Unusually for me, I spent an hour watching a BBC4 programme last night about a pile of bricks. It was hilarious. In the 1970s, the Tate Gallery spent £25k in today's money acquiring a pile of 120 bricks because it was conceptual art.
The funniest part was the testimony of art 'experts' defending this bollocks. You were supposed to look at them and meditate about the meaning of life, A little like a Yoga master can concentrate on the word Ommmmm. Funnily enough, the original bricks had been taken back to the makers and the artist had got his money back (no fool him).
The experts, of course, knew best and they were scathing about the philistines who didn't understand. I then had a pretentious moment myself. It would serve as an allegory for the EU. The bricks didn't matter, it was an excuse to feel good about yourself at the expense of the plebs, the thickos.
s nip
So, to all you Remainers, I've got a pile of dog poo you can buy for £10,000. Or rather, I can collect some if you want. You will be suffering from withdrawal symptoms when we leave the EU.
The bricks are art. Indeed they were a bargain as far as the Tate goes.
Alongside Tracey Emin's Bed one of the most talked about pieces of modern art. Indeed there was an hour long programme about them the other night.
If you want to look at pretty pictures go to the village hall art exhibition. If you want to be challenged to think about the world, go to the Tate.
snip
Modern art which clearly took a great deal of effort and/or skill on the other hand I can appreciate even if I don't like the way it looks and think portentous commentary about is message is a load of shash. If something looks like it could be slapped together in 5 minutes and looks terrible (without that being its intention), then the real artistry is in the marketing of what it is about, not the piece itself. (This is of course true of more traditional art, be it paintings or novels, to some extent - many a work supposedly of great significance might seem to lack other merits other than its supposed message, or a work by a great name is praised more than something from an unknown which may well look better)
Well said. There's nothing wrong with Chocolate Box Biscuit Tin art - though I haven't seen any for a couple of decades or more. It's the equivalent of In An English County Garden. But it's meant to be decorative and commercial.
Trying to crowbar other unsuccessful *art* - especially subsidised crap into a higher plane makes me wince.
Gormley does great work - it's eye-catching and makes an impact. That's real talent.
And yet such design, art, fashion and so forth are in demand in the world, while the products of Port Talbot are not.
.
Additionally, we have steel manufacturing in this country which is perfectly profitable, just that some older plants need.
Now we are planning on life outside the EU, we should turn Port Talbot into the world's leading centre of excellence for the research into, development of and marketing for graphene. Put a few billion into it and watch it provide us with one of the economic wonders of the next fifty years....
Over Manchester which did a whole bunch of the early research, already has a chunk of skilled staff deployed and working and currently has a graphene centre of excellence under construction? Seems a little inefficient.
Its called regeneration..... Manchester got that centre of excellence we call the BBC. They can have too much of a good thing.
There was a Tory-leaning economist, or maybe think tank, who got into trouble a while ago for suggesting that the North should basically be run down and everyone encouraged to move to the economically productive South East.
Bonkers.
But the Valleys might be *one* area which really defies any attempt at regen. Perhaps we should be returning much of it to parkland; the bedt hope is to be Cardiff commuter towns.
Is it really so bonkers. Many of the inhabitants of the north moved in a great migration from the south as a result of losing their jobs as part of the agricultural revolution two hundred years ago.
It could be arguing that modern benefits are just delaying the inevitable.
The valleys are unique though - virtually uninhabitable high ground moorland. Only the rail links to Cardiff offering commuting give them any future as you say.
Yes, it is bonkers to think that we ought to move 50% of the population into the South East.
Unlike the Valleys, there's no inherent geographic reason why the Midlands and the North have performed so badly in the last twenty five years. It's due, above all, to a lack of investment.
Which raises the question of why companies choose not to invest there despite lower living costs making production cheaper.
I suspect the more militant and heirachical culture (in a trade union sense) vs the more flexible 'can do' culture in the south has a lot to do with it.
The enlargement of the EU, very much spearheaded by the UK, is what I'm talking about.
We could have / should have had one without the other.
Real terms wages have been stagnant in western and southern Europe ever since the A8 nations joined the EU. If you take out the rises at the top and bottom (greedy bankers and the higher minimum wage) the people in the middle have seen their wages fall, quite significantly in real terms, ever since the A8 nations joined. That's nothing to do with the Euro. We should have invited them to associate membership level until they reached near economic parity with southern Europe then given them full membership.
The Euro was 2000, A8 2004.
The process of drawing the A8 into the European orbit and institutional frameworks started much earlier, ie from 1989.
I don't believe, though, that enlargement was/is behind France's or Italy's or Greece's economic issues and if anything has probably been a minor economic benefit through the import of skilled human capital.
The enlargement of the EU, very much spearheaded by the UK, is what I'm talking about.
We could have / should have had one without the other.
Real terms wages have been stagnant in western and southern Europe ever since the A8 nations joined the EU. If you take out the rises at the top and bottom (greedy bankers and the higher minimum wage) the people in the middle have seen their wages fall, quite significantly in real terms, ever since the A8 nations joined. That's nothing to do with the Euro. We should have invited them to associate membership level until they reached near economic parity with southern Europe then given them full membership.
The Euro was 2000, A8 2004.
The process of drawing the A8 into the European orbit and institutional frameworks started much earlier, ie from 1989.
I don't believe, though, that enlargement was/is behind France's or Italy's or Greece's economic issues and if anything has probably been a minor economic benefit through the import of skilled human capital.
The same trend is even more evident in the US, where the top few % have taken even more at the expense of everyone else.
At least the £ seems to have bottomed out, for now at least, at $1.29 ish, after several days of falls; the lowest dollar rate since early 1985.
Didn't the pound sink to $ parity at one point during the Thatcher economic miracle? Perhaps that would be taking the Thacher tribute act a little far.
And yet such design, art, fashion and so forth are in demand in the world, while the products of Port Talbot are not.
The future of British cultural exports is in Hoxton and Clerkenwell. It is why Remania will prosper after Brexit while Leaverstan withers on the vine.
Additionally, we have steel manufacturing in this country which is perfectly profitable, just that some older plants need.
Now we are planning on life outside the EU, we should turn Port Talbot into the world's leading centre of excellence for the research into, development of and marketing for graphene. Put a few billion into it and watch it provide us with one of the economic wonders of the next fifty years....
Over Manchester which did a whole bunch of the early research, already has a chunk of skilled staff deployed and working and currently has a graphene centre of excellence under construction? Seems a little inefficient.
Its called regeneration..... Manchester got that centre of excellence we call the BBC. They can have too much of a good thing.
There was a Tory-leaning economist, or maybe think tank, who got into trouble a while ago for suggesting that the North should basically be run down and everyone encouraged to move to the economically productive South East.
Bonkers.
But the Valleys might be *one* area which really defies any attempt at regen. Perhaps we should be returning much of it to parkland; the bedt hope is to be Cardiff commuter towns.
Is it really so bonkers. Many of the inhabitants of the north moved in a great migration from the south as a result of losing their jobs as part of the agricultural revolution two hundred years ago.
It could be arguing that modern benefits are just delaying the inevitable.
The valleys are unique though - virtually uninhabitable high ground moorland. Only the rail links to Cardiff offering commuting give them any future as you say.
Yes, it is bonkers to think that we ought to move 50% of the population into the South East.
Unlike the Valleys, there's no inherent geographic reason why the Midlands and the North have performed so badly in the last twenty five years. It's due, above all, to a lack of investment.
The Midlands does well in pockets, in particular logistics around the M1/M6/M69 triangle. But it's largely automated stuff. Better rail links across the region would be a start, try getting a train from Nottingham to Coventry!
The enlargement of the EU, very much spearheaded by the UK, is what I'm talking about.
We could have / should have had one without the other.
Real terms wages have been stagnant in western and southern Europe ever since the A8 nations joined the EU. If you take out the rises at the top and bottom (greedy bankers and the higher minimum wage) the people in the middle have seen their wages fall, quite significantly in real terms, ever since the A8 nations joined. That's nothing to do with the Euro. We should have invited them to associate membership level until they reached near economic parity with southern Europe then given them full membership.
Although that's also true of Japan and the US, so it may be that there are also global factors at play. (It is, at the very least, a multi-factor model.)
The world of modern art sits perfectly with the EUrocrat mindset.
"It is great art because we have TOLD you it is great art. Now shut up."
The EUrorocrats cannot sell the art though. That happens in the market. And fpr reasons beyond me it tends to sell very well.
No, but in the analogy the EU is the can of pickled dogshit. I said it before the referendum, the main problem for the remain campaign was that the EU was a shit product with very few true believers in the "project". Modern art seems like an apt comparison, something that most people don't appreciate but are told by experts and elites is extremely important and valuable.
Has modern art helped keep the peace in Europe for 70 years?
No. And neither had the EU.
I have to disagree with you and Max on this. If the altered question had been: "Has the EU kept the peace in Europe for 70 years", then I would have agreed with you - the EU has not kept the peace.
But it was "...helped keep...", and I find little reason to believe it has not been a factor in peace. In general, the more countries talk, have similar views and have common interests, the less likely they are to find violent and combative ways to sort out disagreements.
So IMO the EU has *helped* keep the peace, but it was far from the only factor in that peace.
Of course, we'll never know as we cannot go back and perform the experiment again.
The main factors in keeping the peace was the lack of appetite for war, the lack of readily available infantry and eventually NATO to keep the Russians in check. If the EU/ECSC helped keep the peace, then it was a decidedly minor role that the EUphiles and Eurocrats have turned into something far more important than it really was with bluster and misinformation.
True. The EU's main success has been to stablise, Westernise, and enrich East Europe. A great achievement.
Very much at the expense of Western and Southern Europe it now seems, so not such a great achievement.
Spain, Portugal and Greece have done very well out of the EU. They have rebuilt their entire infrastructures on the back of European UK & German Taxpayers (ie our) money.
Corrected for you
Not just Germany and the UK. My point was that southern European countries have done very well out of EU membership.
'This would be a precedential decision. Surely we want a precedent that makes absolutely clear that Parliament is sovereign. Otherwise, the power of the executive will only increase - especially given the reduction in the number of MPs. We voted to bring back sovereignty from Brussels to Parliament, didn't we? '
Can you please give us the names of politicians,parties that told us before the referendum vote that in the event of a Leave vote they would block it via parliament or that it would require a vote of approval in parliament ?
Cameron was very clear that in the event of a Leave vote he would immediately trigger Article 50 no ifs, buts or second referendums.
No-one is suggesting blocking Brexit.
Apart from one of the current Labour leader candidates, and the lib dems and numerous other people....
Yep, no one at all.
How is asking voters to endorse the Brexit deal the government concludes blocking Brexit?
Owen Smith has said: “I’m a passionate pro-European, and I will fight tooth and nail to keep us in the EU”.
If 'keeping us in the EU' isn't 'blocking Brexit' then what is.
It's seeking to persuade voters to change their minds. If voters don't want to they won't.
The enlargement of the EU, very much spearheaded by the UK, is what I'm talking about.
We could have / should have had one without the other.
Real terms wages have been stagnant in western and southern Europe ever since the A8 nations joined the EU. If you take out the rises at the top and bottom (greedy bankers and the higher minimum wage) the people in the middle have seen their wages fall, quite significantly in real terms, ever since the A8 nations joined. That's nothing to do with the Euro. We should have invited them to associate membership level until they reached near economic parity with southern Europe then given them full membership.
The Euro was 2000, A8 2004.
The process of drawing the A8 into the European orbit and institutional frameworks started much earlier, ie from 1989.
I don't believe, though, that enlargement was/is behind France's or Italy's or Greece's economic issues and if anything has probably been a minor economic benefit through the import of skilled human capital.
Nope, it's a chicken and egg talent issue. Deutsche Bank opened a trading floor in Birmingham a few years back and found it incredibly difficult, even with massive incentives to get talent to go there.
The world of modern art sits perfectly with the EUrocrat mindset.
"It is great art because we have TOLD you it is great art. Now shut up."
The EUrorocrats cannot sell the art though. That happens in the market. And fpr reasons beyond me it tends to sell very well.
No, but in the analogy the EU is the can of pickled dogshit. I said it before the referendum, the main problem for the remain campaign was that the EU was a shit product with very few true believers in the "project". Modern art seems like an apt comparison, something that most people don't appreciate but are told by experts and elites is extremely important and valuable.
Has modern art helped keep the peace in Europe for 70 years?
No. And neither had the EU.
I have to disagree with you and Max on this. If the altered question had been: "Has the EU kept the peace in Europe for 70 years", then I would have agreed with you - the EU has not kept the peace.
But it was "...helped keep...", and I find little reason to believe it has not been a factor in peace. In general, the more countries talk, have similar views and have common interests, the less likely they are to find violent and combative ways to sort out disagreements.
Of course, we'll never know as we cannot go back and perform the experiment again.
True. The EU's main success has been to stablise, Westernise, and enrich East Europe. A great achievement.
Very much at the expense of Western and Southern Europe it now seems, so not such a great achievement.
Spain, Portugal and Greece have done very well out of the EU. They have rebuilt their entire infrastructures on the back of European UK & German Taxpayers (ie our) money.
Corrected for you
Nevertheless redistribution can and should be a success story, as was the recovery from communism of the Eastern European countries (the transformation I have seen in Poland over twenty five years is stunning), as was the Marshall Plan before that. People may resist the redistribution but in the long run it is in the interests of both sides. Hence the good sense in maintaining aid funding for development interventions in poorer countries which, however slow and difficult, is in the long run the only way we will stop the rest of the world wanting to come and live here.
And yet such design, art, fashion and so forth are in demand in the world, while the products of Port Talbot are not.
The future of British cultural exports is in Hoxton and Clerkenwell. It is why Remania will prosper after Brexit while Leaverstan withers on the vine.
Additionally, we have steel manufacturing in this country which is perfectly profitable, just that some older plants need.
Now we are planning on life outside the EU, we should turn Port Talbot into the world's leading centre of excellence for the research into, development of and marketing for graphene. Put a few billion into it and watch it provide us with one of the economic wonders of the next fifty years....
Over Manchester which did a whole bunch of the early research, already has a chunk of skilled staff deployed and working and currently has a graphene centre of excellence under construction? Seems a little inefficient.
Its called regeneration..... Manchester got that centre of excellence we call the BBC. They can have too much of a good thing.
Is it really so bonkers. Many of the inhabitants of the north moved in a great migration from the south as a result of losing their jobs as part of the agricultural revolution two hundred years ago.
It could be arguing that modern benefits are just delaying the inevitable.
The valleys are unique though - virtually uninhabitable high ground moorland. Only the rail links to Cardiff offering commuting give them any future as you say.
Yes, it is bonkers to think that we ought to move 50% of the population into the South East.
Unlike the Valleys, there's no inherent geographic reason why the Midlands and the North have performed so badly in the last twenty five years. It's due, above all, to a lack of investment.
The Midlands does well in pockets, in particular logistics around the M1/M6/M69 triangle. But it's largely automated stuff. Better rail links across the region would be a start, try getting a train from Nottingham to Coventry!
Sean T was posting last night about that analyst who complains about the US elite clustering into SF, NYC and Northern Virginia.
We have the same thing, and maybe a worse version. Is there even an urban bourgeoisie left in, say, Hull?
To the BBC, the commentariat, the politicians, and top executives --- there be dragons north of Watford.
The enlargement of the EU, very much spearheaded by the UK, is what I'm talking about.
We could have / should have had one without the other.
Real terms wages have been stagnant in western and southern Europe ever since the A8 nations joined the EU. If you take out the rises at the top and bottom (greedy bankers and the higher minimum wage) the people in the middle have seen their wages fall, quite significantly in real terms, ever since the A8 nations joined. That's nothing to do with the Euro. We should have invited them to associate membership level until they reached near economic parity with southern Europe then given them full membership.
Although that's also true of Japan and the US, so it may be that there are also global factors at play. (It is, at the very least, a multi-factor model.)
Japan I'll give you, but the US has had very high immigration from Mexico.
The enlargement of the EU, very much spearheaded by the UK, is what I'm talking about.
We could have / should have had one without the other.
Real terms wages have been stagnant in western and southern Europe ever since the A8 nations joined the EU. If you take out the rises at the top and bottom (greedy bankers and the higher minimum wage) the people in the middle have seen their wages fall, quite significantly in real terms, ever since the A8 nations joined. That's nothing to do with the Euro. We should have invited them to associate membership level until they reached near economic parity with southern Europe then given them full membership.
The Euro was 2000, A8 2004.
The process of drawing the A8 into the European orbit and institutional frameworks started much earlier, ie from 1989.
I don't believe, though, that enlargement was/is behind France's or Italy's or Greece's economic issues and if anything has probably been a minor economic benefit through the import of skilled human capital.
Nope, it's a chicken and egg talent issue. Deutsche Bank opened a trading floor in Birmingham a few years back and found it incredibly difficult, even with massive incentives to get talent to go there.
Yes, it is chicken and egg.
What CEO's wife would consent to moving to Birmingham from London?
Hence the need for investment, to change reality *and perception*. The Bilbao strategy, if you like (big investment in infrastructure, long pre dating the Guggenheim).
At least the £ seems to have bottomed out, for now at least, at $1.29 ish, after several days of falls; the lowest dollar rate since early 1985.
Didn't the pound sink to $ parity at one point during the Thatcher economic miracle? Perhaps that would be taking the Thacher tribute act a little far.
There were some major gyrations in late 1984/early 1985 and I am sure these got close if not touched parity. From the middle of 1985 it picked up significantly.
From here, some argue that the £ may sink progressively toward parity as the reality of the cold post-Brexit world sets in and others suggest that buying at $1.30 represents the investment opportunity of a lifetime.....
The enlargement of the EU, very much spearheaded by the UK, is what I'm talking about.
We could have / should have had one without the other.
Real terms wages have been stagnant in western and southern Europe ever since the A8 nations joined the EU. If you take out the rises at the top and bottom (greedy bankers and the higher minimum wage) the people in the middle have seen their wages fall, quite significantly in real terms, ever since the A8 nations joined. That's nothing to do with the Euro. We should have invited them to associate membership level until they reached near economic parity with southern Europe then given them full membership.
Although that's also true of Japan and the US, so it may be that there are also global factors at play. (It is, at the very least, a multi-factor model.)
Japan I'll give you, but the US has had very high immigration from Mexico.
Immigration is a permanent fact of life in the US.
Not just Germany and the UK. My point was that southern European countries have done very well out of EU membership.
Hmm, I'm sure they'll tell you otherwise.
The economic integration and political support they received from the EU certainly helped Spain and Portugal recover from their fascist dictatorships, which lasted well into living memory, and Greece also. It is the Euro, rather than the EU, that has been the mixed blessing as far as the Med countries are concerned.
And yet such design, art, fashion and so forth are in demand in the world, while the products of Port Talbot are not.
The future of British cultural exports is in Hoxton and Clerkenwell. It is why Remania will prosper after Brexit while Leaverstan withers on the vine.
Additionally, we have steel manufacturing in this country which is perfectly profitable, just that some older plants need.
Now we are planning on life outside the EU, we should turn Port Talbot into the world's leading centre of excellence for the research into, development of and marketing for graphene. Put a few billion into it and watch it provide us with one of the economic wonders of the next fifty years....
Over Manchester which did a whole bunch of the early research, already has a chunk of skilled staff deployed and working and currently has a graphene centre of excellence under construction? Seems a little inefficient.
Its called regeneration..... Manchester got that centre of excellence we call the BBC. They can have too much of a good thing.
snip
Yes, it is bonkers to think that we ought to move 50% of the population into the South East.
Unlike the Valleys, there's no inherent geographic reason why the Midlands and the North have performed so badly in the last twenty five years. It's due, above all, to a lack of investment.
The Midlands does well in pockets, in particular logistics around the M1/M6/M69 triangle. But it's largely automated stuff. Better rail links across the region would be a start, try getting a train from Nottingham to Coventry!
Sean T was posting last night about that analyst who complains about the US elite clustering into SF, NYC and Northern Virginia.
We have the same thing, and maybe a worse version. Is there even an urban bourgeoisie left in, say, Hull?
To the BBC, the commentariat, the politicians, and top executives --- there be dragons north of Watford.
"Is there even an urban bourgeoisie left in, say, Hull?"
Labour Paul Here's a fun game: I'm travelling London to York. What's the first Labour parliamentary seat on the way? I think it might be Bassetlaw.
It is.
Yebbut isn't King's Cross in a Labour seat?
Either Holborn & st Pancras or Islington South (the former I think). The line will then run up through north London - Camden then Haringey - also all Labour seats.
And yet such dee future of British cultural exports is in Hoxton and Clerkenwell. It is why Remania will prosper after Brexit while Leaverstan withers on the vine.
Additionally, we have steel manufacturing in this country which is perfectly profitable, just that some older plants need.
Now we are planning on life outside the EU, we should turn Port Talbot into the world's leading centre of excellence for the research into, development of and marketing for graphene. Put a few billion into it and watch it provide us with one of the economic wonders of the next fifty years....
Over Manchester which did a whole bunch of the early research, already has a chunk of skilled staff deployed and working and currently has a graphene centre of excellence under construction? Seems a little inefficient.
Its called regeneration..... Manchester got that centre of excellence we call the BBC. They can have too much of a good thing.
There was a Tory-leaning economist, or maybe think tank, who got into trouble a while ago for suggesting that thea which really defies any attempt at regen. Perhaps we should be returning much of it to parkland; the bedt hope is to be Cardiff commuter towns.
Is it really so bonkers. Many of the inhabitants of the north moved in a great migration from the south as a result of losing their jobs as part of the agricultural revolution two hundred years ago.
It could be arguing that modern benefits are just delaying the inevitable.
The valleys are unique though - virtually uninhabitable high ground moorland. Only the rail links to Cardiff offering commuting give them any future as you say.
Yes, it is bonkers to think that we ought to move 50% of the population into the South East.
Unlike the Valleys, there's no inherent geographic reason why the Midlands and the North have performed so badly in the last twenty five years. It's due, above all, to a lack of investment.
The Midlands does well in pockets, in particular logistics around the M1/M6/M69 triangle. But it's largely automated stuff. Better rail links across the region would be a start, try getting a train from Nottingham to Coventry!
Easy - CrossCountry from Notts to Brum via Derby, then London Midland/Virgin Trains/CrossCountry to Coventry.
At least the £ seems to have bottomed out, for now at least, at $1.29 ish, after several days of falls; the lowest dollar rate since early 1985.
One of the impacts of BREXIT is that in international terms we are all a lot poorer than we were on June 23rd
Not if you value self-determination....democracy...little things like that.
I wouldn't pay 15% extra to go abroad, or for anything that arrives from abroad, for that myself, particularly given that UK democracy is a deeply flawed product.
Labour Paul Here's a fun game: I'm travelling London to York. What's the first Labour parliamentary seat on the way? I think it might be Bassetlaw.
It is.
Yebbut isn't King's Cross in a Labour seat?
Either Holborn & st Pancras or Islington South (the former I think). The line will then run up through north London - Camden then Haringey - also all Labour seats.
So the original Tweeter is a Twat, then (to quote Dave!)
But then usually, after we find a link to terror (the St. Cloud terrorist asks victims if they're Muslim; the Chelsea bomber had traveled to the Middle East a number of times prior), everyone pretends they always knew it was terror.
So here we see a media more outraged over saying bomb, then being bombed. But by avoiding the term "bomb," while a rigged pressure cooker is staring you in the face -- isn't that jumping to a conclusion, too? By saying it "doesn't appear to be terrorism" -- isn't that jumping to conclusion as well?
Perhaps you should pretend it could be an angry tea partier upset over ObamaCare (I will never forget that one, Mr. Bloomberg). By the way, it appears the bombs all had timers. Was it wrong to immediately assume they were bombs, when they could have been clocks?
Labour Paul Here's a fun game: I'm travelling London to York. What's the first Labour parliamentary seat on the way? I think it might be Bassetlaw.
It is.
Not Luton South?
Luton's on Midland Mainline, not the East Coast Main Line.
He might be driving!
I don't think there is any way out of central London (Tory) that avoids travelling through a Labour seat. So he would have to start from beyond the North Circular at the very least. Chingford, for example.
Not just Germany and the UK. My point was that southern European countries have done very well out of EU membership.
Hmm, I'm sure they'll tell you otherwise.
I think it depends... Italy did very, very well until the mid 1990s.
But then a combination of the Euro destroying the Italian growth model (where inflation and currency depreciation compensated for an inflexible labour market), and appalling demographics dragged growth down a lot.
Since it joined in 1985, Spain's GDP growth has averaged well above 3%, and its 'employment ratio' is up more than 10% (albeit from a very low level, due to historically very low female labour participation rates). But that growth seems very poorly spread right now: Barcelona, Madrid and the North is booming, but Andulucia and the coast is struggling (thanks to a Euro fuelled building boom in the early 2000s.)
Not just Germany and the UK. My point was that southern European countries have done very well out of EU membership.
Hmm, I'm sure they'll tell you otherwise.
I doubt it.
I don't.
I have lived in Spain, done a lot of work in Portugal. They know what EU membership has done for them. You can see it, too, when flying over both countries - the new transport systems are plain to see.
There is no political party with any significant support in Spain, Portugal or Greece advocating EU withdrawal or even leaving the Euro. And in all three countries there is PR and a record of new parties appearing and winning parliamentary representation, so if the demand for such parties existed they would appear.
Labour Paul Here's a fun game: I'm travelling London to York. What's the first Labour parliamentary seat on the way? I think it might be Bassetlaw.
It is.
Yebbut isn't King's Cross in a Labour seat?
Either Holborn & st Pancras or Islington South (the former I think). The line will then run up through north London - Camden then Haringey - also all Labour seats.
So the original Tweeter is a Twat, then (to quote Dave!)
Peter Kyle's recent map tweet made a similar point. He pasted a big map of the seats of southern England, every one blue Tory except for the tiny green speck for Lucas in Brighton and the equally tiny red speck for his own seat next door. Pointing towards the red speck was an arrow and the words "an enemy of the proletariat has been identified".
OT it would be great if someone explained how to post images and tweets; I tried it recently and it didn't work for me!
How is asking voters to endorse the Brexit deal the government concludes blocking Brexit?
It's seeking to persuade voters to change their minds. If voters don't want to they won't.
It doesn't and can't work that way. Once Article 50 is triggered, then we're on the way out.
We can't back out of it. So either Smith doesn't understand this, or he would never trigger it in the first place. So he's either stupid, or lying.
Of course we can back out of it if that's what voters want. I doubt it'll happen and wouldn't want it myself, but it's not impossible.
You need to read article 50:
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
The only way we stay 'in' would be if both the member state and the european council decide upon it after either 2 years are up the period after notification is extended by agreement of all parties.
Note: Extended. Not cancelled. It would be like Hotel California where we can check out but not leave.
The notion we can trigger article 50, get a deal, then go...ahhh no, we'll stay after all that is idiotic and unrealistic. The only way we can stay is to not trigger it in the first place.
Not just Germany and the UK. My point was that southern European countries have done very well out of EU membership.
Hmm, I'm sure they'll tell you otherwise.
I doubt it.
I don't.
I have lived in Spain, done a lot of work in Portugal. They know what EU membership has done for them. You can see it, too, when flying over both countries - the new transport systems are plain to see.
There is no political party with any significant support in Spain, Portugal or Greece advocating EU withdrawal or even leaving the Euro. And in all three countries there is PR and a record of new parties appearing and winning parliamentary representation, so if the demand for such parties existed they would appear.
Cornwall voted decisively for Leave despite being a huge net beneficiary.
This is spot on re absurd reactions to NYC and other terrorism attacks http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/09/20/greg-gutfeld-five-more-lessons-from-another-terror-attack.html The fourth jump "It's a random attack." But then usually, after we find a link to terror (the St. Cloud terrorist asks victims if they're Muslim; the Chelsea bomber had traveled to the Middle East a number of times prior), everyone pretends they always knew it was terror. So here we see a media more outraged over saying bomb, then being bombed. But by avoiding the term "bomb," while a rigged pressure cooker is staring you in the face -- isn't that jumping to a conclusion, too? By saying it "doesn't appear to be terrorism" -- isn't that jumping to conclusion as well? Perhaps you should pretend it could be an angry tea partier upset over ObamaCare (I will never forget that one, Mr. Bloomberg). By the way, it appears the bombs all had timers. Was it wrong to immediately assume they were bombs, when they could have been clocks?
Great stuff Plato. We are seeing an unfortunate outbreak of household appliances that are being left around by Muslims which are unfortunately harming people..... Should this just be an elf and safety matter?
How is asking voters to endorse the Brexit deal the government concludes blocking Brexit?
Owen Smith has said: “I’m a passionate pro-European, and I will fight tooth and nail to keep us in the EU”.
If 'keeping us in the EU' isn't 'blocking Brexit' then what is.
It's seeking to persuade voters to change their minds. If voters don't want to they won't.
It doesn't and can't work that way. Once Article 50 is triggered, then we're on the way out.
We can't back out of it. So either Smith doesn't understand this, or he would never trigger it in the first place. So he's either stupid, or lying.
I doubt the voters would change their minds but if Britain did the rest of the EU would say, "OK, whatever". They're not begging Britain to stay but they're not going to cause extra trouble and expense to their constituents by forcing Britain out.
How is asking voters to endorse the Brexit deal the government concludes blocking Brexit?
It's seeking to persuade voters to change their minds. If voters don't want to they won't.
It doesn't and can't work that way. Once Article 50 is triggered, then we're on the way out.
We can't back out of it. So either Smith doesn't understand this, or he would never trigger it in the first place. So he's either stupid, or lying.
Of course we can back out of it if that's what voters want. I doubt it'll happen and wouldn't want it myself, but it's not impossible.
You need to read article 50:
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
The only way we stay 'in' would be if both the member state and the european council decide upon it after either 2 years are up the period after notification is extended by agreement of all parties.
Note: Extended. Not cancelled. It would be like Hotel California where we can check out but not leave.
The notion we can trigger article 50, get a deal, then go...ahhh no, we'll stay after all that is idiotic and unrealistic. The only way we can stay is to not trigger it in the first place.
Eurofudge. It happens all the time. If the UK changed its mind a way to accommodate that would be found.
How is asking voters to endorse the Brexit deal the government concludes blocking Brexit?
It's seeking to persuade voters to change their minds. If voters don't want to they won't.
It doesn't and can't work that way. Once Article 50 is triggered, then we're on the way out.
We can't back out of it. So either Smith doesn't understand this, or he would never trigger it in the first place. So he's either stupid, or lying.
Of course we can back out of it if that's what voters want. I doubt it'll happen and wouldn't want it myself, but it's not impossible.
You need to read article 50:
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
The only way we stay 'in' would be if both the member state and the european council decide upon it after either 2 years are up the period after notification is extended by agreement of all parties.
Note: Extended. Not cancelled. It would be like Hotel California where we can check out but not leave.
The notion we can trigger article 50, get a deal, then go...ahhh no, we'll stay after all that is idiotic and unrealistic. The only way we can stay is to not trigger it in the first place.
It doesn't say you can't withdraw a notification, and even if it did nobody's going to court to force the issue.
Sean T was posting last night about that analyst who complains about the US elite clustering into SF, NYC and Northern Virginia.
We have the same thing, and maybe a worse version. Is there even an urban bourgeoisie left in, say, Hull?
To the BBC, the commentariat, the politicians, and top executives --- there be dragons north of Watford.
Surely the BBC has embraced Salford?
I think they've struggled to get both off- and on-screen talent to locate permanently up there.
Also remember the BBC used to have a big presence in Birmingham when Pebble Mill was around, so Manchester has only really replaced Brum as the 2nd base rather than affecting London.
Remember the so-called "Referendum Lock" Act which the Tories foisted upon the coalition? In shorthand this requires a referendum before the UK signs up to any future EU treaty. I gather lawyers are looking at whether the exit treaty might (inadvertently) fall within its provisions.
Not just Germany and the UK. My point was that southern European countries have done very well out of EU membership.
Hmm, I'm sure they'll tell you otherwise.
The economic integration and political support they received from the EU certainly helped Spain and Portugal recover from their fascist dictatorships, which lasted well into living memory, and Greece also. It is the Euro, rather than the EU, that has been the mixed blessing as far as the Med countries are concerned.
Yes, that's about right. The economics over their whole membership is mixed but given their history the politics is positive.
That's one of the UK's paradoxes in all of this. Unlike most continental countries there's little in the way (small numbers of EUphiles aside) of obvious political/constitutional dividend. As you say club Med - Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy, all had dictators within living memory and more so when they joined. E Europe wanted further distance from Russia, Germany redemption. France again, some form of redemption from a shattering WW2? Leaving the likes of Sweden, Denmark, and us more non plussed with all of that to greater or lesser extents.
I think Ted Heath's original sin was to keep quiet about how the continentals saw/see Europe as a "politically symbolic project with economic add ons" (the Euro being the classic "politics first - the economics can catch up, what could possibly go wrong?"), whereas most Brits have really seen it as an economic project ("The Common Market") with political bits we've largely had to reluctantly put up with as the price.
That fault line was never really resolved, and politicians of all stripes in govt's refusal to address it, it in my view, all helped build up the pressure over decades leading to June 23rd.
Maybe the EU should have a referendum in every country every 10 years or so as to whether that country wishes to stay? Might help address the democratic distance between rulers and ruled and (oh we can but hope!) make the Commission et al a bit more responsive to people's actual desires?
How is asking voters to endorse the Brexit deal the government concludes blocking Brexit?
It's seeking to persuade voters to change their minds. If voters don't want to they won't.
It doesn't and can't work that way. Once Article 50 is triggered, then we're on the way out.
We can't back out of it. So either Smith doesn't understand this, or he would never trigger it in the first place. So he's either stupid, or lying.
Of course we can back out of it if that's what voters want. I doubt it'll happen and wouldn't want it myself, but it's not impossible.
You need to read article 50:
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
The only way we stay 'in' would be if both the member state and the european council decide upon it after either 2 years are up the period after notification is extended by agreement of all parties.
Note: Extended. Not cancelled. It would be like Hotel California where we can check out but not leave.
The notion we can trigger article 50, get a deal, then go...ahhh no, we'll stay after all that is idiotic and unrealistic. The only way we can stay is to not trigger it in the first place.
Eurofudge. It happens all the time. If the UK changed its mind a way to accommodate that would be found.
I seriously doubt it, not without concessions from the UK on the rebate and a few of our opt outs, though maybe not the Euro. From the day we voted to leave the only way back in would be to rejoin on their terms, which would be far less favourable than what we currently have.
Whether Britain could rescind a notice to quit that had been given in accordance with Britain's constitutional requirements is wholly unclear. It is rumoured that the French government has a legal opinion that advises that it is possible, but the logic has not been disclosed.
How is asking voters to endorse the Brexit deal the government concludes blocking Brexit?
It's seeking to persuade voters to change their minds. If voters don't want to they won't.
It doesn't and can't work that way. Once Article 50 is triggered, then we're on the way out.
We can't back out of it. So either Smith doesn't understand this, or he would never trigger it in the first place. So he's either stupid, or lying.
Of course we can back out of it if that's what voters want. I doubt it'll happen and wouldn't want it myself, but it's not impossible.
You need to read article 50:
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
The only way we stay 'in' would be if both the member state and the european council decide upon it after either 2 years are up the period after notification is extended by agreement of all parties.
Note: Extended. Not cancelled. It would be like Hotel California where we can check out but not leave.
The notion we can trigger article 50, get a deal, then go...ahhh no, we'll stay after all that is idiotic and unrealistic. The only way we can stay is to not trigger it in the first place.
Eurofudge. It happens all the time. If the UK changed its mind a way to accommodate that would be found.
I seriously doubt it, not without concessions from the UK on the rebate and a few of our opt outs, though maybe not the Euro. From the day we voted to leave the only way back in would be to rejoin on their terms, which would be far less favourable than what we currently have.
I agree, which is why I'd be opposed. But it could be done.
Some eye opening hostility to the UK government coming from Fergus Ewing the Scottish cabinet secretary for rural economy etc. BBC Parliament Channel live.
How is asking voters to endorse the Brexit deal the government concludes blocking Brexit?
It's seeking to persuade voters to change their minds. If voters don't want to they won't.
It doesn't and can't work that way. Once Article 50 is triggered, then we're on the way out.
We can't back out of it. So either Smith doesn't understand this, or he would never trigger it in the first place. So he's either stupid, or lying.
Of course we can back out of it if that's what voters want. I doubt it'll happen and wouldn't want it myself, but it's not impossible.
You need to read article 50:
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
The only way we stay 'in' would be if both the member state and the european council decide upon it after either 2 years are up the period after notification is extended by agreement of all parties.
Note: Extended. Not cancelled. It would be like Hotel California where we can check out but not leave.
The notion we can trigger article 50, get a deal, then go...ahhh no, we'll stay after all that is idiotic and unrealistic. The only way we can stay is to not trigger it in the first place.
Eurofudge. It happens all the time. If the UK changed its mind a way to accommodate that would be found.
I seriously doubt it, not without concessions from the UK on the rebate and a few of our opt outs, though maybe not the Euro. From the day we voted to leave the only way back in would be to rejoin on their terms, which would be far less favourable than what we currently have.
Correct. Which is why it was bonkers to leave in the first place.
Not just Germany and the UK. My point was that southern European countries have done very well out of EU membership.
Hmm, I'm sure they'll tell you otherwise.
I doubt it.
I don't.
I have lived in Spain, done a lot of work in Portugal. They know what EU membership has done for them. You can see it, too, when flying over both countries - the new transport systems are plain to see.
There is no political party with any significant support in Spain, Portugal or Greece advocating EU withdrawal or even leaving the Euro. And in all three countries there is PR and a record of new parties appearing and winning parliamentary representation, so if the demand for such parties existed they would appear.
Cornwall voted decisively for Leave despite being a huge net beneficiary.
But the UK as a whole is a net contributor, to the tune of £8.5 billion in 2015.
Not just Germany and the UK. My point was that southern European countries have done very well out of EU membership.
Hmm, I'm sure they'll tell you otherwise.
The economic integration and political support they received from the EU certainly helped Spain and Portugal recover from their fascist dictatorships, which lasted well into living memory, and Greece also. It is the Euro, rather than the EU, that has been the mixed blessing as far as the Med countries are concerned.
Strictly speaking it was national governments' lack of the necessary discipline towards the easy access to cheap money that did for EuroMed economies. It's an important point because they don't really want to return to lira, pesetas and drachmae, which they would want to do if the Euro was the problem per se. (Leaving aside the practical difficulties in changing the currency, which I accept agree are big).
Not just Germany and the UK. My point was that southern European countries have done very well out of EU membership.
Hmm, I'm sure they'll tell you otherwise.
I doubt it.
I don't.
I have lived in Spain, done a lot of work in Portugal. They know what EU membership has done for them. You can see it, too, when flying over both countries - the new transport systems are plain to see.
There is no political party with any significant support in Spain, Portugal or Greece advocating EU withdrawal or even leaving the Euro. And in all three countries there is PR and a record of new parties appearing and winning parliamentary representation, so if the demand for such parties existed they would appear.
Cornwall voted decisively for Leave despite being a huge net beneficiary.
Cornwall was told any lost money would be covered. We'll see about that.
How is asking voters to endorse the Brexit deal the government concludes blocking Brexit?
It's seeking to persuade voters to change their minds. If voters don't want to they won't.
It doesn't and can't work that way. Once Article 50 is triggered, then we're on the way out.
We can't back out of it. So either Smith doesn't understand this, or he would never trigger it in the first place. So he's either stupid, or lying.
Of course we can back out of it if that's what voters want. I doubt it'll happen and wouldn't want it myself, but it's not impossible.
You need to read article 50:
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
The only way we stay 'in' would be if both the member state and the european council decide upon it after either 2 years are up the period after notification is extended by agreement of all parties.
Note: Extended. Not cancelled. It would be like Hotel California where we can check out but not leave.
The notion we can trigger article 50, get a deal, then go...ahhh no, we'll stay after all that is idiotic and unrealistic. The only way we can stay is to not trigger it in the first place.
Eurofudge. It happens all the time. If the UK changed its mind a way to accommodate that would be found.
I seriously doubt it, not without concessions from the UK on the rebate and a few of our opt outs, though maybe not the Euro. From the day we voted to leave the only way back in would be to rejoin on their terms, which would be far less favourable than what we currently have.
I agree, which is why I'd be opposed. But it could be done.
Yes, even with a second vote I'm not sure Brussels would want us back on the same terms we currently have, if it was a political decision made by Westminster without a vote then they might let us back in though. A reward for the politicians ignoring the people
Not just Germany and the UK. My point was that southern European countries have done very well out of EU membership.
Hmm, I'm sure they'll tell you otherwise.
I doubt it.
I don't.
I have lived in Spain, done a lot of work in Portugal. They know what EU membership has done for them. You can see it, too, when flying over both countries - the new transport systems are plain to see.
There is no political party with any significant support in Spain, Portugal or Greece advocating EU withdrawal or even leaving the Euro. And in all three countries there is PR and a record of new parties appearing and winning parliamentary representation, so if the demand for such parties existed they would appear.
Cornwall voted decisively for Leave despite being a huge net beneficiary.
But the UK as a whole is a net contributor, to the tune of £8.5 billion in 2015.
Yes of course. My point is that Cornwall bit the hand that fed it, suggesting that Spain and Portugal "knowing what the eu has done for them" doesnt conclusively prove that they are (S)pexit -proof. Or that the Cornish are odd.
But then usually, after we find a link to terror (the St. Cloud terrorist asks victims if they're Muslim; the Chelsea bomber had traveled to the Middle East a number of times prior), everyone pretends they always knew it was terror.
So here we see a media more outraged over saying bomb, then being bombed.
But by avoiding the term "bomb," while a rigged pressure cooker is staring you in the face -- isn't that jumping to a conclusion, too? By saying it "doesn't appear to be terrorism" -- isn't that jumping to conclusion as well?
Perhaps you should pretend it could be an angry tea partier upset over ObamaCare (I will never forget that one, Mr. Bloomberg). By the way, it appears the bombs all had timers. Was it wrong to immediately assume they were bombs, when they could have been clocks?
The trouble is that neither bomb nor terrorism is well-defined. If someone grabs a kitchen knife and stabs weekend shoppers, then is that because their girlfriend dumped them or because they were fired up by Islamist web sites? If the latter, it is probably terrorism but even then, there is no path through command and control structures back to Smersh. Was mental illness a factor? Probably, but that cuts both ways if IS and/or AQ are grooming the mentally ill. What if they look up how to make crude improvised bombs from pressure cookers? This is not like the old IRA campaigns with planned and authorised attacks using centrally procured and supplied arms and explosives. Though there are some classic attacks, most of the recent ones have been by lone nutters responding to general calls to, well, become terrorists.
Oh, and the Barcelona explosion at the weekend probably was due to gas after all.
How is asking voters to endorse the Brexit deal the government concludes blocking Brexit?
Owen Smith has said: “I’m a passionate pro-European, and I will fight tooth and nail to keep us in the EU”.
If 'keeping us in the EU' isn't 'blocking Brexit' then what is.
It's seeking to persuade voters to change their minds. If voters don't want to they won't.
It doesn't and can't work that way. Once Article 50 is triggered, then we're on the way out.
We can't back out of it. So either Smith doesn't understand this, or he would never trigger it in the first place. So he's either stupid, or lying.
I doubt the voters would change their minds but if Britain did the rest of the EU would say, "OK, whatever". They're not begging Britain to stay but they're not going to cause extra trouble and expense to their constituents by forcing Britain out.
Forgive me for not having much faith in the goodwill of eurocrats.
Not just Germany and the UK. My point was that southern European countries have done very well out of EU membership.
Hmm, I'm sure they'll tell you otherwise.
I doubt it.
I don't.
I have lived in Spain, done a lot of work in Portugal. They know what EU membership has done for them. You can see it, too, when flying over both countries - the new transport systems are plain to see.
There is no political party with any significant support in Spain, Portugal or Greece advocating EU withdrawal or even leaving the Euro. And in all three countries there is PR and a record of new parties appearing and winning parliamentary representation, so if the demand for such parties existed they would appear.
Cornwall voted decisively for Leave despite being a huge net beneficiary.
But the UK as a whole is a net contributor, to the tune of £8.5 billion in 2015.
Yes of course. My point is that Cornwall bit the hand that fed it, suggesting that Spain and Portugal "knowing what the eu has done for them" doesnt conclusively prove that they are (S)pexit -proof. Or that the Cornish are odd.
I thought that, with the possible exception of Denmark, not only have polls consistently recorded majority support for EU membership in almost every EU country, but that the one set taken since the UK vote suggested that if anything Brexit has made everyone else more keen?
Not just Germany and the UK. My point was that southern European countries have done very well out of EU membership.
Hmm, I'm sure they'll tell you otherwise.
I doubt it.
I don't.
I have lived in Spain, done a lot of work in Portugal. They know what EU membership has done for them. You can see it, too, when flying over both countries - the new transport systems are plain to see.
There is no political party with any significant support in Spain, Portugal or Greece advocating EU withdrawal or even leaving the Euro. And in all three countries there is PR and a record of new parties appearing and winning parliamentary representation, so if the demand for such parties existed they would appear.
Cornwall voted decisively for Leave despite being a huge net beneficiary.
Cornwall was told any lost money would be covered. We'll see about that.
The NHS is already expecting the very same money. And the farmers. Fisherfolk. Universities. Research institutes. Museums.....
On topic: Surely we need also to consider this from the EU political point of view.
Suppose Theresa May writes a letter to the Commission invoking Article 50. The process kicks off. At the end of two years, we are out of the EU. The point being - this is an EU process. As long as the Commission accept the letter as valid, that's it. It will be too late for any legal challenge in the UK to alter it, unless the EU - countries, Commission, ultimately perhaps the ECJ - agrees. Is it plausible that they would throw the process into even more ludicrous uncertainty by agreeing to reverse their acceptance of the trigger? I don't think so, they want rid of us now, and who can blame them? They not unreasonably take the view that the UK should be In or Out, and stop faffing around. We've chosen Out, and they are now planning on that basis. They won't accept us back even if we wanted to change our minds. (That's one reason why the LibDem position is so absurd).
From the UK political point of view, there is an overriding reason why the government must invoke Article 50 without going to parliament. This negotiation and process is already incredibly difficult, and mired in uncertainty which is potentially extremely damaging to the economy. Throwing yet more uncertainty into the mix - with grandstanding LibDem peers threatening to delay and confuse things - can only increase the damage.
On borders you miss the point. The main impact is on the credibility of the Prime Minister who claimed along with Cameron, Osborne and,god help us, old John Major that a Brexit vote would of necessity mean a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
The then Northern Ireland Secretary said that this was not so that the Commons Travel Area established in 1923 took precedence. Within days of becoming Prime Minister Teresa May completely reversed her position and declared that a hard border was not necessary after all. It turned out that it was all the usual scaremongering nonsense.
The only circumstance where there is even an argument that a hard border is necessary depends on the EU wanting to push an independent Scotland into Schengen. But there is no evidence whatsoever that they would wish to do this.
As with Northern Ireland in the Brexit vote it is scaremongering pure and simple. The blow is to May's credibility and the political lesson is that "Project Fear" has had its time.
Some eye opening hostility to the UK government coming from Fergus Ewing the Scottish cabinet secretary for rural economy etc. BBC Parliament Channel live.
Not just Germany and the UK. My point was that southern European countries have done very well out of EU membership.
Hmm, I'm sure they'll tell you otherwise.
I doubt it.
I don't.
I have lived in Spain, done a lot of work in Portugal. They know what EU membership has done for them. You can see it, too, when flying over both countries - the new transport systems are plain to see.
There is no political party with any significant support in Spain, Portugal or Greece advocating EU withdrawal or even leaving the Euro. And in all three countries there is PR and a record of new parties appearing and winning parliamentary representation, so if the demand for such parties existed they would appear.
Cornwall voted decisively for Leave despite being a huge net beneficiary.
But the UK as a whole is a net contributor, to the tune of £8.5 billion in 2015.
Yes of course. My point is that Cornwall bit the hand that fed it, suggesting that Spain and Portugal "knowing what the eu has done for them" doesnt conclusively prove that they are (S)pexit -proof. Or that the Cornish are odd.
I thought that, with the possible exception of Denmark, not only have polls consistently recorded majority support for EU membership in almost every EU country, but that the one set taken since the UK vote suggested that if anything Brexit has made everyone else more keen?
I presume the Cornish assumed that EU subsidy would be replaced by UK subsidy. Not necessarily an unfair assumption.
So the analogy with Portugal et al is not a good one. There's no intermediary power between Portugal and the EU.
On topic: Surely we need also to consider this from the EU political point of view.
Suppose Theresa May writes a letter to the Commission invoking Article 50. The process kicks off. At the end of two years, we are out of the EU. The point being - this is an EU process. As long as the Commission accept the letter as valid, that's it. It will be too late for any legal challenge in the UK to alter it, unless the EU - countries, Commission, ultimately perhaps the ECJ - agrees. Is it plausible that they would throw the process into even more ludicrous uncertainty by agreeing? I don't think so, they want rid of us now, and who can blame them? They not unreasonably take the view that the UK should be In or Out, and stop faffing around. We've chosen Out, and they are now planning on that basis. They won't accept us back even if we wanted to change our minds. (That's one reason why the LibDem position is so absurd).
From the UK political point of view, there is an overriding reason why the government must invoke Article 50 without going to parliament. This negotiation and process is already incredibly difficult, and mired in uncertainty which is potentially extremely damaging to the economy. Throwing yet more uncertainty into the mix - with grandstanding LibDem peers threatening to delay and confuse things - can only increase the damage.
I think your view may reflect that of many EU'crats, but probably not of the other national governments (basically France and Germany) who ultimately pull the strings. Both of these countries are facing knock-on consequences fuelled by Brexit (Le Pen and Afd etc) and I think that a change of heart by the UK before we passed the point of no return would suit them both. Further, from many governments' point of view (especially Germany)the U.K. does actually play a positive role in the EU, bringing to the table the expertise of our civil service, our close ties especially with the US, and our market-oriented economic view which suits the Germans, Scandinavians and East Europeans. The ones that don't like us are the Junkers and Barrosos of this world who have to sit in the Parliament and listen to Farage's latest rant.
This is spot on re absurd reactions to NYC and other terrorism attacks http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/09/20/greg-gutfeld-five-more-lessons-from-another-terror-attack.html The fourth jump "It's a random attack." But then usually, after we find a link to terror (the St. Cloud terrorist asks victims if they're Muslim; the Chelsea bomber had traveled to the Middle East a number of times prior), everyone pretends they always knew it was terror. So here we see a media more outraged over saying bomb, then being bombed. But by avoiding the term "bomb," while a rigged pressure cooker is staring you in the face -- isn't that jumping to a conclusion, too? By saying it "doesn't appear to be terrorism" -- isn't that jumping to conclusion as well? Perhaps you should pretend it could be an angry tea partier upset over ObamaCare (I will never forget that one, Mr. Bloomberg). By the way, it appears the bombs all had timers. Was it wrong to immediately assume they were bombs, when they could have been clocks?
Great stuff Plato. We are seeing an unfortunate outbreak of household appliances that are being left around by Muslims which are unfortunately harming people..... Should this just be an elf and safety matter?
The Americans are seeing it, and similar devices have been used by non-Islamist Americans. Since the mayor's statement everyone decries referred to the explosion being deliberate, then presumably what he was saying was they did not know whether whoever made it was a nasty Islamist terrorist or an all-American bomber.
Not just Germany and the UK. My point was that southern European countries have done very well out of EU membership.
Hmm, I'm sure they'll tell you otherwise.
I doubt it.
I don't.
I have lived in Spain, done a lot of work in Portugal. They know what EU membership has done for them. You can see it, too, when flying over both countries - the new transport systems are plain to see.
There is no political party with any significant support in Spain, Portugal or Greece advocating EU withdrawal or even leaving the Euro. And in all three countries there is PR and a record of new parties appearing and winning parliamentary representation, so if the demand for such parties existed they would appear.
Cornwall voted decisively for Leave despite being a huge net beneficiary.
Cornwall was told any lost money would be covered. We'll see about that.
The NHS is already expecting the very same money. And the farmers. Fisherfolk. Universities. Research institutes. Museums.....
Please, stop it, your making me laugh too much. No way on earth will this happen.
Not just Germany and the UK. My point was that southern European countries have done very well out of EU membership.
Hmm, I'm sure they'll tell you otherwise.
I doubt it.
I don't.
I have lived in Spain, done a lot of work in Portugal. They know what EU membership has done for them. You can see it, too, when flying over both countries - the new transport systems are plain to see.
There is no political party with any significant support in Spain, Portugal or Greece advocating EU withdrawal or even leaving the Euro. And in all three countries there is PR and a record of new parties appearing and winning parliamentary representation, so if the demand for such parties existed they would appear.
Cornwall voted decisively for Leave despite being a huge net beneficiary.
Cornwall was told any lost money would be covered. We'll see about that.
Some eye opening hostility to the UK government coming from Fergus Ewing the Scottish cabinet secretary for rural economy etc. BBC Parliament Channel live.
Has he paid the farmers yet?
I missed the earlier part where that may have been asked. The last part was about what planning he had done for CAP post EU exit circa 2020. His answers included that he had not been told by UK Govt what his budget would be in 2020 so he could not plan. etc etc. Any line manager saying that to their boss, would, in business, raise fundamental questions about their competence to be planning ahead. Budgets should be set on the basis of plans submitted and the goals of that business/government. This twerp was blaming Westminster for his inability to plan.
'The Afghan-born suspect in the weekend’s New York bomb attacks is a jihadist who hailed Osama bin Laden and wrote that explosions “will be heard in the streets”, US prosecutors have said.'
Nothing to indicate international terrorism... FFS
@faisalislam: soft Brexiteers start to speak out as Britain heads towards hard Brexit - where Tory MPs sit on this issue matters: https://t.co/RJFU3opl2e
On topic: Surely we need also to consider this from the EU political point of view.
Suppose Theresa May writes a letter to the Commission invoking Article 50. The process kicks off. At the end of two years, we are out of the EU. The point being - this is an EU process. As long as the Commission accept the letter as valid, that's it. It will be too late for any legal challenge in the UK to alter it, unless the EU - countries, Commission, ultimately perhaps the ECJ - agrees. Is it plausible that they would throw the process into even more ludicrous uncertainty by agreeing? I don't think so, they want rid of us now, and who can blame them? They not unreasonably take the view that the UK should be In or Out, and stop faffing around. We've chosen Out, and they are now planning on that basis. They won't accept us back even if we wanted to change our minds. (That's one reason why the LibDem position is so absurd).
From the UK political point of view, there is an overriding reason why the government must invoke Article 50 without going to parliament. This negotiation and process is already incredibly difficult, and mired in uncertainty which is potentially extremely damaging to the economy. Throwing yet more uncertainty into the mix - with grandstanding LibDem peers threatening to delay and confuse things - can only increase the damage.
I think that a change of heart by the UK before we passed the point of no return
We passed the point of no return on 23rd June......
Some eye opening hostility to the UK government coming from Fergus Ewing the Scottish cabinet secretary for rural economy etc. BBC Parliament Channel live.
'The Afghan-born suspect in the weekend’s New York bomb attacks is a jihadist who hailed Osama bin Laden and wrote that explosions “will be heard in the streets”, US prosecutors have said.' Nothing to indicate international terrorism... FFS
Bill De Blasio is a socialist. All these household appliances from capitalists are corrupting the great unwashed.
On borders you miss the point. The main impact is on the credibility of the Prime Minister who claimed along with Cameron, Osborne and,god help us, old John Major that a Brexit vote would of necessity mean a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
The then Northern Ireland Secretary said that this was not so that the Commons Travel Area established in 1923 took precedence. Within days of becoming Prime Minister Teresa May completely reversed her position and declared that a hard border was not necessary after all. It turned out that it was all the usual scaremongering nonsense.
The only circumstance where there is even an argument that a hard border is necessary depends on the EU wanting to push an independent Scotland into Schengen. But there is no evidence whatsoever that they would wish to do this.
As with Northern Ireland in the Brexit vote it is scaremongering pure and simple. The blow is to May's credibility and the political lesson is that "Project Fear" has had its time.
Hard to disagree with any of that.
The argument that there is a fundamental geo-philosophical difference between Scotland (outside Schengen) and Ireland (also outside Schengen) is indeed wafer thin.
On topic: Surely we need also to consider this from the EU political point of view.
Suppose Theresa May writes a letter to the Commission invoking Article 50. The process kicks off. At the end of two years, we are out of the EU. The point being - this is an EU process. As long as the Commission accept the letter as valid, that's it. It will be too late for any legal challenge in the UK to alter it, unless the EU - countries, Commission, ultimately perhaps the ECJ - agrees. Is it plausible that they would throw the process into even more ludicrous uncertainty by agreeing? I don't think so, they want rid of us now, and who can blame them? They not unreasonably take the view that the UK should be In or Out, and stop faffing around. We've chosen Out, and they are now planning on that basis. They won't accept us back even if we wanted to change our minds. (That's one reason why the LibDem position is so absurd).
From the UK political point of view, there is an overriding reason why the government must invoke Article 50 without going to parliament. This negotiation and process is already incredibly difficult, and mired in uncertainty which is potentially extremely damaging to the economy. Throwing yet more uncertainty into the mix - with grandstanding LibDem peers threatening to delay and confuse things - can only increase the damage.
I think that a change of heart by the UK before we passed the point of no return
We passed the point of no return on 23rd June......
Clearly that isn't the case, formally at least. In practice you may be right, but the downthread discussion has been about the theoretical possibilities.
Comments
Trying to crowbar other unsuccessful *art* - especially subsidised crap into a higher plane makes me wince.
Gormley does great work - it's eye-catching and makes an impact. That's real talent.
I suspect the more militant and heirachical culture (in a trade union sense) vs the more flexible 'can do' culture in the south has a lot to do with it.
The process of drawing the A8 into the European orbit and institutional frameworks started much earlier, ie from 1989.
I don't believe, though, that enlargement was/is behind France's or Italy's or Greece's economic issues and if anything has probably been a minor economic benefit through the import of skilled human capital.
Perhaps that would be taking the Thacher tribute act a little far.
What did @johnmcdonnellMP think about Ed Miliband abolishing shadow cabinet elections in 2011? https://t.co/AejDpRITX4
Here's a fun game: I'm travelling London to York. What's the first Labour parliamentary seat on the way? I think it might be Bassetlaw.
It is.
We have the same thing, and maybe a worse version. Is there even an urban bourgeoisie left in, say, Hull?
To the BBC, the commentariat, the politicians, and top executives --- there be dragons north of Watford.
What CEO's wife would consent to moving to Birmingham from London?
Hence the need for investment, to change reality *and perception*. The Bilbao strategy, if you like (big investment in infrastructure, long pre dating the Guggenheim).
From here, some argue that the £ may sink progressively toward parity as the reality of the cold post-Brexit world sets in and others suggest that buying at $1.30 represents the investment opportunity of a lifetime.....
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/uksectoraccounts/articles/assessmentoftheukpostreferendumeconomy/september2016
A Generation is however long I say it is?
Oh, not that Sturgeon's law......
We can't back out of it. So either Smith doesn't understand this, or he would never trigger it in the first place. So he's either stupid, or lying.
Yes, Newland Park area and Cottingham.
Did I get it right?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/09/20/greg-gutfeld-five-more-lessons-from-another-terror-attack.html
The fourth jump "It's a random attack."
But then usually, after we find a link to terror (the St. Cloud terrorist asks victims if they're Muslim; the Chelsea bomber had traveled to the Middle East a number of times prior), everyone pretends they always knew it was terror.
So here we see a media more outraged over saying bomb, then being bombed. But by avoiding the term "bomb," while a rigged pressure cooker is staring you in the face -- isn't that jumping to a conclusion, too? By saying it "doesn't appear to be terrorism" -- isn't that jumping to conclusion as well?
Perhaps you should pretend it could be an angry tea partier upset over ObamaCare (I will never forget that one, Mr. Bloomberg). By the way, it appears the bombs all had timers. Was it wrong to immediately assume they were bombs, when they could have been clocks?
But then a combination of the Euro destroying the Italian growth model (where inflation and currency depreciation compensated for an inflexible labour market), and appalling demographics dragged growth down a lot.
Since it joined in 1985, Spain's GDP growth has averaged well above 3%, and its 'employment ratio' is up more than 10% (albeit from a very low level, due to historically very low female labour participation rates). But that growth seems very poorly spread right now: Barcelona, Madrid and the North is booming, but Andulucia and the coast is struggling (thanks to a Euro fuelled building boom in the early 2000s.)
There is no political party with any significant support in Spain, Portugal or Greece advocating EU withdrawal or even leaving the Euro. And in all three countries there is PR and a record of new parties appearing and winning parliamentary representation, so if the demand for such parties existed they would appear.
OT it would be great if someone explained how to post images and tweets; I tried it recently and it didn't work for me!
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
The only way we stay 'in' would be if both the member state and the european council decide upon it after either 2 years are up the period after notification is extended by agreement of all parties.
Note: Extended. Not cancelled. It would be like Hotel California where we can check out but not leave.
The notion we can trigger article 50, get a deal, then go...ahhh no, we'll stay after all that is idiotic and unrealistic. The only way we can stay is to not trigger it in the first place.
Easy - CrossCountry from Notts to Brum via Derby, then London Midland/Virgin Trains/CrossCountry to Coventry.
Did I get it right?
According to trainline it is quicker to change twice at Leicester and Nuneaton
It isn't. Assuming you don't count the seat of departure, it's Islington South and Finsbury.
If you overlook that David Cameron (not in an A1 constituency) beat Ed Miliband (in an A1 constituency).
That's one of the UK's paradoxes in all of this. Unlike most continental countries there's little in the way (small numbers of EUphiles aside) of obvious political/constitutional dividend. As you say club Med - Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy, all had dictators within living memory and more so when they joined. E Europe wanted further distance from Russia, Germany redemption. France again, some form of redemption from a shattering WW2? Leaving the likes of Sweden, Denmark, and us more non plussed with all of that to greater or lesser extents.
I think Ted Heath's original sin was to keep quiet about how the continentals saw/see Europe as a "politically symbolic project with economic add ons" (the Euro being the classic "politics first - the economics can catch up, what could possibly go wrong?"), whereas most Brits have really seen it as an economic project ("The Common Market") with political bits we've largely had to reluctantly put up with as the price.
That fault line was never really resolved, and politicians of all stripes in govt's refusal to address it, it in my view, all helped build up the pressure over decades leading to June 23rd.
Maybe the EU should have a referendum in every country every 10 years or so as to whether that country wishes to stay? Might help address the democratic distance between rulers and ruled and (oh we can but hope!) make the Commission et al a bit more responsive to people's actual desires?
Ned Simmons
Jeremy Corbyn's ex-wife Jane Chapman just told Radio 5 she voted for Owen Smith.
Oh, and the Barcelona explosion at the weekend probably was due to gas after all.
Which of course makes perfect sense, given that it's the second biggest settlement. Would you prefer they concentrated on Backwater-by–Dale?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom#List_of_most_populous_urban_areas
Suppose Theresa May writes a letter to the Commission invoking Article 50. The process kicks off. At the end of two years, we are out of the EU. The point being - this is an EU process. As long as the Commission accept the letter as valid, that's it. It will be too late for any legal challenge in the UK to alter it, unless the EU - countries, Commission, ultimately perhaps the ECJ - agrees. Is it plausible that they would throw the process into even more ludicrous uncertainty by agreeing to reverse their acceptance of the trigger? I don't think so, they want rid of us now, and who can blame them? They not unreasonably take the view that the UK should be In or Out, and stop faffing around. We've chosen Out, and they are now planning on that basis. They won't accept us back even if we wanted to change our minds. (That's one reason why the LibDem position is so absurd).
From the UK political point of view, there is an overriding reason why the government must invoke Article 50 without going to parliament. This negotiation and process is already incredibly difficult, and mired in uncertainty which is potentially extremely damaging to the economy. Throwing yet more uncertainty into the mix - with grandstanding LibDem peers threatening to delay and confuse things - can only increase the damage.
On borders you miss the point. The main impact is on the credibility of the Prime Minister who claimed along with Cameron, Osborne and,god help us, old John Major that a Brexit vote would of necessity mean a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
The then Northern Ireland Secretary said that this was not so that the Commons Travel Area established in 1923 took precedence. Within days of becoming Prime Minister Teresa May completely reversed her position and declared that a hard border was not necessary after all. It turned out that it was all the usual scaremongering nonsense.
The only circumstance where there is even an argument that a hard border is necessary depends on the EU wanting to push an independent Scotland into Schengen. But there is no evidence whatsoever that they would wish to do this.
As with Northern Ireland in the Brexit vote it is scaremongering pure and simple. The blow is to May's credibility and the political lesson is that "Project Fear" has had its time.
So the analogy with Portugal et al is not a good one. There's no intermediary power between Portugal and the EU.
Talk about awkward family reunions.
Yes son, I voted to see you get sacked too.
It's not May disputing Sturgeon's claims on 'no hard border' - it's some of the country's most respected constitutional and political experts
It's Sturgeon's credibility that's on the line......
Nothing to indicate international terrorism... FFS
Only about the BBC.
Only on PB.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/20/nigel-farage-needs-to-stop-telling-me-why-i-voted-for-brexit/
@DMcCaffreySKY: Brexit deal 'must be inferior' to membership, EU leader warns - full details here: https://t.co/ZH8ZYPAiqB
The argument that there is a fundamental geo-philosophical difference between Scotland (outside Schengen) and Ireland (also outside Schengen) is indeed wafer thin.