference is that if this happens, Con MPs have the option of removing Leadsom in a straight MPs vote and if they do so she is 100% out.
Except Leadsom isn't anything like Corbyn or unelectable.
She doesn't need to be electable, unlike Corbyn. If party members choose her she will be PM without any election.
Indeed and then she can perform to get re-election.
To reiterate. Nearly half the households in this country have less than £1500 in savings. Almost half the population don't even holiday abroad. We're not a nation of share owners. Only 10 million people are even members of occupational pension schemes. A tenth of the workforce gets the minimum wage.
Which I agree with what you say here, it does piss me off.
I live in a third world country, almost no one goes abroad in their entire life, almost no one has a pension scheme, when I adopted my first daughter she was 6 years old and had never had a birthday or christmas in her life, because her parents could not afford the celebration or a gift. The government does very little for most people, and yet they have general elections with turn outs over 70% almost every time, and people have both civic and national pride. You shouldn't need money, or investments, or pensions to care what happens to your country.
Is it the Philippines? I used to be an account manager for my countries EMEA region (which, ha ha ha also included India). The time I've spent in Africa in particular has set my bar for poverty, deprivation and want. So, I think I'm with you on that one.
The UK is incredibly spoiled. The tantrums we're seeing are understandable but still sad. Look at Italy. No economic growth since 2000. GDP per capita at the same level as 1997. Still a great country that people love to visit and even live in. It really isn't all about money.
It's interesting to look at some of the old press coverage of Leadsom in the context of her being within reach of Downing Street. The Independent was already calling her the new 'Iron Lady' back in 2012.
So no surprise if the activists again choose the person who they love but is at the same time unelectable. They may think that doesn't matter as she'll beat Corbyn but if Labour get a decent leader it's blindingly obvious that May would be far stronger at the next GE
I don't think it's obvious at all. May is not a proven campaigner and Leadsom is likely to win a large chunk of the UKIP vote (and would-be UKIP switchers from Labour) which will provide a buffer in many marginals.
Leadsom appears to have some really vile, batshit crazy views on some issues and they have barely scratched the surface as she is rather an unknown figure. Who knows what else they will dig up?
IMO she would beat Corbyn in 2020 but I think at this point a plant pot with a blue rosette would. If Corbyn somehow goes and they moved back to the center left then I think Leadsom is far more beatable than May.
I can only speak for myself in that I have voted Tory at every GE since I was of age to vote and there is no way I can vote for someone like Leadsom.
They had every chance to keep Leadsom off the ballot and didn't take it.
Carbon copy of Labour MPs and Corbyn.
So no surprise if the activists again choose the person who they love but is at the same time unelectable. They may think that doesn't matter as she'll beat Corbyn but if Labour get a decent leader it's blindingly obvious that May would be far stronger at the next GE.
I guess the only difference is that if this happens, Con MPs have the option of removing Leadsom in a straight MPs vote and if they do so she is 100% out.
Except Leadsom isn't anything like Corbyn or unelectable.
Well let's wait and see how she rates in polls vs May.
I would happily bet that May will rate better.
I guess the response would be that nobody knows her yet and once she becomes PM if she does well she'll rate well. There's obviously no way of proving that either way unless she does actually become PM. But my view is she will do significantly worse than May in a GE.
@PickardJE: About to break: Tata is in talks with German rival Thyssenkrupp about a joint venture for their European assets, including Port Talbot.
@rupertevelyn: BREAK: Port Talbot to stay with Tata but I understand 100 million pound cost cutting to follow. Expect job losses
hmm
a JV just means theyll close the british plants and move production to Germany.
Tata owns two steel mills. Thyssenkrupp is interested in the Netherlands one because it is profitable, in the EU and uses their technology, unlike the Welsh plant. From what I read
The former Hoogovens plant at Ijmuiden is too expensive to close.
Asset strip the UK because its easier
True, Brexit is only one of the reasons to close the Welsh plant. It probably would have happened anyway.
China has doomed Port Talbot. It hasn't received meaningful investment in years, and China's over-production of steel is astonishing. I think it accounts for about half the global total.
Imagine the regression in animal welfare laws in the EU now that the Uk is out.
Cheap veal will be on the menu.
What makes you think other EU countries are less concerned about animal welfare than the UK? Which EU laws do you think they'll repeal?
THis is one area where I hope we can remain ahead of EU legislation outwith or within:
The UK was ahead of the EU on sow stall legislation, to give a specific example.
Remember, though, that the EU laws are merely the lowest common denominator. Having lived there for 10 years, I'm sure that many animals in countries such as Germany are also kept in better conditions than EU law demands.
Anyway, my (and the New Scientist's) original point was that the UK has held back EU environmental legislation in recent years, and so future EU environmental legislation is likely to be stronger and, ultimately, will benefit animals as well as people.
Given that the UK has, for better or worse (and I of course would suggest worse), had far stronger laws to limit CO2 emissions than the rest of the EU and has had more success in cutting emissions I would suggest that your claims (and those of New Scientist) are mistaken. Even more so if one adds in the fact that the UK has unilaterally introduced the largest marine conservation areas in the world.
You'll forgive me if I place more credence in the opinions of the New Scientist than I do in yours.
China 149% India 48% Russia 19% Poland 7% Austria 0% Nethrld -3% Japan -3% Austrl -4% Greece -11% Germany -12% France -13% Switz -15% Italy -15% USA -16% Canada -19% Belgium -21% UK -23% Prtugal -23% Denmark -25% Ireland -27%
Change 2011 vs 2000
A couple of points. One, some of those countries, such as France, are already starting from a lower baseline than the UK. Despite our cuts, we have still not achieved the low emissions per capita of, for example, France and Spain. Two, environmental legislation is not just about CO2 emissions.
In any case, the main point stands that the UK is likely to have to abide by future EU environmental legislation if it wants Single Market access, but the UK will not have a hand in drafting that legislation.
The new vote would have to be on the leave proposal after negotiations, an election isn't enough as It confuses that decision with too many other factors. A simple question with a binary choice this time, this or stay.
It can't be that.
We can't stay if we have triggered Article 50, and we can't negotiate until we do.
Then we're stuffed. These people really didn't think the nature of e vote through at all. Maybe a vote on whether to trigger article 50 then, with two actual proposals, stay or what we think we can get, rather then what we have versus pie in the sky. It's a total disaster the way the question was asked.
Actually the question was quite clear, whether or not we should leave the EU. The result was we should, so we should.
As I said, an idiotically formed question. We are now in no man's land, out but with no clue as to what that means.
What would you like the question to have been?
We've just had a discussion on this but it appears as though the out proposal being put to the vote, which is what would have been effective, was impossible. In which case, the question shouldn't have been posed as a binary choice at all. Just as some people re-emgaged with democracy, they are to find out that what they thought they were voting for was actually only a vague possibility.
To reiterate. Nearly half the households in this country have less than £1500 in savings. Almost half the population don't even holiday abroad. We're not a nation of share owners. Only 10 million people are even members of occupational pension schemes. A tenth of the workforce gets the minimum wage.
Which I agree with what you say here, it does piss me off.
I live in a third world country, almost no one goes abroad in their entire life, almost no one has a pension scheme, when I adopted my first daughter she was 6 years old and had never had a birthday or christmas in her life, because her parents could not afford the celebration or a gift. The government does very little for most people, and yet they have general elections with turn outs over 70% almost every time, and people have both civic and national pride. You shouldn't need money, or investments, or pensions to care what happens to your country.
Is it the Philippines? I used to be an account manager for my countries EMEA region (which, ha ha ha also included India). The time I've spent in Africa in particular has set my bar for poverty, deprivation and want. So, I think I'm with you on that one.
The UK is incredibly spoiled. The tantrums we're seeing are understandable but still sad. Look at Italy. No economic growth since 2000. GDP per capita at the same level as 1997. Still a great country that people love to visit and even live in. It really isn't all about money.
Yes I live in the Philippines, in a very rural area.
@PickardJE: About to break: Tata is in talks with German rival Thyssenkrupp about a joint venture for their European assets, including Port Talbot.
@rupertevelyn: BREAK: Port Talbot to stay with Tata but I understand 100 million pound cost cutting to follow. Expect job losses
hmm
a JV just means theyll close the british plants and move production to Germany.
Tata owns two steel mills. Thyssenkrupp is interested in the Netherlands one because it is profitable, in the EU and uses their technology, unlike the Welsh plant. From what I read
The former Hoogovens plant at Ijmuiden is too expensive to close.
Asset strip the UK because its easier
It is the way it usually seems to work. There are those that call it inward investment and think it is a good thing.
I don't profess to understand the steel industry and all the different types of steel but I read that China now produces 50% of the world's steel, can't use it it all and so is flogging it off cheap wherever it can. The USA has imposed 500% tariffs. The EU and the UK has sacrificed its workers to a life on benefits.
Free trade seems to be a great idea but the mercantilists seem to do better than the free traders.
So no surprise if the activists again choose the person who they love but is at the same time unelectable. They may think that doesn't matter as she'll beat Corbyn but if Labour get a decent leader it's blindingly obvious that May would be far stronger at the next GE
I don't think it's obvious at all. May is not a proven campaigner and Leadsom is likely to win a large chunk of the UKIP vote (and would-be UKIP switchers from Labour) which will provide a buffer in many marginals.
The problem with that is that winning a GE is about winning seats, not votes.
And you maximise seats by winning the middle ground floating voters - which is why Blair had such a brilliant votes to seats conversion rate and why Cameron has now got Con into a much more favourable votes to seats conversion rate than Lab.
Picking up the old buffer UKIP vote won't gain net seats if floating votes are lost directly over to Lab - which they will be with Leadsom's social policies.
But hasn't the EU Referendum showed that the so-called "centre-ground" voters are really not that centrist at all?
If the centre ground means anything, it's the likes of Basildon, Nuneaton, Cannock Chase, Worcester, Bury. All of them (and most of the other typical bellwether constituenices in general elections) delivered heavy Leave wins. They seem to quite like "social conservative" policies, while they also placed no store at all in what the Establishment considers to be "economic credibility" or in the opinions of big businesses.
Though that's not to say Leadsom would do better for the Tories than May (it's less their policies but the fact that May looks and sounds like a natural leader, whereas Leadsom still seems clearly out of her depth.)
So no surprise if the activists again choose the person who they love but is at the same time unelectable. They may think that doesn't matter as she'll beat Corbyn but if Labour get a decent leader it's blindingly obvious that May would be far stronger at the next GE
I don't think it's obvious at all. May is not a proven campaigner and Leadsom is likely to win a large chunk of the UKIP vote (and would-be UKIP switchers from Labour) which will provide a buffer in many marginals.
Leadsom appears to have some really vile, batshit crazy views on some issues and they have barely scratched the surface as she is rather an unknown figure. Who knows what else they will dig up?
IMO she would beat Corbyn in 2020 but I think at this point a plant pot with a blue rosette would. If Corbyn somehow goes and they moved back to the center left then I think Leadsom is far more beatable than May.
I can only speak for myself in that I have voted Tory at every GE since I was of age to vote and there is no way I can vote for someone like Leadsom.
It's trivial to discover any MP's voting record (e.g. http://theyworkforyou.com ). While I'm no Leadsom fan, just what are these vile, batshit crazy ideas?
Imagine the regression in animal welfare laws in the EU now that the Uk is out.
Cheap veal will be on the menu.
What makes you think other EU countries are less concerned about animal welfare than the UK? Which EU laws do you think they'll repeal?
THis is one area where I hope we can remain ahead of EU legislation outwith or within:
The UK was ahead of the EU on sow stall legislation, to give a specific example.
Remember, though, that the EU laws are merely the lowest common denominator. Having lived there for 10 years, I'm sure that many animals in countries such as Germany are also kept in better conditions than EU law demands.
Anyway, my (and the New Scientist's) original point was that the UK has held back EU environmental legislation in recent years, and so future EU environmental legislation is likely to be stronger and, ultimately, will benefit animals as well as people.
Given that the UK has, for better or worse (and I of course would suggest worse), had far stronger laws to limit CO2 emissions than the rest of the EU and has had more success in cutting emissions I would suggest that your claims (and those of New Scientist) are mistaken. Even more so if one adds in the fact that the UK has unilaterally introduced the largest marine conservation areas in the world.
You'll forgive me if I place more credence in the opinions of the New Scientist than I do in yours.
China 149% India 48% Russia 19% Poland 7% Austria 0% Nethrld -3% Japan -3% Austrl -4% Greece -11% Germany -12% France -13% Switz -15% Italy -15% USA -16% Canada -19% Belgium -21% UK -23% Prtugal -23% Denmark -25% Ireland -27%
Change 2011 vs 2000
A couple of points. One, some of those countries, such as France, are already starting from a lower baseline than the UK. Despite our cuts, we have still not achieved the low emissions per capita of, for example, France and Spain. Two, environmental legislation is not just about CO2 emissions.
In any case, the main point stands that the UK is likely to have to abide by future EU environmental legislation if it wants Single Market access, but the UK will not have a hand in drafting that legislation.
What is your authority for your last assertion? I don't think that environmental law is single market competence.
@PickardJE: About to break: Tata is in talks with German rival Thyssenkrupp about a joint venture for their European assets, including Port Talbot.
@rupertevelyn: BREAK: Port Talbot to stay with Tata but I understand 100 million pound cost cutting to follow. Expect job losses
hmm
a JV just means theyll close the british plants and move production to Germany.
Tata owns two steel mills. Thyssenkrupp is interested in the Netherlands one because it is profitable, in the EU and uses their technology, unlike the Welsh plant. From what I read
The former Hoogovens plant at Ijmuiden is too expensive to close.
Asset strip the UK because its easier
True, Brexit is only one of the reasons to close the Welsh plant. It probably would have happened anyway.
China has doomed Port Talbot. It hasn't received meaningful investment in years, and China's over-production of steel is astonishing. I think it accounts for about half the global total.
You see estimates of 400k job losses in the Chinese steel industry coming up. You can hardly blame them for not being that fussed about job losses in South Wales.
They had every chance to keep Leadsom off the ballot and didn't take it.
Carbon copy of Labour MPs and Corbyn.
So no surprise if the activists again choose the person who they love but is at the same time unelectable. They may think that doesn't matter as she'll beat Corbyn but if Labour get a decent leader it's blindingly obvious that May would be far stronger at the next GE.
I guess the only difference is that if this happens, Con MPs have the option of removing Leadsom in a straight MPs vote and if they do so she is 100% out.
Except Leadsom isn't anything like Corbyn or unelectable.
She doesn't need to be electable, unlike Corbyn. If party members choose her she will be PM without any election.
Indeed and then she can perform to get re-election.
And if she doesn't perform, then the Parliamentary party will have no trouble getting the 50 names to call a vote of no confidence - and the votes to take her down in say 2018. But how that would look in final negotiations with the EU is anybody's guess.
Well said, Mr. M. That is something that should be posted up over every door to the Houses of Parliament, and for good measure, in big letters at the top of each thread on here.
THis is one area where I hope we can remain ahead of EU legislation outwith or within:
The UK was ahead of the EU on sow stall legislation, to give a specific example.
Remember, though, that the EU laws are merely the lowest common denominator. Having lived there for 10 years, I'm sure that many animals in countries such as Germany are also kept in better conditions than EU law demands.
Anyway, my (and the New Scientist's) original point was that the UK has held back EU environmental legislation in recent years, and so future EU environmental legislation is likely to be stronger and, ultimately, will benefit animals as well as people.
Given that the UK has, for better or worse (and I of course would suggest worse), had far stronger laws to limit CO2 emissions than the rest of the EU and has had more success in cutting emissions I would suggest that your claims (and those of New Scientist) are mistaken. Even more so if one adds in the fact that the UK has unilaterally introduced the largest marine conservation areas in the world.
You'll forgive me if I place more credence in the opinions of the New Scientist than I do in yours.
China 149% India 48% Russia 19% Poland 7% Austria 0% Nethrld -3% Japan -3% Austrl -4% Greece -11% Germany -12% France -13% Switz -15% Italy -15% USA -16% Canada -19% Belgium -21% UK -23% Prtugal -23% Denmark -25% Ireland -27%
Change 2011 vs 2000
A couple of points. One, some of those countries, such as France, are already starting from a lower baseline than the UK. Despite our cuts, we have still not achieved the low emissions per capita of, for example, France and Spain. Two, environmental legislation is not just about CO2 emissions.
In any case, the main point stands that the UK is likely to have to abide by future EU environmental legislation if it wants Single Market access, but the UK will not have a hand in drafting that legislation.
What is your authority for your last assertion? I don't think that environmental law is single market competence.
Do you think it likely that the 27 rEU countries would agree to allow us single market access without requiring UK compliance with EU environmental legislation?
@PickardJE: About to break: Tata is in talks with German rival Thyssenkrupp about a joint venture for their European assets, including Port Talbot.
@rupertevelyn: BREAK: Port Talbot to stay with Tata but I understand 100 million pound cost cutting to follow. Expect job losses
hmm
a JV just means theyll close the british plants and move production to Germany.
Tata owns two steel mills. Thyssenkrupp is interested in the Netherlands one because it is profitable, in the EU and uses their technology, unlike the Welsh plant. From what I read
The former Hoogovens plant at Ijmuiden is too expensive to close.
Asset strip the UK because its easier
True, Brexit is only one of the reasons to close the Welsh plant. It probably would have happened anyway.
China has doomed Port Talbot. It hasn't received meaningful investment in years, and China's over-production of steel is astonishing. I think it accounts for about half the global total.
You see estimates of 400k job losses in the Chinese steel industry coming up. You can hardly blame them for not being that fussed about job losses in South Wales.
I'd be interested in ideas on how to improve UK labour mobility. Port Talbot has 4k odd jobs on the line. The UK created 500k jobs last year.
The issue in South Wales is that people are reluctant to move to find work. I don't blame them of course; but it would be great if we were more like the USA in that regard.
Do you think it likely that the 27 rEU countries would agree to allow us single market access without requiring UK compliance with EU environmental legislation?
If we join the EEA, we have single market access, and our obligations are set out in the EEA Agreement, and not what the 27 countries may or may not want.
THis is one area where I hope we can remain ahead of EU legislation outwith or within:
The UK was ahead of the EU on sow stall legislation, to give a specific example.
Remember, though, that the EU laws are merely the lowest common denominator. Having lived there for 10 years, I'm sure that many animals in countries such as Germany are also kept in better conditions than EU law demands.
Anyway, my (and the New Scientist's) original point was that the UK has held back EU environmental legislation in recent years, and so future EU environmental legislation is likely to be stronger and, ultimately, will benefit animals as well as people.
Given that the UK has, for better or worse (and I of course would suggest worse), had far stronger laws to limit CO2 emissions than the rest of the EU and has had more success in cutting emissions I would suggest that your claims (and those of New Scientist) are mistaken. Even more so if one adds in the fact that the UK has unilaterally introduced the largest marine conservation areas in the world.
You'll forgive me if I place more credence in the opinions of the New Scientist than I do in yours.
A couple of points. One, some of those countries, such as France, are already starting from a lower baseline than the UK. Despite our cuts, we have still not achieved the low emissions per capita of, for example, France and Spain. Two, environmental legislation is not just about CO2 emissions.
In any case, the main point stands that the UK is likely to have to abide by future EU environmental legislation if it wants Single Market access, but the UK will not have a hand in drafting that legislation.
What is your authority for your last assertion? I don't think that environmental law is single market competence.
Do you think it likely that the 27 rEU countries would agree to allow us single market access without requiring UK compliance with EU environmental legislation?
Things like emissions standards are with in the Single Market remit.
Only hazardous material movement comes under the Environmental DG.
However, that's logic chopping. Of course they wouldn't permit it.
@PickardJE: About to break: Tata is in talks with German rival Thyssenkrupp about a joint venture for their European assets, including Port Talbot.
@rupertevelyn: BREAK: Port Talbot to stay with Tata but I understand 100 million pound cost cutting to follow. Expect job losses
hmm
a JV just means theyll close the british plants and move production to Germany.
Tata owns two steel mills. Thyssenkrupp is interested in the Netherlands one because it is profitable, in the EU and uses their technology, unlike the Welsh plant. From what I read
The former Hoogovens plant at Ijmuiden is too expensive to close.
Asset strip the UK because its easier
True, Brexit is only one of the reasons to close the Welsh plant. It probably would have happened anyway.
China has doomed Port Talbot. It hasn't received meaningful investment in years, and China's over-production of steel is astonishing. I think it accounts for about half the global total.
You see estimates of 400k job losses in the Chinese steel industry coming up. You can hardly blame them for not being that fussed about job losses in South Wales.
I'd be interested in ideas on how to improve UK labour mobility. Port Talbot has 4k odd jobs on the line. The UK created 500k jobs last year.
The issue in South Wales is that people are reluctant to move to find work. I don't blame them of course; but it would be great if we were more like the USA in that regard.
This week's New Scientist is pretty upbeat about the effect of Brexit on the environment. It seems that the UK has been responsible for blocking or watering down many EU environmental regulations in recent years. Because of this, future EU environment laws are likely to be stronger without the input of the UK, but the UK will still have to abide by them in the event of a Norway-type arrangement.
Imagine the regression in animal welfare laws in the EU now that the Uk is out.
Cheap veal will be on the menu.
What makes you think other EU countries are less concerned about animal welfare than the UK? Which EU laws do you think they'll repeal?
THis is one area where I hope we can remain ahead of EU legislation outwith or within:
The UK was ahead of the EU on sow stall legislation, to give a specific example.
Remember, though, that the EU laws are merely the lowest common denominator. Having lived there for 10 years, I'm sure that many animals in countries such as Germany are also kept in better conditions than EU law demands.
Anyway, my (and the New Scientist's) original point was that the UK has held back EU environmental legislation in recent years, and so future EU environmental legislation is likely to be stronger and, ultimately, will benefit animals as well as people.
Given that the UK has, for better or worse (and I of course would suggest worse), had far stronger laws to limit CO2 emissions than the rest of the EU and has had more success in cutting emissions I would suggest that your claims (and those of New Scientist) are mistaken. Even more so if one adds in the fact that the UK has unilaterally introduced the largest marine conservation areas in the world.
You'll forgive me if I place more credence in the opinions of the New Scientist than I do in yours.
That's because you prefer the work if a biased press to actual facts.
The Conservative party rank and file are far more Conservative than the Parliamentary party. Many had their noses put out of joint by Cameron and other "modernisers" Penchant for parachuting in Left leaning centrists rather than local candidates. That will not be forgotten. My money's on Leadsom.
Comments
I live in a third world country, almost no one goes abroad in their entire life, almost no one has a pension scheme, when I adopted my first daughter she was 6 years old and had never had a birthday or christmas in her life, because her parents could not afford the celebration or a gift. The government does very little for most people, and yet they have general elections with turn outs over 70% almost every time, and people have both civic and national pride. You shouldn't need money, or investments, or pensions to care what happens to your country.
And you maximise seats by winning the middle ground floating voters - which is why Blair had such a brilliant votes to seats conversion rate and why Cameron has now got Con into a much more favourable votes to seats conversion rate than Lab.
Picking up the old buffer UKIP vote won't gain net seats if floating votes are lost directly over to Lab - which they will be with Leadsom's social policies.
The big picture is what matters.
The UK is incredibly spoiled. The tantrums we're seeing are understandable but still sad. Look at Italy. No economic growth since 2000. GDP per capita at the same level as 1997. Still a great country that people love to visit and even live in. It really isn't all about money.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/new-iron-lady-orders-cameron-to-win-back-powers-from-brussels-6285111.html
IMO she would beat Corbyn in 2020 but I think at this point a plant pot with a blue rosette would. If Corbyn somehow goes and they moved back to the center left then I think Leadsom is far more beatable than May.
I can only speak for myself in that I have voted Tory at every GE since I was of age to vote and there is no way I can vote for someone like Leadsom.
I would happily bet that May will rate better.
I guess the response would be that nobody knows her yet and once she becomes PM if she does well she'll rate well. There's obviously no way of proving that either way unless she does actually become PM. But my view is she will do significantly worse than May in a GE.
In any case, the main point stands that the UK is likely to have to abide by future EU environmental legislation if it wants Single Market access, but the UK will not have a hand in drafting that legislation.
I don't profess to understand the steel industry and all the different types of steel but I read that China now produces 50% of the world's steel, can't use it it all and so is flogging it off cheap wherever it can. The USA has imposed 500% tariffs. The EU and the UK has sacrificed its workers to a life on benefits.
Free trade seems to be a great idea but the mercantilists seem to do better than the free traders.
If the centre ground means anything, it's the likes of Basildon, Nuneaton, Cannock Chase, Worcester, Bury. All of them (and most of the other typical bellwether constituenices in general elections) delivered heavy Leave wins. They seem to quite like "social conservative" policies, while they also placed no store at all in what the Establishment considers to be "economic credibility" or in the opinions of big businesses.
Though that's not to say Leadsom would do better for the Tories than May (it's less their policies but the fact that May looks and sounds like a natural leader, whereas Leadsom still seems clearly out of her depth.)
£350m was on a campaign group poster - its too complicated for some.
FTSE 250 Closed +278
FTSE 350 Closed +36
"It really isn't all about money."
Well said, Mr. M. That is something that should be posted up over every door to the Houses of Parliament, and for good measure, in big letters at the top of each thread on here.
The issue in South Wales is that people are reluctant to move to find work. I don't blame them of course; but it would be great if we were more like the USA in that regard.
Only hazardous material movement comes under the Environmental DG.
However, that's logic chopping. Of course they wouldn't permit it.
Parliamentary party.
Many had their noses put out of joint by Cameron and other "modernisers"
Penchant for parachuting in Left leaning centrists rather than local candidates.
That will not be forgotten.
My money's on Leadsom.