I believe Corbyn's a leaver at heart, but he'd rather be PM in the EU than LOTO out. If he sees the opportunity to defeat the government and force an election some time within the next two years, he will. The Tories are in disarray, May is discredited and the momentum (ho-hum) is all on Labour's side.
Corbyn wants power. It's within his grasp. If all he has to do is perform an expedient volte-face, why wouldn't he?
If Corbyn abandons Brexit and backs uncontrolled free movement to stay in the single market, bang goes much if the working class Labour vote in the north and midlands
A month ago I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly. Now I'm not so sure. Speaking as a middle-class southerner, I think it's easy to forget just how toxic the Tories still are in that part of the world. I remember someone posting a link to that focus group before the election showing just how hard it was for people in that demographic to vote Tory.
The Labour brand has proven surprisingly resilient and Corbyn hasn't gone down nearly as badly as we all assumed he would. I think that's because GE2017 turned out to be much more the 'austerity' election than the 'Brexit' election, particularly for that segment of voters. If Corbyn's 'I will end austerity, free puppies for all' narrative proves stronger than the Eurosceptic 'you must vote Conservative to protect Brexit' narrative, Corbyn could retain the traditional working class vote and pile on the middle class remainers, leading him to victory.
I'm not saying that's what will happen, but it's a theory I don't fancy testing.
This source is suspect in some ways but it makes an interesting observation from a series of interviews on Sunderland. It claims people there voted Leave substantially against Cameron and his ilk. They are very disillusioned with the aftermath.
It seems to me we only have two options - Hard Brexit with the economic chaos that will entail , or No Brexit.
Pursuing a 'middle course' or so called 'soft brexit' will inevitably end up with people realising we'd be getting the status quo, minus a political seat at the table. Therefore we'd be better off cancelling the whole endeavour.
If anyone can think of another realistic scenario let me know, but I'm struggling to think of one.
I don't actually think May's political woes make one iota of difference to this, with a majority of 150 she'd still be facing the same choice.
I'm thinking about doing a thread on the UK rejoining the EU (Euro, Schengen, and EU Army et al) in the next decade, I'm citing the Newfoundland precedent.
Newfoundland was a British dominion from 1907 to 1949. The dominion was situated in northeastern North America along the Atlantic coast and comprised the island of Newfoundland and Labrador on the continental mainland. Before attaining dominion status, Newfoundland was a British colony, self-governing from 1855.
Newfoundland was one of the original "dominions" within the meaning of the Statute of Westminster of 1931 and accordingly enjoyed a constitutional status equivalent to the other dominions at the time. In 1934, Newfoundland became the only dominion to give up its self-governing status, ending 79 years of self-government.[2]
Just a week and a half before they’re scheduled to perform at Tel Aviv’s Yarkon Park, English rock band Radiohead continued to battle the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement. During the band’s Friday night concert at the TRNSMT Festival in Glasgow, Scotland, several activists raised Palestinian flags as well as a “Radiohead: #canceltelaviv” sign, and held demonstrations outside the venue, causing lead singer Thom Yorke to respond.
According to Consequence of Sound, prior to the band’s performance of “Myxomatosis,” Yorke reportedly exclaimed, “Some f#cking people!” while staring out into the crowd. He was also caught giving the middle finger to the flag wavers.
It seems to me we only have two options - Hard Brexit with the economic chaos that will entail , or No Brexit.
Pursuing a 'middle course' or so called 'soft brexit' will inevitably end up with people realising we'd be getting the status quo, minus a political seat at the table. Therefore we'd be better off cancelling the whole endeavour.
If anyone can think of another realistic scenario let me know, but I'm struggling to think of one.
I don't actually think May's political woes make one iota of difference to this, with a majority of 150 she'd still be facing the same choice.
Vernon Bogdanor said in his recent talk that arrangements like those of Norway or Switzerland would be too much like being a satellite of the EU. It may be that we have to wait for the apparent chaos to continue before we finally decide in a referendum on the Leave terms to, er, Remain.
If we ever leave and rejoin, it's the end of our four opt-outs. Denmark will regard us as incredibly stupid. Having joined with us in 1973 and never left, it will still have all its opt-outs intact:
no Euro restricted property sales to foreigners no creeping EU law and another that I forget.
Labour economics. Give the public sector a pay rise and the money they spend will pay for the pay rise. So it costs the treasury almost nothing!
Why only restrict to 1% or 2%? If it costs virtually nothing, why not 100% Or a 1000% ? Why not a million percent pay rise?
Or is it only on these fantasy figures that the Chavenomics become visible for the charade they are?
You are deliberately stretching it to make your own point.
Give the public sector a pay rise and the money they spend will cut the cost of the pay rise. It will cost the treasury less than the pay rise because the extra pay will result in income tax, NI and VAT on the extra spend comes back to the Treasury. In addition, the extra spend will have a multiplier effect.
The net result is that costs indeed will go up but not anywhere near as the pay rise itself. In the NHS, it will also save vast amounts of money as shortages due to people leaving the NHS is resulting in vast sums of money having to be paid to Agency staff.
Just a week and a half before they’re scheduled to perform at Tel Aviv’s Yarkon Park, English rock band Radiohead continued to battle the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement. During the band’s Friday night concert at the TRNSMT Festival in Glasgow, Scotland, several activists raised Palestinian flags as well as a “Radiohead: #canceltelaviv” sign, and held demonstrations outside the venue, causing lead singer Thom Yorke to respond.
According to Consequence of Sound, prior to the band’s performance of “Myxomatosis,” Yorke reportedly exclaimed, “Some f#cking people!” while staring out into the crowd. He was also caught giving the middle finger to the flag wavers.
Labour economics. Give the public sector a pay rise and the money they spend will pay for the pay rise. So it costs the treasury almost nothing!
Why only restrict to 1% or 2%? If it costs virtually nothing, why not 100% Or a 1000% ? Why not a million percent pay rise?
Or is it only on these fantasy figures that the Chavenomics become visible for the charade they are?
You are deliberately stretching it to make your own point.
Give the public sector a pay rise and the money they spend will cut the cost of the pay rise. It will cost the treasury less than the pay rise because the extra pay will result in income tax, NI and VAT on the extra spend comes back to the Treasury. In addition, the extra spend will have a multiplier effect.
The net result is that costs indeed will go up but not anywhere near as the pay rise itself. In the NHS, it will also save vast amounts of money as shortages due to people leaving the NHS is resulting in vast sums of money having to be paid to Agency staff.
There is an element of truth in the cutting of the Agency/Locum pay bill, but it is not the whole story.
People work agency for a variety of reasons, mostly about controlling their own hours, and employers need the flexibility too.
Recent payroll changes to stop locums working via companies have added to the shortage.
We need a Brexit that gives us as free trade as we can have outside the customs union, no tariffs and mutual recognition of regulatory bodies, with continuing cooperation on atomic energy, flights, security, patents, enforcement of decrees, the European Arrest Warrant, scientific research and no doubt other things. We can give favoured access to EU citizens but have the right to set the criteria ourselves. We will protect those already here. We will pay a sensible contribution to those clubs we still belong to. We will meet our obligations under the current budget. We will have transitional arrangements in some areas.
Alastair Meeks calls this a raindrops and roses Brexit but I continue to believe it is possible if we have a government who can work with a clear purpose.
Labour economics. Give the public sector a pay rise and the money they spend will pay for the pay rise. So it costs the treasury almost nothing!
Why only restrict to 1% or 2%? If it costs virtually nothing, why not 100% Or a 1000% ? Why not a million percent pay rise?
Or is it only on these fantasy figures that the Chavenomics become visible for the charade they are?
You are deliberately stretching it to make your own point.
Give the public sector a pay rise and the money they spend will cut the cost of the pay rise. It will cost the treasury less than the pay rise because the extra pay will result in income tax, NI and VAT on the extra spend comes back to the Treasury. In addition, the extra spend will have a multiplier effect.
The net result is that costs indeed will go up but not anywhere near as the pay rise itself. In the NHS, it will also save vast amounts of money as shortages due to people leaving the NHS is resulting in vast sums of money having to be paid to Agency staff.
Agency staff cost more short term. Long term they cost zero sickness pay. Something that is considerably higher in the NHS than other public sector organisations. Which are considerably higher than the private sector. Agency staff have no NHS pensions. Have no automatic pay rise. The agency pays the employer NI costs. And no maternity holiday costs. They are cheaper in the long run, for temporary vacancies than a full time of the same grade.
it is in the lack of continuity that they cause problems. like supply teachers. The quality suffers if short term.
As for the nonsense about taxes coming back etc, we have been there before. Gordon Brown said much the same as pumped much needed funds into 'Our NHS'. Conservative governments to 1997 average 3.2% on NHS spending. Labour 1997-2008 average 6.7% Can't say that the extra spending was recovered in tax receipts.
For Roger in his South of France chateau, or Tyson in his Tuscan villa, there certainly won't be.
For us in the UK there will be.
The last sentence proves that you have a sense of humour.
More commonly known as a sense of reality.
TWBNB = There Will Be No Brexit
I think you're right. Listening to the World at One Norman Smith opined that if Corbyn stuck to his word May might be OK. He said the danger would come when one of the many amendments which will be tabled looked like it could defeat the government he would do an immediate volte face in which case she could be in trouble.
Literally no one other than Vince Cable and you 2 think it won't happen. Presumably every Tory and Labour MP are the deluded ones and the 2 frothing remainers off the internet forum have the inside track on Brexit
I think it's very likely it could happen.
I believe Corbyn's a leaver at heart, but he'd rather be PM in the EU than LOTO out. If he sees the opportunity to defeat the government and force an election some time within the next two years, he will. The Tories are in disarray, May is discredited and the momentum (ho-hum) is all on Labour's side.
Corbyn wants power. It's within his grasp. If all he has to do is perform an expedient volte-face, why wouldn't he?
If Corbyn abandons Brexit and backs uncontrolled free movement to stay in the single market, bang goes much if the working class Labour vote in the north and midlands
Corbyn's support is a mile wide, but an inch deep.
If he (or more accurately, McDonnell) whacks on land taxes and income taxes that threaten the homes of middle-class property owners, and I think he would, his support there would quickly melt away too.
We heard a lot of that on here a little over a month ago, and where did that delusion get the PB Tories?
It got them weeks of fun telling the rest us how the new Tory MP for Bosolver, Tissue Price, and 400 sundry other Tories would soon have total power, hard Brexit would be nailed on, and Conservatives would rule for the next fifteen years, whilst Corbyn polls 25% and the LibDems fail to get enough MPs to have a deputy leader....
We heard a lot of that on here a little over a month ago, and where did that delusion get the PB Tories?
It got them weeks of fun telling the rest us how the new Tory MP for Bosolver, Tissue Price, and 400 sundry other Tories would soon have total power, hard Brexit would be nailed on, and Conservatives would rule for the next fifteen years, whilst Corbyn polls 25% and the LibDems fail to get enough MPs to have a deputy leader....
Would these be the same geniuses who tell us all how wonderful it will be post-Brexit and that nothing bad can happen pre-Brexit?
You are deliberately stretching it to make your own point.
Give the public sector a pay rise and the money they spend will cut the cost of the pay rise. It will cost the treasury less than the pay rise because the extra pay will result in income tax, NI and VAT on the extra spend comes back to the Treasury. In addition, the extra spend will have a multiplier effect.
The net result is that costs indeed will go up but not anywhere near as the pay rise itself. In the NHS, it will also save vast amounts of money as shortages due to people leaving the NHS is resulting in vast sums of money having to be paid to Agency staff.
So a pay rise to direct employees is beneficial to the wider economy as is a pay cut to agency staff?
If Corbyn abandons Brexit and backs uncontrolled free movement to stay in the single market, bang goes much if the working class Labour vote in the north and midlands
A month ago I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly. Now I'm not so sure. Speaking as a middle-class southerner, I think it's easy to forget just how toxic the Tories still are in that part of the world. I remember someone posting a link to that focus group before the election showing just how hard it was for people in that demographic to vote Tory.
The Labour brand has proven surprisingly resilient and Corbyn hasn't gone down nearly as badly as we all assumed he would. I think that's because GE2017 turned out to be much more the 'austerity' election than the 'Brexit' election, particularly for that segment of voters. If Corbyn's 'I will end austerity, free puppies for all' narrative proves stronger than the Eurosceptic 'you must vote Conservative to protect Brexit' narrative, Corbyn could retain the traditional working class vote and pile on the middle class remainers, leading him to victory.
I'm not saying that's what will happen, but it's a theory I don't fancy testing.
This source is suspect in some ways but it makes an interesting observation from a series of interviews on Sunderland. It claims people there voted Leave substantially against Cameron and his ilk. They are very disillusioned with the aftermath.
Interesting article. The North remembers, to borrow from Game of Thrones.
Corbyn drew an enormous crowd when he spoke in Gateshead on the campaign trail last month and I saw an article in The Guardian yesterday saying he helped draw a record crowd to the Durham Miner's Gala, which had 200k in attendance.
New European or not, there is an argument to be made that people voted Brexit due to austerity, rather than immigration. Places like Sunderland and Hartlepool have some of the lowest immigration in the UK, yet were the most Brexity.
It feels to me like the poorest in society voted to give the establishment a kicking. It's why Brexit made it over the finish line, it's why May was denied her majority.
If I were CCHQ, I would not be counting on working class northerners voting Conservative to protect Brexit when the walk-on-water messiah of anti-austerity is ascendant in the polls.
It seems to me we only have two options - Hard Brexit with the economic chaos that will entail , or No Brexit.
Pursuing a 'middle course' or so called 'soft brexit' will inevitably end up with people realising we'd be getting the status quo, minus a political seat at the table. Therefore we'd be better off cancelling the whole endeavour.
If anyone can think of another realistic scenario let me know, but I'm struggling to think of one.
I don't actually think May's political woes make one iota of difference to this, with a majority of 150 she'd still be facing the same choice.
I'm thinking about doing a thread on the UK rejoining the EU (Euro, Schengen, and EU Army et al) in the next decade, I'm citing the Newfoundland precedent.
Newfoundland was a British dominion from 1907 to 1949. The dominion was situated in northeastern North America along the Atlantic coast and comprised the island of Newfoundland and Labrador on the continental mainland. Before attaining dominion status, Newfoundland was a British colony, self-governing from 1855.
Newfoundland was one of the original "dominions" within the meaning of the Statute of Westminster of 1931 and accordingly enjoyed a constitutional status equivalent to the other dominions at the time. In 1934, Newfoundland became the only dominion to give up its self-governing status, ending 79 years of self-government.[2]
You are making a simple mistake. UK will not be rejoining the EU. The UK will never leave the EU.
TWBNB
You may be right about this but you state it with a certainty which is not justified.
Parliament would need to legislate an Article 50 (repeal) Act. Personally I find that hard to imagine given the overwhelming vote to trigger it in the first place. Who would vote for it? The EU27 would have to agree to revocation. It may not even be possible at all under Lisbon - the ECJ has not made a ruling and so no one knows. A referendum could only take place with the support of the government as legislation would be required. Many MPs would resist a referendum as they would rightly fear it would tear the country apart. That is to say nothing of how the country would look utterly ridiculous organising a referendum while at the same time ostensibly negotiating to leave.
It seems to me we only have two options - Hard Brexit with the economic chaos that will entail , or No Brexit.
Pursuing a 'middle course' or so called 'soft brexit' will inevitably end up with people realising we'd be getting the status quo, minus a political seat at the table. Therefore we'd be better off cancelling the whole endeavour.
If anyone can think of another realistic scenario let me know, but I'm struggling to think of one.
I don't actually think May's political woes make one iota of difference to this, with a majority of 150 she'd still be facing the same choice.
Genuine question this: why not associate membership?
It seems to me we only have two options - Hard Brexit with the economic chaos that will entail , or No Brexit.
Pursuing a 'middle course' or so called 'soft brexit' will inevitably end up with people realising we'd be getting the status quo, minus a political seat at the table. Therefore we'd be better off cancelling the whole endeavour.
If anyone can think of another realistic scenario let me know, but I'm struggling to think of one.
I don't actually think May's political woes make one iota of difference to this, with a majority of 150 she'd still be facing the same choice.
Genuine question this: why not associate membership?
The usual problem - what is associate membership? As far as I know the EU has no legal definition of it. You are either a member or not.
It seems to me we only have two options - Hard Brexit with the economic chaos that will entail , or No Brexit.
Pursuing a 'middle course' or so called 'soft brexit' will inevitably end up with people realising we'd be getting the status quo, minus a political seat at the table. Therefore we'd be better off cancelling the whole endeavour.
If anyone can think of another realistic scenario let me know, but I'm struggling to think of one.
I don't actually think May's political woes make one iota of difference to this, with a majority of 150 she'd still be facing the same choice.
I'm thinking about doing a thread on the UK rejoining the EU (Euro, Schengen, and EU Army et al) in the next decade, I'm citing the Newfoundland precedent.
Newfoundland was a British dominion from 1907 to 1949. The dominion was situated in northeastern North America along the Atlantic coast and comprised the island of Newfoundland and Labrador on the continental mainland. Before attaining dominion status, Newfoundland was a British colony, self-governing from 1855.
Newfoundland was one of the original "dominions" within the meaning of the Statute of Westminster of 1931 and accordingly enjoyed a constitutional status equivalent to the other dominions at the time. In 1934, Newfoundland became the only dominion to give up its self-governing status, ending 79 years of self-government.[2]
You are making a simple mistake. UK will not be rejoining the EU. The UK will never leave the EU.
TWBNB
You may be right about this but you state it with a certainty which is not justified.
Parliament would need to legislate an Article 50 (repeal) Act. Personally I find that hard to imagine given the overwhelming vote to trigger it in the first place. Who would vote for it? The EU27 would have to agree to revocation. It may not even be possible at all under Lisbon - the ECJ has not made a ruling and so no one knows. A referendum could only take place with the support of the government as legislation would be required. Many MPs would resist a referendum as they would rightly fear it would tear the country apart. That is to say nothing of how the country would look utterly ridiculous organising a referendum while at the same time ostensibly negotiating to leave.
Probability <10%.</p>
A referendum could be inserted as a condition by amendment into the Brexit legislation, or moved as an amendment to the promised "meaningful vote" on the deal.
It seems to me we only have two options - Hard Brexit with the economic chaos that will entail , or No Brexit.
Pursuing a 'middle course' or so called 'soft brexit' will inevitably end up with people realising we'd be getting the status quo, minus a political seat at the table. Therefore we'd be better off cancelling the whole endeavour.
If anyone can think of another realistic scenario let me know, but I'm struggling to think of one.
I don't actually think May's political woes make one iota of difference to this, with a majority of 150 she'd still be facing the same choice.
I'm thinking about doing a thread on the UK rejoining the EU (Euro, Schengen, and EU Army et al) in the next decade, I'm citing the Newfoundland precedent.
Newfoundland was a British dominion from 1907 to 1949. The dominion was situated in northeastern North America along the Atlantic coast and comprised the island of Newfoundland and Labrador on the continental mainland. Before attaining dominion status, Newfoundland was a British colony, self-governing from 1855.
Newfoundland was one of the original "dominions" within the meaning of the Statute of Westminster of 1931 and accordingly enjoyed a constitutional status equivalent to the other dominions at the time. In 1934, Newfoundland became the only dominion to give up its self-governing status, ending 79 years of self-government.[2]
You are making a simple mistake. UK will not be rejoining the EU. The UK will never leave the EU.
TWBNB
You may be right about this but you state it with a certainty which is not justified.
Parliament would need to legislate an Article 50 (repeal) Act. Personally I find that hard to imagine given the overwhelming vote to trigger it in the first place. Who would vote for it? The EU27 would have to agree to revocation. It may not even be possible at all under Lisbon - the ECJ has not made a ruling and so no one knows. A referendum could only take place with the support of the government as legislation would be required. Many MPs would resist a referendum as they would rightly fear it would tear the country apart. That is to say nothing of how the country would look utterly ridiculous organising a referendum while at the same time ostensibly negotiating to leave.
Probability <10%.</p>
I think RealPolitik may take over. If everyone (the EU27) agreed then why is there a need to ask the ECJ? It would still be to the EU's advantage to have us back (money) but we would likely have to give something up and the likelihood would be the rebate (more money).
We need a Brexit that gives us as free trade as we can have outside the customs union, no tariffs and mutual recognition of regulatory bodies, with continuing cooperation on atomic energy, flights, security, patents, enforcement of decrees, the European Arrest Warrant, scientific research and no doubt other things. We can give favoured access to EU citizens but have the right to set the criteria ourselves. We will protect those already here. We will pay a sensible contribution to those clubs we still belong to. We will meet our obligations under the current budget. We will have transitional arrangements in some areas.
Alastair Meeks calls this a raindrops and roses Brexit but I continue to believe it is possible if we have a government who can work with a clear purpose.
The European Arrest Warrant is an abomination. No-one should be extradited without the requesting country making a prima facie case against the individual before the UK courts and without the alleged offence being an offence in both countries. Extradition and loss of liberty for bureaucratic convenience on the basis of a convenient fiction that our legal systems are equivalent, when many European countries don't have habeas corpus or the burden of proof or rules against the use of hearsay, for instance, is utterly unacceptable.
Edited: a prima facie case according to the evidential rules of English law.
Given how far back Nadal is standing to receive serve, could Muller legitimately do an overhead head drop shot sort of 'dolly'....
I used to do the reverse when playing badminton - stand for a very short serve and then a sudden flick sent the shuttle to the back scoring a point. When they started standing farther back I would drop the next one on their service line.
I was not a brilliant player but I was a great server. I could clock 6 or 7 points in a row just on my serve.
We need a Brexit that gives us as free trade as we can have outside the customs union, no tariffs and mutual recognition of regulatory bodies, with continuing cooperation on atomic energy, flights
Alastair Meeks calls this a raindrops and roses Brexit but I continue to believe it is possible if we have a government who can work with a clear purpose.
The European Arrest Warrant is an abomination. No-one should be extradited without the requesting country making a prima facie case against the individual before the UK courts and without the alleged offence being an offence in both countries. Extradition and loss of liberty for bureaucratic convenience on the basis of a convenient fiction that our legal systems are equivalent, when many European countries don't have habeas corpus or the burden of proof or rules against the use of hearsay, for instance, is utterly unacceptable.
Edited: a prima facie case according to the evidential rules of English law.
I presume it's quite straightforward for someone who commits a crime in Texas who flees to California to be compelled to return to Texas.
European federation is already a reality. Brexit is going to collapse.
We need a Brexit that gives us as free trade as we can have outside the customs union, no tariffs and mutual recognition of regulatory bodies, with continuing cooperation on atomic energy, flights
Alastair Meeks calls this a raindrops and roses Brexit but I continue to believe it is possible if we have a government who can work with a clear purpose.
The European Arrest Warrant is an abomination. No-one should be extradited without the requesting country making a prima facie case against the individual before the UK courts and without the alleged offence being an offence in both countries. Extradition and loss of liberty for bureaucratic convenience on the basis of a convenient fiction that our legal systems are equivalent, when many European countries don't have habeas corpus or the burden of proof or rules against the use of hearsay, for instance, is utterly unacceptable.
Edited: a prima facie case according to the evidential rules of English law.
I presume it's quite straightforward for someone who commits a crime in Texas who flees to California to be compelled to return to Texas.
European federation is already a reality. Brexit is going to collapse.
Between 1860 and 1987 the Supreme Court said that ' although the governor of the asylum state had a constitutional duty to return a fugitive to the demanding state, the federal courts had no authority to enforce this duty. As a result, for more than 100 years, the governor of one state was deemed to have discretion on whether or not he/she would comply with another state's request for extradition.
In a 1987 case, Puerto Rico v. Branstad,[2] the Court overruled Dennison, and held that the governor of the asylum state has no discretion in performing his or her duty to extradite, whether that duty arises under the Extradition Clause of the Constitution or under the Extradition Act (18 U.S.C. § 3182), and that a federal court may enforce the governor's duty to return the fugitive to the demanding state.[3]
There are only four grounds upon which the Governor of the asylum state may deny another state’s request for extradition: (1) the extradition documents facially are not in order; (2) the person has not been charged with a crime in the demanding state; (3) the person is not the person named in the extradition documents; or (4) the person is not a fugitive.[4] There appears to be at least one additional exception: if the fugitive is under sentence in the asylum state, he need not be extradited until his punishment in the asylum state is completed'
We need a Brexit that gives us as free trade as we can have outside the customs union, no tariffs and mutual recognition of regulatory bodies, with continuing cooperation on atomic energy, flights
Alastair Meeks calls this a raindrops and roses Brexit but I continue to believe it is possible if we have a government who can work with a clear purpose.
The European Arrest Warrant is an abomination. No-one should be extradited without the requesting country making a prima facie case against the individual before the UK courts and without the alleged offence being an offence in both countries. Extradition and loss of liberty for bureaucratic convenience on the basis of a convenient fiction that our legal systems are equivalent, when many European countries don't have habeas corpus or the burden of proof or rules against the use of hearsay, for instance, is utterly unacceptable.
Edited: a prima facie case according to the evidential rules of English law.
I presume it's quite straightforward for someone who commits a crime in Texas who flees to California to be compelled to return to Texas.
European federation is already a reality. Brexit is going to collapse.
So under which criminal law system would you like to be tried?
One with trial by jury or one without?
One where you have to be present or one where you can be convicted in absentia?
One where you can be locked up before trial with no recourse to the courts or one where the state has to justify locking up an innocent person?
One where the burden of proof is on the state or on you to prove a negative?
One where there are contempt of court laws or one where there aren't?
Your trite response ignores the fact that US states share a common legal heritage largely derived from Magna Carta and English common law whereas European countries do not. It ignores the fact that there are very significant differences between the English legal approach to such important matters as the liberty of the citizen and that of mainland Europe and that, IMO, English common law and the fundamental tenets of criminal law have been one of the reasons why Britain has largely avoided falling prey to tyranny and authoritarianism and/or has had an effective bulwark against such currents.
Do you really think that the characteristics of English criminal law will survive in a European federation or one country where only 3 other states (Ireland, Cyprus and Malta) use it?
Good luck with being under investigation or charged in Italy.
We need a Brexit that gives us as free trade as we can have outside the customs union, no tariffs and mutual recognition of regulatory bodies, with continuing cooperation on atomic energy, flights
Alastair Meeks calls this a raindrops and roses Brexit but I continue to believe it is possible if we have a government who can work with a clear purpose.
The European Arrest Warrant is an abomination. No-one should be extradited without the requesting country making a prima facie case against the individual before the UK courts and without the alleged offence being an offence in both countries. Extradition and loss of liberty for bureaucratic convenience on the basis of a convenient fiction that our legal systems are equivalent, when many European countries don't have habeas corpus or the burden of proof or rules against the use of hearsay, for instance, is utterly unacceptable.
Edited: a prima facie case according to the evidential rules of English law.
I presume it's quite straightforward for someone who commits a crime in Texas who flees to California to be compelled to return to Texas.
In general yes, as there is a clause in the US Constitution that requires states to give up fugitives from justice from other states. In practice, it depends on the seriousness of the offence. The US and its states retain the old common law distinction between felony and misdemeanour and will almost always honour extradition for the former, but not always for the latter and rarely for infractions (e.g. unpaid traffic tickets).
Similarly, both requesting and receiving states won't bother to seek out extraditable minor offenders, and a minor offender who has a warrant from a state often times won't be detained for it when encountering police in a different state e.g. at a traffic stop.
Federal authorities also have discretion. If you fly into JFK with an outstanding warrant, it will depend on who issued it and what for: the feds would be more likely to detain you and hand you over for a relatively minor offence if a local New York (State) warrant has been issued than say for a Florida warrant and the reverse would be true at Orlando. A felony warrant from any state will get you nicked at customs of course.
I don't quite understand why the School Teachers' Review Body feels obliged to stick to the Government's Public Sector pay policy. Why not recommend whatever % increases they consider appropriate and basically invite the Government to face the embarassment of rejecting them? I also thought that Incomes Policy had been binned by the Thatcher Government many years ago.
I don't quite understand why the School Teachers' Review Body feels obliged to stick to the Government's Public Sector pay policy. Why not recommend whatever % increases they consider appropriate and basically invite the Government to face the embarassment of rejecting them? I also thought that Incomes Policy had been binned by the Thatcher Government many years ago.
Because that would be beyond their remit.
The Secretary of State asked us to make recommendations on: what adjustments should be made to the salary and allowance ranges for classroom teachers, unqualified teachers and school leaders to promote recruitment and retention within the 1% limit for pay awards for public sector workers
It seems to me we only have two options - Hard Brexit with the economic chaos that will entail , or No Brexit.
Pursuing a 'middle course' or so called 'soft brexit' will inevitably end up with people realising we'd be getting the status quo, minus a political seat at the table. Therefore we'd be better off cancelling the whole endeavour.
If anyone can think of another realistic scenario let me know, but I'm struggling to think of one.
I don't actually think May's political woes make one iota of difference to this, with a majority of 150 she'd still be facing the same choice.
I'm thinking about doing a thread on the UK rejoining the EU (Euro, Schengen, and EU Army et al) in the next decade, I'm citing the Newfoundland precedent.
Newfoundland was a British dominion from 1907 to 1949. The dominion was situated in northeastern North America along the Atlantic coast and comprised the island of Newfoundland and Labrador on the continental mainland. Before attaining dominion status, Newfoundland was a British colony, self-governing from 1855.
Newfoundland was one of the original "dominions" within the meaning of the Statute of Westminster of 1931 and accordingly enjoyed a constitutional status equivalent to the other dominions at the time. In 1934, Newfoundland became the only dominion to give up its self-governing status, ending 79 years of self-government.[2]
You are making a simple mistake. UK will not be rejoining the EU. The UK will never leave the EU.
TWBNB
You may be right about this but you state it with a certainty which is not justified.
Parliament would need to legislate an Article 50 (repeal) Act. Personally I find that hard to imagine given the overwhelming vote to trigger it in the first place. Who would vote for it? The EU27 would have to agree to revocation. It may not even be possible at all under Lisbon - the ECJ has not made a ruling and so no one knows. A referendum could only take place with the support of the government as legislation would be required. Many MPs would resist a referendum as they would rightly fear it would tear the country apart. That is to say nothing of how the country would look utterly ridiculous organising a referendum while at the same time ostensibly negotiating to leave.
Probability <10%.</p>
Parliament will be a slave to public opinion. It is the latter which will force the issue. MPs will ignore May / Corbyn etc. I am not too sure about Corbyn's position. To me he is an agnostic but has strong views on workers rights.
I might, or have committed suicide. Everything is going wrong right now. Everything.
I am very, very depressed.
Mr Royale, If you are feeling depressed (anomie, despair, inertia, feeling as though nothing will brighten your life, nothing is worth doing), then there is one thing that is paramount for you to do. Right now.
Do something active. Get your heartrate up for at least 15 minutes and preferably 20-30. Go to the gym. (If you're a member of one, if not, see what you can do about joining one). Swim. Run. If all else fails, jog up and down the damn stairs for fifteen minutes.
Take all the despair, all the anger, all the hatred inside of you, make it into a little ball in the front of your mind.
AND BURN IT.
The despair will try to stop you. Your hindbrain, controlled by the Despair Monkey, will come up with excuses, rationalisations, reasons, anything to stop you doing something. Because activity is fatal to the Despair Monkey.
This gives you fourfold benefit: - The residues of repeated unspent adrenaline/noradrenaline get pumped clear of your bloodstream (which usually becomes the chronic trigger for the despair and inertia) - It's replaced by endorphins, which boost you up - Doing something active psychologically readies you to do more things active, in a virtuous cycle - You feel mentally smug for having done exercise and been positive about yourself.
Do it! Seriously, do it! Right now. No excuses, no rationalisations, nothing stopping you and siren-calling you to the black pit of inertia.
I might, or have committed suicide. Everything is going wrong right now. Everything.
I am very, very depressed.
Mr Royale, If you are feeling depressed (anomie, despair, inertia, feeling as though nothing will brighten your life, nothing is worth doing), then there is one thing that is paramount for you to do. Right now.
Do something active. Get your heartrate up for at least 15 minutes and preferably 20-30. Go to the gym. (If you're a member of one, if not, see what you can do about joining one). Swim. Run. If all else fails, jog up and down the damn stairs for fifteen minutes.
Take all the despair, all the anger, all the hatred inside of you, make it into a little ball in the front of your mind.
AND BURN IT.
The despair will try to stop you. Your hindbrain, controlled by the Despair Monkey, will come up with excuses, rationalisations, reasons, anything to stop you doing something. Because activity is fatal to the Despair Monkey.
This gives you fourfold benefit: - The residues of repeated unspent adrenaline/noradrenaline get pumped clear of your bloodstream (which usually becomes the chronic trigger for the despair and inertia) - It's replaced by endorphins, which boost you up - Doing something active psychologically readies you to do more things active, in a virtuous cycle - You feel mentally smug for having done exercise and been positive about yourself.
Do it! Seriously, do it! Right now. No excuses, no rationalisations, nothing stopping you and siren-calling you to the black pit of inertia.
I find that nothing gets the heart pumping like a good AV thread. Paging TSE.....
As a non-economist, the multiplier effect never ceases to amuse me. Even if it were true, try explaining to a voter that the more you spend, the more your debt goes down.
Apart from the fact that economics isn't a science, this relies on a series of hopeful guesses, .
It would have some partial success if you could guarantee whatever you are spending on does indeed increase productivity. rather than being just wishful thinking. Otherwise, it's akin to paying a million unemployed to dig holes in the ground, and another million to fill them in again. Result GDP increases and unemployment falls. A great temporary result before the clouds of inflation gather. A temporary response to a severe depression perhaps, but as a permanent solution ...
I know very little about economics but when you add in politics too, guffaws all round.
We need a Brexit that gives us as free trade as we can have outside the customs union, no tariffs and mutual recognition of regulatory bodies, with continuing cooperation on atomic energy, flights
Alastair Meeks calls this a raindrops and roses Brexit but I continue to believe it is possible if we have a government who can work with a clear purpose.
The European Arrest Warrant is an abomination. No-one should be extradited without the requesting country making a prima facie case against the individual before the UK courts and without the alleged offence being an offence in both countries. Extradition and loss of liberty for bureaucratic convenience on the basis of a convenient fiction that our legal systems are equivalent, when many European countries don't have habeas corpus or the burden of proof or rules against the use of hearsay, for instance, is utterly unacceptable.
Edited: a prima facie case according to the evidential rules of English law.
I presume it's quite straightforward for someone who commits a crime in Texas who flees to California to be compelled to return to Texas.
European federation is already a reality. Brexit is going to collapse.
So under which criminal law system would you like to be tried?
One with trial by jury or one without?
One where you have to be present or one where you can be convicted in absentia?
One where you can be locked up before trial with no recourse to the courts or one where the state has to justify locking up an innocent person?
One where the burden of proof is on the state or on you to prove a negative?
One where there are contempt of court laws or one where there aren't?
Your trite response ignores the fact that US states share a common legal heritage largely derived from Magna Carta and English common law whereas European countries do not. It ignores the fact that there are very significant differences between the English legal approach to such important matters as the liberty of the citizen and that of mainland Europe and that, IMO, English common law and the fundamental tenets of criminal law have been one of the reasons why Britain has largely avoided falling prey to tyranny and authoritarianism and/or has had an effective bulwark against such currents.
Do you really think that the characteristics of English criminal law will survive in a European federation or one country where only 3 other states (Ireland, Cyprus and Malta) use it?
Good luck with being under investigation or charged in Italy.
We need a Brexit that gives us as free trade as we can have outside the customs union, no tariffs and mutual recognition of regulatory bodies, with continuing cooperation on atomic energy, flights
Alastair Meeks calls this a raindrops and roses Brexit but I continue to believe it is possible if we have a government who can work with a clear purpose.
Edited: a prima facie case according to the evidential rules of English law.
I presume it's quite straightforward for someone who commits a crime in Texas who flees to California to be compelled to return to Texas.
European federation is already a reality. Brexit is going to collapse.
So under which criminal law system would you like to be tried?
One with trial by jury or one without?
One where you have to be present or one where you can be convicted in absentia?
One where you can be locked up before trial with no recourse to the courts or one where the state has to justify locking up an innocent person?
One where the burden of proof is on the state or on you to prove a negative?
One where there are contempt of court laws or one where there aren't?
Do you really think that the characteristics of English criminal law will survive in a European federation or one country where only 3 other states (Ireland, Cyprus and Malta) use it?
Good luck with being under investigation or charged in Italy.
I am perfectly aware of the distinction between common law and civil law jurisdictions. A few rejoinders to your eruption:
1) I don't see how EU membership will result in the end of common law jurisdictions. Louisiana has maintained its civil law despite being alone in that regard within the US.
2) We are quite capable of sabotaging common law principles ourselves. I refer to you to the suspension of habeas corpus in centuries past, or the rise of shadowy closed family courts and the reduction of types of cases tried by juries in our own times. I don't think either were compelled by the EU.
3) Do I prefer the principles of common law to civil law? Yes. Do I think it so superior that we should arrogantly reject all civil law jurisdictions as being inherently degraded? Absolutely not. Common law is indeed one reason why 'Britain has largely avoided falling prey to tyranny and authoritarianism' but there are many others.
4) Would I like to be charged in Italy? No. On a more likely example, I do like the fact that if I sell something to an Italian firm and they don't pay I can compel it with a European Order of Payment (EOP).
Are you as outraged by the utterly one-sided provisions of the UKUSA extradition treaty? At least in the EU the member states are treated equally.
I believe Corbyn's a leaver at heart, but he'd rather be PM in the EU than LOTO out. If he sees the opportunity to defeat the government and force an election some time within the next two years, he will. The Tories are in disarray, May is discredited and the momentum (ho-hum) is all on Labour's side.
Corbyn wants power. It's within his grasp. If all he has to do is perform an expedient volte-face, why wouldn't he?
If Corbyn abandons Brexit and backs uncontrolled free movement to stay in the single market, bang goes much if the working class Labour vote in the north and midlands
A month ago I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly. Now I'm not so sure. Speaking as a middle-class southerner, I think it's easy to forget just how toxic the Tories still are in that part of the world. I remember someone posting a link to that focus group before the election showing just how hard it was for people in that demographic to vote Tory.
The Labour brand has proven surprisingly resilient and Corbyn hasn't gone down nearly as badly as we all assumed he would. I think that's because GE2017 turned out to be much more the 'austerity' election than the 'Brexit' election, particularly for that segment of voters. If Corbyn's 'I will end austerity, free puppies for all' narrative proves stronger than the Eurosceptic 'you must vote Conservative to protect Brexit' narrative, Corbyn could retain the traditional working class vote and pile on the middle class remainers, leading him to victory.
I'm not saying that's what will happen, but it's a theory I don't fancy testing.
This source is suspect in some ways but it makes an interesting observation from a series of interviews on Sunderland. It claims people there voted Leave substantially against Cameron and his ilk. They are very disillusioned with the aftermath.
Because the argument is an interesting one, which is that the strong association between the Conservatives and Brexit means people in traditional Labour areas that voted Leave turning away from Brexit instead of towards the Conservatives.
I don't quite understand why the School Teachers' Review Body feels obliged to stick to the Government's Public Sector pay policy. Why not recommend whatever % increases they consider appropriate and basically invite the Government to face the embarassment of rejecting them? I also thought that Incomes Policy had been binned by the Thatcher Government many years ago.
Isn't it part of their terms of reference that they have to give regard to government pay policy? Which means they need compelling evidence to recommend something beyond it?
I am perfectly aware of the distinction between common law and civil law jurisdictions. A few rejoinders to your eruption:
1) I don't see how EU membership will result in the end of common law jurisdictions. Louisiana has maintained its civil law despite being alone in that regard within the US.
2) We are quite capable of sabotaging common law principles ourselves. I refer to you to the suspension of habeas corpus in centuries past, or the rise of shadowy closed family courts and the reduction of types of cases tried by juries in our own times. I don't think either were compelled by the EU.
3) Do I prefer the principles of common law to civil law? Yes. Do I think it so superior that we should arrogantly reject all civil law jurisdictions as being inherently degraded? Absolutely not. Common law is indeed one reason why 'Britain has largely avoided falling prey to tyranny and authoritarianism' but there are many others.
4) Would I like to be charged in Italy? No. On a more likely example, I do like the fact that if I sell something to an Italian firm and they don't pay I can compel it with a European Order of Payment (EOP).
Are you as outraged by the utterly one-sided provisions of the UKUSA extradition treaty? At least in the EU the member states are treated equally.
Common Law and Civil Law are not the same thing. You seem very confused in your reply. The EU cannot become a federation and continue to maintain two separate systems of criminal law within the same jurisdiction. Indeed there has been a long running project to adopt a Corpus Juris - a single body of law along the lines of the current European legal systems which will apply to all members of the EU including the UK.
I might, or have committed suicide. Everything is going wrong right now. Everything.
I am very, very depressed.
Mr Royale, If you are feeling depressed (anomie, despair, inertia, feeling as though nothing will brighten your life, nothing is worth doing), then there is one thing that is paramount for you to do. Right now.
Do something active. Get your heartrate up for at least 15 minutes and preferably 20-30. Go to the gym. (If you're a member of one, if not, see what you can do about joining one). Swim. Run. If all else fails, jog up and down the damn stairs for fifteen minutes.
Take all the despair, all the anger, all the hatred inside of you, make it into a little ball in the front of your mind.
AND BURN IT.
The despair will try to stop you. Your hindbrain, controlled by the Despair Monkey, will come up with excuses, rationalisations, reasons, anything to stop you doing something. Because activity is fatal to the Despair Monkey.
This gives you fourfold benefit: - The residues of repeated unspent adrenaline/noradrenaline get pumped clear of your bloodstream (which usually becomes the chronic trigger for the despair and inertia) - It's replaced by endorphins, which boost you up - Doing something active psychologically readies you to do more things active, in a virtuous cycle - You feel mentally smug for having done exercise and been positive about yourself.
Do it! Seriously, do it! Right now. No excuses, no rationalisations, nothing stopping you and siren-calling you to the black pit of inertia.
I find that nothing gets the heart pumping like a good AV thread. Paging TSE.....
I know you're joking, but for clarity, something non-physical like that is the worst thing to do. It has to be physical exercise, otherwise you're exacerbating the issue (pulling in more adrenaline/noradrenaline and not properly using it).
If Corbyn abandons Brexit and backs uncontrolled free movement to stay in the single market, bang goes much if the working class Labour vote in the north and midlands
A month ago I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly. Now I'm not so sure. Speaking as a middle-class southerner, I think it's easy to forget just how toxic the Tories still are in that part of the world. I remember someone posting a link to that focus group before the election showing just how hard it was for people in that demographic to vote Tory.
The Labour brand has proven surprisingly resilient and Corbyn hasn't gone down nearly as badly as we all assumed he would. I think that's because GE2017 turned out to be much more the 'austerity' election than the 'Brexit' election, particularly for that segment of voters. If Corbyn's 'I will end austerity, free puppies for all' narrative proves stronger than the Eurosceptic 'you must vote Conservative to protect Brexit' narrative, Corbyn could retain the traditional working class vote and pile on the middle class remainers, leading him to victory.
I'm not saying that's what will happen, but it's a theory I don't fancy testing.
This source is suspect in some ways but it makes an interesting observation from a series of interviews on Sunderland. It claims people there voted Leave substantially against Cameron and his ilk. They are very disillusioned with the aftermath.
Because the argument is an interesting one, which is that the strong association between the Conservatives and Brexit means people in traditional Labour areas that voted Leave turning away from Brexit instead of towards the Conservatives.
The Eurosceptic right thinking they have the habitually left-leaning, Labour voting working-class heartlands on their side is truly a sight to behold.
The same hubris that last month saw the Tories attempt to advance into Labour safe seats without paying due attention to key marginals.
I say this as a middle-class, eurosceptic southerner - wake up and smell the coffee!
As a non-economist, the multiplier effect never ceases to amuse me. Even if it were true, try explaining to a voter that the more you spend, the more your debt goes down.
Apart from the fact that economics isn't a science, this relies on a series of hopeful guesses, .
It would have some partial success if you could guarantee whatever you are spending on does indeed increase productivity. rather than being just wishful thinking. Otherwise, it's akin to paying a million unemployed to dig holes in the ground, and another million to fill them in again. Result GDP increases and unemployment falls. A great temporary result before the clouds of inflation gather. A temporary response to a severe depression perhaps, but as a permanent solution ...
I know very little about economics but when you add in politics too, guffaws all round.
There is a lot of empirical evidence for the existence of fiscal multipliers.
It may be counter intuitive but that doesn't make it untrue or mean we should give up on non economists understanding it.
I am perfectly aware of the distinction between common law and civil law jurisdictions. A few rejoinders to your eruption:
1) I don't see how EU membership will result in the end of common law jurisdictions. Louisiana has maintained its civil law despite being alone in that regard within the US.
2) We are quite capable of sabotaging common law principles ourselves. I refer to you to the suspension of habeas corpus in centuries past, or the rise of shadowy closed family courts and the reduction of types of cases tried by juries in our own times. I don't think either were compelled by the EU.
3) Do I prefer the principles of common law to civil law? Yes. Do I think it so superior that we should arrogantly reject all civil law jurisdictions as being inherently degraded? Absolutely not. Common law is indeed one reason why 'Britain has largely avoided falling prey to tyranny and authoritarianism' but there are many others.
4) Would I like to be charged in Italy? No. On a more likely example, I do like the fact that if I sell something to an Italian firm and they don't pay I can compel it with a European Order of Payment (EOP).
Are you as outraged by the utterly one-sided provisions of the UKUSA extradition treaty? At least in the EU the member states are treated equally.
Common Law and Civil Law are not the same thing. You seem very confused in your reply. The EU cannot become a federation and continue to maintain two separate systems of criminal law within the same jurisdiction. Indeed there has been a long running project to adopt a Corpus Juris - a single body of law along the lines of the current European legal systems which will apply to all members of the EU including the UK.
It is you who are confused.
It is perfectly possible for different legal forms to exist within a federal state. We have this within the United Kingdom (common law in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, Scots law in Scotland), I have already referenced Louisiana re the USA and in Nigeria there are states which practise sharia and those that don't. There is no reason to expect member states or their subdivisions to cease to be jurisdictions in their own right, even in a USE scenario.
I don't remember your line of work, but when people want to specify London courts to govern a contract, the reference is always to English law/England & Wales, never British or the UK.
It seems to me we only have two options - Hard Brexit with the economic chaos that will entail , or No Brexit.
Pursuing a 'middle course' or so called 'soft brexit' will inevitably end up with people realising we'd be getting the status quo, minus a political seat at the table. Therefore we'd be better off cancelling the whole endeavour.
If anyone can think of another realistic scenario let me know, but I'm struggling to think of one.
I don't actually think May's political woes make one iota of difference to this, with a majority of 150 she'd still be facing the same choice.
Genuine question this: why not associate membership?
The EU haven't really thought about a deep association. The Swiss and Norwegian arrangements were intended to be a transition phase to full membership that somehow got stuck and no-one ever got round to resolving. It's come back to bite them as Brexiteers talked glibly about the Norway model, the Swiss model, the Canadian model ... We'll take one of those minus the bits we don't want, the Germans will agree because they need to sell us their BMWs and who's paying attention to the jumped up dipsomaniacs in Brussels? It will be done and dusted before Christmas.
It was simpler when we joined in 1973. You were either a member or you weren't. I think the EU will tighten up on membership now. They don't want the UK to be a precedent. Also they don't think the Swiss bilaterals are working. But that doesn't deal with countries that do only want a less integrated arrangement.
It seems to me we only have two options - Hard Brexit with the economic chaos that will entail , or No Brexit.
Pursuing a 'middle course' or so called 'soft brexit' will inevitably end up with people realising we'd be getting the status quo, minus a political seat at the table. Therefore we'd be better off cancelling the whole endeavour.
If anyone can think of another realistic scenario let me know, but I'm struggling to think of one.
I don't actually think May's political woes make one iota of difference to this, with a majority of 150 she'd still be facing the same choice.
Genuine question this: why not associate membership?
The EU haven't really thought about a deep association. The Swiss and Norwegian arrangements were intended to be a transition phase to full membership that somehow got stuck and no-one ever got round to resolving. It's come back to bite them as Brexiteers talked glibly about the Norway model, the Swiss model, the Canadian model ... We'll take one of those minus the bits we don't want, the Germans will agree because they need to sell us their BMWs and who's paying attention to the jumped up dipsomaniacs in Brussels? It will be done and dusted before Christmas.
It was simpler when we joined in 1973. You were either a member or you weren't. I think the EU will tighten up on membership now. They don't want the UK to be a precedent. Also they don't think the Swiss bilaterals are working. But that doesn't deal with countries that do only want a less integrated arrangement.
Which is the problem with the EU in a nutshell. It has an absolutist, no-compromise attitude when what is required is a nuanced understanding that a close relationship need not mean ever closer union.
Scenes reminiscent of the Old Trafford Test in 1995 on Court Number 1. One of my earliest sporting memories is Dickie Bird having a right go at some corporates who wouldn't shut a window behind the bowler's arm.
If Corbyn abandons Brexit and backs uncontrolled free movement to stay in the single market, bang goes much if the working class Labour vote in the north and midlands
A month ago I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly. Now I'm not so sure. Speaking as a middle-class southerner, I think it's easy to forget just how toxic the Tories still are in that part of the world. I remember someone posting a link to that focus group before the election showing just how hard it was for people in that demographic to vote Tory.
The Labour brand has proven surprisingly resilient and Corbyn hasn't gone down nearly as badly as we all assumed he would. I think that's because GE2017 turned out to be much more the 'austerity' election than the 'Brexit' election, particularly for that segment of voters. If Corbyn's 'I will end austerity, free puppies for all' narrative proves stronger than the Eurosceptic 'you must vote Conservative to protect Brexit' narrative, Corbyn could retain the traditional working class vote and pile on the middle class remainers, leading him to victory.
I'm not saying that's what will happen, but it's a theory I don't fancy testing.
This source is suspect in some ways but it makes an interesting observation from a series of interviews on Sunderland. It claims people there voted Leave substantially against Cameron and his ilk. They are very disillusioned with the aftermath.
Because the argument is an interesting one, which is that the strong association between the Conservatives and Brexit means people in traditional Labour areas that voted Leave turning away from Brexit instead of towards the Conservatives.
The Eurosceptic right thinking they have the habitually left-leaning, Labour voting working-class heartlands on their side is truly a sight to behold.
The same hubris that last month saw the Tories attempt to advance into Labour safe seats without paying due attention to key marginals.
I say this as a middle-class, eurosceptic southerner - wake up and smell the coffee!
I'm in your demographic but am equally mystified by how the Tories got carried away on that one. Northern working class voters might lose their affection for the Labour Party one day, but they were hardly going to do so in a couple of years.
I am perfectly aware of the distinction between common law and civil law jurisdictions. A few rejoinders to your eruption:
1) I don't see how EU membership will result in the end of common law jurisdictions. Louisiana has maintained its civil law despite being alone in that regard within the US.
2) We are quite capable of sabotaging common law principles ourselves. I refer to you to the suspension of habeas corpus in centuries past, or the rise of shadowy closed family courts and the reduction of types of cases tried by juries in our own times. I don't think either were compelled by the EU.
3) Do I prefer the principles of common law to civil law? Yes. Do I think it so superior that we should arrogantly reject all civil law jurisdictions as being inherently degraded? Absolutely not. Common law is indeed one reason why 'Britain has largely avoided falling prey to tyranny and authoritarianism' but there are many others.
4) Would I like to be charged in Italy? No. On a more likely example, I do like the fact that if I sell something to an Italian firm and they don't pay I can compel it with a European Order of Payment (EOP).
Are you as outraged by the utterly one-sided provisions of the UKUSA extradition treaty? At least in the EU the member states are treated equally.
Common Law and Civil Law are not the same thing. You seem very confused in your reply. The EU cannot become a federation and continue to maintain two separate systems of criminal law within the same jurisdiction. Indeed there has been a long running project to adopt a Corpus Juris - a single body of law along the lines of the current European legal systems which will apply to all members of the EU including the UK.
It is you who are confused.
It is perfectly possible for different legal forms to exist within a federal state. We have this within the United Kingdom (common law in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, Scots law in Scotland), I have already referenced Louisiana re the USA and in Nigeria there are states which practise sharia and those that don't. There is no reason to expect member states or their subdivisions to cease to be jurisdictions in their own right, even in a USE scenario.
I don't remember your line of work, but when people want to specify London courts to govern a contract, the reference is always to English law/England & Wales, never British or the UK.
Actually Scottish Criminal Law is Common Law on steroids. It is only in Civil Law that there are significant differences between English and Scottish law. Yes there are minor differences between Scottish and English Criminal law but they still have the same basic Common Law roots and are hugely different to European legal systems.
If Corbyn abandons Brexit and backs uncontrolled free movement to stay in the single market, bang goes much if the working class Labour vote in the north and midlands
A month ago I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly. Now I'm not so sure. Speaking as a middle-class southerner, I think it's easy to forget just how toxic the Tories still are in that part of the world. I remember someone posting a link to that focus group before the election showing just how hard it was for people in that demographic to vote Tory.
The Labour brand has proven surprisingly resilient and Corbyn hasn't gone down nearly as badly as we all assumed he would. I think that's because GE2017 turned out to be much more the 'austerity' election than the 'Brexit' election, particularly for that segment of voters. If Corbyn's 'I will end austerity, free puppies for all' narrative proves stronger than the Eurosceptic 'you must vote Conservative to protect Brexit' narrative, Corbyn could retain the traditional working class vote and pile on the middle class remainers, leading him to victory.
I'm not saying that's what will happen, but it's a theory I don't fancy testing.
This source is suspect in some ways but it makes an interesting observation from a series of interviews on Sunderland. It claims people there voted Leave substantially against Cameron and his ilk. They are very disillusioned with the aftermath.
Because the argument is an interesting one, which is that the strong association between the Conservatives and Brexit means people in traditional Labour areas that voted Leave turning away from Brexit instead of towards the Conservatives.
It's certain that a lot of Labour and anti-establishment voters voted Leave because the Remain campaign was headed by Cameron. (And Corbyn was largely absent.)
So, yes, part of the reason that support for Brexit is falling now is that it's become a Tory project.
All this irony is a stark reminder that political parties should never have anything to do with referendums.
I don't quite understand why the School Teachers' Review Body feels obliged to stick to the Government's Public Sector pay policy. Why not recommend whatever % increases they consider appropriate and basically invite the Government to face the embarassment of rejecting them? I also thought that Incomes Policy had been binned by the Thatcher Government many years ago.
Isn't it part of their terms of reference that they have to give regard to government pay policy? Which means they need compelling evidence to recommend something beyond it?
I don't quite understand why the School Teachers' Review Body feels obliged to stick to the Government's Public Sector pay policy. Why not recommend whatever % increases they consider appropriate and basically invite the Government to face the embarassment of rejecting them? I also thought that Incomes Policy had been binned by the Thatcher Government many years ago.
Isn't it part of their terms of reference that they have to give regard to government pay policy? Which means they need compelling evidence to recommend something beyond it?
So effectively we still have a mandatory Incomes Policy in the public sector.
May likes to do her own thing in her own time, without challenge or scrutiny. It's how she works.
A large majority was for that. It might have been hard, soft, or something in the middle, but she'd want to make her decisions, her compromises and her calls and we'd have been presented with what she'd agreed on our behalf when she was damn good and ready.
Voters snuffed that out, alongside with the manifesto, and so now she can't.
That's my reading of her too.
She's neither an ideological Leaver nor Remainer. Simply a rather secretive Manager with limited vision.
The only visible positive when she called the recent GE was the next one wouldn't be due til LiberationDay+3y. Thus plenty of time for Brexit to bed in and become the status quo.
With a 100seat majority, the 1% would have had her ear and we'd have just gotten what we were given.
This well balanced parliament is probably the best possible result for the country&people. Everybody will get some changes they want (unfortunately we have to listen to them all squeam&squeam from their hobbyhorses for a few years..)
So under which criminal law system would you like to be tried?
One with trial by jury or one without?
One where you have to be present or one where you can be convicted in absentia
I am perfectly aware of the distinction between common law and civil law jurisdictions. A few rejoinders to your eruption:
1) I don't see how EU membership will result in the end of common law jurisdictions. Louisiana has maintained its civil law despite being alone in that regard within the US.
2) We are quite capable of sabotaging common law principles ourselves. I refer to you to the suspension of habeas corpus in centuries past, or the rise of shadowy closed family courts and the reduction of types of cases tried by juries in our own times. I don't think either were compelled by the EU.
3) Do I prefer the principles of common law to civil law? Yes. Do I think it so superior that we should arrogantly reject all civil law jurisdictions as being inherently degraded? Absolutely not. Common law is indeed one reason why 'Britain has largely avoided falling prey to tyranny and authoritarianism' but there are many others.
4) Would I like to be charged in Italy? No. On a more likely example, I do like the fact that if I sell something to an Italian firm and they don't pay I can compel it with a European Order of Payment (EOP).
Are you as outraged by the utterly one-sided provisions of the UKUSA extradition treaty? At least in the EU the member states are treated equally.
1) Louisiana is irrelevant. Given the European push to integration I think the loss of the common law and, specifically, the principles of English criminal law isva very real risk.
2) Agreed - but so what. Just because we have not always practised what we preached is no reason to agree to more of the practices we find unacceptable.
3) I don't think that the criminal law in other European jurisdictions is as good as our own, which is why I oppose the EAW. It is based on flawed assumptions. That is a very bad basis on which to deprive people of their liberty.
4) My objections are on criminal law grounds. Issues of personal liberty and the balance of power between the state and the citizen are pretty fundamental to me. I'm all in favour of making cross-border trade easier. But people are not parcels to be shipped across borders on the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen.
I am as outraged by the UK/US extradition treaty and have said so in the past on here. I was responding to @DavidL's comment that the EAW should be kept.
It shows that public sector productivity declined by 1.3% between 1997 and 2010 but if you removed the 'quality adjustment' aka exam grade inflation then public sector productivity fell by a shocking 8.3% during the Labour government.
Re: productivity in the public sector, I cannot see how productivity in the public sector has fallen, which to be honest covers a huge range of services, some of them actually producing wealth and products (do your own research). With a reduced work force of more than 20% in general since 2010, how can productivity have fallen? The police, army, RAF, NHS, DEFRA and local council services are all doing at least the same level of work output with far fewer staff. How is that a productivity reduction? This ONS data also fails to explain how the productivity was assessed. The following ONS link on public sector productivity shows an increase in productivity: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity/publicservicesproductivity/datasets/growthratesoftotalpublicserviceoutputinputsandproductivityexcludingpolicedefenceandotherservicestable4
A bit of understanding on the source of the data and what it is comparing and analysing is required, rather than just blindly quoting data is required. The ONS statisticians who compile such data should be invited and sought for expert comment.
So has the productivity index in e.g. the NHS fallen during the Labour years or even since 2010? No signs of this, in fact the opposite. If only the private sector could emulate an increase in productivity, but with a rise in the % of low paid, low skilled jobs, the private sector productivity is not going to show a rise.
Comments
www.TheNewEuropean.co.uk
Yeah. Right. In 'some' ways. Just 'some'?
But suspect shell vote with the government most of the time.
TWBNB
If we ever leave and rejoin, it's the end of our four opt-outs. Denmark will regard us as incredibly stupid. Having joined with us in 1973 and never left, it will still have all its opt-outs intact:
no Euro
restricted property sales to foreigners
no creeping EU law
and another that I forget.
Give the public sector a pay rise and the money they spend will cut the cost of the pay rise. It will cost the treasury less than the pay rise because the extra pay will result in income tax, NI and VAT on the extra spend comes back to the Treasury. In addition, the extra spend will have a multiplier effect.
The net result is that costs indeed will go up but not anywhere near as the pay rise itself. In the NHS, it will also save vast amounts of money as shortages due to people leaving the NHS is resulting in vast sums of money having to be paid to Agency staff.
People work agency for a variety of reasons, mostly about controlling their own hours, and employers need the flexibility too.
Recent payroll changes to stop locums working via companies have added to the shortage.
https://twitter.com/JimmyRushmore/status/883460508078178304
Alastair Meeks calls this a raindrops and roses Brexit but I continue to believe it is possible if we have a government who can work with a clear purpose.
Agency staff have no NHS pensions. Have no automatic pay rise. The agency pays the employer NI costs. And no maternity holiday costs. They are cheaper in the long run, for temporary vacancies than a full time of the same grade.
it is in the lack of continuity that they cause problems. like supply teachers. The quality suffers if short term.
As for the nonsense about taxes coming back etc, we have been there before. Gordon Brown said much the same as pumped much needed funds into 'Our NHS'. Conservative governments to 1997 average 3.2% on NHS spending. Labour 1997-2008 average 6.7%
Can't say that the extra spending was recovered in tax receipts.
In 1997, total public sector debt was:
1997/98 – £352 bn
2007/08 – £527 bn
2010/11 – £902 bn
You are deliberately stretching it to make your own point.
Give the public sector a pay rise and the money they spend will cut the cost of the pay rise. It will cost the treasury less than the pay rise because the extra pay will result in income tax, NI and VAT on the extra spend comes back to the Treasury. In addition, the extra spend will have a multiplier effect.
The net result is that costs indeed will go up but not anywhere near as the pay rise itself. In the NHS, it will also save vast amounts of money as shortages due to people leaving the NHS is resulting in vast sums of money having to be paid to Agency staff.
So a pay rise to direct employees is beneficial to the wider economy as is a pay cut to agency staff?
Corbyn drew an enormous crowd when he spoke in Gateshead on the campaign trail last month and I saw an article in The Guardian yesterday saying he helped draw a record crowd to the Durham Miner's Gala, which had 200k in attendance.
New European or not, there is an argument to be made that people voted Brexit due to austerity, rather than immigration. Places like Sunderland and Hartlepool have some of the lowest immigration in the UK, yet were the most Brexity.
It feels to me like the poorest in society voted to give the establishment a kicking. It's why Brexit made it over the finish line, it's why May was denied her majority.
If I were CCHQ, I would not be counting on working class northerners voting Conservative to protect Brexit when the walk-on-water messiah of anti-austerity is ascendant in the polls.
Parliament would need to legislate an Article 50 (repeal) Act. Personally I find that hard to imagine given the overwhelming vote to trigger it in the first place. Who would vote for it? The EU27 would have to agree to revocation. It may not even be possible at all under Lisbon - the ECJ has not made a ruling and so no one knows. A referendum could only take place with the support of the government as legislation would be required. Many MPs would resist a referendum as they would rightly fear it would tear the country apart. That is to say nothing of how the country would look utterly ridiculous organising a referendum while at the same time ostensibly negotiating to leave.
Probability <10%.
Given how far back Nadal is standing to receive serve, could Muller legitimately do an overhead head drop shot sort of 'dolly'....
Cold cash up front forgives a lot of sins...
Edited: a prima facie case according to the evidential rules of English law.
I was not a brilliant player but I was a great server. I could clock 6 or 7 points in a row just on my serve.
She might as well as she will probably deselected next time anyway.
European federation is already a reality. Brexit is going to collapse.
In a 1987 case, Puerto Rico v. Branstad,[2] the Court overruled Dennison, and held that the governor of the asylum state has no discretion in performing his or her duty to extradite, whether that duty arises under the Extradition Clause of the Constitution or under the Extradition Act (18 U.S.C. § 3182), and that a federal court may enforce the governor's duty to return the fugitive to the demanding state.[3]
There are only four grounds upon which the Governor of the asylum state may deny another state’s request for extradition: (1) the extradition documents facially are not in order; (2) the person has not been charged with a crime in the demanding state; (3) the person is not the person named in the extradition documents; or (4) the person is not a fugitive.[4] There appears to be at least one additional exception: if the fugitive is under sentence in the asylum state, he need not be extradited until his punishment in the asylum state is completed'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_law_in_the_United_States
One with trial by jury or one without?
One where you have to be present or one where you can be convicted in absentia?
One where you can be locked up before trial with no recourse to the courts or one where the state has to justify locking up an innocent person?
One where the burden of proof is on the state or on you to prove a negative?
One where there are contempt of court laws or one where there aren't?
Your trite response ignores the fact that US states share a common legal heritage largely derived from Magna Carta and English common law whereas European countries do not. It ignores the fact that there are very significant differences between the English legal approach to such important matters as the liberty of the citizen and that of mainland Europe and that, IMO, English common law and the fundamental tenets of criminal law have been one of the reasons why Britain has largely avoided falling prey to tyranny and authoritarianism and/or has had an effective bulwark against such currents.
Do you really think that the characteristics of English criminal law will survive in a European federation or one country where only 3 other states (Ireland, Cyprus and Malta) use it?
Good luck with being under investigation or charged in Italy.
Similarly, both requesting and receiving states won't bother to seek out extraditable minor offenders, and a minor offender who has a warrant from a state often times won't be detained for it when encountering police in a different state e.g. at a traffic stop.
Federal authorities also have discretion. If you fly into JFK with an outstanding warrant, it will depend on who issued it and what for: the feds would be more likely to detain you and hand you over for a relatively minor offence if a local New York (State) warrant has been issued than say for a Florida warrant and the reverse would be true at Orlando. A felony warrant from any state will get you nicked at customs of course.
The Secretary of State asked us to make recommendations on: what adjustments should be made to the salary and allowance ranges for classroom teachers, unqualified teachers and school leaders to promote recruitment and retention within the 1% limit for pay awards for public sector workers
If you are feeling depressed (anomie, despair, inertia, feeling as though nothing will brighten your life, nothing is worth doing), then there is one thing that is paramount for you to do. Right now.
Do something active. Get your heartrate up for at least 15 minutes and preferably 20-30.
Go to the gym. (If you're a member of one, if not, see what you can do about joining one). Swim. Run. If all else fails, jog up and down the damn stairs for fifteen minutes.
Take all the despair, all the anger, all the hatred inside of you, make it into a little ball in the front of your mind.
AND BURN IT.
The despair will try to stop you. Your hindbrain, controlled by the Despair Monkey, will come up with excuses, rationalisations, reasons, anything to stop you doing something. Because activity is fatal to the Despair Monkey.
This gives you fourfold benefit:
- The residues of repeated unspent adrenaline/noradrenaline get pumped clear of your bloodstream (which usually becomes the chronic trigger for the despair and inertia)
- It's replaced by endorphins, which boost you up
- Doing something active psychologically readies you to do more things active, in a virtuous cycle
- You feel mentally smug for having done exercise and been positive about yourself.
Do it! Seriously, do it! Right now. No excuses, no rationalisations, nothing stopping you and siren-calling you to the black pit of inertia.
As a non-economist, the multiplier effect never ceases to amuse me. Even if it were true, try explaining to a voter that the more you spend, the more your debt goes down.
Apart from the fact that economics isn't a science, this relies on a series of hopeful guesses, .
It would have some partial success if you could guarantee whatever you are spending on does indeed increase productivity. rather than being just wishful thinking. Otherwise, it's akin to paying a million unemployed to dig holes in the ground, and another million to fill them in again. Result GDP increases and unemployment falls. A great temporary result before the clouds of inflation gather. A temporary response to a severe depression perhaps, but as a permanent solution ...
I know very little about economics but when you add in politics too, guffaws all round.
1) I don't see how EU membership will result in the end of common law jurisdictions. Louisiana has maintained its civil law despite being alone in that regard within the US.
2) We are quite capable of sabotaging common law principles ourselves. I refer to you to the suspension of habeas corpus in centuries past, or the rise of shadowy closed family courts and the reduction of types of cases tried by juries in our own times. I don't think either were compelled by the EU.
3) Do I prefer the principles of common law to civil law? Yes. Do I think it so superior that we should arrogantly reject all civil law jurisdictions as being inherently degraded? Absolutely not. Common law is indeed one reason why 'Britain has largely avoided falling prey to tyranny and authoritarianism' but there are many others.
4) Would I like to be charged in Italy? No. On a more likely example, I do like the fact that if I sell something to an Italian firm and they don't pay I can compel it with a European Order of Payment (EOP).
Are you as outraged by the utterly one-sided provisions of the UKUSA extradition treaty? At least in the EU the member states are treated equally.
The same hubris that last month saw the Tories attempt to advance into Labour safe seats without paying due attention to key marginals.
I say this as a middle-class, eurosceptic southerner - wake up and smell the coffee!
It may be counter intuitive but that doesn't make it untrue or mean we should give up on non economists understanding it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/47ddbb14-34f6-354f-a907-8bacae72a5e6
It is perfectly possible for different legal forms to exist within a federal state. We have this within the United Kingdom (common law in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, Scots law in Scotland), I have already referenced Louisiana re the USA and in Nigeria there are states which practise sharia and those that don't. There is no reason to expect member states or their subdivisions to cease to be jurisdictions in their own right, even in a USE scenario.
I don't remember your line of work, but when people want to specify London courts to govern a contract, the reference is always to English law/England & Wales, never British or the UK.
It was simpler when we joined in 1973. You were either a member or you weren't. I think the EU will tighten up on membership now. They don't want the UK to be a precedent. Also they don't think the Swiss bilaterals are working. But that doesn't deal with countries that do only want a less integrated arrangement.
NEW THREAD
So, yes, part of the reason that support for Brexit is falling now is that it's become a Tory project.
All this irony is a stark reminder that political parties should never have anything to do with referendums.
That's my reading of her too.
She's neither an ideological Leaver nor Remainer. Simply a rather secretive Manager with limited vision.
The only visible positive when she called the recent GE was the next one wouldn't be due til LiberationDay+3y. Thus plenty of time for Brexit to bed in and become the status quo.
With a 100seat majority, the 1% would have had her ear and we'd have just gotten what we were given.
This well balanced parliament is probably the best possible result for the country&people. Everybody will get some changes they want (unfortunately we have to listen to them all squeam&squeam from their hobbyhorses for a few years..)
I wonder if Don Brind has any thoughts as to public sector productivity between 1997 and 2010 ?
Here is the official ONS data:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity/publicservicesproductivity/datasets/growthratesofoutputandproductivityfortotalpublicservicesexcludingqualityadjustmentforhealthcareandeducationtable3
It shows that public sector productivity declined by 1.3% between 1997 and 2010 but if you removed the 'quality adjustment' aka exam grade inflation then public sector productivity fell by a shocking 8.3% during the Labour government.
This ONS link shows huge increases in public sector productivity: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity/publicservicesproductivity/datasets/growthratesandindicesofoutputinputsandproductivityforindividualserviceareastable5
A bit of understanding on the source of the data and what it is comparing and analysing is required, rather than just blindly quoting data is required. The ONS statisticians who compile such data should be invited and sought for expert comment.
So has the productivity index in e.g. the NHS fallen during the Labour years or even since 2010? No signs of this, in fact the opposite. If only the private sector could emulate an increase in productivity, but with a rise in the % of low paid, low skilled jobs, the private sector productivity is not going to show a rise.