A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
Seven years of immigration controls would be a huge concession to the UK on FoMofP, without (apparently) endangering British access to the single market (in goods, services and capital).
Realistically we might be able to cut immigration by half a million people across seven years.
That's not what the people voted for. Temporary controls on immigration won't wash.
A 7 year emergency brake would do it, it would give us time to fix our benefits system and time for Eastern European economies to catch up to the UK, especially if we aren't sucking in so much of their working age population. I agree that it would be a hard sell, but if the government could agree an initial 7 year emergency brake and then the ability to reapply it unilaterally if EU migration goes above a certain level for two years running then it would be enough.
But what does an emergency brake mean in practise ? I have heard is bandied around as a political elastoplast, but never defined in terms of who it effects and on what basis.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
I disagree @kle4. Brexit means only one thing a total divorce from the EU, anything less is a total betrayal and no semantics or verbiage will change that fact.
If I interpret Theresa May's pronouncements correctly she has just two red lines:
- Brexit must look like a separation. - Brexit must aim to keep the United Kingdom intact.
Even those two objectives may be incompatible, let alone the myriad of other interests involved.
The reason a 'fudge' is necessary is because the solution has to be politically sustainable.
Brexit has to deliver the mandate the voters gave, without splitting up the UK, without crashing the economy, without causing large social divisions.
Personally, I'd like my Brexit rather firm and hard (and sooner rather than later) but the vote was close and if that was followed through the UK would almost certainly lose Scotland, possibly NI and we'd have a lot of economic and social disruption.
I think we'll get here but probably over a 20-30 year horizon.
I don't think that Leavers and haters of of the EU clique in power now, will be willing to wait a whole generation and a half for full Brexit without a violent reaction.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
I disagree @kle4. Brexit means only one thing a total divorce from the EU, anything less is a total betrayal and no semantics or verbiage will change that fact.
It's not a fact; it's an opinion. But debating that point with those who can't distinguish between the two is usually fruitless so I'll go back to work.
This is politics. Truth is perception, it doesn't matter what the facts are, it what the voters think and feel, sometimes the two are related but as we know this if often not the case. If a narrative of betrayal is allowed to grow, then the Tories are toast.
Only if it gains traction within the party. The population at large won't give a toss as long as the solution itself is workable. 48% wanted In anyway and quite a lot of the rest would be happy with the Common Market option without Ever Closer Union.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
I disagree @kle4. Brexit means only one thing a total divorce from the EU, anything less is a total betrayal and no semantics or verbiage will change that fact.
If I interpret Theresa May's pronouncements correctly she has just two red lines:
- Brexit must look like a separation. - Brexit must aim to keep the United Kingdom intact.
Even those two objectives may be incompatible, let alone the myriad of other interests involved.
The reason a 'fudge' is necessary is because the solution has to be politically sustainable.
Brexit has to deliver the mandate the voters gave, without splitting up the UK, without crashing the economy, without causing large social divisions.
Personally, I'd like my Brexit rather firm and hard (and sooner rather than later) but the vote was close and if that was followed through the UK would almost certainly lose Scotland, possibly NI and we'd have a lot of economic and social disruption.
I think we'll get here but probably over a 20-30 year horizon.
I'm not sure about losing Scotland. The problems with the Sottish economy will not go away if they leave the UK and try to join the EU. If there was another referendum (a big if) then there would be huge arguments from both the UK and EU spelling out the implications. May be seen as another project fear but we'd have to see, especially if Spain came down hard on not allowing Scotland to breeze into the EU
Can we stop this silly stuff about NI as well? Anyone who thinks NI would vote to join the Republic due to Brexit has got no idea at all about attitudes there.
- free trade in goods - fairly good services access (plus some level of financial passporting) - a medium-term brake on migration, or an emergency lever to pull - a way of us continuing to input into single market rules - trade policy (I hope fairly independent) and agriculture/fisheries/regions back - continued payments into EU budget, lower than now but not quite as low as we might have wanted - quit EU and political structures, but we may decide to cooperate multilaterally
If Cameron had managed to get a deal like that I think he would have won with a landslide. I would be very happy if we manage to get something like that. I've never personally been too bothered by the trade and immigration issues, it has always been the encroachment into other areas like social, political, and foreign policy that I disliked.
If May, Davis, Johnson, and Fox can get us a deal like that they will deserve a general election victory.
I think that's right.
I have been quite animated by the trade and immigration issues, personally, particularly as it showed what a millstone the EU was.
The scope creep of the single market was particularly irritating as well - why, for example, we had to scrap our old blue passports or stop our market sellers from fruit and veg in pounds and ounces is beyond me, and pissed quite a few people off.
There are such things as non-tariff barriers but that can (and was) used to justify virtually any level of pan-European harmonisation, much of which had a political goal (I.e the aim of helping to foster a nascent European identity) rather than an economic one.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
I disagree @kle4. Brexit means only one thing a total divorce from the EU, anything less is a total betrayal and no semantics or verbiage will change that fact.
If I interpret Theresa May's pronouncements correctly she has just two red lines:
- Brexit must look like a separation. - Brexit must aim to keep the United Kingdom intact.
Even those two objectives may be incompatible, let alone the myriad of other interests involved.
The reason a 'fudge' is necessary is because the solution has to be politically sustainable.
Brexit has to deliver the mandate the voters gave, without splitting up the UK, without crashing the economy, without causing large social divisions.
Personally, I'd like my Brexit rather firm and hard (and sooner rather than later) but the vote was close and if that was followed through the UK would almost certainly lose Scotland, possibly NI and we'd have a lot of economic and social disruption.
I think we'll get here but probably over a 20-30 year horizon.
I don't think that Leavers and haters of of the EU clique in power now, will be willing to wait a whole generation and a half for full Brexit without a violent reaction.
Brexit referendum and Trump rather reminds me of the Rhodesian Election of 1962 (which saw the fairly liberal establishment UFP party defeated by Smiths Rhodesian Front (although Winston Field was leader at the time). Even the Rhodesia front did not expect to win.
The result was a shock. The establishment always wins in Rhodesia, it was confidently said - which it did, until it didn't.
Except the U.S. Presidency is rather more significant than Rhodesia was. A protectionist, nationalist Trump presidency would impact us all and give such forces yet another boost post Brexit
Looking at the UK currently, I am struggling to see how the Establishment lost. It seems to be pretty much in as much control as it was before 23rd June.
Yup - we're even back to the headbanger moaners - Baker, Lee, Cash, etc talking about rebelling. It's like the referendum never happened.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
I disagree @kle4. Brexit means only one thing a total divorce from the EU, anything less is a total betrayal and no semantics or verbiage will change that fact.
If I interpret Theresa May's pronouncements correctly she has just two red lines:
- Brexit must look like a separation. - Brexit must aim to keep the United Kingdom intact.
Even those two objectives may be incompatible, let alone the myriad of other interests involved.
The reason a 'fudge' is necessary is because the solution has to be politically sustainable.
Brexit has to deliver the mandate the voters gave, without splitting up the UK, without crashing the economy, without causing large social divisions.
Personally, I'd like my Brexit rather firm and hard (and sooner rather than later) but the vote was close and if that was followed through the UK would almost certainly lose Scotland, possibly NI and we'd have a lot of economic and social disruption.
I think we'll get here but probably over a 20-30 year horizon.
I'm not sure about losing Scotland. The problems with the Sottish economy will not go away if they leave the UK and try to join the EU. If there was another referendum (a big if) then there would be huge arguments from both the UK and EU spelling out the implications. May be seen as another project fear but we'd have to see, especially if Spain came down hard on not allowing Scotland to breeze into the EU
Then, with respect, you don't have the mood of Scotland. Logic isn't the main part of it.
Right now, I'd have to say Scottish independence is inevitable unless we can make Scotland a very attractive future as part of a post-Brexit Britain and a new consitutional settlement, which might include a more federal UK.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
Seven years of immigration controls would be a huge concession to the UK on FoMofP, without (apparently) endangering British access to the single market (in goods, services and capital).
Realistically we might be able to cut immigration by half a million people across seven years.
That's not what the people voted for. Temporary controls on immigration won't wash.
I was going to say 10 years with a promise to renegotiate at the end of that might, together with restrictions on migrant benefits.
However the way things are going I think everyone will have immigration controls before long.
Providing the UK government has the unfettered right to renew it could work. If we need permission it won't
Only if it gains traction within the party. The population at large won't give a toss as long as the solution itself is workable. 48% wanted In anyway and quite a lot of the rest would be happy with the Common Market option without Ever Closer Union.
That is a massive supposition. 48% voted for remain, that is all you know, that might be because they were in favour of the EU, and supported freedom of movement, but it might just as easily be because they believed Project Fear, or because they were personally loyal to Cameron, or to the Conservative Party.
British Social Attitudes Survey shows 77% want to reduce immigration, 56% want it reduce by "a lot", both those numbers are larger than the 48% of Remain voters, so it is fair to say that about half Remain voters want immigration reduced, and around 15% of them want it reduced by a lot, neither of which view is compatible with freedom of movement.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
I disagree @kle4. Brexit means only one thing a total divorce from the EU, anything less is a total betrayal and no semantics or verbiage will change that fact.
If I interpret Theresa May's pronouncements correctly she has just two red lines:
- Brexit must look like a separation. - Brexit must aim to keep the United Kingdom intact.
Even those two objectives may be incompatible, let alone the myriad of other interests involved.
The reason a 'fudge' is necessary is because the solution has to be politically sustainable.
Brexit has to deliver the mandate the voters gave, without splitting up the UK, without crashing the economy, without causing large social divisions.
Personally, I'd like my Brexit rather firm and hard (and sooner rather than later) but the vote was close and if that was followed through the UK would almost certainly lose Scotland, possibly NI and we'd have a lot of economic and social disruption.
I think we'll get here but probably over a 20-30 year horizon.
I don't think that Leavers and haters of of the EU clique in power now, will be willing to wait a whole generation and a half for full Brexit without a violent reaction.
I would wholly condemn any violent reaction.
I hope you would too.
Oh, I do condemn violence. However, I'm sure you would not be prepared to wait 30 years to remove a sore and diseased tooth. Or perhaps you would? It takes all sorts I suppose.
Then, with respect, you don't have the mood of Scotland. Logic isn't the main part of it.
Right now, I'd have to say Scottish independence is inevitable unless we can make Scotland a very attractive future as part of a post-Brexit Britain and a new consitutional settlement, which might include a more federal UK.
Which means it's inevitable. English voters are not going to stand for handouts for Scotland, or any sort of conspicuously generous settlement. They will expect the Scots to get the same deal as everyone else and no more. Which won't be enough.
The scope creep of the single market was particularly irritating as well - why, for example, we had to scrap our old blue passports or stop our market sellers from fruit and veg in pounds and ounces is beyond me, and pissed quite a few people off.
There are such things as non-tariff barriers but that can (and was) used to justify virtually any level of pan-European harmonisation, much of which had a political goal (I.e the aim of helping to foster a nascent European identity) rather than an economic one.
I'm sure there are many, many people across Europe who feel much the same way.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
I disagree @kle4. Brexit means only one thing a total divorce from the EU, anything less is a total betrayal and no semantics or verbiage will change that fact.
If I interpret Theresa May's pronouncements correctly she has just two red lines:
- Brexit must look like a separation. - Brexit must aim to keep the United Kingdom intact.
Even those two objectives may be incompatible, let alone the myriad of other interests involved.
The reason a 'fudge' is necessary is because the solution has to be politically sustainable.
Brexit has to deliver the mandate the voters gave, without splitting up the UK, without crashing the economy, without causing large social divisions.
Personally, I'd like my Brexit rather firm and hard (and sooner rather than later) but the vote was close and if that was followed through the UK would almost certainly lose Scotland, possibly NI and we'd have a lot of economic and social disruption.
I think we'll get here but probably over a 20-30 year horizon.
I'm not sure about losing Scotland. The problems with the Sottish economy will not go away if they leave the UK and try to join the EU. If there was another referendum (a big if) then there would be huge arguments from both the UK and EU spelling out the implications. May be seen as another project fear but we'd have to see, especially if Spain came down hard on not allowing Scotland to breeze into the EU
And the PB Brexitories can get back to their comfort zone of applauding a Project Fear. Happy days!
Brexit referendum and Trump rather reminds me of the Rhodesian Election of 1962 (which saw the fairly liberal establishment UFP party defeated by Smiths Rhodesian Front (although Winston Field was leader at the time). Even the Rhodesia front did not expect to win.
The result was a shock. The establishment always wins in Rhodesia, it was confidently said - which it did, until it didn't.
Except the U.S. Presidency is rather more significant than Rhodesia was. A protectionist, nationalist Trump presidency would impact us all and give such forces yet another boost post Brexit
Looking at the UK currently, I am struggling to see how the Establishment lost. It seems to be pretty much in as much control as it was before 23rd June.
Yup - we're even back to the headbanger moaners - Baker, Lee, Cash, etc talking about rebelling. It's like the referendum never happened.
Have you posted anything in the last week that doesn't contain the word "headbanger" ?
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
I disagree @kle4. Brexit means only one thing a total divorce from the EU, anything less is a total betrayal and no semantics or verbiage will change that fact.
If I interpret Theresa May's pronouncements correctly she has just two red lines:
- Brexit must look like a separation. - Brexit must aim to keep the United Kingdom intact.
Even those two objectives may be incompatible, let alone the myriad of other interests involved.
The reason a 'fudge' is necessary is because the solution has to be politically sustainable.
Brexit has to deliver the mandate the voters gave, without splitting up the UK, without crashing the economy, without causing large social divisions.
Personally, I'd like my Brexit rather firm and hard (and sooner rather than later) but the vote was close and if that was followed through the UK would almost certainly lose Scotland, possibly NI and we'd have a lot of economic and social disruption.
I think we'll get here but probably over a 20-30 year horizon.
I don't think that Leavers and haters of of the EU clique in power now, will be willing to wait a whole generation and a half for full Brexit without a violent reaction.
I would wholly condemn any violent reaction.
I hope you would too.
Oh, I do condemn violence. However, I'm sure you would not be prepared to wait 30 years to remove a sore and diseased tooth. Or perhaps you would? It takes all sorts I suppose.
The primary objective for me was the quit the bloody EU and force politicians to take migration concerns seriously.
Mass immigration is a problem we will have to solve by reforming the benefits system and making it tougher for low-wage and low-skilled migrants to be successful in the UK.
Who has mass immigration been a problem for? It has been wonderful for employers [1], and what you are proposing will make them even happier. Applying a squeeze about 20-25% up the social pyramid won't reduce immigration.
Mass immigration has been a problem for the indigenous working class. Why? Because of the absence of strong trade unions energetically recruiting migrants on the same basis as the natives; and because of the absence of any real cultural policy beyond citizenship classes and beyond the absurd propaganda delivered by national and local government, which most people who aren't paid to channel opinion can see as the two-faced bilge that it is.
Note
1) So watch for what they're up to in Germany. Chain gangs?
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
Brexit is a paradox. A decision has been made but it resolves nothing. Brexit means Brexit. But Brexit has no definition.
It means Leaving the EU. No longer being a member of the political Project.
The EEA would meet that definition, but as others here point out, voluntarily signing up to freedom of movement and other things that we can't subsequently control as part of a multilateral arrangement would be unacceptable to large parts of the population.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
I disagree @kle4. Brexit means only one thing a total divorce from the EU, anything less is a total betrayal and no semantics or verbiage will change that fact.
It's not a fact; it's an opinion. But debating that point with those who can't distinguish between the two is usually fruitless so I'll go back to work.
This is politics. Truth is perception, it doesn't matter what the facts are, it what the voters think and feel, sometimes the two are related but as we know this if often not the case. If a narrative of betrayal is allowed to grow, then the Tories are toast.
Only if it gains traction within the party. The population at large won't give a toss as long as the solution itself is workable. 48% wanted In anyway and quite a lot of the rest would be happy with the Common Market option without Ever Closer Union.
It seems to me that option has already been endorsed by the British people once...
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
Seven years of immigration controls would be a huge concession to the UK on FoMofP, without (apparently) endangering British access to the single market (in goods, services and capital).
Realistically we might be able to cut immigration by half a million people across seven years.
That's not what the people voted for. Temporary controls on immigration won't wash.
No-one is clear what the people voted for as no-one defined Brexit precisely in terms of immigration or anything else. Indeed many of the Leavers even downplayed the immigration issue. I actually think people would be a lot less bothered by immigration if they felt they were doing well overall in the economy. It gets flagged up more because people's living standards have stagnated.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
Brexit is a paradox. A decision has been made but it resolves nothing. Brexit means Brexit. But Brexit has no definition.
It means Leaving the EU. No longer being a member of the political Project.
The EEA would meet that definition, but as others here point out, voluntarily signing up to freedom of movement and other things that we can't subsequently control as part of a multilateral arrangement would be unacceptable to large parts of the population.
But probably not to a majority.
Maybe not a majority, but probably enough to stop THEM getting a majority, which is what focuses politicians minds.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
Seven years of immigration controls would be a huge concession to the UK on FoMofP, without (apparently) endangering British access to the single market (in goods, services and capital).
Realistically we might be able to cut immigration by half a million people across seven years.
That's not what the people voted for. Temporary controls on immigration won't wash.
No-one is clear what the people voted for as no-one defined Brexit precisely in terms of immigration or anything else. Indeed many of the Leavers even downplayed the immigration issue. I actually think people would be a lot less bothered by immigration if they felt they were doing well overall in the economy. It gets flagged up more because people's living standards have stagnated.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
Brexit is a paradox. A decision has been made but it resolves nothing. Brexit means Brexit. But Brexit has no definition.
It means Leaving the EU. No longer being a member of the political Project.
The EEA would meet that definition, but as others here point out, voluntarily signing up to freedom of movement and other things that we can't subsequently control as part of a multilateral arrangement would be unacceptable to large parts of the population.
But probably not to a majority.
Maybe not a majority, but probably enough to stop THEM getting a majority, which is what focuses politicians minds.
That only matters if the deal isn't done by the time of the next general election. And if it isn't, May can head off any potential problems by promising to put the deal, when done, to a referendum...
''I actually think people would be a lot less bothered by immigration if they felt they were doing well overall in the economy. It gets flagged up more because people's living standards have stagnated. ''
If Britain exits with the free market and the ability to do mega trade deals, we just might become prosperous enough for immigration to become less of an issue.
Brexit referendum and Trump rather reminds me of the Rhodesian Election of 1962 (which saw the fairly liberal establishment UFP party defeated by Smiths Rhodesian Front (although Winston Field was leader at the time). Even the Rhodesia front did not expect to win.
The result was a shock. The establishment always wins in Rhodesia, it was confidently said - which it did, until it didn't.
Except the U.S. Presidency is rather more significant than Rhodesia was. A protectionist, nationalist Trump presidency would impact us all and give such forces yet another boost post Brexit
Looking at the UK currently, I am struggling to see how the Establishment lost. It seems to be pretty much in as much control as it was before 23rd June.
Yup - we're even back to the headbanger moaners - Baker, Lee, Cash, etc talking about rebelling. It's like the referendum never happened.
Have you posted anything in the last week that doesn't contain the word "headbanger" ?
There haven't been, to my knowledge, that much terrorism aimed specifically against churches. But then, there hadn't been a lorry used to run over children until a fortnight or so ago.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
Seven years of immigration controls would be a huge concession to the UK on FoMofP, without (apparently) endangering British access to the single market (in goods, services and capital).
Realistically we might be able to cut immigration by half a million people across seven years.
That's not what the people voted for. Temporary controls on immigration won't wash.
.
But what does an emergency brake mean in practise ? I have heard is bandied around as a political elastoplast, but never defined in terms of who it effects and on what basis.
It's an idea that a couple of people have floated, but they are getting ahead of themselves. The rough process is as follows.
The UK government has a year or so to get its act together and come up with a set of demands. They will have informal chats with the other players along the way. The UK triggers Article 50, the EU side will thrash out a response. There will be a haggle and the UK decides whether to accept. UK won't be able to hold out for a better deal, which always makes your negotiating position weak.
They key thing is what is going to be in that response. The main driver will be what's in it for them, an aspect that is sadly ignored in these discussions and elsewhere. Saying Germany can carry on selling cars won't cut it. People on this forum are very snooty about Slovenian interests but they have a vote, along with Malta, Latvia and Greece and all the others. Unless we get them on board, we won't get Germany or the Netherlands or any of our seven out of ten top trading partners either.
There haven't been, to my knowledge, that much terrorism aimed specifically against churches. But then, there hadn't been a lorry used to run over children until a fortnight or so ago.
We can't be sure it is terrorism until the BBC say 'nothing to see here, move on'.
That only matters if the deal isn't done by the time of the next general election. And if it isn't, May can head off any potential problems by promising to put the deal, when done, to a referendum...
If it isnt done by 2020 we will have been on WTO rules for a year or two! In any case I dont believe the offer of another referendum would wash, the fact that the offer had to be made would be seen by many voters as evidence that the government was backsliding on the mandate from the previous referendum, a lot would vote kipper to hold the government's feet to the fire, especially if there has been an economic down turn in the meantime and the government's popularity isn't that great.
There haven't been, to my knowledge, that much terrorism aimed specifically against churches. But then, there hadn't been a lorry used to run over children until a fortnight or so ago.
We can't be sure it is terrorism until the BBC say 'nothing to see here, move on'.
I am sure they will be telling us shortly they were known locally as Eric and Ernie.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
Seven years of immigration controls would be a huge concession to the UK on FoMofP, without (apparently) endangering British access to the single market (in goods, services and capital).
Realistically we might be able to cut immigration by half a million people across seven years.
That's not what the people voted for. Temporary controls on immigration won't wash.
No-one is clear what the people voted for as no-one defined Brexit precisely in terms of immigration or anything else. Indeed many of the Leavers even downplayed the immigration issue. I actually think people would be a lot less bothered by immigration if they felt they were doing well overall in the economy. It gets flagged up more because people's living standards have stagnated.
The figures are essentially unchanged since 2008 when things were quite a lot worse.
I think the problem is not the lurch down in 2008 it is the long, slow 'recovery' since with perceptions of continued austerity that have driven the negative feelings. Most people have not experienced the likes in their lifetimes. And I say this as a pensioner who has actually done very well over the same period thanks to tax cuts and indexing of pensions. But the losers have I think been a large group in the lower middle.
That only matters if the deal isn't done by the time of the next general election. And if it isn't, May can head off any potential problems by promising to put the deal, when done, to a referendum...
If it isnt done by 2020 we will have been on WTO rules for a year or two! In any case I dont believe the offer of another referendum would wash, the fact that the offer had to be made would be seen by many voters as evidence that the government was backsliding on the mandate from the previous referendum, a lot would vote kipper to hold the government's feet to the fire, especially if there has been an economic down turn in the meantime and the government's popularity isn't that great.
Brexit referendum and Trump rather reminds me of the Rhodesian Election of 1962 (which saw the fairly liberal establishment UFP party defeated by Smiths Rhodesian Front (although Winston Field was leader at the time). Even the Rhodesia front did not expect to win.
The result was a shock. The establishment always wins in Rhodesia, it was confidently said - which it did, until it didn't.
Except the U.S. Presidency is rather more significant than Rhodesia was. A protectionist, nationalist Trump presidency would impact us all and give such forces yet another boost post Brexit
Looking at the UK currently, I am struggling to see how the Establishment lost. It seems to be pretty much in as much control as it was before 23rd June.
Yup - we're even back to the headbanger moaners - Baker, Lee, Cash, etc talking about rebelling. It's like the referendum never happened.
Have you posted anything in the last week that doesn't contain the word "headbanger" ?
Lol - it's my first thought when I see your posts
I am on record as not being remotely fussed about immigration, its emigration that concerns me, or more precisely the ability to throw out undesirables, criminals, extremists, illegal immigrants, phony asylum seekers and chancers of every sort that come to our country with no intention of contributing to the common good. The problem is the EHCR and CFREU, BrExit only gets us out of the second of these.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave. Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
Absolutely right, Mr Kle4. I voted for Leave, but I certainly didn`t vote for UKIP or its interpretation of the vote.
We are now all having to pay the price of Cameron`s laziness and arrogance.
International Spectator UPDATE: Erdogan says EU failed to uphold its end of refugee deal, has transferred only 2 million of 3 billion euros ($3.3 billion) promised
Not yet confirmed that this atrocity is yet another terrorist attack, but if so, taking nuns hostage and murdering a priest in his own Church certainly ups the anti. This may have crossed the line for a normally tolerant society and a somewhat complacent authority.
There haven't been, to my knowledge, that much terrorism aimed specifically against churches. But then, there hadn't been a lorry used to run over children until a fortnight or so ago.
We can't be sure it is terrorism until the BBC say 'nothing to see here, move on'.
I am sure they will be telling us shortly they were known locally as Eric and Ernie.
Sky wibbled a lot for about 10 mins "we can't speculate - but it could be criminals or a robbery or reasons"
Then the beheading stuff came out/attackers shot. They then started reporting what the rest of us were reading. Perhaps they've taken notice of all the piss taking they've endured on Twitter.
That only matters if the deal isn't done by the time of the next general election. And if it isn't, May can head off any potential problems by promising to put the deal, when done, to a referendum...
If it isnt done by 2020 we will have been on WTO rules for a year or two! In any case I dont believe the offer of another referendum would wash, the fact that the offer had to be made would be seen by many voters as evidence that the government was backsliding on the mandate from the previous referendum, a lot would vote kipper to hold the government's feet to the fire, especially if there has been an economic down turn in the meantime and the government's popularity isn't that great.
There haven't been, to my knowledge, that much terrorism aimed specifically against churches. But then, there hadn't been a lorry used to run over children until a fortnight or so ago.
We can't be sure it is terrorism until the BBC say 'nothing to see here, move on'.
Not yet confirmed that this atrocity is yet another terrorist attack, but if so, taking nuns hostage and murdering a priest in his own Church certainly ups the anti. This may have crossed the line for a normally tolerant society and a somewhat complacent authority.
If running over 100's of people in a lorry on the most important day in France or slaughtering people around the capital including massacring loads of people packed into a music venue doesn't do it, nothing will.
The consequences of Brexit will inevitably be that we will grow our trade with the rest of the world and at least the share of our trade with the EU will shrink. The reason so many countries are wanting to open trade negotiations with us is that in many cases they have been negotiating with the EU for more than decade without getting anywhere. A country that can simply say yes or even no will be a great relief.
Whether this results in the UK economy growing relative to the EU will be uncertain for some time. Given the levels of structural and other problems the EU has failure to do so will have very negative effects on our society. My expectation is that the UK will continue to grow slightly more quickly than the EU average, as it has done over the last 8 years inside the EU, but not by exciting margins.
My expectation is also that net migration will not decrease much. The world is more mobile than ever before and cutting yourself off from that is a recipe for economic failure. A UK speaking English, growing faster than the EU average and very open to international trade will remain a desirable objective for a lot of people.
In 10 years time membership of the single market may look a lot less significant than it is right now. But a transitional arrangement is still required.
International Spectator UPDATE: Erdogan says EU failed to uphold its end of refugee deal, has transferred only 2 million of 3 billion euros ($3.3 billion) promised
Which is 2 billion too much.
million.
(2 million must look like taking the piss as well, its such an insultingly small amount that no one could have expected them to be pleased about it, or take it as a serious statement of intent)
Not yet confirmed that this atrocity is yet another terrorist attack, but if so, taking nuns hostage and murdering a priest in his own Church certainly ups the anti. This may have crossed the line for a normally tolerant society and a somewhat complacent authority.
Yes, if this is an Islamic terrorist attack on a Christian Church then I believe a line has been crossed.
Not yet confirmed that this atrocity is yet another terrorist attack, but if so, taking nuns hostage and murdering a priest in his own Church certainly ups the anti. This may have crossed the line for a normally tolerant society and a somewhat complacent authority.
An anti-terror prosecutor has been appointed by French ministry. Looks like that confirms it.
Murdering clerics in their own places of worship really isn't on. It's the stuff of horror movies.
Some of you continue to place far too much emphasis on the benefits system as a means of controlling immigration. The majority of current immigration is not supported by benefits.
EU migrants account for around 7% of the workforce and claim around 15% of in-working benefits and a similar proportion of housing benefit iirc. Without that assistance how many do you think would still come?
"Tax Credits : 317,800 of these claimants were EU nationals.... and 6.8% of total claimants."
There are in excess of 2m EU citizens in the UK, so the percentage is small.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
We did have a leadership contest. May won.
It was a Tory stitch-up, Mr Herdson, as you very well know. By the Tory elite, of course. Nothing to do with anybody else.
Not yet confirmed that this atrocity is yet another terrorist attack, but if so, taking nuns hostage and murdering a priest in his own Church certainly ups the anti. This may have crossed the line for a normally tolerant society and a somewhat complacent authority.
If running over 100's of people in a lorry on the most important day in France or slaughtering people around the capital including massacring loads of people packed into a music venue doesn't do it, nothing will.
Not yet confirmed that this atrocity is yet another terrorist attack, but if so, taking nuns hostage and murdering a priest in his own Church certainly ups the anti. This may have crossed the line for a normally tolerant society and a somewhat complacent authority.
If running over 100's of people in a lorry on the most important day in France or slaughtering people around the capital including massacring loads of people packed into a music venue doesn't do it, nothing will.
France has about 40% practising catholics...
Golly, that's much higher than I thought. I tended to assume it was largely Italy/Spain with those sort of numbers.
Why are we giving this murdering anti-democratic islamist despot money?
Why are the west doing deals with him?
Putin? this is our real enemy, right here. This is the real threat to world stability.
It's 2 million, not billion. He has 3 million refugees in his country. Realpolitik. If Turkey rows back on Merkel's deal it will become very, very ugly.
France's RAID and GIGN must be absolutely knackered, as they have not only been trying to cover France, but the idiots in Belgium couldn't do their own work so had to have the GIGN do their work for them.
Not yet confirmed that this atrocity is yet another terrorist attack, but if so, taking nuns hostage and murdering a priest in his own Church certainly ups the anti. This may have crossed the line for a normally tolerant society and a somewhat complacent authority.
Yes, if this is an Islamic terrorist attack on a Christian Church then I believe a line has been crossed.
@MikeK - the UK is very big and might (still) end up being the biggest European economy (and possibly population too) in 20-30 years time so I still believe we'll continue to have lots of influence even outside the EU.
I think we'll get:
- free trade in goods - fairly good services access (plus some level of financial passporting) - a medium-term brake on migration, or an emergency lever to pull - a way of us continuing to input into single market rules - trade policy (I hope fairly independent) and agriculture/fisheries/regions back - continued payments into EU budget, lower than now but not quite as low as we might have wanted - quit EU and political structures, but we may decide to cooperate multilaterally
If that doesn't honk your horn, don't worry. Important part is that we're now tacking away from the EU and starting to chart our own destiny.
If we want a harder Brexit in 10-15 years time that option will be there (and much more economically safe) once we've built up other trade networks worldwide
I think that's pretty much where we are heading. Mass immigration is a problem we will have to solve by reforming the benefits system and making it tougher for low-wage and low-skilled migrants to be successful in the UK.
I am 100% clear here: the levels of net immigration absolutely must come down.
A million extra people in the UK every three years simply isn't sustainable and there is an overwhelming majority of the public who want a significant reduction.
Politicians must find a way of delivering this and I am absolutely not with the types of Tories who try and explain it away.
As I have said on numerous occasions, I think immigration at the levels we currently have is unsustainable and must come down to around 125-175k per year IMO, around half of what we currently have. This can be achieved by pricing out low paid immigrants from the UK by not offering housing benefits, tax credits or any kind of benefits for dependants (unemployment benefits for spouses or child benefits/daycare for children). If someone wants to come and make a life for themselves here then they must do it independently and not require the state to intervene. If they are unable to cut it then we should ask for them to return to their home nation, not give them unlimited assistance in the form of housing benefits and unemployment benefits after 90 days.
And what impact will that have on young, single people who are prepared to arrive who will take low wages to live in a bedsit?
Not yet confirmed that this atrocity is yet another terrorist attack, but if so, taking nuns hostage and murdering a priest in his own Church certainly ups the anti. This may have crossed the line for a normally tolerant society and a somewhat complacent authority.
If running over 100's of people in a lorry on the most important day in France or slaughtering people around the capital including massacring loads of people packed into a music venue doesn't do it, nothing will.
Thousands of refugees drowned each year attempting to reach Europe, it took the body of a single child washed up on a beach to change public opinion.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
I disagree @kle4. Brexit means only one thing a total divorce from the EU, anything less is a total betrayal and no semantics or verbiage will change that fact.
If I interpret Theresa May's pronouncements correctly she has just two red lines:
- Brexit must look like a separation. - Brexit must aim to keep the United Kingdom intact.
Even those two objectives may be incompatible, let alone the myriad of other interests involved.
The reason a 'fudge' is necessary is because the solution has to be politically sustainable.
Brexit has to deliver the mandate the voters gave, without splitting up the UK, without crashing the economy, without causing large social divisions.
Personally, I'd like my Brexit rather firm and hard (and sooner rather than later) but the vote was close and if that was followed through the UK would almost certainly lose Scotland, possibly NI and we'd have a lot of economic and social disruption.
I think we'll get here but probably over a 20-30 year horizon.
I'm not sure about losing Scotland. The problems with the Sottish economy will not go away if they leave the UK and try to join the EU. If there was another referendum (a big if) then there would be huge arguments from both the UK and EU spelling out the implications. May be seen as another project fear but we'd have to see, especially if Spain came down hard on not allowing Scotland to breeze into the EU
And the PB Brexitories can get back to their comfort zone of applauding a Project Fear. Happy days!
And PB Scotnats can go back to being those bold, brave anti-establishment warriors we all knew and loved, only to see that spirit utterly shrivel at the prospect of losing Brussel's apron strings.
Today's proceedings may or may not rule that Corbyn needed the nominations, but they won't confirm Smith as leader. If the Court sets aside the decision of the NEC, Corbyn will then have to be given an opportunity to get his nominations.
Not yet confirmed that this atrocity is yet another terrorist attack, but if so, taking nuns hostage and murdering a priest in his own Church certainly ups the anti. This may have crossed the line for a normally tolerant society and a somewhat complacent authority.
If running over 100's of people in a lorry on the most important day in France or slaughtering people around the capital including massacring loads of people packed into a music venue doesn't do it, nothing will.
France has about 40% practising catholics...
They've been pratcicing long enough then. Catholic or catholic not, there is no practice.
Not yet confirmed that this atrocity is yet another terrorist attack, but if so, taking nuns hostage and murdering a priest in his own Church certainly ups the anti. This may have crossed the line for a normally tolerant society and a somewhat complacent authority.
If running over 100's of people in a lorry on the most important day in France or slaughtering people around the capital including massacring loads of people packed into a music venue doesn't do it, nothing will.
Thousands of refugees drowned each year attempting to reach Europe, it took the body of a single child washed up on a beach to change public opinion.
Did it really change public opinion, or was that the media spin on it? Genuine question, I don't know the answer.
International Spectator UPDATE: Erdogan says EU failed to uphold its end of refugee deal, has transferred only 2 million of 3 billion euros ($3.3 billion) promised
Which is 2 billion too much.
million.
(2 million must look like taking the piss as well, its such an insultingly small amount that no one could have expected them to be pleased about it, or take it as a serious statement of intent)
Yes - misread it. I can understand Erdogan being angry about that.
Some of you continue to place far too much emphasis on the benefits system as a means of controlling immigration. The majority of current immigration is not supported by benefits.
EU migrants account for around 7% of the workforce and claim around 15% of in-working benefits and a similar proportion of housing benefit iirc. Without that assistance how many do you think would still come?
"Tax Credits : 317,800 of these claimants were EU nationals.... and 6.8% of total claimants."
There are in excess of 2m EU citizens in the UK, so the percentage is small.
People largely come looking for jobs, not for benefits, but I do think it would mean a lot more single people arriving and far fewer families. That would certainly suit us better.
Not yet confirmed that this atrocity is yet another terrorist attack, but if so, taking nuns hostage and murdering a priest in his own Church certainly ups the anti. This may have crossed the line for a normally tolerant society and a somewhat complacent authority.
If running over 100's of people in a lorry on the most important day in France or slaughtering people around the capital including massacring loads of people packed into a music venue doesn't do it, nothing will.
Thousands of refugees drowned each year attempting to reach Europe, it took the body of a single child washed up on a beach to change public opinion.
Did it really change public opinion, or was that the media spin on it? Genuine question, I don't know the answer.
I think it did for about a week. Then opinions hardened again. Even my ordinarily sceptical cousin started banging on about helping refugees and opening the border for a day or two.
"The Wall Street Journal reported Fox also said London would likely seek to enter a free-trade agreement with the EU rather than a closer customs union, which he said could restrict its ability to negotiate lower tariffs with other trading partners. "
International Spectator UPDATE: Erdogan says EU failed to uphold its end of refugee deal, has transferred only 2 million of 3 billion euros ($3.3 billion) promised
Which is 2 billion too much.
million.
(2 million must look like taking the piss as well, its such an insultingly small amount that no one could have expected them to be pleased about it, or take it as a serious statement of intent)
Yes - misread it. I can understand Erdogan being angry about that.
What happens next ? What if he now opens his borders and tells the refugees/economic migrants to get out of his country in the next month or else.
There haven't been, to my knowledge, that much terrorism aimed specifically against churches. But then, there hadn't been a lorry used to run over children until a fortnight or so ago.
Terrorist attacks on churches are very common in eg Egypt and Pakistan. And I am sure that other countries are similar.
Not yet confirmed that this atrocity is yet another terrorist attack, but if so, taking nuns hostage and murdering a priest in his own Church certainly ups the anti. This may have crossed the line for a normally tolerant society and a somewhat complacent authority.
If running over 100's of people in a lorry on the most important day in France or slaughtering people around the capital including massacring loads of people packed into a music venue doesn't do it, nothing will.
France has about 40% practising catholics...
Not getting enough practice obviously.
'While in 1965, 81% of the French declared themselves to be Catholics, in 2009 this proportion was 64%.'
'According to a poll in January 2007,[257] only 5% of the French population attended church regularly (10% attend church services regularly among the respondents who did identify themselves as Catholics).'
Some of you continue to place far too much emphasis on the benefits system as a means of controlling immigration. The majority of current immigration is not supported by benefits.
EU migrants account for around 7% of the workforce and claim around 15% of in-working benefits and a similar proportion of housing benefit iirc. Without that assistance how many do you think would still come?
"Tax Credits : 317,800 of these claimants were EU nationals.... and 6.8% of total claimants."
There are in excess of 2m EU citizens in the UK, so the percentage is small.
People largely come looking for jobs, not for benefits, but I do think it would mean a lot more single people arriving and far fewer families. That would certainly suit us better.
The single ones wont turn up to man car washes even to live in bedsits if no in work benefits as they need the in work benefits to live on so they can save/send home the benefits.
We will still get students doing years out and the like but that will be it
Why are we giving this murdering anti-democratic islamist despot money?
Why are the west doing deals with him?
Putin? this is our real enemy, right here. This is the real threat to world stability.
It's 2 million, not billion. He has 3 million refugees in his country. Realpolitik. If Turkey rows back on Merkel's deal it will become very, very ugly.
Wait, the mighty EU, half a billion of the wealthiest people on Earth and our total contribution to helping resolving this crisis has been a steaming bucket of platitudes and 67p per refugee?
Today's proceedings may or may not rule that Corbyn needed the nominations, but they won't confirm Smith as leader. If the Court sets aside the decision of the NEC, Corbyn will then have to be given an opportunity to get his nominations.
There is not a snowball's chance in hell of the court setting aside the NEC decision. This exercise is a huge waste of time and money.
A fudge would not be a betrayal! The vote was for leave, but no other details. No amount of pointing to what was discussed in the campaign will change the fact that the vote itself deliberately left the details to the government, so them picking an option we don't line will not be a betrayal so long as we still leave.
Blame the Tories - by not having a leadership contest they didn't publicly resolve what their preferred deal would be. As it is, well all probably be disappointed, but it still won't be a betrayal.
I disagree @kle4. Brexit means only one thing a total divorce from the EU, anything less is a total betrayal and no semantics or verbiage will change that fact.
If I interpret Theresa May's pronouncements correctly she has just two red lines:
- Brexit must look like a separation. - Brexit must aim to keep the United Kingdom intact.
Even those two objectives may be incompatible, let alone the myriad of other interests involved.
The reason a 'fudge' is necessary is because the solution has to be politically sustainable.
Brexit has to deliver the mandate the voters gave, without splitting up the UK, without crashing the economy, without causing large social divisions.
Personally, I'd like my Brexit rather firm and hard (and sooner rather than later) but the vote was close and if that was followed through the UK would almost certainly lose Scotland, possibly NI and we'd have a lot of economic and social disruption.
I think we'll get here but probably over a 20-30 year horizon.
I don't think that Leavers and haters of of the EU clique in power now, will be willing to wait a whole generation and a half for full Brexit without a violent reaction.
I would wholly condemn any violent reaction.
I hope you would too.
Oh, I do condemn violence. However, I'm sure you would not be prepared to wait 30 years to remove a sore and diseased tooth. Or perhaps you would? It takes all sorts I suppose.
The primary objective for me was the quit the bloody EU and force politicians to take migration concerns seriously.
Some of you continue to place far too much emphasis on the benefits system as a means of controlling immigration. The majority of current immigration is not supported by benefits.
But the component of immigration that is supported by benefits plays a very large role in damaging public consent for all immigration.
- free trade in goods - fairly good services access (plus some level of financial passporting) - a medium-term brake on migration, or an emergency lever to pull - a way of us continuing to input into single market rules - trade policy (I hope fairly independent) and agriculture/fisheries/regions back - continued payments into EU budget, lower than now but not quite as low as we might have wanted - quit EU and political structures, but we may decide to cooperate multilaterally
If that doesn't honk your horn, don't worry. Important part is that we're now tacking away from the EU and starting to chart our own destiny.
If we want a harder Brexit in 10-15 years time that option will be there (and much more economically safe) once we've built up other trade networks worldwide
I think that's pretty much where we are heading. Mass immigration is a problem we will have to solve by reforming the benefits system and making it tougher for low-wage and low-skilled migrants to be successful in the UK.
I am 100% clear here: the levels of net immigration absolutely must come down.
A million extra people in the UK every three years simply isn't sustainable and there is an overwhelming majority of the public who want a significant reduction.
Politicians must find a way of delivering this and I am absolutely not with the types of Tories who try and explain it away.
As I have said on numerous occasions, I think immigration at the levels we currently have is unsustainable and must come down to around 125-175k per year IMO, around half of what we currently have. This can be achieved by pricing out low paid immigrants from the UK by not offering housing benefits, tax credits or any kind of benefits for dependants (unemployment benefits for spouses or child benefits/daycare for children). If someone wants to come and make a life for themselves here then they must do it independently and not require the state to intervene. If they are unable to cut it then we should ask for them to return to their home nation, not give them unlimited assistance in the form of housing benefits and unemployment benefits after 90 days.
And what impact will that have on young, single people who are prepared to arrive who will take low wages to live in a bedsit?
I read a report in Liverpool paper yesterday that half of their rough sleepers are EU migrants, and Sky had an expose on some horror properties with up to 17 migrants living in a 2 bedroomed house.
Not yet confirmed that this atrocity is yet another terrorist attack, but if so, taking nuns hostage and murdering a priest in his own Church certainly ups the anti. This may have crossed the line for a normally tolerant society and a somewhat complacent authority.
Yes, if this is an Islamic terrorist attack on a Christian Church then I believe a line has been crossed.
This has made my angry in a way none of the others have. Killing priests in their church while saying Mass crosses a line.
This is not just an attack on a human being, it is an attack on God Himself.
Not yet confirmed that this atrocity is yet another terrorist attack, but if so, taking nuns hostage and murdering a priest in his own Church certainly ups the anti. This may have crossed the line for a normally tolerant society and a somewhat complacent authority.
If running over 100's of people in a lorry on the most important day in France or slaughtering people around the including massacring loads of people packed into a music venue doesn't do it, nothing will.
Thousands of refugees drowned each year attempting to reach Europe, it took the body of a single child washed up on a beach to change public opinion.
87 were washed up dead on Libyan beach yesterday according to the Times.
International Spectator UPDATE: Erdogan says EU failed to uphold its end of refugee deal, has transferred only 2 million of 3 billion euros ($3.3 billion) promised
Which is 2 billion too much.
million.
(2 million must look like taking the piss as well, its such an insultingly small amount that no one could have expected them to be pleased about it, or take it as a serious statement of intent)
Yes - misread it. I can understand Erdogan being angry about that.
What happens next ? What if he now opens his borders and tells the refugees/economic migrants to get out of his country in the next month or else.
He'll go over to Russia may be what happens. This 2 million reminds me of Yanukovich - at the end of the day, Russia was stumping up real money - the EU was stumping up play money. Erdogan knows the West hates him. Russia hates him too, but it would be a strategic victory for them to get him onside.
Some of you continue to place far too much emphasis on the benefits system as a means of controlling immigration. The majority of current immigration is not supported by benefits.
But the component of immigration that is supported by benefits plays a very large role in damaging public consent for all immigration.
It's an incorrect perception, but it's very clear that preferential access to social housing and benefits is corrosive. There's a local row going on about immigrants getting first dibs on a bunch of refurbished and modernised council houses.
I had a good graph on native vs immigrant take up of social housing, see if I can dig it up.
I still think John Harris's articles in the Guardian best capture the mood in lower-middle Britain.
Comments
I have been quite animated by the trade and immigration issues, personally, particularly as it showed what a millstone the EU was.
The scope creep of the single market was particularly irritating as well - why, for example, we had to scrap our old blue passports or stop our market sellers from fruit and veg in pounds and ounces is beyond me, and pissed quite a few people off.
There are such things as non-tariff barriers but that can (and was) used to justify virtually any level of pan-European harmonisation, much of which had a political goal (I.e the aim of helping to foster a nascent European identity) rather than an economic one.
I hope you would too.
Right now, I'd have to say Scottish independence is inevitable unless we can make Scotland a very attractive future as part of a post-Brexit Britain and a new consitutional settlement, which might include a more federal UK.
British Social Attitudes Survey shows 77% want to reduce immigration, 56% want it reduce by "a lot", both those numbers are larger than the 48% of Remain voters, so it is fair to say that about half Remain voters want immigration reduced, and around 15% of them want it reduced by a lot, neither of which view is compatible with freedom of movement.
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/ecclestones-mother-in-law-kidnapped-in-brazil-reports/ar-BBuSt6Y?ocid=spartanntp
Happy days!
That has been achieved.
Mass immigration has been a problem for the indigenous working class. Why? Because of the absence of strong trade unions energetically recruiting migrants on the same basis as the natives; and because of the absence of any real cultural policy beyond citizenship classes and beyond the absurd propaganda delivered by national and local government, which most people who aren't paid to channel opinion can see as the two-faced bilge that it is.
Note
1) So watch for what they're up to in Germany. Chain gangs?
I love that her surname is "Flosi", for a reason which is probably completely unrelated to reality.
UPDATE: One hostage killed, another seriously injured: Interior Ministry #France - @franceinfo
The figures are essentially unchanged since 2008 when things were quite a lot worse.
But I would like to say pair of "lone wolves", mental health conditions, not religious, fear of backlash, ....
France 24 says the priest was killed an a worshipper seriously wounded #France
https://t.co/PuUNoMgY9p
If Britain exits with the free market and the ability to do mega trade deals, we just might become prosperous enough for immigration to become less of an issue.
There haven't been, to my knowledge, that much terrorism aimed specifically against churches. But then, there hadn't been a lorry used to run over children until a fortnight or so ago.
The UK government has a year or so to get its act together and come up with a set of demands. They will have informal chats with the other players along the way. The UK triggers Article 50, the EU side will thrash out a response. There will be a haggle and the UK decides whether to accept. UK won't be able to hold out for a better deal, which always makes your negotiating position weak.
They key thing is what is going to be in that response. The main driver will be what's in it for them, an aspect that is sadly ignored in these discussions and elsewhere. Saying Germany can carry on selling cars won't cut it. People on this forum are very snooty about Slovenian interests but they have a vote, along with Malta, Latvia and Greece and all the others. Unless we get them on board, we won't get Germany or the Netherlands or any of our seven out of ten top trading partners either.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/upshot/the-one-demographic-that-is-hurting-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0
We are now all having to pay the price of Cameron`s laziness and arrogance.
Then the beheading stuff came out/attackers shot. They then started reporting what the rest of us were reading. Perhaps they've taken notice of all the piss taking they've endured on Twitter.
Whether this results in the UK economy growing relative to the EU will be uncertain for some time. Given the levels of structural and other problems the EU has failure to do so will have very negative effects on our society. My expectation is that the UK will continue to grow slightly more quickly than the EU average, as it has done over the last 8 years inside the EU, but not by exciting margins.
My expectation is also that net migration will not decrease much. The world is more mobile than ever before and cutting yourself off from that is a recipe for economic failure. A UK speaking English, growing faster than the EU average and very open to international trade will remain a desirable objective for a lot of people.
In 10 years time membership of the single market may look a lot less significant than it is right now. But a transitional arrangement is still required.
(2 million must look like taking the piss as well, its such an insultingly small amount that no one could have expected them to be pleased about it, or take it as a serious statement of intent)
Murdering clerics in their own places of worship really isn't on. It's the stuff of horror movies.
Second hostage 'fighting for life'
Why are we giving this murdering anti-democratic islamist despot money?
Why are the west doing deals with him?
Putin? this is our real enemy, right here. This is the real threat to world stability.
There are in excess of 2m EU citizens in the UK, so the percentage is small.
@ICMResearch: @Conservatives 43% @UKLabour 27% @LibDems 8% @UKIP 13% @theSNP 4% @TheGreenParty 4% @Plaid_Cymru 1% https://t.co/mNJdCckOVk
"The Wall Street Journal reported Fox also said London would likely seek to enter a free-trade agreement with the EU rather than a closer customs union, which he said could restrict its ability to negotiate lower tariffs with other trading partners. "
'While in 1965, 81% of the French declared themselves to be Catholics, in 2009 this proportion was 64%.'
'According to a poll in January 2007,[257] only 5% of the French population attended church regularly (10% attend church services regularly among the respondents who did identify themselves as Catholics).'
http://tinyurl.com/gqfr8bc
Fwiw England declares as 60% Christian.
We will still get students doing years out and the like but that will be it
THIS IS WHY THE EU IS A JOKE.
I'm no polling guru, but that has to be close to a record for a governing party entering mid term, right?
Honeymoon I know but still.
"The men shouted "Daesh" and cut the priest's throat before being "neutralised," police said.
Le Figaro newspaper reported that the priest died after his throat was cut.
The men’s motives are still unknown."
Right.
This is not just an attack on a human being, it is an attack on God Himself.
UKIP will claw back some of that lead from Con though, unless there's an election in a few months.
Perhaps the "betrayal" is by those who worked for Brexit without working it out.
I had a good graph on native vs immigrant take up of social housing, see if I can dig it up.
I still think John Harris's articles in the Guardian best capture the mood in lower-middle Britain.