"Or a lot more people doing low paid jobs rather than claiming benefits"
Employment rates are high and unemployment rates are low. People will have to move to where jobs are. That's tricky on a low income.
If the low paid poor voted Leave due to immigration decreasing their wages/job oportunities, as lots of people seem to think they did, then the freedom to earn a living should overcome that trickiness. Its a two way deal
I'm rather impressed that the cognitive dissonance of the Leavers* persists despite all the evidence being flung at them:
Leaver Axiom 1: It was right for us to exit because the return of sovereignty was worth any economic pain. Leaver Axiom 2: The EU will cave and give us all the sweeties we want because it's in their economic interest to do so.
I assume the reason it persists is that Britain is a noble and principled nation, eschewing material wealth in the pursuit of high ideals. Whereas those nasty foreigners from over the channel would sell their own mother for a second helping of moules frites.
I'm rather impressed that the cognitive dissonance of the Leavers* persists despite all the evidence being flung at them:
Leaver Axiom 1: It was right for us to exit because the return of sovereignty was worth any economic pain. Leaver Axiom 2: The EU will cave and give us all the sweeties we want because it's in their economic interest to do so.
I assume the reason it persists is that Britain is a noble and principled nation, eschewing material wealth in the pursuit of high ideals. Whereas those nasty foreigners from over the channel would sell their own mother for a second helping of moules frites.
* A large proportion of them, at least.
To which we can add:
Leaver Axiom 3: The deal that David Cameron was useless and didn't achieve anything or change our relationship to the EU Leaver Axiom 4: The deal that David Cameron got would have been struck down by the EU heads of state/ECJ.
So, just to clarify with our more intense Leavers, is it your view that if and when the Article 50 negotiations start the public's perception of the government's handling of Brexit is going to soar?
Well, it's a view I suppose.
Intense leavers are just glad we left, & probably pleasantly surprised so many people agreed with them.
I doubt many thought it would be a swift or easy process. But the vote was won, that's the important thing
Would you be happy if we left and part of the leaving agreement was continued free movement of people?
Wouing to wear a tag! Annoying but better than before
Any kind of leave is better than any kind of remain. Simply.
That is utterly barking mad and demonstrates neatly just how crazed Europhobes are.
Or just how deluded EUphiles like you are about what any remain vote would have done to our stance on the EU. I'd have taken staying if there was no referendum, but not staying after giving the EU a democratic seal of approval, no matter how narrow.
Your inability to contemplate the idea of even the most basic of cost benefit analyses marks you and those who think like you as irredeemable cretins.
And yet you'd take the reverse scenario, even if the eventual cost was signing up to the Eurozone, EU Army and all the rest of that rubbish. Who hasn't done the cost benefit analysis? A remain vote, any remain vote, would have completely undermined out defence posture within the EU for less integration. I said before the referendum a remain vote would have to result in us going in all guns blazing for the EU, sign up to every directive and join the EMU. After a democratic vote our half-in half-out approach would have been even less sustainable.
Indeed. What we've done is, to coin a phrase, taken back control. We've taken back control of those who govern us. Never again will a UK government be able to smuggle laws onto the statute book, via Brussels, without proper democratic scrutiny. Never again will UK governments be able to BLAME Brussels for their own incompetence.
Most of all, never again shall we be ruled by people we don't elect, and cannot depose, making laws we didn't request and which cannot be repealed.
It will be rocky, but we will be ourselves, again.
Ruled by people like Theresa May and Members of the House of Lords, do you mean?
Mr. Bromptonaut, the Commons can overrule the Lords. It can't overrule the ECJ.
Mr. Topping, somehow, I have coped.
Mr. Anorak, you could as easily invert those. Do Remainers believe any loss of sovereignty acceptable provided we grow wealthier? Very Brave New World.
I'm rather impressed that the cognitive dissonance of the Leavers* persists despite all the evidence being flung at them:
Leaver Axiom 1: It was right for us to exit because the return of sovereignty was worth any economic pain. Leaver Axiom 2: The EU will cave and give us all the sweeties we want because it's in their economic interest to do so.
I assume the reason it persists is that Britain is a noble and principled nation, eschewing material wealth in the pursuit of high ideals. Whereas those nasty foreigners from over the channel would sell their own mother for a second helping of moules frites.
* A large proportion of them, at least.
To which we can add:
Leaver Axiom 3: The deal that David Cameron was useless and didn't achieve anything or change our relationship to the EU Leaver Axiom 4: The deal that David Cameron got would have been struck down by the EU heads of state/ECJ.
To be fair, believing all that at the same time would make me a little crazy too.
"If the low paid poor voted Leave due to immigration decreasing their wages/job oportunities, as lots of people seem to think they did, then the freedom to earn a living should overcome that trickiness. Its a two way deal"
If they are low paid, they have jobs, just not very well paid ones. The issue then is which jobs will now pay better as a result of Brexit and substantially restricted immigration. It could be that farmers and care homes have to pay a lot more to carry on in business. But as I said originally that then feeds through to higher prices and costs, and these will have to be paid by someone. For people in work, that may not be a problem if wage rises keep track of price rises. For those not in work - such as pensioners - it is going to be a serious problem.
Mr. Anorak, you could as easily invert those. Do Remainers believe any loss of sovereignty acceptable provided we grow wealthier? Very Brave New World.
That's by-the-by.
The point is the refusal to believe that the members of the EU (and the commission) would place principles above economics, while happily declaiming that leaving the EU was a victory of principles above economics.
"If the low paid poor voted Leave due to immigration decreasing their wages/job oportunities, as lots of people seem to think they did, then the freedom to earn a living should overcome that trickiness. Its a two way deal"
If they are low paid, they have jobs, just not very well paid ones. The issue then is which jobs will now pay better as a result of Brexit and substantially restricted immigration. It could be that farmers and care homes have to pay a lot more to carry on in business. But as I said originally that then feeds through to higher prices and costs, and these will have to be paid by someone. For people in work, that may not be a problem if wage rises keep track of price rises. For those not in work - such as pensioners - it is going to be a serious problem.
Maybe the millionaires that own care homes would have to reduce their extortionate rates? (Sorry reduce their extortionate profit margins)
Mr. Anorak, I think a reasonable deal can be had to the economic advantage of both sides. It's a question of whether the EU wants that.
The 'principle' of harming the UK for having the temerity to exercise a democratic right is nothing of the sort, but an act of self-harm as much as hostility to one of the major economies of the region.
Lunch over there in Brussels has just finished, 6:30pm CET! I'm not surprised. When I visited the Berlaymont refectory in 1973 I had never seen plates as large as those they were serving lunch on. I don't imagine they have got smaller since.
Theresa May has NO mandate. Not just to implement Brexit but also the rest of her governments agenda. I am getting a bit annoyed with her trying to transfer the vote on 23rd June into a mandate. The people who voted for Brexit, the 52% who voted Out is not a mandate for may to be PM. I suspect half of those who voted out would not vote Tory if they were paid to do so.
I hope that the EU court case is upheld and May goes for a GE. I will NOT vote for May, she is simply not up to the job.
"I don't see why we need to accept that at all. Control over immigration means just that. If more immigration is needed (always assuming people wish to migrate here), we can have that. If the rate needs to be slowed, it can be slowed. The amount of wailing, gnashing of teeth and renting of garments over the basic and many would say essential concept that a country needs control over its borders is bizarre."
My reading of it is that people want a lot less immigration and that telling them control means increasing numbers if that is what is required is not really going to wash.
Mr. Bromptonaut, the Commons can overrule the Lords. It can't overrule the ECJ.
Mr. Topping, somehow, I have coped.
Mr. Anorak, you could as easily invert those. Do Remainers believe any loss of sovereignty acceptable provided we grow wealthier? Very Brave New World.
It can't overrule the Supreme Court either so your argument falls.
"Maybe the millionaires that own care homes would have to reduce their extortionate rates? (Sorry reduce their extortionate profit margins)"
Maybe. Or maybe they will just close them down. It is time to have a completely new look at the way we look after the elderly and infirm so this would be a great opportunity. Funding is currently very low. Time for higher taxes?
Mr. Taxman, there have been a large number of PMs who became that during a Parliament rather than at a General Election. It's entirely in keeping with Parliamentary democracy.
[As it happens, I generally think a PM diverging wildly from a predecessor should perhaps hold an election, but in this case the change is one following a referendum, which is a different kettle of monkeys].
Mr. Bromptonaut, the Commons can overrule the Lords. It can't overrule the ECJ.
Mr. Topping, somehow, I have coped.
Mr. Anorak, you could as easily invert those. Do Remainers believe any loss of sovereignty acceptable provided we grow wealthier? Very Brave New World.
It can't overrule the Supreme Court either so your argument falls.
Mr. Anorak, I think a reasonable deal can be had to the economic advantage of both sides. It's a question of whether the EU wants that.
The 'principle' of harming the UK for having the temerity to exercise a democratic right is nothing of the sort, but an act of self-harm as much as hostility to one of the major economies of the region.
I see you're under the same spell.
Sticking to the four freedoms is not an act of spite, it is reaffirming the importance of the freedoms to the remaining members of the EU. They are viewed by many as a fundamental foundation to the EU, not as a negotiating chip.
Theresa May has NO mandate. Not just to implement Brexit but also the rest of her governments agenda. I am getting a bit annoyed with her trying to transfer the vote on 23rd June into a mandate. The people who voted for Brexit, the 52% who voted Out is not a mandate for may to be PM. I suspect half of those who voted out would not vote Tory if they were paid to do so.
I hope that the EU court case is upheld and May goes for a GE. I will NOT vote for May, she is simply not up to the job.
TM is the best we have at present and if the EU continue to act like children, like they did today by ignoring her and by definition insulting the UK, she will soar in popularity and so will leaving the EU
"If the low paid poor voted Leave due to immigration decreasing their wages/job oportunities, as lots of people seem to think they did, then the freedom to earn a living should overcome that trickiness. Its a two way deal"
If they are low paid, they have jobs, just not very well paid ones. The issue then is which jobs will now pay better as a result of Brexit and substantially restricted immigration. It could be that farmers and care homes have to pay a lot more to carry on in business. But as I said originally that then feeds through to higher prices and costs, and these will have to be paid by someone. For people in work, that may not be a problem if wage rises keep track of price rises. For those not in work - such as pensioners - it is going to be a serious problem.
That assumes the market dislocation caused by Brexit has no economic consequences. I would be very surprised if that's the case and fully expect a higher unemployment rate than would otherwise be the case.
Mr. Anorak, you could as easily invert those. Do Remainers believe any loss of sovereignty acceptable provided we grow wealthier? Very Brave New World.
I am in favour of the EU as an idea. I think it's good to work together with other countries for the common good and in your own interest. But ideas aren't enough. They have to work. I am absolutely clear about that. On this, I accept the EU is patchy.
But here's the thing. I am almost certain the alternative, Brexit ,will not work. It is based on assumptions about the world and Britain's place in it that are not real. Brexit will not deliver the control and the mastery of our destiny we look for. It won't serve our interests well. As such it will be messy and frustrating.
Pulpstar: "One thing though, the Leave/Remain vote would be (An informed guess here) correlated quite strongly with house prices - but negatively."
Where do you get information to inform your guess? Anywhere outside London? Cuz the people I know of in the big houses in the south-west were Leave....
Mr. Anorak, requiring the four freedoms for access (beyond WTO terms) alone to the single market is spiteful. Does South Korea or Canada have to have free movement?
Leaver Axiom 3: The deal that David Cameron was useless and didn't achieve anything or change our relationship to the EU Leaver Axiom 4: The deal that David Cameron got would have been struck down by the EU heads of state/ECJ.
Mr Topping: 4 out of 10.
It is perfectly possible to say that the deal which David Cameron got was not worth much and did not fundamentally address the issues in the relationship between the EU and Britain and that, in any event, it was not legally binding and would have been unlikely to survive any challenge in the EU courts.
Whether that would be enough to persuade you to vote Leave is another matter of course. But given the importance which Cameron placed on his renegotiation, the relative paucity of the deal might well be an indication that the EU was either unwilling or unable to address Britain's concerns or that the fundamental differences in approach were such that no effective way of reconciling them was available.
I tend to the latter view. I think the EU did try and address the concerns as they were expressed to them (in their own way) but, au fond, the EU states and Britain have fundamentally different outlooks on a range of matters and that, given the principles and outlooks on both sides, no effective deal was really possible.
I also think some sort of deal is possible now but only if cool heads prevail and time is taken, which is one reason why I think May was mistaken in giving a date for the declaration of Article 50. There have been other silly errors. I do not excuse the EU from crass mistakes since the referendum result either.
As for Mr Meeks' suggestion that the use of immigration in the Leave campaign was morally disgraceful, I have to respectfully disagree. I have a very high regard indeed for Mr Meeks. I agree with him that xenophobia and ad hominem hatred of foreigners is not an argument, is unkind to individuals and reflects badly on Britain, a country which has been pretty welcoming on the whole to immigrants and has had fewer of the deep tensions that some other countries have seen.
Nonetheless, immigration and freedom of movement are legitimate subjects for political debate - see, for instance, the quasi-religious approach taken to this topic by the EU - and the view taken by the EU that there should in effect be no difference between different nationalities within the EU, that the British should have no right to special consideration/treatment in their own country were topics which it would have been morally disgraceful not to discuss during the referendum campaign, if that is what concerned people.
"Maybe the millionaires that own care homes would have to reduce their extortionate rates? (Sorry reduce their extortionate profit margins)"
Maybe. Or maybe they will just close them down. It is time to have a completely new look at the way we look after the elderly and infirm so this would be a great opportunity. Funding is currently very low. Time for higher taxes?
Have to say I was wrong about EUR/USD it has absolute smashed through the floor of $1.05 today and it is even approaching £0.83 as well which is another milestone. The UniCredit bounce got smashed by the Fed.
Trump pulling together all those billionaires (And quite alot of them almost certain Democrats) indicates that the last place he is going to apply ideology is on the jobs front. I expect the red republican meat will be handed out in SCOTUS appointments, social policy etc.
He might not deliver, but he is off to a fantastic start. Trump/Yellen is looking like a very formidable combination for the dollar right now.
Part of that will have been him laying down the law to tech companies who fire Americans and hire H1-B workers from India to replace them. I think he really doesn't get on with that idea at all, he'd prefer a proper outsourcing of the services than importing of foreign labour.
He will throw a lot of red meat in terms of race and gender to white Americans. Feminists will take a back seat for 8 years, progressive LGBT types will take a back seat and so will minority interests. Minorities will be expected to adjust to the majority way of life rather than the majority accepting the minority way of life being different. It will all be achieved under the stars and stripes.
So those on the Right do support the marginalisation of minorities, women, gay, lesbian, and transgendered people. Confirms what a lot of us already thought.
Mr. Anorak, requiring the four freedoms for access (beyond WTO terms) alone to the single market is spiteful. Does South Korea or Canada have to have free movement?
I don't think that's the issue. Korea and Canada have preferential trade agreements with the EU and also have their own trading arrangements with other countries via the WTO and some other PTAs. We have a single market arrangement with the EU and carry out trade via the EU's WTO schedules and PTA portfolio.
Absent EU membership including the Single Market, what are our choices? It's wilderness or carrying on as at present - see my other post below. It's our choice. It isn't spite on the part of the EU
Mr. Anorak, requiring the four freedoms for access (beyond WTO terms) alone to the single market is spiteful. Does South Korea or Canada have to have free movement?
It’s an opening negotiation stance by the EU, no doubt subject to change once the negotiations are underway. – All well and good the EU demanding the 'four freedoms’ as a basic requirement for EU membership, but the whole point is that the UK will soon not be a member.
And a good evening all, a cathartic day for some I see.
Mr. Bromptonaut, the Commons can overrule the Lords. It can't overrule the ECJ.
Mr. Topping, somehow, I have coped.
Mr. Anorak, you could as easily invert those. Do Remainers believe any loss of sovereignty acceptable provided we grow wealthier? Very Brave New World.
It can't overrule the Supreme Court either so your argument falls.
The line about the four freedoms being a pre-requisite to 'access' to the Single Market implies a hard line being taken. I can't see this ending well.
They're hardly likely to concede that before negotiations begin, are they?
Difference between 'access' and 'membership', as has been noted many times. Certainly membership of the SM was always going to have to mean signing up to all four freedoms but *access*?
I'd settle for full access to the Quote button in exchange for freedom of movement right now.
On topic: I'm not prepared to buy the Lib Dem fightback until we see consistent evidence of it from a number of polls from different companies over an extended period. Moreover, there are particular reasons to question this poll from this particular company.
* Ipsos has been an outlier for a long time, and in particular are noted for their suspiciously low Ukip numbers (pattern continued here.) * The sample used in this case is relatively small, and the survey was done by telephone, which has proven a less accurate mode relative to internet in recent elections. * It contains other logical inconsistencies. Labour are holding almost as much of their 2015 GE vote as the Tories, and in Scotland the SNP vote is only 32%.
I'd be inclined to wait for more evidence before advancing the suggestion that the vote in the highly unusual Richmond Park seat (followed almost immediately by Sleaford, where the yellows polled ahead of Labour but behind Ukip) is suggestive of a significant shift in voter opinion.
Big_G_NorthWales "TM is the best we have at present and if the EU continue to act like children, like they did today by ignoring her and by definition insulting the UK, she will soar in popularity and so will leaving the EU"
I don't think that TM is the best person for the job. The media may say that but then again in 2007 the same media said that of Gordon Brown who was also not elected in a GE.
A good politician would come out and say what they wanted from the relationship between the UK and EU. It would show confidence and the opposing EU block would have to come out and say why they opposed the Governments chosen strategy. I am advocating this from the position that as the Brexit advocates state that the UK is in a strong position due to the terms of trade.
A better PM than May would have a vision for Brexit, not just two equally third rate soundbites of Brexit means Brexit and more recently a Red, White and Blue Brexit. This is not about negotiation it is political incompetence of the highest order.
Personally I think Brexit is a bad proposition but I think it is being handled all wrong and TM is a poor PM. There are other politicians in the Conservative party who can make a better fist of Brexit than May and I am not talking about Nefarious Johnson or Gove.
So for this reason I think a GE would be propitious in giving a fresh chance to squaring how to do Brexit. This may mean a change in government or a Coalition of some sort but the current ship of state is underwater it is a joke! Which is not funny.
"That assumes the market dislocation caused by Brexit has no economic consequences. I would be very surprised if that's the case and fully expect a higher unemployment rate than would otherwise be the case."
I am inclined to agree. I just don't see how quitting the single market will create more jobs, when the likelihood is that jobs that would have been created in a UK that is part of the single market will now be created elsewhere in Europe.
Mr. Anorak, I think a reasonable deal can be had to the economic advantage of both sides. It's a question of whether the EU wants that.
The 'principle' of harming the UK for having the temerity to exercise a democratic right is nothing of the sort, but an act of self-harm as much as hostility to one of the major economies of the region.
I see you're under the same spell.
Sticking to the four freedoms is not an act of spite, it is reaffirming the importance of the freedoms to the remaining members of the EU. They are viewed by many as a fundamental foundation to the EU, not as a negotiating chip.
Oh come off it! They were so fundamental that Germany and France were perfectly OK with stopping the Eastern European accession states from having freedom of movement for years and years. They were negotiating chips then.
If FoM was such a benefit, then there would be no difficulty with getting countries to agree to it, would there? But the insistence on foisting it on Britain and not permitting any sort of deviation from this allegedly fundamental principle (despite what Poland and Latvia and Estonia etc had to endure) does rather suggest that, at some level, the EU views it as a price to be paid rather than as an unmitigated benefit. It seems to me that the EU has also failed to ask itself the fundamental question of all politics: Who bears the costs of this? Who gets the benefits?
And at a time when barriers and fences have been going up all round Europe in recent years, it does grate a bit to hear the EU suddenly finding religion on this issue when it is Britain raising it.
My quote button works because I click on the first time button to re-order the posts. What concerns me at the moment is that all my contacts have disappeared from my BT mail. Is this a result of the Yahoo hacking or is it a protective response from BT?
Oh come off it! They were so fundamental that Germany and France were perfectly OK with stopping the Eastern European accession states from having freedom of movement for years and years. They were negotiating chips then.
If FoM was such a benefit, then there would be no difficulty with getting countries to agree to it, would there? But the insistence on foisting it on Britain and not permitting any sort of deviation from this allegedly fundamental principle (despite what Poland and Latvia and Estonia etc had to endure) does rather suggest that, at some level, the EU views it as a price to be paid rather than as an unmitigated benefit. It seems to me that the EU has also failed to ask itself the fundamental question of all politics: Who bears the costs of this? Who gets the benefits?
And at a time when barriers and fences have been going up all round Europe in recent years, it does grate a bit to hear the EU suddenly finding religion on this issue when it is Britain raising it.
The transition period is available for all new accessions:
Oh come off it! They were so fundamental that Germany and France were perfectly OK with stopping the Eastern European accession states from having freedom of movement for years and years. They were negotiating chips then.
If FoM was such a benefit, then there would be no difficulty with getting countries to agree to it, would there? But the insistence on foisting it on Britain and not permitting any sort of deviation from this allegedly fundamental principle (despite what Poland and Latvia and Estonia etc had to endure) does rather suggest that, at some level, the EU views it as a price to be paid rather than as an unmitigated benefit. It seems to me that the EU has also failed to ask itself the fundamental question of all politics: Who bears the costs of this? Who gets the benefits?
And at a time when barriers and fences have been going up all round Europe in recent years, it does grate a bit to hear the EU suddenly finding religion on this issue when it is Britain raising it.
The transition period is available for all new accessions:
"That assumes the market dislocation caused by Brexit has no economic consequences. I would be very surprised if that's the case and fully expect a higher unemployment rate than would otherwise be the case."
The Brexit crowd have never given an adequate reply as to how for instance Banking jobs in London selling into the European market will be transferred into well paid jobs exporting the same services to the rest of the world, who may not even be developed enough to need derivative traders and the like. Maybe some sort of jobs in the west midlands or the north maybe created if the manufacturing and engineering sectors thrive but the unemployed banker from London who created vast tax revenues through NI, income tax, Vat, corporation tax and the bankers tax is not likely to want to take up these roles in the north and midlands. Indeed it would be a complete mismatch of skills.
The Brexit crowd have a serious flaw in their economic argument in that the jobs they say will be created are not the ones that the pools of unemployment created by Brexit will be absorbed. This is why it is so important that mandate less May either has an election or is replaced as the economic aspects that effect domestic policy so deeply have not been decided by the country.
The German foreign minister, Steinmeyer(?), demands American troops leave Europe as their presence is provocative. And the German government worried about the USA ditching NATO but not willing to make any increase in defence spending themselves, asks the UK to extend its nuclear shield over Europe when the Americans leave.
And by the way pay the EU 50 billion for the pleasure of doing so. And Steinmeyer says, if the UK stops Roumanian immigration we can expect Germany to take unfriendly action against us.
Big_G seems annoyed that the EU 27 had a dinner without Ms May. But it seems fairly evident that there needs to be a twin track for a while - discussions with all 28 about Brexit, and discussions on longer-term matters or their negotiating position with us, which by definition are not our business. If they'd invited other future non-members - Mr Putin, say - I agree we should feel slighted at her exclusion. As it is, fair enough.
You have to give it to Labour. When they do unelectable, they do it lock, stock and both barrels. Humiliating for a political force that once meant something.
Big_G seems annoyed that the EU 27 had a dinner without Ms May. But it seems fairly evident that there needs to be a twin track for a while - discussions with all 28 about Brexit, and discussions on longer-term matters or their negotiating position with us, which by definition are not our business. If they'd invited other future non-members - Mr Putin, say - I agree we should feel slighted at her exclusion. As it is, fair enough.
It is pretty inevitable that the EU27 have to meet without us in order to prepare their position.
My impression is that the EU27 will take up a collective position and hold to it, not wanting competing interests to split their position.
We cannot complain, after all we are the ones walking away.
Not sure where PAW gets his comments from Steinmeier from - is there a link? Last summer he expressed reservations about military exercises in Poland, but I've not heard that he's demanded US withdrawal. His views are of interest not just because he's Foreign Minister but because he's the agreed coalition candidate (i.e. has Merkel's support as well as the SPD) for next President.
But it's probably true that the general appetite for NATO muscle-flexing is minimal in most countries these days, the obvious exception being those on Russia's border. I don't think Russia is going to invade them, but I'm not sure we'd respond militarily if they did. Sanctions etc. certainly, but would we send troops to fight in, say, Latvia? Would Trump? The problem is that Russia will use the evident lack of enthusiasm not to invade per se, but to lean on them to adopt pro-Russian stances.
My quote button works because I click on the first time button to re-order the posts. What concerns me at the moment is that all my contacts have disappeared from my BT mail. Is this a result of the Yahoo hacking or is it a protective response from BT?
OK- my contacts are back. But I would like to know what happened!
Theresa May has NO mandate. Not just to implement Brexit but also the rest of her governments agenda. I am getting a bit annoyed with her trying to transfer the vote on 23rd June into a mandate. The people who voted for Brexit, the 52% who voted Out is not a mandate for may to be PM. I suspect half of those who voted out would not vote Tory if they were paid to do so.
I hope that the EU court case is upheld and May goes for a GE. I will NOT vote for May, she is simply not up to the job.
Her mandate is leader of the political party than controls the confidence of the majority of the Commons. Same mandate any PM ever has.
These results in the South West aren't surprising.
The Tory private polling in the South West at the last general election showed the Lib Dem to Con defectors really really really liked David Cameron on every metric, as a person, as a politician, as Prime Minister, which was reciprocated as he loved holidaying in that part of the world.
Mrs May doesn't have that level of support, and to be fair, apart from Ken Clarke, I don't think any other Tory could match Cameron's level of support in this part of the country.
Yes. A friend of mine lives in Cornwall. He took me to one of his nearby pubs a year or so ago, and on the wall was a framed photo of the beaming landlady alongside Dave, who had presumably called in during one of his holidays. I can't imagine any other PM commanding that level of affection in Cornwall.
Comments
Leaver Axiom 1: It was right for us to exit because the return of sovereignty was worth any economic pain.
Leaver Axiom 2: The EU will cave and give us all the sweeties we want because it's in their economic interest to do so.
I assume the reason it persists is that Britain is a noble and principled nation, eschewing material wealth in the pursuit of high ideals. Whereas those nasty foreigners from over the channel would sell their own mother for a second helping of moules frites.
* A large proportion of them, at least.
Leaver Axiom 3: The deal that David Cameron was useless and didn't achieve anything or change our relationship to the EU
Leaver Axiom 4: The deal that David Cameron got would have been struck down by the EU heads of state/ECJ.
Mr. Topping, somehow, I have coped.
Mr. Anorak, you could as easily invert those. Do Remainers believe any loss of sovereignty acceptable provided we grow wealthier? Very Brave New World.
If they are low paid, they have jobs, just not very well paid ones. The issue then is which jobs will now pay better as a result of Brexit and substantially restricted immigration. It could be that farmers and care homes have to pay a lot more to carry on in business. But as I said originally that then feeds through to higher prices and costs, and these will have to be paid by someone. For people in work, that may not be a problem if wage rises keep track of price rises. For those not in work - such as pensioners - it is going to be a serious problem.
The point is the refusal to believe that the members of the EU (and the commission) would place principles above economics, while happily declaiming that leaving the EU was a victory of principles above economics.
Maybe the millionaires that own care homes would have to reduce their extortionate rates?(Sorry reduce their extortionate profit margins)The 'principle' of harming the UK for having the temerity to exercise a democratic right is nothing of the sort, but an act of self-harm as much as hostility to one of the major economies of the region.
I'm not surprised. When I visited the Berlaymont refectory in 1973 I had never seen plates as large as those they were serving lunch on.
I don't imagine they have got smaller since.
I hope that the EU court case is upheld and May goes for a GE. I will NOT vote for May, she is simply not up to the job.
My reading of it is that people want a lot less immigration and that telling them control means increasing numbers if that is what is required is not really going to wash.
Maybe. Or maybe they will just close them down. It is time to have a completely new look at the way we look after the elderly and infirm so this would be a great opportunity. Funding is currently very low. Time for higher taxes?
[As it happens, I generally think a PM diverging wildly from a predecessor should perhaps hold an election, but in this case the change is one following a referendum, which is a different kettle of monkeys].
She chairs the Home Select Committee and acknowledged that this is a key demand on Brexit.
If this continues many labour MP's will join the move to stop freedom of movement and the party will be hopelessly split, even more so then now.
Yes it can. It can change the law.
Sticking to the four freedoms is not an act of spite, it is reaffirming the importance of the freedoms to the remaining members of the EU. They are viewed by many as a fundamental foundation to the EU, not as a negotiating chip.
But here's the thing. I am almost certain the alternative, Brexit ,will not work. It is based on assumptions about the world and Britain's place in it that are not real. Brexit will not deliver the control and the mastery of our destiny we look for. It won't serve our interests well. As such it will be messy and frustrating.
Other mileages may differ of course.
Where do you get information to inform your guess? Anywhere outside London? Cuz the people I know of in the big houses in the south-west were Leave....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-38334437
Wigan sends a pie into space.
It is perfectly possible to say that the deal which David Cameron got was not worth much and did not fundamentally address the issues in the relationship between the EU and Britain and that, in any event, it was not legally binding and would have been unlikely to survive any challenge in the EU courts.
Whether that would be enough to persuade you to vote Leave is another matter of course. But given the importance which Cameron placed on his renegotiation, the relative paucity of the deal might well be an indication that the EU was either unwilling or unable to address Britain's concerns or that the fundamental differences in approach were such that no effective way of reconciling them was available.
I tend to the latter view. I think the EU did try and address the concerns as they were expressed to them (in their own way) but, au fond, the EU states and Britain have fundamentally different outlooks on a range of matters and that, given the principles and outlooks on both sides, no effective deal was really possible.
I also think some sort of deal is possible now but only if cool heads prevail and time is taken, which is one reason why I think May was mistaken in giving a date for the declaration of Article 50. There have been other silly errors. I do not excuse the EU from crass mistakes since the referendum result either.
As for Mr Meeks' suggestion that the use of immigration in the Leave campaign was morally disgraceful, I have to respectfully disagree. I have a very high regard indeed for Mr Meeks. I agree with him that xenophobia and ad hominem hatred of foreigners is not an argument, is unkind to individuals and reflects badly on Britain, a country which has been pretty welcoming on the whole to immigrants and has had fewer of the deep tensions that some other countries have seen.
Nonetheless, immigration and freedom of movement are legitimate subjects for political debate - see, for instance, the quasi-religious approach taken to this topic by the EU - and the view taken by the EU that there should in effect be no difference between different nationalities within the EU, that the British should have no right to special consideration/treatment in their own country were topics which it would have been morally disgraceful not to discuss during the referendum campaign, if that is what concerned people.
Absent EU membership including the Single Market, what are our choices? It's wilderness or carrying on as at present - see my other post below. It's our choice. It isn't spite on the part of the EU
And a good evening all, a cathartic day for some I see.
* Ipsos has been an outlier for a long time, and in particular are noted for their suspiciously low Ukip numbers (pattern continued here.)
* The sample used in this case is relatively small, and the survey was done by telephone, which has proven a less accurate mode relative to internet in recent elections.
* It contains other logical inconsistencies. Labour are holding almost as much of their 2015 GE vote as the Tories, and in Scotland the SNP vote is only 32%.
I'd be inclined to wait for more evidence before advancing the suggestion that the vote in the highly unusual Richmond Park seat (followed almost immediately by Sleaford, where the yellows polled ahead of Labour but behind Ukip) is suggestive of a significant shift in voter opinion.
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/809446712175656966
"TM is the best we have at present and if the EU continue to act like children, like they did today by ignoring her and by definition insulting the UK, she will soar in popularity and so will leaving the EU"
I don't think that TM is the best person for the job. The media may say that but then again in 2007 the same media said that of Gordon Brown who was also not elected in a GE.
A good politician would come out and say what they wanted from the relationship between the UK and EU. It would show confidence and the opposing EU block would have to come out and say why they opposed the Governments chosen strategy. I am advocating this from the position that as the Brexit advocates state that the UK is in a strong position due to the terms of trade.
A better PM than May would have a vision for Brexit, not just two equally third rate soundbites of Brexit means Brexit and more recently a Red, White and Blue Brexit. This is not about negotiation it is political incompetence of the highest order.
Personally I think Brexit is a bad proposition but I think it is being handled all wrong and TM is a poor PM. There are other politicians in the Conservative party who can make a better fist of Brexit than May and I am not talking about Nefarious Johnson or Gove.
So for this reason I think a GE would be propitious in giving a fresh chance to squaring how to do Brexit. This may mean a change in government or a Coalition of some sort but the current ship of state is underwater it is a joke! Which is not funny.
I am inclined to agree. I just don't see how quitting the single market will create more jobs, when the likelihood is that jobs that would have been created in a UK that is part of the single market will now be created elsewhere in Europe.
Eu seeking 50 billion settlement fee
Pulpstar said
What for ?
Beer and prostitutes?
If FoM was such a benefit, then there would be no difficulty with getting countries to agree to it, would there? But the insistence on foisting it on Britain and not permitting any sort of deviation from this allegedly fundamental principle (despite what Poland and Latvia and Estonia etc had to endure) does rather suggest that, at some level, the EU views it as a price to be paid rather than as an unmitigated benefit. It seems to me that the EU has also failed to ask itself the fundamental question of all politics: Who bears the costs of this? Who gets the benefits?
And at a time when barriers and fences have been going up all round Europe in recent years, it does grate a bit to hear the EU suddenly finding religion on this issue when it is Britain raising it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/15/swedish-towns-told-make-preparations-regarding-threat-war-conflict/
The EU needs to stop pratting around and except that it may have to defend itself and will need UK's large defence forces.
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=466&
You also seem to have trouble differentiating between border controls and freedom of movement for citizens.
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/newsevents/blogs/thepoliticswire/1823/Where-does-Labour-go-from-here.aspx#.WFLipC5VijA.twitter
Very grim reading for Labour optimists.
The Brexit crowd have never given an adequate reply as to how for instance Banking jobs in London selling into the European market will be transferred into well paid jobs exporting the same services to the rest of the world, who may not even be developed enough to need derivative traders and the like. Maybe some sort of jobs in the west midlands or the north maybe created if the manufacturing and engineering sectors thrive but the unemployed banker from London who created vast tax revenues through NI, income tax, Vat, corporation tax and the bankers tax is not likely to want to take up these roles in the north and midlands. Indeed it would be a complete mismatch of skills.
The Brexit crowd have a serious flaw in their economic argument in that the jobs they say will be created are not the ones that the pools of unemployment created by Brexit will be absorbed. This is why it is so important that mandate less May either has an election or is replaced as the economic aspects that effect domestic policy so deeply have not been decided by the country.
And by the way pay the EU 50 billion for the pleasure of doing so. And Steinmeyer says, if the UK stops Roumanian immigration we can expect Germany to take unfriendly action against us.
They need to be pressuring government to come up with a post-Trump strategy for East Europe and Russian expansion.
This story about 'three-person babies' - is this parenthood using AV?
TTFN.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY-FhQFnl1w&sns=em
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4037802/Donald-Trump-taps-Sylvester-Stallone-arts-role.html
Which particular embarrassment of a Labour party are you looking for ?
To be fair, one or two of the MPs do look embarrassed.
And why are they attacking John Lewis? There are more obvious examples of bad employers that don’t seem to be mentioned.
The Labour Party seems determined to leave no limb unshot.
My impression is that the EU27 will take up a collective position and hold to it, not wanting competing interests to split their position.
We cannot complain, after all we are the ones walking away.
But it's probably true that the general appetite for NATO muscle-flexing is minimal in most countries these days, the obvious exception being those on Russia's border. I don't think Russia is going to invade them, but I'm not sure we'd respond militarily if they did. Sanctions etc. certainly, but would we send troops to fight in, say, Latvia? Would Trump? The problem is that Russia will use the evident lack of enthusiasm not to invade per se, but to lean on them to adopt pro-Russian stances.