News from South Oxfordshire Council, where Loathesome was a Councillor:. My Man in the Robes tells me she was "Lazy, useless and stupid". More comedy gold to mine from that rich seam in the weeks to come.
bunnco. Your man on the spot
The risk is that all this overblown opprobrium will lower the bar she needs to step over in the coming weeks. Leadsom may not be PM material but she's clearly got some political talent.
Yes, and too much sneering and chortling will win Leadsom precious sympathy.
The best strategy, for her opponents, is to step back and let her trip over her own contradictions. She's already on record saying "the £ will not fall after Brexit".
the Mayists are too busy pursuing their womb with a view scandal
it's just amazing the politicos get one of their biggest kicking in living memory and they still think we give a fuck about where they get their hair done.
I guess you don't care how untruthful our politicians are. I do,
theyre all untruthful, thats why theyre politicians.
You are just an everyday cynic. Is your glass half full or half empty....
well lets see can you think of any PM in the modern era who hasnt lied ? Im afraid in your search for a saint you will be sorely disappointed.
I dont actually mind a liar PM if they are effective.
effective to your viewpoint= just about impossible. Life would be unbearable if you couldn't be critical of politicians.
It's a fairly arrogant profession, these are people who say they can run your life better than you can. Really they can't.
.. but you like to berate them for it daily don't you....
Since I lost my wife, I have an entirely different outlook on life. and taking any politician seriously isn't on the agenda.
The reality is that at this juncture you have to vote Tory because Corbyn is bonkers, and until he is got rid of , it will remain so... then you can reassess. The individuals in the Tory party matter in this leadership election only inasmuch as the leader must be the one least likely to screw up, and that isn't Leadsom.
No I dont
Ill vote for a party with decent policies. If the Tories have them Ill vote for them if they dont I wont.
This crap of trying to scare voters about the other lot has just failed. Good.
The Norway option, even modified, seems like a non-starter to me. How can Theresa May say "Brexit means Brexit", yet keep us under the integrationist European Court of Justice, keep us under existing and future EU laws, and keep us unable to control immigration levels?
Because the alternative is economic calamity, ending all immigration was not on the ballot only withdrawing from the EU and because we were in EFTA anyway before we joined the EEC. It also keeps us outside all EU laws not concerning the single market
So... If the PLP rebels break away and form a completely new party, would they become the official opposition? Assuming the numbers support it, of course.
Does anyone know the answer to this? Even constitutional experts? I'm guessing the power rests with the Speaker, who would then need to be protected every time he left the building from Momentum nutters.
The Official Opposition is the largest party not in government. It doesn't matter if that party was formed 5 minutes ago and was created by defectors - as long as it is a properly constituted and registered political party.
Wouldn't be up to Bercow - it is a matter of the constitution and maths.
But Realist Labour would have to be confident of taking 140 to the new group to be certain.
Speaker Bercow does indeed have the final say under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, since LOTO is a paid position.
However, I suspect he would exercise caution, and not simply transfer that position to the leader of some informal grouping, however large.
He would probably want evidence of a formal, irrevocable split.
i) expulsion or resignation of members from the Labour Party ii) legal formation and registration of a new party iii) proof of the size of the new party and its membership in Parliament iv) (perhaps) proof the new party is actually contesting elections
The Norway option, even modified, seems like a non-starter to me. How can Theresa May say "Brexit means Brexit", yet keep us under the integrationist European Court of Justice, keep us under existing and future EU laws, and keep us unable to control immigration levels?
1. Norway has a veto 2. Norway only implements laws that refer to the single market (c. one third of the total) 3. The ECJ is only sovereign in matters relating to trade between the EU and other EEA states
In other words, no more sovereignty is given up than in signing an FTA with the US (which involves accepting the judgement of ISDS tribuals), and probably less, as the ISDS tribunals act on the precautionary principle, which the ECJ with EFTA states does not.
The Norway option, even modified, seems like a non-starter to me. How can Theresa May say "Brexit means Brexit", yet keep us under the integrationist European Court of Justice, keep us under existing and future EU laws, and keep us unable to control immigration levels?
Norway isnt under the ECJ.
Norway only has to comply with single market laws. About 10% of the total and most complied with through European Norm Technical Standards which are mostly derived from ISO standards and in many originate historically from British Standards.
EFTA/EEA already allow certain restrictions on free movement/migrant benefits that EU rules do not.
Why exactly should we believe an opinion poll conducting 3 weeks later is any more accurate than one conducted on the day of the poll?
The methodology involves adjustments for false recall which must surely be partially begging the question when you're trying to work out who actually voted. Given the hysteria afterwards it would not be remotely shocking for young 'voters' to be most likely to claim to have voted when they didn't.
BS. No way turnout is only 2% lower amongst 18-24 year olds than 40 year olds.....false re-call.
And IF it is 64% then the gap between Remain and Leave would not be 75-25%.
News from South Oxfordshire Council, where Loathesome was a Councillor:. My Man in the Robes tells me she was "Lazy, useless and stupid". More comedy gold to mine from that rich seam in the weeks to come.
bunnco. Your man on the spot
The risk is that all this overblown opprobrium will lower the bar she needs to step over in the coming weeks. Leadsom may not be PM material but she's clearly got some political talent.
Yes, and too much sneering and chortling will win Leadsom precious sympathy.
The best strategy, for her opponents, is to step back and let her trip over her own contradictions. She's already on record saying "the £ will not fall after Brexit".
the Mayists are too busy pursuing their womb with a view scandal
it's just amazing the politicos get one of their biggest kicking in living memory and they still think we give a fuck about where they get their hair done.
I guess you don't care how untruthful our politicians are. I do,
theyre all untruthful, thats why theyre politicians.
They have to be untruthful. The country would go into meltdown if they were told the truth .
Yep. We can't handle the truth.
The irony being that the Brexit vote is likely to do something that no politician dared: rebase our economy by slashing property prices by 30% or so and scaring people off excessive household debt thereby for generations.
Its post-facto rationalisation, but Brexit might force the political classes to make some of those 'tough decisions' they've been wittering about for decades.
Like, maybe build a new runway. Or build a few houses. Or fund the NHS by actually raising taxes. Abolish the triple lock. Baby steps.
What are the odds on an Independent Labour Party forming inside the House of Commons? I can only assume that Eagle's bid will fail and Corbyn will hang on. Then a group of Labour MPs break away, presumably enough to make them the official opposition and perhaps crucially enough so that Labour only has enough MPs to be the fourth largest block behind the SNP. Corbyn would then very much be relegated to the sidelines.
The biggest problem is that the ILP does not yet have anyone to lead it. Alan Johnson, at least as a stop gap? David Miliband returning for a by election?
Of course we are not. All the real power was in Brussels.
Now we have voted to change that the Buck Stops with Westminster and that will attract suitably able people over time.
As a suitably able person, politics is shit. Who wants to work awful hours, have the press following you around everywhere, and get paid peanuts?
Other than getting to sleep with your researcher, what's the benefit of being an MP?
An MPs salary is comfortably in the top 10% of earners plus there are still expenses, overseas trips and the chance to be a minor celebrity or a major one if you get to the top
The Norway option, even modified, seems like a non-starter to me. How can Theresa May say "Brexit means Brexit", yet keep us under the integrationist European Court of Justice, keep us under existing and future EU laws, and keep us unable to control immigration levels?
We'd only be under the ECJ for trade. All the rest of EU law - the great bulk of it - would return to Westminster, where our own parliament would be sovereign. And we'd be out of CAP, the CFP, too.
We'll probably get an emergency brake on immigration, and/or EU nationals will need a job to come here. But we will have to pay for it. Any savings will be trivial.
It's not a pure and brilliant Brexit, but it is probably the best we can get, with luck and skill. And we will be outside of the European political Union, as the voters requested. The next passport you get will not say European Union, anywhere: it will just say United Kingdom.
Hang on a minute. We just had a referendum where Leave won 52% to 48%. The two leading reasons for people voting Leave were to have laws only be made in this country, and to have control over who and how many can immigrants can come here. If we join the EEA, both of those reasons would have been trampled over.
It's realpolitik. The EU Commission can say what it likes, but in the end if Paris, Rome and Berlin want to talk to London - and clearly they do - then that is what will happen.
And with Barrosso taking a job at Goldman Sachs in London, no doubt the Commission will get the inside track on how the City is viewing things.
I'm going to make a bold and absurd prediction.
May will win. She will swiftly move to a kind of EEA+ situation. The UK will retain full access to the Single Market. We will agree to pay a very hefty contribution - probably more than Norway per capita - but a few million less than we do now; in return we will get qualified free movement: only people with job offers can move to the UK, and we have an emergency brake.
Everyone will be half satisfied, but no more than that. We will be still be closely linked to the EU, pacifying the REMAINIANS. We will be out of CAP, CFP, much of the acquis, pacifying the sovereigntists. Immigration will come down and we will have much more migration control (but not total), pacifying the migration-worriers. The City will survive.
It will be a fudge. But one that most of the country will tolerate, perhaps relieved that Doomsday has been averted.
It's not absurd. In fact, I'd mentally sketched out an article on very similar lines - a sort of Three-Plus Freedoms arrangement. However, the profusion of leadership elections to comment on meant that it hasn't been written yet.
That's an OK deal for the UK but what's in it for the EU? What are they gaining in return for bailing us out of the mess we've got ourselves into?
The Norway option, even modified, seems like a non-starter to me. How can Theresa May say "Brexit means Brexit", yet keep us under the integrationist European Court of Justice, keep us under existing and future EU laws, and keep us unable to control immigration levels?
We'd only be under the ECJ for trade. All the rest of EU law - the great bulk of it - would return to Westminster, where our own parliament would be sovereign. And we'd be out of CAP, the CFP, too.
We'll probably get an emergency brake on immigration, and/or EU nationals will need a job to come here. But we will have to pay for it. Any savings will be trivial.
It's not a pure and brilliant Brexit, but it is probably the best we can get, with luck and skill. And we will be outside of the European political Union, as the voters requested. The next passport you get will not say European Union, anywhere: it will just say United Kingdom.
Hang on a minute. We just had a referendum where Leave won 52% to 48%. The two leading reasons for people voting Leave were to have laws only be made in this country, and to have control over who and how many can immigrants can come here. If we join the EEA, both of those reasons would have been trampled over.
On this site, there are a lot of people - including myself, MaxPB, Richard_Tyndall, CasinoRoyale, and SeanT - who all voted Leave. And who all wanted EFTA/EEA. Indeed, the opinion polls show a good third of the Leave voters want a relationship like EFTA/EEA.
Now, I agree we need a referendum on what the future relationship with the EU should look like. But this is not a situation where 51% of the 51% get to choose over something preferred by a clear majority of Brits.
Of course we are not. All the real power was in Brussels.
Now we have voted to change that the Buck Stops with Westminster and that will attract suitably able people over time.
As a suitably able person, politics is shit. Who wants to work awful hours, have the press following you around everywhere, and get paid peanuts?
Other than getting to sleep with your researcher, what's the benefit of being an MP?
An MPs salary is comfortably in the top 10% of earners plus there are still expenses, overseas trips and the chance to be a minor celebrity or a major one if you get to the top
So, being an MP attracts people in the 88th to 92nd percentile.
rcs- Robert I do fin it worrying that you think MPs are paid peanuts. When you consider all the paid expenses they get, I would have thought they are in the top 5% of earners.
The Norway option, even modified, seems like a non-starter to me. How can Theresa May say "Brexit means Brexit", yet keep us under the integrationist European Court of Justice, keep us under existing and future EU laws, and keep us unable to control immigration levels?
We'd only be under the ECJ for trade. All the rest of EU law - the great bulk of it - would return to Westminster, where our own parliament would be sovereign. And we'd be out of CAP, the CFP, too.
We'll probably get an emergency brake on immigration, and/or EU nationals will need a job to come here. But we will have to pay for it. Any savings will be trivial.
It's not a pure and brilliant Brexit, but it is probably the best we can get, with luck and skill. And we will be outside of the European political Union, as the voters requested. The next passport you get will not say European Union, anywhere: it will just say United Kingdom.
Hang on a minute. We just had a referendum where Leave won 52% to 48%. The two leading reasons for people voting Leave were to have laws only be made in this country, and to have control over who and how many can immigrants can come here. If we join the EEA, both of those reasons would have been trampled over.
Yes hilariously funny "Tory" Jim. I'll make up my own mind about Leadsom thank you - be assured though the sniping and sneering at Leadsom by Remainers won't persuade me to vote for May, in fact it might have the opposite effect. Mike is right - a skilled media manager is exactly what she needs. Being skilled at media is not quite everything though. No-one was more skilled than Blair and his acolytes and we know how that ended up.
rcs- Robert I do fin it worrying that you think MPs are paid peanuts. When you consider all the paid expenses they get, I would have thought they are in the top 5% of earners.
OK. I'm ex-Goldman Sachs, so I probably have a skewed view of the world
What are the odds on an Independent Labour Party forming inside the House of Commons? I can only assume that Eagle's bid will fail and Corbyn will hang on. Then a group of Labour MPs break away, presumably enough to make them the official opposition and perhaps crucially enough so that Labour only has enough MPs to be the fourth largest block behind the SNP. Corbyn would then very much be relegated to the sidelines.
The biggest problem is that the ILP does not yet have anyone to lead it. Alan Johnson, at least as a stop gap? David Miliband returning for a by election?
As I said, it might take a while for Bercow to be satisfied it is really happening. Legal processes - and perhaps litigation - could delay matters considerably.
The Norway option, even modified, seems like a non-starter to me. How can Theresa May say "Brexit means Brexit", yet keep us under the integrationist European Court of Justice, keep us under existing and future EU laws, and keep us unable to control immigration levels?
1. Norway has a veto 2. Norway only implements laws that refer to the single market (c. one third of the total) 3. The ECJ is only sovereign in matters relating to trade between the EU and other EEA states
In other words, no more sovereignty is given up than in signing an FTA with the US (which involves accepting the judgement of ISDS tribuals), and probably less, as the ISDS tribunals act on the precautionary principle, which the ECJ with EFTA states does not.
Norway does not have a veto, whatever some people say. The EEA Joint Committee is obliged to enact every EU single market law into the EEA. If a state vetoes it, then the EEA Joint Committee will be failing its treaty commitments, and the case will be decided by the European Court of Justice. How do you think they will decide?
The Norway option, even modified, seems like a non-starter to me. How can Theresa May say "Brexit means Brexit", yet keep us under the integrationist European Court of Justice, keep us under existing and future EU laws, and keep us unable to control immigration levels?
We'd only be under the ECJ for trade. All the rest of EU law - the great bulk of it - would return to Westminster, where our own parliament would be sovereign. And we'd be out of CAP, the CFP, too.
We'll probably get an emergency brake on immigration, and/or EU nationals will need a job to come here. But we will have to pay for it. Any savings will be trivial.
It's not a pure and brilliant Brexit, but it is probably the best we can get, with luck and skill. And we will be outside of the European political Union, as the voters requested. The next passport you get will not say European Union, anywhere: it will just say United Kingdom.
Hang on a minute. We just had a referendum where Leave won 52% to 48%. The two leading reasons for people voting Leave were to have laws only be made in this country, and to have control over who and how many can immigrants can come here. If we join the EEA, both of those reasons would have been trampled over.
On this site, there are a lot of people - including myself, MaxPB, Richard_Tyndall, CasinoRoyale, and SeanT - who all voted Leave. And who all wanted EFTA/EEA. Indeed, the opinion polls show a good third of the Leave voters want a relationship like EFTA/EEA.
Now, I agree we need a referendum on what the future relationship with the EU should look like. But this is not a situation where 51% of the 51% get to choose over something preferred by a clear majority of Brits.
Do you think that a Tory deal to get out of the EU will get past the electorate?
The Norway option, even modified, seems like a non-starter to me. How can Theresa May say "Brexit means Brexit", yet keep us under the integrationist European Court of Justice, keep us under existing and future EU laws, and keep us unable to control immigration levels?
1. Norway has a veto 2. Norway only implements laws that refer to the single market (c. one third of the total) 3. The ECJ is only sovereign in matters relating to trade between the EU and other EEA states
In other words, no more sovereignty is given up than in signing an FTA with the US (which involves accepting the judgement of ISDS tribuals), and probably less, as the ISDS tribunals act on the precautionary principle, which the ECJ with EFTA states does not.
Norway does not have a veto, whatever some people say. The EEA Joint Committee is obliged to enact every EU single market law into the EEA. If a state vetoes it, then the EEA Joint Committee will be failing its treaty commitments, and the case will be decided by the European Court of Justice. How do you think they will decide?
I'd have preferred the Swiss option but a variation on Norway's relationship might work. The trade off (so to speak) between Single Market and Freedom of Movement is the crux of all this and how this is achieved will be crucial to judging the success or otherwise of the negotiations. After Cameron's dire effort earlier in the year, I will be looking for something more definite.
As an aside and given the vitrol directed against her by some, what if Leadsom wins ? Could the Conservatives split ? Not likely but must be considered. In any case, even if May wins, how will any of this have lanced the Euro-boil ? Cameron's aim in calling the Referendum was to end the internal dispute which has plagued the Conservatives for 30 years.
In the negotiation, May will have to balance the pro-EU dissidents and ex-Cameroons who basically want status quo and the Leadsomites who want a much clearer split with the EU. Squaring that circle is going to be a real test.
It's realpolitik. The EU Commission can say what it likes, but in the end if Paris, Rome and Berlin want to talk to London - and clearly they do - then that is what will happen.
And with Barrosso taking a job at Goldman Sachs in London, no doubt the Commission will get the inside track on how the City is viewing things.
I'm going to make a bold and absurd prediction.
May will win. She will swiftly move to a kind of EEA+ situation. The UK will retain full access to the Single Market. We will agree to pay a very hefty contribution - probably more than Norway per capita - but a few million less than we do now; in return we will get qualified free movement: only people with job offers can move to the UK, and we have an emergency brake.
Everyone will be half satisfied, but no more than that. We will be still be closely linked to the EU, pacifying the REMAINIANS. We will be out of CAP, CFP, much of the acquis, pacifying the sovereigntists. Immigration will come down and we will have much more migration control (but not total), pacifying the migration-worriers. The City will survive.
It will be a fudge. But one that most of the country will tolerate, perhaps relieved that Doomsday has been averted.
It's not absurd. In fact, I'd mentally sketched out an article on very similar lines - a sort of Three-Plus Freedoms arrangement. However, the profusion of leadership elections to comment on meant that it hasn't been written yet.
That's an OK deal for the UK but what's in it for the EU? What are they gaining in return for bailing us out of the mess we've got ourselves into?
Economic stability, plus we will still have to contribute to EU coffers, plus they've got rid of us as a block on integration: we have traded our power for more freedom
It's not a bad deal for the EU, it's not a bad deal for us. It is a compromise.
I'd add that they could sell it as Britain still being part of the European project (associate member?) thereby heading off further exits at the pass.
Still not convinced EEA is going to be that simple, but it's out of our hands now.
Having done a bit of research MPs might be in the top 2-3%. I can't help feeling that an educated person thinks this is peanuts might help to explain the enormous divisions we now face in the UK. Where I live people would consider you mad for saying that.
The Norway option, even modified, seems like a non-starter to me. How can Theresa May say "Brexit means Brexit", yet keep us under the integrationist European Court of Justice, keep us under existing and future EU laws, and keep us unable to control immigration levels?
THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE IS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EU
The Norway option, even modified, seems like a non-starter to me. How can Theresa May say "Brexit means Brexit", yet keep us under the integrationist European Court of Justice, keep us under existing and future EU laws, and keep us unable to control immigration levels?
We'd only be under the ECJ for trade. All the rest of EU law - the great bulk of it - would return to Westminster, where our own parliament would be sovereign. And we'd be out of CAP, the CFP, too.
We'll probably get an emergency brake on immigration, and/or EU nationals will need a job to come here. But we will have to pay for it. Any savings will be trivial.
It's not a pure and brilliant Brexit, but it is probably the best we can get, with luck and skill. And we will be outside of the European political Union, as the voters requested. The next passport you get will not say European Union, anywhere: it will just say United Kingdom.
Hang on a minute. We just had a referendum where Leave won 52% to 48%. The two leading reasons for people voting Leave were to have laws only be made in this country, and to have control over who and how many can immigrants can come here. If we join the EEA, both of those reasons would have been trampled over.
On this site, there are a lot of people - including myself, MaxPB, Richard_Tyndall, CasinoRoyale, and SeanT - who all voted Leave. And who all wanted EFTA/EEA. Indeed, the opinion polls show a good third of the Leave voters want a relationship like EFTA/EEA.
Now, I agree we need a referendum on what the future relationship with the EU should look like. But this is not a situation where 51% of the 51% get to choose over something preferred by a clear majority of Brits.
Do you think that a Tory deal to get out of the EU will get past the electorate?
Would REMAIN and Ukip come together to block it?
My view - all along - was that the referendum should have had a two part question:
Do you believe the UK should be a member of the EU?
If not, do you believe it should have a relationship like Norway or something looser?
The Norway option, even modified, seems like a non-starter to me. How can Theresa May say "Brexit means Brexit", yet keep us under the integrationist European Court of Justice, keep us under existing and future EU laws, and keep us unable to control immigration levels?
1. Norway has a veto 2. Norway only implements laws that refer to the single market (c. one third of the total) 3. The ECJ is only sovereign in matters relating to trade between the EU and other EEA states
In other words, no more sovereignty is given up than in signing an FTA with the US (which involves accepting the judgement of ISDS tribuals), and probably less, as the ISDS tribunals act on the precautionary principle, which the ECJ with EFTA states does not.
Norway does not have a veto, whatever some people say. The EEA Joint Committee is obliged to enact every EU single market law into the EEA. If a state vetoes it, then the EEA Joint Committee will be failing its treaty commitments, and the case will be decided by the European Court of Justice. How do you think they will decide?
News from South Oxfordshire Council, where Loathesome was a Councillor:. My Man in the Robes tells me she was "Lazy, useless and stupid". More comedy gold to mine from that rich seam in the weeks to come.
bunnco. Your man on the spot
The risk is that all this overblown opprobrium will lower the bar she needs to step over in the coming weeks. Leadsom may not be PM material but she's clearly got some political talent.
Yes, and too much sneering and chortling will win Leadsom precious sympathy.
The best strategy, for her opponents, is to step back and let her trip over her own contradictions. She's already on record saying "the £ will not fall after Brexit".
the Mayists are too busy pursuing their womb with a view scandal
it's just amazing the politicos get one of their biggest kicking in living memory and they still think we give a fuck about where they get their hair done.
I guess you don't care how untruthful our politicians are. I do,
theyre all untruthful, thats why theyre politicians.
They have to be untruthful. The country would go into meltdown if they were told the truth .
Yep. We can't handle the truth.
The irony being that the Brexit vote is likely to do something that no politician dared: rebase our economy by slashing property prices by 30% or so and scaring people off excessive household debt thereby for generations.
Its post-facto rationalisation, but Brexit might force the political classes to make some of those 'tough decisions' they've been wittering about for decades.
Like, maybe build a new runway. Or build a few houses. Or fund the NHS by actually raising taxes. Abolish the triple lock. Baby steps.
It's realpolitik. The EU Commission can say what it likes, but in the end if Paris, Rome and Berlin want to talk to London - and clearly they do - then that is what will happen.
And with Barrosso taking a job at Goldman Sachs in London, no doubt the Commission will get the inside track on how the City is viewing things.
I'm going to make a bold and absurd prediction.
May will win. She will swiftly move to a kind of EEA+ situation. The UK will retain full access to the Single Market. We will agree to pay a very hefty contribution - probably more than Norway per capita - but a few million less than we do now; in return we will get qualified free movement: only people with job offers can move to the UK, and we have an emergency brake.
Everyone will be half satisfied, but no more than that. We will be still be closely linked to the EU, pacifying the REMAINIANS. We will be out of CAP, CFP, much of the acquis, pacifying the sovereigntists. Immigration will come down and we will have much more migration control (but not total), pacifying the migration-worriers. The City will survive.
It will be a fudge. But one that most of the country will tolerate, perhaps relieved that Doomsday has been averted.
It's not absurd. In fact, I'd mentally sketched out an article on very similar lines - a sort of Three-Plus Freedoms arrangement. However, the profusion of leadership elections to comment on meant that it hasn't been written yet.
That's an OK deal for the UK but what's in it for the EU? What are they gaining in return for bailing us out of the mess we've got ourselves into?
Economic stability, plus we will still have to contribute to EU coffers, plus they've got rid of us as a block on integration: we have traded our power for more freedom
It's not a bad deal for the EU, it's not a bad deal for us. It is a compromise.
Why doesn't May spell that out then and see if she wins on that platform?
The Norway option, even modified, seems like a non-starter to me. How can Theresa May say "Brexit means Brexit", yet keep us under the integrationist European Court of Justice, keep us under existing and future EU laws, and keep us unable to control immigration levels?
THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE IS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EU
"The European Court of Justice (ECJ), officially just the Court of Justice (French: Cour de Justice), is the highest court in the European Union in matters of European Union law."
Having done a bit of research MPs might be in the top 2-3%. I can't help feeling that an educated person thinks this is peanuts might help to explain the enormous divisions we now face in the UK. Where I live people would consider you mad for saying that.
There are some rich lads on here. But even a very middling sort like me used to charge out @ £750-1000 per day. Interims make much more. Then you have the city itself.
rcs- Robert I do fin it worrying that you think MPs are paid peanuts. When you consider all the paid expenses they get, I would have thought they are in the top 5% of earners.
OK. I'm ex-Goldman Sachs, so I probably have a skewed view of the world
The Norway option, even modified, seems like a non-starter to me. How can Theresa May say "Brexit means Brexit", yet keep us under the integrationist European Court of Justice, keep us under existing and future EU laws, and keep us unable to control immigration levels?
1. Norway has a veto 2. Norway only implements laws that refer to the single market (c. one third of the total) 3. The ECJ is only sovereign in matters relating to trade between the EU and other EEA states
In other words, no more sovereignty is given up than in signing an FTA with the US (which involves accepting the judgement of ISDS tribuals), and probably less, as the ISDS tribunals act on the precautionary principle, which the ECJ with EFTA states does not.
Even then the ECJ doesn't have jurisdiction, it would be the less malign EFTA court which is not bound by the same "ever closer union" guff that the ECJ use to railroad poor decisions through.
The Norway option, even modified, seems like a non-starter to me. How can Theresa May say "Brexit means Brexit", yet keep us under the integrationist European Court of Justice, keep us under existing and future EU laws, and keep us unable to control immigration levels?
1. Norway has a veto 2. Norway only implements laws that refer to the single market (c. one third of the total) 3. The ECJ is only sovereign in matters relating to trade between the EU and other EEA states
In other words, no more sovereignty is given up than in signing an FTA with the US (which involves accepting the judgement of ISDS tribuals), and probably less, as the ISDS tribunals act on the precautionary principle, which the ECJ with EFTA states does not.
Norway does not have a veto, whatever some people say. The EEA Joint Committee is obliged to enact every EU single market law into the EEA. If a state vetoes it, then the EEA Joint Committee will be failing its treaty commitments, and the case will be decided by the European Court of Justice. How do you think they will decide?
I have read it, and I have spoken to international lawyers about it. Would you like to explain why you disagree with my interpretation?
Article 103: The sole sanction that is available for non-compliance is suspension from the EEA! That's it. All they can get is... us not giving them money.
It is therefore fundamentally different from the EU (or indeed even the ISDS provision of the TPP or NAFTA) in that there is no ability of the ECJ to overturn national law or impose unlimited fines.
I would particularly draw Ms. Eagle's attention to this paragraph:
'A putsch against Corbyn, as one MP gloomily observed, raises the prospect of him just winning again, leaving Labour looking 'not only unelectable but ducking stupid'.
(Paraphrased because iPhones won't select the relevant words and I haven't much time.)
This is the moment of truth for Labour. If they re-elect Corbyn then they deserve what is coming to them, which will be 30 seats at the next election. The problem is that is what we all know they will go for.
The establishment troughers are not happy with jezza being loved by the grass roots, that is not what is supposed to happen, they think they should make all the decisions and only suffer the plebs once every five years..
News from South Oxfordshire Council, where Loathesome was a Councillor:. My Man in the Robes tells me she was "Lazy, useless and stupid". More comedy gold to mine from that rich seam in the weeks to come.
bunnco. Your man on the spot
The risk is that all this overblown opprobrium will lower the bar she needs to step over in the coming weeks. Leadsom may not be PM material but she's clearly got some political talent.
Yes, and too much sneering and chortling will win Leadsom precious sympathy.
The best strategy, for her opponents, is to step back and let her trip over her own contradictions. She's already on record saying "the £ will not fall after Brexit".
the Mayists are too busy pursuing their womb with a view scandal
it's just amazing the politicos get one of their biggest kicking in living memory and they still think we give a fuck about where they get their hair done.
I guess you don't care how untruthful our politicians are. I do,
theyre all untruthful, thats why theyre politicians.
You are just an everyday cynic. Is your glass half full or half empty....
well lets see can you think of any PM in the modern era who hasnt lied ? Im afraid in your search for a saint you will be sorely disappointed.
I dont actually mind a liar PM if they are effective.
Exactly it is th efact that they are useless and liars that is the issue.
The Norway option, even modified, seems like a non-starter to me. How can Theresa May say "Brexit means Brexit", yet keep us under the integrationist European Court of Justice, keep us under existing and future EU laws, and keep us unable to control immigration levels?
1. Norway has a veto 2. Norway only implements laws that refer to the single market (c. one third of the total) 3. The ECJ is only sovereign in matters relating to trade between the EU and other EEA states
In other words, no more sovereignty is given up than in signing an FTA with the US (which involves accepting the judgement of ISDS tribuals), and probably less, as the ISDS tribunals act on the precautionary principle, which the ECJ with EFTA states does not.
Norway does not have a veto, whatever some people say. The EEA Joint Committee is obliged to enact every EU single market law into the EEA. If a state vetoes it, then the EEA Joint Committee will be failing its treaty commitments, and the case will be decided by the European Court of Justice. How do you think they will decide?
I have read it, and I have spoken to international lawyers about it. Would you like to explain why you disagree with my interpretation?
Article 103: The sole sanction that is available for non-compliance is suspension from the EEA! That's it. All they can get is... us not giving them money.
It is therefore fundamentally different from the EU (or indeed even the ISDS provision of the TPP or NAFTA) in that there is no ability of the ECJ to overturn national law or impose unlimited fines.
Complete suspension from all free trade with the EU is much greater in economic cost than any EU fine. You and I both know the UK would back down every time.
News from South Oxfordshire Council, where Loathesome was a Councillor:. My Man in the Robes tells me she was "Lazy, useless and stupid". More comedy gold to mine from that rich seam in the weeks to come.
bunnco. Your man on the spot
The risk is that all this overblown opprobrium will lower the bar she needs to step over in the coming weeks. Leadsom may not be PM material but she's clearly got some political talent.
Yes, and too much sneering and chortling will win Leadsom precious sympathy.
The best strategy, for her opponents, is to step back and let her trip over her own contradictions. She's already on record saying "the £ will not fall after Brexit".
the Mayists are too busy pursuing their womb with a view scandal
it's just amazing the politicos get one of their biggest kicking in living memory and they still think we give a fuck about where they get their hair done.
I guess you don't care how untruthful our politicians are. I do,
theyre all untruthful, thats why theyre politicians.
You are just an everyday cynic. Is your glass half full or half empty....
well lets see can you think of any PM in the modern era who hasnt lied ? Im afraid in your search for a saint you will be sorely disappointed.
I dont actually mind a liar PM if they are effective.
That's why I've always thought Mandelson would have made an excellent prime minister. Better than Blair or Brown, or the Milibands, or, of course, Corbyn.
He's a ruthless and cynical liar, but he's very good at it. And he's very smart, and a cunning political operator. A kind of Jewish Alex Salmond, without the Messiah complex.
Didn't that happen?
Mandelson was just Francis Urquart with a different hair-do surely...
He seems like a kind of political giant, now, in retrospect - given the pygmies in charge of Labour, today.
i like Mandelson, cynical shit that he is. Because, he never pretends to be anything other than what he is. You know exactly where you stand with him, and you can rely on him to fulfil whatever hard bargain he's struck with you.
It's realpolitik. The EU Commission can say what it likes, but in the end if Paris, Rome and Berlin want to talk to London - and clearly they do - then that is what will happen.
And with Barrosso taking a job at Goldman Sachs in London, no doubt the Commission will get the inside track on how the City is viewing things.
I'm going to make a bold and absurd prediction.
May will win. She will swiftly move to a kind of EEA+ situation. The UK will retain full access to the Single Market. We will agree to pay a very hefty contribution - probably more than Norway per capita - but a few million less than we do now; in return we will get qualified free movement: only people with job offers can move to the UK, and we have an emergency brake.
Everyone will be half satisfied, but no more than that. We will be still be closely linked to the EU, pacifying the REMAINIANS. We will be out of CAP, CFP, much of the acquis, pacifying the sovereigntists. Immigration will come down and we will have much more migration control (but not total), pacifying the migration-worriers. The City will survive.
It will be a fudge. But one that most of the country will tolerate, perhaps relieved that Doomsday has been averted.
It's not absurd. In fact, I'd mentally sketched out an article on very similar lines - a sort of Three-Plus Freedoms arrangement. However, the profusion of leadership elections to comment on meant that it hasn't been written yet.
That's an OK deal for the UK but what's in it for the EU? What are they gaining in return for bailing us out of the mess we've got ourselves into?
£90bn annual trade deficit, £3-5bn annual net contribution, access to the UK labour market, access to the deepest capital markets in the world, access for EU students to UK universities. What's not to like for them. All in return for a few more waiting days before being able to claim benefits and tying the right to remain to working status. It's something I believe we could get the EU to agree to role out to the whole bloc, Dave tried to get special status for the UK instead of trying to build an alliance to reform free movement. The latter was far more likely than the former, the EU hates special status, but even they know free movement as it is will eventually lead to the EU breaking up.
The establishment troughers are not happy with jezza being loved by the grass roots, that is not what is supposed to happen, they think they should make all the decisions and only suffer the plebs once every five years..
But Labour members aren't 'plebs', are they Malcolm? Most of them are quite comfortably off and highly educated. Moreover, most of them are in London.
The real problem is that they THINK they are plebs and just don't get why everyone including said plebs think they are stark staring raving lunatics.
Off topic. Nuttall has said today he will not run for UKIP leader yet Paddy Power still have him at 6/1. Shouldn't they just take him out of the betting altogether? Not sure what other bookies are doing but it just seems a trap for punters.
Of course we are not. All the real power was in Brussels.
Now we have voted to change that the Buck Stops with Westminster and that will attract suitably able people over time.
As a suitably able person, politics is shit. Who wants to work awful hours, have the press following you around everywhere, and get paid peanuts?
Other than getting to sleep with your researcher, what's the benefit of being an MP?
They spend most of them in the subsidised bars and restaurants and have half the year as holidays. Add in the fact that you do not need to touch your salary and have a seriously gold plated pension, not a bad gig and better than 99% of the country gets.
She must know she cannot possibly win, so what's the point?
Perhaps others come forward "now there's definitely going to be a contest", and she drops out?
Which begs one obvious question. Is there anyone that has a realistic chance of beating Corbyn?
He can only be outflanked from the left, and none of them will dare stand in a straight fight for fear of being on the receiving end of Momentum's wrath of he loses.
None of the other candidates available have the force or ability to beat him in a straight fight, as we saw last year.
Therefore it seems most unlikely he will be ousted unless he withdraws. He has no sense, humility, courage or integrity so that seems unlikely.
Therefore, Labour sub-100 seats at the next election is probably a value bet.
Of course we are not. All the real power was in Brussels.
Now we have voted to change that the Buck Stops with Westminster and that will attract suitably able people over time.
As a suitably able person, politics is shit. Who wants to work awful hours, have the press following you around everywhere, and get paid peanuts?
Other than getting to sleep with your researcher, what's the benefit of being an MP?
An MPs salary is comfortably in the top 10% of earners plus there are still expenses, overseas trips and the chance to be a minor celebrity or a major one if you get to the top
She must know she cannot possibly win, so what's the point?
Perhaps others come forward "now there's definitely going to be a contest", and she drops out?
Which begs one obvious question. Is there anyone that has a realistic chance of beating Corbyn?
He can only be outflanked from the left, and none of them will dare stand in a straight fight for fear of being on the receiving end of Momentum's wrath of he loses.
None of the other candidates available have the force or ability to beat him in a straight fight, as we saw last year.
Therefore it seems most unlikely he will be ousted unless he withdraws. He has no sense, humility, courage or integrity so that seems unlikely.
Therefore, Labour sub-100 seats at the next election is probably a value bet.
The establishment troughers are not happy with jezza being loved by the grass roots, that is not what is supposed to happen, they think they should make all the decisions and only suffer the plebs once every five years..
But Labour members aren't 'plebs', are they Malcolm? Most of them are quite comfortably off and highly educated. Moreover, most of them are in London.
The real problem is that they THINK they are plebs and just don't get why everyone including said plebs think they are stark staring raving lunatics.
I agree but their MP's are a lot worse than the party members, I suppose they get what they deserve.
She must know she cannot possibly win, so what's the point?
Perhaps others come forward "now there's definitely going to be a contest", and she drops out?
Which begs one obvious question. Is there anyone that has a realistic chance of beating Corbyn?
He can only be outflanked from the left, and none of them will dare stand in a straight fight for fear of being on the receiving end of Momentum's wrath of he loses.
None of the other candidates available have the force or ability to beat him in a straight fight, as we saw last year.
Therefore it seems most unlikely he will be ousted unless he withdraws. He has no sense, humility, courage or integrity so that seems unlikely.
Therefore, Labour sub-100 seats at the next election is probably a value bet.
McDonnell....
Bit difficult to vall it value without some odds! It may be worth a punt. However the 33/1 on "Any other party" winning most seats implies worse odds on Labour being thrashed than I would see value in.
News from South Oxfordshire Council, where Loathesome was a Councillor:. My Man in the Robes tells me she was "Lazy, useless and stupid". More comedy gold to mine from that rich seam in the weeks to come.
bunnco. Your man on the spot
The risk is that all this overblown opprobrium will lower the bar she needs to step over in the coming weeks. Leadsom may not be PM material but she's clearly got some political talent.
Yes, and too much sneering and chortling will win Leadsom precious sympathy.
The best strategy, for her opponents, is to step back and let her trip over her own contradictions. She's already on record saying "the £ will not fall after Brexit".
the Mayists are too busy pursuing their womb with a view scandal
it's just amazing the politicos get one of their biggest kicking in living memory and they still think we give a fuck about where they get their hair done.
I guess you don't care how untruthful our politicians are. I do,
I remember Harold Wilson's claim that devaluation would not affect "the pound in your pocket". Jeremy Thorpe's trail and acquittal when all teh evidence said he lied. The Belgrano sinking - which direction was it sailing? and so on.
Politicians always lie. Anyone who wants truth all the time lives in a world populated by little green men,
Why ? Because liars win elections.
Peace in our time? I did not have sex with that woman.
News from South Oxfordshire Council, where Loathesome was a Councillor:. My Man in the Robes tells me she was "Lazy, useless and stupid". More comedy gold to mine from that rich seam in the weeks to come.
bunnco. Your man on the spot
The risk is that all this overblown opprobrium will lower the bar she needs to step over in the coming weeks. Leadsom may not be PM material but she's clearly got some political talent.
Yes, and too much sneering and chortling will win Leadsom precious sympathy.
The best strategy, for her opponents, is to step back and let her trip over her own contradictions. She's already on record saying "the £ will not fall after Brexit".
the Mayists are too busy pursuing their womb with a view scandal
it's just amazing the politicos get one of their biggest kicking in living memory and they still think we give a fuck about where they get their hair done.
I guess you don't care how untruthful our politicians are. I do,
theyre all untruthful, thats why theyre politicians.
You are just an everyday cynic. Is your glass half full or half empty....
well lets see can you think of any PM in the modern era who hasnt lied ? Im afraid in your search for a saint you will be sorely disappointed.
I dont actually mind a liar PM if they are effective.
That's why I've always thought Mandelson would have made an excellent prime minister. Better than Blair or Brown, or the Milibands, or, of course, Corbyn.
He's a ruthless and cynical liar, but he's very good at it. And he's very smart, and a cunning political operator. A kind of Jewish Alex Salmond, without the Messiah complex.
I've always felt Mandelson had the image of being a cunning political operator rather than actually being one.
It's realpolitik. The EU Commission can say what it likes, but in the end if Paris, Rome and Berlin want to talk to London - and clearly they do - then that is what will happen.
And with Barrosso taking a job at Goldman Sachs in London, no doubt the Commission will get the inside track on how the City is viewing things.
I'm going to make a bold and absurd prediction.
May will win. She will swiftly move to a kind of EEA+ situation. The UK will retain full access to the Single Market. We will agree to pay a very hefty contribution - probably more than Norway per capita - but a few million less than we do now; in return we will get qualified free movement: only people with job offers can move to the UK, and we have an emergency brake.
Everyone will be half satisfied, but no more than that. We will be still be closely linked to the EU, pacifying the REMAINIANS. We will be out of CAP, CFP, much of the acquis, pacifying the sovereigntists. Immigration will come down and we will have much more migration control (but not total), pacifying the migration-worriers. The City will survive.
It will be a fudge. But one that most of the country will tolerate, perhaps relieved that Doomsday has been averted.
It's not absurd. In fact, I'd mentally sketched out an article on very similar lines - a sort of Three-Plus Freedoms arrangement. However, the profusion of leadership elections to comment on meant that it hasn't been written yet.
That's an OK deal for the UK but what's in it for the EU? What are they gaining in return for bailing us out of the mess we've got ourselves into?
Most of our current contributions (they have a big hole in their budget without us), continued trade with us at a time when they have a trade surplus with us and much bigger economic problems with us and need trade disruption like a hole in the head - and freedom to federalise which is what they want without us being a brake on it.
I remember Harold Wilson's claim that devaluation would not affect "the pound in your pocket". Jeremy Thorpe's trail and acquittal when all teh evidence said he lied. The Belgrano sinking - which direction was it sailing? and so on.
Politicians always lie. Anyone who wants truth all the time lives in a world populated by little green men,
Why ? Because liars win elections.
Peace in our time? I did not have sex with that woman.
At risk of being a pedant, Chamberlain never fought an election, Clinton never fought another election after Lewinsky, Jeremy Thorpe had resigned before his acquittal and Wilson won only once and by a very narrow margin after 'pound in your pocket.'
You could have mentioned that Hungarian PM from about 10 years ago, or Netanyahu, or Lloyd George, or Hilary Clinton as better examples.
The Norway option, even modified, seems like a non-starter to me. How can Theresa May say "Brexit means Brexit", yet keep us under the integrationist European Court of Justice, keep us under existing and future EU laws, and keep us unable to control immigration levels?
We'd only be under the ECJ for trade. All the rest of EU law - the great bulk of it - would return to Westminster, where our own parliament would be sovereign. And we'd be out of CAP, the CFP, too.
We'll probably get an emergency brake on immigration, and/or EU nationals will need a job to come here. But we will have to pay for it. Any savings will be trivial.
It's not a pure and brilliant Brexit, but it is probably the best we can get, with luck and skill. And we will be outside of the European political Union, as the voters requested. The next passport you get will not say European Union, anywhere: it will just say United Kingdom.
Hang on a minute. We just had a referendum where Leave won 52% to 48%. The two leading reasons for people voting Leave were to have laws only be made in this country, and to have control over who and how many can immigrants can come here. If we join the EEA, both of those reasons would have been trampled over.
We don't know for certain exactly why people voted the way they did. It's quite probable those two reasons, being the most prominent, were indeed the main reasons. But even so we don't know if people might be willing to bend on either a little in exchange for something else, so long as we are still out. I, and many Leavers, would for instance, though many would not. Regardless, the question on the ballot paper did not specify what reasons, it was intentionally left to the government to decide what type of Leave to go for in the event of a Leave.
Many might well be upset depending on the type of exit we get, but without any democratic proof on the specifics, which were not put to the people, their wishes will not have been trampled. It's similar to the referendum threshold crowd - there are arguments for threshholds, just as there are arguments to follow the spirit of the Leave arguments of VoteLeave. But neither is obligatory (and the former impossible in retrospect).
News from South Oxfordshire Council, where Loathesome was a Councillor:. My Man in the Robes tells me she was "Lazy, useless and stupid". More comedy gold to mine from that rich seam in the weeks to come.
bunnco. Your man on the spot
The risk is that all this overblown opprobrium will lower the bar she needs to step over in the coming weeks. Leadsom may not be PM material but she's clearly got some political talent.
Yes, and too much sneering and chortling will win Leadsom precious sympathy.
The best strategy, for her opponents, is to step back and let her trip over her own contradictions. She's already on record saying "the £ will not fall after Brexit".
the Mayists are too busy pursuing their womb with a view scandal
it's just amazing the politicos get one of their biggest kicking in living memory and they still think we give a fuck about where they get their hair done.
I guess you don't care how untruthful our politicians are. I do,
theyre all untruthful, thats why theyre politicians.
You are just an everyday cynic. Is your glass half full or half empty....
well lets see can you think of any PM in the modern era who hasnt lied ? Im afraid in your search for a saint you will be sorely disappointed.
I dont actually mind a liar PM if they are effective.
That's why I've always thought Mandelson would have made an excellent prime minister. Better than Blair or Brown, or the Milibands, or, of course, Corbyn.
He's a ruthless and cynical liar, but he's very good at it. And he's very smart, and a cunning political operator. A kind of Jewish Alex Salmond, without the Messiah complex.
I've always felt Mandelson had the image of being a cunning political operator rather than actually being one.
I don't know, his 2010 campaign stopped Dave from getting a majority. It was a masterclass of transferring the responsibility of governance to the opposition without giving them the tools to say what they would do.
rcs- Robert I do fin it worrying that you think MPs are paid peanuts. When you consider all the paid expenses they get, I would have thought they are in the top 5% of earners.
OK. I'm ex-Goldman Sachs, so I probably have a skewed view of the world
The Norway option, even modified, seems like a non-starter to me. How can Theresa May say "Brexit means Brexit", yet keep us under the integrationist European Court of Justice, keep us under existing and future EU laws, and keep us unable to control immigration levels?
We'd only be under the ECJ for trade. All the rest of EU law - the great bulk of it - would return to Westminster, where our own parliament would be sovereign. And we'd be out of CAP, the CFP, too.
We'll probably get an emergency brake on immigration, and/or EU nationals will need a job to come here. But we will have to pay for it. Any savings will be trivial.
It's not a pure and brilliant Brexit, but it is probably the best we can get, with luck and skill. And we will be outside of the European political Union, as the voters requested. The next passport you get will not say European Union, anywhere: it will just say United Kingdom.
Hang on a minute. We just had a referendum where Leave won 52% to 48%. The two leading reasons for people voting Leave were to have laws only be made in this country, and to have control over who and how many can immigrants can come here. If we join the EEA, both of those reasons would have been trampled over.
On this site, there are a lot of people - including myself, MaxPB, Richard_Tyndall, CasinoRoyale, and SeanT - who all voted Leave. And who all wanted EFTA/EEA. Indeed, the opinion polls show a good third of the Leave voters want a relationship like EFTA/EEA.
Now, I agree we need a referendum on what the future relationship with the EU should look like. But this is not a situation where 51% of the 51% get to choose over something preferred by a clear majority of Brits.
Do you think that a Tory deal to get out of the EU will get past the electorate?
Would REMAIN and Ukip come together to block it?
They wont have any say. Parliament will decide and the Torys have a majority.
The Norway option, even modified, seems like a non-starter to me. How can Theresa May say "Brexit means Brexit", yet keep us under the integrationist European Court of Justice, keep us under existing and future EU laws, and keep us unable to control immigration levels?
THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE IS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EU
Lol. The ECJ is the EUs highest court. You are getting mixed up with ECHR which even Russia is a member of.
Off topic. Nuttall has said today he will not run for UKIP leader yet Paddy Power still have him at 6/1. Shouldn't they just take him out of the betting altogether? Not sure what other bookies are doing but it just seems a trap for punters.
Of course we are not. All the real power was in Brussels.
Now we have voted to change that the Buck Stops with Westminster and that will attract suitably able people over time.
As a suitably able person, politics is shit. Who wants to work awful hours, have the press following you around everywhere, and get paid peanuts?
Other than getting to sleep with your researcher, what's the benefit of being an MP?
They spend most of them in the subsidised bars and restaurants and have half the year as holidays. Add in the fact that you do not need to touch your salary and have a seriously gold plated pension, not a bad gig and better than 99% of the country gets.
Malcolm have you ever actually met with an MP. Or seriously considered being one, and therefore sat down and looked at what it entails?
rcs- Robert I do fin it worrying that you think MPs are paid peanuts. When you consider all the paid expenses they get, I would have thought they are in the top 5% of earners.
OK. I'm ex-Goldman Sachs, so I probably have a skewed view of the world
The Norway option, even modified, seems like a non-starter to me. How can Theresa May say "Brexit means Brexit", yet keep us under the integrationist European Court of Justice, keep us under existing and future EU laws, and keep us unable to control immigration levels?
We'd only be under the ECJ for trade. All the rest of EU law - the great bulk of it - would return to Westminster, where our own parliament would be sovereign. And we'd be out of CAP, the CFP, too.
We'll probably get an emergency brake on immigration, and/or EU nationals will need a job to come here. But we will have to pay for it. Any savings will be trivial.
It's not a pure and brilliant Brexit, but it is probably the best we can get, with luck and skill. And we will be outside of the European political Union, as the voters requested. The next passport you get will not say European Union, anywhere: it will just say United Kingdom.
Hang on a minute. We just had a referendum where Leave won 52% to 48%. The two leading reasons for people voting Leave were to have laws only be made in this country, and to have control over who and how many can immigrants can come here. If we join the EEA, both of those reasons would have been trampled over.
On this site, there are a lot of people - including myself, MaxPB, Richard_Tyndall, CasinoRoyale, and SeanT - who all voted Leave. And who all wanted EFTA/EEA. Indeed, the opinion polls show a good third of the Leave voters want a relationship like EFTA/EEA.
Now, I agree we need a referendum on what the future relationship with the EU should look like. But this is not a situation where 51% of the 51% get to choose over something preferred by a clear majority of Brits.
Do you think that a Tory deal to get out of the EU will get past the electorate?
Would REMAIN and Ukip come together to block it?
They wont have any say. Parliament will decide and the Torys have a majority.
Top bit meant to say mainly because you had to work 20h a day?
Top bit meant to say mainly because you had to work 20h a day?
At university, I was quite lazy. I had an easy subject, requiring one essay and one supervision a week. It took me about six to eight hours of work a week.
A little more than a year after graduation I found myself at Goldman, where I was in before 7am most mornings, and felt it was a result when I got home in time for a quick pint before pub closing. I did take most Saturdays off, mind.
We used to joke that we got 23 days holiday a year, but they all had to be used at weekends.
Top bit meant to say mainly because you had to work 20h a day?
At university, I was quite lazy. I had an easy subject, requiring one essay and one supervision a week. It took me about six to eight hours of work a week.
A little more than a year after graduation I found myself at Goldman, where I was in before 7am most mornings, and felt it was a result when I got home in time for a quick pint before pub closing. I did take most Saturdays off, mind.
We used to joke that we got 23 days holiday a year, but they all had to be used at weekends.
Out of interest what was the productive work to hanging around waiting for someone/wasting time in pointless meetings ratio?
It's realpolitik. The EU Commission can say what it likes, but in the end if Paris, Rome and Berlin want to talk to London - and clearly they do - then that is what will happen.
And with Barrosso taking a job at Goldman Sachs in London, no doubt the Commission will get the inside track on how the City is viewing things.
I'm going to make a bold and absurd prediction.
May will win. She will swiftly move to a kind of EEA+ situation. The UK will retain full access to the Single Market. We will agree to pay a very hefty contribution - probably more than Norway per capita - but a few million less than we do now; in return we will get qualified free movement: only people with job offers can move to the UK, and we have an emergency brake.
Everyone will be half satisfied, but no more than that. We will be still be closely linked to the EU, pacifying the REMAINIANS. We will be out of CAP, CFP, much of the acquis, pacifying the sovereigntists. Immigration will come down and we will have much more migration control (but not total), pacifying the migration-worriers. The City will survive.
It will be a fudge. But one that most of the country will tolerate, perhaps relieved that Doomsday has been averted.
It's not absurd. In fact, I'd mentally sketched out an article on very similar lines - a sort of Three-Plus Freedoms arrangement. However, the profusion of leadership elections to comment on meant that it hasn't been written yet.
That's an OK deal for the UK but what's in it for the EU? What are they gaining in return for bailing us out of the mess we've got ourselves into?
Free access to a large market with which they have a trading surplus, plus a sizable membership fee.
Off topic. Nuttall has said today he will not run for UKIP leader yet Paddy Power still have him at 6/1. Shouldn't they just take him out of the betting altogether? Not sure what other bookies are doing but it just seems a trap for punters.
May I refer you to Mr Gove?
Ok but they could always put him back in again if he says he is running and I cannot believe many punters will back him on the basis they think he is lying after announcing this to a regional conference.It will just catch those who haven't picked up the announcement. Just seems a bit mean to me.
Of course we are not. All the real power was in Brussels.
Now we have voted to change that the Buck Stops with Westminster and that will attract suitably able people over time.
As a suitably able person, politics is shit. Who wants to work awful hours, have the press following you around everywhere, and get paid peanuts?
Other than getting to sleep with your researcher, what's the benefit of being an MP?
I agree. I stood for a relatively senior position. Everyone around you from the media, the people who hang around, the opposition, even the men in grey suits in your own party, they are all the vilest scum on the earth. The whole thing was awful. Every conversation was couched in certain language like: 'well, you weren't at Pride, perhaps people will think your bigoted...can you prove you are not?' Or as I was told..'you are killing babies with your anti-refugee position!' I don't have a position..'even worse!'
To be a politician. you need very thick skin, not really care too much, have a massive ego, not listen, and have to at least tell white lies to lots of people. Oh, and utterly humourless (except Prescott, Boris and the Clarkes who somehow got away with it).
The cream cannot rise to the top because any sane person walks away from the whole,shocking circus.
@MrHarryCole: No Leadsom tax return in the Sunday papers, as I understand it.
Having originally said 'yes' (after 'maybe') to Marr last Sunday, then changed on Monday to 'if I am in the final two', I believe that she changed her answer again to 'no' midweek.
It's realpolitik. The EU Commission can say what it likes, but in the end if Paris, Rome and Berlin want to talk to London - and clearly they do - then that is what will happen.
And with Barrosso taking a job at Goldman Sachs in London, no doubt the Commission will get the inside track on how the City is viewing things.
I'm going to make a bold and absurd prediction.
May will win. She will swiftly move to a kind of EEA+ situation. The UK will retain full access to the Single Market. We will agree to pay a very hefty contribution - probably more than Norway per capita - but a few million less than we do now; in return we will get qualified free movement: only people with job offers can move to the UK, and we have an emergency brake.
Everyone will be half satisfied, but no more than that. We will be still be closely linked to the EU, pacifying the REMAINIANS. We will be out of CAP, CFP, much of the acquis, pacifying the sovereigntists. Immigration will come down and we will have much more migration control (but not total), pacifying the migration-worriers. The City will survive.
It will be a fudge. But one that most of the country will tolerate, perhaps relieved that Doomsday has been averted.
It's not absurd. In fact, I'd mentally sketched out an article on very similar lines - a sort of Three-Plus Freedoms arrangement. However, the profusion of leadership elections to comment on meant that it hasn't been written yet.
That's an OK deal for the UK but what's in it for the EU? What are they gaining in return for bailing us out of the mess we've got ourselves into?
Free access to a large market with which they have a trading surplus, plus a sizable membership fee.
That is as it was. What about the penalty clause ?
@MrHarryCole: No Leadsom tax return in the Sunday papers, as I understand it.
Having originally said 'yes' (after 'maybe') to Marr last Sunday, then changed on Monday to 'if I am in the final two', I believe that she changed her answer again to 'no' midweek.
Top bit meant to say mainly because you had to work 20h a day?
At university, I was quite lazy. I had an easy subject, requiring one essay and one supervision a week. It took me about six to eight hours of work a week.
A little more than a year after graduation I found myself at Goldman, where I was in before 7am most mornings, and felt it was a result when I got home in time for a quick pint before pub closing. I did take most Saturdays off, mind.
We used to joke that we got 23 days holiday a year, but they all had to be used at weekends.
Sounds like being a game developer but for a lot more money than we got. I feel like I went into the wrong industry after university.
She must know she cannot possibly win, so what's the point?
Perhaps others come forward "now there's definitely going to be a contest", and she drops out?
I think what we'll see now are a number of leadership challenges spread out over a longish period I.e a war of attrition
Novel idea - as Jeremy wins, enough candidates challege him again until he goes or all labour mp's apart from Jeremy are vanquished just in time for 2020 election
Comments
Ill vote for a party with decent policies. If the Tories have them Ill vote for them if they dont I wont.
This crap of trying to scare voters about the other lot has just failed. Good.
However, I suspect he would exercise caution, and not simply transfer that position to the leader of some informal grouping, however large.
He would probably want evidence of a formal, irrevocable split.
i) expulsion or resignation of members from the Labour Party
ii) legal formation and registration of a new party
iii) proof of the size of the new party and its membership in Parliament
iv) (perhaps) proof the new party is actually contesting elections
2. Norway only implements laws that refer to the single market (c. one third of the total)
3. The ECJ is only sovereign in matters relating to trade between the EU and other EEA states
In other words, no more sovereignty is given up than in signing an FTA with the US (which involves accepting the judgement of ISDS tribuals), and probably less, as the ISDS tribunals act on the precautionary principle, which the ECJ with EFTA states does not.
Norway only has to comply with single market laws. About 10% of the total and most complied with through European Norm Technical Standards which are mostly derived from ISO standards and in many originate historically from British Standards.
EFTA/EEA already allow certain restrictions on free movement/migrant benefits that EU rules do not.
Its a no brainer.
And IF it is 64% then the gap between Remain and Leave would not be 75-25%.
Other than getting to sleep with your researcher, what's the benefit of being an MP?
The biggest problem is that the ILP does not yet have anyone to lead it. Alan Johnson, at least as a stop gap? David Miliband returning for a by election?
Now, I agree we need a referendum on what the future relationship with the EU should look like. But this is not a situation where 51% of the 51% get to choose over something preferred by a clear majority of Brits.
Would REMAIN and Ukip come together to block it?
Who knew ?!?!
I'd have preferred the Swiss option but a variation on Norway's relationship might work. The trade off (so to speak) between Single Market and Freedom of Movement is the crux of all this and how this is achieved will be crucial to judging the success or otherwise of the negotiations. After Cameron's dire effort earlier in the year, I will be looking for something more definite.
As an aside and given the vitrol directed against her by some, what if Leadsom wins ? Could the Conservatives split ? Not likely but must be considered. In any case, even if May wins, how will any of this have lanced the Euro-boil ? Cameron's aim in calling the Referendum was to end the internal dispute which has plagued the Conservatives for 30 years.
In the negotiation, May will have to balance the pro-EU dissidents and ex-Cameroons who basically want status quo and the Leadsomites who want a much clearer split with the EU. Squaring that circle is going to be a real test.
Still not convinced EEA is going to be that simple, but it's out of our hands now.
Do you believe the UK should be a member of the EU?
If not, do you believe it should have a relationship like Norway or something looser?
Attractive young women and men find MP's very sexy.
It is therefore fundamentally different from the EU (or indeed even the ISDS provision of the TPP or NAFTA) in that there is no ability of the ECJ to overturn national law or impose unlimited fines.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/08/what-happens-if-jeremy-corbyn-wins
I would particularly draw Ms. Eagle's attention to this paragraph:
'A putsch against Corbyn, as one MP gloomily observed, raises the prospect of him just winning again, leaving Labour looking 'not only unelectable but ducking stupid'.
(Paraphrased because iPhones won't select the relevant words and I haven't much time.)
This is the moment of truth for Labour. If they re-elect Corbyn then they deserve what is coming to them, which will be 30 seats at the next election. The problem is that is what we all know they will go for.
She must know she cannot possibly win, so what's the point?
Perhaps others come forward "now there's definitely going to be a contest", and she drops out?
The real problem is that they THINK they are plebs and just don't get why everyone including said plebs think they are stark staring raving lunatics.
He can only be outflanked from the left, and none of them will dare stand in a straight fight for fear of being on the receiving end of Momentum's wrath of he loses.
None of the other candidates available have the force or ability to beat him in a straight fight, as we saw last year.
Therefore it seems most unlikely he will be ousted unless he withdraws. He has no sense, humility, courage or integrity so that seems unlikely.
Therefore, Labour sub-100 seats at the next election is probably a value bet.
Jeremy Thorpe's trail and acquittal when all teh evidence said he lied.
The Belgrano sinking - which direction was it sailing?
and so on.
Politicians always lie. Anyone who wants truth all the time lives in a world populated by little green men,
Why ? Because liars win elections.
Peace in our time? I did not have sex with that woman.
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/onesport/cps/976/cpsprodpb/FD92/production/_90341946_serena4.jpg
You could have mentioned that Hungarian PM from about 10 years ago, or Netanyahu, or Lloyd George, or Hilary Clinton as better examples.
Many might well be upset depending on the type of exit we get, but without any democratic proof on the specifics, which were not put to the people, their wishes will not have been trampled. It's similar to the referendum threshold crowd - there are arguments for threshholds, just as there are arguments to follow the spirit of the Leave arguments of VoteLeave. But neither is obligatory (and the former impossible in retrospect).
https://twitter.com/mattchorley/status/751850648510005248
That's a good line.
A little more than a year after graduation I found myself at Goldman, where I was in before 7am most mornings, and felt it was a result when I got home in time for a quick pint before pub closing. I did take most Saturdays off, mind.
We used to joke that we got 23 days holiday a year, but they all had to be used at weekends.
https://twitter.com/leadsomstips/status/751852065660559360
Completely off-topic.
Turn your photos into art.
https://techcrunch.com/2016/06/24/prisma-uses-ai-to-turn-your-photos-into-graphic-novel-fodder-double-quick/
Incidentally Skys paper review blanked out the other leading tory story on the front page for some reason.
many punters will back him on the basis they think he is lying after announcing this to a regional conference.It will just catch those who haven't picked up the announcement. Just seems a bit mean to me.
To be a politician. you need very thick skin, not really care too much, have a massive ego, not listen, and have to at least tell white lies to lots of people. Oh, and utterly humourless (except Prescott, Boris and the Clarkes who somehow got away with it).
The cream cannot rise to the top because any sane person walks away from the whole,shocking circus.
http://thelincolnite.co.uk/2016/07/brexit-blame-says-lincolnshire-business-administration/