The nation states supply the bureaucrats. The nation states make up the Council and we, the electorate, supply MEPs who are increasingly taking power over the bureaucrats. Democracy is there but a bit more indirectly than we have been used to.
The history of nation states is largely one of conflict and instability. Perhaps it is time that we gave dullness a go.
Democratic States only very rarely go to war with each other. It's democracy and the rule of law that generates stable relations between States.
I don't tend to push the EU has ensured peace in Europe line because you can't touch and feel that peace, nor can you eat it. It doesn't mean it's unreal. Let's say the EU provides a forum in which countries of a normally warlike continent can with goodwill hammer out their differences. Nevertheless if the EU doesn't deliver practical benefits of the kind Beverly lists, it fails. Ensuring peace is not enough if we end up poorer.
The best argument for Leave ultimately is the sovereignty one. Let's be masters of our own ship. I like the sound of that. But just as with peace, you can't touch, feel or eat that sovereignty. Unless leaving the EU delivers practical benefits it will be a failure.
On that practical level, EU membership wins across the board. Leavers have not come up with a single realistic practical benefit for Leave, it doesn't solve a single real problem we have, it makes several real problems we do have more difficult to to deal with.
And because we lose influence at the same time as gaining control, we actually end up with less real say over destiny, not more. That makes the sovereignty argument moot.
Control over VAT/local taxation, flexibility on product standards, flexibility on financial services regulation, ability to regulate our own fisheries grounds, ability to design our own agriculture policy, regaining a seat on the WTO to independently push for worldwide services liberalisation, side-stepping regulations like the ports and clinical trials directives, ending rulings on our crime & justice system, and saving on cash contributions, are all practical benefits of Leaving.
Long-term, it's more about removing constraints and giving us the toolkit to be able to flexibly respond to the challenges of the 21st Century, without political union and with direct democratic accountability in our national parliament, which I think is politically healthy.
Mr. Ace, NATO is about multi-lateral co-operation between nation states. The EU is about dragging power from nation states to a central bureaucracy that is not and cannot be accountable to the people because there is no demos, no unifying identity that applies to people across the EU.
What would the purpose be? Would the EU Army run to the rescue if the Falklands were invaded? How would the command structure work? Where would the accountability be? How would the funding work? What problem would an EU Army be solving that could not be addressed by NATO?
The British people just voted to leave the EU. The idea they'd be happy at having their armed forces become a military wing under the command of Brussels is, shall we say, optimistic.
William Glenn apart, Remainers never attempt explain why this shift power from nation States to a central bureaucracy is a good thing. They just say either it's not happening, or that the EU is crap but they'll do horrible things to us if we leave.
The nation states supply the bureaucrats. The nation states make up the Council and we, the electorate, supply MEPs who are increasingly taking power over the bureaucrats. Democracy is there but a bit more indirectly than we have been used to.
The benefits? The obvious one is that life is nice and dull and boring. No wars, no border conflicts, etc. Business life is nice and dull - just get on with stuff. No trade disputes, no border checks, no tariffs, work anywhere, etc. Healthcare works reasonably well across borders, phone tariffs and roaming charges just got squished, etc, etc. There is a nice long list of nice, dull boring stuff that just works and gets very slowly better. Harmonisation of standards.
The history of nation states is largely one of conflict and instability. Perhaps it is time that we gave dullness a go.
Democratic States only very rarely go to war with each other. It's democracy and the rule of law that generates stable relations between States.
Democratic states...like Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy...and then you have terrible civil wars where minorities are oppressed through democracies... like Sri Lanka....
Churchill understood that the best way to secure peace and prosperity was through international institutions....Brexit and Trump play fast and loose with the gains we have made over the last seventy years or so...
Exactly!
(And last night's toast dripping with butter and downed with green tea ..... sublime)
There is a lot of piss and wind spoken on both sides of the Brexit debate.
That Barnier statement seems perfectly reasonable to me, and consistent with the EU's position for the last year.
It's funny how "statement of the bleedin obvious" should be a "blow" - the only people who've been rumbled are the peddlers of a mythical "Soft Brexit" - they've been told before it doesn't exist.
I think it's being replaced by "No Brexit".....
Rules of origin checks, and checks on regulatory equivalence, are consequences on leaving the customs union and single market, yes.
They aren't going to "sink" Britain.
But they will increase the cost of doing business and make the UK a less attractive location for inward investment. They will cause significant pain for very little discernible gain.
Remainers continue to switch between "catastrophe" and "not a catastrophe but not worth it".
You'd do your case more of a service to stick to one line rather than another.
Depends how you define catastrophe. It will make us poorer. Is that a catastrophe? For some people perhaps, others not so much.
The whole thing will make us poorer which I suppose is a funny thing for the country to have voted for but, as @Pulpstar says, not much different to people voting in a Labour govt.
The British people just voted to leave the EU. The idea they'd be happy at having their armed forces become a military wing under the command of Brussels is, shall we say, optimistic.
William Glenn apart, Remainers never attempt explain why this shift power from nation States to a central bureaucracy is a good thing. They just say either it's not happening, or that the EU is crap but they'll do horrible things to us if we leave.
Its not about power its freedom to move freedom to work freedom to travel freedom to employ people from a pool ten times bigger than our own without restriction. It's about a pooling of resources for the common good. They're not difficult concepts.
Those seem like extremely modest benefits to me, and certainly not worth the loss of self-government which is entailed.
I think it's a benefit people support ideologically, rather than practically.
For me it's about economics too....we limped into the EU as the sick man of Europe and it looks like we are limping out too in a pretty damned unhealthy state...
Our forty year period inside the EU...we did alright barring the odd crisis...
We did alright because of Thatcher not because of the EU.
We did alright because of North Sea Oil.
We did alright because Thatcher used the opportunity of North Sea Oil to restructure the British economy. Again nothing to do with the EU.
It seems a bit of a stretch to say that, for example, the deregulated City did not benefit from the UK's membership of the EU. The UK economy was restructured and so much better placed to take advantage of the emerging single market on its doorstep.
The City didn't much. There's no single market in financial services
Hmmm - but there is passporting and free movement of capital.
William Glenn apart, Remainers never attempt explain why this shift power from nation States to a central bureaucracy is a good thing. They just say either it's not happening, or that the EU is crap but they'll do horrible things to us if we leave.
Its not about power its freedom to move freedom to work freedom to travel freedom to employ people from a pool ten times bigger than our own without restriction. It's about a pooling of resources for the common good. They're not difficult concepts.
Those seem like extremely modest benefits to me, and certainly not worth the loss of self-government which is entailed.
I think it's a benefit people support ideologically, rather than practically.
For me it's about economics too....we limped into the EU as the sick man of Europe and it looks like we are limping out too in a pretty damned unhealthy state...
Our forty year period inside the EU...we did alright barring the odd crisis...
We did alright because of Thatcher not because of the EU.
We did alright because of North Sea Oil.
We did alright because Thatcher used the opportunity of North Sea Oil to restructure the British economy. Again nothing to do with the EU.
It seems a bit of a stretch to say that, for example, the deregulated City did not benefit from the UK's membership of the EU. The UK economy was restructured and so much better placed to take advantage of the emerging single market on its doorstep.
The City didn't much. There's no single market in financial services
Apparently loads of MPs didn't bother wearing ties and suits in the Commons in the 1980s before the cameras were installed. When they were, in November 1989, the whips from all parties ordered members to smarten up. Although you can watch Jeremy Corbyn asking Mrs Thatcher a question in May 1990 (on Youtube) without wearing a tie.
Mr. Ace, NATO is about multi-lateral co-operation between nation states. The EU is about dragging power from nation states to a central bureaucracy that is not and cannot be accountable to the people because there is no demos, no unifying identity that applies to people across the EU.
What would the purpose be? Would the EU Army run to the rescue if the Falklands were invaded? How would the command structure work? Where would the accountability be? How would the funding work? What problem would an EU Army be solving that could not be addressed by NATO?
The British people just voted to leave the EU. The idea they'd be happy at having their armed forces become a military wing under the command of Brussels is, shall we say, optimistic.
William Glenn apart, Remainers never attempt explain why this shift power from nation States to a central bureaucracy is a good thing. They just say either it's not happening, or that the EU is crap but they'll do horrible things to us if we leave.
The nation states supply the bureaucrats. The nation states make up the Council and we, the electorate, supply MEPs who are increasingly taking power over the bureaucrats. Democracy is there but a bit more indirectly than we have been used to.
The benefits? The obvious one is that life is nice and dull and boring. No wars, no border conflicts, etc. Business life is nice and dull - just get on with stuff. No trade disputes, no border checks, no tariffs, work anywhere, etc. Healthcare works reasonably well across borders, phone tariffs and roaming charges just got squished, etc, etc. There is a nice long list of nice, dull boring stuff that just works and gets very slowly better. Harmonisation of standards.
The history of nation states is largely one of conflict and instability. Perhaps it is time that we gave dullness a go.
Democratic States only very rarely go to war with each other. It's democracy and the rule of law that generates stable relations between States.
Democratic states...like Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy...and then you have terrible civil wars where minorities are oppressed through democracies... like Sri Lanka....
Churchill understood that the best way to secure peace and prosperity was through international institutions....Brexit and Trump play fast and loose with the gains we have made over the last seventy years or so...
That's the first time I've heard anyone describe Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany as democratic States. Fascism and Nazism were deliberately and explicitly anti -democratic. Both governments suppressed rival political parties, prohibited free speech, and imprisoned and killed political opponents.
A Millwall fan is a racist, am absolutely shocked by this.
A man nicknamed the 'Lion of London Bridge' after he took on terrorists shouting "f*** you, I'm Millwall" during the deadly terror attack has been filmed spitting in a man's face during a vile racist rant.
Football fan Roy Larner hit the headlines after battling three knife-wielding jihadis with his fists.
The 47-year-old 'hero' was stabbed eight times in the Black & Blue steak restaurant, in Borough Market, as he protected other customers and waiting staff.
Now footage of the avid Millwall supporter hurling racist abuse at a protester has emerged.
Roy, with two dogs in tow, approached a group chanting "Trump and May have got to go" in Elephant and Castle, south London, in February.
The dad-of-one can be seen screaming "ban the foreigners, you c***" before spitting at a black Movement for Justice campaigner who appears to have been photographing the demonstation.
William Glenn apart, Remainers never attempt explain why this shift power from nation States to a central bureaucracy is a good thing. They just say either it's not happening, or that the EU is crap but they'll do horrible things to us if we leave.
Its not about power its freedom to move freedom to work freedom to travel freedom to employ people from a pool ten times bigger than our own without restriction. It's about a pooling of resources for the common good. They're not difficult concepts.
Those seem like extremely modest benefits to me, and certainly not worth the loss of self-government which is entailed.
I think it's a benefit people support ideologically, rather than practically.
For me it's about economics too....we limped into the EU as the sick man of Europe and it looks like we are limping out too in a pretty damned unhealthy state...
Our forty year period inside the EU...we did alright barring the odd crisis...
We did alright because of Thatcher not because of the EU.
We did alright because of North Sea Oil.
We did alright because Thatcher used the opportunity of North Sea Oil to restructure the British economy. Again nothing to do with the EU.
It seems a bit of a stretch to say that, for example, the deregulated City did not benefit from the UK's membership of the EU. The UK economy was restructured and so much better placed to take advantage of the emerging single market on its doorstep.
The City didn't much. There's no single market in financial services
(clue: passporting is not a single market. How big is our insurance business in Europe, for example?)
There is a de facto single market in many financial services sectors throughout Europe.
You said the City didn't benefit much from the UK's membership of the EU which is transparently not the case. It has benefited greatly and the UK has been instrumental in the construction of the current and future set of EU regulations.
There is a lot of piss and wind spoken on both sides of the Brexit debate.
That Barnier statement seems perfectly reasonable to me, and consistent with the EU's position for the last year.
It's funny how "statement of the bleedin obvious" should be a "blow" - the only people who've been rumbled are the peddlers of a mythical "Soft Brexit" - they've been told before it doesn't exist.
I think it's being replaced by "No Brexit".....
Rules of origin checks, and checks on regulatory equivalence, are consequences on leaving the customs union and single market, yes.
They aren't going to "sink" Britain.
But they will increase the cost of doing business and make the UK a less attractive location for inward investment. They will cause significant pain for very little discernible gain.
Remainers continue to switch between "catastrophe" and "not a catastrophe but not worth it".
You'd do your case more of a service to stick to one line rather than another.
The consequences of increasing the cost of doing business in markets that take well over 40% of our exports and of making the UK a less attractive inward investment choice will certainly be catastrophic for many people.
@TheScreamingEagles - There lots of terrible side effects of Islamic terrorism. Allowing a racist Millwall fan to show that they're not all mouth really isn't one of them.
There is a lot of piss and wind spoken on both sides of the Brexit debate.
That Barnier statement seems perfectly reasonable to me, and consistent with the EU's position for the last year.
It's funny how "statement of the bleedin obvious" should be a "blow" - the only people who've been rumbled are the peddlers of a mythical "Soft Brexit" - they've been told before it doesn't exist.
I think it's being replaced by "No Brexit".....
Rules of origin checks, and checks on regulatory equivalence, are consequences on leaving the customs union and single market, yes.
They aren't going to "sink" Britain.
But they will increase the cost of doing business and make the UK a less attractive location for inward investment. They will cause significant pain for very little discernible gain.
Remainers continue to switch between "catastrophe" and "not a catastrophe but not worth it".
You'd do your case more of a service to stick to one line rather than another.
The consequences of increasing the cost of doing business in markets that take well over 40% of our exports and of making the UK a less attractive inward investment choice will certainly be catastrophic for many people.
As a Remainer I am not switching between "catastrophe" and "not a catastrophe but not worth it".
@TheScreamingEagles - There lots of terrible side effects of Islamic terrorism. Allowing a racist Millwall fan to show that they're not all mouth really isn't one of them.
Apparently loads of MPs didn't bother wearing ties and suits in the Commons in the 1980s before the cameras were installed. When they were, in November 1989, the whips from all parties ordered members to smarten up. Although you can watch Jeremy Corbyn asking Mrs Thatcher a question in May 1990 (on Youtube) without wearing a tie.
Good story. It took Jeremy Corbyn until 2017 for someone to drag him through a tailor's shop!
There is a lot of piss and wind spoken on both sides of the Brexit debate.
That Barnier statement seems perfectly reasonable to me, and consistent with the EU's position for the last year.
It's funny how "statement of the bleedin obvious" should be a "blow" - the only people who've been rumbled are the peddlers of a mythical "Soft Brexit" - they've been told before it doesn't exist.
I think it's being replaced by "No Brexit".....
Rules of origin checks, and checks on regulatory equivalence, are consequences on leaving the customs union and single market, yes.
They aren't going to "sink" Britain.
But they will increase the cost of doing business and make the UK a less attractive location for inward investment. They will cause significant pain for very little discernible gain.
Remainers continue to switch between "catastrophe" and "not a catastrophe but not worth it".
You'd do your case more of a service to stick to one line rather than another.
Depends how you define catastrophe. It will make us poorer. Is that a catastrophe? For some people perhaps, others not so much.
The whole thing will make us poorer which I suppose is a funny thing for the country to have voted for but, as @Pulpstar says, not much different to people voting in a Labour govt.
Britain is a rich country. It will continue to be a rich country, and growing richer. And by 2030 we won't be able to tell the difference as to whether we were in or out.
And for me the political benefits are very important.
There is a lot of piss and wind spoken on both sides of the Brexit debate.
That Barnier statement seems perfectly reasonable to me, and consistent with the EU's position for the last year.
It's funny how "statement of the bleedin obvious" should be a "blow" - the only people who've been rumbled are the peddlers of a mythical "Soft Brexit" - they've been told before it doesn't exist.
I think it's being replaced by "No Brexit".....
Rules of origin checks, and checks on regulatory equivalence, are consequences on leaving the customs union and single market, yes.
They aren't going to "sink" Britain.
But they will increase the cost of doing business and make the UK a less attractive location for inward investment. They will cause significant pain for very little discernible gain.
Remainers continue to switch between "catastrophe" and "not a catastrophe but not worth it".
You'd do your case more of a service to stick to one line rather than another.
The consequences of increasing the cost of doing business in markets that take well over 40% of our exports and of making the UK a less attractive inward investment choice will certainly be catastrophic for many people.
Interesting paper from Matthew Goodwin on GE 2017:
"The outcome of the 2017 general election – a hung parliament - defied predictions. In this article, we draw on aggregate-level data to conduct an initial exploration of the vote.
What was the impact of Brexit on the 2017 general election result? What difference did the collapse of Ukip make? And what was the relative importance of factors such as turnout, education, age, and ethnic diversity on support for the two main parties?
First, we find that turnout was generally higher in more pro-Remain areas, and places with high concentrations of young people, ethnic minorities, and university graduates.
Second, we find that the Conservatives made gains in the sort of places that had previously backed Brexit and previously voted for Ukip.
But, third, we find that the gains the Conservatives made from the electoral decline of Ukip were off-set by losses in the sort of places that had previously supported the Conservatives, particularly areas in southern England with larger numbers of graduates.
The implication of these findings is that while a Brexit effect contributed to a ‘realignment on the right’, with the Conservative strategy appealing to people in places that had previously voted for Ukip, this strategy was not without an electoral cost, and appears to have hurt the party in more middle class areas."
For foodie types out there - I ran out of baking powder so I use a tsp of bicarb instead, but I did not add 2 tsp of tartar to the mix. Result - the bread was not acidic enough to neutralise the bicarb and my bread is a tan-brown colour. It still tastes just fine. Lesson learned, for WHITE bread stick to baking powder.
@TheScreamingEagles - There lots of terrible side effects of Islamic terrorism. Allowing a racist Millwall fan to show that they're not all mouth really isn't one of them.
A Millwall fan is a racist, am absolutely shocked by this.
A man nicknamed the 'Lion of London Bridge' after he took on terrorists shouting "f*** you, I'm Millwall" during the deadly terror attack has been filmed spitting in a man's face during a vile racist rant.
Football fan Roy Larner hit the headlines after battling three knife-wielding jihadis with his fists.
The 47-year-old 'hero' was stabbed eight times in the Black & Blue steak restaurant, in Borough Market, as he protected other customers and waiting staff.
Now footage of the avid Millwall supporter hurling racist abuse at a protester has emerged.
Roy, with two dogs in tow, approached a group chanting "Trump and May have got to go" in Elephant and Castle, south London, in February.
The dad-of-one can be seen screaming "ban the foreigners, you c***" before spitting at a black Movement for Justice campaigner who appears to have been photographing the demonstation.
There is a lot of piss and wind spoken on both sides of the Brexit debate.
That Barnier statement seems perfectly reasonable to me, and consistent with the EU's position for the last year.
It's funny how "statement of the bleedin obvious" should be a "blow" - the only people who've been rumbled are the peddlers of a mythical "Soft Brexit" - they've been told before it doesn't exist.
I think it's being replaced by "No Brexit".....
Rules of origin checks, and checks on regulatory equivalence, are consequences on leaving the customs union and single market, yes.
They aren't going to "sink" Britain.
But they will increase the cost of doing business and make the UK a less attractive location for inward investment. They will cause significant pain for very little discernible gain.
Remainers continue to switch between "catastrophe" and "not a catastrophe but not worth it".
You'd do your case more of a service to stick to one line rather than another.
The consequences of increasing the cost of doing business in markets that take well over 40% of our exports and of making the UK a less attractive inward investment choice will certainly be catastrophic for many people.
I don't think so.
I should hope not. It would take a special kind of scumbag to support Brexit despite believing it would be catastrophic. I happen to think you are wrong, but I do not doubt your good intentions.
@TheScreamingEagles - There lots of terrible side effects of Islamic terrorism. Allowing a racist Millwall fan to show that they're not all mouth really isn't one of them.
Control over VAT/local taxation, flexibility on product standards, flexibility on financial services regulation, ability to regulate our own fisheries grounds, ability to design our own agriculture policy, regaining a seat on the WTO to independently push for worldwide services liberalisation, side-stepping regulations like the ports and clinical trials directives, ending rulings on our crime & justice system, and saving on cash contributions, are all practical benefits of Leaving.
Really?
VAT - we had control over it. OUR govt has changed VAT quite frequently over the years
Product standards - these are set by the markets we sell into, so they will not change
Financial services regulation - an argument that we regularly won in Brussels
Ability to regulate our own fisheries grounds - Yes
Ability to design our own agriculture policy - Yes. CAP is a disaster.
Services liberalisation - it was coming anyway
Side-stepping regulations like the ports ... - Ports always need regulation
... and clinical trials directives - We will have to meet EU directives if we sell to the EU
Ending rulings on our crime & justice system - It seemed to work OK.
Saving on cash contributions - which look to be wiped out by the divorce bill and WTO tariffs
So then, 2 out 10 is worth the biggest gamble of the last 100 years?
Long-term, it's more about removing constraints and giving us the toolkit to be able to flexibly respond to the challenges of the 21st Century, without political union and with direct democratic accountability in our national parliament, which I think is politically healthy.
Do already hold our Parliament accountable. Look at last month and you will see what I mean.
Catastrophe or not, it is yet to be seen - nevertheless it was voted for. And must be carried through.
"I drove into the lake because the SatNav told me to"
Of all the Brexit bullshit, this is perhaps the most infantile
Name me one 'advisory' referendum in the UK that was NOT carried out*
* Yes, yes, 1979 Scottish devolution, but a criteria was set in advance, not imposed afterwards.
And that threshold produced a lasting legacy of bitterness. Campaigners for devolution argued, correctly, that they had been cheated.
For sure, Parliament can just stick two fingers up at the voters, and refuse to back Brexit. They have that right. But, does anyone really think the outcome would be a good one?
Catastrophe or not, it is yet to be seen - nevertheless it was voted for. And must be carried through.
"I drove into the lake because the SatNav told me to"
Of all the Brexit bullshit, this is perhaps the most infantile
Name me one 'advisory' referendum in the UK that was NOT carried out*
* Yes, yes, 1979 Scottish devolution, but a criteria was set in advance, not imposed afterwards.
And that threshold produced a lasting legacy of bitterness. Campaigners for devolution argued, correctly, that they had been cheated.
For sure, Parliament can just stick two fingers up at the voters, and refuse to back Brexit. They have that right. But, does anyone really think the outcome would be a good one?
Depends on the context.
Say in the Autumn of 2018 it looks like we're going to get very hard Brexit which will lead to an economic disaster which will cost 100s of thousands of jobs/balls up the economy, I suspect the voters will be demanding Article 50 to be revoked.
Catastrophe or not, it is yet to be seen - nevertheless it was voted for. And must be carried through.
"I drove into the lake because the SatNav told me to"
Of all the Brexit bullshit, this is perhaps the most infantile
Name me one 'advisory' referendum in the UK that was NOT carried out*
* Yes, yes, 1979 Scottish devolution, but a criteria was set in advance, not imposed afterwards.
And that threshold produced a lasting legacy of bitterness. Campaigners for devolution argued, correctly, that they had been cheated.
For sure, Parliament can just stick two fingers up at the voters, and refuse to back Brexit. They have that right. But, does anyone really think the outcome would be a good one?
Depends on the context.
Say in the Autumn of 2018 it looks like we're going to get very hard Brexit which will lead to an economic disaster which will cost 100s of thousands of jobs/balls up the economy, I suspect the voters will be demanding Article 50 to be revoked.
Oh dear god - it is the 1970s again. I remember being told to buy British cars and support our car industry even though a huge proportion of the cars they made were rubbish quality. Morris Marinas and Asutin Allegros.
That's the first time I've heard anyone describe Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany as democratic States. Fascism and Nazism were deliberately and explicitly anti -democratic. Both governments suppressed rival political parties, prohibited free speech, and imprisoned and killed political opponents.
This is Tyson's fundamental problem. The nation state is a direct contributor to and guarantor of democratic freedom. In opposing the nation state he eventually has to make it clear that he also opposes democracy. The way this is generally done is by reclassifying democracy as 'populism' and attacking that instead. But in the end the only way to support membership of self legislating supranational bodies like the EU is by suppressing democratic freedom.
Two months after May hastily triggered Article 50, it is becoming ever clearer that the imperative of "sovereignty" cannot be reconciled with that of prosperity. In a speech this morning, the EU's chief negotiator Michel Barnier delivered a series of hard truths to the Brexiteers. "I have heard some people in the UK argue that one can leave the single market and keep all of its benefits - that is not possible," he said. "I have heard some people in the UK argue that one can leave the single market and build a customs union to achieve 'frictionless trade' - that is not possible." After backing down on the Brexit timetable, the UK will soon have to pay a sizeable divorce bill if it wishes to make further progress. The promised £350m a week for the NHS will gave way to c.€100bn for the EU.
Control over VAT/local taxation, flexibility on product standards, flexibility on financial services regulation, ability to regulate our own fisheries grounds, ability to design our own agriculture policy, regaining a seat on the WTO to independently push for worldwide services liberalisation, side-stepping regulations like the ports and clinical trials directives, ending rulings on our crime & justice system, and saving on cash contributions, are all practical benefits of Leaving.
Really?
VAT - we had control over it. OUR govt has changed VAT quite frequently over the years
Product standards - these are set by the markets we sell into, so they will not change
Financial services regulation - an argument that we regularly won in Brussels
Ability to regulate our own fisheries grounds - Yes
Ability to design our own agriculture policy - Yes. CAP is a disaster.
Services liberalisation - it was coming anyway
Side-stepping regulations like the ports ... - Ports always need regulation
... and clinical trials directives - We will have to meet EU directives if we sell to the EU
Ending rulings on our crime & justice system - It seemed to work OK.
Saving on cash contributions - which look to be wiped out by the divorce bill and WTO tariffs
So then, 2 out 10 is worth the biggest gamble of the last 100 years?
Long-term, it's more about removing constraints and giving us the toolkit to be able to flexibly respond to the challenges of the 21st Century, without political union and with direct democratic accountability in our national parliament, which I think is politically healthy.
Do already hold our Parliament accountable. Look at last month and you will see what I mean.
Or contrariwise... There is nothing healthy about our Parliamentary system. Starting with the "leading candidates grab everything" (also known as FPTP), going through funding of parties and campaigns by multimillionaires, to the deliberate flouting of whatever rules there are. They say we get the government we deserve, but I don`t think we did anything to deserve the present shambles.
Two months after May hastily triggered Article 50, it is becoming ever clearer that the imperative of "sovereignty" cannot be reconciled with that of prosperity. In a speech this morning, the EU's chief negotiator Michel Barnier delivered a series of hard truths to the Brexiteers. "I have heard some people in the UK argue that one can leave the single market and keep all of its benefits - that is not possible," he said. "I have heard some people in the UK argue that one can leave the single market and build a customs union to achieve 'frictionless trade' - that is not possible." After backing down on the Brexit timetable, the UK will soon have to pay a sizeable divorce bill if it wishes to make further progress. The promised £350m a week for the NHS will gave way to c.€100bn for the EU.
"Two months after May hastily triggered Article 50"
Oh dear god - it is the 1970s again. I remember being told to buy British cars and support our car industry even though a huge proportion of the cars they made were rubbish quality. Morris Marinas and Asutin Allegros.
There's more to come in our national reenactment of 1970s. Corbyn plans to end up with the 3 day week and power cuts.
Two months after May hastily triggered Article 50, it is becoming ever clearer that the imperative of "sovereignty" cannot be reconciled with that of prosperity. In a speech this morning, the EU's chief negotiator Michel Barnier delivered a series of hard truths to the Brexiteers. "I have heard some people in the UK argue that one can leave the single market and keep all of its benefits - that is not possible," he said. "I have heard some people in the UK argue that one can leave the single market and build a customs union to achieve 'frictionless trade' - that is not possible." After backing down on the Brexit timetable, the UK will soon have to pay a sizeable divorce bill if it wishes to make further progress. The promised £350m a week for the NHS will gave way to c.€100bn for the EU.
Strangely, quite a lot of nations do seem able to reconcile sovereignty with prosperity.
Oh dear god - it is the 1970s again. I remember being told to buy British cars and support our car industry even though a huge proportion of the cars they made were rubbish quality. Morris Marinas and Asutin Allegros.
There's more to come in our national reenactment of 1970s. Corbyn plans to end up with the 3 day week and power cuts.
Also, ban on technological advances. Can't be having them taking human jobs.
Say in the Autumn of 2018 it looks like we're going to get very hard Brexit which will lead to an economic disaster which will cost 100s of thousands of jobs/balls up the economy, I suspect the voters will be demanding Article 50 to be revoked.
I just don't think anyone will believe that scenario until it happened. (It's not that likely anyway imo).
Oh dear god - it is the 1970s again. I remember being told to buy British cars and support our car industry even though a huge proportion of the cars they made were rubbish quality. Morris Marinas and Asutin Allegros.
They're a little better now, from Minis to McLarens we do make some very good cars in the UK.
Actually, while it sounds stupid in that tweet, Bragg's comments are largely correct. At this stage, there is no mileage for Corbyn in being opposed to Brexit. He needs to straddle the fences as long as possible. Of course, he would be very happy to leave on a no deal brexit, as would McDonnell. But they know where their bread is buttered - Labour voters are overwhelmingly for remain. If the negotiations are seen to be going badly, and public opinion starts to turn against Brexit, you can be sure that Labour will rapdily swing against Brexit.
Chuka Umuna's amendment was a stupid move, as was Corbyn's response. Chuka needlessly forced a division over the issue and forced people to come down on one side or the other, and Corbyn should have left it as a free vote in order to not pick a side. Corbyn's fence sitting has worked well so far, he really needs to carry it out for as long as possible.
Say in the Autumn of 2018 it looks like we're going to get very hard Brexit which will lead to an economic disaster which will cost 100s of thousands of jobs/balls up the economy, I suspect the voters will be demanding Article 50 to be revoked.
I just don't think anyone will believe that scenario until it happened. (It's not that likely anyway imo).
We're already seeing the warning lights, if they become a crescendo by the Autumn of 2018....
And I really should be flogged for that awful set of mixed metaphors.
@seanjonesqc: Seandiana Jones and the Brexit of Doom ... Scene: Last Crusader invites Leaver to choose a grail.
@seanjonesqc: Last Crusader: You must choose, but choose wisely Leaver: Sure, whatever [Raises Brexit Grail and gazes in awe]
@seanjonesqc: Leaver: This is certainly the Brexit of the King of Kings ... Eternal life and sunny uplands. Cake both eaten and possessed.
@seanjonesqc: LC: Are you sure you want that one. I did say choose *wisely*. Leaver: Yes, it is sovereignty and trade LC: Actually, not so much.
@seanjonesqc: Leaver: We have chosen. LC: Yes, but this one ages you rapidly and you disintegra ... L: WE HAVE CHOSEN
@seanjonesqc: LC: Sure, but I'm saying that you can have another L: CHOSEN! CHOSEN! LC: OK [L Drinks. Agony. L is pile of dust] PofD: This is your fault
Control over VAT/local taxation, flexibility on product standards, flexibility on financial services regulation, ability to regulate our own fisheries grounds, ability to design our own agriculture policy, regaining a seat on the WTO to independently push for worldwide services liberalisation, side-stepping regulations like the ports and clinical trials directives, ending rulings on our crime & justice system, and saving on cash contributions, are all practical benefits of Leaving.
Really?
VAT - we had control over it. OUR govt has changed VAT quite frequently over the years
Product standards - these are set by the markets we sell into, so they will not change
Financial services regulation - an argument that we regularly won in Brussels
Ability to regulate our own fisheries grounds - Yes
Ability to design our own agriculture policy - Yes. CAP is a disaster.
Services liberalisation - it was coming anyway
Side-stepping regulations like the ports ... - Ports always need regulation
... and clinical trials directives - We will have to meet EU directives if we sell to the EU
Ending rulings on our crime & justice system - It seemed to work OK.
Saving on cash contributions - which look to be wiped out by the divorce bill and WTO tariffs
So then, 2 out 10 is worth the biggest gamble of the last 100 years?
Long-term, it's more about removing constraints and giving us the toolkit to be able to flexibly respond to the challenges of the 21st Century, without political union and with direct democratic accountability in our national parliament, which I think is politically healthy.
Do already hold our Parliament accountable. Look at last month and you will see what I mean.
Wrong on VAT. We cannot remove it on items we wish to nOR can we reduce it below ceryaon levels set by the EU.
Product standards - we have to comply with the standards of any country around the world we sell into. That does not mean we should have to apply those same standards to our own internal market which makes up the vast majority of our GDP.
Actually, while it sounds stupid in that tweet, Bragg's comments are largely correct. At this stage, there is no mileage for Corbyn in being opposed to Brexit. He needs to straddle the fences as long as possible. Of course, he would be very happy to leave on a no deal brexit, as would McDonnell. But they know where their bread is buttered - Labour voters are overwhelmingly for remain. If the negotiations are seen to be going badly, and public opinion starts to turn against Brexit, you can be sure that Labour will rapdily swing against Brexit.
Chuka Umuna's amendment was a stupid move, as was Corbyn's response. Chuka needlessly forced a division over the issue and forced people to come down on one side or the other, and Corbyn should have left it as a free vote in order to not pick a side. Corbyn's fence sitting has worked well so far, he really needs to carry it out for as long as possible.
Corbyn would only go back on Brexit if there were a democratic mandate. If things get really bad - I could imagine labour offering a second referendum, which would be a potential way of staying. I don't think that could happen in the timescales needed though.
We have to leave the EU. Even if that's straight to the EEA (which I wouldn't mind) and then take stock five years from now.
To stay in the EU without a second referendum, you might as well just admit that democracy doesn't apply in the UK anymore.
Holding a second referendum - and getting LEAVE again - well, same boat (Even worse - twice asked and twice told). Get REMAIN - Well, a certain Mr. N. Farage might rightly say "Best of three" or "Since when EVER have we asked the same question twice in as many years? It's clear the first result was never going to be honoured." He'd have a point.
We have to leave the EU. Even if that's straight to the EEA (which I wouldn't mind) and then take stock five years from now.
To stay in the EU without a second referendum, you might as well just admit that democracy doesn't apply in the UK anymore.
Holding a second referendum - and getting LEAVE again - well, same boat (Even worse - twice asked and twice told). Get REMAIN - Well, a certain Mr. N. Farage might rightly say "Best of three" or "Since when EVER have we asked the same question twice in as many years? It's clear the first result was never going to be honoured." He'd have a point.
Yes I agree. EEA was ruled out far too quickly imo.
The froth is what cost May her majority, and is now killing Brexit
Wrong, it is what cost May David Cameron's majority.
Mrs May has never won a majority.
That actually makes her quite unusual among Conservative Party leaders, does it not?
Well in the recent past, of the 5 most recent Tory leaders, only one of them has won a majority.
Of the 5 most recent Tory leaders only 1 has got a majority of seats, Mr Cameron and only 1 has got over 40% of the vote, Mrs May. Compared to Hague, IDS and Howard both May and Cameron have been far more successful in electoral terms
The froth is what cost May her majority, and is now killing Brexit
Wrong, it is what cost May David Cameron's majority.
Mrs May has never won a majority.
That actually makes her quite unusual among Conservative Party leaders, does it not?
Well in the recent past, of the 5 most recent Tory leaders, only one of them has won a majority.
Of the 5 most recent Tory leaders only 1 has got a majority of seats, Mr Cameron and only 1 has got over 40% of the vote, Mrs May. Compared to Hague, IDS and Howard both May and Cameron have been far more successful in electoral terms
The Tories polling above 40% isn't that impressive when Labour also polled in the 40s
Oh dear god - it is the 1970s again. I remember being told to buy British cars and support our car industry even though a huge proportion of the cars they made were rubbish quality. Morris Marinas and Asutin Allegros.
There's more to come in our national reenactment of 1970s. Corbyn plans to end up with the 3 day week and power cuts.
Also, ban on technological advances. Can't be having them taking human jobs.
Even some conservatives now back a universal basic income if automation leads to largescale job losses
The froth is what cost May her majority, and is now killing Brexit
Wrong, it is what cost May David Cameron's majority.
Mrs May has never won a majority.
That actually makes her quite unusual among Conservative Party leaders, does it not?
Well in the recent past, of the 5 most recent Tory leaders, only one of them has won a majority.
Of the 5 most recent Tory leaders only 1 has got a majority of seats, Mr Cameron and only 1 has got over 40% of the vote, Mrs May. Compared to Hague, IDS and Howard both May and Cameron have been far more successful in electoral terms
IDS and Howard are pretty crap for sure. Hague was leader too early and was pretty crap then (although it was more Blair's pre-Iraq godlike status that did it for Hague) but I think could do a much better job now. He's always been a good media performer, charismatic, and now seems much more thoughtful and measured.
The froth is what cost May her majority, and is now killing Brexit
Wrong, it is what cost May David Cameron's majority.
Mrs May has never won a majority.
That actually makes her quite unusual among Conservative Party leaders, does it not?
Well in the recent past, of the 5 most recent Tory leaders, only one of them has won a majority.
Of the 5 most recent Tory leaders only 1 has got a majority of seats, Mr Cameron and only 1 has got over 40% of the vote, Mrs May. Compared to Hague, IDS and Howard both May and Cameron have been far more successful in electoral terms
The Tories polling above 40% isn't that impressive when Labour also polled in the 40s
Comments
"We will get a brilliant deal"
"Even if we don't get a brilliant deal, it will be better than now"
"We could walk away with no deal, and it will be brilliant"
"They can't afford us not to do a deal"
Pick a line, guys...
Long-term, it's more about removing constraints and giving us the toolkit to be able to flexibly respond to the challenges of the 21st Century, without political union and with direct democratic accountability in our national parliament, which I think is politically healthy.
I'm wearing a German owned tie made in Italy.
Of all the Brexit bullshit, this is perhaps the most infantile
The whole thing will make us poorer which I suppose is a funny thing for the country to have voted for but, as @Pulpstar says, not much different to people voting in a Labour govt.
(clue: passporting is not a single market. How big is our insurance business in Europe, for example?)
A man nicknamed the 'Lion of London Bridge' after he took on terrorists shouting "f*** you, I'm Millwall" during the deadly terror attack has been filmed spitting in a man's face during a vile racist rant.
Football fan Roy Larner hit the headlines after battling three knife-wielding jihadis with his fists.
The 47-year-old 'hero' was stabbed eight times in the Black & Blue steak restaurant, in Borough Market, as he protected other customers and waiting staff.
Now footage of the avid Millwall supporter hurling racist abuse at a protester has emerged.
Roy, with two dogs in tow, approached a group chanting "Trump and May have got to go" in Elephant and Castle, south London, in February.
The dad-of-one can be seen screaming "ban the foreigners, you c***" before spitting at a black Movement for Justice campaigner who appears to have been photographing the demonstation.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/millwall-fan-hailed-lion-london-10745482
You said the City didn't benefit much from the UK's membership of the EU which is transparently not the case. It has benefited greatly and the UK has been instrumental in the construction of the current and future set of EU regulations.
West Indies v New Zealand:
http://www.skysports.com/cricket/news/12123/10938397/watch-new-zealand-v-west-indies-women-live-stream
The man who told you not to go down that route?
It's a view I suppose.
It will be an economic catastrophe.
And for me the political benefits are very important.
I called it not out as soon as he was given out, which makes you wonder about what Gary Ballance was watching.
"The outcome of the 2017 general election – a hung parliament - defied predictions. In this article, we draw on aggregate-level data to conduct an initial exploration of the vote.
What was the impact of Brexit on the 2017 general election result? What difference did the collapse of Ukip make? And what was the relative importance of factors such as turnout, education, age, and ethnic diversity on support for the two main parties?
First, we find that turnout was generally higher in more pro-Remain areas, and places with high concentrations of young people, ethnic minorities, and university graduates.
Second, we find that the Conservatives made gains in the sort of places that had previously backed Brexit and previously voted for Ukip.
But, third, we find that the gains the Conservatives made from the electoral decline of Ukip were off-set by losses in the sort of places that had previously supported the Conservatives, particularly areas in southern England with larger numbers of graduates.
The implication of these findings is that while a Brexit effect contributed to a ‘realignment on the right’, with the Conservative strategy appealing to people in places that had previously voted for Ukip, this strategy was not without an electoral cost, and appears to have hurt the party in more middle class areas."
http://www.matthewjgoodwin.org/uploads/6/4/0/2/64026337/goodwin-heath-26-06-17.pdf
Not a catastrophe but not worth it IMO.
Still eating strawberries at the moment.
For foodie types out there - I ran out of baking powder so I use a tsp of bicarb instead, but I did not add 2 tsp of tartar to the mix. Result - the bread was not acidic enough to neutralise the bicarb and my bread is a tan-brown colour. It still tastes just fine. Lesson learned, for WHITE bread stick to baking powder.
The shame of it!
* Yes, yes, 1979 Scottish devolution, but a criteria was set in advance, not imposed afterwards.
VAT - we had control over it. OUR govt has changed VAT quite frequently over the years
Product standards - these are set by the markets we sell into, so they will not change
Financial services regulation - an argument that we regularly won in Brussels
Ability to regulate our own fisheries grounds - Yes
Ability to design our own agriculture policy - Yes. CAP is a disaster.
Services liberalisation - it was coming anyway
Side-stepping regulations like the ports ... - Ports always need regulation
... and clinical trials directives - We will have to meet EU directives if we sell to the EU
Ending rulings on our crime & justice system - It seemed to work OK.
Saving on cash contributions - which look to be wiped out by the divorce bill and WTO tariffs
So then, 2 out 10 is worth the biggest gamble of the last 100 years? Do already hold our Parliament accountable. Look at last month and you will see what I mean.
For sure, Parliament can just stick two fingers up at the voters, and refuse to back Brexit. They have that right. But, does anyone really think the outcome would be a good one?
The implication seems to be they must be manufactured in the EU
Say in the Autumn of 2018 it looks like we're going to get very hard Brexit which will lead to an economic disaster which will cost 100s of thousands of jobs/balls up the economy, I suspect the voters will be demanding Article 50 to be revoked.
I may be entering my dotage, but I vaguely remember winning the argument. 52 - 48 wasn't it? The rest is froth.
I am not quite sure taking 6 months = hasty.
Which is entirely sensible... and also free to air.
Mrs May has never won a majority.
Chuka Umuna's amendment was a stupid move, as was Corbyn's response. Chuka needlessly forced a division over the issue and forced people to come down on one side or the other, and Corbyn should have left it as a free vote in order to not pick a side. Corbyn's fence sitting has worked well so far, he really needs to carry it out for as long as possible.
And I really should be flogged for that awful set of mixed metaphors.
https://twitter.com/SJAMcBride/status/882927581913378817
Who else has really made the case for their inclusion this season ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/county-championship-division-one/averages
Scene: Last Crusader invites Leaver to choose a grail.
@seanjonesqc: Last Crusader: You must choose, but choose wisely
Leaver: Sure, whatever
[Raises Brexit Grail and gazes in awe]
@seanjonesqc: Leaver: This is certainly the Brexit of the King of Kings ... Eternal life and sunny uplands. Cake both eaten and possessed.
@seanjonesqc: LC: Are you sure you want that one. I did say choose *wisely*.
Leaver: Yes, it is sovereignty and trade
LC: Actually, not so much.
@seanjonesqc: Leaver: We have chosen.
LC: Yes, but this one ages you rapidly and you disintegra ...
L: WE HAVE CHOSEN
@seanjonesqc: LC: Sure, but I'm saying that you can have another
L: CHOSEN! CHOSEN!
LC: OK
[L Drinks. Agony. L is pile of dust]
PofD: This is your fault
Product standards - we have to comply with the standards of any country around the world we sell into. That does not mean we should have to apply those same standards to our own internal market which makes up the vast majority of our GDP.
If things get really bad - I could imagine labour offering a second referendum, which would be a potential way of staying. I don't think that could happen in the timescales needed though.
To stay in the EU without a second referendum, you might as well just admit that democracy doesn't apply in the UK anymore.
Holding a second referendum - and getting LEAVE again - well, same boat (Even worse - twice asked and twice told). Get REMAIN - Well, a certain Mr. N. Farage might rightly say "Best of three" or "Since when EVER have we asked the same question twice in as many years? It's clear the first result was never going to be honoured." He'd have a point.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40287399
EEA was ruled out far too quickly imo.
82/4 at lunch, we'll need to do a lot better than that this afternoon.