All in all I would suggest that the EUs tendency to put the cart before the house is again a problem. The EU should have had a Common Immigration and Asylum Policy in order to function properly. Instead Merkel invites a million, others sling up barbed wire. Just another fine Euro mess.
It seems fairly evident that we already have a second generation integration problem with previous waves of arrival that buy into medieval Islam and possibly from converts with racial/colonial issues.Adrian from Dartford, Michael from Romford, Jermaine from Dewsbury ?
The EU makes a repeat run ever more probable and God knows the French, Germans and Belgians already have a lot on their plates.
There's an amazing Bruce Schnier article from about 2001 on the futility of DRM systems. That is, they inconvenience honest users and don't bother criminal ones.
The same is true of the argument that leaving the EU makes it meaningfully harder for Islamic terrorists to get into the UK.
Unless we plan on requiring visas for all EU citizens coming to the UK, then - frankly - their ability to get into our country has changed not a bit on exit. And if we do require a visa, why wouldn't a would be Jihadi lie on the question "religion"?
And, of course, preventing EU citizens from coming to the UK doesn't stop those from Saudi Arabia (for instance) where there is a massively higher incidence of those with Wahabbi/ISIS/Al Queda leanings.
We could, of course, require a visa for all potential visitors to the UK. We could require interviews at British embassies ahead of trips here. We could seal the border with Northern Ireland.
Of course, this would cause significant economic pain, and mostly inconvenience the innocent. And, with all the Islamic terrorists who have killed people on British soil in the last 20 years having been born here, it would likely not have any impact on whether we got attacked.
It was Merkel's bringing in of refugees from Syria which may have tipped some to Leave but I would agree short of mass deportations, which only the ultra Fascist Right would consider, leaving the EU will make little difference to the risk of Islamic terrorism here
Not least because, despite the outdated view presented by some of the media, and despite its best efforts in Syria, Islamic fundamentalistism is an idea, not a state, nor an organisation, nor even an identifiable bunch of people. 9/11 - where a bunch of villains half way round the world really did sit down and plot how to deliver destruction to the west, and then despatched agents to do so - has misleadingly coloured assumptions about much that has followed.
Wow! Roger and I agree twice in this post! I know that Keir Starmer is highly regarded in some quarters as a possible future Labour Leader who could possible turn their current political fortunes around. But as a political anorak, I am just not getting the X factor that should be happening if he was the next best thing for the Labour party if it was serious about regaining power. And certainly no signs that he would be a hit with the Labour membership or the Unions as I did when I successfully backed Miliband, and despite being totally underwhelmed by him or his brother.
And Roger is right, the Conservatives definitely dodged a bullet when we didn't elect David Davis! But if tonight's Brexit QuestionTime is any guide, both Keir Starmer and David Davis totally failed to impress their toughest audience, both Remain and Brexit voters! And Roger, this is where we disagree, the Remainers were not by a distance the winners of this debate, and I say that as someone who voted Remain. I hate to say this, but both Melanie Phillips and Suzanne Evans put up a far better fight.
And as for Clegg and Salmond, well lets just say that they continue to get the mood of the nation wrong, but they were strongly rooting for students and SNP voters that voted remain... At some point both the Libdems and the SNP are going to realise that it was mistake to go so strongly against the EU Referendum result, its one thing to oppose Brexit, but quite another to be seen as actively trying to undermine the chance of UKplc getting the best deal possible from Brexit.
None of the others matter apart from Davis, although we could do with a better opposition than provided by Labour. They are has-beens (Clegg andSalmond), so awful even UKIP didn't want her (Evans) and mad (Phillips). We're relying on David Davis to deliver the trickiest deal Britain has ever had to sign and it's clear he doesn't have a clue.
What is the 'best' deal though? For Remainers it is full membership of the single market and for most Leavers it is controls on free movement and no more money to the EU. The two are irreconcilable and Davis has to navigate his way between
The best deal is one that is not more worse than the one we have already got, than it needs be. Brexit is about damage limitation as far the negotiations are concerned. It's difficult thing to pull off, and particularly so if you believed in the sunlit uplands.
A couple of observations about yesterday's May/Sturgeon meeting:
- Sturgeon had to come to May, rather than May travel to Edinburgh
- This was after May had addressed DFID employees who owe their jobs to the Union And
- Had a meeting with Police Scotland (not one of the SNP's conspicuous successes) on serious stuff - terrorism and cooperation within the Union.
- May dictated the venue, turning down a Scottish government suggestion of a Scottish government building.
- Net, Sturgeon's little helpers couldn't plaster the place with Saltires a la Bute House.
- Conclusion, May will not remotely be the walkover Cameron was.
Actual conclusion: May's position is incredibly weak and has done nothing to suggest Sturgeon's timetable is in any way unrealistic.
If that was the case, why didnt they discuss Sturgeon's timetable?
Because May has no credible argument against it.
Seriously? I dont like may much, and the case for a referendum is strong, but the timetable? That's easy to argue against, as several very strong points have been made. It simply makes no sense to have a vote before it is known what Scotlands position in the U.K. Will be in relation to the eu - core Indy supporters won't care, but some former no voters might need that knowledge before switching. In fact the argument against the timetable is so strong I would not be surprised if it was deliberately a poor timetable - it was an opening gambit, great if it could be got, but grievance fuel if not. Seeing for sure if May fails is a stronger card for sturgeon to play than an Indy campaign before it is certain May has failed.
The timetable is for after Brexit negotiations have been concluded but before the uk has fucked off.
Nothing has been said to say that the UK is not aiming for a negotiation timetable that fits with IndyRef2 timetable.
Negotiations aren't complete until they're complete and ratified by all parties.
If the only issue with poorly thought through migration was terrorism I might agree
The Brit Born thing is a bit of a red herring. We now have people who see themselves as British in Passport Only - BIPOs. It's an indictment of previous judgements and a sign of how things can drip through. The preachers , the motivators, are coming in from elsewhere mind.
A ' likely to integrate successfully and accept UK norms' criteria must be a consideration on allowing settlement.
Keeping out bombers, backward religionists, benefit dependency probables, the poorly skilled and those prone to general criminality has to be the backbone of migration policy.
We are, quite frankly, growing more than enough of our own already. We do not need to import.
Mr. F, that is the kind of thing I contemplated ahead of the first book. But I was too pure and virtuous to do it.
Also, the New Statesman. Maybe with the tagline: "It's a post-modern deconstruction of the inherent ridiculousness of outdated patriarchy and inherited politico-economic power via an undemocratic system of feudal domination."
Wow! Roger and I agree twice in this post! I know that Keir Starmer is highly regarded in some quarters as a possible future Labour Leader who could possible turn their current political fortunes around. But as a political anorak, I am just not getting the X factor that should be happening if he was the next best thing for the Labour party if it was serious about regaining power. And certainly no signs that he would be a hit with the Labour membership or the Unions as I did when I successfully backed Miliband, and despite being totally underwhelmed by him or his brother.
And Roger is right, the Conservatives definitely dodged a bullet when we didn't elect David Davis! But if tonight's Brexit QuestionTime is any guide, both Keir Starmer and David Davis totally failed to impress their toughest audience, both Remain and Brexit voters! And Roger, this is where we disagree, the Remainers were not by a distance the winners of this debate, and I say that as someone who voted Remain. I hate to say this, but both Melanie Phillips and Suzanne Evans put up a far better fight.
And as for Clegg and Salmond, well lets just say that they continue to get the mood of the nation wrong, but they were strongly rooting for students and SNP voters that voted remain... At some point both the Libdems and the SNP are going to realise that it was mistake to go so strongly against the EU Referendum result, its one thing to oppose Brexit, but quite another to be seen as actively trying to undermine the chance of UKplc getting the best deal possible from Brexit.
None of the others matter apart from Davis, although we could do with a better opposition than provided by Labour. They are has-beens (Clegg andSalmond), so awful even UKIP didn't want her (Evans) and mad (Phillips). We're relying on David Davis to deliver the trickiest deal Britain has ever had to sign and it's clear he doesn't have a clue.
What is the 'best' deal though? For Remainers it is full membership of the single market and for most Leavers it is controls on free movement and no more money to the EU. The two are irreconcilable and Davis has to navigate his way between
The best deal is one that is not more worse than the one we have already got, than it needs be. Brexit is about damage limitation as far the negotiations are concerned. It's difficult thing to pull off, and particularly so if you believed in the sunlit uplands.
What is 'worse? For most Leavers it is leaving EU migration uncontrolled and keeping payments to the EU for most Remainers leaving the single market
Suppose the Scots are halfway through a referendum campaign, and one parliament or another vetoes the deal. It'd be the act of a constitutional vandal and remorseless idiot to put themselves in that sort of position.
Though It's hard to believe that the Mail could go further downmarket it's not at all surprising that Mrs Michael Gove should be helping to take them there. They really are a noxious couple of philistines.
A couple of observations about yesterday's May/Sturgeon meeting:
- Sturgeon had to come to May, rather than May travel to Edinburgh
- This was after May had addressed DFID employees who owe their jobs to the Union And
- Had a meeting with Police Scotland (not one of the SNP's conspicuous successes) on serious stuff - terrorism and cooperation within the Union.
- May dictated the venue, turning down a Scottish government suggestion of a Scottish government building.
- Net, Sturgeon's little helpers couldn't plaster the place with Saltires a la Bute House.
- Conclusion, May will not remotely be the walkover Cameron was.
Actual conclusion: May's position is incredibly weak and has done nothing to suggest Sturgeon's timetable is in any way unrealistic.
If that was the case, why didnt they discuss Sturgeon's timetable?
Because May has no credible argument against it.
Seriously? I dont like may much, and the case for a referendum is strong, but the timetable? That's easy to argue against, as several very strong points have been made. It simply makes no sense to have a vote before it is known what Scotlands position in the U.K. Will be in relation to the eu - core Indy supporters won't care, but some former no voters might need that knowledge before switching. In fact the argument against the timetable is so strong I would not be surprised if it was deliberately a poor timetable - it was an opening gambit, great if it could be got, but grievance fuel if not. Seeing for sure if May fails is a stronger card for sturgeon to play than an Indy campaign before it is certain May has failed.
The timetable is for after Brexit negotiations have been concluded but before the uk has fucked off.
Nothing has been said to say that the UK is not aiming for a negotiation timetable that fits with IndyRef2 timetable.
What is to stop the EU saying a deal was only with the whole UK not bits of it? May will almost certainly refuse any indyref2 until both the UK and EU Parliaments have approved any deal
Mr. F, that is the kind of thing I contemplated ahead of the first book. But I was too pure and virtuous to do it.
Also, the New Statesman. Maybe with the tagline: "It's a post-modern deconstruction of the inherent ridiculousness of outdated patriarchy and inherited politico-economic power via an undemocratic system of feudal domination."
It's catchy.
Just have Sir Edric making a couple of perforative comments about cross-dressers.
Suppose the Scots are halfway through a referendum campaign, and one parliament or another vetoes the deal. It'd be the act of a constitutional vandal and remorseless idiot to put themselves in that sort of position.
Scotland is leaving the EU. When that's done they can decide if they want to leave the UK and rejoin. Or not. Seems pretty simple to me.
Wow! Roger and I agree twice in this post! I know that Keir Starmer is highly regarded in some quarters as a possible future Labour Leader who could possible turn their current political fortunes around. But as a political anorak, I am just not getting the X factor that should be happening if he was the next best thing for the Labour party if it was serious about regaining power. And certainly no signs that he would be a hit with the Labour membership or the Unions as I did when I successfully backed Miliband, and despite being totally underwhelmed by him or his brother.
And Roger is right, the Conservatives definitely dodged a bullet when we didn't elect David Davis! But if tonight's Brexit QuestionTime is any guide, both Keir Starmer and David Davis totally failed to impress their toughest audience, both Remain and Brexit voters! And Roger, this is where we disagree, the Remainers were not by a distance the winners of this debate, and I say that as someone who voted Remain. I hate to say this, but both Melanie Phillips and Suzanne Evans put up a far better fight.
And as for Clegg and Salmond, well lets just say that they continue to get the mood of the nation wrong, but they were strongly rooting for students and SNP voters that voted remain... At some point both the Libdems and the SNP are going to realise that it was mistake to go so strongly against the EU Referendum result, its one thing to oppose Brexit, but quite another to be seen as actively trying to undermine the chance of UKplc getting the best deal possible from Brexit.
None of the others matter apart from Davis, although we could do with a better opposition than provided by Labour. They are has-beens (Clegg andSalmond), so awful even UKIP didn't want her (Evans) and mad (Phillips). We're relying on David Davis to deliver the trickiest deal Britain has ever had to sign and it's clear he doesn't have a clue.
What is the 'best' deal though? For Remainers it is full membership of the single market and for most Leavers it is controls on free movement and no more money to the EU. The two are irreconcilable and Davis has to navigate his way between
The best deal is one that is not more worse than the one we have already got, than it needs be. Brexit is about damage limitation as far the negotiations are concerned. It's difficult thing to pull off, and particularly so if you believed in the sunlit uplands.
In your rather partial opinion. For many others there are greater priorities. Indeed for some of us ANY result which sees us outside the EU with or without a negotiated settlement is better than what we had before.
That is the face of someone who's Hail Mary Pass just missed the pitch, no matter what the spin.
In any series of photos there are bound to be ones where the subjects look better or worse, the interesting question is why did the Independence supporting National pick that one?
What is the 'best' deal though? For Remainers it is full membership of the single market and for most Leavers it is controls on free movement and no more money to the EU. The two are irreconcilable and Davis has to navigate his way between
The best deal is one that is not more worse than the one we have already got, than it needs be. Brexit is about damage limitation as far the negotiations are concerned. It's difficult thing to pull off, and particularly so if you believed in the sunlit uplands.
What is 'worse? For most Leavers it is leaving EU migration uncontrolled and keeping payments to the EU for most Remainers leaving the single market
Davis effectively last night the government wouldn't control immigration. At best they might monitor it. He didn't propose any benefit that would compensate.
Wow! Roger and I agree twice in this post! I know that Keir Starmer is highly regarded in some quarters as a possible future Labour Leader who could possible turn their current political fortunes around. But as a political anorak, I am just not getting the X factor that should be happening if he was the next best thing for the Labour party if it was serious about regaining power. And certainly no signs that he would be a hit with the Labour membership or the Unions as I did when I successfully backed Miliband, and despite being totally underwhelmed by him or his brother.
And Roger is right, the Conservatives
What is the 'best' deal though? For Remainers it is full membership of the single market and for most Leavers it is controls on free movement and no more money to the EU. The two are irreconcilable and Davis has to navigate his way between
The best deal is one that is not more worse than the one we have already got, than it needs be. Brexit is about damage limitation as far the negotiations are concerned. It's difficult thing to pull off, and particularly so if you believed in the sunlit uplands.
In your rather partial opinion. For many others there are greater priorities. Indeed for some of us ANY result which sees us outside the EU with or without a negotiated settlement is better than what we had before.
In that case i doubt you would be a competent Brexit negotiator!
The Daily Mail's front page is wrong in so many ways but the editor must be delighted by the huge media storm as everyone is talking about his paper today. Tasteless it was but maybe he will see it as a successful marketing coup
It's a win-win.
The Mail's detractors will be secretly pleased as they can exercise righteous indignation over it, which will make them feel good and hopefully win them praise.
The Daily Mail gets extra coverage, and more sales.
Many of the former will also read the latter (and secretly rather enjoy the article) without anyone ever knowing.
The Daily Mail is both widely disliked and hugely successful because it understands perfectly human hypocrisy and makes it a core part of its business model.
IMHO, the old left totally misunderstand the human condition. Hence Corbyn and his ilk don't get that the reason Blair was so popular is down to human hypocrisy. The left has only been palatable when it has been half soft-Left half Right; comfortable with being supported by the filthy rich but dialling up the conscienceometer to levels beyond which those of us on the Right would never have dreamed as necessary....
The fact that even this form of 'socialism' resulted in massive overspending of other people's borrowed money by attempting to form a massive overbearing client state is a further sad indictment on the whole movement.
What is the 'best' deal though? For Remainers it is full membership of the single market and for most Leavers it is controls on free movement and no more money to the EU. The two are irreconcilable and Davis has to navigate his way between
The best deal is one that is not more worse than the one we have already got, than it needs be. Brexit is about damage limitation as far the negotiations are concerned. It's difficult thing to pull off, and particularly so if you believed in the sunlit uplands.
What is 'worse? For most Leavers it is leaving EU migration uncontrolled and keeping payments to the EU for most Remainers leaving the single market
Davis effectively last night the government wouldn't control immigration. At best they might monitor it. He didn't propose any benefit that would compensate.
Davis said no such thing. He said that immigration controls would be decided by the government of the day (and refused to speak on behalf of whoever is home secretary post brexit), which is exactly as it should be. So, post brexit, if you want unlimited immigration to return; simple, vote Corbyn.
Are GfK really suggesting that since GE2015 the UKIP vote has been rock solid and Lib Dem vote has gone down?
They're not suggesting it, they are announcing it.
They may be right, they may be wrong. We'll get the first inking of whether they are on the right track or not in the local elections in six weeks time.
What is the 'best' deal though? For Remainers it is full membership of the single market and for most Leavers it is controls on free movement and no more money to the EU. The two are irreconcilable and Davis has to navigate his way between
The best deal is one that is not more worse than the one we have already got, than it needs be. Brexit is about damage limitation as far the negotiations are concerned. It's difficult thing to pull off, and particularly so if you believed in the sunlit uplands.
What is 'worse? For most Leavers it is leaving EU migration uncontrolled and keeping payments to the EU for most Remainers leaving the single market
Davis effectively last night the government wouldn't control immigration. At best they might monitor it. He didn't propose any benefit that would compensate.
We have had Conservative-led governments since 2010. What happened in the last seven years to persuade anyone that HMG wants to reduce immigration? What did Theresa May do in six years at the Home Office besides engage in a pointless Cabinet dispute about whether students should be included in the figures?
It was Merkel's bringing in of refugees from Syria which may have tipped some to Leave but I would agree short of mass deportations, which only the ultra Fascist Right would consider, leaving the EU will make little difference to the risk of Islamic terrorism here
Not least because, despite the outdated view presented by some of the media, and despite its best efforts in Syria, Islamic fundamentalistism is an idea, not a state, nor an organisation, nor even an identifiable bunch of people. 9/11 - where a bunch of villains half way round the world really did sit down and plot how to deliver destruction to the west, and then despatched agents to do so - has misleadingly coloured assumptions about much that has followed.
Yes, that's a good, subtle point which deserves wider currency than a random post on a blog. Maybe you could develop it into a piece for Comment Is Free? There is clearly a continuing risk from bonkers individuals who are inspired by funamentalist rhetoric, but the organised gangs seem extremely rare.
Of course, ISIS is also coloured by the same assumption and would like to be following the model and setting off lots of high-profile attacks by organised teams on Western institutions, but they aren't good at it - if they put zillions of sleeper agents into the refugee flows, as was widely speculated, they seem to be largely, well, asleep.
Mr. Chestnut, not only how we do, but also how they fare.
Even if the UK has a hard time, if the eight non-eurozone countries are handed gimp suits by the single currency's QMV dominance, they might decide leaving the EU is better. Or to join the single currency, of course.
What is the 'best' deal though? For Remainers it is full membership of the single market and for most Leavers it is controls on free movement and no more money to the EU. The two are irreconcilable and Davis has to navigate his way between
The best deal is one that is not more worse than the one we have already got, than it needs be. Brexit is about damage limitation as far the negotiations are concerned. It's difficult thing to pull off, and particularly so if you believed in the sunlit uplands.
What is 'worse? For most Leavers it is leaving EU migration uncontrolled and keeping payments to the EU for most Remainers leaving the single market
Davis effectively last night the government wouldn't control immigration. At best they might monitor it. He didn't propose any benefit that would compensate.
We have had Conservative-led governments since 2010. What happened in the last seven years to persuade anyone that HMG wants to reduce immigration? What did Theresa May do in six years at the Home Office besides engage in a pointless Cabinet dispute about whether students should be included in the figures?
I think something fundamental changed though. Pre- Brexit there was a cosy Westminster consensus that all right thinking people love immigration and that those who oppose it noisily are deplorables with a minority view that needs to have its nose rubbed in it. Post-Brexit that is no longer tenable. Nobody can claim to be in a minority if they want control. Immigration is no longer an unmentionable. No longer deplorable. May did close to zip on controlling immigration because we had metrosexual Dave and Clegg running the country. It seems for sure that once we have actually left, if not before, we can and will put in place more actual control over arriving numbers. The political backdrop to this whole debate has transformed.
Mr. Chestnut, not only how we do, but also how they fare.
Even if the UK has a hard time, if the eight non-eurozone countries are handed gimp suits by the single currency's QMV dominance, they might decide leaving the EU is better. Or to join the single currency, of course.
It's worth remembering that BREXIT isn't only a problem for us - after initial focus on the UK, I suspect the EU will very quickly become preoccupied with internal matters
It was Merkel's bringing in of refugees from Syria which may have tipped some to Leave but I would agree short of mass deportations, which only the ultra Fascist Right would consider, leaving the EU will make little difference to the risk of Islamic terrorism here
Not least because, despite the outdated view presented by some of the media, and despite its best efforts in Syria, Islamic fundamentalistism is an idea, not a state, nor an organisation, nor even an identifiable bunch of people. 9/11 - where a bunch of villains half way round the world really did sit down and plot how to deliver destruction to the west, and then despatched agents to do so - has misleadingly coloured assumptions about much that has followed.
Yes, that's a good, subtle point which deserves wider currency than a random post on a blog. Maybe you could develop it into a piece for Comment Is Free? There is clearly a continuing risk from bonkers individuals who are inspired by funamentalist rhetoric, but the organised gangs seem extremely rare.
Of course, ISIS is also coloured by the same assumption and would like to be following the model and setting off lots of high-profile attacks by organised teams on Western institutions, but they aren't good at it - if they put zillions of sleeper agents into the refugee flows, as was widely speculated, they seem to be largely, well, asleep.
It seems to me that the net flow of potentially violent fundamentalists has been in the other direction. Ironically we expend more effort preventing them leaving than we do preventing them coming.
The Daily Mail's front page is wrong in so many ways but the editor must be delighted by the huge media storm as everyone is talking about his paper today. Tasteless it was but maybe he will see it as a successful marketing coup
It's a win-win.
The Mail's detractors will be secretly pleased as they can exercise righteous indignation over it, which will make them feel good and hopefully win them praise.
The Daily Mail gets extra coverage, and more sales.
Many of the former will also read the latter (and secretly rather enjoy the article) without anyone ever knowing.
The Daily Mail is both widely disliked and hugely successful because it understands perfectly human hypocrisy and makes it a core part of its business model.
IMHO, the old left totally misunderstand the human condition. Hence Corbyn and his ilk don't get that the reason Blair was so popular is down to human hypocrisy. The left has only been palatable when it has been half soft-Left half Right; comfortable with being supported by the filthy rich but dialling up the conscienceometer to levels beyond which those of us on the Right would never have dreamed as necessary....
The fact that even this form of 'socialism' resulted in massive overspending of other people's borrowed money by attempting to form a massive overbearing client state is a further sad indictment on the whole movement.
There's a respectable historical argument that the roots of the British Labour movement lie as much in the old 18th Tory radical tradition as the more continental socialist tradition. It's one of the reasons the roots of European social democracy have only grown shallow in the UK; without the implied historical appeal of this wing of the party it does not have sufficient breadth of support to take power.
That is the face of someone who's Hail Mary Pass just missed the pitch, no matter what the spin.
In any series of photos there are bound to be ones where the subjects look better or worse, the interesting question is why did the Independence supporting National pick that one?
Here's all the front pages - I think the Scottish Sun is the best
The Daily Mail's front page is wrong in so many ways but the editor must be delighted by the huge media storm as everyone is talking about his paper today. Tasteless it was but maybe he will see it as a successful marketing coup
It's a win-win.
The Mail's detractors will be secretly pleased as they can exercise righteous indignation over it, which will make them feel good and hopefully win them praise.
The Daily Mail gets extra coverage, and more sales.
Many of the former will also read the latter (and secretly rather enjoy the article) without anyone ever knowing.
The Daily Mail is both widely disliked and hugely successful because it understands perfectly human hypocrisy and makes it a core part of its business model.
IMHO, the old left totally misunderstand the human condition. Hence Corbyn and his ilk don't get that the reason Blair was so popular is down to human hypocrisy. The left has only been palatable when it has been half soft-Left half Right; comfortable with being supported by the filthy rich but dialling up the conscienceometer to levels beyond which those of us on the Right would never have dreamed as necessary....
The fact that even this form of 'socialism' resulted in massive overspending of other people's borrowed money by attempting to form a massive overbearing client state is a further sad indictment on the whole movement.
"massive overspending of other people's borrowed money"
What is the 'best' deal though? For Remainers it is full membership of the single market and for most Leavers it is controls on free movement and no more money to the EU. The two are irreconcilable and Davis has to navigate his way between
The best deal is one that is not more worse than the one we have already got, than it needs be. Brexit is about damage limitation as far the negotiations are concerned. It's difficult thing to pull off, and particularly so if you believed in the sunlit uplands.
What is 'worse? For most Leavers it is leaving EU migration uncontrolled and keeping payments to the EU for most Remainers leaving the single market
Davis effectively last night the government wouldn't control immigration. At best they might monitor it. He didn't propose any benefit that would compensate.
We have had Conservative-led governments since 2010. What happened in the last seven years to persuade anyone that HMG wants to reduce immigration? What did Theresa May do in six years at the Home Office besides engage in a pointless Cabinet dispute about whether students should be included in the figures?
I think something fundamental changed though. Pre- Brexit there was a cosy Westminster consensus that all right thinking people love immigration and that those who oppose it noisily are deplorables with a minority view that needs to have its nose rubbed in it. Post-Brexit that is no longer tenable. Nobody can claim to be in a minority if they want control. Immigration is no longer an unmentionable. No longer deplorable. May did close to zip on controlling immigration because we had metrosexual Dave and Clegg running the country. It seems for sure that once we have actually left, if not before, we can and will put in place more actual control over arriving numbers. The political backdrop to this whole debate has transformed.
It's a double edged sword for the Government - the economy/market should dictate the levels of immigration. Shortages of skilled workers created by politically motivated decisions by government will impact the economy as a whole. Those who want to shut the door on foreign workers may just have to suffer the spectre of reducing living standards created by slower economic growth before they realise the truth.That truth being that there is no huge army of unemployed Brits waiting out there ready to pickup the gauntlet of growing our economy.
It's a sobering thought that the Brexiteers are putting their faith in the workshy unemployed who blame the eastern Europeans for stealing their jobs, to create our future prosperity.
Mr. Eagles, I do wonder if people are so innumerate they actually believe this.
But bad analysis happens all the time. I saw a bit (because I was channel-hopping) of a Ch4 programme with the chap who played the CIA director in the first few series of Homeland. It was about black boys being disadvantaged when it came to getting into top universities.
The statistics actually seemed to hold up, but it was quite frustrating because there was no comparison based on economic demographics. So, it was unclear whether the disparity was due to race, poverty or a combination of the two. But the question itself (on economics) was never asked, which is a problem because if that is either a partial or solitary/major factor then introducing policy measures to help poor black kids would discriminate against poor white kids, which would then simply half-solve one problem whilst introducing justified resentment amongst poor white families.
That's rather more subtle than your example, though.
Good morning, Mr. M.
F1: already looking forward to China. With the massive straight, it'll be interesting to see how that works out for overtaking. Some suggestion the Mercedes may (again) be worse in dirty air than the Ferrari.
That is the face of someone who's Hail Mary Pass just missed the pitch, no matter what the spin.
In any series of photos there are bound to be ones where the subjects look better or worse, the interesting question is why did the Independence supporting National pick that one?
Here's all the front pages - I think the Scottish Sun is the best
A couple of observations about yesterday's May/Sturgeon meeting:
- Sturgeon had to come to May, rather than May travel to Edinburgh
- This was after May had addressed DFID employees who owe their jobs to the Union And
- Had a meeting with Police Scotland (not one of the SNP's conspicuous successes) on serious stuff - terrorism and cooperation within the Union.
- May dictated the venue, turning down a Scottish government suggestion of a Scottish government building.
- Net, Sturgeon's little helpers couldn't plaster the place with Saltires a la Bute House.
- Conclusion, May will not remotely be the walkover Cameron was.
Actual conclusion: May's position is incredibly weak and has done nothing to suggest Sturgeon's timetable is in any way unrealistic.
If that was the case, why didnt they discuss Sturgeon's timetable?
Because May has no credible argument against it.
Seriously? I dont like may much, and the case for a referendum is strong, but the timetable? That's easy to argue against, as several very strong points have been made. It simply makes no sense to have a vote before it is known what Scotlands position in the U.K. Will be in relation to the eu - core Indy supporters won't care, but some former no voters might need that knowledge before switching. In fact the argument against the timetable is so strong I would not be surprised if it was deliberately a poor timetable - it was an opening gambit, great if it could be got, but grievance fuel if not. Seeing for sure if May fails is a stronger card for sturgeon to play than an Indy campaign before it is certain May has failed.
I would hope we might have a few clues by end 2018 / early 2019 when it is proposed to have it. As they run over Scotland in their Jackboots it only irritates people more.
That is the face of someone who's Hail Mary Pass just missed the pitch, no matter what the spin.
Entirely off-topic, but the National masthead has a design flaw. The silhouette of Scotland should replace the O in National, not the I. It looks weird and out of place squashed up next to the O like that.
That is the face of someone who's Hail Mary Pass just missed the pitch, no matter what the spin.
In any series of photos there are bound to be ones where the subjects look better or worse, the interesting question is why did the Independence supporting National pick that one?
Here's all the front pages - I think the Scottish Sun is the best
The real difference it will make is the complexity of the forms we will all have to fill in. This morning I received something which is known as a W-8BEN-E which I understand relates to a small investment I have in the US. It is 10 pages long and a flavour can be seen from question 1 under the title 'status'.
"Are you a non participating FFI including a limited FFI or an FFI related to a reporting IGA FFI other than a deemed compliant FFI participating FFI or exempt beneficial owner?"
Imagine the 'Leavers' of Clackton Hartlipool and Stoke who require aids such as 'open other end' on the bottom of milk-bottles grappling with FORMS? Because once we are on our own this is going to be the norm. Years of easy non bureaucratic existance will be over. It'll be like dealing with the US every day
What is the 'best' deal though? For Remainers it is full membership of the single market and for most Leavers it is controls on free movement and no more money to the EU. The two are irreconcilable and Davis has to navigate his way between
The best deal is one that is not more worse than the one we have already got, than it needs be. Brexit is about damage limitation as far the negotiations are concerned. It's difficult thing to pull off, and particularly so if you believed in the sunlit uplands.
What is 'worse? For most Leavers it is leaving EU migration uncontrolled and keeping payments to the EU for most Remainers leaving the single market
Davis effectively last night the government wouldn't control immigration. At best they might monitor it. He didn't propose any benefit that would compensate.
We have had Conservative-led governments since 2010. What happened in the last seven years to persuade anyone that HMG wants to reduce immigration? What did Theresa May do in six years at the Home Office besides engage in a pointless Cabinet dispute about whether students should be included in the figures?
I think something fundamental changed though. Pre- Brexit there was a cosy Westminster consensus that all right thinking people love immigration and that those who oppose it noisily are deplorables with a minority view that needs to have its nose rubbed in it. Post-Brexit that is no longer tenable. Nobody can claim to be in a minority if they want control. Immigration is no longer an unmentionable. No longer deplorable. May did close to zip on controlling immigration because we had metrosexual Dave and Clegg running the country. It seems for sure that once we have actually left, if not before, we can and will put in place more actual control over arriving numbers. The political backdrop to this whole debate has transformed.
Even if you are right that the zeitgeist has changed, what else has? What action has the government taken or even said it will take? Surely none. David Davis, Boris, even Theresa May show no inclination to reduce immigration, whatever their supporters might hope for.
It's a double edged sword for the Government - the economy/market should dictate the levels of immigration. Shortages of skilled workers created by politically motivated decisions by government will impact the economy as a whole. Those who want to shut the door on foreign workers may just have to suffer the spectre of reducing living standards created by slower economic growth before they realise the truth.That truth being that there is no huge army of unemployed Brits waiting out there ready to pickup the gauntlet of growing our economy.
It's a sobering thought that the Brexiteers are putting their faith in the workshy unemployed who blame the eastern Europeans for stealing their jobs, to create our future prosperity.
Doesn't this invalidate the entire post 2010 economic argument of the left?
Stagnant wages, zero hours contracts, faux self employment, under employment- how are all these things real if we "need" a low skilled euro labour pool?
What is the 'best' deal though? For Remainers it is full membership of the single market and for most Leavers it is controls on free movement and no more money to the EU. The two are irreconcilable and Davis has to navigate his way between
The best deal is one that is not more worse than the one we have already got, than it needs be. Brexit is about damage limitation as far the negotiations are concerned. It's difficult thing to pull off, and particularly so if you believed in the sunlit uplands.
What is 'worse? For most Leavers it is leaving EU migration uncontrolled and keeping payments to the EU for most Remainers leaving the single market
Davis effectively last night the government wouldn't control immigration. At best they might monitor it. He didn't propose any benefit that would compensate.
Davis said no such thing. He said that immigration controls would be decided by the government of the day (and refused to speak on behalf of whoever is home secretary post brexit), which is exactly as it should be. So, post brexit, if you want unlimited immigration to return; simple, vote Corbyn.
It's the NCP car parks approach to immigration. At the entrance to the car park there's a barrier and a sign saying SPACES. When every bay is taken the sign switches to FULL and the barrier doesn't open until a bay becomes free. Before Brexit people could drive into the car park and take any bay that is free. The number of parking bays doesn't change with Brexit, nor is there any attempt to discriminate which customers can park.
The real difference it will make is the complexity of the forms we will all have to fill in. This morning I received something which is known as a W-8BEN-E which I understand relates to a small investment I have in the US. It is 10 pages long and a flavour can be seen from question 1 under the title 'status'.
"Are you a non participating FFI including a limited FFI or an FFI related to a reporting IGA FFI other than a deemed compliant FFI participating FFI or exempt beneficial owner?"
Imagine the 'Leavers' of Clackton Hartlipool and Stoke who require aids such as 'open other end' on the bottom of milk-bottles grappling with FORMS? Because once we are on our own this is going to be the norm. Years of easy non bureaucratic existance will be over. It'll be like dealing with the US every day
The real difference it will make is the complexity of the forms we will all have to fill in. This morning I received something which is known as a W-8BEN-E which I understand relates to a small investment I have in the US. It is 10 pages long and a flavour can be seen from question 1 under the title 'status'.
"Are you a non participating FFI including a limited FFI or an FFI related to a reporting IGA FFI other than a deemed compliant FFI participating FFI or exempt beneficial owner?"
Imagine the 'Leavers' of Clackton Hartlipool and Stoke who require aids such as 'open other end' on the bottom of milk-bottles grappling with FORMS? Because once we are on our own this is going to be the norm. Years of easy non bureaucratic existance will be over. It'll be like dealing with the US every day
How many Leavers in Clackton, Hartlepool or Stoke do you think have such investments?
Comments
If the exit terms are agreed by the end of September 2018 the earliest date for Indyref2 would be May 2019.
By when the UK will have Left.
If the only issue with poorly thought through migration was terrorism I might agree
The Brit Born thing is a bit of a red herring. We now have people who see themselves as British in Passport Only - BIPOs. It's an indictment of previous judgements and a sign of how things can drip through. The preachers , the motivators, are coming in from elsewhere mind.
A ' likely to integrate successfully and accept UK norms' criteria must be a consideration on allowing settlement.
Keeping out bombers, backward religionists, benefit dependency probables, the poorly skilled and those prone to general criminality has to be the backbone of migration policy.
We are, quite frankly, growing more than enough of our own already. We do not need to import.
Also, the New Statesman. Maybe with the tagline: "It's a post-modern deconstruction of the inherent ridiculousness of outdated patriarchy and inherited politico-economic power via an undemocratic system of feudal domination."
It's catchy.
Suppose the Scots are halfway through a referendum campaign, and one parliament or another vetoes the deal. It'd be the act of a constitutional vandal and remorseless idiot to put themselves in that sort of position.
Mr. Patrick, that would be more rational.
The fact that even this form of 'socialism' resulted in massive overspending of other people's borrowed money by attempting to form a massive overbearing client state is a further sad indictment on the whole movement.
It seems incomprehensible to some that many think we have a bum deal at the moment.
We pay a lot of money to countries who don't really buy much off us and then they send their people over.
Why on earth are we- the very best customer the EU Has- being expected to give them handouts and live by their rules?
He who pays the piper calls the tune, except in the barmy world of the EU.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN16Z0OC
They may be right, they may be wrong. We'll get the first inking of whether they are on the right track or not in the local elections in six weeks time.
Of course, ISIS is also coloured by the same assumption and would like to be following the model and setting off lots of high-profile attacks by organised teams on Western institutions, but they aren't good at it - if they put zillions of sleeper agents into the refugee flows, as was widely speculated, they seem to be largely, well, asleep.
The EZ voting bloc point seems particularly important. The eight hangers on will be pushed to join the euro or leave as time passes.
Our success or not will guide them.
Even if the UK has a hard time, if the eight non-eurozone countries are handed gimp suits by the single currency's QMV dominance, they might decide leaving the EU is better. Or to join the single currency, of course.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39415230
'‘Largest discovery’ of oil off Scottish coast could raise chances of independence '
http://tinyurl.com/knjcujk
Reference please.
https://twitter.com/PeterStefanovi2/status/846639571572051968
It's a sobering thought that the Brexiteers are putting their faith in the workshy unemployed who blame the eastern Europeans for stealing their jobs, to create our future prosperity.
https://twitter.com/1HodgePodge/status/846636186986860544
But bad analysis happens all the time. I saw a bit (because I was channel-hopping) of a Ch4 programme with the chap who played the CIA director in the first few series of Homeland. It was about black boys being disadvantaged when it came to getting into top universities.
The statistics actually seemed to hold up, but it was quite frustrating because there was no comparison based on economic demographics. So, it was unclear whether the disparity was due to race, poverty or a combination of the two. But the question itself (on economics) was never asked, which is a problem because if that is either a partial or solitary/major factor then introducing policy measures to help poor black kids would discriminate against poor white kids, which would then simply half-solve one problem whilst introducing justified resentment amongst poor white families.
That's rather more subtle than your example, though.
Good morning, Mr. M.
F1: already looking forward to China. With the massive straight, it'll be interesting to see how that works out for overtaking. Some suggestion the Mercedes may (again) be worse in dirty air than the Ferrari.
NEW THREAD
"Are you a non participating FFI including a limited FFI or an FFI related to a reporting IGA FFI other than a deemed compliant FFI participating FFI or exempt beneficial owner?"
Imagine the 'Leavers' of Clackton Hartlipool and Stoke who require aids such as 'open other end' on the bottom of milk-bottles grappling with FORMS? Because once we are on our own this is going to be the norm. Years of easy non bureaucratic existance will be over. It'll be like dealing with the US every day
Stagnant wages, zero hours contracts, faux self employment, under employment- how are all these things real if we "need" a low skilled euro labour pool?