The idea that 4% tarrifs each way would somehow cancel each other out is bonkers. It assumes #1 All these goods are price inelastic #2 production of them is immobile. And it's the second that's the killer. If producers are going to move to avoid tarrifs which of the two sized economies will they pick to relocate to ? The UK or rEU. That before we get into the fact the Single Market is about much , much more than tarrif free access. Reverting to WTO rules will be a big shock to the UK economy which would need a big countering move. What that move would be is where the real fun starts.
Exactly. That's exactly what my probably confusing anecdote up the page was saying.
It was a great example you used. It's astonishing on a site dominated by Tories that a supply of cheap and good quality Labour s an unambiguously bad thing and restricting/ending that supply to increase labour costs is an unambiguously bad thing. Not as astonished as Leave voters will be when the cost of a bag of Carrots in Aldi rockets but hey ho.
Perhaps most Conservatives have moved on from c1840 or so, and recognise that grinding the workers into the dust may not be in the long term interest of the owners of capital.
I know you don't hold that view Sean.
Your outlook is very nihilistic.
I think that @yellowsubmarine is right. In 20 years Remania will still be the most pleasant and wealthy parts of the country (on both a macro and micro scale) while Leaver-stan will still be backward and poor. Somehow it will still be the fault of the EU...
Not entirely, I imagine Sevenoaks and Stratford on Avon will still be rather more pleasant than Leicester and Glasgow!
Scotland is different, as the entire country is Remainia.
In England and Wales the trend is there, and even within Leicester (the micro scale that I mentioned) Remainia will be a lot more pleasant than Leaver-stan.
Globalisation is not going away just because of Brexit. Indeed the shocks of a hard Brexit may well lead to even more globalisation.
Which is why they are pursuing a common EU army. Even if the EU27 countries spend 1% of their GDP on the military, they will be far outspending the UK.
As I said, the idea that the UKs military is some sort of bargaining chip which will cause the EU to fold and give us what we want is deluded.
If Trump has his way the EU will need to spend a hell of a lot more than 1% of GDP.
If Trump had his way Russia would be our ally.
And what is wrong with that?
I didn't say there was, but talking about Putin 'liberating' Ukraine is absolutely asinine.
@Sean_F Nihilistic isn't the word I'd use but I won't argue over it. One the main pillars of my world view has just collapsed utterly. 23rd of June completely transcends previous political prisms for me; the Miner's Strike and Iraq. It's a genuine personal bereavement. And I'm only at the beginning of coming to terms with a number of things I was wrong about. However " you can deconstruct a Red Light but you'll still probably crash if you drive through it. " I'm as certain as ever, baring civilisations collapse, that Globalisation and postmodernity are unstoppable. We can choose how we respond but we can't ignore it. I'm as certain as ever that Leave was a deep rooted cultural event but an utterly undeliverable fantasy that will be vaporised by reality. I'm very grim indeed in what that will mean for a big chunk of those who voted for it. So perhaps that why I have a " Nihilistic " tone. Though as an aside , and it's very early days , Brexit is slowly moving me towards the right of the political spectrum. To the extent the political spectrum is useful. Anyway I hope you are well. It's lovely to see old faces still posting so credibly after my recent return.
Completely off-topic: Just caught up with GBBO Extra Slice. Ed Balls having a whale of a time on the panel, I just don't see him re-entering Parliament. He'll be the Labour Brandreth/Heseltine.
I agree, I don't see his actions as the sort of profile raising someone reentering politics would do. On the other hand if he's thought "Michael Portillo did alright." Then things like Strictly are a good way of softening his image before he becomes a regular on talk shows and starts writing popular history books and making travel shows.
And you know what, I suspect that Balls much like Portillo would probably be quite good at such things if he no longer had to play a partisan role.
Which is why they are pursuing a common EU army. Even if the EU27 countries spend 1% of their GDP on the military, they will be far outspending the UK.
As I said, the idea that the UKs military is some sort of bargaining chip which will cause the EU to fold and give us what we want is deluded.
If Trump has his way the EU will need to spend a hell of a lot more than 1% of GDP.
I was listening to a representative of the Scottish Whisky Association a few days ago who said a hard Brexit would have no effect on exports to the EU as they are zero rated but it would help to get a trade deal with India, the biggest expansion in their market worldwide, as they would hope to reduce the present 150% current tariff.
Completely off-topic: Just caught up with GBBO Extra Slice. Ed Balls having a whale of a time on the panel, I just don't see him re-entering Parliament. He'll be the Labour Brandreth/Heseltine.
D'oh!* Portillo, not Heseltine! Not even Ed Balls deserves to be compared to Michael Heseltine.
*Maybe that should be 'dough'? I'll see myself out.
"I am told by Tory insiders who watched events at first hand in Downing Street the then Chancellor would be shatteringly rude to her (as to many other senior colleagues). Mrs May’s final words to Osborne after sacking him were: ‘Go away and learn some emotional intelligence.’"
Hmmm.
The famously humourless, micro-managing, ditherer May criticising someone else's Emotional Intelligence? It takes one to know one I suppose.
Completely off-topic: Just caught up with GBBO Extra Slice. Ed Balls having a whale of a time on the panel, I just don't see him re-entering Parliament. He'll be the Labour Brandreth/Heseltine.
I agree, I don't see his actions as the sort of profile raising someone reentering politics would do. On the other hand if he's thought "Michael Portillo did alright." Then things like Strictly are a good way of softening his image before he becomes a regular on talk shows and starts writing popular history books and making travel shows.
And you know what, I suspect that Balls much like Portillo would probably be quite good at such things if he no longer had to play a partisan role.
Of course, they'll need someone to present GBBO with Mel and Sue gone...
"I am told by Tory insiders who watched events at first hand in Downing Street the then Chancellor would be shatteringly rude to her (as to many other senior colleagues). Mrs May’s final words to Osborne after sacking him were: ‘Go away and learn some emotional intelligence.’"
Indeed, the second sentence was what I was replying to
So we are going to nuke Russia (and accept our own destruction) if they slice some land of Estonia or another E European country? Those countries will only be interested in support that involves putting large numbers of conventional forces on their soil. The UKs defence capabilities are not up to that and therefor we do not have some magic bargaining chip that will get us all we want.
No of course not, precisely the opposite, if they try to block a deal with the UK we will leave them to defend themselves against Putin on their own. The UK on its own may not have the conventional forces but the UK and France and Germany combined probably do to hold off Putin, without the UK maybe not
I think you are deluded to think we would abandon our NATO responsibilities quite so lightly.
We would if it would hurt our national interests more to stay in it than to leave it and especially if a Trump led US abandons NATO too
It's appalling to think we'd be so petty as to use that as a bargaining chip.
No, it is realpolitik, if some Eastern European nations refuse to do a free trade deal with the UK and demand free movement exactly as it was before then of course we will respond in a way they may not like either
Absurd. We were members of NATO far before any free trade or free movement of people agreement.
We had free trade with Europe long before NATO, if they wish to restrict access of UK goods to the EU it could be on the table
It absolutely won't be on the table.
Nothing will be off the table depending on how the negotiations pan out
Seriously the point of present positioning is to make quite clear that while we would like a single market deal, if they want to play silly buggers then we are quite prepared to tell them to get stuffed, deal with them on WTO basis and look to the open sea, whatever it costs (which we dont think will be that much if anything in the long term). So if you want to cut your nose off to spite your face, that is up to you.
Trump winning & threatening to pull the plug on Nato would be quite useful at a time like this because it would mean that as well as having to find £12 billion a year if we dont stay in the single market the EU will have to make large increases in defence spending.
Completely off-topic: Just caught up with GBBO Extra Slice. Ed Balls having a whale of a time on the panel, I just don't see him re-entering Parliament. He'll be the Labour Brandreth/Heseltine.
D'oh!* Portillo, not Heseltine! Not even Ed Balls deserves to be compared to Michael Heseltine.
*Maybe that should be 'dough'? I'll see myself out.
I cannot recall a time when politics was so complex. I am beginning to fear that Brexit will not happen as various factions pull in so many different directions.
Putin has filled the vacuum left by Obama and is causing fear throughout the Baltic states. If they want to play hardball then I see no problem with refusing to co-operate in defending their interests.
Indeed I would go further and open trade talks with Russia. The idiots in the commission are threatening to fine us if we speak to other Countries on trade while being a member state but at the same time act illegally by excluding the UK from the recent meeting in Bratislava.
This is going to get very messy and as for Boris with his schoolboy ideas of bringing back "Britannia", lying down in front of bulldozers at the new Heathrow runway, and joining a Brexit pressure group, he is proving how completely unsuitable he is for high office. The country had a merciful escape when he didn't become PM
Why does this mean that Brexit will not happen? Delaying A50 after the turn of the year will rile everyone: EU27 will think we're messing them around, business will be furious about the uncertainty, Leavers will start to feel betrayed, voters generally will demand to know what it all means. Politically impossible: we will have to take the plunge, imo.
'I am told by Tory insiders who watched events at first hand in Downing Street the then Chancellor would be shatteringly rude to her (as to many other senior colleagues). '
What a lovely person
Indeed, fine when he was the second most powerful person in government (with the ear of the PM) and she was the third, turned out to be not quite so good an idea once she got the top job
'I am told by Tory insiders who watched events at first hand in Downing Street the then Chancellor would be shatteringly rude to her (as to many other senior colleagues). '
I think most of us here, sitting in Mrs May's shoes that day, would have told George to run away too.
Which is why they are pursuing a common EU army. Even if the EU27 countries spend 1% of their GDP on the military, they will be far outspending the UK.
As I said, the idea that the UKs military is some sort of bargaining chip which will cause the EU to fold and give us what we want is deluded.
If Trump has his way the EU will need to spend a hell of a lot more than 1% of GDP.
'I am told by Tory insiders who watched events at first hand in Downing Street the then Chancellor would be shatteringly rude to her (as to many other senior colleagues). '
What a lovely person
Indeed, fine when he was the second most powerful person in government (with the ear of the PM) and she was the third, turned out to be not quite so good an idea once she got the top job
Did he not read that w big part of what did for his heroine Thatch was her rudeness to people like Sir Geoffery
I cannot recall a time when politics was so complex. I am beginning to fear that Brexit will not happen as various factions pull in so many different directions.
Putin has filled the vacuum left by Obama and is causing fear throughout the Baltic states. If they want to play hardball then I see no problem with refusing to co-operate in defending their interests.
Indeed I would go further and open trade talks with Russia. The idiots in the commission are threatening to fine us if we speak to other Countries on trade while being a member state but at the same time act illegally by excluding the UK from the recent meeting in Bratislava.
This is going to get very messy and as for Boris with his schoolboy ideas of bringing back "Britannia", lying down in front of bulldozers at the new Heathrow runway, and joining a Brexit pressure group, he is proving how completely unsuitable he is for high office. The country had a merciful escape when he didn't become PM
Why does this mean that Brexit will not happen? Delaying A50 after the turn of the year will rile everyone: EU27 will think we're messing them around, business will be furious about the uncertainty, Leavers will start to feel betrayed, voters generally will demand to know what it all means. Politically impossible: we will have to take the plunge, imo.
It all hinges on whether Theresa May has the authority to invoke Article 50. If she goes to parliament, all the irreconcilable differences will prevent agreement on pulling the trigger, and if she doesn't, we'll have years of legal challenges and enquiries about why Cameron called a referendum the government wasn't prepared to lose.
I cannot recall a time when politics was so complex. I am beginning to fear that Brexit will not happen as various factions pull in so many different directions.
Putin has filled the vacuum left by Obama and is causing fear throughout the Baltic states. If they want to play hardball then I see no problem with refusing to co-operate in defending their interests.
Indeed I would go further and open trade talks with Russia. The idiots in the commission are threatening to fine us if we speak to other Countries on trade while being a member state but at the same time act illegally by excluding the UK from the recent meeting in Bratislava.
This is going to get very messy and as for Boris with his schoolboy ideas of bringing back "Britannia", lying down in front of bulldozers at the new Heathrow runway, and joining a Brexit pressure group, he is proving how completely unsuitable he is for high office. The country had a merciful escape when he didn't become PM
Why does this mean that Brexit will not happen? Delaying A50 after the turn of the year will rile everyone: EU27 will think we're messing them around, business will be furious about the uncertainty, Leavers will start to feel betrayed, voters generally will demand to know what it all means. Politically impossible: we will have to take the plunge, imo.
I agree A50 needs to be served by the Prime Minister in early new year but there is a case going through the Courts in October to require a HOC and HOL vote of approval. Furthermore the Lords Constitutional Committee have warned that serving A50 without Parliaments approval would be an illegal act. It therefore follows that the whole process could get bogged down and that is my biggest fear at present
The idea that 4% tarrifs each way would somehow cancel each other out is bonkers. It assumes #1 All these goods are price inelastic #2 production of them is immobile. And it's the second that's the killer. If producers are going to move to avoid tarrifs which of the two sized economies will they pick to relocate to ? The UK or rEU. That before we get into the fact the Single Market is about much , much more than tarrif free access. Reverting to WTO rules will be a big shock to the UK economy which would need a big countering move. What that move would be is where the real fun starts.
Exactly. That's exactly what my probably confusing anecdote up the page was saying.
It was a great example you used. It's astonishing on a site dominated by Tories that a supply of cheap and good quality Labour s an unambiguously bad thing and restricting/ending that supply to increase labour costs is an unambiguously bad thing. Not as astonished as Leave voters will be when the cost of a bag of Carrots in Aldi rockets but hey ho.
Perhaps most Conservatives have moved on from c1840 or so, and recognise that grinding the workers into the dust may not be in the long term interest of the owners of capital.
I know you don't hold that view Sean.
Your outlook is very nihilistic.
I think that @yellowsubmarine is right. In 20 years Remania will still be the most pleasant and wealthy parts of the country (on both a macro and micro scale) while Leaver-stan will still be backward and poor. Somehow it will still be the fault of the EU...
Not entirely, I imagine Sevenoaks and Stratford on Avon will still be rather more pleasant than Leicester and Glasgow!
Scotland is different, as the entire country is Remainia.
In England and Wales the trend is there, and even within Leicester (the micro scale that I mentioned) Remainia will be a lot more pleasant than Leaver-stan.
Globalisation is not going away just because of Brexit. Indeed the shocks of a hard Brexit may well lead to even more globalisation.
Do not be quite so sure, following Brexit, were Trump to win the US presidency and Le Pen to win the French presidency and with Putin still in power in Moscow globalisation would be dead as a doornail for the foreseeable future
Which is why they are pursuing a common EU army. Even if the EU27 countries spend 1% of their GDP on the military, they will be far outspending the UK.
As I said, the idea that the UKs military is some sort of bargaining chip which will cause the EU to fold and give us what we want is deluded.
If Trump has his way the EU will need to spend a hell of a lot more than 1% of GDP.
I cannot recall a time when politics was so complex. I am beginning to fear that Brexit will not happen as various factions pull in so many different directions.
Putin has filled the vacuum left by Obama and is causing fear throughout the Baltic states. If they want to play hardball then I see no problem with refusing to co-operate in defending their interests.
Indeed I would go further and open trade talks with Russia. The idiots in the commission are threatening to fine us if we speak to other Countries on trade while being a member state but at the same time act illegally by excluding the UK from the recent meeting in Bratislava.
This is going to get very messy and as for Boris with his schoolboy ideas of bringing back "Britannia", lying down in front of bulldozers at the new Heathrow runway, and joining a Brexit pressure group, he is proving how completely unsuitable he is for high office. The country had a merciful escape when he didn't become PM
Why does this mean that Brexit will not happen? Delaying A50 after the turn of the year will rile everyone: EU27 will think we're messing them around, business will be furious about the uncertainty, Leavers will start to feel betrayed, voters generally will demand to know what it all means. Politically impossible: we will have to take the plunge, imo.
I agree A50 needs to be served by the Prime Minister in early new year but there is a case going through the Courts in October to require a HOC and HOL vote of approval. Furthermore the Lords Constitutional Committee have warned that serving A50 without Parliaments approval would be an illegal act. It therefore follows that the whole process could get bogged down and that is my biggest fear at present
That's only their Lordship's interpretation. What actually matters is that of the courts.
Which is why they are pursuing a common EU army. Even if the EU27 countries spend 1% of their GDP on the military, they will be far outspending the UK.
As I said, the idea that the UKs military is some sort of bargaining chip which will cause the EU to fold and give us what we want is deluded.
If Trump has his way the EU will need to spend a hell of a lot more than 1% of GDP.
'I am told by Tory insiders who watched events at first hand in Downing Street the then Chancellor would be shatteringly rude to her (as to many other senior colleagues). '
What a lovely person
Indeed, fine when he was the second most powerful person in government (with the ear of the PM) and she was the third, turned out to be not quite so good an idea once she got the top job
So May, who was appointed Party Chair by Cameron, and who sat for a decade in Shadow Cabinet, then Cabinet with Cameron and Osborne hated them both all the time.
Is it her shameless careerism or her hypocracy that kept her there?
Which is why they are pursuing a common EU army. Even if the EU27 countries spend 1% of their GDP on the military, they will be far outspending the UK.
As I said, the idea that the UKs military is some sort of bargaining chip which will cause the EU to fold and give us what we want is deluded.
If Trump has his way the EU will need to spend a hell of a lot more than 1% of GDP.
'I am told by Tory insiders who watched events at first hand in Downing Street the then Chancellor would be shatteringly rude to her (as to many other senior colleagues). '
What a lovely person
Indeed, fine when he was the second most powerful person in government (with the ear of the PM) and she was the third, turned out to be not quite so good an idea once she got the top job
So May, who was appointed Party Chair by Cameron, and who sat for a decade in Shadow Cabinet, then Cabinet with Cameron and Osborne hated them both all the time.
Is it her shameless careerism or her hypocracy that kept her there?
'I am told by Tory insiders who watched events at first hand in Downing Street the then Chancellor would be shatteringly rude to her (as to many other senior colleagues). '
What a lovely person
Indeed, fine when he was the second most powerful person in government (with the ear of the PM) and she was the third, turned out to be not quite so good an idea once she got the top job
So May, who was appointed Party Chair by Cameron, and who sat for a decade in Shadow Cabinet, then Cabinet with Cameron and Osborne hated them both all the time.
Is it her shameless careerism or her hypocracy that kept her there?
I cannot recall a time when politics was so complex. I am beginning to fear that Brexit will not happen as various factions pull in so many different directions.
Putin has filled the vacuum left by Obama and is causing fear throughout the Baltic states. If they want to play hardball then I see no problem with refusing to co-operate in defending their interests.
Indeed I would go further and open trade talks with Russia. The idiots in the commission are threatening to fine us if we speak to other Countries on trade while being a member state but at the same time act illegally by excluding the UK from the recent meeting in Bratislava.
This is going to get very messy and as for Boris with his schoolboy ideas of bringing back "Britannia", lying down in front of bulldozers at the new Heathrow runway, and joining a Brexit pressure group, he is proving how completely unsuitable he is for high office. The country had a merciful escape when he didn't become PM
Why does this mean that Brexit will not happen? Delaying A50 after the turn of the year will rile everyone: EU27 will think we're messing them around, business will be furious about the uncertainty, Leavers will start to feel betrayed, voters generally will demand to know what it all means. Politically impossible: we will have to take the plunge, imo.
I agree A50 needs to be served by the Prime Minister in early new year but there is a case going through the Courts in October to require a HOC and HOL vote of approval. Furthermore the Lords Constitutional Committee have warned that serving A50 without Parliaments approval would be an illegal act. It therefore follows that the whole process could get bogged down and that is my biggest fear at present
That's only their Lordship's interpretation. What actually matters is that of the courts.
And that is the big fear for Brexit and no doubt why Theresa May is playing her cards close to her chest. I really do not envy her at present but am confident that she is capable of navigating the course. There is absolutely no one else in politics today that would be anywhere near as capable.
'I am told by Tory insiders who watched events at first hand in Downing Street the then Chancellor would be shatteringly rude to her (as to many other senior colleagues). '
What a lovely person
Indeed, fine when he was the second most powerful person in government (with the ear of the PM) and she was the third, turned out to be not quite so good an idea once she got the top job
So May, who was appointed Party Chair by Cameron, and who sat for a decade in Shadow Cabinet, then Cabinet with Cameron and Osborne hated them both all the time.
Is it her shameless careerism or her hypocracy that kept her there?
I cannot recall a time when politics was so complex. I am beginning to fear that Brexit will not happen as various factions pull in so many different directions.
Putin has filled the vacuum left by Obama and is causing fear throughout the Baltic states. If they want to play hardball then I see no problem with refusing to co-operate in defending their interests.
Indeed I would go further and open trade talks with Russia. The idiots in the commission are threatening to fine us if we speak to other Countries on trade while being a member state but at the same time act illegally by excluding the UK from the recent meeting in Bratislava.
This is going to get very messy and as for Boris with his schoolboy ideas of bringing back "Britannia", lying down in front of bulldozers at the new Heathrow runway, and joining a Brexit pressure group, he is proving how completely unsuitable he is for high office. The country had a merciful escape when he didn't become PM
Why does this mean that Brexit will not happen? Delaying A50 after the turn of the year will rile everyone: EU27 will think we're messing them around, business will be furious about the uncertainty, Leavers will start to feel betrayed, voters generally will demand to know what it all means. Politically impossible: we will have to take the plunge, imo.
I agree A50 needs to be served by the Prime Minister in early new year but there is a case going through the Courts in October to require a HOC and HOL vote of approval. Furthermore the Lords Constitutional Committee have warned that serving A50 without Parliaments approval would be an illegal act. It therefore follows that the whole process could get bogged down and that is my biggest fear at present
That's only their Lordship's interpretation. What actually matters is that of the courts.
I doubt that the Commons would defy the PM, even if it theoretically could do. Remember Corbyn is a eurosceptic and many of the Tory remainers are careerists. In the event it would generate a massive political crisis and a general election. Repealing or ammending the 1972 European Communities Act is also a possibility.
Which is why they are pursuing a common EU army. Even if the EU27 countries spend 1% of their GDP on the military, they will be far outspending the UK.
As I said, the idea that the UKs military is some sort of bargaining chip which will cause the EU to fold and give us what we want is deluded.
If Trump has his way the EU will need to spend a hell of a lot more than 1% of GDP.
'I am told by Tory insiders who watched events at first hand in Downing Street the then Chancellor would be shatteringly rude to her (as to many other senior colleagues). '
What a lovely person
Indeed, fine when he was the second most powerful person in government (with the ear of the PM) and she was the third, turned out to be not quite so good an idea once she got the top job
So May, who was appointed Party Chair by Cameron, and who sat for a decade in Shadow Cabinet, then Cabinet with Cameron and Osborne hated them both all the time.
Is it her shameless careerism or her hypocracy that kept her there?
You don't need to hate someone to disagree with them as I hope this forum generally demonstrates. Many politicians bide their time for their opportunity and I see nothing shameless in that
So we are going to nuke Russia (and accept our own destruction) if they slice some land of Estonia or another E European country? Those countries will only be interested in support that involves putting large numbers of conventional forces on their soil. The UKs defence capabilities are not up to that and therefor we do not have some magic bargaining chip that will get us all we want.
No of course not, precisely the opposite, if they try to block a deal with the UK we will leave them to defend themselves against Putin on their own. The UK on its own may not have the conventional forces but the UK and France and Germany combined probably do to hold off Putin, without the UK maybe not
I think you are deluded to think we would abandon our NATO responsibilities quite so lightly.
We would if it would hurt our national interests more to stay in it than to leave it and especially if a Trump led US abandons NATO too
It's appalling to think we'd be so petty as to use that as a bargaining chip.
No, it is realpolitik, if r
Absurd. We were members of NATO far before any free trade or free movement of people agreement.
We had free trade with Europe long before NATO, if they wish to restrict access of UK goods to the EU it could be on the table
It absolutely won't be on the table.
Nothing will be off the table depending on how the negotiations pan out
Seriously the point of present positioning is to make quite clear that while we would like a single market deal, if they want to play silly buggers then we are quite prepared to tell them to get stuffed, deal with them on WTO basis and look to the open sea, whatever it costs (which we dont think will be that much if anything in the long term). So if you want to cut your nose off to spite your face, that is up to you.
Trump winning & threatening to pull the plug on Nato would be quite useful at a time like this because it would mean that as well as having to find £12 billion a year if we dont stay in the single market the EU will have to make large increases in defence spending.
Indeed, a Trump victory would not be too damaging to UK interests and if Hillary wins it would certainly be better for the UK if she faces a strongly GOP Congress
'I am told by Tory insiders who watched events at first hand in Downing Street the then Chancellor would be shatteringly rude to her (as to many other senior colleagues). '
What a lovely person
Indeed, fine when he was the second most powerful person in government (with the ear of the PM) and she was the third, turned out to be not quite so good an idea once she got the top job
So May, who was appointed Party Chair by Cameron, and who sat for a decade in Shadow Cabinet, then Cabinet with Cameron and Osborne hated them both all the time.
Is it her shameless careerism or her hypocracy that kept her there?
Obviously she is not going to resign over a senior colleague being rude to her but when that colleague wanted a job from her hardly surprising she said no
'I am told by Tory insiders who watched events at first hand in Downing Street the then Chancellor would be shatteringly rude to her (as to many other senior colleagues). '
What a lovely person
Indeed, fine when he was the second most powerful person in government (with the ear of the PM) and she was the third, turned out to be not quite so good an idea once she got the top job
So May, who was appointed Party Chair by Cameron, and who sat for a decade in Shadow Cabinet, then Cabinet with Cameron and Osborne hated them both all the time.
Is it her shameless careerism or her hypocracy that kept her there?
You have to like those you work with now?
Not in the Nasty Party you don't!
Oh come on. There's loads of folk I'd never speak to again outside, but we are work colleagues now. it's just life.
I agree A50 needs to be served by the Prime Minister in early new year but there is a case going through the Courts in October to require a HOC and HOL vote of approval. Furthermore the Lords Constitutional Committee have warned that serving A50 without Parliaments approval would be an illegal act. It therefore follows that the whole process could get bogged down and that is my biggest fear at present
As counterintuitive as it may (hah! pun!) be for me to advance the LEAVE position, but I have insisted all along the A50 is a Government prerogative and literally nothing to do with Parliament. The PM can serve it in any way and time she sees fit. I said that Cameron should have served it the day after the vote, and I can't help thinking that I was right.
'I am told by Tory insiders who watched events at first hand in Downing Street the then Chancellor would be shatteringly rude to her (as to many other senior colleagues). '
What a lovely person
Indeed, fine when he was the second most powerful person in government (with the ear of the PM) and she was the third, turned out to be not quite so good an idea once she got the top job
So May, who was appointed Party Chair by Cameron, and who sat for a decade in Shadow Cabinet, then Cabinet with Cameron and Osborne hated them both all the time.
Is it her shameless careerism or her hypocracy that kept her there?
You don't need to hate someone to disagree with them as I hope this forum generally demonstrates. Many politicians bide their time for their opportunity and I see nothing shameless in that
Cameron and Osborne promoted her and made her a core part of their project. Both have far more EQ than her.
She is making far too many enemies. A key part of EQ is to be nice to people when you are on top, as you will need them at some point, loyalty and respect are reciprocal.
She could have easily moved George from the Cabinet without being rude, simply by stating that his attachment to Remain made that nessecary.
'I am told by Tory insiders who watched events at first hand in Downing Street the then Chancellor would be shatteringly rude to her (as to many other senior colleagues). '
What a lovely person
Indeed, fine when he was the second most powerful person in government (with the ear of the PM) and she was the third, turned out to be not quite so good an idea once she got the top job
So May, who was appointed Party Chair by Cameron, and who sat for a decade in Shadow Cabinet, then Cabinet with Cameron and Osborne hated them both all the time.
Is it her shameless careerism or her hypocracy that kept her there?
You don't need to hate someone to disagree with them as I hope this forum generally demonstrates. Many politicians bide their time for their opportunity and I see nothing shameless in that
Cameron and Osborne promoted her and made her a core part of their project. Both have far more EQ than her.
She is making far too many enemies. A key part of EQ is to be nice to people when you are on top, as you will need them at some point, loyalty and respect are reciprocal.
She could have easily moved George from the Cabinet without being rude, simply by stating that his attachment to Remain made that nessecary.
A quick purge was probably better than a long drawn out one.
I agree A50 needs to be served by the Prime Minister in early new year but there is a case going through the Courts in October to require a HOC and HOL vote of approval. Furthermore the Lords Constitutional Committee have warned that serving A50 without Parliaments approval would be an illegal act. It therefore follows that the whole process could get bogged down and that is my biggest fear at present
As counterintuitive as it may (hah! pun!) be for me to advance the LEAVE position, but I have insisted all along the A50 is a Government prerogative and literally nothing to do with Parliament. The PM can serve it in any way and time she sees fit. I said that Cameron should have served it the day after the vote, and I can't help thinking that I was right.
I agree that is the leave position and how I do so hope the Courts endorse it next month so that we can serve A50 in the early new year. But I am not legally qualified to pre-judge their verdict which could, if it goes the wrong way, create a constitutional crisis
Which is why they are pursuing a common EU army. Even if the EU27 countries spend 1% of their GDP on the military, they will be far outspending the UK.
As I said, the idea that the UKs military is some sort of bargaining chip which will cause the EU to fold and give us what we want is deluded.
If Trump has his way the EU will need to spend a hell of a lot more than 1% of GDP.
'I am told by Tory insiders who watched events at first hand in Downing Street the then Chancellor would be shatteringly rude to her (as to many other senior colleagues). '
What a lovely person
Indeed, fine when he was the second most powerful person in government (with the ear of the PM) and she was the third, turned out to be not quite so good an idea once she got the top job
So May, who was appointed Party Chair by Cameron, and who sat for a decade in Shadow Cabinet, then Cabinet with Cameron and Osborne hated them both all the time.
Is it her shameless careerism or her hypocracy that kept her there?
You don't need to hate someone to disagree with them as I hope this forum generally demonstrates. Many politicians bide their time for their opportunity and I see nothing shameless in that
Cameron and Osborne promoted her and made her a core part of their project. Both have far more EQ than her.
She is making far too many enemies. A key part of EQ is to be nice to people when you are on top, as you will need them at some point, loyalty and respect are reciprocal.
She could have easily moved George from the Cabinet without being rude, simply by stating that his attachment to Remain made that nessecary.
Cameron perhaps, Osborne most certainly not, he sometimes makes Mandelson look likeable! That is not to say he could not be ruthlessly effective when needed but I also see no problem with getting rid of your enemies once you reach the top and he was obviously sacked for reasons beyond his backing of Remain given there are several Remainers still in the Cabinet including the PM herself (and she was never a core part of the Cameroon project either). Leaders have done it for centuries from the Middle Ages on, only in the 21st century May simply sacked Osborne rather then beheaded him!
'I am told by Tory insiders who watched events at first hand in Downing Street the then Chancellor would be shatteringly rude to her (as to many other senior colleagues). '
What a lovely person
Indeed, fine when he was the second most powerful person in government (with the ear of the PM) and she was the third, turned out to be not quite so good an idea once she got the top job
So May, who was appointed Party Chair by Cameron, and who sat for a decade in Shadow Cabinet, then Cabinet with Cameron and Osborne hated them both all the time.
Is it her shameless careerism or her hypocracy that kept her there?
You don't need to hate someone to disagree with them as I hope this forum generally demonstrates. Many politicians bide their time for their opportunity and I see nothing shameless in that
Cameron and Osborne promoted her and made her a core part of their project. Both have far more EQ than her.
She is making far too many enemies. A key part of EQ is to be nice to people when you are on top, as you will need them at some point, loyalty and respect are reciprocal.
She could have easily moved George from the Cabinet without being rude, simply by stating that his attachment to Remain made that nessecary.
And she served them well as Home Secretary and even supported remain albeit reluctantly. She is not making any more enemies than anyone else would in No 10 in the present climate. Cameron is a loss but Osborne became a liability in the last six months and is well gone
'I am told by Tory insiders who watched events at first hand in Downing Street the then Chancellor would be shatteringly rude to her (as to many other senior colleagues). '
What a lovely person
Indeed, fine when he was the second most powerful person in government (with the ear of the PM) and she was the third, turned out to be not quite so good an idea once she got the top job
So May, who was appointed Party Chair by Cameron, and who sat for a decade in Shadow Cabinet, then Cabinet with Cameron and Osborne hated them both all the time.
Is it her shameless careerism or her hypocracy that kept her there?
You don't need to hate someone to disagree with them as I hope this forum generally demonstrates. Many politicians bide their time for their opportunity and I see nothing shameless in that
Cameron and Osborne promoted her and made her a core part of their project. Both have far more EQ than her.
She is making far too many enemies. A key part of EQ is to be nice to people when you are on top, as you will need them at some point, loyalty and respect are reciprocal.
She could have easily moved George from the Cabinet without being rude, simply by stating that his attachment to Remain made that nessecary.
A quick purge was probably better than a long drawn out one.
May seems to have fallen out with a fair number of her cabinet colleagues already. Maybe she just rushed forming a cabinet because she became PM sooner than expected, or maybe she is not good at managing people. She does not strike me as a "people person", and I can see that being her achilles heel.
My partner and I are staying in Birmingham. We went from our hotel towards the shops and came across what I thought was a rally for Palestine or something. Then I thought "I recognise that voice" - and I looked around and saw it was Jeremy Corbyn. There were only about 2-300 people there. Surprised there weren't more. There was something in the local paper that he wants nationalise Great British Bake Off!
What do you think of Birmingham? Better or worse than expected?
'I am told by Tory insiders who watched events at first hand in Downing Street the then Chancellor would be shatteringly rude to her (as to many other senior colleagues). '
What a lovely person
Indeed, fine when he was the second most powerful person in government (with the ear of the PM) and she was the third, turned out to be not quite so good an idea once she got the top job
So May, who was appointed Party Chair by Cameron, and who sat for a decade in Shadow Cabinet, then Cabinet with Cameron and Osborne hated them both all the time.
Is it her shameless careerism or her hypocracy that kept her there?
You don't need to hate someone to disagree with them as I hope this forum generally demonstrates. Many politicians bide their time for their opportunity and I see nothing shameless in that
Cameron and Osborne promoted her and made her a core part of their project. Both have far more EQ than her.
She is making far too many enemies. A key part of EQ is to be nice to people when you are on top, as you will need them at some point, loyalty and respect are reciprocal.
She could have easily moved George from the Cabinet without being rude, simply by stating that his attachment to Remain made that nessecary.
A quick purge was probably better than a long drawn out one.
May seems to have fallen out with a fair number of her cabinet colleagues already. Maybe she just rushed forming a cabinet because she became PM sooner than expected, or maybe she is not good at managing people. She does not strike me as a "people person", and I can see that being her achilles heel.
I had thought the discontents were mainly on the back behnches. I assume you have a list given you said it was a fair number.
'I am told by Tory insiders who watched events at first hand in Downing Street the then Chancellor would be shatteringly rude to her (as to many other senior colleagues). '
What a lovely person
Indeed, fine when he was the second most powerful person in government (with the ear of the PM) and she was the third, turned out to be not quite so good an idea once she got the top job
So May, who was appointed Party Chair by Cameron, and who sat for a decade in Shadow Cabinet, then Cabinet with Cameron and Osborne hated them both all the time.
Is it her shameless careerism or her hypocracy that kept her there?
You don't need to hate someone to disagree with them as I hope this forum generally demonstrates. Many politicians bide their time for their opportunity and I see nothing shameless in that
Cameron and Osborne promoted her and made her a core part of their project. Both have far more EQ than her.
She is making far too many enemies. A key part of EQ is to be nice to people when you are on top, as you will need them at some point, loyalty and respect are reciprocal.
She could have easily moved George from the Cabinet without being rude, simply by stating that his attachment to Remain made that nessecary.
A quick purge was probably better than a long drawn out one.
May seems to have fallen out with a fair number of her cabinet colleagues already. Maybe she just rushed forming a cabinet because she became PM sooner than expected, or maybe she is not good at managing people. She does not strike me as a "people person", and I can see that being her achilles heel.
She is her own person and has a steely determination that aurgers well for her and the Country
'I am told by Tory insiders who watched events at first hand in Downing Street the then Chancellor would be shatteringly rude to her (as to many other senior colleagues). '
What a lovely person
Indeed, fine when he was the second most powerful person in government (with the ear of the PM) and she was the third, turned out to be not quite so good an idea once she got the top job
So May, who was appointed Party Chair by Cameron, and who sat for a decade in Shadow Cabinet, then Cabinet with Cameron and Osborne hated them both all the time.
Is it her shameless careerism or her hypocracy that kept her there?
You don't need to hate someone to disagree with them as I hope this forum generally demonstrates. Many politicians bide their time for their opportunity and I see nothing shameless in that
Cameron and Osborne promoted her and made her a core part of their project. Both have far more EQ than her.
She is making far too many enemies. A key part of EQ is to be nice to people when you are on top, as you will need them at some point, loyalty and respect are reciprocal.
She could have easily moved George from the Cabinet without being rude, simply by stating that his attachment to Remain made that nessecary.
A quick purge was probably better than a long drawn out one.
May seems to have fallen out with a fair number of her cabinet colleagues already. Maybe she just rushed forming a cabinet because she became PM sooner than expected, or maybe she is not good at managing people. She does not strike me as a "people person", and I can see that being her achilles heel.
Neither, really, was Margaret Thatcher and although that eventually proved her downfall she still lasted 11 years in No 10
'I am told by Tory insiders who watched events at first hand in Downing Street the then Chancellor would be shatteringly rude to her (as to many other senior colleagues). '
What a lovely person
Indeed, fine when he was the second most powerful person in government (with the ear of the PM) and she was the third, turned out to be not quite so good an idea once she got the top job
So May, who was appointed Party Chair by Cameron, and who sat for a decade in Shadow Cabinet, then Cabinet with Cameron and Osborne hated them both all the time.
Is it her shameless careerism or her hypocracy that kept her there?
You don't need to hate someone to disagree with them as I hope this forum generally demonstrates. Many politicians bide their time for their opportunity and I see nothing shameless in that
Cameron and Osborne promoted her and made her a core part of their project. Both have far more EQ than her.
She is making far too many enemies. A key part of EQ is to be nice to people when you are on top, as you will need them at some point, loyalty and respect are reciprocal.
She could have easily moved George from the Cabinet without being rude, simply by stating that his attachment to Remain made that nessecary.
A quick purge was probably better than a long drawn out one.
May seems to have fallen out with a fair number of her cabinet colleagues already. Maybe she just rushed forming a cabinet because she became PM sooner than expected, or maybe she is not good at managing people. She does not strike me as a "people person", and I can see that being her achilles heel.
I had thought the discontents were mainly on the back behnches. I assume you have a list given you said it was a fair number.
Her slapping down of David Davis, and Greening's visible discomfort over being micro-managed over schools spring to mind.
It does not look a happy ship. One aspect of not having an effective parliamentary opposition is that it tends to create an internal party opposition. It happened to Thatcher in the Eighties, and Blair in the Noughties.
Her slapping down of David Davis, and Greening's visible discomfort over being micro-managed over schools spring to mind.
It does not look a happy ship. One aspect of not having an effective parliamentary opposition is that it tends to create an internal party opposition. It happened to Thatcher in the Eighties, and Blair in the Noughties.
So two. And is there any indications Davis was actually annoyed?
'I am told by Tory insiders who watched events at first hand in Downing Street the then Chancellor would be shatteringly rude to her (as to many other senior colleagues). '
What a lovely person
Indeed, fine when he was the second most powerful person in government (with the ear of the PM) and she was the third, turned out to be not quite so good an idea once she got the top job
So May, who was appointed Party Chair by Cameron, and who sat for a decade in Shadow Cabinet, then Cabinet with Cameron and Osborne hated them both all the time.
Is it her shameless careerism or her hypocracy that kept her there?
You don't need to hate someone to disagree with them as I hope this forum generally demonstrates. Many politicians bide their time for their opportunity and I see nothing shameless in that
Cameron and Osborne promoted her and made her a core part of their project. Both have far more EQ than her.
She is making far too many enemies. A key part of EQ is to be nice to people when you are on top, as you will need them at some point, loyalty and respect are reciprocal.
She could have easily moved George from the Cabinet without being rude, simply by stating that his attachment to Remain made that nessecary.
A quick purge was probably better than a long drawn out one.
May seems to have fallen out with a fair number of her cabinet colleagues already. Maybe she just rushed forming a cabinet because she became PM sooner than expected, or maybe she is not good at managing people. She does not strike me as a "people person", and I can see that being her achilles heel.
She is her own person and has a steely determination that aurgers well for her and the Country
She has the same personality traits and lack of empathy as Gordon Brown. Perhaps it is because they were both brought up in parsonages. They have a lot in common.
'I am told by Tory insiders who watched events at first hand in Downing Street the then Chancellor would be shatteringly rude to her (as to many other senior colleagues). '
What a lovely person
Indeed, fine when he was the second most powerful person in government (with the ear of the PM) and she was the third, turned out to be not quite so good an idea once she got the top job
So May, who was appointed Party Chair by Cameron, and who sat for a decade in Shadow Cabinet, then Cabinet with Cameron and Osborne hated them both all the time.
Is it her shameless careerism or her hypocracy that kept her there?
You don't need to hate someone to disagree with them as I hope this forum generally demonstrates. Many politicians bide their time for their opportunity and I see nothing shameless in that
Cameron and Osborne promoted her and made her a core part of their project. Both have far more EQ than her.
She is making far too many enemies. A key part of EQ is to be nice to people when you are on top, as you will need them at some point, loyalty and respect are reciprocal.
She could have easily moved George from the Cabinet without being rude, simply by stating that his attachment to Remain made that nessecary.
A quick purge was probably better than a long drawn out one.
May seems to have fallen out with a fair number of her cabinet colleagues already. Maybe she just rushed form
I had thought the discont
Her slapping down of David Davis, and Greening's visible discomfort over being micro-managed over schools spring to mind.
It does not look a happy ship. One aspect of not having an effective parliamentary opposition is that it tends to create an internal party opposition. It happened to Thatcher in the Eighties, and Blair in the Noughties.
Yes but Thatcher and Blair are the two longest serving PMs in postwar UK history, so as long as they trounced the main opposition party internal opposition could largely be held off, even if it got them both in the end
My partner and I are staying in Birmingham. We went from our hotel towards the shops and came across what I thought was a rally for Palestine or something. Then I thought "I recognise that voice" - and I looked around and saw it was Jeremy Corbyn. There were only about 2-300 people there. Surprised there weren't more. There was something in the local paper that he wants nationalise Great British Bake Off!
What do you think of Birmingham? Better or worse than expected?
If you haven't been, the Gas Street Basin, the canal area behind the Library, was unexpectedly nice. I visited that area for the first time in March.
'I am told by Tory insiders who watched events at first hand in Downing Street the then Chancellor would be shatteringly rude to her (as to many other senior colleagues). '
What a lovely person
Indeed, fine when he was the second most powerful person in government (with the ear of the PM) and she was the third, turned out to be not quite so good an idea once she got the top job
So May, who was appointed Party Chair by Cameron, and who sat for a decade in Shadow Cabinet, then Cabinet with Cameron and Osborne hated them both all the time.
Is it her shameless careerism or her hypocracy that kept her there?
You don't need to hate someone to disagree with them as I hope this forum generally demonstrates. Many politicians bide their time for their opportunity and I see nothing shameless in that
Cameron and Osborne promoted her and made her a core part of their project. Both have far more EQ than her.
She is making far too many enemies. A key part of EQ is to be nice to people when you are on top, as you will need them at some point, loyalty and respect are reciprocal.
She could have easily moved George from the Cabinet without being rude, simply by stating that his attachment to Remain made that nessecary.
A quick purge was probably better than a long drawn out one.
May seems to have fallen out with a fair number of her cabinet colleagues already. Maybe she just rushed forming a cabinet because she became PM sooner than expected, or maybe she is not good at managing people. She does not strike me as a "people person", and I can see that being her achilles heel.
She is her own person and has a steely determination that aurgers well for her and the Country
She has the same personality traits and lack of empathy as Gordon Brown. Perhaps it is because they were both brought up in parsonages. They have a lot in common.
So was Angela Merkel who she actually also shares much in common with and May has not yet been shown to have the outbursts of temper tantrums Brown had
'I am told by Tory insiders who watched events at first hand in Downing Street the then Chancellor would be shatteringly rude to her (as to many other senior colleagues). '
What a lovely person
Indeed, fine when he was the second most powerful person in government (with the ear of the PM) and she was the third, turned out to be not quite so good an idea once she got the top job
So May, who was appointed Party Chair by Cameron, and who sat for a decade in Shadow Cabinet, then Cabinet with Cameron and Osborne hated them both all the time.
Is it her shameless careerism or her hypocracy that kept her there?
You don't need to hate someone to disagree with them as I hope this forum generally demonstrates. Many politicians bide their time for their opportunity and I see nothing shameless in that
Cameron and Osborne promoted her and made her a core part of their project. Both have far more EQ than her.
She is making far too many enemies. A key part of EQ is to be nice to people when you are on top, as you will need them at some point, loyalty and respect are reciprocal.
She could have easily moved George from the Cabinet without being rude, simply by stating that his attachment to Remain made that nessecary.
A quick purge was probably better than a long drawn out one.
May seems to have fallen out with a fair number of her cabinet colleagues already. Maybe she just rushed forming a cabinet because she became PM sooner than expected, or maybe she is not good at managing people. She does not strike me as a "people person", and I can see that being her achilles heel.
She is her own person and has a steely determination that aurgers well for her and the Country
She has the same personality traits and lack of empathy as Gordon Brown. Perhaps it is because they were both brought up in parsonages. They have a lot in common.
They have nothing in common other than their fathers being in the ministry
'I am told by Tory insiders who watched events at first hand in Downing Street the then Chancellor would be shatteringly rude to her (as to many other senior colleagues). '
What a lovely person
Indeed, fine when he was the second most powerful person in government (with the ear of the PM) and she was the third, turned out to be not quite so good an idea once she got the top job
So May, who was appointed Party Chair by Cameron, and who sat for a decade in Shadow Cabinet, then Cabinet with Cameron and Osborne hated them both all the time.
Is it her shameless careerism or her hypocracy that kept her there?
You don't need to hate someone to disagree with them as I hope this forum generally demonstrates. Many politicians bide their time for their opportunity and I see nothing shameless in that
Cameron and Osborne promoted her and made her a core part of their project. Both have far more EQ than her.
A quick purge was probably better than a long drawn out one.
May seems to have fallen out with a fair number of her cabinet colleagues already. Maybe she just rushed form
I had thought the discont
Her slapping down of David Davis, and Greening's visible discomfort over being micro-managed over schools spring to mind.
It does not look a happy ship. One aspect of not having an effective parliamentary opposition is that it tends to create an internal party opposition. It happened to Thatcher in the Eighties, and Blair in the Noughties.
Yes but Thatcher and Blair are the two longest serving PMs in postwar UK history, so as long as they trounced the main opposition party internal opposition could largely be held off, even if it got them both in the end
May has inherited the position of Major or Brown, not Thatcher or Blair. Both Major and Brown had significant factions against them from the start. She will have the political longevity of the former rather than the latter.
'I am told by Tory insiders who watched events at first hand in Downing Street the then Chancellor would be shatteringly rude to her (as to many other senior colleagues). '
What a lovely person
Indeed, finejob
So May, who was appointed Party Chair by Cameron, and who sat for a decade in Shadow Cabinet, then Cabinet with Cameron and Osborne hated them both all the time.
Is it her shameless careerism or her hypocracy that kept her there?
You don't need to hate someone to disagree with them as I hope this forum generally demonstrates. Many politicians bide their time for their opportunity and I see nothing shameless in that
Cameron and Osborne promoted her and made her a core part of their project. Both have far more EQ than her.
She is making far too many enemies. A key part of EQ is to be nice to people when you are on top, as you will need them at some point, loyalty and respect are reciprocal.
She could have easily moved George from the Cabinet without being rude, simply by stating that his attachment to Remain made that nessecary.
A quick purge was probably better than a long drawn out one.
May seems to have fallen out with a fair number of her cabinet colleagues already. Maybe she just rushed forming a cabinet because she became PM sooner than expected, or maybe she is not good at managing people. She does not strike me as a "people person", and I can see that being her achilles heel.
She is her own person and has a steely determination that aurgers well for her and the Country
She has the same personality traits and lack of empathy as Gordon Brown. Perhaps it is because they were both brought up in parsonages. They have a lot in common.
They have nothing in common other than their fathers being in the ministry
"Lib Dems spinning here" - "a fair number" turns out to be "two"!
You'd have thought they'd learned their lesson from getting into bed with the Tory posh boys....
@Sean_F Nihilistic isn't the word I'd use but I won't argue over it. One the main pillars of my world view has just collapsed utterly. 23rd of June completely transcends previous political prisms for me; the Miner's Strike and Iraq. It's a genuine personal bereavement. And I'm only at the beginning of coming to terms with a number of things I was wrong about. However " you can deconstruct a Red Light but you'll still probably crash if you drive through it. " I'm as certain as ever, baring civilisations collapse, that Globalisation and postmodernity are unstoppable. We can choose how we respond but we can't ignore it. I'm as certain as ever that Leave was a deep rooted cultural event but an utterly undeliverable fantasy that will be vaporised by reality. I'm very grim indeed in what that will mean for a big chunk of those who voted for it. So perhaps that why I have a " Nihilistic " tone. Though as an aside , and it's very early days , Brexit is slowly moving me towards the right of the political spectrum. To the extent the political spectrum is useful. Anyway I hope you are well. It's lovely to see old faces still posting so credibly after my recent return.
For many people a Leave vote was a cry against globalisation.
The EU has a funny position with respect to globalisation. In some ways it is one possible manifestation of it - a form of international cooperation that has morphed into the supranational organisation in its own right. It is a form of globalization with tendencies towards the bureaucratic, even the sclerotic, and where this bureaucracy has an uneasy relationship with democracy - particularly if, like the Greeks, one gets at the wrong end of it. (Ultimately it seems that democratising the EU requires either centralising it - genuinely meaty roles for an elected EU parliament and president - or diluting it - returning power to national parliaments and executives - and the trend is clearly towards the former.)
In other ways the EU is a bulwark against globalisation. We receive a mild form of globalisation, with liberal rules on mass migration and limited ability to control multinational corporations now regulated in Brussels rather than at home. But it's really "globalisation within a European context", and much of the EU system is working towards something of a European closed shop. While the EU may not be avowedly protectionist (except in some key areas like agriculture), we hear much more about how the EU prevents a "race to the bottom" than how the EU can drive competitiveness via some successor to the derided Lisbon Agenda.
I have an impression that those Leave voters crying foul of globalisation were mostly upset about the free-wheeling, wheeler-dealing, free-moving aspects (which the EU brought, but also to some extent suppressed) rather than the supranational bureaucratic bogeyman of the right-wing press.
Failing a resurgence of Bennite siege economics, I think it's likely future British governments will prioritise opening the country up to global trade to counteract the harms of Brexit. On a multidecadal time-scale his will likely force a Thatcher-scale realignment of the economy. But it's good news for free-trading liberal types, for whom the forces of global change will drive fresh growth in Britain that will more than make up for Brexit losses. Indeed, for them the EU offers only an insipid, limited and economically sclerotic form of globalisation. The closedness of the EU may be a comfort blanket to EU states who trade largely with other EU countries, but can seem more limiting for a country open to global trade, for whom the EU forms even on current trends, and assuming remaining in the EU a minority of trade whose share is falling, and bearing in mind the rapid decline of the rEU as a % of the global economy. There is a liberal case that, should Brexit allow Britain to more nimbly ride the waves of globalisation, then on a generational timescale we will collectively be better off. There were people who voted Leave on this basis too, but surely a far smaller cohort.
Collectively means "but with winners and losers" of course. The good social liberal may want a scheme of compensation for the losers, but this or future British governments may not be so keen. Moreover, unleashing the full forces of globalisation puts us in for a rough ride: competition drives growth, but it also can wipe out previously protected classes of industry and livelihood. The EU can help us regulate European multinationals (or at least, it does so on our behalf) but who will help us when global multinationals, especially if they want us to play "beggar your neighbour" on tax and regulation if we are to catch their eyes for much-sought investment? And so on.
Like you I think that the Brexit vote has the potential to be socio-economically transformative on a generational timescale. And I'd agree it's taking place in the context of trends towards globalisation that are transformative on a planetary scale. I don't think that Brexit is doomed to fail simply because it counteracts those tides - those voters who hoped for a turning back of the clock are clearly going to be disappointed.
There is an economically liberal case you might draw some comfort from: Britain may ride those waves more successfully alone than if, as a part of the EU, it tried to remain semi-insulated from them. If Brexit represents an opening up, rather than a closing down, perhaps that might appeal to you. That might not be what the bulk of voters wanted, but with the forces arrayed as they are, it may well be what they're getting.
On the other hand, there are aspects of globalisation and economic transformation your social liberal side is going to be deeply uncomfortable with - perhaps the best you can do is be resigned to the trend. If it's any solace, there are millions of people in the world's poorest countries who are better off today than 30 years ago because they have been given the chance to partake in the global economy. And there are people in the UK with much to gain. But there are vulnerable people here who stand to lose out too, and if your sympathies align more with the latter than the former then your heart's still on the right side.
'I am told by Tory insiders who watched events at first hand in Downing Street the then Chancellor would be shatteringly rude to her (as to many other senior colleagues). '
What a lovely person
Indeed, fine when he was the second most powerful person in government (with the ear of the PM) and she was the third, turned out to be not quite so good an idea once she got the top job
So May, who was appointed Party Chair by Cameron, and who sat for a decade in Shadow Cabinet, then Cabinet with Cameron and Osborne hated them both all the time.
Is it her shameless careerism or her hypocracy that kept her there?
You don't nee
Cameron and Osborne promoted her and made her a core part of their project. Both have far more EQ than her.
A quick purge was probably better than a long drawn out one.
May seems to have fallen out with a fair number of her cabinet colleagues already. Maybe she just rushed form
I had thought the discont
Her slapping down of David Davis, and Greening's visible discomfort over being micro-managed over schools spring to mind.
It does not look a ha
Yes but Thatcher and Blair are the two longest serving PMs in postwar UK history, so as long as they trounced the main opposition party internal opposition could largely be held off, even if it got them both in the end
May has inherited the position of Major or Brown, not Thatcher or Blair. Both Major and Brown had significant factions against them from the start. She will have the political longevity of the former rather than the latter.
Thatcher had the wets against her from the beginning of course. Major won an overall majority in 1992 and was PM for seven years, Cameron was only PM for 6 years, even Brown would have beaten Bill Cash in 2010, which is what May essentially has to do to defeat Corbyn in 2020, so even on your comparison she is likely to be in No 10 for many years to come! Goodnight
I cannot recall a time when politics was so complex. I am beginning to fear that Brexit will not happen as various factions pull in so many different directions.
Putin has filled the vacuum left by Obama and is causing fear throughout the Baltic states. If they want to play hardball then I see no problem with refusing to co-operate in defending their interests.
Indeed I would go further and open trade talks with Russia. The idiots in the commission are threatening to fine us if we speak to other Countries on trade while being a member state but at the same time act illegally by excluding the UK from the recent meeting in Bratislava.
This is going to get very messy and as for Boris with his schoolboy ideas of bringing back "Britannia", lying down in front of bulldozers at the new Heathrow runway, and joining a Brexit pressure group, he is proving how completely unsuitable he is for high office. The country had a merciful escape when he didn't become PM
It is, of course, worth remembering that Belgium is a bigger player - in terms of quantity of imports and exports - that Russia.
Indeed, fine when he was the second most powerful person in government (with the ear of the PM) and she was the third, turned out to be not quite so good an idea once she got the top job
So May, who was appointed Party Chair by Cameron, and who sat for a decade in Shadow Cabinet, then Cabinet with Cameron and Osborne hated them both all the time.
Is it her shameless careerism or her hypocracy that kept her there?
You don't need to hate someone to disagree with them as I hope this forum generally demonstrates. Many politicians bide their time for their opportunity and I see nothing shameless in that
Cameron and Osborne promoted her and made her a core part of their project. Both have far more EQ than her.
A quick purge was probably better than a long drawn out one.
May seems to have fallen out with a fair number of her cabinet colleagues already. Maybe she just rushed form
I had thought the discont
Her slapping down of David Davis, and Greening's visible discomfort over being micro-managed over schools spring to mind.
It does not look a happy ship. One aspect of not having an effective parliamentary opposition is that it tends to create an internal party opposition. It happened to Thatcher in the Eighties, and Blair in the Noughties.
Yes but Thatcher and Blair are the two longest serving PMs in postwar UK history, so as long as they trounced the main opposition party internal opposition could largely be held off, even if it got them both in the end
May has inherited the position of Major or Brown, not Thatcher or Blair. Both Major and Brown had significant factions against them from the start. She will have the political longevity of the former rather than the latter.
Thatcher had significant factions against her from the start too - and I don't recall Brown's "significant factions" - he'd driven most of his opponents out by the time he got the top job.
There were several abortive coups and coup rumours against Brown by Blairites very quickly.
Maggie and Tony had sorted their positions out with their internal opponents in the comfort zone of opposition. Major and Brown never had that time and space, nor will May.
Is there a market up yet on when the next Tory leader takes over?
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn faced another ‘nepotism’ row last night after the daughter of the right-hand man of union baron Len McCluskey was given a £40,000-a-year job in Corbyn’s Commons team.
There were several abortive coups and coup rumours against Brown by Blairites very quickly.
Maggie and Tony had sorted their positions out with their internal opponents in the comfort zone of opposition. Major and Brown never had that time and space, nor will May.
Is there a market up yet on when the next Tory leader takes over?
Your memory of Maggie's early days is very different from mine - there was plenty of talk then (from the same types as doing down May now) that the grammar school girl wasn't up to it and would need to be replaced - then Galtieri came to her rescue and the rest is history.....
I remember my instant reaction when Thatcher resigned 'the B@stards have finally done for her' - looks like the privileged public school boys are up to it again.....
great poll for clinton in PA: 8 points ahead. suspect more polls will have a swingback to her, due to sympathy over her illness and trumps being called a racist liar openly in msm now
great poll for clinton in PA: 8 points ahead. suspect more polls will have a swingback to her, due to sympathy over her illness and trumps being called a racist liar openly in msm now
Can't say I've heard of that pollster before. What was their last poll in PA?
There were several abortive coups and coup rumours against Brown by Blairites very quickly.
Maggie and Tony had sorted their positions out with their internal opponents in the comfort zone of opposition. Major and Brown never had that time and space, nor will May.
Is there a market up yet on when the next Tory leader takes over?
Your memory of Maggie's early days is very different from mine - there was plenty of talk then (from the same types as doing down May now) that the grammar school girl wasn't up to it and would need to be replaced - then Galtieri came to her rescue and the rest is history.....
I remember my instant reaction when Thatcher resigned 'the B@stards have finally done for her' - looks like the privileged public school boys are up to it again.....
Do think it's the Conservative Cycle: Eton -> Grammar -> Comp -> Eton -> Grammar, etc.
Which means, which comprehensive school girl or boy shall follow May?
great poll for clinton in PA: 8 points ahead. suspect more polls will have a swingback to her, due to sympathy over her illness and trumps being called a racist liar openly in msm now
Can't say I've heard of that pollster before. What was their last poll in PA?
From 538, I can't see them having done a poll in recent history and 8% is about what other pollsters have found in the most recent polls in PA (its been much bigger before).
The problem with all these state ones, it seems the polling is done at random intervals and by a wide variety of different people.
Indeed some of the people are already upset at reports that they may have to pay for visas to go to the continent.
He's been talking to Polly.
Even if we do stay in the EU she'll still have to pay - unless they're advocating we joining Shengen?
What ever role immigration played in the EU Ref, I'm pretty sure 'joining Sherngen' was not on the table.......
That's an odd comment. We are not in Schengen but have unrestricted access to travel to the rest of the EU now. There are no visas or fees for visa waivers.
Remember Michael Gove assuring the woman who asked him a direct question about whether she would need a visa to travel to France that there was absolutely no question of that being the case? Bit by bit the general public will realise that the Leave campaign was as dishonest as they come.
There were several abortive coups and coup rumours against Brown by Blairites very quickly.
Maggie and Tony had sorted their positions out with their internal opponents in the comfort zone of opposition. Major and Brown never had that time and space, nor will May.
Is there a market up yet on when the next Tory leader takes over?
May is picking totally unnecessary fights within her own party when she should be cementing the electoral mandate she inherited from Cameron, and then building on it with a view to creating her own one if she wins the next GE. May might comfortable be outperforming Corbyn and a Labour party currently in total meltdown, but any half decent Labour Leader would be targeting some already clear weaknesses in her Leadership style and policy direction with glee. I know that we have no serious opposition right now, but talking up grammar schools, a Royal yacht and now another fox hunting vote is taking absolutely proverbial within the Conservative party and wider electorate right now!
I also suspect that May will also come to repent at leisure the overly harsh way she dispatched so many talented Ministers in her reshuffle. Nicky Morgan gave an assured performance on the Daily Politics this week, and Anna Soubry certainly spared both Justin Greening and Theresa May's blushes on the grammar school policy with that robust and diverting performance on QuestionTime. But for the Education Minister to pull out of her appearance on the programme at the last minute is embarrassing and indicates that there are already real cracks appearing within the Cabinet on policy and May's Leadership style. At the moment, May is looking more like Brown than Major, but is just very lucky she is not facing a Blair or Cameron across the dispatch box right now.
One thing is for sure, while May might now have created her own Cabinet, she binned just about every former Cabinet colleague and junior Minister who were able media performers. And these are the men and women you need out there in the media studios day in and day out selling your policies and defending your Government record.
Indeed some of the people are already upset at reports that they may have to pay for visas to go to the continent.
He's been talking to Polly.
Even if we do stay in the EU she'll still have to pay - unless they're advocating we joining Shengen?
What ever role immigration played in the EU Ref, I'm pretty sure 'joining Sherngen' was not on the table.......
I don't understand what Schengen has to do with it ?
AIUI the intention is to have all non-Shengen visitors apply for a visa - so whether we stay in the EU or Leave is irrelevant....unless we join Shengen
Indeed some of the people are already upset at reports that they may have to pay for visas to go to the continent.
He's been talking to Polly.
Even if we do stay in the EU she'll still have to pay - unless they're advocating we joining Shengen?
What ever role immigration played in the EU Ref, I'm pretty sure 'joining Sherngen' was not on the table.......
I don't understand what Schengen has to do with it ?
AIUI the intention is to have all non-Shengen visitors apply for a visa - so whether we stay in the EU or Leave is irrelevant....unless we join Shengen
Indeed some of the people are already upset at reports that they may have to pay for visas to go to the continent.
He's been talking to Polly.
Even if we do stay in the EU she'll still have to pay - unless they're advocating we joining Shengen?
What ever role immigration played in the EU Ref, I'm pretty sure 'joining Sherngen' was not on the table.......
I don't understand what Schengen has to do with it ?
AIUI the intention is to have all non-Shengen visitors apply for a visa - so whether we stay in the EU or Leave is irrelevant....unless we join Shengen
There are plenty of countries with "no visa" arrangements with the Schengen zone, such as Canada, the United States, Brazil, Australia, Japan, South Korea.
Indeed some of the people are already upset at reports that they may have to pay for visas to go to the continent.
He's been talking to Polly.
Even if we do stay in the EU she'll still have to pay - unless they're advocating we joining Shengen?
What ever role immigration played in the EU Ref, I'm pretty sure 'joining Sherngen' was not on the table.......
I don't understand what Schengen has to do with it ?
AIUI the intention is to have all non-Shengen visitors apply for a visa - so whether we stay in the EU or Leave is irrelevant....unless we join Shengen
You've got the wrong end of the stick somewhere.
The European commission is due to unveil draft legislation for the EU travel information and authorisation system (Etias) later this year as part of a broader response to calls for greater security across the continent following recent terror attacks in France and Belgium.
The scheme would cover all visitors to the passport-free 26-nation Schengen zone – of which Britain is not a member – from countries that do not need a visa to enter, EU sources confirmed.
Failing a resurgence of Bennite siege economics, I think it's likely future British governments will prioritise opening the country up to global trade to counteract the harms of Brexit. On a multidecadal time-scale his will likely force a Thatcher-scale realignment of the economy. But it's good news for free-trading liberal types, for whom the forces of global change will drive fresh growth in Britain that will more than make up for Brexit losses. Indeed, for them the EU offers only an insipid, limited and economically sclerotic form of globalisation. The closedness of the EU may be a comfort blanket to EU states who trade largely with other EU countries, but can seem more limiting for a country open to global trade, for whom the EU forms even on current trends, and assuming remaining in the EU a minority of trade whose share is falling, and bearing in mind the rapid decline of the rEU as a % of the global economy. There is a liberal case that, should Brexit allow Britain to more nimbly ride the waves of globalisation, then on a generational timescale we will collectively be better off. There were people who voted Leave on this basis too, but surely a far smaller cohort.
Collectively means "but with winners and losers" of course. The good social liberal may want a scheme of compensation for the losers, but this or future British governments may not be so keen. Moreover, unleashing the full forces of globalisation puts us in for a rough ride: competition drives growth, but it also can wipe out previously protected classes of industry and livelihood. The EU can help us regulate European multinationals (or at least, it does so on our behalf) but who will help us when global multinationals, especially if they want us to play "beggar your neighbour" on tax and regulation if we are to catch their eyes for much-sought investment? And so on.
This is the reason I was for Brexit and also the reason why I am now gravitating towards preferring a full hard Brexit to WTO rules to make the pain of exit worth it in the long run.
As for Gove’s assurances mentioned below, the Visa proposals were only announced earlier this month and were probably not known about at the time.
"The plan for a European ESTA was first outlined in 2011."
Gove was lying. He was one of the worst offenders in a demagogic campaign.
On the main point, there's no question of EU citizens being subject to this. Our right to enter Schengen countries does not depend on the existence of Schengen and their visa rules for third-countries.
This is the reason I was for Brexit and also the reason why I am now gravitating towards preferring a full hard Brexit to WTO rules to make the pain of exit worth it in the long run.
I think the problem with Hard Brexit is that it so often involves the following fallacy:
The EU is a protectionist monolith in a sea of free trading nations. If only we'd leave the EU, we'd benefit from free trade agreements with many, many other countries.
Among the countries touted for FTAs are Brazil, India, Australia, etc.
Which, one would thought, should raise the question - how many of these countries have FTAs among themselves. If India and Australia are so pro-free trade then presumably they have deals, right?
And that's where the fallacy lies. The rest of the world is not particularly free trade-y. If, as seems likely, TPP and TIPP fall apart, then pretty much the only free trade agreements between the twenty largest economies in the world are:
Those created by NAFTA (i.e. Canada-US, Canada-Mexico, US-Mexico). Australia and the US. Those created by the EU. and India - Japan. (Which is more a tariff reduction exercise that a genuine FTA.)
This is the reason I was for Brexit and also the reason why I am now gravitating towards preferring a full hard Brexit to WTO rules to make the pain of exit worth it in the long run.
I think the problem with Hard Brexit is that it so often involves the following fallacy:
An unanswerable case, therefore the only kind of Brexit that makes any sense is a Norway-style option, which is not politically possible on either side of the negotiation, ergo voting for Brexit was foolish and the best deal was the one Cameron negotiated or the status quo.
Indeed some of the people are already upset at reports that they may have to pay for visas to go to the continent.
He's been talking to Polly.
Even if we do stay in the EU she'll still have to pay - unless they're advocating we joining Shengen?
What ever role immigration played in the EU Ref, I'm pretty sure 'joining Sherngen' was not on the table.......
I don't understand what Schengen has to do with it ?
AIUI the intention is to have all non-Shengen visitors apply for a visa - so whether we stay in the EU or Leave is irrelevant....unless we join Shengen
You've got the wrong end of the stick somewhere.
The European commission is due to unveil draft legislation for the EU travel information and authorisation system (Etias) later this year as part of a broader response to calls for greater security across the continent following recent terror attacks in France and Belgium.
The scheme would cover all visitors to the passport-free 26-nation Schengen zone – of which Britain is not a member – from countries that do not need a visa to enter, EU sources confirmed.
As for Gove’s assurances mentioned below, the Visa proposals were only announced earlier this month and were probably not known about at the time.
The title of the system is travel information and authorization. A travel information system does not necessarily require visas to operate, and there are plenty of countries I travel to on a British passport which are not in Europe for which I do not need travel authorization.
So how does the story jump from legislation about a European information system to non-Schengen citizens needing visas (and even further, having to pay for visas)? Is there something explicit in the draft legislation that says visas will be required for non-Schengen EU countries? And, if so, how on earth does that fit with the inviolable 4 freedoms?
Indeed some of the people are already upset at reports that they may have to pay for visas to go to the continent.
He's been talking to Polly.
Even if we do stay in the EU she'll still have to pay - unless they're advocating we joining Shengen?
What ever role immigration played in the EU Ref, I'm pretty sure 'joining Sherngen' was not on the table.......
I don't understand what Schengen has to do with it ?
AIUI the intention is to have all non-Shengen visitors apply for a visa - so whether we stay in the EU or Leave is irrelevant....unless we join Shengen
You've got the wrong end of the stick somewhere.
The European commission is due to unveil draft legislation for the EU travel information and authorisation system (Etias) later this year as part of a broader response to calls for greater security across the continent following recent terror attacks in France and Belgium.
The scheme would cover all visitors to the passport-free 26-nation Schengen zone – of which Britain is not a member – from countries that do not need a visa to enter, EU sources confirmed.
As for Gove’s assurances mentioned below, the Visa proposals were only announced earlier this month and were probably not known about at the time.
The title of the system is travel information and authorization. A travel information system does not necessarily require visas to operate, and there are plenty of countries I travel to on a British passport which are not in Europe for which I do not need travel authorization.
So how does the story jump from legislation about a European information system to non-Schengen citizens needing visas (and even further, having to pay for visas)? Is there something explicit in the draft legislation that says visas will be required for non-Schengen EU countries? And, if so, how on earth does that fit with the inviolable 4 freedoms?
I’ve no idea what was initially proposed 2011, however as the recent terror attacks in France and Belgium are specifically mentioned as a reason for ‘broadening the scope’ of the visa, one can only assume they’ve undergone major changes and will do so again before the final draft.
The title of the system is travel information and authorization. A travel information system does not necessarily require visas to operate, and there are plenty of countries I travel to on a British passport which are not in Europe for which I do not need travel authorization.
So how does the story jump from legislation about a European information system to non-Schengen citizens needing visas (and even further, having to pay for visas)? Is there something explicit in the draft legislation that says visas will be required for non-Schengen EU countries? And, if so, how on earth does that fit with the inviolable 4 freedoms?
I’ve no idea what was initially proposed 2011, however as the recent terror attacks in France and Belgium are specifically mentioned as a reason for ‘broadening the scope’ of the visa, one can only assume they’ve undergone major changes and will do so again before the final draft.
In the EU we are not a 'third-country'.
The idea of establishing a European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) with similar objectives to the well-known US 'ESTA' system was launched by the Commission in April. Creation of such a system provides an additional layer of control over visa-exempt travellers. ETIAS would determine the eligibility of all visa-exempt third country nationals to travel to the Schengen Area, and whether such travel poses a security or migration risk. Information on travellers would be gathered prior to their trip. The Commission has launched a feasibility study on ETIAS, with results due in October 2016, and based on the results of the study as well as consultations, the Commission intends to present a legislative proposal by November 2016 for the establishment of ETIAS.
I think @Williamglenn is right about this. While we're EU members Schengen can't discriminate against us. Once were out of the EU then Schengen can discriminate. Which doesn't mean they will but in the early phase of negotiations all sorts of chaff will be thrown out to be traded away later. So if they can threaten us with something however unlikely why not ?
I think @Williamglenn is right about this. While we're EU members Schengen can't discriminate against us. Once were out of the EU then Schengen can discriminate. Which doesn't mean they will but in the early phase of negotiations all sorts of chaff will be thrown out to be traded away later. So if they can threaten us with something however unlikely why not ?
"In all your time living with the British you seem to have learnt nothing We don't like being threatened, we won't listen and even if you are marching up Whitehall .......we still won't listen"
*stirs cup of tea*
British Ambassador -Switzerland 1940-- regarding the suggested compromise - Battle of Britain
Comments
In England and Wales the trend is there, and even within Leicester (the micro scale that I mentioned) Remainia will be a lot more pleasant than Leaver-stan.
Globalisation is not going away just because of Brexit. Indeed the shocks of a hard Brexit may well lead to even more globalisation.
And you know what, I suspect that Balls much like Portillo would probably be quite good at such things if he no longer had to play a partisan role.
Also nearly 40% of Scots voted out.
*Maybe that should be 'dough'? I'll see myself out.
The famously humourless, micro-managing, ditherer May criticising someone else's Emotional Intelligence? It takes one to know one I suppose.
Trump winning & threatening to pull the plug on Nato would be quite useful at a time like this because it would mean that as well as having to find £12 billion a year if we dont stay in the single market the EU will have to make large increases in defence spending.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37396684
We also managed to have Stalin as an ally when he was killing literally millions of his own citizens in the gulag.
Is it her shameless careerism or her hypocracy that kept her there?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3794495/I-m-gay-says-Queen-s-cousin-m-not-100-comfortable-Royal-godfather-Prince-Edward-s-eldest-child-introduces-new-man-life-does-yoga-ex-wife.html
She is making far too many enemies. A key part of EQ is to be nice to people when you are on top, as you will need them at some point, loyalty and respect are reciprocal.
She could have easily moved George from the Cabinet without being rude, simply by stating that his attachment to Remain made that nessecary.
It does not look a happy ship. One aspect of not having an effective parliamentary opposition is that it tends to create an internal party opposition. It happened to Thatcher in the Eighties, and Blair in the Noughties.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/17/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-members-choose-shadow-team?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
If that happens Labour utterly fecked as a brand.
You'd have thought they'd learned their lesson from getting into bed with the Tory posh boys....
The EU has a funny position with respect to globalisation. In some ways it is one possible manifestation of it - a form of international cooperation that has morphed into the supranational organisation in its own right. It is a form of globalization with tendencies towards the bureaucratic, even the sclerotic, and where this bureaucracy has an uneasy relationship with democracy - particularly if, like the Greeks, one gets at the wrong end of it. (Ultimately it seems that democratising the EU requires either centralising it - genuinely meaty roles for an elected EU parliament and president - or diluting it - returning power to national parliaments and executives - and the trend is clearly towards the former.)
In other ways the EU is a bulwark against globalisation. We receive a mild form of globalisation, with liberal rules on mass migration and limited ability to control multinational corporations now regulated in Brussels rather than at home. But it's really "globalisation within a European context", and much of the EU system is working towards something of a European closed shop. While the EU may not be avowedly protectionist (except in some key areas like agriculture), we hear much more about how the EU prevents a "race to the bottom" than how the EU can drive competitiveness via some successor to the derided Lisbon Agenda.
I have an impression that those Leave voters crying foul of globalisation were mostly upset about the free-wheeling, wheeler-dealing, free-moving aspects (which the EU brought, but also to some extent suppressed) rather than the supranational bureaucratic bogeyman of the right-wing press.
Failing a resurgence of Bennite siege economics, I think it's likely future British governments will prioritise opening the country up to global trade to counteract the harms of Brexit. On a multidecadal time-scale his will likely force a Thatcher-scale realignment of the economy. But it's good news for free-trading liberal types, for whom the forces of global change will drive fresh growth in Britain that will more than make up for Brexit losses. Indeed, for them the EU offers only an insipid, limited and economically sclerotic form of globalisation. The closedness of the EU may be a comfort blanket to EU states who trade largely with other EU countries, but can seem more limiting for a country open to global trade, for whom the EU forms even on current trends, and assuming remaining in the EU a minority of trade whose share is falling, and bearing in mind the rapid decline of the rEU as a % of the global economy. There is a liberal case that, should Brexit allow Britain to more nimbly ride the waves of globalisation, then on a generational timescale we will collectively be better off. There were people who voted Leave on this basis too, but surely a far smaller cohort.
Collectively means "but with winners and losers" of course. The good social liberal may want a scheme of compensation for the losers, but this or future British governments may not be so keen. Moreover, unleashing the full forces of globalisation puts us in for a rough ride: competition drives growth, but it also can wipe out previously protected classes of industry and livelihood. The EU can help us regulate European multinationals (or at least, it does so on our behalf) but who will help us when global multinationals, especially if they want us to play "beggar your neighbour" on tax and regulation if we are to catch their eyes for much-sought investment? And so on.
Like you I think that the Brexit vote has the potential to be socio-economically transformative on a generational timescale. And I'd agree it's taking place in the context of trends towards globalisation that are transformative on a planetary scale. I don't think that Brexit is doomed to fail simply because it counteracts those tides - those voters who hoped for a turning back of the clock are clearly going to be disappointed.
There is an economically liberal case you might draw some comfort from: Britain may ride those waves more successfully alone than if, as a part of the EU, it tried to remain semi-insulated from them. If Brexit represents an opening up, rather than a closing down, perhaps that might appeal to you. That might not be what the bulk of voters wanted, but with the forces arrayed as they are, it may well be what they're getting.
On the other hand, there are aspects of globalisation and economic transformation your social liberal side is going to be deeply uncomfortable with - perhaps the best you can do is be resigned to the trend. If it's any solace, there are millions of people in the world's poorest countries who are better off today than 30 years ago because they have been given the chance to partake in the global economy. And there are people in the UK with much to gain. But there are vulnerable people here who stand to lose out too, and if your sympathies align more with the latter than the former then your heart's still on the right side.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/17/hungary-migration-poll-divides-nation-viktor-orban?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/17/brexit-not-time-to-move-on-time-to-fight-eu-referendum?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Indeed if you could work in some Eighties pop references (I Want to Break Free?), or a betting angle then it would make a great header.
There were several abortive coups and coup rumours against Brown by Blairites very quickly.
Maggie and Tony had sorted their positions out with their internal opponents in the comfort zone of opposition. Major and Brown never had that time and space, nor will May.
Is there a market up yet on when the next Tory leader takes over?
'It is not ‘time to move on’ over Brexit: it’s time to fight
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/17/brexit-not-time-to-move-on-time-to-fight-eu-referendum?'
He's having a laugh after the tiny turnout for the pro EU marches.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn faced another ‘nepotism’ row last night after the daughter of the right-hand man of union baron Len McCluskey was given a £40,000-a-year job in Corbyn’s Commons team.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3794667/Who-glamorous-new-assistant-comrade-Jeremy-Corbyn-hires-friend-s-27-year-old-daughter-40-000-year-political-adviser.html
I remember my instant reaction when Thatcher resigned 'the B@stards have finally done for her' - looks like the privileged public school boys are up to it again.....
Even if we do stay in the EU she'll still have to pay - unless they're advocating we joining Shengen?
What ever role immigration played in the EU Ref, I'm pretty sure 'joining Sherngen' was not on the table.......
great poll for clinton in PA: 8 points ahead. suspect more polls will have a swingback to her, due to sympathy over her illness and trumps being called a racist liar openly in msm now
Which means, which comprehensive school girl or boy shall follow May?
The problem with all these state ones, it seems the polling is done at random intervals and by a wide variety of different people.
Remember Michael Gove assuring the woman who asked him a direct question about whether she would need a visa to travel to France that there was absolutely no question of that being the case? Bit by bit the general public will realise that the Leave campaign was as dishonest as they come.
I also suspect that May will also come to repent at leisure the overly harsh way she dispatched so many talented Ministers in her reshuffle. Nicky Morgan gave an assured performance on the Daily Politics this week, and Anna Soubry certainly spared both Justin Greening and Theresa May's blushes on the grammar school policy with that robust and diverting performance on QuestionTime. But for the Education Minister to pull out of her appearance on the programme at the last minute is embarrassing and indicates that there are already real cracks appearing within the Cabinet on policy and May's Leadership style. At the moment, May is looking more like Brown than Major, but is just very lucky she is not facing a Blair or Cameron across the dispatch box right now.
One thing is for sure, while May might now have created her own Cabinet, she binned just about every former Cabinet colleague and junior Minister who were able media performers. And these are the men and women you need out there in the media studios day in and day out selling your policies and defending your Government record.
ITV News @itvnews 2m2 minutes ago
'Loud explosion' reported in street in Manhattan, New York http://www.itv.com/news/2016-09-18/explosion-new-york-city-chelsea-manhatten/ …
The scheme would cover all visitors to the passport-free 26-nation Schengen zone – of which Britain is not a member – from countries that do not need a visa to enter, EU sources confirmed.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/09/britons-may-have-to-apply-to-visit-europe-under-eu-visa-scheme
As for Gove’s assurances mentioned below, the Visa proposals were only announced earlier this month and were probably not known about at the time.
Gove was lying. He was one of the worst offenders in a demagogic campaign.
On the main point, there's no question of EU citizens being subject to this. Our right to enter Schengen countries does not depend on the existence of Schengen and their visa rules for third-countries.
The EU is a protectionist monolith in a sea of free trading nations. If only we'd leave the EU, we'd benefit from free trade agreements with many, many other countries.
Among the countries touted for FTAs are Brazil, India, Australia, etc.
Which, one would thought, should raise the question - how many of these countries have FTAs among themselves. If India and Australia are so pro-free trade then presumably they have deals, right?
And that's where the fallacy lies. The rest of the world is not particularly free trade-y. If, as seems likely, TPP and TIPP fall apart, then pretty much the only free trade agreements between the twenty largest economies in the world are:
Those created by NAFTA (i.e. Canada-US, Canada-Mexico, US-Mexico).
Australia and the US.
Those created by the EU.
and
India - Japan. (Which is more a tariff reduction exercise that a genuine FTA.)
So how does the story jump from legislation about a European information system to non-Schengen citizens needing visas (and even further, having to pay for visas)? Is there something explicit in the draft legislation that says visas will be required for non-Schengen EU countries? And, if so, how on earth does that fit with the inviolable 4 freedoms?
Reuters Top News @Reuters 8s9 seconds ago
BREAKING: Explosive device with multiple injuries reported by New York City Fire Department
The idea of establishing a European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) with similar objectives to the well-known US 'ESTA' system was launched by the Commission in April. Creation of such a system provides an additional layer of control over visa-exempt travellers. ETIAS would determine the eligibility of all visa-exempt third country nationals to travel to the Schengen Area, and whether such travel poses a security or migration risk. Information on travellers would be gathered prior to their trip. The Commission has launched a feasibility study on ETIAS, with results due in October 2016, and based on the results of the study as well as consultations, the Commission intends to present a legislative proposal by November 2016 for the establishment of ETIAS.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-3003_en.htm
We don't like being threatened, we won't listen and even if you are marching up Whitehall .......we still won't listen"
*stirs cup of tea*
British Ambassador -Switzerland 1940-- regarding the suggested compromise - Battle of Britain