Why would I want to bail out people who trash things that I care about?
That was unfortunately the question asked by the redundant potters of Stoke and the unemployed steelworkers of Redcar, both of whom blame (a) the EU and (b) urban middle classes especially in London for their plight, before they voted out.
Until we at least make the effort to try and understand each other, we're doomed to stay in a vicious circle of misunderstanding and suspicion consisting of a dialogue of the deaf (please excuse the mixed metaphor). Your post doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that we can sort this mess out.
The unemployed potters of Stoke and steel workers of Redcar are not bailing anyone out, on the contrary they are insulting the people who can bail them out. It is a culture of entitlement.
The culture of entitlement I see is one in the City and the professions which service it who seem to think that they are entitled to be in highly paid jobs and live in ludicrously expensive houses regardless of whether this is good for society as a whole. Too many of them apparently don't care about people outside their own social class or geographical area or feel much obligation to contribute to the society in which they live.
Now let's see. Which party cut the top rate of tax? And which party opposed it?
And which party has succeeded in increasing the tax take from the wealthy while slashing unemployment and massively reducing the numbers of low paid workers paying I come tax?
Mr. Doethur, I agree, but the Crisis of the Third Century was already worthy of the name before the Gallic and Palmyrene Empires split away. Things can always get worse.
Dr. Foxinsox, I agree. The challenges posed by globalisation will not be solved (excepting perhaps at the edges) by leaving the EU. The challenges of having foreign bureaucrats dictate laws may be, although given how floppy the Government stance appears to be I'm beginning to suspect you'll be rather happier with the deal than I will be.
No, I am in favour of Hard Brexit. Nothing less than a decade or so of it will teach the nessecary lesson, that the EU is not the cause of what ails British society.
I can survive it quite well, and in a globalised yet atomised world, turn my back on it to a large extent.
That is an extremely selfish and dangerous attitude.
Mr. Doethur, I agree, but the Crisis of the Third Century was already worthy of the name before the Gallic and Palmyrene Empires split away. Things can always get worse.
Dr. Foxinsox, I agree. The challenges posed by globalisation will not be solved (excepting perhaps at the edges) by leaving the EU. The challenges of having foreign bureaucrats dictate laws may be, although given how floppy the Government stance appears to be I'm beginning to suspect you'll be rather happier with the deal than I will be.
No, I am in favour of Hard Brexit. Nothing less than a decade or so of it will teach the nessecary lesson, that the EU is not the cause of what ails British society.
I can survive it quite well, and in a globalised yet atomised world, turn my back on it to a large extent.
And there we see that elitist sense of entitlement and total disdain for the general population in all its sordid glory.
How dare the public do something you don't agree with! They must be punished to make sure they learn their place!
Is it the poor who did that or people on a reasonable wage who wanted to defend what they had?
Genuine question. People are trying to paint the Trump win as the poor rebellion against the Dems but Clinton easily won the poorest sections of society. It was the block from 50,000 to 100,000 that trump won bigely with. 100,000 a year is not poor by any stretch of the imagination
Poor African Americans and Latinos did not vote Trump, but in Clay County Ky 86% voted Trump. It is one of the poorest counties in the USA:
If people walk into a polling station and say "fu*k your status quo", the why shouldn't I respond with two fingers when they come with their begging bowl?
Instead they should be properly and humbly grateful for whatever charity you choose to bestow upon them.
I think you mean that they should not bite the hand that feeds them!
They voted Trump to remove their health care, and to put Goldman Sachs in charge of the US department of Commerce. They are not going to get charity.
It would be interesting to know how much of the UK's GDP is produced by 'Remainers' as opposed to 'Leavers' Must be well over 90%.....
Only marginally less than the share of the country's IQ I'd imagine
It is precisely extreme views like this over many years that has resulted in the workers voting as they did. You may think you have all the IQ and create all the wealth but you did not have the one thing that really mattered. The votes and support of the people**
** the people are the workers ***of this country who have been ignored for so long.
*** I guess it must be challenging to see them all the way from your chateau in the posh end of France.
HMG will be able to claim a bespoke a-la-carte deal that gives excellent access to goods and services, whilst quitting all the political structures of the EU, giving more control over immigration, and a greatly increased ability of the UK to pursue other trade deals.
The EU will be able to say you're still paying almost as much as if you were still a member, but now have no say in any of the areas into which you've "opted-in", and on which the ECJ may still rule in future without any UK input.
And we can continue to argue about it vociferously for the next 30 years, which will be nice.
Mr. Doethur, I agree, but the Crisis of the Third Century was already worthy of the name before the Gallic and Palmyrene Empires split away. Things can always get worse.
Dr. Foxinsox, I agree. The challenges posed by globalisation will not be solved (excepting perhaps at the edges) by leaving the EU. The challenges of having foreign bureaucrats dictate laws may be, although given how floppy the Government stance appears to be I'm beginning to suspect you'll be rather happier with the deal than I will be.
No, I am in favour of Hard Brexit. Nothing less than a decade or so of it will teach the nessecary lesson, that the EU is not the cause of what ails British society.
I can survive it quite well, and in a globalised yet atomised world, turn my back on it to a large extent.
And there we see that elitist sense of entitlement and total disdain for the general population in all its sordid glory.
How dare the public do something you don't agree with! They must be punished to make sure they learn their place!
You really do have a despicable attitude.
They voted to punish themselves, I voted against it. It would be wrong of me to stand in the way of Democracy.
I have lived most of my life with governments and politics that I passionately opposed, and can do so again.
I thought previously that there would be just as much immigration after Brexit, except for any recession effects. I now realise you can materially reduce immigration simply by being unpleasant to migrants. It isn't what I would call control, it discourages economically beneficial migrants more than the other kind, and I'm not sure I want to be part of it. But it does have an effect.
I don't really get the idea of the customs union as a talisman for Brexit. Surely it's a technocratic decision of what's in Britain's interest. Having studied it, I see little downside to being in a customs union with the EU. In practice it will mean significantly fewer trade barriers compared with being outside. It's not as if the rest of the world is going to welcome the UK into a new free trade order. Which is maybe the point. The customs union issue is the last redoubt of those that pretend Brexit is Britain opening out to the world, rather than turning inwards.
Ask a stupid question and you get a stupid answer. People who voted Leave aren't stupid. Asking people in a referendum whether to accept or reject one alternative without considering the others certainly is. It may turn out membership of the EU is the best option, when you. I'm pretty sure it is. But it's too late now. The decision needs to be follow through. What we need now is an honest and hard hitting discussion of how to limit the damage. We're not going to get it because political leaders are too wrapped up in their ideology, or in Theresa May's case too afraid of those that are. She didn't , uniquely amongst Tory top brass, survive Brexit by making brave decisions.
It would be interesting to know how much of the UK's GDP is produced by 'Remainers' as opposed to 'Leavers' Must be well over 90%.....
Only marginally less than the share of the country's IQ I'd imagine
It is precisely extreme views like this over many years that has resulted in the workers voting as they did. You may think you have all the IQ and create all the wealth but you did not have the one thing that really mattered. The votes and support of the people**
** the people are the workers ***of this country who have been ignored for so long.
*** I guess it must be challenging to see them all the way from your chateau in the posh end of France.
What if we had a democrat vote to dispense with democracy as they did in Zimbabwe? As a country we never found that to be acceptable because it dispensed with checks and balances or the possibility of ever reversing the decision.
The same applies here. A vote on something as fundamental as our governance needs much more scrutiny and after that scrtiny at least the possibility of reversal. 'Eat shit. 2,000,000 flies can't be wrong' isn't a philosophy that should be revered.
HMG will be able to claim a bespoke a-la-carte deal that gives excellent access to goods and services, whilst quitting all the political structures of the EU, giving more control over immigration, and a greatly increased ability of the UK to pursue other trade deals.
The EU will be able to say you're still paying almost as much as if you were still a member, but now have no say in any of the areas into which you've "opted-in", and on which the ECJ may still rule in future without any UK input.
And we can continue to argue about it vociferously for the next 30 years, which will be nice.
Until the British people experience a Hard Brexit and what it means, they will hanker for it. Soft Brexit is a chimera, and just keep the poisonous argument going.
I do not think the British people can build a positive relationship with Europe, except by seeing what a negative relationship looks like.
Is it the poor who did that or people on a reasonable wage who wanted to defend what they had?
Genuine question. People are trying to paint the Trump win as the poor rebellion against the Dems but Clinton easily won the poorest sections of society. It was the block from 50,000 to 100,000 that trump won bigely with. 100,000 a year is not poor by any stretch of the imagination
Poor African Americans and Latinos did not vote Trump, but in Clay County Ky 86% voted Trump. It is one of the poorest counties in the USA:
If people walk into a polling station and say "fu*k your status quo", the why shouldn't I respond with two fingers when they come with their begging bowl?
One is a fully accepted democratic process.
The other is the equivalent of a tantrum in the supermarket confectionary aisle at not getting your own way.
Fairly concise but useful summary of the issues of the article 50 case on the BBC, covering more aspects than I woukd have expected. It even touches on the point that both sides accept triggering article 50 is irrevocable, although some academics disagree. An interesting one for the European courts to discuss, i theory, though hopefully we can avoid that headache.
HMG will be able to claim a bespoke a-la-carte deal that gives excellent access to goods and services, whilst quitting all the political structures of the EU, giving more control over immigration, and a greatly increased ability of the UK to pursue other trade deals.
The EU will be able to say you're still paying almost as much as if you were still a member, but now have no say in any of the areas into which you've "opted-in", and on which the ECJ may still rule in future without any UK input.
And we can continue to argue about it vociferously for the next 30 years, which will be nice.
Until the British people experience a Hard Brexit and what it means, they will hanker for it. Soft Brexit is a chimera, and just keep the poisonous argument going.
I do not think the British people can build a positive relationship with Europe, except by seeing what a negative relationship looks like.
Your writhing and screeching over Brexit fills my heart with joy.
I can't see Nuttall wanting JRM as a defector. Isn't his explicit message that they are going after Labour voters. Farage at least was capable of presenting himself as a man of the people. Jacob Rees Mogg would blow that out of the water. I also doubt Nuttall wants more MPs in Parliament while he is not a member.
Btw on Nuttall, I was watching clips of him on various old episodes of QT etc, and I think he generally handles himself well, I watched an episode where he managed to argue his cases decently on issues other than the EU, Immigration, and Islam. He also gave a decent defence of his views on NHS (maintained commitment to state funded free at point of use etc) while saying it's not taboo to talk about addition of private funding. He's less 'charismatic' than Farage but also comes across as less of an arsehole. I think he could be bad for Labour if he can keep UKIP somewhat united under his direction. They need to transform into Red UKIP, and the problem is that the members and activists are mostly Blue UKIP ex-Tories.
Mr. 43, the EU is growing more slowly than other parts of the world. Having better trade with countries growing more rapidly is better for the UK. Also, voting to leave the EU then having the EU determine our tariffs with other countries is not in keeping.
To be honest, I think I'm the only one here who's said he's relaxed about practically everything except the customs union, so perhaps it isn't a 'talismanic' issue. But it is one that vexes me.
It would be interesting to know how much of the UK's GDP is produced by 'Remainers' as opposed to 'Leavers' Must be well over 90%.....
Only marginally less than the share of the country's IQ I'd imagine
It is precisely extreme views like this over many years that has resulted in the workers voting as they did. You may think you have all the IQ and create all the wealth but you did not have the one thing that really mattered. The votes and support of the people**
** the people are the workers ***of this country who have been ignored for so long.
*** I guess it must be challenging to see them all the way from your chateau in the posh end of France.
What if we had a democrat vote to dispense with democracy as they did in Zimbabwe? As a country we never found that to be acceptable because it dispensed with checks and balances or the possibility of ever reversing the decision.
The same applies here. A vote on something as fundamental as our governance needs much more scrutiny and after that scrtiny at least the possibility of reversal. 'Eat shit. 2,000,000 flies can't be wrong' isn't a philosophy that should be revered.
Pointless discussing anything with you as your original post demonstrated.
I will say one thing though in regard to reversal.
When the EU established Lisbon ( via back door after referendums rejected it) it was and remains constantly said there is no going back. You Can't have it both ways see .... That's your problem right there.
You can Only go back however if it's a decision the EU elite and supporters don't like or to which they disagree. Then when they finally get the decision they want it becomes binding for all time no further discussion.
EU history is littered with this approach. The workers finally got fed up and had enough.
It would be interesting to know how much of the UK's GDP is produced by 'Remainers' as opposed to 'Leavers' Must be well over 90%.....
Only marginally less than the share of the country's IQ I'd imagine
Amongst me and my friends and associates, that's wrong. Amongst probably a few dozen people I've discussed it with (yes, small biased sample size) there is no obvious correlation in the way they voted in either income or intelligence. A couple of foreign-born friends voted leave (and surprised me in doing so), and so did some friends who work for companies based in the EU.
One of the reason remain lost might be that people's rationale for voting either way was much more complex than they thought.
In these kinds of issues- also Scottish independence - you get three groups of people: those that believe the change is our destiny, those that believe equally strongly the established order is the right one, and finally a group that is sceptical, but who could be convinced. The vote will be decided by how many in this third group are convinced.
What I'm not sure of with Brexit is how many were in each group to start with and therefore what proportion of the sceptical group were convinced
It would be interesting to know how much of the UK's GDP is produced by 'Remainers' as opposed to 'Leavers' Must be well over 90%.....
Only marginally less than the share of the country's IQ I'd imagine
Amongst me and my friends and associates, that's wrong. Amongst probably a few dozen people I've discussed it with (yes, small biased sample size) there is no obvious correlation in the way they voted in either income or intelligence. A couple of foreign-born friends voted leave (and surprised me in doing so), and so did some friends who work for companies based in the EU.
One of the reason remain lost might be that people's rationale for voting either way was much more complex than they thought.
In these kinds of issues- also Scottish independence - you get three groups of people: those that believe the change is our destiny, those that believe equally strongly the established order is the right one, and finally a group that is sceptical, but who could be convinced. The vote will be decided by how many in this third group are convinced.
What I'm not sure of with Brexit is how many were in each group to start with and therefore what proportion of the sceptical group were convinced
My suspicion is that the Leave group was always the largest and therefore relatively few sceptics were convinced. But that's just a hunch.
Mr. 43, the EU is growing more slowly than other parts of the world. Having better trade with countries growing more rapidly is better for the UK. Also, voting to leave the EU then having the EU determine our tariffs with other countries is not in keeping.
To be honest, I think I'm the only one here who's said he's relaxed about practically everything except the customs union, so perhaps it isn't a 'talismanic' issue. But it is one that vexes me.
If we stay in Customs Union but leave the rest we do gain control of our borders though right? So I can see how that may appeal to May. I think it's a mistake though (politically). Leaver Tories want new trade deals not stuck under EU orbit, and Open Britain types want the Single Market and as much of the four freedoms that come with it (including a degree of free movement). I don't see a Turkey style solution appealing to enough remainers or Tory Brexiteers. And the symbolic inability to strike trade deals will make brexit betrayal cries easy.
Talikg of knobs... Boris on Marr. I've never seen his appeal and now he's trying to stop playing the clown he's just a empty suit...he reminds me of Willy Whielaw
Staying in the customs union, as suggested, would be flaccid, not merely soft. It seems Mr. Eagles' forecast of a departure in name only may come true.
Well, it'd certainly make my decision of who to vote for at the next election an interesting one.
Edited extra bit: there's a trailer for The Last of Us - Part 2 up on Youtube for those interested.
MD , I have said several times, the only change is we will be on the outside paying more money and no influence instead of very little.
It's an outrage to tradition is what it is. Today's young people (I'm 30 in a week, so no longer young), they drink less, eat healthily at uni, exercise a bit, don't smoke. Disgraceful.
It does make me curious at young obesity levels, which if memory serves are high.
HMG will be able to claim a bespoke a-la-carte deal that gives excellent access to goods and services, whilst quitting all the political structures of the EU, giving more control over immigration, and a greatly increased ability of the UK to pursue other trade deals.
The EU will be able to say you're still paying almost as much as if you were still a member, but now have no say in any of the areas into which you've "opted-in", and on which the ECJ may still rule in future without any UK input.
And we can continue to argue about it vociferously for the next 30 years, which will be nice.
We'll see. From what I've read the EU are unlikely to agree to an a la carte deal. It's neither practical in the timeframe, nor particularly in their interest. Presumably (hopefully?) the UK government has a fallback position that they can quickly move to within the timeframe. They give the impression of being incompetents blinded by their own ideology. I would love that just to be cunning guise.
Staying in the customs union, as suggested, would be flaccid, not merely soft. It seems Mr. Eagles' forecast of a departure in name only may come true.
Well, it'd certainly make my decision of who to vote for at the next election an interesting one.
Edited extra bit: there's a trailer for The Last of Us - Part 2 up on Youtube for those interested.
Leaving in name only won't happen. I'd put money on it, except people would quibble over definitions.
Staying in the customs union, as suggested, would be flaccid, not merely soft. It seems Mr. Eagles' forecast of a departure in name only may come true.
Well, it'd certainly make my decision of who to vote for at the next election an interesting one.
Edited extra bit: there's a trailer for The Last of Us - Part 2 up on Youtube for those interested.
MD , I have said several times, the only change is we will be on the outside paying more money and no influence instead of very little.
Pretty much. And also getting much less for our money.
It would be interesting to know how much of the UK's GDP is produced by 'Remainers' as opposed to 'Leavers' Must be well over 90%.....
Only marginally less than the share of the country's IQ I'd imagine
Amongst me and my friends and associates, that's wrong. Amongst probably a few dozen people I've discussed it with (yes, small biased sample size) there is no obvious correlation in the way they voted in either income or intelligence. A couple of foreign-born friends voted leave (and surprised me in doing so), and so did some friends who work for companies based in the EU.
One of the reason remain lost might be that people's rationale for voting either way was much more complex than they thought.
In these kinds of issues- also Scottish independence - you get three groups of people: those that believe the change is our destiny, those that believe equally strongly the established order is the right one, and finally a group that is sceptical, but who could be convinced. The vote will be decided by how many in this third group are convinced.
What I'm not sure of with Brexit is how many were in each group to start with and therefore what proportion of the sceptical group were convinced
My suspicion is that the Leave group was always the largest and therefore relatively few sceptics were convinced. But that's just a hunch.
The largest core group I think, in the sense skeptics probably the largest, but was a combination of many sub groups. Europhiles were by far the smallest, had softer skeptics on side, but needed more of thevothers.
Mr. Doethur, I agree, but the Crisis of the Third Century was already worthy of the name before the Gallic and Palmyrene Empires split away. Things can always get worse.
Dr. Foxinsox, I agree. The challenges posed by globalisation will not be solved (excepting perhaps at the edges) by leaving the EU. The challenges of having foreign bureaucrats dictate laws may be, although given how floppy the Government stance appears to be I'm beginning to suspect you'll be rather happier with the deal than I will be.
No, I am in favour of Hard Brexit. Nothing less than a decade or so of it will teach the nessecary lesson, that the EU is not the cause of what ails British society.
I can survive it quite well, and in a globalised yet atomised world, turn my back on it to a large extent.
The trouble is that history suggests that sort of approach doesn't always end very well.
Neither Washington nor Moscow but International Socialism.
The SWP's time has come at last.
No, because that wouldn't be fair sharing .
Oh I see. Go for hard Brexit, get rid of the Romanians and the UK will cease to be the sixth most unequal country in the OECD?
Worth a try I guess. What could possibly go wrong?
I'll make one last attempt at getting through to you, and then I'll leave it, because in addition to your rudeness and arrogance you are also clearly uninterested in understanding why people disagree with you, despite the fact that you are in a minority.
I personally don't think migration controls will work. Nor do I necessarily think they're desirable. But I live a comfortable lifestyle and my job is not under threat from it.
If you are unemployed, and the only job you can get is depressed to minimum wage (which employers often ignore, incidentally) because they can hire Poles, Bulgarians, Romanians etc for that money and make bigger profits, then wouldn't you be in favour of making it at the very least more difficult and expensive to hire those people so wages would go up?
And if your city has been trashed by generations of remote politicians making decisions that will advance their careers and sod the cost, wouldn't you genuinely believe regardless of the facts that this was happening because they don't care and not because actually there are in the real world limits to what they can do?
And above all, if the EU is blamed for all of this as a convenient scapegoat, and elects a bunch of people who in this country would be in prison to run themselves - wouldn't you link the two and vote against it?
I didn't appreciate the depth of feeling in the country over the issue - that's a bad miss on my part given I worked in schools in these areas for a long time and knew what was being said. But you don't even want to hear in the first place and shout insults at anyone who challenges your version of events.
And then you wonder why half the country ignored you.
Brexit is not going to cure the ills of globalisation. The potteries and steel mills are not returning.
Pandering to a tantrum is never a good response. I shall just stand aside and watch.
HMG will be able to claim a bespoke a-la-carte deal that gives excellent access to goods and services, whilst quitting all the political structures of the EU, giving more control over immigration, and a greatly increased ability of the UK to pursue other trade deals.
The EU will be able to say you're still paying almost as much as if you were still a member, but now have no say in any of the areas into which you've "opted-in", and on which the ECJ may still rule in future without any UK input.
And we can continue to argue about it vociferously for the next 30 years, which will be nice.
We'll see. From what I've read the EU are unlikely to agree to an a la carte deal. It's neither practical in the timeframe, nor particularly in their interest. Presumably (hopefully?) the UK government has a fallback position that they can quickly move to within the timeframe. They give the impression of being incompetents blinded by their own ideology. I would love that just to be cunning guise.
The eu has different interests to focus on. Something not too damaging on us means less blowback on them, but that is in conflict with the natural desire to teach us a lesson, a desire we know some in this country also have. Prophet being people, the latter will probably win out.
It would be interesting to know how much of the UK's GDP is produced by 'Remainers' as opposed to 'Leavers' Must be well over 90%.....
Only marginally less than the share of the country's IQ I'd imagine
: :
I am not too bothered about healing the divisions in our society. That is doomed to fail as another bit of futile social engineering.
Why would I want to bail out people who trash things that I care about?
Gosh there is a real and nasty hostility to democracy from "liberals" when it produces the 'wrong' result.
Vernon Bogdanor has pointed out that all the old arguments that were made against extending the franchise are now being aired again, from the left.
The more educated attempts sound like CtrlC+CtrlV from the Putney Debates.
I have been arguing about the underlying issue for years. ....
In the 1980s, it was considered a common place (among the Economist type of thinkers) that, as the demographic retreat of Western Europe impacted, automation would take up the strain. Think fewer, higher paid jobs in gleaming robot factories...
Partly because of technology, but mostly due to removal of trade and legal barriers outsourcing won.
However, a problem developed. Outsourcing works for lower skilled jobs, but for the more skilled and technical roles, the working class as the other end (India, China etc) have a deplorable habit of asking for more wages. Due to the productivity factors inherent in a country (laws, road, power, health care), the multipliers in the various outsourcing countries have dropped like a stone.
You can't just ship a factory to {wherever} and make an instant 3x profit anymore. Hence the demand for mass immigration from business - get them in cheap, the societal/country productivity factor will massively boost their value. Until they ask for higher wages... so get some more.
The progressive types loved this because of the "diversity" factor. So, you have a situation where (an example I know off) a small factory in the Midlands has a close to 100% Baltic States workforce. None of the locals (main groups ethnic British, Pakistani...) are involved.
Mr. kle4, even though in this case I won't miss out, I really dislike exclusives too. The Last of Us is a fantastic game, and it's a shame Xbox players can't get it.
I think the Tomb Raider approach of a timed exclusive is best. Gives one console a clear advantage but doesn't fence itself off from other platforms.
Ontopic, I have trouble believing Rees-mogg woukd defect. Even discounting his Clarke comment on the possibility, he seems Tory to his core, and who would it benefit anyway. There are Tory awkward squad members who seem like they want to be UKIP but lack the guts to be honest about it, so it's easy to stay in the Tory tribe even if they did something anathema to his values. Leavers had no trouble staying in when policy was to remain, no doubt they can stay if we do get an, improbable to my mind, soft Brexit when they like it hard and fast.
HMG will be able to claim a bespoke a-la-carte deal that gives excellent access to goods and services, whilst quitting all the political structures of the EU, giving more control over immigration, and a greatly increased ability of the UK to pursue other trade deals.
The EU will be able to say you're still paying almost as much as if you were still a member, but now have no say in any of the areas into which you've "opted-in", and on which the ECJ may still rule in future without any UK input.
And we can continue to argue about it vociferously for the next 30 years, which will be nice.
We'll see. From what I've read the EU are unlikely to agree to an a la carte deal. It's neither practical in the timeframe, nor particularly in their interest. Presumably (hopefully?) the UK government has a fallback position that they can quickly move to within the timeframe. They give the impression of being incompetents blinded by their own ideology. I would love that just to be cunning guise.
The eu has different interests to focus on. Something not too damaging on us means less blowback on them, but that is in conflict with the natural desire to teach us a lesson, a desire we know some in this country also have. Prophet being people, the latter will probably win out.
FWIW I don't think a comprehensive rather than an a la carte approach is necessarily more damaging to our interests. My concern is that the government is approaching the negotiations in a rigid and unrealistic manner, which is bad news when you hold a weak hand. We could end up with something REALLY crap.
Is it the poor who did that or people on a reasonable wage who wanted to defend what they had?
Genuine question. People are trying to paint the Trump win as the poor rebellion against the Dems but Clinton easily won the poorest sections of society. It was the block from 50,000 to 100,000 that trump won bigely with. 100,000 a year is not poor by any stretch of the imagination
Poor African Americans and Latinos did not vote Trump, but in Clay County Ky 86% voted Trump. It is one of the poorest counties in the USA:
If people walk into a polling station and say "fu*k your status quo", the why shouldn't I respond with two fingers when they come with their begging bowl?
Because as one of the more fortunate in society you have an obligation
Anyone know if the far right guy is looking unlikely for Austria's rerun? Genuine irregularities justified it, but apart from anything else I thought a rule of thumb was those who lost getting reruns tend to do worse (be careful remainers)
HMG will be able to claim a bespoke a-la-carte deal that gives excellent access to goods and services, whilst quitting all the political structures of the EU, giving more control over immigration, and a greatly increased ability of the UK to pursue other trade deals.
The EU will be able to say you're still paying almost as much as if you were still a member, but now have no say in any of the areas into which you've "opted-in", and on which the ECJ may still rule in future without any UK input.
And we can continue to argue about it vociferously for the next 30 years, which will be nice.
We'll see. From what I've read the EU are unlikely to agree to an a la carte deal. It's neither practical in the timeframe, nor particularly in their interest. Presumably (hopefully?) the UK government has a fallback position that they can quickly move to within the timeframe. They give the impression of being incompetents blinded by their own ideology. I would love that just to be cunning guise.
The Tories are numpties and they have put their premier donkeys in charge of negotiations, best they will get is as hard an exit as you can get or the worst deal possible.
HMG will be able to claim a bespoke a-la-carte deal that gives excellent access to goods and services, whilst quitting all the political structures of the EU, giving more control over immigration, and a greatly increased ability of the UK to pursue other trade deals.
The EU will be able to say you're still paying almost as much as if you were still a member, but now have no say in any of the areas into which you've "opted-in", and on which the ECJ may still rule in future without any UK input.
And we can continue to argue about it vociferously for the next 30 years, which will be nice.
We'll see. From what I've read the EU are unlikely to agree to an a la carte deal. It's neither practical in the timeframe, nor particularly in their interest. Presumably (hopefully?) the UK government has a fallback position that they can quickly move to within the timeframe. They give the impression of being incompetents blinded by their own ideology. I would love that just to be cunning guise.
The Tories ar enumpties and they have put their premier donkeys in charge of negotiations, best they will get is as hard an exit as you can get or the worst deal possible.
you must be looking forward to facing them across the Scottish negotiations in that case.
Mr. Doethur, I agree, but the Crisis of the Third Century was already worthy of the name before the Gallic and Palmyrene Empires split away. Things can always get worse.
Dr. Foxinsox, I agree. The challenges posed by globalisation will not be solved (excepting perhaps at the edges) by leaving the EU. The challenges of having foreign bureaucrats dictate laws may be, although given how floppy the Government stance appears to be I'm beginning to suspect you'll be rather happier with the deal than I will be.
No, I am in favour of Hard Brexit. Nothing less than a decade or so of it will teach the nessecary lesson, that the EU is not the cause of what ails British society.
I can survive it quite well, and in a globalised yet atomised world, turn my back on it to a large extent.
And there we see that elitist sense of entitlement and total disdain for the general population in all its sordid glory.
How dare the public do something you don't agree with! They must be punished to make sure they learn their place!
You really do have a despicable attitude.
They voted to punish themselves, I voted against it. It would be wrong of me to stand in the way of Democracy.
I have lived most of my life with governments and politics that I passionately opposed, and can do so again.
Of course you can. Indeed you will enjoy sniping from the sidelines whilst desperately hoping that it all goes wrong so you can be proved right. Make the proles suffer so you can stamp on them again later.
This is an interesting discussion despite some of the less pleasant comments, and more so than trying to discuss a bunch of people none of whom are actually going to defect. A shame we cannot lay them all, at the same odds,
Trying to stretch my imagination to the most positive outcome for Brexit, and I find myself envisaging a scenario where Britain becomes more capitalist, less regulated/inflexible (and all those other words that sound good despite being rather vague) and it seems to me that the likely winners from this turn of events are still the wealthy, the well connected, the able risk-takers, and the lucky.
Thus, if even the optimistic leavers can agree with the rest of us that Brexit, good or bad, isn't going to solve the problem....we still have a BIG problem (given its consequences) and no apparent solution.
I am sure May realises this, with her Downing Street speech and all, but is struggling to forumulate let alone deliver any meaningful solutions. Trump will have the same problem; he is potentially better placed because he probably has the deeper instinctive understanding of how the disadvantaged feel, but has the problem of little hard power and a lot of people around him who exist to defend the status quo (as TBF does May, despite her more powerful position).
We, along with everyone else, seem to be spending a lot more time arguing about the one change that we probably all agree isn't the solution, rather than getting stuck into what is an exceedingly difficult, complicated, and rather fundamental problem?
The historical approach would be to wait until we enter a period of growth again and then try and nudge some of the benefit in the right direction (probably where Trump is with all his building). But in the modern over-extended world a period of sustained and genuine growth looks unlikely, and another puffed up boom won't do the trick I fear. Voting for extreme people and extreme solutions might be the only way to get the complacent to listen, but in the meantime isn't going to help any, either.
HMG will be able to claim a bespoke a-la-carte deal that gives excellent access to goods and services, whilst quitting all the political structures of the EU, giving more control over immigration, and a greatly increased ability of the UK to pursue other trade deals.
The EU will be able to say you're still paying almost as much as if you were still a member, but now have no say in any of the areas into which you've "opted-in", and on which the ECJ may still rule in future without any UK input.
And we can continue to argue about it vociferously for the next 30 years, which will be nice.
We'll see. From what I've read the EU are unlikely to agree to an a la carte deal. It's neither practical in the timeframe, nor particularly in their interest. Presumably (hopefully?) the UK government has a fallback position that they can quickly move to within the timeframe. They give the impression of being incompetents blinded by their own ideology. I would love that just to be cunning guise.
The Tories ar enumpties and they have put their premier donkeys in charge of negotiations, best they will get is as hard an exit as you can get or the worst deal possible.
you must be looking forward to facing them across the Scottish negotiations in that case.
Unfortunately they hold almost all the powers, our only power is the nuclear indyref2 option, and will do their best to force that option.
Sober and realistic take on the difficulties of parliament frustrating the A50 triggering, should they need to be involved. I image, should the courts uphold the original appeal, such analysis will be completely ignored.
It would be interesting to know how much of the UK's GDP is produced by 'Remainers' as opposed to 'Leavers' Must be well over 90%.....
Only marginally less than the share of the country's IQ I'd imagine
It is precisely extreme views like this over many years that has resulted in the workers voting as they did. You may think you have all the IQ and create all the wealth but you did not have the one thing that really mattered. The votes and support of the people**
** the people are the workers ***of this country who have been ignored for so long.
*** I guess it must be challenging to see them all the way from your chateau in the posh end of France.
What if we had a democrat vote to dispense with democracy as they did in Zimbabwe? As a country we never found that to be acceptable because it dispensed with checks and balances or the possibility of ever reversing the decision.
The same applies here. A vote on something as fundamental as our governance needs much more scrutiny and after that scrtiny at least the possibility of reversal. 'Eat shit. 2,000,000 flies can't be wrong' isn't a philosophy that should be revered.
No one has voted to end democracy. We've voted to exit from a particular political arrangement, which we no longer consider serves our interests.
All this outpouring of concern for the poorest in society coming from PB Tories since their apparent conversion to Euroscepticism.
Brings a warm glow, doesn't it?
They were all feckless benefit scroungers when it looked like they might put Miliband in No 10 last year. Now they have the wisdom of Solomon - that is until they realise they were sold a pup and start moaning about Brexit, at which point they will become feckless benefit scroungers again.
Mr. 43, the EU is growing more slowly than other parts of the world. Having better trade with countries growing more rapidly is better for the UK. Also, voting to leave the EU then having the EU determine our tariffs with other countries is not in keeping.
To be honest, I think I'm the only one here who's said he's relaxed about practically everything except the customs union, so perhaps it isn't a 'talismanic' issue. But it is one that vexes me.
If we stay in Customs Union but leave the rest we do gain control of our borders though right? So I can see how that may appeal to May. I think it's a mistake though (politically). Leaver Tories want new trade deals not stuck under EU orbit, and Open Britain types want the Single Market and as much of the four freedoms that come with it (including a degree of free movement). I don't see a Turkey style solution appealing to enough remainers or Tory Brexiteers. And the symbolic inability to strike trade deals will make brexit betrayal cries easy.
Reality has to kick in at a certain point. And outside the EU we will be trading on MFN basis and not on preferential trade basis, unless we can borrow some FTAs from the EU, the EFTA or whatever. These are likely to require the permission of the countersigning party, who are by no means guaranteed to give it. The world has essentially stopped doing FTAs. There is very little upside to being outside the customs union in practice. Staying inside removes some important trade barriers with the EU, the block that makes up half our trade.
It would be interesting to know how much of the UK's GDP is produced by 'Remainers' as opposed to 'Leavers' Must be well over 90%.....
Only marginally less than the share of the country's IQ I'd imagine
It is precisely extreme views like this over many years that has resulted in the workers voting as they did. You may think you have all the IQ and create all the wealth but you did not have the one thing that really mattered. The votes and support of the people**
** the people are the workers ***of this country who have been ignored for so long.
*** I guess it must be challenging to see them all the way from your chateau in the posh end of France.
What if we had a democrat vote to dispense with democracy as they did in Zimbabwe? As a country we never found that to be acceptable because it dispensed with checks and balances or the possibility of ever reversing the decision.
The same applies here. A vote on something as fundamental as our governance needs much more scrutiny and after that scrtiny at least the possibility of reversal. 'Eat shit. 2,000,000 flies can't be wrong' isn't a philosophy that should be revered.
No one has voted to end democracy. We've voted to exit from a particular political arrangement, which we no longer consider serves our interests.
HMG will be able to claim a bespoke a-la-carte deal that gives excellent access to goods and services, whilst quitting all the political structures of the EU, giving more control over immigration, and a greatly increased ability of the UK to pursue other trade deals.
The EU will be able to say you're still paying almost as much as if you were still a member, but now have no say in any of the areas into which you've "opted-in", and on which the ECJ may still rule in future without any UK input.
And we can continue to argue about it vociferously for the next 30 years, which will be nice.
Until the British people experience a Hard Brexit and what it means, they will hanker for it. Soft Brexit is a chimera, and just keep the poisonous argument going.
I do not think the British people can build a positive relationship with Europe, except by seeing what a negative relationship looks like.
Your writhing and screeching over Brexit fills my heart with joy.
Be nothing compared to what's coming from Hatlepool and Sunderland once they realise they haven't become better off overnight and the NHS hasn't been transformed into a thing of wonder.
Mr. 43, the EU is growing more slowly than other parts of the world. Having better trade with countries growing more rapidly is better for the UK. Also, voting to leave the EU then having the EU determine our tariffs with other countries is not in keeping.
To be honest, I think I'm the only one here who's said he's relaxed about practically everything except the customs union, so perhaps it isn't a 'talismanic' issue. But it is one that vexes me.
If we stay in Customs Union but leave the rest we do gain control of our borders though right? So I can see how that may appeal to May. I think it's a mistake though (politically). Leaver Tories want new trade deals not stuck under EU orbit, and Open Britain types want the Single Market and as much of the four freedoms that come with it (including a degree of free movement). I don't see a Turkey style solution appealing to enough remainers or Tory Brexiteers. And the symbolic inability to strike trade deals will make brexit betrayal cries easy.
Reality has to kick in at a certain point. And outside the EU we will be trading on MFN basis and not on preferential trade basis, unless we can borrow some FTAs from the EU, the EFTA or whatever. These are likely to require the permission of the countersigning party, who are by no means guaranteed to give it. The world has essentially stopped doing FTAs. There is very little upside to being outside the customs union in practice. Staying inside removes some important trade barriers with the EU, the block that makes up half our trade.
Actually no. EFTA members are outside the Customs Union but still have free trade with the EU. The important point being that outside the Customs Union they are also able top complete their own trade deals as they see fit. Hence the reason they have more free trade deals with other countries than the EU does.
Staying in the customs union, as suggested, would be flaccid, not merely soft. It seems Mr. Eagles' forecast of a departure in name only may come true.
Well, it'd certainly make my decision of who to vote for at the next election an interesting one.
Edited extra bit: there's a trailer for The Last of Us - Part 2 up on Youtube for those interested.
MD , I have said several times, the only change is we will be on the outside paying more money and no influence instead of very little.
Sober and realistic take on the difficulties of parliament frustrating the A50 triggering, should they need to be involved. I image, should the courts uphold the original appeal, such analysis will be completely ignored.
The takeaway from that is the point about the so-called reform bill (the one that doesn't actually reform anything) incorporating lots of EU law into UK law, yet the EU law is littered with references to EU bodies that we don't want to be associated with any more. That sounds like a good fee earner for a bunch of middle ranking lawyers to me?
Staying in the customs union, as suggested, would be flaccid, not merely soft. It seems Mr. Eagles' forecast of a departure in name only may come true.
Well, it'd certainly make my decision of who to vote for at the next election an interesting one.
Edited extra bit: there's a trailer for The Last of Us - Part 2 up on Youtube for those interested.
MD , I have said several times, the only change is we will be on the outside paying more money and no influence instead of very little.
Looks like that is exactly where we are headed
We're looking at different things then.
Off topic, just watched a vid of Clegg in a BBC interview. I do t know what it is, but I've always liked him. Even when I disagree with him, I feel like he usually puts a case well (excepting o e of his garage debates). It'll be a shame he probably won't want to put himself through another election.
HMG will be able to claim a bespoke a-la-carte deal that gives excellent access to goods and services, whilst quitting all the political structures of the EU, giving more control over immigration, and a greatly increased ability of the UK to pursue other trade deals.
The EU will be able to say you're still paying almost as much as if you were still a member, but now have no say in any of the areas into which you've "opted-in", and on which the ECJ may still rule in future without any UK input.
And we can continue to argue about it vociferously for the next 30 years, which will be nice.
Until the British people experience a Hard Brexit and what it means, they will hanker for it. Soft Brexit is a chimera, and just keep the poisonous argument going.
I do not think the British people can build a positive relationship with Europe, except by seeing what a negative relationship looks like.
Your writhing and screeching over Brexit fills my heart with joy.
Be nothing compared to what's coming from Hatlepool and Sunderland once they realise they haven't become better off overnight and the NHS hasn't been transformed into a thing of wonder.
That video in the leave broadcast with the split screen and the smiling, queue-free patient-friendly NHS being shown on the post-EU side of the picture is more of a damning destined-to-fail promise than the slogan on the bus.
snip... Trying to stretch my imagination to the most positive outcome for Brexit, and I find myself envisaging a scenario where Britain becomes more capitalist, less regulated/inflexible (and all those other words that sound good despite being rather vague) and it seems to me that the likely winners from this turn of events are still the wealthy, the well connected, the able risk-takers, and the lucky.
Thus, if even the optimistic leavers can agree with the rest of us that Brexit, good or bad, isn't going to solve the problem....we still have a BIG problem (given its consequences) and no apparent solution.
I am sure May realises this, with her Downing Street speech and all, but is struggling to forumulate let alone deliver any meaningful solutions. Trump will have the same problem; he is potentially better placed because he probably has the deeper instinctive understanding of how the disadvantaged feel, but has the problem of little hard power and a lot of people around him who exist to defend the status quo (as TBF does May, despite her more powerful position).
We, along with everyone else, seem to be spending a lot more time arguing about the one change that we probably all agree isn't the solution, rather than getting stuck into what is an exceedingly difficult, complicated, and rather fundamental problem?
snip... (both snips with apologies to try and get my answer in.)
I think the problem with the claims from either side that Brexit will mean a particular type of future class relationship is that they are based on the idea that things cannot and will not change. The important point is that inside the EU this was to a large extent true. Membership constrained what could be done by elected Governments wanting to act in the interests of their people. Outside the EU those constraints are reduced - although obviously not removed entirely.
So to claim that the rich will get richer and the elites will continue to rule the roost is just as false as claiming we will all live in a social paradise where every vote counts and the rich elite are stripped of their powers.
Outside of the constraints of the EU the situation becomes far more fluid and Governments are more able to respond to the demands made by the population at elections. This calls for a far more adult attitude by both the electorate and the politicians and it will take time to develop. We have had 40 or more years of being nannied and constrained by EU membership which has too often provided a perfect excuse for Governments to ignore the electorate.
I have no idea whether things will develop as I wish but I do know there is now the potential for that to happen which did not exist before.
Sober and realistic take on the difficulties of parliament frustrating the A50 triggering, should they need to be involved. I image, should the courts uphold the original appeal, such analysis will be completely ignored.
The takeaway from that is the point about the so-called reform bill (the one that doesn't actually reform anything) incorporating lots of EU law into UK law, yet the EU law is littered with references to EU bodies that we don't want to be associated with any more. That sounds like a good fee earner for a bunch of middle ranking lawyers to me?
We always knew the lawyers woukd be well served by Brexit.
On the name of the bill being perceived as misleading, does anyone know offhand if there are rules on how bills are named? In America it seems either they or just like to have convoluted names to enable acronyms if they want a bill to have a catchy name, like patriot act.
Staying in the customs union, as suggested, would be flaccid, not merely soft. It seems Mr. Eagles' forecast of a departure in name only may come true.
Well, it'd certainly make my decision of who to vote for at the next election an interesting one.
Edited extra bit: there's a trailer for The Last of Us - Part 2 up on Youtube for those interested.
MD , I have said several times, the only change is we will be on the outside paying more money and no influence instead of very little.
Looks like that is exactly where we are headed
So ironically we end up with less sovereignty. Who knows, it might not end up like that. The problem today is exactly that, no-one knows. There is no plan.
The Brexiteers wanted to break the current setup and got their way. But they have not the foggiest about what replaces it and have no arguments about whether that would be better or worse. Quite frankly they don't care. They just want to leave.
Meanwhile, the May govt is struggling to retrofit a plan against the clock, because despite Brexit life goes on and the buck stops with them.
They use the bogus not "spilling the beans of our negotiation strategy" (don't laugh) to buy them space, but create a political vacuum in the process.
Then fools like us then bang the shit out of each other, afraid that everyone else is going to stitch us up. And the opposition takes some time out.
Staying in the customs union, as suggested, would be flaccid, not merely soft. It seems Mr. Eagles' forecast of a departure in name only may come true.
Well, it'd certainly make my decision of who to vote for at the next election an interesting one.
Edited extra bit: there's a trailer for The Last of Us - Part 2 up on Youtube for those interested.
MD , I have said several times, the only change is we will be on the outside paying more money and no influence instead of very little.
Looks like that is exactly where we are headed
So ironically we end up with less sovereignty. Who knows, it might not end up like that. The problem today is exactly that, no-one knows. There is no plan.
The souverainistes will get less sovereignty. The free-traders will get shallower trade relations. The anti-immigration voters will find out who gets 'control' and it won't be them. The Europhobes will find European affairs become even more prominent in our national life. The neo-imperialists will find that the Old Commonwealth looks on with bemused sadness at what the old country is doing to itself.
Talikg of knobs... Boris on Marr. I've never seen his appeal and now he's trying to stop playing the clown he's just a empty suit...he reminds me of Willy Whielaw
Anyone know if the far right guy is looking unlikely for Austria's rerun? Genuine irregularities justified it, but apart from anything else I thought a rule of thumb was those who lost getting reruns tend to do worse (be careful remainers)
He's favourite; not sure how much you can call someone a loser when they led the polls and lost by a fraction on a vote sufficiently dodgy the judiciary are willing to strike it down and leave the country without a figurehead for 6 months.
Anyone know if the far right guy is looking unlikely for Austria's rerun? Genuine irregularities justified it, but apart from anything else I thought a rule of thumb was those who lost getting reruns tend to do worse (be careful remainers)
He's favourite; not sure how much you can call someone a loser when they led the polls and lost by a fraction on a vote sufficiently dodgy the judiciary are willing to strike it down and leave the country without a figurehead for 6 months.
I wasn't being perjorative - I called him a loser because he lost, and I made sure to point out it being rerun was justified because of genuine irregularities. I was merely curious as, no matter how justified, I can imagine people not liking being asked something again.
Meanwhile, away from Brexit, the UK has big problems that it should really be looking at.
The budget deficit Accrued debt that can never be paid off Funding social care for the elderly during a demographic time bomb The impact of automation on white collar workers. Failing transport and energy infrastructure. Inequality and social cohesion. The internal UK constitutional crisis (Scotland) Defence services embarrassingly below critical mass (Carriers without planes)
to name a few...
None of which Brexit solves, but arguably makes harder to solve and at the very least distract the best minds.
Anyone know if the far right guy is looking unlikely for Austria's rerun? Genuine irregularities justified it, but apart from anything else I thought a rule of thumb was those who lost getting reruns tend to do worse (be careful remainers)
He's favourite; not sure how much you can call someone a loser when they led the polls and lost by a fraction on a vote sufficiently dodgy the judiciary are willing to strike it down and leave the country without a figurehead for 6 months.
I wasn't being perjorative - I called him a loser because he lost, and I made sure to point out it being rerun was justified because of genuine irregularities. I was merely curious as, no matter how justified, I can imagine people not liking being asked something again.
Or quite pleased to be allowed to right a wrong after an unfair and unfree first attempt.
Why would I want to bail out people who trash things that I care about?
That was unfortunately the question asked by the redundant potters of Stoke and the unemployed steelworkers of Redcar, both of whom blame (a) the EU and (b) urban middle classes especially in London for their plight, before they voted out.
Until we at least make the effort to try and understand each other, we're doomed to stay in a vicious circle of misunderstanding and suspicion consisting of a dialogue of the deaf (please excuse the mixed metaphor). Your post doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that we can sort this mess out.
Indeed.
Inside the EU or outside the UK is going to have a long hard time ahead of it.
The UK had been living well beyond its means for decades and that will sooner or later ** be forced to stop at some point.
When that happens the UK will need cohesion and internal empathy to come through the difficult years.
I really do not see that in the 'me, me, me' attitudes from some Remainers.
** and the longer we continue to live beyond our means the harder the change will be.
Meanwhile, away from Brexit, the UK has big problems that it should really be looking at.
The internal UK constitutional crisis (Scotland)
None of which Brexit solves, but arguably makes harder to solve and at the very least distract the best minds.
Let's see what the Supreme Court says. It's possible that solving that one will turn out to be a necessary condition for getting off the Brexit starting blocks.
Anyone know if the far right guy is looking unlikely for Austria's rerun? Genuine irregularities justified it, but apart from anything else I thought a rule of thumb was those who lost getting reruns tend to do worse (be careful remainers)
He's favourite; not sure how much you can call someone a loser when they led the polls and lost by a fraction on a vote sufficiently dodgy the judiciary are willing to strike it down and leave the country without a figurehead for 6 months.
I wasn't being perjorative - I called him a loser because he lost, and I made sure to point out it being rerun was justified because of genuine irregularities. I was merely curious as, no matter how justified, I can imagine people not liking being asked something again.
Or quite pleased to be allowed to right a wrong after an unfair and unfree first attempt.
Perhaps so - that's why I asked the question about how it was looking for the guy, because I was curious if there was a reaction against him, or a reaction for him (or if it was to be just as close as before).
Meanwhile, away from Brexit, the UK has big problems that it should really be looking at.
The budget deficit Accrued debt that can never be paid off Funding social care for the elderly during a demographic time bomb The impact of automation on white collar workers. Failing transport and energy infrastructure. Inequality and social cohesion. The internal UK constitutional crisis (Scotland) Defence services embarrassingly below critical mass (Carriers without planes)
to name a few...
None of which Brexit solves, but arguably makes harder to solve and at the very least distract the best minds.
You can add the current account deficit to your list.
Pretty much all of which can be traced back to Brown and Blair.
Although Cameron and Osborne did little to rectify things.
Perhaps having an economy and society so dependent upon wealth consumption has its drawbacks.
Why would I want to bail out people who trash things that I care about?
That was unfortunately the question asked by the redundant potters of Stoke and the unemployed steelworkers of Redcar, both of whom blame (a) the EU and (b) urban middle classes especially in London for their plight, before they voted out.
Until we at least make the effort to try and understand each other, we're doomed to stay in a vicious circle of misunderstanding and suspicion consisting of a dialogue of the deaf (please excuse the mixed metaphor). Your post doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that we can sort this mess out.
Indeed.
Inside the EU or outside the UK is going to have a long hard time ahead of it.
The UK had been living well beyond its means for decades and that will sooner or later ** be forced to stop at some point.
When that happens the UK will need cohesion and internal empathy to come through the difficult years.
I really do not see that in the 'me, me, me' attitudes from some Remainers.
** and the longer we continue to live beyond our means the harder the change will be.
But if you are RIght and God Told You so (well, actually the international, progressive consensus - but hey, if that is what you worship..), how can you possibly go against the Word of God? And showing pity for Heretics is to love heresy....
It's like asking Cromwell to be nice to Irish Catholic Priests....
Meanwhile, away from Brexit, the UK has big problems that it should really be looking at.
The budget deficit Accrued debt that can never be paid off Funding social care for the elderly during a demographic time bomb The impact of automation on white collar workers. Failing transport and energy infrastructure. Inequality and social cohesion. The internal UK constitutional crisis (Scotland) Defence services embarrassingly below critical mass (Carriers without planes)
to name a few...
None of which Brexit solves, but arguably makes harder to solve and at the very least distract the best minds.
You can add the current account deficit to your list.
Pretty much all of which can be traced back to Brown and Blair.
Although Cameron and Osborne did little to rectify things.
Perhaps having an economy and society so dependent upon wealth consumption has its drawbacks.
You can spend your life arguing about the origins, the past and who was most to blame. It doesn't matter one iota.
What matters is the solution and how we are going to find it given our politics are going to spend the next 3-5 years arguing about Brexit.
Right now all the issues are dirty secrets shoved under the living room rug for later.
Anyone know if the far right guy is looking unlikely for Austria's rerun? Genuine irregularities justified it, but apart from anything else I thought a rule of thumb was those who lost getting reruns tend to do worse (be careful remainers)
He's favourite; not sure how much you can call someone a loser when they led the polls and lost by a fraction on a vote sufficiently dodgy the judiciary are willing to strike it down and leave the country without a figurehead for 6 months.
I wasn't being perjorative - I called him a loser because he lost, and I made sure to point out it being rerun was justified because of genuine irregularities. I was merely curious as, no matter how justified, I can imagine people not liking being asked something again.
Or quite pleased to be allowed to right a wrong after an unfair and unfree first attempt.
Perhaps so - that's why I asked the question about how it was looking for the guy, because I was curious if there was a reaction against him, or a reaction for him (or if it was to be just as close as before).
Polls are the same as before but he's a comfortable betfair favourite, which is of course an excellent predictor...
Worth noting he immediately accepted the result and poo-pooed suggestions of irregularities even despite the tiny margin. It was only when the issues became so obvious that his position switched so it's hard to sell this as sour grapes.
Reality has to kick in at a certain point. And outside the EU we will be trading on MFN basis and not on preferential trade basis, unless we can borrow some FTAs from the EU, the EFTA or whatever. These are likely to require the permission of the countersigning party, who are by no means guaranteed to give it. The world has essentially stopped doing FTAs. There is very little upside to being outside the customs union in practice. Staying inside removes some important trade barriers with the EU, the block that makes up half our trade.
Actually no. EFTA members are outside the Customs Union but still have free trade with the EU. The important point being that outside the Customs Union they are also able top complete their own trade deals as they see fit. Hence the reason they have more free trade deals with other countries than the EU does.
Yeah but they were working on their deals over decades, as has the EU, in a much more benign trade negotiation environment than now. We won't replicate their system of preferential trade on day one, or even year ten. These deals take years and years and the world has more or less stopped doing them. The moment we step outside the EU, and to a certain extent the customs union, we will be hit by new trade barriers that won't be lifted within the planning horizon. That's why it's sensible to stay in the customs union unless you have an ideological objection to it. I don't see why people would have an ideological objection of a kind they might have with EU membership.
Picking up on a different point Tim T made last night. Partial and temporary trade arrangements are disallowed under WTO rules. They have to be comprehensive and permanent. Of course Brexit is uncharted territory for the whole WTO system, so maybe some slack would be applied in our case.
So the message from the government is this: Brexit Britain needs to stay in the EU single market, which will mean trucking bundles of cash out from the Bank of England every day and handing them over to Brussels; and it will also mean doling out thousands of visas to eager new immigrants from India, because that's the price that thriving India will extract for investing in failing Britain. Never mind that Britain's GDP per head is 30 times India's.
Brexit voters may feel like they're being taken for fools.
Who would win a referendum tomorrow on staying in or continuing towards the door? Well there isn't going to be one, and if there were the winner might be an even angrier form of Brexit, with pitchforks this time, but what I do know is that the country is getting destabilised.
All this outpouring of concern for the poorest in society coming from PB Tories since their apparent conversion to Euroscepticism.
Brings a warm glow, doesn't it?
They were all feckless benefit scroungers when it looked like they might put Miliband in No 10 last year. Now they have the wisdom of Solomon - that is until they realise they were sold a pup and start moaning about Brexit, at which point they will become feckless benefit scroungers again.
Reality has to kick in at a certain point. And outside the EU we will be trading on MFN basis and not on preferential trade basis, unless we can borrow some FTAs from the EU, the EFTA or whatever. These are likely to require the permission of the countersigning party, who are by no means guaranteed to give it. The world has essentially stopped doing FTAs. There is very little upside to being outside the customs union in practice. Staying inside removes some important trade barriers with the EU, the block that makes up half our trade.
Actually no. EFTA members are outside the Customs Union but still have free trade with the EU. The important point being that outside the Customs Union they are also able top complete their own trade deals as they see fit. Hence the reason they have more free trade deals with other countries than the EU does.
Yeah but they were working on their deals over decades, as has the EU, in a much more benign trade negotiation environment than now. We won't replicate their system of preferential trade on day one, or even year ten. These deals take years and years and the world has more or less stopped doing them. The moment we step outside the EU, and to a certain extent the customs union, we will be hit by new trade barriers that won't be lifted within the planning horizon. That's why it's sensible to stay in the customs union unless you have an ideological objection to it. I don't see why people would have an ideological objection of a kind they might have with EU membership.
Yesterday Richard was calling Europe a 'rapidly dwindling backwater' in world trade terms, apparently without the self-awareness to realise that he's talking about us.
Unless we ask the right question we are unlikely to hit upon the right solution.
The question should be how to improve productivity in the UK.
If we have excellent productivity, work and wealth will prosper here regardless of the trade arrangements or political arrangements.
I can think of five issues re productivity stagnation:
1) The shift in the proportions of the economy from a sector with high productivity growth (manufacturing) to one with lower productivity growth (services, especially wealth consuming services).
2) A trillion pounds of government borrowing and subsidising of the economy - whenever the government does that it provides little incentive for the subsidised sectors to increase productivity eg heavy industry in the 1970s and the public sector in the 2000s
3) Ultra low interest rates allowing 'zombie companies' to survive and thus not freeing up capital, workers, property for more dynamic businesses.
4) Immigration of low cost low skilled immigration providing an alternative to capital investment and training of existing workforces
5) Growing inequality - if the gains of higher productivity are taken by the 1% rather than shared equitably the 99% have less incentive to improve their productivity
It would be interesting to know how much of the UK's GDP is produced by 'Remainers' as opposed to 'Leavers' Must be well over 90%.....
Only marginally less than the share of the country's IQ I'd imagine
Amongst me and my friends and associates, that's wrong. Amongst probably a few dozen people I've discussed it with (yes, small biased sample size) there is no obvious correlation in the way they voted in either income or intelligence. A couple of foreign-born friends voted leave (and surprised me in doing so), and so did some friends who work for companies based in the EU.
One of the reason remain lost might be that people's rationale for voting either way was much more complex than they thought.
There is simply no cross section of wealth, income, intelligence, or anything which voed as much as 90/10 in favour of Remain.
I've been looking at correlations between % Leave and various attributes across all the GB constituencies including party share in May 15.
The highest correlation (negative) is between % Leave and % with degrees in each constituency. It is -0.92 i.e an excellent predictor of the %Leave vote. No surprise there.
The other correlations out of interest for party share with %Leave are:
UKIP 0.85 (i.e a high UKIP vote is correlated with a high Leave vote - no surprise) Con 0.23 Lab -0.05 (i.e not significantly correlated) LD -0.21 Grn -0.45
Against other attributes:
% home ownership 0.42 (Leavers own their own homes) % white UK born 0.41 % over 65 0.40 % single households 0.06 population density -0.45 (Leave is rural) % student pop -0.48 % with degrees -0.92 (Leavers don't have degrees)
I'm getting a little bored of Brexit debates in a vacuum which are no more than an interminable continuation of the referendum campaign. Whatever arrangements we come to with the EU now will not be the same as the arrangements we will have in 10 years time. In some areas we will come together again and in others we drift apart. And in another 10 years there will be further changes.
Will we be better off or worse off through these changes? Who can say? One thing that is pretty much for certain is that we will never definitively know. What we will know is that the government of the day (which will no doubt be useless) will be more accountable to those that elect it, that a broader range of policy will be within its area of responsibility and that only defeatists and pessimists could possibly believe that to be a bad thing.
Meanwhile, away from Brexit, the UK has big problems that it should really be looking at.
The budget deficit Accrued debt that can never be paid off Funding social care for the elderly during a demographic time bomb The impact of automation on white collar workers. Failing transport and energy infrastructure. Inequality and social cohesion. The internal UK constitutional crisis (Scotland) Defence services embarrassingly below critical mass (Carriers without planes)
to name a few...
None of which Brexit solves, but arguably makes harder to solve and at the very least distract the best minds.
You can add the current account deficit to your list.
Pretty much all of which can be traced back to Brown and Blair.
Although Cameron and Osborne did little to rectify things.
Perhaps having an economy and society so dependent upon wealth consumption has its drawbacks.
You can spend your life arguing about the origins, the past and who was most to blame. It doesn't matter one iota.
What matters is the solution and how we are going to find it given our politics are going to spend the next 3-5 years arguing about Brexit.
Right now all the issues are dirty secrets shoved under the living room rug for later.
It would be pathetic if it wasn't so serious.
And do you think Cameron and Osborne would have been interested in finding solutions to those problems if Remain had won ?
Brexit allows the curtain to fall, the naked emperor to be exposed, the hard truth to be revealed.
Unless we ask the right question we are unlikely to hit upon the right solution.
The question should be how to improve productivity in the UK.
If we have excellent productivity, work and wealth will prosper here regardless of the trade arrangements or political arrangements.
Productivity is highly dependent on trade and political arrangements.
You're much more productive if you can sell what you make to more people, especially for very scalable things like medicine or software that can be duplicated at almost no cost. And if politics gets in the way of making stuff and getting it to the customers, for example by putting customs checks between you and your customer or by creating multiple regulatory frameworks that you have to spend time complying with, that's effort that gets taken out of productive effort just as much as if someone was picking some of the productive employees at random and setting their output on fire.
Italy, NO, 1.37; Austria, Hofer, 1.36: little change from yesterday.
In France, Le Pen is at 4.2. Her price is bound to come in slightly after the Italian NO result and a fortiori if Hofer wins in Austria. That's even if Grillo sticks two fingers up at his voters and says he doesn't want a referendum on the euro any more and Hofer says he's sure he can work things out so that no Oexit referendum will be needed - which I don't think they're likely to do.
Talikg of knobs... Boris on Marr. I've never seen his appeal and now he's trying to stop playing the clown he's just a empty suit...he reminds me of Willy Whielaw
There's a joke there but I'll not bite
Margaret Thatcher has already made the joke, which was:
All this outpouring of concern for the poorest in society coming from PB Tories since their apparent conversion to Euroscepticism.
Brings a warm glow, doesn't it?
They were all feckless benefit scroungers when it looked like they might put Miliband in No 10 last year. Now they have the wisdom of Solomon - that is until they realise they were sold a pup and start moaning about Brexit, at which point they will become feckless benefit scroungers again.
Spot on. The last six years have seen PBers demand the most stringent response to the rioting underclasses, applauding like performing seals at every utterance by Cameron & Osborne pitting the strivers against the skivers & the lurkers behind closed blinds, and a complete buying into the Mail's 'ciggies, Stella, Sky & 50 inch tv' version of life on benefits. One might almost think this outbreak of compassion and empathy is somewhat manufactured..
Reality has to kick in at a certain point. And outside the EU we will be trading on MFN basis and not on preferential trade basis, unless we can borrow some FTAs from the EU, the EFTA or whatever. These are likely to require the permission of the countersigning party, who are by no means guaranteed to give it. The world has essentially stopped doing FTAs. There is very little upside to being outside the customs union in practice. Staying inside removes some important trade barriers with the EU, the block that makes up half our trade.
Actually no. EFTA members are outside the Customs Union but still have free trade with the EU. The important point being that outside the Customs Union they are also able top complete their own trade deals as they see fit. Hence the reason they have more free trade deals with other countries than the EU does.
Yeah but they were working on their deals over decades, as has the EU, in a much more benign trade negotiation environment than now. We won't replicate their system of preferential trade on day one, or even year ten. These deals take years and years and the world has more or less stopped doing them. The moment we step outside the EU, and to a certain extent the customs union, we will be hit by new trade barriers that won't be lifted within the planning horizon. That's why it's sensible to stay in the customs union unless you have an ideological objection to it. I don't see why people would have an ideological objection of a kind they might have with EU membership.
Yesterday Richard was calling Europe a 'rapidly dwindling backwater' in world trade terms, apparently without the self-awareness to realise that he's talking about us.
No I was specifically referring to the EU. And as long as we remain part of the EU we are indeed part of that dwindling backwater. By leaving we stand a chance of moving into the main river once again. Something that cannot and will not happen as long as we are constrained by EU membership.
Why would I want to bail out people who trash things that I care about?
That was unfortunately the question asked by the redundant potters of Stoke and the unemployed steelworkers of Redcar, both of whom blame (a) the EU and (b) urban middle classes especially in London for their plight, before they voted out.
Until we at least make the effort to try and understand each other, we're doomed to stay in a vicious circle of misunderstanding and suspicion consisting of a dialogue of the deaf (please excuse the mixed metaphor). Your post doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that we can sort this mess out.
Indeed.
Inside the EU or outside the UK is going to have a long hard time ahead of it.
The UK had been living well beyond its means for decades and that will sooner or later ** be forced to stop at some point.
When that happens the UK will need cohesion and internal empathy to come through the difficult years.
I really do not see that in the 'me, me, me' attitudes from some Remainers.
** and the longer we continue to live beyond our means the harder the change will be.
But if you are RIght and God Told You so (well, actually the international, progressive consensus - but hey, if that is what you worship..), how can you possibly go against the Word of God? And showing pity for Heretics is to love heresy....
It's like asking Cromwell to be nice to Irish Catholic Priests....
The mentality of some Remainers ** is bound up into their fundamental sense of selfworth.
I am RIGHT therefore I am SUPERIOR I am SUPERIOR therefore I am RIGHT
It wont be long before some Remainers will say that miners, steelworkers etc losing their jobs was a good thing because they were fundamentally wicked as proved by their support of Leave.
** it does happen with other groups on other issues as well.
Talikg of knobs... Boris on Marr. I've never seen his appeal and now he's trying to stop playing the clown he's just a empty suit...he reminds me of Willy Whielaw
There's a joke there but I'll not bite
Margaret Thatcher has already made the joke, which was:
Reality has to kick in at a certain point. And outside the EU we will be trading on MFN basis and not on preferential trade basis, unless we can borrow some FTAs from the EU, the EFTA or whatever. These are likely to require the permission of the countersigning party, who are by no means guaranteed to give it. The world has essentially stopped doing FTAs. There is very little upside to being outside the customs union in practice. Staying inside removes some important trade barriers with the EU, the block that makes up half our trade.
Actually no. EFTA members are outside the Customs Union but still have free trade with the EU. The important point being that outside the Customs Union they are also able top complete their own trade deals as they see fit. Hence the reason they have more free trade deals with other countries than the EU does.
Yeah but they were working on their deals over decades, as has the EU, in a much more benign trade negotiation environment than now. We won't replicate their system of preferential trade on day one, or even year ten. These deals take years and years and the world has more or less stopped doing them. The moment we step outside the EU, and to a certain extent the customs union, we will be hit by new trade barriers that won't be lifted within the planning horizon. That's why it's sensible to stay in the customs union unless you have an ideological objection to it. I don't see why people would have an ideological objection of a kind they might have with EU membership.
Picking up on a different point Tim T made last night. Partial and temporary trade arrangements are disallowed under WTO rules. They have to be comprehensive and permanent. Of course Brexit is uncharted territory for the whole WTO system, so maybe some slack would be applied in our case.
Because membership of the EU Customs Union prevents us making our own trade deals with other countries because of the Common External Tariff. It is indeed the worst of both worlds.
Meanwhile, away from Brexit, the UK has big problems that it should really be looking at.
The budget deficit Accrued debt that can never be paid off Funding social care for the elderly during a demographic time bomb The impact of automation on white collar workers. Failing transport and energy infrastructure. Inequality and social cohesion. The internal UK constitutional crisis (Scotland) Defence services embarrassingly below critical mass (Carriers without planes)
to name a few...
None of which Brexit solves, but arguably makes harder to solve and at the very least distract the best minds.
You can add the current account deficit to your list.
Pretty much all of which can be traced back to Brown and Blair.
Although Cameron and Osborne did little to rectify things.
Perhaps having an economy and society so dependent upon wealth consumption has its drawbacks.
You can spend your life arguing about the origins, the past and who was most to blame. It doesn't matter one iota.
What matters is the solution and how we are going to find it given our politics are going to spend the next 3-5 years arguing about Brexit.
Right now all the issues are dirty secrets shoved under the living room rug for later.
It would be pathetic if it wasn't so serious.
And do you think Cameron and Osborne would have been interested in finding solutions to those problems if Remain had won ?
Brexit allows the curtain to fall, the naked emperor to be exposed, the hard truth to be revealed.
Until that happens nothing will be done.
It is rare for me to agree with you, but I do.
The cold winds of Hard Brexit will be pretty uncomfortable for a lot of the country, but it will paradoxically substantially be Remainers who will benefit. They are the people mobile enough to adapt to the changes, and with the skills that are in demand in the world.
Talikg of knobs... Boris on Marr. I've never seen his appeal and now he's trying to stop playing the clown he's just a empty suit...he reminds me of Willy Whielaw
Reality has to kick in at a certain point. And outside the EU we will be trading on MFN basis and not on preferential trade basis, unless we can borrow some FTAs from the EU, the EFTA or whatever. These are likely to require the permission of the countersigning party, who are by no means guaranteed to give it. The world has essentially stopped doing FTAs. There is very little upside to being outside the customs union in practice. Staying inside removes some important trade barriers with the EU, the block that makes up half our trade.
Actually no. EFTA members are outside the Customs Union but still have free trade with the EU. The important point being that outside the Customs Union they are also able top complete their own trade deals as they see fit. Hence the reason they have more free trade deals with other countries than the EU does.
Yeah but they were working on their deals over decades, as has the EU, in a much more benign trade negotiation environment than now. We won't replicate their system of preferential trade on day one, or even year ten. These deals take years and years and the world has more or less stopped doing them. The moment we step outside the EU, and to a certain extent the customs union, we will be hit by new trade barriers that won't be lifted within the planning horizon. That's why it's sensible to stay in the customs union unless you have an ideological objection to it. I don't see why people would have an ideological objection of a kind they might have with EU membership.
Yesterday Richard was calling Europe a 'rapidly dwindling backwater' in world trade terms, apparently without the self-awareness to realise that he's talking about us.
No I was specifically referring to the EU. And as long as we remain part of the EU we are indeed part of that dwindling backwater. By leaving we stand a chance of moving into the main river once again. Something that cannot and will not happen as long as we are constrained by EU membership.
If only wishful thinking mixed with a few analogies that don't really work were sufficient...
Comments
This is the same candidate who got this daily Mail headline:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3045289/Send-home-Ukip-candidate-s-false-claim-son-blown-Afghanistan.html
How dare the public do something you don't agree with! They must be punished to make sure they learn their place!
You really do have a despicable attitude.
They voted Trump to remove their health care, and to put Goldman Sachs in charge of the US department of Commerce. They are not going to get charity.
** the people are the workers ***of this country who have been ignored for so long.
*** I guess it must be challenging to see them all the way from your chateau in the posh end of France.
HMG will be able to claim a bespoke a-la-carte deal that gives excellent access to goods and services, whilst quitting all the political structures of the EU, giving more control over immigration, and a greatly increased ability of the UK to pursue other trade deals.
The EU will be able to say you're still paying almost as much as if you were still a member, but now have no say in any of the areas into which you've "opted-in", and on which the ECJ may still rule in future without any UK input.
And we can continue to argue about it vociferously for the next 30 years, which will be nice.
I have lived most of my life with governments and politics that I passionately opposed, and can do so again.
I thought previously that there would be just as much immigration after Brexit, except for any recession effects. I now realise you can materially reduce immigration simply by being unpleasant to migrants. It isn't what I would call control, it discourages economically beneficial migrants more than the other kind, and I'm not sure I want to be part of it. But it does have an effect.
I don't really get the idea of the customs union as a talisman for Brexit. Surely it's a technocratic decision of what's in Britain's interest. Having studied it, I see little downside to being in a customs union with the EU. In practice it will mean significantly fewer trade barriers compared with being outside. It's not as if the rest of the world is going to welcome the UK into a new free trade order. Which is maybe the point. The customs union issue is the last redoubt of those that pretend Brexit is Britain opening out to the world, rather than turning inwards.
Ask a stupid question and you get a stupid answer. People who voted Leave aren't stupid. Asking people in a referendum whether to accept or reject one alternative without considering the others certainly is. It may turn out membership of the EU is the best option, when you. I'm pretty sure it is. But it's too late now. The decision needs to be follow through. What we need now is an honest and hard hitting discussion of how to limit the damage. We're not going to get it because political leaders are too wrapped up in their ideology, or in Theresa May's case too afraid of those that are. She didn't , uniquely amongst Tory top brass, survive Brexit by making brave decisions.
What if we had a democrat vote to dispense with democracy as they did in Zimbabwe? As a country we never found that to be acceptable because it dispensed with checks and balances or the possibility of ever reversing the decision.
The same applies here. A vote on something as fundamental as our governance needs much more scrutiny and after that scrtiny at least the possibility of reversal. 'Eat shit. 2,000,000 flies can't be wrong' isn't a philosophy that should be revered.
I do not think the British people can build a positive relationship with Europe, except by seeing what a negative relationship looks like.
The other is the equivalent of a tantrum in the supermarket confectionary aisle at not getting your own way.
Have a nice day.
Btw on Nuttall, I was watching clips of him on various old episodes of QT etc, and I think he generally handles himself well, I watched an episode where he managed to argue his cases decently on issues other than the EU, Immigration, and Islam. He also gave a decent defence of his views on NHS (maintained commitment to state funded free at point of use etc) while saying it's not taboo to talk about addition of private funding. He's less 'charismatic' than Farage but also comes across as less of an arsehole. I think he could be bad for Labour if he can keep UKIP somewhat united under his direction. They need to transform into Red UKIP, and the problem is that the members and activists are mostly Blue UKIP ex-Tories.
To be honest, I think I'm the only one here who's said he's relaxed about practically everything except the customs union, so perhaps it isn't a 'talismanic' issue. But it is one that vexes me.
I will say one thing though in regard to reversal.
When the EU established Lisbon ( via back door after referendums rejected it) it was and remains constantly said there is no going back. You Can't have it both ways see .... That's your problem right there.
You can Only go back however if it's a decision the EU elite and supporters don't like or to which they disagree. Then when they finally get the decision they want it becomes binding for all time no further discussion.
EU history is littered with this approach. The workers finally got fed up and had enough.
Have a nice day ....off out.
What I'm not sure of with Brexit is how many were in each group to start with and therefore what proportion of the sceptical group were convinced
Brings a warm glow, doesn't it?
It does make me curious at young obesity levels, which if memory serves are high.
Grumble grumbke, damn console exclusives.
I have been arguing about the underlying issue for years. ....
In the 1980s, it was considered a common place (among the Economist type of thinkers) that, as the demographic retreat of Western Europe impacted, automation would take up the strain. Think fewer, higher paid jobs in gleaming robot factories...
Partly because of technology, but mostly due to removal of trade and legal barriers outsourcing won.
However, a problem developed. Outsourcing works for lower skilled jobs, but for the more skilled and technical roles, the working class as the other end (India, China etc) have a deplorable habit of asking for more wages. Due to the productivity factors inherent in a country (laws, road, power, health care), the multipliers in the various outsourcing countries have dropped like a stone.
You can't just ship a factory to {wherever} and make an instant 3x profit anymore. Hence the demand for mass immigration from business - get them in cheap, the societal/country productivity factor will massively boost their value. Until they ask for higher wages... so get some more.
The progressive types loved this because of the "diversity" factor. So, you have a situation where (an example I know off) a small factory in the Midlands has a close to 100% Baltic States workforce. None of the locals (main groups ethnic British, Pakistani...) are involved.
What could possibly upset anyone about that?
I think the Tomb Raider approach of a timed exclusive is best. Gives one console a clear advantage but doesn't fence itself off from other platforms.
Trying to stretch my imagination to the most positive outcome for Brexit, and I find myself envisaging a scenario where Britain becomes more capitalist, less regulated/inflexible (and all those other words that sound good despite being rather vague) and it seems to me that the likely winners from this turn of events are still the wealthy, the well connected, the able risk-takers, and the lucky.
Thus, if even the optimistic leavers can agree with the rest of us that Brexit, good or bad, isn't going to solve the problem....we still have a BIG problem (given its consequences) and no apparent solution.
I am sure May realises this, with her Downing Street speech and all, but is struggling to forumulate let alone deliver any meaningful solutions. Trump will have the same problem; he is potentially better placed because he probably has the deeper instinctive understanding of how the disadvantaged feel, but has the problem of little hard power and a lot of people around him who exist to defend the status quo (as TBF does May, despite her more powerful position).
We, along with everyone else, seem to be spending a lot more time arguing about the one change that we probably all agree isn't the solution, rather than getting stuck into what is an exceedingly difficult, complicated, and rather fundamental problem?
The historical approach would be to wait until we enter a period of growth again and then try and nudge some of the benefit in the right direction (probably where Trump is with all his building). But in the modern over-extended world a period of sustained and genuine growth looks unlikely, and another puffed up boom won't do the trick I fear. Voting for extreme people and extreme solutions might be the only way to get the complacent to listen, but in the meantime isn't going to help any, either.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-parliaments-38187867
Looks like that is exactly where we are headed
Off topic, just watched a vid of Clegg in a BBC interview. I do t know what it is, but I've always liked him. Even when I disagree with him, I feel like he usually puts a case well (excepting o e of his garage debates). It'll be a shame he probably won't want to put himself through another election.
So to claim that the rich will get richer and the elites will continue to rule the roost is just as false as claiming we will all live in a social paradise where every vote counts and the rich elite are stripped of their powers.
Outside of the constraints of the EU the situation becomes far more fluid and Governments are more able to respond to the demands made by the population at elections. This calls for a far more adult attitude by both the electorate and the politicians and it will take time to develop. We have had 40 or more years of being nannied and constrained by EU membership which has too often provided a perfect excuse for Governments to ignore the electorate.
I have no idea whether things will develop as I wish but I do know there is now the potential for that to happen which did not exist before.
On the name of the bill being perceived as misleading, does anyone know offhand if there are rules on how bills are named? In America it seems either they or just like to have convoluted names to enable acronyms if they want a bill to have a catchy name, like patriot act.
The Brexiteers wanted to break the current setup and got their way. But they have not the foggiest about what replaces it and have no arguments about whether that would be better or worse. Quite frankly they don't care. They just want to leave.
Meanwhile, the May govt is struggling to retrofit a plan against the clock, because despite Brexit life goes on and the buck stops with them.
They use the bogus not "spilling the beans of our negotiation strategy" (don't laugh) to buy them space, but create a political vacuum in the process.
Then fools like us then bang the shit out of each other, afraid that everyone else is going to stitch us up. And the opposition takes some time out.
And that is the state of politics in 2016.
The free-traders will get shallower trade relations.
The anti-immigration voters will find out who gets 'control' and it won't be them.
The Europhobes will find European affairs become even more prominent in our national life.
The neo-imperialists will find that the Old Commonwealth looks on with bemused sadness at what the old country is doing to itself.
The question should be how to improve productivity in the UK.
If we have excellent productivity, work and wealth will prosper here regardless of the trade arrangements or political arrangements.
The budget deficit
Accrued debt that can never be paid off
Funding social care for the elderly during a demographic time bomb
The impact of automation on white collar workers.
Failing transport and energy infrastructure.
Inequality and social cohesion.
The internal UK constitutional crisis (Scotland)
Defence services embarrassingly below critical mass (Carriers without planes)
to name a few...
None of which Brexit solves, but arguably makes harder to solve and at the very least distract the best minds.
Inside the EU or outside the UK is going to have a long hard time ahead of it.
The UK had been living well beyond its means for decades and that will sooner or later ** be forced to stop at some point.
When that happens the UK will need cohesion and internal empathy to come through the difficult years.
I really do not see that in the 'me, me, me' attitudes from some Remainers.
** and the longer we continue to live beyond our means the harder the change will be.
I can survive it quite well, and in a globalised yet atomised world, turn my back on it to a large extent.
Pretty much all of which can be traced back to Brown and Blair.
Although Cameron and Osborne did little to rectify things.
Perhaps having an economy and society so dependent upon wealth consumption has its drawbacks.
It's like asking Cromwell to be nice to Irish Catholic Priests....
What matters is the solution and how we are going to find it given our politics are going to spend the next 3-5 years arguing about Brexit.
Right now all the issues are dirty secrets shoved under the living room rug for later.
It would be pathetic if it wasn't so serious.
Worth noting he immediately accepted the result and poo-pooed suggestions of irregularities even despite the tiny margin. It was only when the issues became so obvious that his position switched so it's hard to sell this as sour grapes.
Picking up on a different point Tim T made last night. Partial and temporary trade arrangements are disallowed under WTO rules. They have to be comprehensive and permanent. Of course Brexit is uncharted territory for the whole WTO system, so maybe some slack would be applied in our case.
Brexit voters may feel like they're being taken for fools.
Who would win a referendum tomorrow on staying in or continuing towards the door? Well there isn't going to be one, and if there were the winner might be an even angrier form of Brexit, with pitchforks this time, but what I do know is that the country is getting destabilised.
1) The shift in the proportions of the economy from a sector with high productivity growth (manufacturing) to one with lower productivity growth (services, especially wealth consuming services).
2) A trillion pounds of government borrowing and subsidising of the economy - whenever the government does that it provides little incentive for the subsidised sectors to increase productivity eg heavy industry in the 1970s and the public sector in the 2000s
3) Ultra low interest rates allowing 'zombie companies' to survive and thus not freeing up capital, workers, property for more dynamic businesses.
4) Immigration of low cost low skilled immigration providing an alternative to capital investment and training of existing workforces
5) Growing inequality - if the gains of higher productivity are taken by the 1% rather than shared equitably the 99% have less incentive to improve their productivity
The highest correlation (negative) is between % Leave and % with degrees in each constituency. It is -0.92 i.e an excellent predictor of the %Leave vote. No surprise there.
The other correlations out of interest for party share with %Leave are:
UKIP 0.85 (i.e a high UKIP vote is correlated with a high Leave vote - no surprise)
Con 0.23
Lab -0.05 (i.e not significantly correlated)
LD -0.21
Grn -0.45
Against other attributes:
% home ownership 0.42 (Leavers own their own homes)
% white UK born 0.41
% over 65 0.40
% single households 0.06
population density -0.45 (Leave is rural)
% student pop -0.48
% with degrees -0.92 (Leavers don't have degrees)
Will we be better off or worse off through these changes? Who can say? One thing that is pretty much for certain is that we will never definitively know. What we will know is that the government of the day (which will no doubt be useless) will be more accountable to those that elect it, that a broader range of policy will be within its area of responsibility and that only defeatists and pessimists could possibly believe that to be a bad thing.
Brexit allows the curtain to fall, the naked emperor to be exposed, the hard truth to be revealed.
Until that happens nothing will be done.
You're much more productive if you can sell what you make to more people, especially for very scalable things like medicine or software that can be duplicated at almost no cost. And if politics gets in the way of making stuff and getting it to the customers, for example by putting customs checks between you and your customer or by creating multiple regulatory frameworks that you have to spend time complying with, that's effort that gets taken out of productive effort just as much as if someone was picking some of the productive employees at random and setting their output on fire.
In France, Le Pen is at 4.2. Her price is bound to come in slightly after the Italian NO result and a fortiori if Hofer wins in Austria. That's even if Grillo sticks two fingers up at his voters and says he doesn't want a referendum on the euro any more and Hofer says he's sure he can work things out so that no Oexit referendum will be needed - which I don't think they're likely to do.
"Everyone needs a Willy"
The last six years have seen PBers demand the most stringent response to the rioting underclasses, applauding like performing seals at every utterance by Cameron & Osborne pitting the strivers against the skivers & the lurkers behind closed blinds, and a complete buying into the Mail's 'ciggies, Stella, Sky & 50 inch tv' version of life on benefits. One might almost think this outbreak of compassion and empathy is somewhat manufactured..
Some of these odds are hilarious. Caroline Lucas for LibDems? 5/1? More like 500/1.
I am RIGHT therefore I am SUPERIOR
I am SUPERIOR therefore I am RIGHT
It wont be long before some Remainers will say that miners, steelworkers etc losing their jobs was a good thing because they were fundamentally wicked as proved by their support of Leave.
** it does happen with other groups on other issues as well.
Seriously?
The cold winds of Hard Brexit will be pretty uncomfortable for a lot of the country, but it will paradoxically substantially be Remainers who will benefit. They are the people mobile enough to adapt to the changes, and with the skills that are in demand in the world.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/805194364393820160