I expect sometime in the future on this date effigies of May will be burnt by rUK citizens to commemorate the day the country was sold down the river to preserve the Conservative party. A very sad day for those who lived to see the UK to prosper.
Or else statutes of her will be present in town centres up and down the land and she will be remembered as the George Washington of the UK, a symbol of Britain's independence day for decades to come and our national rebirth!
@seant a quick question between afternoon tea and evening canapés at the 6 star hotel in Barbados where I'm currently sat courtesy of a paper you do travel reviews for.
Is the reason you go to all these luxurious locations the simple fact that travel writers get the accommodation and flights for free but the writer has to pay for food and drinks? And hence the only writer who can afford to do such reviews is your good self?
I mean I'm not exactly poor and made enough on brexit that I will come again in 2 years on the winnings (don't tell the wife) but I have a continual feeling of ouch whenever I sign a tab.
"The Corbyn cultists have simply got to accept that their man is electoral poison."
Not until the day after the GE they don't.
Even then they don't. It'll be the media or the PLP or those that abandoned the cause or the stupid voters or Thatcher or supervolcanoes or anything that isn't Corbyn.
Why does A C Grayling say that "37% of a gerrymandered electorate is not a mandate"? If the entire electorate is one district, as it was in the referendum, gerrymandering is logically impossible, surely?
Perhaps he thinks the electorate is gerrymandered because people in Hartlepool have the same vote as he does instead of his vote counting so much more.
Why does A C Grayling say that "37% of a gerrymandered electorate is not a mandate"? If the entire electorate is one district, as it was in the referendum, gerrymandering is logically impossible, surely?
It's sad to see such a clever person say something so stupid. As you say you can't gerrymander a nation-wide referendum.
We may have just committed national suicide, but fuck it, we're not easily scared.
You sound scared.
lol. I've drunk half a bottle of vintage Veuve, I'm totally minted, I am six figures richer than I was a day ago, and I'm fucking an incredibly hot 21 year old who says my books make her cry.
I've had some times in my life when I've been truly scared. Like, when I spent that first night in prison on a rape charge. Or indeed waiting for the rape trial verdict at the Old Bailey.
The time I was nearly knifed in a Marseilles slum. Being two inches from a pride of lions without a gun. A heroin overdose in Islington. A heroin overdose in Bloomsbury. The time I ended up alone in the Siberian tundra. The night I was held at gunpoint by Hezbollah in the Lebanon in a village being shelled and strafed by the Israeli military.
And so on, and so forth.
Right now? No, I would not characterise my mood as *scared*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Yep definitely scared.
Actually if you want the truth I am simultaneously excited, nervous and a bit trembly. This is a risk. I know it. Hence the nerves. And yet I do believe we have made the right if fateful choice and I really do despise europhile traitors and liars who got us into this position, people like you.
And the deepest part of me is happy, even as I worry about the future, like all human beings. Because I've wanted this for decades: longed for it, even.
But it isn't scary. Death is scary. Cancer is scary. War is scary. This is not scary. Get a grip.
Well of course you are insulated from any scary stuff (hunger is scary, losing your job is scary, higher bills are scary, uncertainty can be scary) so rightly should you celebrate.
I am genuinely perplexed by the demon that the EU was painted as being. It was never such a scary thing. As the Secretary of State for Brexit pointed out (proving himself to date the most sane of the mad Brexiteers).
We, you, voted for Brexit because we could. Like the drunk looking for his wallet underneath the lamppost. I find it a shame because I believe the EU was genuinely a force for good in more ways than economically but short of a political union. More people disagreed with me than agreed with me. As I have often said, such is it at a GE when Labour get in. I fundamentally don't get the reason for people to vote Labour, but such is the will of the people.
I expect sometime in the future on this date effigies of May will be burnt by rUK citizens to commemorate the day the country was sold down the river to preserve the Conservative party. A very sad day for those who lived to see the UK to prosper.
So, should the people not have been given a vote on something which given the turnout, they clearly felt pretty strongly about, or should we just have ignored the result.
In any case, bewailing the outcome misses the point that unless the EU had been willing to change - and Cameron clearly proved that it wasn't - we'd have ended up in the same place sooner or later, whether Remain had won or whether no referendum had been held in 2016. The EU's agenda and Britain's were ultimately incompatible.
One bright spot for Corbyn in the mayoralty will surely be the Merseyside mayor.
Steve Rotheram is obviously popular too in Liverpool judging by the staggering 81% he got in Liverpool Walton at GE2015. It isn't quite as safe as that for Labour but it is safe methinks.
I have 300 on at 1-10, and would be utterly shocked if I was to lose money on this particular event.
I expect sometime in the future on this date effigies of May will be burnt by rUK citizens to commemorate the day the country was sold down the river to preserve the Conservative party. A very sad day for those who lived to see the UK to prosper.
Or else statutes of her will be present in town centres up and down the land and she will be remembered as the George Washington of the UK, a symbol of Britain's independence day for decades to come and our national rebirth!
My arse. She'll be remembered as a Knut who ignored the fact she was disappearing underwater as the tide came in.
I expect sometime in the future on this date effigies of May will be burnt by rUK citizens to commemorate the day the country was sold down the river to preserve the Conservative party. A very sad day for those who lived to see the UK to prosper.
So, should the people not have been given a vote on something which given the turnout, they clearly felt pretty strongly about, or should we just have ignored the result.
In any case, bewailing the outcome misses the point that unless the EU had been willing to change - and Cameron clearly proved that it wasn't - we'd have ended up in the same place sooner or later, whether Remain had won or whether no referendum had been held in 2016. The EU's agenda and Britain's were ultimately incompatible.
With such predictive powers perhaps you could furnish us with some selections at Southwell tomorrow?
We may have just committed national suicide, but fuck it, we're not easily scared.
You sound scared.
lol. I've drunk half a bottle of vintage Veuve, I'm totally minted, I am six figures richer than I was a day ago, and I'm fucking an incredibly hot 21 year old who says my books make her cry.
I've had some times in my life when I've been truly scared. Like, when I spent that first night in prison on a rape charge. Or indeed waiting for the rape trial verdict at the Old Bailey.
The time I was nearly knifed in a Marseilles slum. Being two inches from a pride of lions without a gun. A heroin overdose in Islington. A heroin overdose in Bloomsbury. The time I ended up alone in the Siberian tundra. The night I was held at gunpoint by Hezbollah in the Lebanon in a village being shelled and strafed by the Israeli military.
And so on, and so forth.
Right now? No, I would not characterise my mood as *scared*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Yep definitely scared.
Actually if you want the truth I am simultaneously excited, nervous and a bit trembly. This is a risk. I know it. Hence the nerves. And yet I do believe we have made the right if fateful choice and I really do despise europhile traitors and liars who got us into this position, people like you.
And the deepest part of me is happy, even as I worry about the future, like all human beings. Because I've wanted this for decades: longed for it, even.
But it isn't scary. Death is scary. Cancer is scary. War is scary. This is not scary. Get a grip.
We did something.
Something more than go quietly and meekly into the undemocratic night. We weighed up the pros and cons and took a gamble that may turn out good or bad.
For me, even if we lose, the gamble will have been worth it. The alternative was the certain death of democracy, a death by a thousand cuts. Salami tactics, as Yes Prime Minister called it.
I'm actually quite a lot scared. For my job, for the ridiculously overinflated price of my house, for my European colleagues and friends. But I'm more scared by the direction of travel of the EU. By its undemocratic nature, its short sightedness, its pig-headed stubbornness.
There was quite a good article today in The Guardian, of all places, on how all of this could have been avoided if the EU gave so much as an inch. That they didn't speaks volumes.
I expect sometime in the future on this date effigies of May will be burnt by rUK citizens to commemorate the day the country was sold down the river to preserve the Conservative party. A very sad day for those who lived to see the UK to prosper.
Or else statutes of her will be present in town centres up and down the land and she will be remembered as the George Washington of the UK, a symbol of Britain's independence day for decades to come and our national rebirth!
My arse. She'll be remembered as a Knut who ignored the fact she was disappearing underwater as the tide came in.
The whole point of the Canute story is that he wanted to prove that he could NOT prevent the tide coming in!
One bright spot for Corbyn in the mayoralty will surely be the Merseyside mayor.
Steve Rotheram is obviously popular too in Liverpool judging by the staggering 81% he got in Liverpool Walton at GE2015. It isn't quite as safe as that for Labour but it is safe methinks.
I have 300 on at 1-10, and would be utterly shocked if I was to lose money on this particular event.
I expect sometime in the future on this date effigies of May will be burnt by rUK citizens to commemorate the day the country was sold down the river to preserve the Conservative party. A very sad day for those who lived to see the UK to prosper.
Or else statutes of her will be present in town centres up and down the land and she will be remembered as the George Washington of the UK, a symbol of Britain's independence day for decades to come and our national rebirth!
My arse. She'll be remembered as a Knut who ignored the fact she was disappearing underwater as the tide came in.
Knut was of course proving he could *not* control the tide...
Why does A C Grayling say that "37% of a gerrymandered electorate is not a mandate"? If the entire electorate is one district, as it was in the referendum, gerrymandering is logically impossible, surely?
It's sad to see such a clever person say something so stupid. As you say you can't gerrymander a nation-wide referendum.
You can gerrymander by changing the franchise - denying pensions the vote, giving non-citizens the vote, making some votes count more than others, turnout thresholds, minimum win thresholds and the like.
The sort of things some Remainers suggested after the vote.
Of course its not unusual for some 'intellectuals' to have a dislike for democracy.
I expect sometime in the future on this date effigies of May will be burnt by rUK citizens to commemorate the day the country was sold down the river to preserve the Conservative party. A very sad day for those who lived to see the UK to prosper.
The answer is obvious. They're all part of the same conspiracy.
Quite so. I do wonder though if the disdain for polling would disappear if it seemed more positive for Corbyn.
As for the key point, obviously the cultists will never accept the man is electoral poison, its a question of when enough non-cultists will accept it and do something about it. They won't do the former until multiple electoral disasters hit which all but the most blinded could not explain away (you'd think we'd reached that point already, but no).
I expect sometime in the future on this date effigies of May will be burnt by rUK citizens to commemorate the day the country was sold down the river to preserve the Conservative party. A very sad day for those who lived to see the UK to prosper.
Or else statutes of her will be present in town centres up and down the land and she will be remembered as the George Washington of the UK, a symbol of Britain's independence day for decades to come and our national rebirth!
My arse. She'll be remembered as a Knut who ignored the fact she was disappearing underwater as the tide came in.
The whole point of the Canute story is that he wanted to prove that he could NOT prevent the tide coming in!
Indeed. Either way I don't see why anyone would burn May in effigy - she was a Remainer, only doing this because politically it has to be done, it's not like its the policy of the main opposition to not take this option even if they differ on details, so she's a follower of the tide, not the person driving the tide.
One bright spot for Corbyn in the mayoralty will surely be the Merseyside mayor.
Steve Rotheram is obviously popular too in Liverpool judging by the staggering 81% he got in Liverpool Walton at GE2015. It isn't quite as safe as that for Labour but it is safe methinks.
I have 300 on at 1-10, and would be utterly shocked if I was to lose money on this particular event.
We may have just committed national suicide, but fuck it, we're not easily scared.
You sound scared.
lol. I've drunk half a bottle of vintage Veuve, I'm totally minted, I am six figures richer than I was a day ago, and I'm fucking an incredibly hot 21 year old who says my books make her cry.
I've had some times in my life when I've been truly scared. Like, when I spent that first night in prison on a rape charge. Or indeed waiting for the rape trial verdict at the Old Bailey.
The time I was nearly knifed in a Marseilles slum. Being two inches from a pride of lions without a gun. A heroin overdose in Islington. A heroin overdose in Bloomsbury. The time I ended up alone in the Siberian tundra. The night I was held at gunpoint by Hezbollah in the Lebanon in a village being shelled and strafed by the Israeli military.
And so on, and so forth.
Right now? No, I would not characterise my mood as *scared*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Yep definitely scared.
Actuallyp.
We did something.
Something more than go quietly and meekly into the undemocratic night. We weighed up the pros and cons and took a gamble that may turn out good or bad.
For me, even if we lose, the gamble will have been worth it. The alternative was the certain death of democracy, a death by a thousand cuts. Salami tactics, as Yes Prime Minister called it.
I'm actually quite a lot scared. For my job, for the ridiculously overinflated price of my house, for my European colleagues and friends. But I'm more scared by the direction of travel of the EU. By its undemocratic nature, its short sightedness, its pig-headed stubbornness.
There was quite a good article today in The Guardian, of all places, on how all of this could have been avoided if the EU gave so much as an inch. That they didn't speaks volumes.
Personally I found much to be admired in the dream of the EU, but that is all it was, a dream, it did not reflect what the institution was. It had absolute contempt for anyone who desired reform in a direction it did not like and if it proves capable of meeting the varied demands of its current members, it will only be because of the shock of Brexit forcing it, as it was incapable previously as it had no desire to change - lip service would be paid at times of crisis, then the contempt would show itself again.
I'm sat, working naturellement, with fresh mint tea to keep me awake, in a quintessentially London hotel (Durrants). Just had a wonderful British meal of Pea soup and Steak/Kidney Pud.
I expect sometime in the future on this date effigies of May will be burnt by rUK citizens to commemorate the day the country was sold down the river to preserve the Conservative party. A very sad day for those who lived to see the UK to prosper.
Or else statutes of her will be present in town centres up and down the land and she will be remembered as the George Washington of the UK, a symbol of Britain's independence day for decades to come and our national rebirth!
My arse. She'll be remembered as a Knut who ignored the fact she was disappearing underwater as the tide came in.
If anything she is following the tide not resisting it
Something more than go quietly and meekly into the undemocratic night. We weighed up the pros and cons and took a gamble that may turn out good or bad.
For me, even if we lose, the gamble will have been worth it. The alternative was the certain death of democracy, a death by a thousand cuts. Salami tactics, as Yes Prime Minister called it.
I'm actually quite a lot scared. For my job, for the ridiculously overinflated price of my house, for my European colleagues and friends. But I'm more scared by the direction of travel of the EU. By its undemocratic nature, its short sightedness, its pig-headed stubbornness.
There was quite a good article today in The Guardian, of all places, on how all of this could have been avoided if the EU gave so much as an inch. That they didn't speaks volumes.
I sometimes wonder if this wasn't the Establishment's fall back plan:
' A different prime minister – perhaps Boris Johnson – with a different leader in Europe – Nicolas Sarkozy, perhaps – might have renegotiated after the referendum. Britain, already with the special status of being outside the eurozone, could perfectly well also have been apart from free movement too – able to control migration but otherwise a full member of the EU. The British people would have got what most of them wanted: to be in the market but in control of our borders. '
A second renegotiation and then a second referendum done against the background of economic turmoil.
But the Boris leadership campaign blew up, May became a Leaver and the economic turmoil failed to happen.
I'm sat, working naturellement, with fresh mint tea to keep me awake, in a quintessentially London hotel (Durrants). Just had a wonderful British meal of Pea soup and Steak/Kidney Pud.
Personally I found much to be admired in the dream of the EU, but that is all it was, a dream, it did not reflect what the institution was. It had absolute contempt for anyone who desired reform in a direction it did not like and if it proves capable of meeting the varied demands of its current members, it will only be because of the shock of Brexit forcing it, as it was incapable previously as it had no desire to change - lip service would be paid at times of crisis, then the contempt would show itself again.
In the days and weeks after the vote, I remember being genuinely surprised that the EU did not invite us back to the negotiation table, perhaps with the offer of an opt-out on free movement, as the article I linked to suggested.
Since then, I've spent a lot of time wondering why not. I had always assumed the EU to be a fundamentally pragmatic institution, willing to bend the rules to get its way - look at how they bent the rules for Euro membership. Surely they would bend the rules to keep us in the club?
But it seems they're only willing to bend the rules when the direction of travel is in one way - closer union feeling less like a dream and more like the event horizon of a black hole from which one cannot escape.
I can't decide if this makes the EU idealistic or merely dogmatic. Is it an ideal that, to British ears, simply doesn't translate?
The most important thing over the next couple of days will be the exact content and tone of the Article 50 letter. If it is indeed 6 pages long, as reported, then it's likely to contain some genuine content other than 'Dear Donald, we're scooting out, lots of love, Theresa'. I imagine it will be be stuffed full of emollient language 'want to maintain excellent relations, want the EU to prosper, want a mutually-beneficial deal, will honour all obligations, blah, blah', but will it have any meat on the deal we're seeking? I would think so - I expect it will mention zero-tariffs and major on avoiding disruption to supply chains, but we shall see.
Clearly, it will be highly market-sensitive, so I imagine the text will be published outside European and US trading hours.
I expect sometime in the future on this date effigies of May will be burnt by rUK citizens to commemorate the day the country was sold down the river to preserve the Conservative party. A very sad day for those who lived to see the UK to prosper.
Or else statutes of her will be present in town centres up and down the land and she will be remembered as the George Washington of the UK, a symbol of Britain's independence day for decades to come and our national rebirth!
My arse. She'll be remembered as a Knut who ignored the fact she was disappearing underwater as the tide came in.
The whole point of the Canute story is that he wanted to prove that he could NOT prevent the tide coming in!
Personally I found much to be admired in the dream of the EU, but that is all it was, a dream, it did not reflect what the institution was. It had absolute contempt for anyone who desired reform in a direction it did not like and if it proves capable of meeting the varied demands of its current members, it will only be because of the shock of Brexit forcing it, as it was incapable previously as it had no desire to change - lip service would be paid at times of crisis, then the contempt would show itself again.
In the days and weeks after the vote, I remember being genuinely surprised that the EU did not invite us back to the negotiation table, perhaps with the offer of an opt-out on free movement, as the article I linked to suggested.
Since then, I've spent a lot of time wondering why not. I had always assumed the EU to be a fundamentally pragmatic institution, willing to bend the rules to get its way - look at how they bent the rules for Euro membership. Surely they would bend the rules to keep us in the club?
But it seems they're only willing to bend the rules when the direction of travel is in one way - closer union feeling less like a dream and more like the event horizon of a black hole from which one cannot escape.
I can't decide if this makes the EU idealistic or merely dogmatic. Is it an ideal that, to British ears, simply doesn't translate?
I think bending in this case would have in the short term potentially worked, in keeping us sort of in perhaps, but at the cost of weakening the project in the long term by opening it up to myriad challenges from those perhaps not super keen on certain elements seeing how it could blackmail a new deal.
To preserve the overall direction of travel now they have to simultaneously make things unpleasant for us (while not being too self harming) so the prospect of leaving is unappealing, while also loosening their grip somewhat to give the appearance at least of greater flexibility so nations do not feel bounced into things they do not want (they had done that to a degree, but they need to give greater emphasis to it). We are facing great risks now, and how we work with them will be crucial, but there are risks for them too if they listen to the rasher heads, those who would prioritise punishment of the UK, those who would tighten the grip, fast track everything. They should have enough smart heads and overall support for the project to do that, but it was too late for us.
Personally I found much to be admired in the dream of the EU, but that is all it was, a dream, it did not reflect what the institution was. It had absolute contempt for anyone who desired reform in a direction it did not like and if it proves capable of meeting the varied demands of its current members, it will only be because of the shock of Brexit forcing it, as it was incapable previously as it had no desire to change - lip service would be paid at times of crisis, then the contempt would show itself again.
In the days and weeks after the vote, I remember being genuinely surprised that the EU did not invite us back to the negotiation table, perhaps with the offer of an opt-out on free movement, as the article I linked to suggested.
Since then, I've spent a lot of time wondering why not. I had always assumed the EU to be a fundamentally pragmatic institution, willing to bend the rules to get its way - look at how they bent the rules for Euro membership. Surely they would bend the rules to keep us in the club?
But it seems they're only willing to bend the rules when the direction of travel is in one way - closer union feeling less like a dream and more like the event horizon of a black hole from which one cannot escape.
I can't decide if this makes the EU idealistic or merely dogmatic. Is it an ideal that, to British ears, simply doesn't translate?
It's dogmatic for sure. The pragmatic thing would have been telling Greece that it couldn't join the euro without first making serious reforms. Instead it was allowed to cheat its way in and look what's happened.
The most important thing over the next couple of days will be the exact content and tone of the Article 50 letter. If it is indeed 6 pages long, as reported, then it's likely to contain some genuine content other than 'Dear Donald, we're scooting out, lots of love, Theresa'. I imagine it will be be stuffed full of emollient language 'want to maintain excellent relations, want the EU to prosper, want a mutually-beneficial deal, will honour all obligations, blah, blah', but will it have any meat on the deal we're seeking? I would think so - I expect it will mention zero-tariffs and major on avoiding disruption to supply chains, but we shall see.
Clearly, it will be highly market-sensitive, so I imagine the text will be published outside European and US trading hours.
Given we more than them need to begin proper negotiations as soon as possible, I would think the letter would be the time to lay at least some of our cards on the table and invite them to respond (in a manner other than the phony war threats and gambits from both sides to date). If we do that, how quickly and reasonably they respond will give an indication of how much they give a damn about making a mutually acceptable deal.
Talk of Corbyn cultists misses the point. Labour's problem isn't that particular group, it's the more moderate types who are at best lukewarm to Corbyn but would happily back him in a leadership challenge because the alternatives are so uninspiring in their eyes (and they may have a point there).
The most important thing over the next couple of days will be the exact content and tone of the Article 50 letter. If it is indeed 6 pages long, as reported, then it's likely to contain some genuine content other than 'Dear Donald, we're scooting out, lots of love, Theresa'. I imagine it will be be stuffed full of emollient language 'want to maintain excellent relations, want the EU to prosper, want a mutually-beneficial deal, will honour all obligations, blah, blah', but will it have any meat on the deal we're seeking? I would think so - I expect it will mention zero-tariffs and major on avoiding disruption to supply chains, but we shall see.
Clearly, it will be highly market-sensitive, so I imagine the text will be published outside European and US trading hours.
Given we more than them need to begin proper negotiations as soon as possible, I would think the letter would be the time to lay at least some of our cards on the table and invite them to respond (in a manner other than the phony war threats and gambits from both sides to date). If we do that, how quickly and reasonably they respond will give an indication of how much they give a damn about making a mutually acceptable deal.
I'm sat, working naturellement, with fresh mint tea to keep me awake, in a quintessentially London hotel (Durrants). Just had a wonderful British meal of Pea soup and Steak/Kidney Pud.
See several of you at Truckle tomorrow!
Sadly I can't make it as some Americans are causing trouble in Tel Aviv and I've been asked to come over to sort it out.
Talk of Corbyn cultists misses the point. Labour's problem isn't that particular group, it's the more moderate types who are at best lukewarm to Corbyn but would happily back him in a leadership challenge because the alternatives are so uninspiring in their eyes (and they may have a point there).
That was me last year.
Though I'm much more hostile to Corbyn than I was then, but the "moderates" are not giving much more confidence than they were last summer, if they're touting such a dud as Keir Starmer as the Next Great Hope.
I feel strangely indifferent to Brexit - neither elated, depressed, scared nor angry. I am INTERESTED however. I have a fairly clear idea how it's all going to turn out, but will never know unless it goes ahead. As it's probably not going to be a particularly good result for Britain, I have a nagging feeling I stood be more engaged.
I'm sat, working naturellement, with fresh mint tea to keep me awake, in a quintessentially London hotel (Durrants). Just had a wonderful British meal of Pea soup and Steak/Kidney Pud.
It's dogmatic for sure. The pragmatic thing would have been telling Greece that it couldn't join the euro without first making serious reforms. Instead it was allowed to cheat its way in and look what's happened.
And if it won't bend, it'll break. Eventually.
But I'd be the first to admit the EU's dogmatic approach and inflexibility does not bode well for negotiations.
It's all counterfactual after tomorrow, though. Would we really have been any happier or better off wed to an EU whose ideals the majority of us don't share?
The most important thing over the next couple of days will be the exact content and tone of the Article 50 letter. If it is indeed 6 pages long, as reported, then it's likely to contain some genuine content other than 'Dear Donald, we're scooting out, lots of love, Theresa'. I imagine it will be be stuffed full of emollient language 'want to maintain excellent relations, want the EU to prosper, want a mutually-beneficial deal, will honour all obligations, blah, blah', but will it have any meat on the deal we're seeking? I would think so - I expect it will mention zero-tariffs and major on avoiding disruption to supply chains, but we shall see.
Clearly, it will be highly market-sensitive, so I imagine the text will be published outside European and US trading hours.
Yes, this is where the grownup stuff has to start. Forget about Mogg, Nuttall and all the tweedy English eccentrics - the fate of millions, the vast majority not even born, are reliant upon May's unfaltering competence. Although one has to sympathise with the Americans, I'm glad the Trump thing is going from bad to worse and likely to exploded into ruinous absurdity - that was causing too much of a distraction when we need a return to good old-fashioned grind and patience and the firm hand of the technocrat.
Well of course you are insulated from any scary stuff (hunger is scary, losing your job is scary, higher bills are scary, uncertainty can be scary) so rightly should you celebrate.
I am genuinely perplexed by the demon that the EU was painted as being. It was never such a scary thing. As the Secretary of State for Brexit pointed out (proving himself to date the most sane of the mad Brexiteers).
We, you, voted for Brexit because we could. Like the drunk looking for his wallet underneath the lamppost. I find it a shame because I believe the EU was genuinely a force for good in more ways than economically but short of a political union. More people disagreed with me than agreed with me. As I have often said, such is it at a GE when Labour get in. I fundamentally don't get the reason for people to vote Labour, but such is the will of the people.
You, not so much, because you are a tart and all the better for it.
Your transformation from pre-referendum sceptic to post-referendum EUphile is complete. The EU a force for good. Even most people who voted to remain don't believe that bollocks. Even Mr Meeks says the EU was the lesser of two evils for him. You've joined the exclusive club of Nick Clegg and Ken Clark, at least your intentions are now open and can be put into the "loony federalist" list like williamglenn. I think the referendum has made you a little bit insane, I remember saying this just after the result and I'll say it again, you need to step back and get some perspective, you've become a paid up EUphile federalist who believes the EU is a force for good. Think on that for a moment, reflect on how you got to that situation. TOPPING of the 2015 vintage would look at the 2017 version with much confusion...
The most important thing over the next couple of days will be the exact content and tone of the Article 50 letter. If it is indeed 6 pages long, as reported, then it's likely to contain some genuine content other than 'Dear Donald, we're scooting out, lots of love, Theresa'. I imagine it will be be stuffed full of emollient language 'want to maintain excellent relations, want the EU to prosper, want a mutually-beneficial deal, will honour all obligations, blah, blah', but will it have any meat on the deal we're seeking? I would think so - I expect it will mention zero-tariffs and major on avoiding disruption to supply chains, but we shall see.
Clearly, it will be highly market-sensitive, so I imagine the text will be published outside European and US trading hours.
I think it'll be published at between 1 and 2pm when Tusk gets the letter and May does PMQs
Greetings from Hong Kong. Spent yesterday in Shenzhen hearing from the Chinese that they no longer see the UK as the prime investment venue they once did. Brexit Britain has a huge task on its hands. But that is the will of the people for you. At least our bananas will soon be bendier and we'll have the freedom to kill more newts.
“Good morning. In less than an hour, Brexiteers from here will join others from around the country. And you will be launching the largest diplomatic battle in the history of mankind. “Mankind.” That word should have new meaning for all of us today. We can’t be consumed by our petty differences anymore. We will be united in our common interests. Perhaps it’s fate that today is the 29th March, and you will once again be fighting for our freedom… Not from tyranny, recession, or regulations… but from EU centralisation. We are fighting for our right to live. To exist. And should we win the day, the 29th March will no longer be known as an British holiday, but as the day the world declared in one voice: 'We will not go quietly into the night! We will not vanish without a fight! We’re going to live on! We’re going to survive!' Today we celebrate our Independence Day!”
In the days and weeks after the vote, I remember being genuinely surprised that the EU did not invite us back to the negotiation table, perhaps with the offer of an opt-out on free movement, as the article I linked to suggested.
Since then, I've spent a lot of time wondering why not. I had always assumed the EU to be a fundamentally pragmatic institution, willing to bend the rules to get its way - look at how they bent the rules for Euro membership. Surely they would bend the rules to keep us in the club?
But it seems they're only willing to bend the rules when the direction of travel is in one way - closer union feeling less like a dream and more like the event horizon of a black hole from which one cannot escape.
I can't decide if this makes the EU idealistic or merely dogmatic. Is it an ideal that, to British ears, simply doesn't translate?
I'm going to assume that you're asking a serious question instead of making a sarcastic point.
I explained this on the weekend after the vote - for a second deal the UK had to seek a second deal and specify what it wanted: the EU weren't going to offer random things without knowing what the UK wanted, and as the UK government weren't asking for a better deal, there was no point in offering. You can't sell the car if the guy has walked off the lot.
The concept that the EU forced second referenda on unwilling governments was so ingrained in the Eurosceptic psyche that they couldn't understand why the EU did not do so in this case. Since the truth was that they weren't forced but consensual, I wasn't surprised by the lack of a second offer, but...well, the truth was never a big player in the referendum, now was it?...
Greetings from Hong Kong. Spent yesterday in Shenzhen hearing from the Chinese that they no longer see the UK as the prime investment venue they once did. Brexit Britain has a huge task on its hands. But that is the will of the people for you. At least our bananas will soon be bendier and we'll have the freedom to kill more newts.
Never been to Shenzhen but I did visit Guangzhou. Felt like the eighties
Greetings from Hong Kong. Spent yesterday in Shenzhen hearing from the Chinese that they no longer see the UK as the prime investment venue they once did. Brexit Britain has a huge task on its hands. But that is the will of the people for you. At least our bananas will soon be bendier and we'll have the freedom to kill more newts.
They're sandbagging you. Free at last, free at last.
Greetings from Hong Kong. Spent yesterday in Shenzhen hearing from the Chinese that they no longer see the UK as the prime investment venue they once did. Brexit Britain has a huge task on its hands. But that is the will of the people for you. At least our bananas will soon be bendier and we'll have the freedom to kill more newts.
Weird that the Chinese just bought the Cheesegrater, then
Not really. There's a difference between billionaires getting their cash out of a country with no independent judiciary and businesses making decisions about where to open new facilities and develop products.
Greetings from Hong Kong. Spent yesterday in Shenzhen hearing from the Chinese that they no longer see the UK as the prime investment venue they once did. Brexit Britain has a huge task on its hands. But that is the will of the people for you. At least our bananas will soon be bendier and we'll have the freedom to kill more newts.
Weird that the Chinese just bought the Cheesegrater, then
Not really. There's a difference between billionaires getting their cash out of a country with no independent judiciary and businesses making decisions about where to open new facilities and develop products.
Might as well buy property assets abroad, as any good diversified portfolio ought to have.
Greetings from Hong Kong. Spent yesterday in Shenzhen hearing from the Chinese that they no longer see the UK as the prime investment venue they once did. Brexit Britain has a huge task on its hands. But that is the will of the people for you. At least our bananas will soon be bendier and we'll have the freedom to kill more newts.
Weird that the Chinese just bought the Cheesegrater, then
The Qataris are about to pump £5bn in as well. The remainer protestations about the UK not being worthy of international investment is getting proved wrong just as the economic forecasts were proved wrong.
Also, Shenzen is a shit hole. The investment decisions will be taken in Shanghai where the companies are based, not in Shenzen where they export to goods to HK.
Greetings from Hong Kong. Spent yesterday in Shenzhen hearing from the Chinese that they no longer see the UK as the prime investment venue they once did. Brexit Britain has a huge task on its hands. But that is the will of the people for you. At least our bananas will soon be bendier and we'll have the freedom to kill more newts.
Weird that the Chinese just bought the Cheesegrater, then
Not really. There's a difference between billionaires getting their cash out of a country with no independent judiciary and businesses making decisions about where to open new facilities and develop products.
Fuck 'em. We're Britain. We've been around a while. We are Britain. We don't decide our fundamental issues of governance, our national sovereignty, on the basis of Chinese investments.
We did the Industrial Revolution, and we won the Cold War, and we defeated Hitler (alone, at one point), and we invented parliamentary democracy. THIS IS ENGLAND.
You're such a total nonce. Grow a couple. Then rejoice, rejoice.
You're quite bipolar today, even by your own standards
Greetings from Hong Kong. Spent yesterday in Shenzhen hearing from the Chinese that they no longer see the UK as the prime investment venue they once did. Brexit Britain has a huge task on its hands. But that is the will of the people for you. At least our bananas will soon be bendier and we'll have the freedom to kill more newts.
Weird that the Chinese just bought the Cheesegrater, then
Not really. There's a difference between billionaires getting their cash out of a country with no independent judiciary and businesses making decisions about where to open new facilities and develop products.
Fuck 'em. We're Britain. We don't decide our fundamental issues of governance on the basis of Chinese investment decisions.
We did the Industrial Revolution, and we won the Cold War, and we defeated Hitler (alone, at one point), and we invented parliamentary democracy. THIS IS ENGLAND.
You're such a total nonce. Rejoice, rejoice.
That's the spirit. It's great being wealthy and sheltered from the consequences of all this, isn't it?
Greetings from Hong Kong. Spent yesterday in Shenzhen hearing from the Chinese that they no longer see the UK as the prime investment venue they once did. Brexit Britain has a huge task on its hands. But that is the will of the people for you. At least our bananas will soon be bendier and we'll have the freedom to kill more newts.
Weird that the Chinese just bought the Cheesegrater, then
The Qataris are about to pump £5bn in as well. The remainer protestations about the UK not being worthy of international investment is getting proved wrong just as the economic forecasts were proved wrong.
Also, Shenzen is a shit hole. The investment decisions will be taken in Shanghai where the companies are based, not in Shenzen where they export to goods to HK.
You clearly know absolutely nothing about Shenzhen. Begin your education here:
Greetings from Hong Kong. Spent yesterday in Shenzhen hearing from the Chinese that they no longer see the UK as the prime investment venue they once did. Brexit Britain has a huge task on its hands. But that is the will of the people for you. At least our bananas will soon be bendier and we'll have the freedom to kill more newts.
Weird that the Chinese just bought the Cheesegrater, then
Not really. There's a difference between billionaires getting their cash out of a country with no independent judiciary and businesses making decisions about where to open new facilities and develop products.
Fuck 'em. We're Britain. We don't decide our fundamental issues of governance on the basis of Chinese investment decisions.
We did the Industrial Revolution, and we won the Cold War, and we defeated Hitler (alone, at one point), and we invented parliamentary democracy. THIS IS ENGLAND.
You're such a total nonce. Rejoice, rejoice.
That's the spirit. It's great being wealthy and sheltered from the consequences of all this, isn't it?
Greetings from Hong Kong. Spent yesterday in Shenzhen hearing from the Chinese that they no longer see the UK as the prime investment venue they once did. Brexit Britain has a huge task on its hands. But that is the will of the people for you. At least our bananas will soon be bendier and we'll have the freedom to kill more newts.
Weird that the Chinese just bought the Cheesegrater, then
The Qataris are about to pump £5bn in as well. The remainer protestations about the UK not being worthy of international investment is getting proved wrong just as the economic forecasts were proved wrong.
Also, Shenzen is a shit hole. The investment decisions will be taken in Shanghai where the companies are based, not in Shenzen where they export to goods to HK.
You clearly know absolutely nothing about Shenzhen.
The last time I went it was awful, the time I went before then it was awful. Thankfully I have no need to go any more. Major companies based in Shenzen are domestically facing, major companies that export via Shenzen are based in Shanghai, Taipei and Tokyo (though the Japanese are slowly inching their way out of China and into SE Asia). I can go to Shenzen and place an order with a domestic company to import goods, fine, but those companies are never going to invest overseas, especially given that they are mostly labour intensive manufacturing companies. I'm also not sure that we want 100 different shanzai car and phone makers investing in UK companies.
Greetings from Hong Kong. Spent yesterday in Shenzhen hearing from the Chinese that they no longer see the UK as the prime investment venue they once did. Brexit Britain has a huge task on its hands. But that is the will of the people for you. At least our bananas will soon be bendier and we'll have the freedom to kill more newts.
Weird that the Chinese just bought the Cheesegrater, then
The Qataris are about to pump £5bn in as well. The remainer protestations about the UK not being worthy of international investment is getting proved wrong just as the economic forecasts were proved wrong.
Also, Shenzen is a shit hole. The investment decisions will be taken in Shanghai where the companies are based, not in Shenzen where they export to goods to HK.
You clearly know absolutely nothing about Shenzhen.
The last time I went it was awful, the time I went before then it was awful. Thankfully I have no need to go any more. Major companies based in Shenzen are domestically facing, major companies that export via Shenzen are based in Shanghai, Taipei and Tokyo (though the Japanese are slowly inching their way out of China and into SE Asia). I can go to Shenzen and place an order with a domestic company to import goods, fine, but those companies are never going to invest overseas, especially given that they are mostly labour intensive manufacturing companies. I'm also not sure that we want 100 different shanzai car and phone makers investing in UK companies.
Yep, as I say you know nothing about Shenzhen. And this is my problem with Brexit. It is in the hands of people who don't get the real world. I spent the day seeing companies who make huge investments in countries across the world or are planning to do so in the coming years because the Chinese market is not big enough for them to continue growing in. They are looking for investment opportunities. We are inevitably less intetesting to the as a country of 60 million people than as an integral part of a market of 450 million people.
Will we go down the plughole? Absolutely not. We'll get by. We'll have blue passports, bendy bananas, less worker protection and the chance to kill more newts. For the better off, there will undoubtedly be more direct sovereignty to enjoy. But leaving the EU will do nothing to solve our many long-term structural problems and is likely to create a few more. But that's what people voted for and we all have to live with it. For the likes of me, you, SeanT and a fair few others who post on here that is not going to be a big ask. Rejoice!
The best that could be said for us is that we prevented him invading Britain. The actual fighting and defeating bit was done by tens of millions of dead Russians and lots and lots of American tanks. We fucked up troop deployment so badly the Australians deposed their Prime Minister and redeployed their own troops.
Greetings from Hong Kong. Spent yesterday in Shenzhen hearing from the Chinese that they no longer see the UK as the prime investment venue they once did. Brexit Britain has a huge task on its hands. But that is the will of the people for you. At least our bananas will soon be bendier and we'll have the freedom to kill more newts.
Weird that the Chinese just bought the Cheesegrater, then
The Qataris are about to pump £5bn in as well. The remainer protestations about the UK not being worthy of international investment is getting proved wrong just as the economic forecasts were proved wrong.
Also, Shenzen is a shit hole. The investment decisions will be taken in Shanghai where the companies are based, not in Shenzen where they export to goods to HK.
You clearly know absolutely nothing about Shenzhen.
The last time I went it was awful, the time I went before then it was awful. Thankfully I have no need to go any more. Major companies based in Shenzen are domestically facing, major companies that export via Shenzen are based in Shanghai, Taipei and Tokyo (though the Japanese are slowly inching their way out of China and into SE Asia). I can go to Shenzen and place an order with a domestic company to import goods, fine, but those companies are never going to invest overseas, especially given that they are mostly labour intensive manufacturing companies. I'm also not sure that we want 100 different shanzai car and phone makers investing in UK companies.
BGI (formerly the Beijing Genomics Institute) is based in Shenzhen. The biggest genome reading capacity in the world. Major gene-writing capability. The second largest database in the world (after only the NSA). Back in 2014, they recruited 1000 PhDs in one year.
Greetings from Hong Kong. Spent yesterday in Shenzhen hearing from the Chinese that they no longer see the UK as the prime investment venue they once did. Brexit Britain has a huge task on its hands. But that is the will of the people for you. At least our bananas will soon be bendier and we'll have the freedom to kill more newts.
Weird that the Chinese just bought the Cheesegrater, then
The Qataris are about to pump £5bn in as well. The remainer protestations about the UK not being worthy of international investment is getting proved wrong just as the economic forecasts were proved wrong.
Also, Shenzen is a shit hole. The investment decisions will be taken in Shanghai where the companies are based, not in Shenzen where they export to goods to HK.
Qataris ? They are Muslim you know. And you hate Muslims.
(What worries me was that I was the only one to get the reference)
Because the phrase that concerns you was "it is finished" not "it is done?"
Although some might think that Eloi Eloi lama sabachthami is more appropriate. (Apologies if I have spelt it wrong but it late here and it's been a long time since I studied theology seriously)
(What worries me was that I was the only one to get the reference)
Because the phrase that concerns you was "it is finished" not "it is done?"
Although some might think that Eloi Eloi lama sabachthami is more appropriate. (Apologies if I have spelt it wrong but it late here and it's been a long time since I studied theology seriously)
(What worries me was that I was the only one to get the reference)
Because the phrase that concerns you was "it is finished" not "it is done?"
Although some might think that Eloi Eloi lama sabachthami is more appropriate. (Apologies if I have spelt it wrong but it late here and it's been a long time since I studied theology seriously)
No. Although I was brought up with the "It is done" version, I know there are other translations.
Obourne having a go at Cameron in one of his less hysterical pieces:
But the former occupant of Number 10 had one significant flaw. Like Tony Blair before him, he governed through a cabal of close friends. Mr Cameron's 'chumocracy' replaced the Blair 'sofa government'.
And in the past few days we have been discovering the shocking extent of its malign influence. The growing scandal over the American internet minicab company Uber, uncovered in an exemplary investigation by the Mail's Guy Adams, is symptomatic of the gross weakness at the heart of Cameron's administration.
In any case, bewailing the outcome misses the point that unless the EU had been willing to change - and Cameron clearly proved that it wasn't - we'd have ended up in the same place sooner or later, whether Remain had won or whether no referendum had been held in 2016. The EU's agenda and Britain's were ultimately incompatible.
Is it inevitable we would have ended up in the same place later? I suspect the referendum was won (as much as it could be won by any segment of the population, which in a fairly narrow vote means several quite different segments!) by what I call the "let me not be a slowly boiled frog" demographic.
Lots of folk didn't have a serious problem with the nature of the EU as currently constituted, so long as Britain retained its opt-outs, even if they viewed the political project with mild concern. They might have preferred some kind of looser relationship, perhaps an associate membership deal, and would have been quite happy if Cameron had negotiated something along those lines. But so long as they felt confident that Britain was not going to be sucked deeper into The Project, they enjoyed the advantages enough (or were sufficiently afraid of the consequences) to have supported Remain.
But when there's a ratchet effect, with integration regularly getting deeper but rarely being reversed, and when there are strong political, geostrategic and economic forces that nudge Britain further along that path, and when there is the occasional UK politician who does support greater integration and who might get into office from time to time ... and when you see the EU's outreach/PR/education/propaganda arm (call it as you will) trying to drum up support, particularly among young people, for ever greater, deeper European unity... well, that once-in-a-lifetime chance to voice your opinion looks a bit different in that light, doesn't it?
If you thought there'd be another chance in 5 years, maybe even 10, then perhaps it's good enough that the Eurocrats get a little scare this time, and are aware they need not to overstep the mark before the next one. But if there is no next one, then they've won, and you just have to trust them (and their British counterparts). And trust them forever, with no serious mechanism for disciplining future overreach. It just seems inevitable that Britain would slide down the slippery slope of further integration in those circumstances, and somebody starting with such moderately eurosceptical premises would feel a pretty gullible fool to vote Remain.
I suspect voters with no immediate appetite for leaving, and therefore who constituted potential swing voters, who nevertheless feared that this would be the final chance to leave - that despite any niggling incompatibilities, a vote to Remain ultimately leads to inescapable integration - swung the referendum for Leave.
It has been a colossal error by Davos Man left-wingers to think of nation-states as embarrassing anachronisms hostile to democracy. Far from being a threat to democracy, the nation-state is the only stable underpinning we have yet devised to sustain the commitments, sacrifices and levels of social trust that a democracy and a welfare state require.
The most compelling argument I read for Brexit was from a Nobel Physicist - the institution simply does not have the capacity for error correction that we - with common law and parliamentary democracy - take for granted - and hence Britain applied the only error correction open to it - leave.
On the subject of clever people and Brexit: Tony Yates is a very prominent academic economist (macro), very well-respected, and one of the instigators of the of the letter to the Times signed by 100+ pro-Remain economists.
At the same time as he was organising the letter, including calling for signatures on his blog, he was also blogging about the Euro crisis. The only solution was full banking union and full fiscal union - and soon. He had in fact been blogging about this for several years, always pressing the urgency of attaining this level of integration before the Euro crisis exploded again, and calling for member states to "surrender as much individual fiscal sovereignty as possible". The can-kicking of Europe's great statesmen and women must have frustrated him no end.
But his anti-Brexit posting and sort-this-Euro-thing-out-like-yesterday posts had an independent coexistence. It was as if he saw no contradiction in calling for Britain to be cleaved to this union, since that is what the economics (trade, migration and the market) dictate, yet calling for the rest of the union to form a nascent super-state (which is what the financial, economic, and - implicitly - political integration he demanded ultimately amounted to). A union whose fundamental integration he saw as not only inevitable or desirable, but urgent and necessary, and moreover an process he believed its leaders were making a sclerotic and, in the final analysis, dangerous and potentially explosive, pig's ear of.
I'm not saying this was economically naive of him - he is, by all accounts, a brilliant and insightful economist, and the underlying logic of his anti-Brexit position (that long-run UK growth would be lower if barriers arose with its leading trade partners) need not be impeached by the short-term tribulations and machinations of the Eurozone.
But politically - what a tin ear! Could anyone imagine this combination could be a saleable proposition for the UK public? Shackle yourself to a future-inevitable superstate, whose incompetent and squabbling leadership could yet see the whole thing explode, or else a chunk of your counterfactual GDP gets it?
It has been a colossal error by Davos Man left-wingers to think of nation-states as embarrassing anachronisms hostile to democracy. Far from being a threat to democracy, the nation-state is the only stable underpinning we have yet devised to sustain the commitments, sacrifices and levels of social trust that a democracy and a welfare state require.
The most compelling argument I read for Brexit was from a Nobel Physicist - the institution simply does not have the capacity for error correction that we - with common law and parliamentary democracy - take for granted - and hence Britain applied the only error correction open to it - leave.
"It has been a colossal error by Davos Man left-wingers to think of nation-states as embarrassing anachronisms hostile to democracy"
A straw man if ever I saw one. Who actually believes that nation states are embarrassing anachronisms outside those on the far left who supported Brexit?
Comments
Is the reason you go to all these luxurious locations the simple fact that travel writers get the accommodation and flights for free but the writer has to pay for food and drinks? And hence the only writer who can afford to do such reviews is your good self?
I mean I'm not exactly poor and made enough on brexit that I will come again in 2 years on the winnings (don't tell the wife) but I have a continual feeling of ouch whenever I sign a tab.
I am genuinely perplexed by the demon that the EU was painted as being. It was never such a scary thing. As the Secretary of State for Brexit pointed out (proving himself to date the most sane of the mad Brexiteers).
We, you, voted for Brexit because we could. Like the drunk looking for his wallet underneath the lamppost. I find it a shame because I believe the EU was genuinely a force for good in more ways than economically but short of a political union. More people disagreed with me than agreed with me. As I have often said, such is it at a GE when Labour get in. I fundamentally don't get the reason for people to vote Labour, but such is the will of the people.
I have to feel happy for @Casino_Royale and @Richard_Tyndall because Brexit is something I think they really wanted.
You, not so much, because you are a tart and all the better for it.
In any case, bewailing the outcome misses the point that unless the EU had been willing to change - and Cameron clearly proved that it wasn't - we'd have ended up in the same place sooner or later, whether Remain had won or whether no referendum had been held in 2016. The EU's agenda and Britain's were ultimately incompatible.
I though Liverpool City region was Merseyside plus Halton.
But those maps have Weaver Vale and Warrington South included as well.
Something more than go quietly and meekly into the undemocratic night. We weighed up the pros and cons and took a gamble that may turn out good or bad.
For me, even if we lose, the gamble will have been worth it. The alternative was the certain death of democracy, a death by a thousand cuts. Salami tactics, as Yes Prime Minister called it.
I'm actually quite a lot scared. For my job, for the ridiculously overinflated price of my house, for my European colleagues and friends. But I'm more scared by the direction of travel of the EU. By its undemocratic nature, its short sightedness, its pig-headed stubbornness.
There was quite a good article today in The Guardian, of all places, on how all of this could have been avoided if the EU gave so much as an inch. That they didn't speaks volumes.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/28/britain-divorce-eu-europe-referendum
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world,
That has such people in't.
The sort of things some Remainers suggested after the vote.
Of course its not unusual for some 'intellectuals' to have a dislike for democracy.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/530051168790413313
http://news.sky.com/story/sky-data-brexit-poll-half-of-britons-happy-about-talks-starting-10816972
As for the key point, obviously the cultists will never accept the man is electoral poison, its a question of when enough non-cultists will accept it and do something about it. They won't do the former until multiple electoral disasters hit which all but the most blinded could not explain away (you'd think we'd reached that point already, but no). Indeed. Either way I don't see why anyone would burn May in effigy - she was a Remainer, only doing this because politically it has to be done, it's not like its the policy of the main opposition to not take this option even if they differ on details, so she's a follower of the tide, not the person driving the tide.
I'm sat, working naturellement, with fresh mint tea to keep me awake, in a quintessentially London hotel (Durrants). Just had a wonderful British meal of Pea soup and Steak/Kidney Pud.
See several of you at Truckle tomorrow!
' A different prime minister – perhaps Boris Johnson – with a different leader in Europe – Nicolas Sarkozy, perhaps – might have renegotiated after the referendum. Britain, already with the special status of being outside the eurozone, could perfectly well also have been apart from free movement too – able to control migration but otherwise a full member of the EU. The British people would have got what most of them wanted: to be in the market but in control of our borders. '
A second renegotiation and then a second referendum done against the background of economic turmoil.
But the Boris leadership campaign blew up, May became a Leaver and the economic turmoil failed to happen.
Any chance of posting some photos ?
Since then, I've spent a lot of time wondering why not. I had always assumed the EU to be a fundamentally pragmatic institution, willing to bend the rules to get its way - look at how they bent the rules for Euro membership. Surely they would bend the rules to keep us in the club?
But it seems they're only willing to bend the rules when the direction of travel is in one way - closer union feeling less like a dream and more like the event horizon of a black hole from which one cannot escape.
I can't decide if this makes the EU idealistic or merely dogmatic. Is it an ideal that, to British ears, simply doesn't translate?
Clearly, it will be highly market-sensitive, so I imagine the text will be published outside European and US trading hours.
To preserve the overall direction of travel now they have to simultaneously make things unpleasant for us (while not being too self harming) so the prospect of leaving is unappealing, while also loosening their grip somewhat to give the appearance at least of greater flexibility so nations do not feel bounced into things they do not want (they had done that to a degree, but they need to give greater emphasis to it). We are facing great risks now, and how we work with them will be crucial, but there are risks for them too if they listen to the rasher heads, those who would prioritise punishment of the UK, those who would tighten the grip, fast track everything. They should have enough smart heads and overall support for the project to do that, but it was too late for us.
Though I'm much more hostile to Corbyn than I was then, but the "moderates" are not giving much more confidence than they were last summer, if they're touting such a dud as Keir Starmer as the Next Great Hope.
But I'd be the first to admit the EU's dogmatic approach and inflexibility does not bode well for negotiations.
It's all counterfactual after tomorrow, though. Would we really have been any happier or better off wed to an EU whose ideals the majority of us don't share?
“Good morning. In less than an hour, Brexiteers from here will join others from around the country. And you will be launching the largest diplomatic battle in the history of mankind. “Mankind.” That word should have new meaning for all of us today. We can’t be consumed by our petty differences anymore. We will be united in our common interests. Perhaps it’s fate that today is the 29th March, and you will once again be fighting for our freedom… Not from tyranny, recession, or regulations… but from EU centralisation. We are fighting for our right to live. To exist. And should we win the day, the 29th March will no longer be known as an British holiday, but as the day the world declared in one voice: 'We will not go quietly into the night! We will not vanish without a fight! We’re going to live on! We’re going to survive!' Today we celebrate our Independence Day!”
**PB crowd cheers!**
I explained this on the weekend after the vote - for a second deal the UK had to seek a second deal and specify what it wanted: the EU weren't going to offer random things without knowing what the UK wanted, and as the UK government weren't asking for a better deal, there was no point in offering. You can't sell the car if the guy has walked off the lot.
The concept that the EU forced second referenda on unwilling governments was so ingrained in the Eurosceptic psyche that they couldn't understand why the EU did not do so in this case. Since the truth was that they weren't forced but consensual, I wasn't surprised by the lack of a second offer, but...well, the truth was never a big player in the referendum, now was it?...
Tick tock.
Free at last, free at last.
Also, Shenzen is a shit hole. The investment decisions will be taken in Shanghai where the companies are based, not in Shenzen where they export to goods to HK.
https://www.google.com.hk/amp/m.scmp.com/lifestyle/technology/enterprises/article/1765430/top-5-tech-giants-who-shape-shenzhen-chinas-silicon?amp=1
Muppets!
Will we go down the plughole? Absolutely not. We'll get by. We'll have blue passports, bendy bananas, less worker protection and the chance to kill more newts. For the better off, there will undoubtedly be more direct sovereignty to enjoy. But leaving the EU will do nothing to solve our many long-term structural problems and is likely to create a few more. But that's what people voted for and we all have to live with it. For the likes of me, you, SeanT and a fair few others who post on here that is not going to be a big ask. Rejoice!
I see Brexit is starting as it means to go on...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Genomics_Institute#Yan_Huang_Project
(What worries me was that I was the only one to get the reference)
Although some might think that Eloi Eloi lama sabachthami is more appropriate. (Apologies if I have spelt it wrong but it late here and it's been a long time since I studied theology seriously)
Thanks for the advance warning of the charity funding launch on Monday. We took advantage of the information! I hope it went well
https://twitter.com/OnlineAlison/status/846469181734248448
But the former occupant of Number 10 had one significant flaw. Like Tony Blair before him, he governed through a cabal of close friends. Mr Cameron's 'chumocracy' replaced the Blair 'sofa government'.
And in the past few days we have been discovering the shocking extent of its malign influence. The growing scandal over the American internet minicab company Uber, uncovered in an exemplary investigation by the Mail's Guy Adams, is symptomatic of the gross weakness at the heart of Cameron's administration.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4358824/PETER-OBOURNE-growing-smell-Uber.html
Lots of folk didn't have a serious problem with the nature of the EU as currently constituted, so long as Britain retained its opt-outs, even if they viewed the political project with mild concern. They might have preferred some kind of looser relationship, perhaps an associate membership deal, and would have been quite happy if Cameron had negotiated something along those lines. But so long as they felt confident that Britain was not going to be sucked deeper into The Project, they enjoyed the advantages enough (or were sufficiently afraid of the consequences) to have supported Remain.
But when there's a ratchet effect, with integration regularly getting deeper but rarely being reversed, and when there are strong political, geostrategic and economic forces that nudge Britain further along that path, and when there is the occasional UK politician who does support greater integration and who might get into office from time to time ... and when you see the EU's outreach/PR/education/propaganda arm (call it as you will) trying to drum up support, particularly among young people, for ever greater, deeper European unity... well, that once-in-a-lifetime chance to voice your opinion looks a bit different in that light, doesn't it?
If you thought there'd be another chance in 5 years, maybe even 10, then perhaps it's good enough that the Eurocrats get a little scare this time, and are aware they need not to overstep the mark before the next one. But if there is no next one, then they've won, and you just have to trust them (and their British counterparts). And trust them forever, with no serious mechanism for disciplining future overreach. It just seems inevitable that Britain would slide down the slippery slope of further integration in those circumstances, and somebody starting with such moderately eurosceptical premises would feel a pretty gullible fool to vote Remain.
I suspect voters with no immediate appetite for leaving, and therefore who constituted potential swing voters, who nevertheless feared that this would be the final chance to leave - that despite any niggling incompatibilities, a vote to Remain ultimately leads to inescapable integration - swung the referendum for Leave.
The most compelling argument I read for Brexit was from a Nobel Physicist - the institution simply does not have the capacity for error correction that we - with common law and parliamentary democracy - take for granted - and hence Britain applied the only error correction open to it - leave.
At the same time as he was organising the letter, including calling for signatures on his blog, he was also blogging about the Euro crisis. The only solution was full banking union and full fiscal union - and soon. He had in fact been blogging about this for several years, always pressing the urgency of attaining this level of integration before the Euro crisis exploded again, and calling for member states to "surrender as much individual fiscal sovereignty as possible". The can-kicking of Europe's great statesmen and women must have frustrated him no end.
But his anti-Brexit posting and sort-this-Euro-thing-out-like-yesterday posts had an independent coexistence. It was as if he saw no contradiction in calling for Britain to be cleaved to this union, since that is what the economics (trade, migration and the market) dictate, yet calling for the rest of the union to form a nascent super-state (which is what the financial, economic, and - implicitly - political integration he demanded ultimately amounted to). A union whose fundamental integration he saw as not only inevitable or desirable, but urgent and necessary, and moreover an process he believed its leaders were making a sclerotic and, in the final analysis, dangerous and potentially explosive, pig's ear of.
I'm not saying this was economically naive of him - he is, by all accounts, a brilliant and insightful economist, and the underlying logic of his anti-Brexit position (that long-run UK growth would be lower if barriers arose with its leading trade partners) need not be impeached by the short-term tribulations and machinations of the Eurozone.
But politically - what a tin ear! Could anyone imagine this combination could be a saleable proposition for the UK public? Shackle yourself to a future-inevitable superstate, whose incompetent and squabbling leadership could yet see the whole thing explode, or else a chunk of your counterfactual GDP gets it?
A straw man if ever I saw one. Who actually believes that nation states are embarrassing anachronisms outside those on the far left who supported Brexit?