We'll know more when we see the EU's reaction to the citizens rights proposals when the UK publishes those tomorrow. If they continue to insist on EU citizens (and their immediate decedents) rights being superior to UK citizens, with extra-territorial jurisdiction for the ECJ we'll know they're not serious in reaching a compromise.
which saw her lose David Cameron’s majority
Of course, if Cameron had actually thought he'd get a majority he'd have hedged his referendum promise - or did he think he'd simply "carry the country with him"?
Whose hubris was more destructive, Cameron's or May's? Discuss.
Don't blame Cameron for the mess that faces the country.
I do blame Cameron for:
1) Pretending the pile of poo he got from Brussels was a 'great deal' 2) Campaigning for the above when he could have 'stood above it' then 3) Cutting & running when he lost. A democrat would have said 'The people have decided, time to get on with implementing their decision' instead of retiring from the fray. He could have made clear that he would stand down once Brexit was agreed.
In comparison all May has done is hurt the Tory Party, which will recover, and herself, fatally.
Because he didn't do 2 he couldn't avoid doing 3. That was his big mistake.
Quite. His 'Emporer's New Clothes' act on his renegotiations and Osborne's talk of 'Punishment Budget' meant they were toast if they'd lost. If Cameron had spoken calmly about the balance of probabilities suggesting the deal was a good one and we should remain - instead of unleashing the forces of Hell - then he might have been able to stay on as PM.
He should not have embarked on a pointless renegotiation that was always bound to fail. He should have had the courage to make the positive case for the status quo, which is far superior to anything the EU will now deign to give us.
I was in favour of Brexit, but you're right that Cameron would have been better off with no renegotiation rather than trying to sell the turd he got from Brussels as if it were gold. Those campaigning to remain should have been positive, the talk of the end of the world if we left, and getting foreign leaders like Obama involved only piled up for votes for the Leave side. People in general hate politicians.
If we look at the behaviour of the EU post Brexit I'm genuinely amazed that people on here still want to be a part of it. Actually I don't believe they do, their position is so entrenched they could never admit what a fetid organisation the EU is.
On the contrary what we see in the EU is strong and stable government, with vision and an increasingly strong economy.
It would be too dangerous for our democracy to ignore the referendum result though.
More misnomers.
Some countries within the EU are doing well, others aren't - why do we need to pay to trade with countries such as Greece?
Free trade is always the best option.
Which is why Single Market Membership is in our interest. We should be part of the team writing the rules.
Brexit will be the single most self destructive act on British influence since Suez.
If you're writing rules its not free trade.
With that logic, any free trade agreement is also not free trade.
On the contrary, free trade is free trade, buy and sell from who you want.
Why do you object to that?
Free trade is not a free for all.
Why not?
Country A has regulations specifying, say, one type of widget safety standard. Country B has regulations specifying a different standard. As it stands, neither country's widget manufacturers can sell to the other country.
A free trade agreement would include a mutually agreed set of widget safety standards so there could be, er, free trade in widgets.
So Country A makes widgets and sells them to Country B.
I have said all along that hard Brexit is nailed on, and we should plan on that basis. Some major Kent lorry parks with massive customs recruitment for example.
In the medium term our economy will realign itself to a hard Brexit scenario. The various cross-border industries will go and be replaced, we will become more self-sufficient because we will have to be.
It's the short term where it gets interesting. Slam the borders shut in March 2019 because we crash out with no deal (well, there will be a deal, not necessarily one that May can get through the Commons) and the problem wont be Kent lorry parks. It will be hunger. This nation cannot feed itself, even less so as agriculture stops when our "bollocks to hard work I'm going to win the X-factor" generation refuse to pick fruit (which is why Boston became "overrun" with foreigners in the first place)
Hard Brexit means supermarket shelves going empty within a week. Means riots. Means the political end of whomever is the government at the time.
If we look at the behaviour of the EU post Brexit I'm genuinely amazed that people on here still want to be a part of it. Actually I don't believe they do, their position is so entrenched they could never admit what a fetid organisation the EU is.
On the contrary what we see in the EU is strong and stable government, with vision and an increasingly strong economy.
It would be too dangerous for our democracy to ignore the referendum result though.
More misnomers.
Some countries within the EU are doing well, others aren't - why do we need to pay to trade with countries such as Greece?
Free trade is always the best option.
Which is why Single Market Membership is in our interest. We should be part of the team writing the rules.
Brexit will be the single most self destructive act on British influence since Suez.
If you're writing rules its not free trade.
With that logic, any free trade agreement is also not free trade.
On the contrary, free trade is free trade, buy and sell from who you want.
Why do you object to that?
Free trade is not a free for all.
Why not?
Because the world doesn't work like that and becoming the North Korea of libertarianism won't convince anyone else to accommodate us.
If you witness the ridiculous posturing between our clueless politicians and the equally useless ones at the EU its easy to see why so many countries are in debt. Politicians should get out of the way and let people buy and sell things. People create wealth, not governments.
If we look at the behaviour of the EU post Brexit I'm genuinely amazed that people on here still want to be a part of it. Actually I don't believe they do, their position is so entrenched they could never admit what a fetid organisation the EU is.
On the contrary what we see in the EU is strong and stable government, with vision and an increasingly strong economy.
It would be too dangerous for our democracy to ignore the referendum result though.
More misnomers.
Some countries within the EU are doing well, others aren't - why do we need to pay to trade with countries such as Greece?
Free trade is always the best option.
Which is why Single Market Membership is in our interest. We should be part of the team writing the rules.
Brexit will be the single most self destructive act on British influence since Suez.
If you're writing rules its not free trade.
With that logic, any free trade agreement is also not free trade.
On the contrary, free trade is free trade, buy and sell from who you want.
Why do you object to that?
Free trade is not a free for all.
Why not?
Country A has regulations specifying, say, one type of widget safety standard. Country B has regulations specifying a different standard. As it stands, neither country's widget manufacturers can sell to the other country.
A free trade agreement would include a mutually agreed set of widget safety standards so there could be, er, free trade in widgets.
So Country A makes widgets and sells them to Country B.
Only if they conform to Country B's standards. Not quite taking back control.
I was in favour of Brexit, but you're right that Cameron would have been better off with no renegotiation rather than trying to sell the turd he got from Brussels as if it were gold. Those campaigning to remain should have been positive, the talk of the end of the world if we left, and getting foreign leaders like Obama involved only piled up for votes for the Leave side. People in general hate politicians.
"Those campaigning to remain should have been positive"
Before the referendum people were asking for positive things about the EU. I gave a reply about a very small area that I knew fairly well, along with relevant links and supporting information.
How did the Europhobes take this? Did they say "Well, that might be right, but it's a small area and would be outweighed by the advantages of leaving?" or some other positive reply?
No, they went into full denial mode, started throwing insults, and put their fingers in their ears. One poster repeatedly argued that I was wrong, then admitted he couldn't even be arsed to read the links.
If we look at the behaviour of the EU post Brexit I'm genuinely amazed that people on here still want to be a part of it. Actually I don't believe they do, their position is so entrenched they could never admit what a fetid organisation the EU is.
On the contrary what we see in the EU is strong and stable government, with vision and an increasingly strong economy.
It would be too dangerous for our democracy to ignore the referendum result though.
More misnomers.
Some countries within the EU are doing well, others aren't - why do we need to pay to trade with countries such as Greece?
Free trade is always the best option.
Which is why Single Market Membership is in our interest. We should be part of the team writing the rules.
Brexit will be the single most self destructive act on British influence since Suez.
If you're writing rules its not free trade.
With that logic, any free trade agreement is also not free trade.
On the contrary, free trade is free trade, buy and sell from who you want.
Why do you object to that?
Free trade is not a free for all.
Why not?
Country A has regulations specifying, say, one type of widget safety standard. Country B has regulations specifying a different standard. As it stands, neither country's widget manufacturers can sell to the other country.
A free trade agreement would include a mutually agreed set of widget safety standards so there could be, er, free trade in widgets.
So Country A makes widgets and sells them to Country B.
Only if they conform to Country B's standards. Not quite taking back control.
The manufacturer in country A can produce 2 kinds of widgets, one for country A and one for country B. If A and B are very small countries with a small demand for widgets that might be marginally less efficient but if they are a reasonable size that really is not an issue, a bit like German car manufacturers producing LH drive cars for this market.
There is no need for consistent agreed standards to have free trade. You do for a single market but not for free trade.
If we look at the behaviour of the EU post Brexit I'm genuinely amazed that people on here still want to be a part of it. Actually I don't believe they do, their position is so entrenched they could never admit what a fetid organisation the EU is.
On the contrary what we see in the EU is strong and stable government, with vision and an increasingly strong economy.
It would be too dangerous for our democracy to ignore the referendum result though.
More misnomers.
Some countries within the EU are doing well, others aren't - why do we need to pay to trade with countries such as Greece?
Free trade is always the best option.
Which is why Single Market Membership is in our interest. We should be part of the team writing the rules.
Brexit will be the single most self destructive act on British influence since Suez.
If you're writing rules its not free trade.
With that logic, any free trade agreement is also not free trade.
On the contrary, free trade is free trade, buy and sell from who you want.
Why do you object to that?
Free trade is not a free for all.
Why not?
Country A has regulations specifying, say, one type of widget safety standard. Country B has regulations specifying a different standard. As it stands, neither country's widget manufacturers can sell to the other country.
A free trade agreement would include a mutually agreed set of widget safety standards so there could be, er, free trade in widgets.
So Country A makes widgets and sells them to Country B.
Only if they conform to Country B's standards. Not quite taking back control.
Why do you mention control?
Country B has asked Country A to make widgets, if they say no then Country B is approached.
I'm certain you understand this, you're just obfuscating. Its no different to walking past the fish and chip shop because you fancy a kebab.
Mr. Jessop, I can't recall that (it was some time ago) and hope I wasn't one of those simply saying you were wrong. However, the campaigning from political heavyweights was almost entirely skewed to the negative. Perhaps if they'd taken a leaf from your book, and put the doom to the back of the queue, they would have won.
As an aside, I'm not delighted at how things are going. But remaining in would be even worse. A Remain vote would have been taken as a green light for ever more 'Europe'.
Ultimately, we face a decision. To be slowly integrated into a country called the EU, or to be an independent and separate nation.
If the economics without the politics had been available, it would've won by a landslide. But that was never on offer.
If we look at the behaviour of the EU post Brexit I'm genuinely amazed that people on here still want to be a part of it. Actually I don't believe they do, their position is so entrenched they could never admit what a fetid organisation the EU is.
On the contrary what we see in the EU is strong and stable government, with vision and an increasingly strong economy.
It would be too dangerous for our democracy to ignore the referendum result though.
More misnomers.
Some countries within the EU are doing well, others aren't - why do we need to pay to trade with countries such as Greece?
Free trade is always the best option.
Which is why Single Market Membership is in our interest. We should be part of the team writing the rules.
Brexit will be the single most self destructive act on British influence since Suez.
If you're writing rules its not free trade.
With that logic, any free trade agreement is also not free trade.
On the contrary, free trade is free trade, buy and sell from who you want.
Why do you object to that?
Free trade is not a free for all.
Why not?
Because the world doesn't work like that and becoming the North Korea of libertarianism won't convince anyone else to accommodate us.
If you witness the ridiculous posturing between our clueless politicians and the equally useless ones at the EU its easy to see why so many countries are in debt. Politicians should get out of the way and let people buy and sell things. People create wealth, not governments.
Unilateral political disarmament is even more utopian than the CND approach to global security.
If we look at the behaviour of the EU post Brexit I'm genuinely amazed that people on here still want to be a part of it. Actually I don't believe they do, their position is so entrenched they could never admit what a fetid organisation the EU is.
On the contrary what we see in the EU is strong and stable government, with vision and an increasingly strong economy.
It would be too dangerous for our democracy to ignore the referendum result though.
More misnomers.
Some countries within the EU are doing well, others aren't - why do we need to pay to trade with countries such as Greece?
Free trade is always the best option.
Which is why Single Market Membership is in our interest. We should be part of the team writing the rules.
Brexit will be the single most self destructive act on British influence since Suez.
If you're writing rules its not free trade.
With that logic, any free trade agreement is also not free trade.
On the contrary, free trade is free trade, buy and sell from who you want.
Why do you object to that?
Free trade is not a free for all.
Why not?
Because the world doesn't work like that and becoming the North Korea of libertarianism won't convince anyone else to accommodate us.
If you witness the ridiculous posturing between our clueless politicians and the equally useless ones at the EU its easy to see why so many countries are in debt. Politicians should get out of the way and let people buy and sell things. People create wealth, not governments.
The present idea the EU is succeeding economically completely ignores their dreadful youth employment rates
If we look at the behaviour of the EU post Brexit I'm genuinely amazed that people on here still want to be a part of it. Actually I don't believe they do, their position is so entrenched they could never admit what a fetid organisation the EU is.
On the contrary what we see in the EU is strong and stable government, with vision and an increasingly strong economy.
It would be too dangerous for our democracy to ignore the referendum result though.
More misnomers.
Some countries within the EU are doing well, others aren't - why do we need to pay to trade with countries such as Greece?
Free trade is always the best option.
Which is why Single Market Membership is in our interest. We should be part of the team writing the rules.
Brexit will be the single most self destructive act on British influence since Suez.
If you're writing rules its not free trade.
With that logic, any free trade agreement is also not free trade.
On the contrary, free trade is free trade, buy and sell from who you want.
Why do you object to that?
Free trade is not a free for all.
Why not?
Because the world doesn't work like that and becoming the North Korea of libertarianism won't convince anyone else to accommodate us.
If you witness the ridiculous posturing between our clueless politicians and the equally useless ones at the EU its easy to see why so many countries are in debt. Politicians should get out of the way and let people buy and sell things. People create wealth, not governments.
Unilateral political disarmament is even more utopian than the CND approach to global security.
If we look at the behaviour of the EU post Brexit I'm genuinely amazed that people on here still want to be a part of it. Actually I don't believe they do, their position is so entrenched they could never admit what a fetid organisation the EU is.
On the contrary what we see in the EU is strong and stable government, with vision and an increasingly strong economy.
It would be too dangerous for our democracy to ignore the referendum result though.
More misnomers.
Some countries within the EU are doing well, others aren't - why do we need to pay to trade with countries such as Greece?
Free trade is always the best option.
Which is why Single Market Membership is in our interest. We should be part of the team writing the rules.
Brexit will be the single most self destructive act on British influence since Suez.
If you're writing rules its not free trade.
With that logic, any free trade agreement is also not free trade.
On the contrary, free trade is free trade, buy and sell from who you want.
Why do you object to that?
Free trade is not a free for all.
Why not?
Because the world doesn't work like that and becoming the North Korea of libertarianism won't convince anyone else to accommodate us.
If you witness the ridiculous posturing between our clueless politicians and the equally useless ones at the EU its easy to see why so many countries are in debt. Politicians should get out of the way and let people buy and sell things. People create wealth, not governments.
The present idea the EU is succeeding economically completely ignores their dreadful youth employment rates
Quite.
If the EU is some sort of economic utopia will somebody explain Greece to me.
If we look at the behaviour of the EU post Brexit I'm genuinely amazed that people on here still want to be a part of it. Actually I don't believe they do, their position is so entrenched they could never admit what a fetid organisation the EU is.
On the contrary what we see in the EU is strong and stable government, with vision and an increasingly strong economy.
It would be too dangerous for our democracy to ignore the referendum result though.
More misnomers.
Some countries within the EU are doing well, others aren't - why do we need to pay to trade with countries such as Greece?
Free trade is always the best option.
Which is why Single Market Membership is in our interest. We should be part of the team writing the rules.
Brexit will be the single most self destructive act on British influence since Suez.
If you're writing rules its not free trade.
With that logic, any free trade agreement is also not free trade.
On the contrary, free trade is free trade, buy and sell from who you want.
Why do you object to that?
Free trade is not a free for all.
Why not?
Because the world doesn't work like that and becoming the North Korea of libertarianism won't convince anyone else to accommodate us.
If you witness the ridiculous posturing between our clueless politicians and the equally useless ones at the EU its easy to see why so many countries are in debt. Politicians should get out of the way and let people buy and sell things. People create wealth, not governments.
Unilateral political disarmament is even more utopian than the CND approach to global security.
Eh?
I was attempting to say in a pithy way that you have your head in the clouds and need to engage with the real world, not the world as you imagine it.
Flying today, nursing a pretty awful hangover. We drank 5 bottles of wine between two people last night. No regrets. At least until we take off, it's only 22 hours to Melbourne.
On long flights I buy a bottle of water post-security then get the crew to refill it so I can drink water when I want - and may have a drink or three.....who are you flying with? Steerage 'Other People's Money' or 'The Kids' Inheritance' class?
Other people's money, but I've paid to get an upgrade for my gf who has decided she wants to tag along to my two week - drum up loads of business for the Swiss - tour of Asia which, inexplicably, starts in Melbourne.
If we look at the behaviour of the EU post Brexit I'm genuinely amazed that people on here still want to be a part of it. Actually I don't believe they do, their position is so entrenched they could never admit what a fetid organisation the EU is.
On the contrary what we see in the EU is strong and stable government, with vision and an increasingly strong economy.
It would be too dangerous for our democracy to ignore the referendum result though.
More misnomers.
Some countries within the EU are doing well, others aren't - why do we need to pay to trade with countries such as Greece?
Free trade is always the best option.
Which is why Single Market Membership is in our interest. We should be part of the team writing the rules.
Brexit will be the single most self destructive act on British influence since Suez.
If you're writing rules its not free trade.
With that logic, any free trade agreement is also not free trade.
On the contrary, free trade is free trade, buy and sell from who you want.
Why do you object to that?
Free trade is not a free for all.
Why not?
Because the world doesn't work like that and becoming the North Korea of libertarianism won't convince anyone else to accommodate us.
If you witness the ridiculous posturing between our clueless politicians and the equally useless ones at the EU its easy to see why so many countries are in debt. Politicians should get out of the way and let people buy and sell things. People create wealth, not governments.
Unilateral political disarmament is even more utopian than the CND approach to global security.
Eh?
I was attempting to say in a pithy way that you have your head in the clouds and need to engage with the real world, not the world as you imagine it.
Well I'll say in a less than pithy way fuck off you patronising twat.
If we look at the behaviour of the EU post Brexit I'm genuinely amazed that people on here still want to be a part of it. Actually I don't believe they do, their position is so entrenched they could never admit what a fetid organisation the EU is.
On the contrary what we see in the EU is strong and stable government, with vision and an increasingly strong economy.
It would be too dangerous for our democracy to ignore the referendum result though.
More misnomers.
Some countries within the EU are doing well, others aren't - why do we need to pay to trade with countries such as Greece?
Free trade is always the best option.
Which is why Single Market Membership is in our interest. We should be part of the team writing the rules.
Brexit will be the single most self destructive act on British influence since Suez.
If you're writing rules its not free trade.
With that logic, any free trade agreement is also not free trade.
On the contrary, free trade is free trade, buy and sell from who you want.
Why do you object to that?
Free trade is not a free for all.
Why not?
Country A has regulations specifying, say, one type of widget safety standard. Country B has regulations specifying a different standard. As it stands, neither country's widget manufacturers can sell to the other country.
A free trade agreement would include a mutually agreed set of widget safety standards so there could be, er, free trade in widgets.
So Country A makes widgets and sells them to Country B.
Only if they conform to Country B's standards. Not quite taking back control.
The manufacturer in country A can produce 2 kinds of widgets, one for country A and one for country B. If A and B are very small countries with a small demand for widgets that might be marginally less efficient but if they are a reasonable size that really is not an issue, a bit like German car manufacturers producing LH drive cars for this market.
There is no need for consistent agreed standards to have free trade. You do for a single market but not for free trade.
It helps. A new production line is an extra cost. Can BMW (ie BMW owners in the UK) afford it? Yes of course. Is it an inefficiency? Yes.
"Hard Brexit means supermarket shelves going empty within a week. Means riots. Means the political end of whomever is the government at the time."
Do you really, honestly, sincerely believe this?
I think if you read the whole post you’d be more sympathetic. We’ve already had hiccups over the supply of various food items. And IIRC, Marmite. What RP, not an alarmist poster, is suggesting is the short term postion while we ‘adjust’.
If we look at the behaviour of the EU post Brexit I'm genuinely amazed that people on here still want to be a part of it. Actually I don't believe they do, their position is so entrenched they could never admit what a fetid organisation the EU is.
On the contrary what we see in the EU is strong and stable government, with vision and an increasingly strong economy.
It would be too dangerous for our democracy to ignore the referendum result though.
More misnomers.
Some countries within the EU are doing well, others aren't - why do we need to pay to trade with countries such as Greece?
Free trade is always the best option.
Which is why Single Market Membership is in our interest. We should be part of the team writing the rules.
Brexit will be the single most self destructive act on British influence since Suez.
If you're writing rules its not free trade.
With that logic, any free trade agreement is also not free trade.
On the contrary, free trade is free trade, buy and sell from who you want.
Why do you object to that?
Free trade is not a free for all.
Why not?
Country A has regulations specifying, say, one type of widget safety standard. Country B has regulations specifying a different standard. As it stands, neither country's widget manufacturers can sell to the other country.
A free trade agreement would include a mutually agreed set of widget safety standards so there could be, er, free trade in widgets.
So Country A makes widgets and sells them to Country B.
Only if they conform to Country B's standards. Not quite taking back control.
The reality is that third party W makes country A and country B confirm to the same widget standards.
Mr. Jessop, I can't recall that (it was some time ago) and hope I wasn't one of those simply saying you were wrong. However, the campaigning from political heavyweights was almost entirely skewed to the negative. Perhaps if they'd taken a leaf from your book, and put the doom to the back of the queue, they would have won.
As an aside, I'm not delighted at how things are going. But remaining in would be even worse. A Remain vote would have been taken as a green light for ever more 'Europe'.
Ultimately, we face a decision. To be slowly integrated into a country called the EU, or to be an independent and separate nation.
If the economics without the politics had been available, it would've won by a landslide. But that was never on offer.
To be fair, I don't think you were.
But it indicates why things skewed towards the negative. The opponents were also being exceptionally negative. They won, and I see that negativity as largely being the reason why we've ended up in the mess we're in.
If we look at the behaviour of the EU post Brexit I'm genuinely amazed that people on here still want to be a part of it. Actually I don't believe they do, their position is so entrenched they could never admit what a fetid organisation the EU is.
On the contrary what we see in the EU is strong and stable government, with vision and an increasingly strong economy.
It would be too dangerous for our democracy to ignore the referendum result though.
More misnomers.
Some countries within the EU are doing well, others aren't - why do we need to pay to trade with countries such as Greece?
Free trade is always the best option.
Which is why Single Market Membership is in our interest. We should be part of the team writing the rules.
Brexit will be the single most self destructive act on British influence since Suez.
If you're writing rules its not free trade.
With that logic, any free trade agreement is also not free trade.
On the contrary, free trade is free trade, buy and sell from who you want.
Why do you object to that?
Free trade is not a free for all.
Why not?
Country A has regulations specifying, say, one type of widget safety standard. Country B has regulations specifying a different standard. As it stands, neither country's widget manufacturers can sell to the other country.
A free trade agreement would include a mutually agreed set of widget safety standards so there could be, er, free trade in widgets.
So Country A makes widgets and sells them to Country B.
Only if they conform to Country B's standards. Not quite taking back control.
Why do you mention control?
Country B has asked Country A to make widgets, if they say no then Country B is approached.
I'm certain you understand this, you're just obfuscating. Its no different to walking past the fish and chip shop because you fancy a kebab.
We're talking about free trade. Which requires a common approach to trade. Doesn't matter which colour the widget is.
"Hard Brexit means supermarket shelves going empty within a week. Means riots. Means the political end of whomever is the government at the time."
Do you really, honestly, sincerely believe this?
I think if you read the whole post you’d be more sympathetic. We’ve already had hiccups over the supply of various food items. And IIRC, Marmite. What RP, not an alarmist poster, is suggesting is the short term postion while we ‘adjust’.
Mr. Jessop, I agree entirely, both campaigns were horrendously and mostly negative.
The Leave campaign had the advantage because, as well as some positive noises, they had the advantage of saying "look how bad things are, we can change them." In a negative contest, the status quo is at a disadvantage because it's using potential negatives whereas the change side can cite actual, current negatives.
That may also explain why the attacks on Corbyn are less effective than they might have been (although a likelier explanation might be how bloody incompetent the Conservative campaign was...).
If we look at the behaviour of the EU post Brexit I'm genuinely amazed that people on here still want to be a part of it. Actually I don't believe they do, their position is so entrenched they could never admit what a fetid organisation the EU is.
On the contrary what we see in the EU is strong and stable government, with vision and an increasingly strong economy.
It would be too dangerous for our democracy to ignore the referendum result though.
More misnomers.
Some countries within the EU are doing well, others aren't - why do we need to pay to trade with countries such as Greece?
Free trade is always the best option.
Which is why Single Market Membership is in our interest. We should be part of the team writing the rules.
Brexit will be the single most self destructive act on British influence since Suez.
If you're writing rules its not free trade.
With that logic, any free trade agreement is also not free trade.
On the contrary, free trade is free trade, buy and sell from who you want.
Why do you object to that?
Free trade is not a free for all.
Why not?
Country A has regulations specifying, say, one type of widget safety standard. Country B has regulations specifying a different standard. As it stands, neither country's widget manufacturers can sell to the other country.
A free trade agreement would include a mutually agreed set of widget safety standards so there could be, er, free trade in widgets.
So Country A makes widgets and sells them to Country B.
Only if they conform to Country B's standards. Not quite taking back control.
The reality is that third party W makes country A and country B confirm to the same widget standards.
Yes true. But Google EU Car Regulations. Plenty there to see. So in reality the EU will set the standards and we will follow them.
No it doesn't need a common approach, it is impossible to buck the market.
Think of the average High St food outlets, you are free to choose burgers, pizzas, Indian etc etc these outlets don't need a common approach they need a product that sells at the right price.
Its called free trade, we need a universal approach not one restricted by bureaucrats.
Marr to Debbie Abrahams, shadow work and pensions secretary says Corbyn wants 16 and 17 years old to be paid £10 per hour when they currently earn £4.05 per hour and it will bankrupt many small businesses. Debbie Abrahams answer 'we will make sure small businesses are compensated'
How long can labour get away with this economic nonsense. Also Marr soft balled his interview
"Hard Brexit means supermarket shelves going empty within a week. Means riots. Means the political end of whomever is the government at the time."
Do you really, honestly, sincerely believe this?
I think if you read the whole post you’d be more sympathetic. We’ve already had hiccups over the supply of various food items. And IIRC, Marmite. What RP, not an alarmist poster, is suggesting is the short term postion while we ‘adjust’.
Sympathetic is not the word that springs to mind.
I spent my early years in a time of scarcity and difficulty; I don’t want to spend my final ones in similar circumstances. Nor do I want to see my grandchildren and great-grandchildren (although I don’t have any of the latter yet) in such circumstances.
Marr to Debbie Abrahams, shadow work and pensions secretary says Corbyn wants 16 and 17 years old to be paid £10 per hour when they currently earn £4.05 per hour and it will bankrupt many small businesses. Debbie Abrahams answer 'we will make sure small businesses are compensated'
How long can labour get away with this economic nonsense. Also Marr soft balled his interview
They will get away with it until May (or whoever) has the bollox and nous to debate it.
"Hard Brexit means supermarket shelves going empty within a week. Means riots. Means the political end of whomever is the government at the time."
Do you really, honestly, sincerely believe this?
I think if you read the whole post you’d be more sympathetic. We’ve already had hiccups over the supply of various food items. And IIRC, Marmite. What RP, not an alarmist poster, is suggesting is the short term postion while we ‘adjust’.
Sympathetic is not the word that springs to mind.
I spent my early years in a time of scarcity and difficulty; I don’t want to spend my final ones in similar circumstances. Nor do I want to see my grandchildren and great-grandchildren (although I don’t have any of the latter yet) in such circumstances.
Marr to Debbie Abrahams, shadow work and pensions secretary says Corbyn wants 16 and 17 years old to be paid £10 per hour when they currently earn £4.05 per hour and it will bankrupt many small businesses. Debbie Abrahams answer 'we will make sure small businesses are compensated'
How long can labour get away with this economic nonsense. Also Marr soft balled his interview
Didn't see the interview but 'what Corbyn wants' is not always the same as what was in the manifesto. All it says on the subject is....
"Raise the Minimum Wage to the level of the Living Wage (expected to be at least £10 per hour by 2020) – for all workers aged 18 or over, so that work pays."
Yes true. But Google EU Car Regulations. Plenty there to see. So in reality the EU will set the standards and we will follow them.
It really depends on how economical it would be to run multiple production lines, iirc most car manufacturers are already set up to produce for multiple global standards. Ironically it was VW that cheated the system by selling an off the shelf EU diesel car with that dodgy box to circumvent US emissions standards. Most cars in the UK are exported to destinations outside of the EU, I'm not sure it's as big a deal as you think. The bigger issue will be sourcing parts and maintaining a steady supply chain if we leave the single market or there is a no deal Brexit.
Marr to Debbie Abrahams, shadow work and pensions secretary says Corbyn wants 16 and 17 years old to be paid £10 per hour when they currently earn £4.05 per hour and it will bankrupt many small businesses. Debbie Abrahams answer 'we will make sure small businesses are compensated'
How long can labour get away with this economic nonsense. Also Marr soft balled his interview
They will get away with it until May (or whoever) has the bollox and nous to debate it.
I share your despair.
It is beyond May to be fair but it is not relevant until or unless a GE becomes likely at which time the conservatives will have a new leader, Vince Cable likely leader of the Lib Dems will talke Corbyn economics apart, and no one shares his view of 26% corporation tax including the SNP
Marr to Debbie Abrahams, shadow work and pensions secretary says Corbyn wants 16 and 17 years old to be paid £10 per hour when they currently earn £4.05 per hour and it will bankrupt many small businesses. Debbie Abrahams answer 'we will make sure small businesses are compensated'
How long can labour get away with this economic nonsense. Also Marr soft balled his interview
It's clever politics. Jezza appeals to the "equality of value of work" vote whilst being sympathetic to small business with an appropriate and timely compensation in a phased transition.
Superficially what's not to like. It's enough politically for an opposition party.
Yes true. But Google EU Car Regulations. Plenty there to see. So in reality the EU will set the standards and we will follow them.
Funny that, if you google something including the word EU then you get something that talks about EU standards.
Now try googling the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Working Party 29 and the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations. And you will see that many of those 'EU' Car regulations were actually set by bodies above the EU level and simply adopted by the EU and its member states along with the US, Canada, Japan and South Korea amongst many other countries.
Miss Vance, Lib Dems could still have opportunity, but I fear it'll be less under Cable's daft leftism than it would've been under Lamb's realism or Swinson's fresher face.
Oppps .... my word Jezza leads by 34 on approval rating .... I knew it was so all along Comrade PBers ....
Con at 41% is remarkable considering the avalanche of bad press
And 'two parties' at 87% too......13% will get awfully fragmented.....
You'd have to expect that 13% to grow a bit though... Cable, being a reconised figure will boost the Lib Dems I suspect and (sadly) I am not sure UKIP is as dead as people assume.
Marr to Debbie Abrahams, shadow work and pensions secretary says Corbyn wants 16 and 17 years old to be paid £10 per hour when they currently earn £4.05 per hour and it will bankrupt many small businesses. Debbie Abrahams answer 'we will make sure small businesses are compensated'
How long can labour get away with this economic nonsense. Also Marr soft balled his interview
Didn't see the interview but 'what Corbyn wants' is not always the same as what was in the manifesto. All it says on the subject is....
"Raise the Minimum Wage to the level of the Living Wage (expected to be at least £10 per hour by 2020) – for all workers aged 18 or over, so that work pays."
Corbyn announced the policy yesterday to pay 16 and 17 year olds £10 per hour
Absolute certainty of massive lost jobs and opportunities for young people, why employ a teenager when you can get an older more experiencec worker at the same price.
Yes true. But Google EU Car Regulations. Plenty there to see. So in reality the EU will set the standards and we will follow them.
Funny that, if you google something including the word EU then you get something that talks about EU standards.
Now try googling the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Working Party 29 and the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations. And you will see that many of those 'EU' Car regulations were actually set by bodies above the EU level and simply adopted by the EU and its member states along with the US, Canada, Japan and South Korea amongst many other countries.
Yes I'm sure. When's our referendum to leave the UN?
If we look at the behaviour of the EU post Brexit I'm genuinely amazed that people on here still want to be a part of it. Actually I don't believe they do, their position is so entrenched they could never admit what a fetid organisation the EU is.
On the contrary what we see in the EU is strong and stable government, with vision and an increasingly strong economy.
It would be too dangerous for our democracy to ignore the referendum result though.
More misnomers.
Some countries within the EU are doing well, others aren't - why do we need to pay to trade with countries such as Greece?
Free trade is always the best option.
Which is why Single Market Membership is in our interest. We should be part of the team writing the rules.
Brexit will be the single most self destructive act on British influence since Suez.
If you're writing rules its not free trade.
With that logic, any free trade agreement is also not free trade.
On the contrary, free trade is free trade, buy and sell from who you want.
Why do you object to that?
Free trade is not a free for all.
Why not?
Because the world doesn't work like that and becoming the North Korea of libertarianism won't convince anyone else to accommodate us.
If you witness the ridiculous posturing between our clueless politicians and the equally useless ones at the EU its easy to see why so many countries are in debt. Politicians should get out of the way and let people buy and sell things. People create wealth, not governments.
Unilateral political disarmament is even more utopian than the CND approach to global security.
Eh?
I was attempting to say in a pithy way that you have your head in the clouds and need to engage with the real world, not the world as you imagine it.
I think you're going to need more boot polish for your pot and kettle, and more stones for your glass house....
"Hard Brexit means supermarket shelves going empty within a week. Means riots. Means the political end of whomever is the government at the time."
Do you really, honestly, sincerely believe this?
I think if you read the whole post you’d be more sympathetic. We’ve already had hiccups over the supply of various food items. And IIRC, Marmite. What RP, not an alarmist poster, is suggesting is the short term postion while we ‘adjust’.
I'm not sure if posters are aware how much of our food, even "produced in the UK" food is imported. If we fall out of the EU with no deal then that means full customs checks required on everything that comes in and out - we will be wanting to impose tariffs in exchange for the export tariffs imposed on us. We know what ferry disruption at Calais does to Kent. And thats just one port. Think about all ports, think about how long it takes to check a truck, think about the efficiency of our austerity cut Border Force at the best of times never mind faced with an avalanche of demand.
It would be utter utter chaos with little getting through in either direction, at least at first. And knowing the food supply chain that means big shortages very quickly. And we know what hangry people tend to do. And don't say "it won't happen" because I'm assured by our Prime Minister that no deal is better than a good deal, that tariffs are fine. To impose tariffs you need customs and a restored border.
So either we waive the customs checks inbound and border controls - which will have the Daily Mail howling- or we impose them, Waitrose runs out of meat, and the Daily Mail starts howling. Make sure you stock up on non-perishable items beforehand.
Yes true. But Google EU Car Regulations. Plenty there to see. So in reality the EU will set the standards and we will follow them.
Funny that, if you google something including the word EU then you get something that talks about EU standards.
Now try googling the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Working Party 29 and the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations. And you will see that many of those 'EU' Car regulations were actually set by bodies above the EU level and simply adopted by the EU and its member states along with the US, Canada, Japan and South Korea amongst many other countries.
Yes I'm sure. When's our referendum to leave the UN?
Marr to Debbie Abrahams, shadow work and pensions secretary says Corbyn wants 16 and 17 years old to be paid £10 per hour when they currently earn £4.05 per hour and it will bankrupt many small businesses. Debbie Abrahams answer 'we will make sure small businesses are compensated'
How long can labour get away with this economic nonsense. Also Marr soft balled his interview
It's clever politics. Jezza appeals to the "equality of value of work" vote whilst being sympathetic to small business with an appropriate and timely compensation in a phased transition.
Superficially what's not to like. It's enough politically for an opposition party.
So Jack who pays the compensation and at what cost
Yes true. But Google EU Car Regulations. Plenty there to see. So in reality the EU will set the standards and we will follow them.
Funny that, if you google something including the word EU then you get something that talks about EU standards.
Now try googling the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Working Party 29 and the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations. And you will see that many of those 'EU' Car regulations were actually set by bodies above the EU level and simply adopted by the EU and its member states along with the US, Canada, Japan and South Korea amongst many other countries.
Yes I'm sure. When's our referendum to leave the UN?
Has the UN, inter alia, enforced a common currency, without fiscal transfers, on German vassal states? Has it enforced huge youth unemployment in Spain?
Con at 41% is remarkable considering the avalanche of bad press
That's before an election Tory election campaign though !! .... where on recent form the Conservative will have a manifesto with the compulsory euthanasia of the over 70's, enforced fox hunting from year 4 year old in schools, all Chief Constables to cut their police forces by half and BREXIT negotiations to be led by the former CEO of Kensington and Chelsea Council ....
Yes true. But Google EU Car Regulations. Plenty there to see. So in reality the EU will set the standards and we will follow them.
Funny that, if you google something including the word EU then you get something that talks about EU standards.
Now try googling the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Working Party 29 and the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations. And you will see that many of those 'EU' Car regulations were actually set by bodies above the EU level and simply adopted by the EU and its member states along with the US, Canada, Japan and South Korea amongst many other countries.
Yes I'm sure. When's our referendum to leave the UN?
We don't need to. They are not seeking to create a single state and undermine the authority of our own Parliament. They are not seeking to reinterpret our own national laws. If you cannot see the difference between organisations like the UN and NATO and those like the EU then you are truly lost.
Now, back to your false claims that it is the EU that will set standards for car manufacture and we will have to follow them.
Yes true. But Google EU Car Regulations. Plenty there to see. So in reality the EU will set the standards and we will follow them.
Funny that, if you google something including the word EU then you get something that talks about EU standards.
Now try googling the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Working Party 29 and the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations. And you will see that many of those 'EU' Car regulations were actually set by bodies above the EU level and simply adopted by the EU and its member states along with the US, Canada, Japan and South Korea amongst many other countries.
Yes, with a few minor exceptions car regulations are now pretty much global. The most obvious difference on mass-produced cars is the North American cars with red rear indicators integrated with the brake lights. Most other differences are for small volume specialist cars (Caterham etc) or city cars like the Japanese Kai-Car.
Con at 41% is remarkable considering the avalanche of bad press
That's before an election Tory election campaign though !! .... where on recent form the Conservative will have a manifesto with the compulsory euthanasia of the over 70's, enforced fox hunting from year 4 year old in schools, all Chief Constables to cut their police forces by half and BREXIT negotiations to be led by the former CEO of Kensington and Chelsea Council ....
Con at 41% is remarkable considering the avalanche of bad press
That's before an election Tory election campaign though !! .... where on recent form the Conservative will have a manifesto with the compulsory euthanasia of the over 70's, enforced fox hunting from year 4 year old in schools, all Chief Constables to cut their police forces by half and BREXIT negotiations to be led by the former CEO of Kensington and Chelsea Council ....
No it doesn't need a common approach, it is impossible to buck the market.
Think of the average High St food outlets, you are free to choose burgers, pizzas, Indian etc etc these outlets don't need a common approach they need a product that sells at the right price.
Its called free trade, we need a universal approach not one restricted by bureaucrats.
They all have to sell products that comply with hygiene and safety standards. They are not free to sell unsafe food
So plenty of talk about 'Spreadsheet Phil' being lined up to replace TMay this morning.
From everything we know about Hammond, this moniker is a decent characterisation of him. So Tory ministers think another reclusive, tedious automaton is just what the nation needs to replace the current one. They deserve to be crushed by the revolutionaries if that is the case.
Marr to Debbie Abrahams, shadow work and pensions secretary says Corbyn wants 16 and 17 years old to be paid £10 per hour when they currently earn £4.05 per hour and it will bankrupt many small businesses. Debbie Abrahams answer 'we will make sure small businesses are compensated'
How long can labour get away with this economic nonsense. Also Marr soft balled his interview
It's clever politics. Jezza appeals to the "equality of value of work" vote whilst being sympathetic to small business with an appropriate and timely compensation in a phased transition.
Superficially what's not to like. It's enough politically for an opposition party.
So Jack who pays the compensation and at what cost
The story from Jezza will be big corporations, tax cheats, the indulged rich and other easy targets and they will bear the cost. It will all sound plausible and entirely consistent with the Labour narrative of economic justice and an end of austerity.
Marr to Debbie Abrahams, shadow work and pensions secretary says Corbyn wants 16 and 17 years old to be paid £10 per hour when they currently earn £4.05 per hour and it will bankrupt many small businesses. Debbie Abrahams answer 'we will make sure small businesses are compensated'
How long can labour get away with this economic nonsense. Also Marr soft balled his interview
Didn't see the interview but 'what Corbyn wants' is not always the same as what was in the manifesto. All it says on the subject is....
"Raise the Minimum Wage to the level of the Living Wage (expected to be at least £10 per hour by 2020) – for all workers aged 18 or over, so that work pays."
Corbyn announced the policy yesterday to pay 16 and 17 year olds £10 per hour
Absolute certainty of massive lost jobs and opportunities for young people, why employ a teenager when you can get an older more experiencec worker at the same price.
Ah right, wasn't aware of that... the Independent and Telegraph both report it as:
Speaking at a Unison conference in Brighton, Mr Corbyn was asked by one delegate whether 16-year-olds should also be paid Labour’s living wage. In response, Mr Corbyn said: 'You’re absolutely right.'
It sounds like an off-the-cuff remark - I am not defending it but hardly counts as Labour agreed policy.
Con at 41% is remarkable considering the avalanche of bad press
That's before an election Tory election campaign though !! .... where on recent form the Conservative will have a manifesto with the compulsory euthanasia of the over 70's, enforced fox hunting from year 4 year old in schools, all Chief Constables to cut their police forces by half and BREXIT negotiations to be led by the former CEO of Kensington and Chelsea Council ....
Mr. Wise, whilst I (rightly) criticised Hammond's stand-up routine at the Budget, that does indicate he might be a shade less grey than is commonly assumed.
So plenty of talk about 'Spreadsheet Phil' being lined up to replace TMay this morning.
From everything we know about Hammond, this moniker is a decent characterisation of him. So Tory ministers think another reclusive, tedious automaton is just what the nation needs to replace the current one. They deserve to be crushed by the revolutionaries if that is the case.
Yeah, they should have someone with a bit of character... I feel Jacob Cream-Crackers' moment is nigh :-)
Con at 41% is remarkable considering the avalanche of bad press
That's before an election Tory election campaign though !! .... where on recent form the Conservative will have a manifesto with the compulsory euthanasia of the over 70's, enforced fox hunting from year 4 year old in schools, all Chief Constables to cut their police forces by half and BREXIT negotiations to be led by the former CEO of Kensington and Chelsea Council ....
What could be possibly go wrong ?
+1
I used to know -- or rather was vaguely acquainted with -- the former CEO of Kensington & Chelsea Council, Nicholas Holgate.
At least when I knew him, he was a very vociferous, prominent and staunch member of the Liberal Democats!
And, at least according to Melanie McDonagh of the Spectator, he still is.
Marr to Debbie Abrahams, shadow work and pensions secretary says Corbyn wants 16 and 17 years old to be paid £10 per hour when they currently earn £4.05 per hour and it will bankrupt many small businesses. Debbie Abrahams answer 'we will make sure small businesses are compensated'
How long can labour get away with this economic nonsense. Also Marr soft balled his interview
Didn't see the interview but 'what Corbyn wants' is not always the same as what was in the manifesto. All it says on the subject is....
"Raise the Minimum Wage to the level of the Living Wage (expected to be at least £10 per hour by 2020) – for all workers aged 18 or over, so that work pays."
Corbyn announced the policy yesterday to pay 16 and 17 year olds £10 per hour
Absolute certainty of massive lost jobs and opportunities for young people, why employ a teenager when you can get an older more experiencec worker at the same price.
Ah right, wasn't aware of that... the Independent and Telegraph both report it as:
Speaking at a Unison conference in Brighton, Mr Corbyn was asked by one delegate whether 16-year-olds should also be paid Labour’s living wage. In response, Mr Corbyn said: 'You’re absolutely right.'
It sounds like an off-the-cuff remark - I am not defending it but hardly counts as Labour agreed policy.
Marr to Debbie Abrahams, shadow work and pensions secretary says Corbyn wants 16 and 17 years old to be paid £10 per hour when they currently earn £4.05 per hour and it will bankrupt many small businesses. Debbie Abrahams answer 'we will make sure small businesses are compensated'
How long can labour get away with this economic nonsense. Also Marr soft balled his interview
Didn't see the interview but 'what Corbyn wants' is not always the same as what was in the manifesto. All it says on the subject is....
"Raise the Minimum Wage to the level of the Living Wage (expected to be at least £10 per hour by 2020) – for all workers aged 18 or over, so that work pays."
Corbyn announced the policy yesterday to pay 16 and 17 year olds £10 per hour
Absolute certainty of massive lost jobs and opportunities for young people, why employ a teenager when you can get an older more experiencec worker at the same price.
Ah right, wasn't aware of that... the Independent and Telegraph both report it as:
Speaking at a Unison conference in Brighton, Mr Corbyn was asked by one delegate whether 16-year-olds should also be paid Labour’s living wage. In response, Mr Corbyn said: 'You’re absolutely right.'
It sounds like an off-the-cuff remark - I am not defending it but hardly counts as Labour agreed policy.
Do you agree that it is economically illiterate
Indeed. Why pay someone enough to live on when instead we can sell them debt and repackage it as an "asset" to sell on. Marvellous.
He's right. Mrs May has survived this far, playing games now is risking the Brexit negotiations which are higher priority. Unless the Queen's Speech falls (is there such a thing as a four line whip?) hen she's probably safe for 18 months and can resign on the day we are assured of leaving the EU.
Marr to Debbie Abrahams, shadow work and pensions secretary says Corbyn wants 16 and 17 years old to be paid £10 per hour when they currently earn £4.05 per hour and it will bankrupt many small businesses. Debbie Abrahams answer 'we will make sure small businesses are compensated'
How long can labour get away with this economic nonsense. Also Marr soft balled his interview
Didn't see the interview but 'what Corbyn wants' is not always the same as what was in the manifesto. All it says on the subject is....
"Raise the Minimum Wage to the level of the Living Wage (expected to be at least £10 per hour by 2020) – for all workers aged 18 or over, so that work pays."
Corbyn announced the policy yesterday to pay 16 and 17 year olds £10 per hour
Absolute certainty of massive lost jobs and opportunities for young people, why employ a teenager when you can get an older more experiencec worker at the same price.
Ah right, wasn't aware of that... the Independent and Telegraph both report it as:
Speaking at a Unison conference in Brighton, Mr Corbyn was asked by one delegate whether 16-year-olds should also be paid Labour’s living wage. In response, Mr Corbyn said: 'You’re absolutely right.'
It sounds like an off-the-cuff remark - I am not defending it but hardly counts as Labour agreed policy.
Do you agree that it is economically illiterate
Indeed. Why pay someone enough to live on when instead we can sell them debt and repackage it as an "asset" to sell on. Marvellous.
You do know it is 16 and 17 year olds we are talking about and have you ever run a small business
So plenty of talk about 'Spreadsheet Phil' being lined up to replace TMay this morning.
From everything we know about Hammond, this moniker is a decent characterisation of him. So Tory ministers think another reclusive, tedious automaton is just what the nation needs to replace the current one. They deserve to be crushed by the revolutionaries if that is the case.
Essentially just about anybody is better than the MayBot.
Two months ago today Panelbase had CON 22% ahead. Today LAB has 5% lead.
"Hard Brexit means supermarket shelves going empty within a week. Means riots. Means the political end of whomever is the government at the time."
Do you really, honestly, sincerely believe this?
I think if you read the whole post you’d be more sympathetic. We’ve already had hiccups over the supply of various food items. And IIRC, Marmite. What RP, not an alarmist poster, is suggesting is the short term postion while we ‘adjust’.
I'm not sure if posters are aware how much of our food, even "produced in the UK" food is imported. If we fall out of the EU with no deal then that means full customs checks required on everything that comes in and out - we will be wanting to impose tariffs in exchange for the export tariffs imposed on us. We know what ferry disruption at Calais does to Kent. And thats just one port. Think about all ports, think about how long it takes to check a truck, think about the efficiency of our austerity cut Border Force at the best of times never mind faced with an avalanche of demand.
It would be utter utter chaos with little getting through in either direction, at least at first. And knowing the food supply chain that means big shortages very quickly. And we know what hangry people tend to do. And don't say "it won't happen" because I'm assured by our Prime Minister that no deal is better than a good deal, that tariffs are fine. To impose tariffs you need customs and a restored border.
So either we waive the customs checks inbound and border controls - which will have the Daily Mail howling- or we impose them, Waitrose runs out of meat, and the Daily Mail starts howling. Make sure you stock up on non-perishable items beforehand.
Indeed. I live in Essex, near the A12. The arrival of a ferry at Harwich..... much less important that Felixstowe ........ means lots of identifiably European lorries heading London-wards.
Incidentally we came back from the Canaries via Stansted last weekend. There were lots of ‘electronic’ passport terminals to be seen, but few of them open, so substantial queues at those that were available.
So plenty of talk about 'Spreadsheet Phil' being lined up to replace TMay this morning.
From everything we know about Hammond, this moniker is a decent characterisation of him. So Tory ministers think another reclusive, tedious automaton is just what the nation needs to replace the current one. They deserve to be crushed by the revolutionaries if that is the case.
Essentially just about anybody is better than the MayBot.
Two months ago today Panelbase had CON 22% ahead. Today LAB has 5% lead.
Mike without reference to any betting slip and financial gain .. are you hostile to St Vince of the Cable as Smithson Jnr ?
Yes true. But Google EU Car Regulations. Plenty there to see. So in reality the EU will set the standards and we will follow them.
Funny that, if you google something including the word EU then you get something that talks about EU standards.
Now try googling the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Working Party 29 and the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations. And you will see that many of those 'EU' Car regulations were actually set by bodies above the EU level and simply adopted by the EU and its member states along with the US, Canada, Japan and South Korea amongst many other countries.
Yes I'm sure. When's our referendum to leave the UN?
We don't need to. They are not seeking to create a single state and undermine the authority of our own Parliament. They are not seeking to reinterpret our own national laws. If you cannot see the difference between organisations like the UN and NATO and those like the EU then you are truly lost.
Now, back to your false claims that it is the EU that will set standards for car manufacture and we will have to follow them.
You're a funny old sausage, Richard.
Supranational Body A defining rules and standards for us: Bad. Supranational Body B defining rules and standards for us: Good.
Supranational Court A opining on a common set of externally-defined rules for us: Bad. Supranational Court B opining on a common set of externally-defined rules for us: Good.
Marr to Debbie Abrahams, shadow work and pensions secretary says Corbyn wants 16 and 17 years old to be paid £10 per hour when they currently earn £4.05 per hour and it will bankrupt many small businesses. Debbie Abrahams answer 'we will make sure small businesses are compensated'
How long can labour get away with this economic nonsense. Also Marr soft balled his interview
Didn't see the interview but 'what Corbyn wants' is not always the same as what was in the manifesto. All it says on the subject is....
"Raise the Minimum Wage to the level of the Living Wage (expected to be at least £10 per hour by 2020) – for all workers aged 18 or over, so that work pays."
Corbyn announced the policy yesterday to pay 16 and 17 year olds £10 per hour
Absolute certainty of massive lost jobs and opportunities for young people, why employ a teenager when you can get an older more experiencec worker at the same price.
Ah right, wasn't aware of that... the Independent and Telegraph both report it as:
Speaking at a Unison conference in Brighton, Mr Corbyn was asked by one delegate whether 16-year-olds should also be paid Labour’s living wage. In response, Mr Corbyn said: 'You’re absolutely right.'
It sounds like an off-the-cuff remark - I am not defending it but hardly counts as Labour agreed policy.
Do you agree that it is economically illiterate
Indeed. Why pay someone enough to live on when instead we can sell them debt and repackage it as an "asset" to sell on. Marvellous.
You do know it is 16 and 17 year olds we are talking about and have you ever run a small business
Don't worry I was being sarcastic. You can't pay everyone the same as there is no incentive to work. Nor do teenagers (in the main) have the same living costs as an adult - a boundary at 21 would be fine
I do have a point though. Wages need to pay the cost of living - it isn't sustainable to replace the missing funds by selling debt, even if "debt" manages to be transformed into a balance sheet "asset".
Marr to Debbie Abrahams, shadow work and pensions secretary says Corbyn wants 16 and 17 years old to be paid £10 per hour when they currently earn £4.05 per hour and it will bankrupt many small businesses. Debbie Abrahams answer 'we will make sure small businesses are compensated'
How long can labour get away with this economic nonsense. Also Marr soft balled his interview
Didn't see the interview but 'what Corbyn wants' is not always the same as what was in the manifesto. All it says on the subject is....
"Raise the Minimum Wage to the level of the Living Wage (expected to be at least £10 per hour by 2020) – for all workers aged 18 or over, so that work pays."
Corbyn announced the policy yesterday to pay 16 and 17 year olds £10 per hour
Absolute certainty of massive lost jobs and opportunities for young people, why employ a teenager when you can get an older more experiencec worker at the same price.
Ah right, wasn't aware of that... the Independent and Telegraph both report it as:
Speaking at a Unison conference in Brighton, Mr Corbyn was asked by one delegate whether 16-year-olds should also be paid Labour’s living wage. In response, Mr Corbyn said: 'You’re absolutely right.'
It sounds like an off-the-cuff remark - I am not defending it but hardly counts as Labour agreed policy.
Do you agree that it is economically illiterate
No, not at all. The great thing economically about the minimum wage (aside from just making low-paid people's lives a bit better) is that the money goes straight back into the economy, boosting demand and growth and it reduces the need for the state to subsidise the low-paid (or rather low-paying employers) through benefits.
I well remember all the doommongers predicting the end of the world back in 1998 when it was introduced. The scare stories were all nonsense of course and within 2 years the tories had become backers. It will be the same for extending down to 16 year olds. Just needs to be phased in properly.
Marr to Debbie Abrahams, shadow work and pensions secretary says Corbyn wants 16 and 17 years old to be paid £10 per hour when they currently earn £4.05 per hour and it will bankrupt many small businesses. Debbie Abrahams answer 'we will make sure small businesses are compensated'
How long can labour get away with this economic nonsense. Also Marr soft balled his interview
Didn't see the interview but 'what Corbyn wants' is not always the same as what was in the manifesto. All it says on the subject is....
"Raise the Minimum Wage to the level of the Living Wage (expected to be at least £10 per hour by 2020) – for all workers aged 18 or over, so that work pays."
Corbyn announced the policy yesterday to pay 16 and 17 year olds £10 per hour
Absolute certainty of massive lost jobs and opportunities for young people, why employ a teenager when you can get an older more experiencec worker at the same price.
Ah right, wasn't aware of that... the Independent and Telegraph both report it as:
Speaking at a Unison conference in Brighton, Mr Corbyn was asked by one delegate whether 16-year-olds should also be paid Labour’s living wage. In response, Mr Corbyn said: 'You’re absolutely right.'
It sounds like an off-the-cuff remark - I am not defending it but hardly counts as Labour agreed policy.
Do you agree that it is economically illiterate
Indeed. Why pay someone enough to live on when instead we can sell them debt and repackage it as an "asset" to sell on. Marvellous.
You do know it is 16 and 17 year olds we are talking about and have you ever run a small business
Just as a good example, when I was 16 I earned a pittance. £25 a day IIRC. But it was fun, great pocket money and, most importantly, served as an apprenticeship. I now run a business in exactly the same sector, employing 3 people and grossing more than 5 times the sales of where I first worked.
I'm thinking about taking on a part time 'young me', who could well go on to do the same. I wouldn't be able to pay him/her £10 an hour. So under Corbyn's govt, he/she would not get such an experience.
Marr to Debbie Abrahams, shadow work and pensions secretary says Corbyn wants 16 and 17 years old to be paid £10 per hour when they currently earn £4.05 per hour and it will bankrupt many small businesses. Debbie Abrahams answer 'we will make sure small businesses are compensated'
How long can labour get away with this economic nonsense. Also Marr soft balled his interview
Didn't see the interview but 'what Corbyn wants' is not always the same as what was in the manifesto. All it says on the subject is....
"Raise the Minimum Wage to the level of the Living Wage (expected to be at least £10 per hour by 2020) – for all workers aged 18 or over, so that work pays."
Corbyn announced the policy yesterday to pay 16 and 17 year olds £10 per hour
Absolute certainty of massive lost jobs and opportunities for young people, why employ a teenager when you can get an older more experiencec worker at the same price.
Ah right, wasn't aware of that... the Independent and Telegraph both report it as:
Speaking at a Unison conference in Brighton, Mr Corbyn was asked by one delegate whether 16-year-olds should also be paid Labour’s living wage. In response, Mr Corbyn said: 'You’re absolutely right.'
It sounds like an off-the-cuff remark - I am not defending it but hardly counts as Labour agreed policy.
Do you agree that it is economically illiterate
Indeed. Why pay someone enough to live on when instead we can sell them debt and repackage it as an "asset" to sell on. Marvellous.
You do know it is 16 and 17 year olds we are talking about and have you ever run a small business
Don't worry I was being sarcastic. You can't pay everyone the same as there is no incentive to work. Nor do teenagers (in the main) have the same living costs as an adult - a boundary at 21 would be fine
I do have a point though. Wages need to pay the cost of living - it isn't sustainable to replace the missing funds by selling debt, even if "debt" manages to be transformed into a balance sheet "asset".
So plenty of talk about 'Spreadsheet Phil' being lined up to replace TMay this morning.
From everything we know about Hammond, this moniker is a decent characterisation of him. So Tory ministers think another reclusive, tedious automaton is just what the nation needs to replace the current one. They deserve to be crushed by the revolutionaries if that is the case.
Essentially just about anybody is better than the MayBot.
Two months ago today Panelbase had CON 22% ahead. Today LAB has 5% lead.
Mike without reference to any betting slip and financial gain .. are you hostile to St Vince of the Cable as Smithson Jnr ?
Given that Vince is a Knight of the Realm a Doctor of Philosophy and, IIRC, a Privy Councillor, what is the correct form of address?
Yes true. But Google EU Car Regulations. Plenty there to see. So in reality the EU will set the standards and we will follow them.
Funny that, if you google something including the word EU then you get something that talks about EU standards.
Now try googling the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Working Party 29 and the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations. And you will see that many of those 'EU' Car regulations were actually set by bodies above the EU level and simply adopted by the EU and its member states along with the US, Canada, Japan and South Korea amongst many other countries.
Yes I'm sure. When's our referendum to leave the UN?
We don't need to. They are not seeking to create a single state and undermine the authority of our own Parliament. They are not seeking to reinterpret our own national laws. If you cannot see the difference between organisations like the UN and NATO and those like the EU then you are truly lost.
Now, back to your false claims that it is the EU that will set standards for car manufacture and we will have to follow them.
You're a funny old sausage, Richard.
Supranational Body A defining rules and standards for us: Bad. Supranational Body B defining rules and standards for us: Good.
Supranational Court A opining on a common set of externally-defined rules for us: Bad. Supranational Court B opining on a common set of externally-defined rules for us: Good.
Not in the least.
Supranational Body B defines rules and standards on a very specific and limited set of criteria. We could and should be able to take part in setting those criteria and those rules. Unfortunately we can't because we are members of Supranational body A which does it all for us even when it is not in our interests.
Supranational Body A not only prevents us taking part in those discussions and decisions, it also makes decisions for us on a vast range of other areas which are normally the reserve of individual nations. So it limits our influence whilst at the same time intruding into areas it should have no right to be involved in.
Like I say, the fact you can't see the difference shows just how blinkered you are.
So plenty of talk about 'Spreadsheet Phil' being lined up to replace TMay this morning.
From everything we know about Hammond, this moniker is a decent characterisation of him. So Tory ministers think another reclusive, tedious automaton is just what the nation needs to replace the current one. They deserve to be crushed by the revolutionaries if that is the case.
Essentially just about anybody is better than the MayBot.
Two months ago today Panelbase had CON 22% ahead. Today LAB has 5% lead.
Mike without reference to any betting slip and financial gain .. are you hostile to St Vince of the Cable as Smithson Jnr ?
Given that Vince is a Knight of the Realm a Doctor of Philosophy and, IIRC, a Privy Councillor, what is the correct form of address?
Marr to Debbie Abrahams, shadow work and pensions secretary says Corbyn wants 16 and 17 years old to be paid £10 per hour when they currently earn £4.05 per hour and it will bankrupt many small businesses. Debbie Abrahams answer 'we will make sure small businesses are compensated'
How long can labour get away with this economic nonsense. Also Marr soft balled his interview
Didn't see the interview but 'what Corbyn wants' is not always the same as what was in the manifesto. All it says on the subject is....
"Raise the Minimum Wage to the level of the Living Wage (expected to be at least £10 per hour by 2020) – for all workers aged 18 or over, so that work pays."
Corbyn announced the policy yesterday to pay 16 and 17 year olds £10 per hour
Absolute certainty of massive lost jobs and opportunities for young people, why employ a teenager when you can get an older more experiencec worker at the same price.
Ah right, wasn't aware of that... the Independent and Telegraph both report it as:
Speaking at a Unison conference in Brighton, Mr Corbyn was asked by one delegate whether 16-year-olds should also be paid Labour’s living wage. In response, Mr Corbyn said: 'You’re absolutely right.'
It sounds like an off-the-cuff remark - I am not defending it but hardly counts as Labour agreed policy.
Do you agree that it is economically illiterate
No, not at all. The great thing economically about the minimum wage (aside from just making low-paid people's lives a bit better) is that the money goes straight back into the economy, boosting demand and growth and it reduces the need for the state to subsidise the low-paid (or rather low-paying employers) through benefits.
I well remember all the doommongers predicting the end of the world back in 1998 when it was introduced. The scare stories were all nonsense of course and within 2 years the tories had become backers. It will be the same for extending down to 16 year olds. Just needs to be phased in properly.
In my CAB days one of the ‘selling points’ for grants from the local Council was that any extra benefits we obtained for clients went straight into the local economy.
Yes true. But Google EU Car Regulations. Plenty there to see. So in reality the EU will set the standards and we will follow them.
Funny that, if you google something including the word EU then you get something that talks about EU standards.
Now try googling the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Working Party 29 and the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations. And you will see that many of those 'EU' Car regulations were actually set by bodies above the EU level and simply adopted by the EU and its member states along with the US, Canada, Japan and South Korea amongst many other countries.
Yes I'm sure. When's our referendum to leave the UN?
We don't need to. They are not seeking to create a single state and undermine the authority of our own Parliament. They are not seeking to reinterpret our own national laws. If you cannot see the difference between organisations like the UN and NATO and those like the EU then you are truly lost.
Now, back to your false claims that it is the EU that will set standards for car manufacture and we will have to follow them.
You're a funny old sausage, Richard.
Supranational Body A defining rules and standards for us: Bad. Supranational Body B defining rules and standards for us: Good.
Supranational Court A opining on a common set of externally-defined rules for us: Bad. Supranational Court B opining on a common set of externally-defined rules for us: Good.
Not in the least.
Supranational Body B defines rules and standards on a very specific and limited set of criteria. We could and should be able to take part in setting those criteria and those rules. Unfortunately we can't because we are members of Supranational body A which does it all for us even when it is not in our interests.
Supranational Body A not only prevents us taking part in those discussions and decisions, it also makes decisions for us on a vast range of other areas which are normally the reserve of individual nations. So it limits our influence whilst at the same time intruding into areas it should have no right to be involved in.
Like I say, the fact you can't see the difference shows just how blinkered you are.
Don't get me started on the supranational Body that tells us we have to go to war...
We have moved from No Deal is Better than a Bad Deal to No Deal is Better than a Punishment Deal, so the language of the pointless, willy-waving rhetoric is changing - which is progress of a sort, I suppose.
Of course, in the real world what serves our interests best is to never walk away from the negotiating table under any circumstances. As the party with the most to lose from any breakdown in talks we have to play our hand very carefully. For us, a No Deal is catastrophic. It is not just tariffs or delays at customs - it is the UK ceasing to be a member of any international agreement in which we participate as an EU member state. There are hundreds of these and suddenly being outside them will not be inconvenient, but immediately and hugely damaging.
However, as Richard Nabavi pointed out yesterday, the risk is not all one way: there are downsides for the EU27 as well. If we walk away from a deal, that allows them to tell their voting populations that it is all the UK's fault, that it was the UK who refused to negotiate. If, however, we politely refuse conditions, explain why and then insist we still want to talk to find a solution, the onus then moves to the EU27 governments to explain to their voters why it is the EU27 that will not compromise on certain issues. And, as we all know, when you are explaining, you are losing.
If we walk away the German government does not have to explain to its motor manufacturers why no deal is possible - it's the UK's fault. Likewise, the Italian government is off the hook with the Prosecco industry, the French with the agricultural industry, and so on. But if it is the EU27 that is being seen to be preventing a deal, things change; that's when the domestic pressure comes into play and that's when we get some leverage.
Obviously, we have a weak hand, the EU27 has much more in its arsenal; but if we are smart, if we stop willy-waving for domestic newspaper consumption, there is some advantage for us to gain and at least some concessions to win. What we have to remember is that this is not a business negotiation where both sides return to the status quo if it does not work out; instead, it is a time-limited window in which to do a deal while an unstoppable clock ticks down. The UK has to make the most of every single second of that time because if the alarm goes and nothing has been sorted out we are the biggest losers by far.
So plenty of talk about 'Spreadsheet Phil' being lined up to replace TMay this morning.
From everything we know about Hammond, this moniker is a decent characterisation of him. So Tory ministers think another reclusive, tedious automaton is just what the nation needs to replace the current one. They deserve to be crushed by the revolutionaries if that is the case.
Essentially just about anybody is better than the MayBot.
Two months ago today Panelbase had CON 22% ahead. Today LAB has 5% lead.
Mike without reference to any betting slip and financial gain .. are you hostile to St Vince of the Cable as Smithson Jnr ?
Given that Vince is a Knight of the Realm a Doctor of Philosophy and, IIRC, a Privy Councillor, what is the correct form of address?
The Rt Hon Dr Sir sounds clumsy.
In person : Sir Vince(nt)
Cable's first name is John as is Paddy Ashdown but both by common usage are known otherwise.
In writing :
The Rt Hon Sir Vince Cable KBE PC PhD MP
Crown honours precede all others, followed by crown appointments, academic qualification and status as an MP.
Yes true. But Google EU Car Regulations. Plenty there to see. So in reality the EU will set the standards and we will follow them.
Funny that, if you google something including the word EU then you get something that talks about EU standards.
Now try googling the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Working Party 29 and the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations. And you will see that many of those 'EU' Car regulations were actually set by bodies above the EU level and simply adopted by the EU and its member states along with the US, Canada, Japan and South Korea amongst many other countries.
Yes I'm sure. When's our referendum to leave the UN?
We don't need to. They are not seeking to create a single state and undermine the authority of our own Parliament. They are not seeking to reinterpret our own national laws. If you cannot see the difference between organisations like the UN and NATO and those like the EU then you are truly lost.
Now, back to your false claims that it is the EU that will set standards for car manufacture and we will have to follow them.
You're a funny old sausage, Richard.
Supranational Body A defining rules and standards for us: Bad. Supranational Body B defining rules and standards for us: Good.
Supranational Court A opining on a common set of externally-defined rules for us: Bad. Supranational Court B opining on a common set of externally-defined rules for us: Good.
Not in the least.
Supranational Body B defines rules and standards on a very specific and limited set of criteria. We could and should be able to take part in setting those criteria and those rules. Unfortunately we can't because we are members of Supranational body A which does it all for us even when it is not in our interests.
Supranational Body A not only prevents us taking part in those discussions and decisions, it also makes decisions for us on a vast range of other areas which are normally the reserve of individual nations. So it limits our influence whilst at the same time intruding into areas it should have no right to be involved in.
Like I say, the fact you can't see the difference shows just how blinkered you are.
Don't get me started on the supranational Body that tells us we have to go to war...
Said this before and will say it again, NATO article V invocation agreement has to be unanimous.
I knew it myself, but Prof. Bogdanor's lecture shown on BBC Parliament yesterday confirmed it that Britain has virtually no leverage in its negotiations with the EU.
Twenty years of failure in EU negotiations by Blair, Brown and Cameron show that Britain has no leverage in its negotiations with the EU while it is a member of the EU.
I knew it myself, but Prof. Bogdanor's lecture shown on BBC Parliament yesterday confirmed it that Britain has virtually no leverage in its negotiations with the EU.
Twenty years of failure in EU negotiations by Blair, Brown and Cameron show that Britain has no leverage in its negotiations with the EU while it is a member of the EU.
What happens in the future is yet to be seen.
Thatcher succeeded because we were fully in the EEC at the time. The mistake was not joining the Euro which, as predicted by Clarke and others, led to a huge loss of political influence.
And the UK threatening to walk out lets Merkel off the hook completely. If we want a deal, the UK government must be seen as completely transparent, constructive and amicable by the populations of the EU27 countries. The Tories have to stop chasing positive headlines in the right wing English press and start looking for them in newspapers across Europe. We have to show European voters that it is not us who are saying No, it is the EU27. Unilateral action on the rights of EU citizens here would be an excellent start.
Yes true. But Google EU Car Regulations. Plenty there to see. So in reality the EU will set the standards and we will follow them.
Funny that, if you google something including the word EU then you get something that talks about EU standards.
Now try googling the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Working Party 29 and the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations. And you will see that many of those 'EU' Car regulations were actually set by bodies above the EU level and simply adopted by the EU and its member states along with the US, Canada, Japan and South Korea amongst many other countries.
Yes I'm sure. When's our referendum to leave the UN?
We don't need to. They are not seeking to create a single state and undermine the authority of our own Parliament. They are not seeking to reinterpret our own national laws. If you cannot see the difference between organisations like the UN and NATO and those like the EU then you are truly lost.
Now, back to your false claims that it is the EU that will set standards for car manufacture and we will have to follow them.
You're a funny old sausage, Richard.
Supranational Body A defining rules and standards for us: Bad. Supranational Body B defining rules and standards for us: Good.
Supranational Court A opining on a common set of externally-defined rules for us: Bad. Supranational Court B opining on a common set of externally-defined rules for us: Good.
Not in the least.
Supranational Body B defines rules and standards on a very specific and limited set of criteria. We could and should be able to take part in setting those criteria and those rules. Unfortunately we can't because we are members of Supranational body A which does it all for us even when it is not in our interests.
Supranational Body A not only prevents us taking part in those discussions and decisions, it also makes decisions for us on a vast range of other areas which are normally the reserve of individual nations. So it limits our influence whilst at the same time intruding into areas it should have no right to be involved in.
Like I say, the fact you can't see the difference shows just how blinkered you are.
Don't get me started on the supranational Body that tells us we have to go to war...
Said this before and will say it again, NATO article V invocation agreement has to be unanimous.
We'll know more when we see the EU's reaction to the citizens rights proposals when the UK publishes those tomorrow. If they continue to insist on EU citizens (and their immediate decedents) rights being superior to UK citizens, with extra-territorial jurisdiction for the ECJ we'll know they're not serious in reaching a compromise.
which saw her lose David Cameron’s majority
Of course, if Cameron had actually thought he'd get a majority he'd have hedged his referendum promise - or did he think he'd simply "carry the country with him"?
Whose hubris was more destructive, Cameron's or May's? Discuss.
How could he hedge the referendum promise? Remember the hysterics from the EUphobic so-called 'Conservatives' on here that he hadn't held a referendum in the 2010-5 parliament?
Don't blame Cameron for the mess that faces the country. Blame the 'bastards' who have brought down several Conservative leaders - some of them good - in their one-eyed zealous obsession with the EU.
And each time let Labour in.
The 'bastards' who brought down Thatcher were indeed obsessed with the EU - Howe, Heseltine, Clarke, Major.
Its ironic that it was their obsession with membership of the ERM which brought down the Conservative government and let Labour in.
Some of them subsequently undermined the following Conservative leaders with their support for joining the Euro.
Now if you want to talk about Cameron's downfall I'd start with six years of lies about "paying down Britain's debts", "halved the bill" and "no ifs or buts" promises on immigration.
Comments
It's the short term where it gets interesting. Slam the borders shut in March 2019 because we crash out with no deal (well, there will be a deal, not necessarily one that May can get through the Commons) and the problem wont be Kent lorry parks. It will be hunger. This nation cannot feed itself, even less so as agriculture stops when our "bollocks to hard work I'm going to win the X-factor" generation refuse to pick fruit (which is why Boston became "overrun" with foreigners in the first place)
Hard Brexit means supermarket shelves going empty within a week. Means riots. Means the political end of whomever is the government at the time.
Also, agree (again) on Cameron's deal. The Neville Chamberlain QT comment indicated how some of the public saw it.
Before the referendum people were asking for positive things about the EU. I gave a reply about a very small area that I knew fairly well, along with relevant links and supporting information.
How did the Europhobes take this? Did they say "Well, that might be right, but it's a small area and would be outweighed by the advantages of leaving?" or some other positive reply?
No, they went into full denial mode, started throwing insults, and put their fingers in their ears. One poster repeatedly argued that I was wrong, then admitted he couldn't even be arsed to read the links.
There is no need for consistent agreed standards to have free trade. You do for a single market but not for free trade.
Country B has asked Country A to make widgets, if they say no then Country B is approached.
I'm certain you understand this, you're just obfuscating. Its no different to walking past the fish and chip shop because you fancy a kebab.
As an aside, I'm not delighted at how things are going. But remaining in would be even worse. A Remain vote would have been taken as a green light for ever more 'Europe'.
Ultimately, we face a decision. To be slowly integrated into a country called the EU, or to be an independent and separate nation.
If the economics without the politics had been available, it would've won by a landslide. But that was never on offer.
"Hard Brexit means supermarket shelves going empty within a week. Means riots. Means the political end of whomever is the government at the time."
Do you really, honestly, sincerely believe this?
OK, not just her being touted, but in the top three.
If the EU is some sort of economic utopia will somebody explain Greece to me.
What RP, not an alarmist poster, is suggesting is the short term postion while we ‘adjust’.
But it indicates why things skewed towards the negative. The opponents were also being exceptionally negative. They won, and I see that negativity as largely being the reason why we've ended up in the mess we're in.
The Leave campaign had the advantage because, as well as some positive noises, they had the advantage of saying "look how bad things are, we can change them." In a negative contest, the status quo is at a disadvantage because it's using potential negatives whereas the change side can cite actual, current negatives.
That may also explain why the attacks on Corbyn are less effective than they might have been (although a likelier explanation might be how bloody incompetent the Conservative campaign was...).
Oppps .... my word Jezza leads by 34 on approval rating .... I knew it was so all along Comrade PBers ....
No it doesn't need a common approach, it is impossible to buck the market.
Think of the average High St food outlets, you are free to choose burgers, pizzas, Indian etc etc these outlets don't need a common approach they need a product that sells at the right price.
Its called free trade, we need a universal approach not one restricted by bureaucrats.
How long can labour get away with this economic nonsense. Also Marr soft balled his interview
I share your despair.
"Raise the Minimum Wage to the level of the Living Wage (expected to be at least £10 per hour by 2020) – for all workers aged 18 or over, so that work pays."
Superficially what's not to like. It's enough politically for an opposition party.
Now try googling the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Working Party 29 and the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations. And you will see that many of those 'EU' Car regulations were actually set by bodies above the EU level and simply adopted by the EU and its member states along with the US, Canada, Japan and South Korea amongst many other countries.
Absolute certainty of massive lost jobs and opportunities for young people, why employ a teenager when you can get an older more experiencec worker at the same price.
It would be utter utter chaos with little getting through in either direction, at least at first. And knowing the food supply chain that means big shortages very quickly. And we know what hangry people tend to do. And don't say "it won't happen" because I'm assured by our Prime Minister that no deal is better than a good deal, that tariffs are fine. To impose tariffs you need customs and a restored border.
So either we waive the customs checks inbound and border controls - which will have the Daily Mail howling- or we impose them, Waitrose runs out of meat, and the Daily Mail starts howling. Make sure you stock up on non-perishable items beforehand.
What could be possibly go wrong ?
Now, back to your false claims that it is the EU that will set standards for car manufacture and we will have to follow them.
From everything we know about Hammond, this moniker is a decent characterisation of him. So Tory ministers think another reclusive, tedious automaton is just what the nation needs to replace the current one. They deserve to be crushed by the revolutionaries if that is the case.
Speaking at a Unison conference in Brighton, Mr Corbyn was asked by one delegate whether 16-year-olds should also be paid Labour’s living wage. In response, Mr Corbyn said: 'You’re absolutely right.'
It sounds like an off-the-cuff remark - I am not defending it but hardly counts as Labour agreed policy.
Answers on a Post Card.....
Yeah, they should have someone with a bit of character... I feel Jacob Cream-Crackers' moment is nigh :-)
At least when I knew him, he was a very vociferous, prominent and staunch member of the Liberal Democats!
And, at least according to Melanie McDonagh of the Spectator, he still is.
https://tinyurl.com/ycqgvawx
So, I doubt if he’ll figure in the Tory manifesto.
The LibDem one, maybe.
Two months ago today Panelbase had CON 22% ahead. Today LAB has 5% lead.
Incidentally we came back from the Canaries via Stansted last weekend. There were lots of ‘electronic’ passport terminals to be seen, but few of them open, so substantial queues at those that were available.
Supranational Body A defining rules and standards for us: Bad.
Supranational Body B defining rules and standards for us: Good.
Supranational Court A opining on a common set of externally-defined rules for us: Bad.
Supranational Court B opining on a common set of externally-defined rules for us: Good.
I do have a point though. Wages need to pay the cost of living - it isn't sustainable to replace the missing funds by selling debt, even if "debt" manages to be transformed into a balance sheet "asset".
I well remember all the doommongers predicting the end of the world back in 1998 when it was introduced. The scare stories were all nonsense of course and within 2 years the tories had become backers. It will be the same for extending down to 16 year olds. Just needs to be phased in properly.
I'm thinking about taking on a part time 'young me', who could well go on to do the same. I wouldn't be able to pay him/her £10 an hour. So under Corbyn's govt, he/she would not get such an experience.
1 .. 2 .. 3 ..
The Rt Hon Dr Sir sounds clumsy.
Supranational Body B defines rules and standards on a very specific and limited set of criteria. We could and should be able to take part in setting those criteria and those rules. Unfortunately we can't because we are members of Supranational body A which does it all for us even when it is not in our interests.
Supranational Body A not only prevents us taking part in those discussions and decisions, it also makes decisions for us on a vast range of other areas which are normally the reserve of individual nations. So it limits our influence whilst at the same time intruding into areas it should have no right to be involved in.
Like I say, the fact you can't see the difference shows just how blinkered you are.
On year on: Leave at 52%, Remain at 48%
https://twitter.com/bbc_joe_lynam/status/878895499138420737
Of course, in the real world what serves our interests best is to never walk away from the negotiating table under any circumstances. As the party with the most to lose from any breakdown in talks we have to play our hand very carefully. For us, a No Deal is catastrophic. It is not just tariffs or delays at customs - it is the UK ceasing to be a member of any international agreement in which we participate as an EU member state. There are hundreds of these and suddenly being outside them will not be inconvenient, but immediately and hugely damaging.
However, as Richard Nabavi pointed out yesterday, the risk is not all one way: there are downsides for the EU27 as well. If we walk away from a deal, that allows them to tell their voting populations that it is all the UK's fault, that it was the UK who refused to negotiate. If, however, we politely refuse conditions, explain why and then insist we still want to talk to find a solution, the onus then moves to the EU27 governments to explain to their voters why it is the EU27 that will not compromise on certain issues. And, as we all know, when you are explaining, you are losing.
If we walk away the German government does not have to explain to its motor manufacturers why no deal is possible - it's the UK's fault. Likewise, the Italian government is off the hook with the Prosecco industry, the French with the agricultural industry, and so on. But if it is the EU27 that is being seen to be preventing a deal, things change; that's when the domestic pressure comes into play and that's when we get some leverage.
Obviously, we have a weak hand, the EU27 has much more in its arsenal; but if we are smart, if we stop willy-waving for domestic newspaper consumption, there is some advantage for us to gain and at least some concessions to win. What we have to remember is that this is not a business negotiation where both sides return to the status quo if it does not work out; instead, it is a time-limited window in which to do a deal while an unstoppable clock ticks down. The UK has to make the most of every single second of that time because if the alarm goes and nothing has been sorted out we are the biggest losers by far.
Cable's first name is John as is Paddy Ashdown but both by common usage are known otherwise.
In writing :
The Rt Hon Sir Vince Cable KBE PC PhD MP
Crown honours precede all others, followed by crown appointments, academic qualification and status as an MP.
What happens in the future is yet to be seen.
Thatcher succeeded because she dug her heels in. Blair failed because he threw away half the rebate for a promise that never happened.
We cannot escape its influence; we can only remove ourselves from having influence within it.
Its ironic that it was their obsession with membership of the ERM which brought down the Conservative government and let Labour in.
Some of them subsequently undermined the following Conservative leaders with their support for joining the Euro.
Now if you want to talk about Cameron's downfall I'd start with six years of lies about "paying down Britain's debts", "halved the bill" and "no ifs or buts" promises on immigration.