The criticism of those saying the UK government has no Brexit plan mainly comes from Remainers who don't actually want to leave the EU at all and if we do with as soft a Brexit as possible, full access to the single market and barely any new immigration controls. Like it or not that is not what the British people voted for in the referendum, May might make some concessions but she is rightly not going to concede everything
I know I am a bit late to the party on the Fabian report on Labour, but I agree that they are too weak to succeed, too strong to die. The Unions are uber powerful and back Labour, whoever is leader. Labour run one party states all over Wales and England, and most of the Mayoralties in big cities. Matt Singh at Number Cruncher Politics said that Labour have been the no.1 party in Wales every single election since 1922.
Also, the Lib Dem revival is taking Tory seats, not Labour.
Therefore I don't buy the Labour less than 20% at GE thing. And they continue to be very well organised in areas where they have power. Scotland is a one off. Labour won't die until another party storms through the middle. UKIP are too anti-power to achieve that. It could only be the Libs...the acceptable face of the mad left, the anti-men, anti-white, anti-working class, liberal elite, who incidentally happen to be white men. They are the best hypocrites I have ever known. The crown is theirs to steal. But Libs will still need an extra push from UKIP, 2 or 3% to pick off Lab councils or MPs, because many Labour supporters wouldn't vote Lib Dem. Labour will falter only when Lib Dem/UKIP pincer works...or SNP/Tory splinter in Scotland.
Remainers remind me of Adult Babies. It's a sexual kink. They would rather remain in the nappies of EU membership than do the toilet training of independence.
Laughable. And sad.
When you resort to abuse, you have lost the argument.
Resort is the wrong word in Sean's case; abuse is just his natural rhetorical mode. Though he is starting to remind me of Clarkson, which suggests he's a bit off form.
Like Clarkson, Sean's problem is that he flip-flops. He takes whatever position comes into his head at the time and rants against the opposite. His rants are eloquent and funny, but there is no real belief behind them. They are a strong gust of wind that soon dies down rather than a hurricane.
That's why Tim's barbs were better: he lacked Sean's literary verve, but he was at least internally consistent. He believed what he was writing.
Then again, what else can be expected from a Devonian cream-tea boy?
It is the perfect metaphor for Brexit. Screaming and shouting feels reeaal good. Then move on, goldfish-like, to the next thing.
Sean however is lucky compared with many other Brexiters in that he is unlikely to feel any adverse effects when the euphoria wears off.
Yes, Mr Morris Dancer, the BBC is the official Remain party, interchangeable with the Civil Servants and the Liberal Elite, with no inkling they are wrong.
The government need to get on with the negotiations, if only to stop this pathetic whinging. We don't need a plan. We need to make a series of practical choices: do we want to remain in the Single market, the Customs Union, the police and security arrangements, the single passport for financial services, the EU patents court, etc etc. Once we have reached a view on these practical issues we need to speak to the 27 and see what they think and what they want from us. We then need to come to an agreement which includes as many of our objectives as possible for as little cost.
As I have been saying for 6 months now we need to focus on an interim agreement within the 2 years (ideally less) covering the key points. Once we have that we can look to resolve other issues bilaterally and at leisure in the same way as Switzerland does. That process won't take 10 years. It will go on as long as the EU exists in anything like its current form.
There are compelling economic and political reasons for us to work closely with our EU neighbours in a range of fields. This does not require us to be subject to the CJE, legislation passed by people we did not vote for and cannot throw out and a bureaucracy that looks increasingly archaic and arthritic designed for dealing with yesterdays problems and a much smaller and more homogeneous club than it is trying to look after now.
The criticism of those saying the UK government has no Brexit plan mainly comes from Remainers who don't actually want to leave the EU at all and if we do with as soft a Brexit as possible, full access to the single market and barely any new immigration controls. Like it or not that is not what the British people voted for in the referendum, May might make some concessions but she is rightly not going to concede everything
The plan has largely been laid out already.
A50 by March 2017 Exit by March 2019 Transitional deal potentially Border controls A new customs deal - not full blown EU, not WTO EU law assimilated then repealed at leisure
The usual suspects pretend not to hear or see - or perhaps, they really have reached the point of incapacity?
I know I am a bit late to the party on the Fabian report on Labour, but I agree that they are too weak to succeed, too strong to die. The Unions are uber powerful and back Labour, whoever is leader. Labour run one party states all over Wales and England, and most of the Mayoralties in big cities. Matt Singh at Number Cruncher Politics said that Labour have been the no.1 party in Wales every single election since 1922.
Also, the Lib Dem revival is taking Tory seats, not Labour.
Therefore I don't buy the Labour less than 20% at GE thing. And they continue to be very well organised in areas where they have power. Scotland is a one off. Labour won't die until another party storms through the middle. UKIP are too anti-power to achieve that. It could only be the Libs...the acceptable face of the mad left, the anti-men, anti-white, anti-working class, liberal elite, who incidentally happen to be white men. They are the best hypocrites I have ever known. The crown is theirs to steal. But Libs will still need an extra push from UKIP, 2 or 3% to pick off Lab councils or MPs, because many Labour supporters wouldn't vote Lib Dem. Labour will falter only when Lib Dem/UKIP pincer works...or SNP/Tory splinter in Scotland.
20% seems too low: they'll surely get more than that. Their problem is that 20% is being talked of as a realistic potential result. That's how low they've gone, nd how much credibility has been lost.
Following on from someone's post the other day (sorry, I cannot remember who posted it): what percentage would Labour need to reach nationally for them to fall over the precipice? The percentage where they'll go from 230-odd seats not just to sub-200, but sub-100 ?
"There is something a bit 1984 about Brexit Britain. Brexit is pure newspeak."
With Farage as Big Brother....
All the news channels used him as the commentator on Sir Ivan's removal. Brexit is starting to look like a right wing cult with Farage at the apex and a few eccentric quasi UKIPers like Redwood and Rees Mogg as his outriders.
It doesn't make the UK look very attractive and particularly not to Europeans.
An aside from Brexit just for a few minutes. On our discussion about CES and why not going isn't a big deal. This is the first year that CES won't have a keynote speaker. Usually Sony, Samsung, Panasonic or some other major brand will have a keynote speaker who will talk about the future of CE and generally where the technology market is heading. The problem for CES is that none of their major exhibitors are particularly innovative any more, at least not when it comes to stuff people care about. British start ups not being there is not a major loss. IFA accomplishes the same thing as CES and it is much closer to home.
Considering that for a couple of decades Britain's negotiating at the EU has been an even bigger failure than the England football team's performances at the European Championships I'd say it was long overdue that there was a clear out of these 'experienced diplomats'.
Purge the wreckers, cosmopolitans and counter revolutionary kulaks. We must show no mercy in defending the workers revolution. All power to the Brexit Soviets!
In other words you know what I wrote is correct but you don't want to admit it.
The fact is that Britain's 'experienced diplomats' have achieved nothing but failure in the EU for many years.
Perhaps you think that record of failure is acceptable.
(My computer won't let me respond directly to comments)
Indeed, another Richard, Remoaners lied and lied and lied again. Except for weaker pound versus dollar (which benefits exporters), UK economy has not changed one jot. Cameron lost all his credibility in Referendum, which was a shame, because I liked him before. The EU is a basket case. We may do better outside, but I think we will, and we won't have tossers like Juncker telling us what to do. I'm more than happy.
(My computer won't let me respond directly to comments)
Indeed, another Richard, Remoaners lied and lied and lied again. Except for weaker pound versus dollar (which benefits exporters), UK economy has not changed one jot. Cameron lost all his credibility in Referendum, which was a shame, because I liked him before. The EU is a basket case. We may do better outside, but I think we will, and we won't have tossers like Juncker telling us what to do. I'm more than happy.
Click on the time tab underneath the name you want to quote and that takes you into the vanilla forum where the quote function still exists.
"There is something a bit 1984 about Brexit Britain. Brexit is pure newspeak."
With Farage as Big Brother....
All the news channels used him as the commentator on Sir Ivan's removal. Brexit is starting to look like a right wing cult with Farage at the apex and a few eccentric quasi UKIPers like Redwood and Rees Mogg as his outriders.
It doesn't make the UK look very attractive and particularly not to Europeans.
"Brexit is starting to look like a right wing cult"
Starting to look? Starting? Surely you jest, Roger.
An aside from Brexit just for a few minutes. On our discussion about CES and why not going isn't a big deal. This is the first year that CES won't have a keynote speaker. Usually Sony, Samsung, Panasonic or some other major brand will have a keynote speaker who will talk about the future of CE and generally where the technology market is heading. The problem for CES is that none of their major exhibitors are particularly innovative any more, at least not when it comes to stuff people care about. British start ups not being there is not a major loss. IFA accomplishes the same thing as CES and it is much closer to home.
Thanks. That chimes with the mood music I've been hearing for the last couple of years, though I'm rather out of the loop now.
Having said that, one of my old employers is attending CES again this year, but they're hardly a start-up.
I think there are several reasons for a startup to attend CES: *) to make contacts. *) to get funding (though I'd argue that a show like CES is not the place to do it). *) to sell out.
I'll let you into a little secret. The plan is to exit the EU with the best negotiated economic deal possible commensurate with the referendum result.
That's bleeding obvious, but there's none so blind as those who won't see. By all means, carp from the side lines. Pour ashes over your head and moan "Woe is me. All is misery, all is pain"
How shall I put this gently? It's a little unbecoming and beginning to verge on the ridiculous.
The best UK strategy is to present a firm and united front . Best tactics are to play hard ball initially. They don't like it up 'em, Mr Mainwaring.
Mr Jessop, when Lib Dems got 23% in 2010 GE, they got 50 odd seats. It does depend how voters are spread, Labour will loiter like a bad smell up North even if they got no seats in parliament.
Tories and Labour have 160-ish ultra safe seats they will not lose unless absolute meltdown. For 10% share in UK, Labour will still win a majority in Newcastle!
Labour will be 20-23% unless utter catastrophe or Libs really shine.
Tories will never get more than 45%; UKIP no more than 15%; Greens/SNP/Plaid/N.Irish, 10%. That leaves 30% for Libs/Labour...worse case scenario.
in 2020, Tories on 40%, UKIP on 10%, rest on 10%..leaves 40% for Lab/Lib..depends how it breaks down. Who knows. As a Tory 20/20 would be perfect.
The chief damage being caused by Brexit is social. As the Leavers get steadily madder and more paranoid in response to developing problems, the social damage gets worse. No surprise that the public believes Britain to be unhappier, more divided and more racist than a year ago.
Instead of wasting time sniffing out and then flaying Remainers for lacking conviction in Brexit, their priority should be a Brexit plan. But not only is there no plan, the government gives no indication of having any ability to draw up and implement a workable plan.
The quitters - a perfectly fair name if they insist on calling us remoaners despite Mike's request for politeness - might as well appoint Sir Bill Cash as Ambassador to the EU and be done with it.
If so it marks the end of ~150 years of an impartial civil service and a new convention emerges, i.e. Sir Humphrey should be an echo chamber for Jim Hacker.
As the ardent leaver husband of an immigrant wife, I really don't care how soft Brexit is - as long as we make the legal separation. We got no vote for 40 years, until our EU relationship festered beyond repair. We're not going to achieve 'end state' separation for some time. Transitional arrangements are fine. But once we're legally gone the one way ratchet of ever closer union will become a one way ratchet of 'ever more independent'. Even if (horror upon horrors) we remain in the full EU customs union and can't do other trade deals - a future UK government will be free to pass laws reversing that state of affairs. We'll act in our own interests.
This is why remainers are so desperate to frustrate the process entirely. Once we trigger A50 then we're gone within two years and the end state will be achieved. Over a yet to be determined timescale admittedly. But we'll be gone and we'll be free.
The government need to get on with the negotiations, if only to stop this pathetic whinging. We don't need a plan. We need to make a series of practical choices: do we want to remain in the Single market, the Customs Union, the police and security arrangements, the single passport for financial services, the EU patents court, etc etc. Once we have reached a view on these practical issues we need to speak to the 27 and see what they think and what they want from us. We then need to come to an agreement which includes as many of our objectives as possible for as little cost.
As I have been saying for 6 months now we need to focus on an interim agreement within the 2 years (ideally less) covering the key points. Once we have that we can look to resolve other issues bilaterally and at leisure in the same way as Switzerland does. That process won't take 10 years. It will go on as long as the EU exists in anything like its current form.
There are compelling economic and political reasons for us to work closely with our EU neighbours in a range of fields. This does not require us to be subject to the CJE, legislation passed by people we did not vote for and cannot throw out and a bureaucracy that looks increasingly archaic and arthritic designed for dealing with yesterdays problems and a much smaller and more homogeneous club than it is trying to look after now.
They want free market access for goods, we want free market access for services. Seems fair to me - deal. Lunch?
Mr. Voter, I appear to have missed the Big Leave Meeting which made Farage prophet, and determined that those who voted another way have to be called 'remoaners'...
Quitting the EU? Perhaps. Or embracing self-determination and sovereignty. I prefer the latter. Better we make our own decisions than let unaccountable foreigners do it for us.
The chief damage being caused by Brexit is social. As the Leavers get steadily madder and more paranoid in response to developing problems, the social damage gets worse. No surprise that the public believes Britain to be unhappier, more divided and more racist than a year ago.
Instead of wasting time sniffing out and then flaying Remainers for lacking conviction in Brexit, their priority should be a Brexit plan. But not only is there no plan, the government gives no indication of having any ability to draw up and implement a workable plan.
The quitters - a perfectly fair name if they insist on calling us remoaners despite Mike's request for politeness - might as well appoint Sir Bill Cash as Ambassador to the EU and be done with it.
If so it marks the end of ~150 years of an impartial civil service and a new convention emerges, i.e. Sir Humphrey should be an echo chamber for Jim Hacker.
I think you'll find it was David Cameron who was the quitter.
BTW Sir Humphrey was NEVER impartial - he always pursued the aims of the civil service and in particular his branch of it.
Mr. Jonathan, given Rogers leaked his resignation letter in which he criticised his former employer, it's fair to say there's a question mark over his character.
Also, in 1984, the state made all the decisions without bothering to ask the pesky people for their views. That cannot be said to be the case for leaving the EU, which was a victory against the serried ranks of the Establishment.
The government need to get on with the negotiations, if only to stop this pathetic whinging. We don't need a plan. We need to make a series of practical choices: do we want to remain in the Single market, the Customs Union, the police and security arrangements, the single passport for financial services, the EU patents court, etc etc. Once we have reached a view on these practical issues we need to speak to the 27 and see what they think and what they want from us. We then need to come to an agreement which includes as many of our objectives as possible for as little cost.
As I have been saying for 6 months now we need to focus on an interim agreement within the 2 years (ideally less) covering the key points. Once we have that we can look to resolve other issues bilaterally and at leisure in the same way as Switzerland does. That process won't take 10 years. It will go on as long as the EU exists in anything like its current form.
There are compelling economic and political reasons for us to work closely with our EU neighbours in a range of fields. This does not require us to be subject to the CJE, legislation passed by people we did not vote for and cannot throw out and a bureaucracy that looks increasingly archaic and arthritic designed for dealing with yesterdays problems and a much smaller and more homogeneous club than it is trying to look after now.
Quite naive from you, David.
The government and civil service is currently in the business/industry consultation phase. The Lords, meanwhile, are seeing "experts". They are working out what everyone wants (and of course not everyone in each industry wants the same thing).
They are a million miles from then developing a strategy of what it is they deem each industry as a whole actually to want, and then staffing up with advisors and negotiators (people who applied to the Civil Service in July received a letter in December saying "we know you're there, we'll get back to you"). If A50 is triggered in 10 weeks they will not be an awful lot closer.
Tezza was right to delay A50 until May but if she's thought about it for a moment longer (perhaps listening to the likes of Sir Ivan), then she would ideally have pushed it out a year.
Your desire for them to "get on with it" is nonsensical in that context.
Mr. Jonathan, given Rogers leaked his resignation letter in which he criticised his former employer, it's fair to say there's a question mark over his character.
Also, in 1984, the state made all the decisions without bothering to ask the pesky people for their views. That cannot be said to be the case for leaving the EU, which was a victory against the serried ranks of the Establishment.
I thought we were all the 'Establishment' now, comrade?
(Well, I'm the exception that proves the rule. I'm a pleb. But the rest of you: you're all the establishment and I'll overthrow you all, replacing the existing order with one where everyone must travel by rail and hike one long-distance trail a year. Muhahahhahaha)
Seriously though: 'establishment' has to be one of the most misused words post-Brexit.
Mr. Jonathan, given Rogers leaked his resignation letter in which he criticised his former employer, it's fair to say there's a question mark over his character..
Do you have any proof he leaked his resignation letter?
As the ardent leaver husband of an immigrant wife, I really don't care how soft Brexit is - as long as we make the legal separation. We got no vote for 40 years, until our EU relationship festered beyond repair. We're not going to achieve 'end state' separation for some time. Transitional arrangements are fine. But once we're legally gone the one way ratchet of ever closer union will become a one way ratchet of 'ever more independent'. Even if (horror upon horrors) we remain in the full EU customs union and can't do other trade deals - a future UK government will be free to pass laws reversing that state of affairs. We'll act in our own interests.
This is why remainers are so desperate to frustrate the process entirely. Once we trigger A50 then we're gone within two years and the end state will be achieved. Over a yet to be determined timescale admittedly. But we'll be gone and we'll be free.
As free as in 1959. Pre-EFTA (European Free Trade Association), which the UK set up in 1960. Pre-EEC, which the UK joined in 1973 and in doing so left EFTA.
What convinces you that not engaging with other countries will solve a gaping current account deficit, a housing shortage, various environmental problems - or organise anti-trust or data protection legislation, something the EU's done on behalf of all 28 member states and we'll now have to pay for it.
All the EU votes were supported by elected UK politicians or passed by qualified majority votes approved by earlier elected UK politicians. What's unelected about that? The UK population supported all of it in general elections, admittedly under FPTP.
People who lost the referendum are refusing to accept the result, delaying the process of leaving, agitating for a 2nd referendum and doing down anything the referendum winners do... then saying "look how divided brexit has made the country"
Laughable lack of self awareness.
Try being a good sport, accepting you lost, and muck in. The years of loony left uncompetitive school sports where no one 'loses' are finally bearing fruit.
People who lost the referendum are refusing to accept the result, delaying the process of leaving, agitating for a 2nd referendum and doing down anything the referendum winners do... then saying "look how divided brexit has made the country"
Laughable lack of self awareness.
Try being a good sport, accepting you lost, and muck in.
Do you want the process to leave to begin:
a) when we are ready; b) when we are not ready; or c) you don't give a stuff - "Freedom"?
Mr. Jonathan, given Rogers leaked his resignation letter in which he criticised his former employer, it's fair to say there's a question mark over his character..
Do you have any proof he leaked his resignation letter?
Given that it seems to have been sent to his entire department... Or at least a lot of them... Could easily be a colleague.
Perhaps articles could have a little line at the bottom explaining how to quote given current vanilla forum issues?
Also - I missed it... But how did OGH get on on Newsnight?
I went to bed after 25 mins so may have missed some of it. The most interesting bit I thought was just after Mike had explained how utterly dire Labour's position is with Corbyn and Deborah Matterson (pollster) said 'actually it is worse than that', as her focus groups found Corbyn is a complete non-entity, and half of the people do not even recognize a picture of him.
The Remainers' plan is to cry "No more glad confident morning," over and over again in the vain hope they can achieve .... what? Do tell.
The Leavers' plan is to leave the EU (there's a clue in the name).
All the rest is detail - which depends on negotiations.
Negotiations in which a Leaver (Mrs May) will be prominent. The other Leavers can be constructive (which many are) or continue their hissy fit at the shock of democracy in action.
The civil service should be there to give fearless advice, and speak truth to power in the government.
But the civil service should remember it is not there to be impartial, it is there to serve the government.
Service advises Government listens Government decides Service implements.
From reading the runes, it seems to me that it is not just the government not listening here - many members of the service are letting their remain proclivities get in the way of serving.
I wonder what percentage of the people wearing black armbands for the sainted Sir Ivan knew who he was until yesterday?
Very few probably...
But I'd argue it's a civil servants job to be anonymous/low profile and get on with delivering what the government of the day wants.
The attacks on him from anonymous Downing Street sources are regrettable IMO... He's gone now... Why stick the knife in? Particularly since civil servants aren't allowed to defend themselves in the press.
The chief damage being caused by Brexit is social. As the Leavers get steadily madder and more paranoid in response to developing problems, the social damage gets worse. No surprise that the public believes Britain to be unhappier, more divided and more racist than a year ago.
Instead of wasting time sniffing out and then flaying Remainers for lacking conviction in Brexit, their priority should be a Brexit plan. But not only is there no plan, the government gives no indication of having any ability to draw up and implement a workable plan.
The problem the government has is a simple one: it is irreconcilably split on how to handle Brexit. That split can be contained while no negotiation takes place, it cannot be once the serious stuff starts. This is one thing that Jeremy Corbyn's utter uselessness cannot save Theresa May from, especially as the problem cannot be solved by a general election in which the government's Brexit plans will be front and centre.
I wonder what percentage of the people wearing black armbands for the sainted Sir Ivan knew who he was until yesterday?
Yo Luckyguy.
Thanks for that link - I read the article by Christopher Booker whinging about "The EU's water policy". I also read the EU communication from whence it came. First, the Communication is just that, although I haven't delved into actual EU directives on water (there are some). Secondly, you are right in that the EU seems to be stepping way out of its remit by determining a water strategy, but as far as I am aware, especially southern EU States suffer significant water shortages at times. Thirdly, I could find nothing to prohibit the building of new reservoirs in any of the documentation (you are right that they prefer a pricing mechanism for existing supply rather than new supply ie storage - pesky market-orientated Eurocrats that they are). And Fourthly, as I rather suspected, there are plenty of other reasons why reservoirs are not built in the UK, none of them to do with the EU.
So although you are right in that the EU is sticking its finger into dams and reservoir policy (mainly droughts and water shortages), it is left to national governments to create their own policies.
People who lost the referendum are refusing to accept the result, delaying the process of leaving, agitating for a 2nd referendum and doing down anything the referendum winners do... then saying "look how divided brexit has made the country"
Laughable lack of self awareness.
Try being a good sport, accepting you lost, and muck in.
Do you want the process to leave to begin:
a) when we are ready; b) when we are not ready; or c) you don't give a stuff - "Freedom"?
All three are entirely subjective. You've done quite well in your career apparently. When did you apply for a new job? When you were ready, or when you weren't ready? You could wait your whole life to be 'ready'. It doesn't work like that.
I think you'll look back on your arguments in this period with a feeling of faint embarrassment. If you've been a winner under the current arrangements - good for you. Sadly, many more British people haven't than have. You'll adapt.
I wonder what percentage of the people wearing black armbands for the sainted Sir Ivan knew who he was until yesterday?
I did, as it happens but people who post on PB are probably more attuned to such things, and therefore part of the Establishment.
But it also does not matter if they knew who he was or not, unless you believe that fame is the only reason to take someone's views seriously? In which case, I suggest you ask Joey Essex his views ...
The civil service should be there to give fearless advice, and speak truth to power in the government.
But the civil service should remember it is not there to be impartial, it is there to serve the government.
Service advises Government listens Government decides Service implements.
From reading the runes, it seems to me that it is not just the government not listening here - many members of the service are letting their remain proclivities get in the way of serving.
That would be a huge change from the civil service current modus operandi, frustrate, delay, ignore.
The criticism of those saying the UK government has no Brexit plan mainly comes from Remainers who don't actually want to leave the EU at all and if we do with as soft a Brexit as possible, full access to the single market and barely any new immigration controls. Like it or not that is not what the British people voted for in the referendum, May might make some concessions but she is rightly not going to concede everything
The plan has largely been laid out already.
A50 by March 2017 Exit by March 2019 Transitional deal potentially Border controls A new customs deal - not full blown EU, not WTO EU law assimilated then repealed at leisure
The usual suspects pretend not to hear or see - or perhaps, they really have reached the point of incapacity?
The chief damage being caused by Brexit is social. As the Leavers get steadily madder and more paranoid in response to developing problems, the social damage gets worse. No surprise that the public believes Britain to be unhappier, more divided and more racist than a year ago.
Instead of wasting time sniffing out and then flaying Remainers for lacking conviction in Brexit, their priority should be a Brexit plan. But not only is there no plan, the government gives no indication of having any ability to draw up and implement a workable plan.
Alastair
Is your problem with Brexit or the Remainers who lead this Conservative government?
@Southam Observer. I note your abuse of Mrs May continues unabated. You have no unchallengeable evidence whatsoever for your claim that she puts her career above all else. Frankly I thought you were better than that, but since your party has sunk into the mire, abuse seems your only weapon.
Nothing abusive about it. I am merely expressing an opinion based on observation: she is another Gordon Brown, interested only in being Prime Minister. I think the same could probably be said of David Cameron, but not of Blair, Major or Thatcher.
The chief damage being caused by Brexit is social. As the Leavers get steadily madder and more paranoid in response to developing problems, the social damage gets worse. No surprise that the public believes Britain to be unhappier, more divided and more racist than a year ago.
Instead of wasting time sniffing out and then flaying Remainers for lacking conviction in Brexit, their priority should be a Brexit plan. But not only is there no plan, the government gives no indication of having any ability to draw up and implement a workable plan.
The problem the government has is a simple one: it is irreconcilably split on how to handle Brexit
Evidence? The recent murmurings suggest May's approach of doing it by Cabinet committee may be bringing some of the unlikelier ministers along with it - for example Fox's comments pre-Xmas on the Customs Union.
Or has your hatred of May blinded you to any suggestions of progress?
People who lost the referendum are refusing to accept the result, delaying the process of leaving, agitating for a 2nd referendum and doing down anything the referendum winners do... then saying "look how divided brexit has made the country"
Laughable lack of self awareness.
Try being a good sport, accepting you lost, and muck in.
Do you want the process to leave to begin:
a) when we are ready; b) when we are not ready; or c) you don't give a stuff - "Freedom"?
When we are ready.
But the agitators and moaners aren't agitating and moaning to help, their aim is for us not to leave, if they are someone with any influence, or to make it look like it is going badly because they called it wrong, if they are someone who posts on here.
I was fairly undecided on Lammy: he speaks a lot of sense on some issues, especially the troubles faced by black communities. But his 'white smoke' gaffe and others showed a very different, and not particularly endearing, side to him.
Since the referendum, I've decided that he's an educated idiot.
People who lost the referendum are refusing to accept the result, delaying the process of leaving, agitating for a 2nd referendum and doing down anything the referendum winners do... then saying "look how divided brexit has made the country"
Laughable lack of self awareness.
Try being a good sport, accepting you lost, and muck in.
Do you want the process to leave to begin:
a) when we are ready; b) when we are not ready; or c) you don't give a stuff - "Freedom"?
All three are entirely subjective. You've done quite well in your career apparently. When did you apply for a new job? When you were ready, or when you weren't ready? You could wait your whole life to be 'ready'. It doesn't work like that.
I think you'll look back on your arguments in this period with a feeling of faint embarrassment. If you've been a winner under the current arrangements - good for you. Sadly, many more British people haven't than have. You'll adapt.
Bad analogy ( @kle4? ). If someone offered me a job at GBP50m/year which required me to speak Spanish (I don't speak Spanish) and it was left to me to decide when to begin the job, would I:
a) begin right away, prove my uselessness at Spanish and be sacked; or b) tell them I wanted to wait a while, go and learn Spanish in the meantime, then be a huge success at the job, earn my GBP50m and finally realise what it must be like to be @SeanT?
Socially, the UK is much as it was on 4th January 2016.
On the three points I named, an absolute majority of poll respondents think things have got worse in the last year.
So you're saying that when half of the country has the opposite view to the other half of the country everything is slightly less jovial? Stop the presses, there's a new headline to print.
I wonder what percentage of the people wearing black armbands for the sainted Sir Ivan knew who he was until yesterday?
Yo Luckyguy.
Thanks for that link - I read the article by Christopher Booker whinging about "The EU's water policy". I also read the EU communication from whence it came. First, the Communication is just that, although I haven't delved into actual EU directives on water (there are some). Secondly, you are right in that the EU seems to be stepping way out of its remit by determining a water strategy, but as far as I am aware, especially southern EU States suffer significant water shortages at times. Thirdly, I could find nothing to prohibit the building of new reservoirs in any of the documentation (you are right that they prefer a pricing mechanism for existing supply rather than new supply ie storage - pesky market-orientated Eurocrats that they are). And Fourthly, as I rather suspected, there are plenty of other reasons why reservoirs are not built in the UK, none of them to do with the EU.
So although you are right in that the EU is sticking its finger into dams and reservoir policy (mainly droughts and water shortages), it is left to national governments to create their own policies.
Of course it is left to national Governments; of course there are reasons found against in each case (though reasons for not reparing water pipes??) - that's the whole point. As I indicated, a policy that is deeply damaging to people's standard of living, aimed at engendering climate panic on phoney evidence, quietly followed within British power structures, giving the EU clean hands. Totally the opposite of politicians 'blaming' anything on the EU.
As for calling what is an excellent piece of investigative journalism 'whinging' - behave yourself, we're not in school.
People who lost the referendum are refusing to accept the result, delaying the process of leaving, agitating for a 2nd referendum and doing down anything the referendum winners do... then saying "look how divided brexit has made the country"
Laughable lack of self awareness.
Try being a good sport, accepting you lost, and muck in.
Do you want the process to leave to begin:
a) when we are ready; b) when we are not ready; or c) you don't give a stuff - "Freedom"?
When we are ready.
But the agitators and moaners aren't agitating and moaning to help, their aim is for us not to leave, if they are someone with any influence, or to make it look like it is going badly because they called it wrong, if they are someone who posts on here.
There is a difference between not wanting us to leave (fair enough), wanting to ignore the referendum result (not fair enough), and making comments about the process of leaving and its intricacies and challenges (fair enough).
In an endlessly used example, would you have expected Labour Party voters, on May 8th 2015, to have thrown their hands up and become Conservatives?
@MaxPB I always take the naive viewpoint of how something 'should' work as a starting point
This is the same civil service we're talking about and not something else? AIUI the civil service exists to oppose any Tory government policy and bend over backwards for Labour.
The chief damage being caused by Brexit is social. As the Leavers get steadily madder and more paranoid in response to developing problems, the social damage gets worse. No surprise that the public believes Britain to be unhappier, more divided and more racist than a year ago.
Instead of wasting time sniffing out and then flaying Remainers for lacking conviction in Brexit, their priority should be a Brexit plan. But not only is there no plan, the government gives no indication of having any ability to draw up and implement a workable plan.
The problem the government has is a simple one: it is irreconcilably split on how to handle Brexit
Evidence? The recent murmurings suggest May's approach of doing it by Cabinet committee may be bringing some of the unlikelier ministers along with it - for example Fox's comments pre-Xmas on the Customs Union.
Or has your hatred of May blinded you to any suggestions of progress?
I don't hate May. I just think that she is a very poor Prime Minister and that it is not in the UK's national interest that she is running things at this time.
@AlistairMeeks people tend to give pessimistic answers to such questions.
Especially in the face of futures unknown. There is undoubtedly much less certainty than there was this timd last year. As the fog starts to lift that will also go back to how it was.
There are. However there is also a deeply unpleasant attitude on the other side that anyone with an ugly idea must be stupid and that anyone with a very ugly idea must be very stupid, which is both patronising and complacent. There is also a deeply unpleasant inference in that attitude whereby you get the impression that those putting it forward regard any idea that they do not accept as by definition 'ugly' and that therefore everyone who disagrees with them must be 'stupid'.
The chief damage being caused by Brexit is social. As the Leavers get steadily madder and more paranoid in response to developing problems, the social damage gets worse. No surprise that the public believes Britain to be unhappier, more divided and more racist than a year ago.
Instead of wasting time sniffing out and then flaying Remainers for lacking conviction in Brexit, their priority should be a Brexit plan. But not only is there no plan, the government gives no indication of having any ability to draw up and implement a workable plan.
The problem the government has is a simple one: it is irreconcilably split on how to handle Brexit
Evidence? The recent murmurings suggest May's approach of doing it by Cabinet committee may be bringing some of the unlikelier ministers along with it - for example Fox's comments pre-Xmas on the Customs Union.
Or has your hatred of May blinded you to any suggestions of progress?
I don't hate May. I just think that she is a very poor Prime Minister and that it is not in the UK's national interest that she is running things at this time.
The government and civil service is currently in the business/industry consultation phase. The Lords, meanwhile, are seeing "experts". They are working out what everyone wants (and of course not everyone in each industry wants the same thing).
They are a million miles from then developing a strategy of what it is they deem each industry as a whole actually to want, and then staffing up with advisors and negotiators (people who applied to the Civil Service in July received a letter in December saying "we know you're there, we'll get back to you"). If A50 is triggered in 10 weeks they will not be an awful lot closer.
Tezza was right to delay A50 until May but if she's thought about it for a moment longer (perhaps listening to the likes of Sir Ivan), then she would ideally have pushed it out a year.
Your desire for them to "get on with it" is nonsensical in that context.
Of course they have to consult. Of course they have to come to a view as to what aspects of the deal are important for the UK and what are not. They have been doing this for the last 6 months whilst many remainers accuse them of not having a plan or no idea what they want etc etc. The Brexit department has bought in a considerable amount of expertise and knowledge on how things might work in different scenarios. This was the correct thing to do. I am not one of those who maintain that Cameron should have kept one of his promises and triggered Article 50 the day after.
But there comes a point when you need to decide what your starting point is. That may continue to evolve as the options are explored with the other side and new views may well come to the fore during the process. In my experience, however, there comes a point when you need to show that you are serious and negotiations have to start in earnest. Otherwise things drift into indecision and agreement becomes increasingly difficult.
People who lost the referendum are refusing to accept the result, delaying the process of leaving, agitating for a 2nd referendum and doing down anything the referendum winners do... then saying "look how divided brexit has made the country"
Laughable lack of self awareness.
Try being a good sport, accepting you lost, and muck in.
Do you want the process to leave to begin:
a) when we are ready; b) when we are not ready; or c) you don't give a stuff - "Freedom"?
All three are entirely subjective. You've done quite well in your career apparently. When did you apply for a new job? When you were ready, or when you weren't ready? You could wait your whole life to be 'ready'. It doesn't work like that.
I think you'll look back on your arguments in this period with a feeling of faint embarrassment. If you've been a winner under the current arrangements - good for you. Sadly, many more British people haven't than have. You'll adapt.
Bad analogy ( @kle4? ). If someone offered me a job at GBP50m/year which required me to speak Spanish (I don't speak Spanish) and it was left to me to decide when to begin the job, would I:
a) begin right away, prove my uselessness at Spanish and be sacked; or b) tell them I wanted to wait a while, go and learn Spanish in the meantime, then be a huge success at the job, earn my GBP50m and finally realise what it must be like to be @SeanT?
Or take the Remoaner way and never apply at all. And if and when you do speak Spanish, another 'insurmountable' obstacle will rear its head. It's a recipe for staying in a shit job forever. Just like staying in a shit set of treaty obligations.
People who lost the referendum are refusing to accept the result, delaying the process of leaving, agitating for a 2nd referendum and doing down anything the referendum winners do... then saying "look how divided brexit has made the country"
Laughable lack of self awareness.
Try being a good sport, accepting you lost, and muck in.
Do you want the process to leave to begin:
a) when we are ready; b) when we are not ready; or c) you don't give a stuff - "Freedom"?
When we are ready.
But the agitators and moaners aren't agitating and moaning to help, their aim is for us not to leave, if they are someone with any influence, or to make it look like it is going badly because they called it wrong, if they are someone who posts on here.
There is a difference between not wanting us to leave (fair enough), wanting to ignore the referendum result (not fair enough), and making comments about the process of leaving and its intricacies and challenges (fair enough).
In an endlessly used example, would you have expected Labour Party voters, on May 8th 2015, to have thrown their hands up and become Conservatives?
There are a few people who are seeking to prevent the UK from leaving the EU. They have no chance of succeeding unless they can persuade the British people to support them. There are many more people who accept the referendum result and now believe the focus should be on securing the best possible Brexit deal. Obviously, opinions will vary on what that deal is. And that is Mrs May's problem - such differences exist inside the cabinet, the wider government and in the Conservative party as a whole. They can be suppressed for as long as there are no negotiations, but as soon as the talks begin they will come out into the open.
People who lost the referendum are refusing to accept the result, delaying the process of leaving, agitating for a 2nd referendum and doing down anything the referendum winners do... then saying "look how divided brexit has made the country"
Laughable lack of self awareness.
Try being a good sport, accepting you lost, and muck in.
Do you want the process to leave to begin:
a) when we are ready; b) when we are not ready; or c) you don't give a stuff - "Freedom"?
When we are ready.
But the agitators and moaners aren't agitating and moaning to help, their aim is for us not to leave, if they are someone with any influence, or to make it look like it is going badly because they called it wrong, if they are someone who posts on here.
There is a difference between not wanting us to leave (fair enough), wanting to ignore the referendum result (not fair enough), and making comments about the process of leaving and its intricacies and challenges (fair enough).
In an endlessly used example, would you have expected Labour Party voters, on May 8th 2015, to have thrown their hands up and become Conservatives?
That endlessly used example is not a good comparison, unless we are to have fixed term EU referendums.
We are all leavers now, it is time to accept that and build a new consensus together. I honestly never expected for a moment that, if Leave won, the people who voted Remain would act like this, it is pitifully embarrassing to watch.
Mr. D, just went to amend that, but I'm outside of editing time.
Rogers *may* have leaked the letter. It was either him or someone to whom it was sent (ie a colleague).
You should have a read of the full letter to get a better idea of the man's thinking and character but it was also an open letter to his whole department so anyone from the mail boy up could have passed it on to the press.
The chief damage being caused by Brexit is social. As the Leavers get steadily madder and more paranoid in response to developing problems, the social damage gets worse. No surprise that the public believes Britain to be unhappier, more divided and more racist than a year ago.
Instead of wasting time sniffing out and then flaying Remainers for lacking conviction in Brexit, their priority should be a Brexit plan. But not only is there no plan, the government gives no indication of having any ability to draw up and implement a workable plan.
The problem the government has is a simple one: it is irreconcilably split on how to handle Brexit
Evidence? The recent murmurings suggest May's approach of doing it by Cabinet committee may be bringing some of the unlikelier ministers along with it - for example Fox's comments pre-Xmas on the Customs Union.
Or has your hatred of May blinded you to any suggestions of progress?
I don't hate May. I just think that she is a very poor Prime Minister and that it is not in the UK's national interest that she is running things at this time.
Who would you rather have as PM?
The choice is limited - as we can see from the cabinet talent in the Conservative party is in very short supply; and let's not even go there with Labour's front bench. Specifically on Brexit I would be very comfortable with things being run by people like George Osborne and Peter Mandelson.
The chief damage being caused by Brexit is social. As the Leavers get steadily madder and more paranoid in response to developing problems, the social damage gets worse. No surprise that the public believes Britain to be unhappier, more divided and more racist than a year ago.
Instead of wasting time sniffing out and then flaying Remainers for lacking conviction in Brexit, their priority should be a Brexit plan. But not only is there no plan, the government gives no indication of having any ability to draw up and implement a workable plan.
The problem the government has is a simple one: it is irreconcilably split on how to handle Brexit
Evidence? The recent murmurings suggest May's approach of doing it by Cabinet committee may be bringing some of the unlikelier ministers along with it - for example Fox's comments pre-Xmas on the Customs Union.
Or has your hatred of May blinded you to any suggestions of progress?
I don't hate May. I just think that she is a very poor Prime Minister and that it is not in the UK's national interest that she is running things at this time.
Who would you rather have as PM?
I would be very comfortable with things being run by people like George Osborne and Peter Mandelson.
And do you think any deal 'Punishment budget' Osborne or 'Lord High Eurocrat' Mandelson came up with would be remotely sellable to the 52% who voted Leave?
People who lost the referendum are refusing to accept the result, delaying the process of leaving, agitating for a 2nd referendum and doing down anything the referendum winners do... then saying "look how divided brexit has made the country"
Laughable lack of self awareness.
Try being a good sport, accepting you lost, and muck in.
Do you want the process to leave to begin:
a) when we are ready; b) when we are not ready; or c) you don't give a stuff - "Freedom"?
When we are ready.
But the agitators and moaners aren't agitating and moaning to help, their aim is for us not to leave, if they are someone with any influence, or to make it look like it is going badly because they called it wrong, if they are someone who posts on here.
There is a difference between not wanting us to leave (fair enough), wanting to ignore the referendum result (not fair enough), and making comments about the process of leaving and its intricacies and challenges (fair enough).
In an endlessly used example, would you have expected Labour Party voters, on May 8th 2015, to have thrown their hands up and become Conservatives?
That endlessly used example is not a good comparison, unless we are to have fixed term EU referendums.
We are all leavers now, it is time to accept that and build a new consensus together.
The British voter is sovereign and unbound by past votes. If they want to change their mind and rejoin the EU or never leave in the first place then that is up to them.
The current instability is a result of the way Leave won the referendum and the narrowness of the result.
Mr. D, one might suggest that sending a letter to so many people did rather increase the chance of it somehow finding its way to the media.
Mr. Rabbit, some people. Alas, I only backed Bottas for top 3 in the title race, not the seat.
However, there's an interesting rumour that a Ferrari query has buggered up a Red Bull cunning aerodynamic plan, which would be to the advantage, most of all, of Mercedes.
The chief damage being caused by Brexit is social. As the Leavers get steadily madder and more paranoid in response to developing problems, the social damage gets worse. No surprise that the public believes Britain to be unhappier, more divided and more racist than a year ago.
Instead of wasting time sniffing out and then flaying Remainers for lacking conviction in Brexit, their priority should be a Brexit plan. But not only is there no plan, the government gives no indication of having any ability to draw up and implement a workable plan.
The problem the government has is a simple one: it is irreconcilably split on how to handle Brexit
Evidence? The recent murmurings suggest May's approach of doing it by Cabinet committee may be bringing some of the unlikelier ministers along with it - for example Fox's comments pre-Xmas on the Customs Union.
Or has your hatred of May blinded you to any suggestions of progress?
I don't hate May. I just think that she is a very poor Prime Minister and that it is not in the UK's national interest that she is running things at this time.
Who would you rather have as PM?
The choice is limited - as we can see from the cabinet talent in the Conservative party is in very short supply; and let's not even go there with Labour's front bench. Specifically on Brexit I would be very comfortable with things being run by people like George Osborne and Peter Mandelson.
And what would you highlight as the biggest legislative achievement of either of these towering figures?
The chief damage being caused by Brexit is social. As the Leavers get steadily madder and more paranoid in response to developing problems, the social damage gets worse. No surprise that the public believes Britain to be unhappier, more divided and more racist than a year ago.
Instead of wasting time sniffing out and then flaying Remainers for lacking conviction in Brexit, their priority should be a Brexit plan. But not only is there no plan, the government gives no indication of having any ability to draw up and implement a workable plan.
The problem the government has is a simple one: it is irreconcilably split on how to handle Brexit
Evidence? The recent murmurings suggest May's approach of doing it by Cabinet committee may be bringing some of the unlikelier ministers along with it - for example Fox's comments pre-Xmas on the Customs Union.
Or has your hatred of May blinded you to any suggestions of progress?
I don't hate May. I just think that she is a very poor Prime Minister and that it is not in the UK's national interest that she is running things at this time.
Who would you rather have as PM?
I would be very comfortable with things being run by people like George Osborne and Peter Mandelson.
And do you think any deal 'Punishment budget' Osborne or 'Lord High Eurocrat' Mandelson came up with would be remotely sellable to the 52% who voted Leave?
I do not see the 52% as a single block of voters. I think that they would be best placed to come up with a deal that would be best for the UK and that, as a result, a fair proportion of Leave voters would back it. Obviously, willy-waving Leavers would not be satisfied, but I doubt they are even close to a majority within the 52%.
First Brexiteers assault parliamentary sovereignty, then judicial independence, now civil service impartiality. The tenets of our democracy.
Lammy could not be more wrong.
Civil service impartiality means implementing government policy regardless of whether it is Labour policy or Tory policy.
Sir Ivan is allowed to raise his concerns, but asking his replacement to get on with it is not questioning any of the Civil Service's many vaulted values.
The chief damage being caused by Brexit is social. As the Leavers get steadily madder and more paranoid in response to developing problems, the social damage gets worse. No surprise that the public believes Britain to be unhappier, more divided and more racist than a year ago.
Instead of wasting time sniffing out and then flaying Remainers for lacking conviction in Brexit, their priority should be a Brexit plan. But not only is there no plan, the government gives no indication of having any ability to draw up and implement a workable plan.
The problem the government has is a simple one: it is irreconcilably split on how to handle Brexit
Evidence? The recent murmurings suggest May's approach of doing it by Cabinet committee may be bringing some of the unlikelier ministers along with it - for example Fox's comments pre-Xmas on the Customs Union.
Or has your hatred of May blinded you to any suggestions of progress?
I don't hate May. I just think that she is a very poor Prime Minister and that it is not in the UK's national interest that she is running things at this time.
Who would you rather have as PM?
I would be very comfortable with things being run by people like George Osborne and Peter Mandelson.
And do you think any deal 'Punishment budget' Osborne or 'Lord High Eurocrat' Mandelson came up with would be remotely sellable to the 52% who voted Leave?
I think that would depend. They would need to take Luckyguy's position and make it clear that they were looking for the best deal for the UK, the decision having been made. I think both Osborne and Mandelson would be capable of doing that, they have both negotiated and dealt with the EU for years, they are both extremely smart and politically sophisticated. Subject to the caveat of unequivocally accepting the decision I think they would be the best negotiators the UK has available.
I also think that it will prove a tactical mistake to have a team of Brexiteers doing the negotiation. I appreciate that in May and Hammond the remainers have the whip hand but more effort needs to be made to make it clear that this is a team effort by UK plc and that means involving all strands of opinion, not just the winners.
People who lost the referendum are refusing to accept the result, delaying the process of leaving, agitating for a 2nd referendum and doing down anything the referendum winners do... then saying "look how divided brexit has made the country"
Laughable lack of self awareness.
Try being a good sport, accepting you lost, and muck in.
Do you want the process to leave to begin:
a) when we are ready; b) when we are not ready; or c) you don't give a stuff - "Freedom"?
When we are ready.
But the agitators and moaners aren't agitating and moaning to help, their aim is for us not to leave, if they are someone with any influence, or to make it look like it is going badly because they called it wrong, if they are someone who posts on here.
There is a difference between not wanting us to leave (fair enough), wanting to ignore the referendum result (not fair enough), and making comments about the process of leaving and its intricacies and challenges (fair enough).
In an endlessly used example, would you have expected Labour Party voters, on May 8th 2015, to have thrown their hands up and become Conservatives?
That endlessly used example is not a good comparison, unless we are to have fixed term EU referendums.
We are all leavers now, it is time to accept that and build a new consensus together.
The British voter is sovereign and unbound by past votes. If they want to change their mind and rejoin the EU or never leave in the first place then that is up to them.
The current instability is a result of the way Leave won the referendum and the narrowness of the result.
Well its up to them as long as they have a referendum to vote in, and we just had one
The chief damage being caused by Brexit is social. As the Leavers get steadily madder and more paranoid in response to developing problems, the social damage gets worse. No surprise that the public believes Britain to be unhappier, more divided and more racist than a year ago.
Instead of wasting time sniffing out and then flaying Remainers for lacking conviction in Brexit, their priority should be a Brexit plan. But not only is there no plan, the government gives no indication of having any ability to draw up and implement a workable plan.
The problem the government has is a simple one: it is irreconcilably split on how to handle Brexit
Evidence? The recent murmurings suggest May's approach of doing it by Cabinet committee may be bringing some of the unlikelier ministers along with it - for example Fox's comments pre-Xmas on the Customs Union.
Or has your hatred of May blinded you to any suggestions of progress?
I don't hate May. I just think that she is a very poor Prime Minister and that it is not in the UK's national interest that she is running things at this time.
Who would you rather have as PM?
I would be very comfortable with things being run by people like George Osborne and Peter Mandelson.
And do you think any deal 'Punishment budget' Osborne or 'Lord High Eurocrat' Mandelson came up with would be remotely sellable to the 52% who voted Leave?
I think that would depend. They would need to take Luckyguy's position and make it clear that they were looking for the best deal for the UK, the decision having been made. I think both Osborne and Mandelson would be capable of doing that, they have both negotiated and dealt with the EU for years, they are both extremely smart and politically sophisticated. Subject to the caveat of unequivocally accepting the decision I think they would be the best negotiators the UK has available.
I also think that it will prove a tactical mistake to have a team of Brexiteers doing the negotiation. I appreciate that in May and Hammond the remainers have the whip hand but more effort needs to be made to make it clear that this is a team effort by UK plc and that means involving all strands of opinion, not just the winners.
A case could be made for putting Osborne on the negotiating team. Teamwork rather than leadership might suit him.
Comments
Also, the Lib Dem revival is taking Tory seats, not Labour.
Therefore I don't buy the Labour less than 20% at GE thing. And they continue to be very well organised in areas where they have power. Scotland is a one off. Labour won't die until another party storms through the middle. UKIP are too anti-power to achieve that. It could only be the Libs...the acceptable face of the mad left, the anti-men, anti-white, anti-working class, liberal elite, who incidentally happen to be white men. They are the best hypocrites I have ever known. The crown is theirs to steal. But Libs will still need an extra push from UKIP, 2 or 3% to pick off Lab councils or MPs, because many Labour supporters wouldn't vote Lib Dem. Labour will falter only when Lib Dem/UKIP pincer works...or SNP/Tory splinter in Scotland.
Sean however is lucky compared with many other Brexiters in that he is unlikely to feel any adverse effects when the euphoria wears off.
As I have been saying for 6 months now we need to focus on an interim agreement within the 2 years (ideally less) covering the key points. Once we have that we can look to resolve other issues bilaterally and at leisure in the same way as Switzerland does. That process won't take 10 years. It will go on as long as the EU exists in anything like its current form.
There are compelling economic and political reasons for us to work closely with our EU neighbours in a range of fields. This does not require us to be subject to the CJE, legislation passed by people we did not vote for and cannot throw out and a bureaucracy that looks increasingly archaic and arthritic designed for dealing with yesterdays problems and a much smaller and more homogeneous club than it is trying to look after now.
A50 by March 2017
Exit by March 2019
Transitional deal potentially
Border controls
A new customs deal - not full blown EU, not WTO
EU law assimilated then repealed at leisure
The usual suspects pretend not to hear or see - or perhaps, they really have reached the point of incapacity?
Following on from someone's post the other day (sorry, I cannot remember who posted it): what percentage would Labour need to reach nationally for them to fall over the precipice? The percentage where they'll go from 230-odd seats not just to sub-200, but sub-100 ?
15% ? 10% ?
"There is something a bit 1984 about Brexit Britain.
Brexit is pure newspeak."
With Farage as Big Brother....
All the news channels used him as the commentator on Sir Ivan's removal. Brexit is starting to look like a right wing cult with Farage at the apex and a few eccentric quasi UKIPers like Redwood and Rees Mogg as his outriders.
It doesn't make the UK look very attractive and particularly not to Europeans.
Cameron tried to put him as the Leave figurehead during the campaign too, with "Nigel Farage's Little England".
Anyone know when the great and the good decide on the merits of Miller's court case?
The fact is that Britain's 'experienced diplomats' have achieved nothing but failure in the EU for many years.
Perhaps you think that record of failure is acceptable.
Indeed, another Richard, Remoaners lied and lied and lied again. Except for weaker pound versus dollar (which benefits exporters), UK economy has not changed one jot. Cameron lost all his credibility in Referendum, which was a shame, because I liked him before. The EU is a basket case. We may do better outside, but I think we will, and we won't have tossers like Juncker telling us what to do. I'm more than happy.
Starting to look? Starting? Surely you jest, Roger. Thanks. That chimes with the mood music I've been hearing for the last couple of years, though I'm rather out of the loop now.
Having said that, one of my old employers is attending CES again this year, but they're hardly a start-up.
I think there are several reasons for a startup to attend CES:
*) to make contacts.
*) to get funding (though I'd argue that a show like CES is not the place to do it).
*) to sell out.
"But not only is there no plan ..."
I'll let you into a little secret. The plan is to exit the EU with the best negotiated economic deal possible commensurate with the referendum result.
That's bleeding obvious, but there's none so blind as those who won't see. By all means, carp from the side lines. Pour ashes over your head and moan "Woe is me. All is misery, all is pain"
How shall I put this gently? It's a little unbecoming and beginning to verge on the ridiculous.
The best UK strategy is to present a firm and united front . Best tactics are to play hard ball initially. They don't like it up 'em, Mr Mainwaring.
Oops. have I given the game away?
Tories and Labour have 160-ish ultra safe seats they will not lose unless absolute meltdown. For 10% share in UK, Labour will still win a majority in Newcastle!
Labour will be 20-23% unless utter catastrophe or Libs really shine.
Tories will never get more than 45%; UKIP no more than 15%; Greens/SNP/Plaid/N.Irish, 10%. That leaves 30% for Libs/Labour...worse case scenario.
in 2020, Tories on 40%, UKIP on 10%, rest on 10%..leaves 40% for Lab/Lib..depends how it breaks down. Who knows. As a Tory 20/20 would be perfect.
If so it marks the end of ~150 years of an impartial civil service and a new convention emerges, i.e. Sir Humphrey should be an echo chamber for Jim Hacker.
This is why remainers are so desperate to frustrate the process entirely. Once we trigger A50 then we're gone within two years and the end state will be achieved. Over a yet to be determined timescale admittedly. But we'll be gone and we'll be free.
Quitting the EU? Perhaps. Or embracing self-determination and sovereignty. I prefer the latter. Better we make our own decisions than let unaccountable foreigners do it for us.
Also - I missed it... But how did OGH get on on Newsnight?
BTW Sir Humphrey was NEVER impartial - he always pursued the aims of the civil service and in particular his branch of it.
Socially, the UK is much as it was on 4th January 2016.
Also, in 1984, the state made all the decisions without bothering to ask the pesky people for their views. That cannot be said to be the case for leaving the EU, which was a victory against the serried ranks of the Establishment.
The government and civil service is currently in the business/industry consultation phase. The Lords, meanwhile, are seeing "experts". They are working out what everyone wants (and of course not everyone in each industry wants the same thing).
They are a million miles from then developing a strategy of what it is they deem each industry as a whole actually to want, and then staffing up with advisors and negotiators (people who applied to the Civil Service in July received a letter in December saying "we know you're there, we'll get back to you"). If A50 is triggered in 10 weeks they will not be an awful lot closer.
Tezza was right to delay A50 until May but if she's thought about it for a moment longer (perhaps listening to the likes of Sir Ivan), then she would ideally have pushed it out a year.
Your desire for them to "get on with it" is nonsensical in that context.
He had a conversion, and announced that anyone who doesn't recognise Nigel Wossname as God Almighty should be shot of hand.
Also note that Vanilla saves draft posts, meaning it's possible to have posts you decided not to post come up.
Not that I've ever done that. Ahem.
He was prominent during the campaign, and the first (and for a period only) Brexiteer on TV after the result.
He is the go to guy for comment on anything and everything Brexit.
He is the brand, however distasteful you may find that.
Just suggesting having something so that others don't have to ask/aren't disencouraged to post in reply.
The cognitive dissonance must be painful for you...
(Well, I'm the exception that proves the rule. I'm a pleb. But the rest of you: you're all the establishment and I'll overthrow you all, replacing the existing order with one where everyone must travel by rail and hike one long-distance trail a year. Muhahahhahaha)
Seriously though: 'establishment' has to be one of the most misused words post-Brexit.
Pre-EFTA (European Free Trade Association), which the UK set up in 1960.
Pre-EEC, which the UK joined in 1973 and in doing so left EFTA.
What convinces you that not engaging with other countries will solve a gaping current account deficit, a housing shortage, various environmental problems - or organise anti-trust or data protection legislation, something the EU's done on behalf of all 28 member states and we'll now have to pay for it.
All the EU votes were supported by elected UK politicians or passed by qualified majority votes approved by earlier elected UK politicians. What's unelected about that? The UK population supported all of it in general elections, admittedly under FPTP.
Laughable lack of self awareness.
Try being a good sport, accepting you lost, and muck in. The years of loony left uncompetitive school sports where no one 'loses' are finally bearing fruit.
a) when we are ready;
b) when we are not ready; or
c) you don't give a stuff - "Freedom"?
Rogers *may* have leaked the letter. It was either him or someone to whom it was sent (ie a colleague).
Mr. P, was Farage in the official campaign? Was he in the debates? Does he have a role in our departure from the EU?
Or is he a convenient bogeyman for pro-EU types to point at as a stereotype of a Leave voter?
The Remainers' plan is to cry "No more glad confident morning," over and over again in the vain hope they can achieve .... what? Do tell.
The Leavers' plan is to leave the EU (there's a clue in the name).
All the rest is detail - which depends on negotiations.
Negotiations in which a Leaver (Mrs May) will be prominent. The other Leavers can be constructive (which many are) or continue their hissy fit at the shock of democracy in action.
2017 Looks to be a good year.
But the civil service should remember it is not there to be impartial, it is there to serve the government.
Service advises
Government listens
Government decides
Service implements.
From reading the runes, it seems to me that it is not just the government not listening here - many members of the service are letting their remain proclivities get in the way of serving.
But I'd argue it's a civil servants job to be anonymous/low profile and get on with delivering what the government of the day wants.
The attacks on him from anonymous Downing Street sources are regrettable IMO... He's gone now... Why stick the knife in? Particularly since civil servants aren't allowed to defend themselves in the press.
Thanks for that link - I read the article by Christopher Booker whinging about "The EU's water policy". I also read the EU communication from whence it came. First, the Communication is just that, although I haven't delved into actual EU directives on water (there are some). Secondly, you are right in that the EU seems to be stepping way out of its remit by determining a water strategy, but as far as I am aware, especially southern EU States suffer significant water shortages at times. Thirdly, I could find nothing to prohibit the building of new reservoirs in any of the documentation (you are right that they prefer a pricing mechanism for existing supply rather than new supply ie storage - pesky market-orientated Eurocrats that they are). And Fourthly, as I rather suspected, there are plenty of other reasons why reservoirs are not built in the UK, none of them to do with the EU.
This for example.
So although you are right in that the EU is sticking its finger into dams and reservoir policy (mainly droughts and water shortages), it is left to national governments to create their own policies.
I think you'll look back on your arguments in this period with a feeling of faint embarrassment. If you've been a winner under the current arrangements - good for you. Sadly, many more British people haven't than have. You'll adapt.
But it also does not matter if they knew who he was or not, unless you believe that fame is the only reason to take someone's views seriously? In which case, I suggest you ask Joey Essex his views ...
Is your problem with Brexit or the Remainers who lead this Conservative government?
Or has your hatred of May blinded you to any suggestions of progress?
But the agitators and moaners aren't agitating and moaning to help, their aim is for us not to leave, if they are someone with any influence, or to make it look like it is going badly because they called it wrong, if they are someone who posts on here.
Since the referendum, I've decided that he's an educated idiot.
a) begin right away, prove my uselessness at Spanish and be sacked; or
b) tell them I wanted to wait a while, go and learn Spanish in the meantime, then be a huge success at the job, earn my GBP50m and finally realise what it must be like to be @SeanT?
There are some very stupid people with some very ugly ideas in this country
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/bbc_radio_fourfm
As for calling what is an excellent piece of investigative journalism 'whinging' - behave yourself, we're not in school.
In an endlessly used example, would you have expected Labour Party voters, on May 8th 2015, to have thrown their hands up and become Conservatives?
I called Mrs May a Leaver in my previous comment. She is, of course, a Remainer, but also a democrat - like most Remainers here in the North.
I suspect most Remainers in London also accept the result - apart from the gobby ones.
But there comes a point when you need to decide what your starting point is. That may continue to evolve as the options are explored with the other side and new views may well come to the fore during the process. In my experience, however, there comes a point when you need to show that you are serious and negotiations have to start in earnest. Otherwise things drift into indecision and agreement becomes increasingly difficult.
We are all leavers now, it is time to accept that and build a new consensus together. I honestly never expected for a moment that, if Leave won, the people who voted Remain would act like this, it is pitifully embarrassing to watch.
A few people here would be quids in? (Not me alas)
The current instability is a result of the way Leave won the referendum and the narrowness of the result.
Mr. Rabbit, some people. Alas, I only backed Bottas for top 3 in the title race, not the seat.
However, there's an interesting rumour that a Ferrari query has buggered up a Red Bull cunning aerodynamic plan, which would be to the advantage, most of all, of Mercedes.
David Lammy
✔ @DavidLammy
First Brexiteers assault parliamentary sovereignty, then judicial independence, now civil service impartiality. The tenets of our democracy.
Lammy could not be more wrong.
Civil service impartiality means implementing government policy regardless of whether it is Labour policy or Tory policy.
Sir Ivan is allowed to raise his concerns, but asking his replacement to get on with it is not questioning any of the Civil Service's many vaulted values.
I also think that it will prove a tactical mistake to have a team of Brexiteers doing the negotiation. I appreciate that in May and Hammond the remainers have the whip hand but more effort needs to be made to make it clear that this is a team effort by UK plc and that means involving all strands of opinion, not just the winners.
Anyway, let's get back to lamenting how the poor, unlistened-to punter has been let down by successive manifestations of the establishment.