The EU is never going to make a fundamental concession on freedom of movement. While a number of the national leaders may be willing to offer it, the leaders of the EU institutions won't. They are the ones we negotiate with, per the mandate agreed by the 27.
I now think Brexit will take place thanks to bureaucratic inertia. The boulder is already rolling!
There are already limits on freedom of movement that neither Labour nor Tory governments have chosen to enforce.
If i remember rightly,before the EU referendum when the polls had good remain leads,you posted something like if remain wins it's a big yes on mass immigration -didn't you ?
Good luck and have a great day to anynPBers going to Silverstone, Trent Bridge, Wimbledon, Fairford, Beaulieu or one of the many other events on today around the country - I do miss England in the summer sometimes.
I won't be keeping up with any of the events either, as today's Mrs Sandpit's birthday so more important things take priority!
Just getting on with it is not an option. The best choice for our economy and for living standards involves creating a huge split in the Conservative party. And, as we know, the Tories always put party before country (and, of course, self before party).
No, it doesn't.
Corbyn's Labour would be an absolute, utter disaster.
My view is quite simple: with the DUP the Tories have an absolute majority (albeit a small one) in the Commons to carry out their Brexit programme. Both had the same in their manifestos, so the Salisbury convention applies in the Lords for any troublemakers as well.
This will be enough to see them through at least the next two years. And there are only so many by-elections that can take place within that period - not enough to topple them.
They need to calm down, get a grip, and focus on doing a professional job.
How do you propose to enforce the Salisbury convention on those who disagree that it applies?
Good luck and have a great day to anynPBers going to Silverstone, Trent Bridge, Wimbledon, Fairford, Beaulieu or one of the many other events on today around the country - I do miss England in the summer sometimes.
I won't be keeping up with any of the events either, as today's Mrs Sandpit's birthday so more important things take priority!
Just getting on with it is not an option. The best choice for our economy and for living standards involves creating a huge split in the Conservative party. And, as we know, the Tories always put party before country (and, of course, self before party).
No, it doesn't.
Corbyn's Labour would be an absolute, utter disaster.
May's Conservatives are already an absolute, utter disaster.
Unfortunately, it was written by Tony Blair so will be dismissed completely by both the Tories and Labour.
If the EU is willing to consider an accommodation with Britain on freedom of movement it needs to say so publicly at once. Since it would involve numerous decision-makers eating their past words and a radical change of direction, I am highly sceptical, whatever private conversations Tony Blair might have had.
I am inclined to agree. The approach the government Brexiteers have taken up to now has all but destroyed the chances of a big, bold offer from the EU27, whose negotiating position gets stronger by the day. The one window left might be after a resounding Merkel win in the German election. But you do have to wonder whether fundamentalists like Davis would be willing to take up anything that was proferred.
Good luck and have a great day to anynPBers going to Silverstone, Trent Bridge, Wimbledon, Fairford, Beaulieu or one of the many other events on today around the country - I do miss England in the summer sometimes.
I won't be keeping up with any of the events either, as today's Mrs Sandpit's birthday so more important things take priority!
Just getting on with it is not an option. The best choice for our economy and for living standards involves creating a huge split in the Conservative party. And, as we know, the Tories always put party before country (and, of course, self before party).
No, it doesn't.
Corbyn's Labour would be an absolute, utter disaster.
May's Conservatives are already an absolute, utter disaster.
The choice is between strychnine and cyanide.
You see I don't get this, why do you say they're "an absolute, utter disaster" ?
Are the Conservatives really trying hard to retoxify themselves or something? First that Tory MP's comments earlier on this week, and now Hammond's alleged remarks. After thinking that he could be a caretaker style leader for the Tories, it seems he could just as well be as bad May.
Meanwhile, I see that Macron and Trump had the longest handshake ever yesterday.
The guardian thinks Macron is genius for befriending Trump - maybe 'hypocrisy' is not one of their words.
Were the Paris police busy holding back the enraged mob of anti Trump protesters?
Macron was just demonstrating a bit of political skill, by being polite to a buffoon. There are few friends in international politics, just aligned interests.
In other words he was following May's approach. Of course people like you will refuse to admit it.
May's first encounter with Trump involved her prostrating at his feet. Macron's involved him swerving to shake Merkel's hand. Macron robustly criticised Trump's decision to pull the US out of the Paris Climate Change accord, May said next to nothing. In short, Macron established his independence from Trump in the eyes of his own electorate and the world, May didn't. This has given him a freedom to manouevre with Trump which May failed to create for herself. That is to France's advantage. If you don't want to recognise that, so be it.
Nonsense. She went in and told Congress, and him, about the importance of NATO and the need for the US to stay engaged in the world, and she criticised his comments about women.
Wrong post after wrong post from you this morning.
Good luck and have a great day to anynPBers going to Silverstone, Trent Bridge, Wimbledon, Fairford, Beaulieu or one of the many other events on today around the country - I do miss England in the summer sometimes.
I won't be keeping up with any of the events either, as today's Mrs Sandpit's birthday so more important things take priority!
Just getting on with it is not an option. The best choice for our economy and for living standards involves creating a huge split in the Conservative party. And, as we know, the Tories always put party before country (and, of course, self before party).
No, it doesn't.
Corbyn's Labour would be an absolute, utter disaster.
May's Conservatives are already an absolute, utter disaster.
Unfortunately, it was written by Tony Blair so will be dismissed completely by both the Tories and Labour.
If the EU is willing to consider an accommodation with Britain on freedom of movement it needs to say so publicly at once. Since it would involve numerous decision-makers eating their past words and a radical change of direction, I am highly sceptical, whatever private conversations Tony Blair might have had.
If they'd done so before the vote, Remain would have won.
Good luck and have a great day to anynPBers going to Silverstone, Trent Bridge, Wimbledon, Fairford, Beaulieu or one of the many other events on today around the country - I do miss England in the summer sometimes.
I won't be keeping up with any of the events either, as today's Mrs Sandpit's birthday so more important things take priority!
Just getting on with it is not an option. The best choice for our economy and for living standards involves creating a huge split in the Conservative party. And, as we know, the Tories always put party before country (and, of course, self before party).
No, it doesn't.
Corbyn's Labour would be an absolute, utter disaster.
May's Conservatives are already an absolute, utter disaster.
The choice is between strychnine and cyanide.
Don't be so negative - it's quite possible you'll get to try both in succession. Which is not something you'd experience with strychnine and cyanide.
The EU is never going to make a fundamental concession on freedom of movement. While a number of the national leaders may be willing to offer it, the leaders of the EU institutions won't. They are the ones we negotiate with, per the mandate agreed by the 27.
I now think Brexit will take place thanks to bureaucratic inertia. The boulder is already rolling!
There are already limits on freedom of movement that neither Labour nor Tory governments have chosen to enforce.
Seems to me from this morning that your eeyorish approach has taken root; I logged on this morning expecting you be to excited by Blair's suggestion. Are you resigned to deciding any result is poor for Britain now?
Apologies for not sharing your enthusiasm for national decline and impoverishment. It takes all sorts, I suppose. If you do not wish to engage with my arguments, so be it. Life will go on.
Except you're not even enthusiastic about possibilities to keep your beloved weddedneess to the economix EU through the benefits of the EEA. Do you see national decline in our divorce from the schlerotic bureaucracy of the EU?
I am all for the EEA. But that involves compromise on freedom of movement. I have no problem with this, the government and the Labour leadership both do.
More generally, yes I think leaving the EU will make the UK much more peripheral and significantly reduce our soft power.
Good luck and have a great day to anynPBers going to Silverstone, Trent Bridge, Wimbledon, Fairford, Beaulieu or one of the many other events on today around the country - I do miss England in the summer sometimes.
I won't be keeping up with any of the events either, as today's Mrs Sandpit's birthday so more important things take priority!
Just getting on with it is not an option. The best choice for our economy and for living standards involves creating a huge split in the Conservative party. And, as we know, the Tories always put party before country (and, of course, self before party).
No, it doesn't.
Corbyn's Labour would be an absolute, utter disaster.
May's Conservatives are already an absolute, utter disaster.
The choice is between strychnine and cyanide.
The country gets the politicians it deserves as a nation of muppets we are led by numpties and only have ourselves to blame.
Good luck and have a great day to anynPBers going to Silverstone, Trent Bridge, Wimbledon, Fairford, Beaulieu or one of the many other events on today around the country - I do miss England in the summer sometimes.
I won't be keeping up with any of the events either, as today's Mrs Sandpit's birthday so more important things take priority!
Just getting on with it is not an option. The best choice for our economy and for living standards involves creating a huge split in the Conservative party. And, as we know, the Tories always put party before country (and, of course, self before party).
No, it doesn't.
Corbyn's Labour would be an absolute, utter disaster.
Maybe we could engineer a huge split in both parties ?
Good luck and have a great day to anynPBers going to Silverstone, Trent Bridge, Wimbledon, Fairford, Beaulieu or one of the many other events on today around the country - I do miss England in the summer sometimes.
I won't be keeping up with any of the events either, as today's Mrs Sandpit's birthday so more important things take priority!
Just getting on with it is not an option. The best choice for our economy and for living standards involves creating a huge split in the Conservative party. And, as we know, the Tories always put party before country (and, of course, self before party).
No, it doesn't.
Corbyn's Labour would be an absolute, utter disaster.
May's Conservatives are already an absolute, utter disaster.
The choice is between strychnine and cyanide.
+1
More a choice between Brussels Sprouts (May) and cyanide (Corbyn).
Morning all, from sunny Kiev. A very perceptive article from David as usual, I think he's right that the public in general are going to get fed up of all the Brexit stuff - the vote was a year ago and they want the politicians to just get on with it.
I think that a common reaction, but actually the politicians are getting on with it. Indeed the Queens Speech contains nothing else. The idea that such major and all encompassing change can happen overnight is delusional.
I agree with that, the politicians and government are indeed doing almost nothing else.
I
Government
I certainly wouldn't describe myself as being a Leadsom, although maybe a Hannan on a good day. The Royal Colleges and the DoH have clearly got this on their radar (so to speak!), and the tabloid hysteria and scaremongering adds way more heat than light to the debate.
The general public will be wondering how the rest of the world's hospitals manage to cope perfectly well outside Euratom.
One of the biggest challenges we face is the urgent need to recreate institutional frameworks (such as new regulatory bodies) for managing regulations across a wide variety of fields, that are currently dealt with through the EU. Otherwise we will reach the A50 date and be unable to answer basic questions about how to get things regulated or certified, and all the legislation freshly copied into UK law will be unworkable since it won't have the mechanisms in place to make it all work.
You might think this is an obvious point, but it isn't one I have heard anyone on government talking about.
Yes, that's a fair point.
Also, you have the associated institutional infrastructure, recruitment, training as well as some actual physical infrastructure for things like more sophisticated customs posts.
This is why, at the end of the day, I think a 3-4 year transition period is essential. We will need the time to programme manage a portfolio of complex public sector projects to get us match-fit for Brexit.
Hint to Government: I am a skilled programme manager!
Are the Conservatives really trying hard to retoxify themselves or something? First that Tory MP's comments earlier on this week, and now Hammond's alleged remarks. After thinking that he could be a caretaker style leader for the Tories, it seems he could just as well be as bad May.
Meanwhile, I see that Macron and Trump had the longest handshake ever yesterday.
The guardian thinks Macron is genius for befriending Trump - maybe 'hypocrisy' is not one of their words.
Were the Paris police busy holding back the enraged mob of anti Trump protesters?
Macron was just demonstrating a bit of political skill, by being polite to a buffoon. There are few friends in international politics, just aligned interests.
In other words he was following May's approach. Of course people like you will refuse to admit it.
May's first encounter with Trump involved her prostrating at his feet. Macron's involved him swerving to shake Merkel's hand. Macron robustly criticised Trump's decision to pull the US out of the Paris Climate Change accord, May said next to nothing. In short, Macron established his independence from Trump in the eyes of his own electorate and the world, May didn't. This has given him a freedom to manouevre with Trump which May failed to create for herself. That is to France's advantage. If you don't want to recognise that, so be it.
Nonsense. She went in and told Congress, and him, about the importance of NATO and the need for the US to stay engaged in the world, and she criticised his comments about women.
Wrong post after wrong post from you this morning.
Go and have a think, and a lie down.
May did not address Congress. She told the Republicans that together she and President Trump would lead the world. And then offered him something that no US President had ever been offered before: a full state visit in his first year in office. It's not me who needs the lie down.
Good luck and have a great day to anynPBers going to Silverstone, Trent Bridge, Wimbledon, Fairford, Beaulieu or one of the many other events on today around the country - I do miss England in the summer sometimes.
I won't be keeping up with any of the events either, as today's Mrs Sandpit's birthday so more important things take priority!
Just getting on with it is not an option. The best choice for our economy and for living standards involves creating a huge split in the Conservative party. And, as we know, the Tories always put party before country (and, of course, self before party).
No, it doesn't.
Corbyn's Labour would be an absolute, utter disaster.
May's Conservatives are already an absolute, utter disaster.
The choice is between strychnine and cyanide.
Nah. A false equivalence is always drawn between the Conservatives and Corbyn's Labour for those that hate Brexit, but it's rubbish.
For one thing, picture this: if the EU bill is a huge £50bn one-off fee for Brexit, Corbyn wants to borrow that amount each year, *every year*, on top of what we currently borrow at the moment. With no plan to cover it or even begin to consolidate the deficit.
The Conservatives are fiscally sane, understand macroeconomics, and are entirely pragmatic on national security and defence. As their manifesto made clear.
The EU is never going to make a fundamental concession on freedom of movement. While a number of the national leaders may be willing to offer it, the leaders of the EU institutions won't. They are the ones we negotiate with, per the mandate agreed by the 27.
I now think Brexit will take place thanks to bureaucratic inertia. The boulder is already rolling!
There are already limits on freedom of movement that neither Labour nor Tory governments have chosen to enforce.
If i remember rightly,before the EU referendum when the polls had good remain leads,you posted something like if remain wins it's a big yes on mass immigration -didn't you ?
So we voted out so what't does that mean ?
I said the referendum was a referendum on immigration. It was.
My view is quite simple: with the DUP the Tories have an absolute majority (albeit a small one) in the Commons to carry out their Brexit programme. Both had the same in their manifestos, so the Salisbury convention applies in the Lords for any troublemakers as well.
This will be enough to see them through at least the next two years. And there are only so many by-elections that can take place within that period - not enough to topple them.
They need to calm down, get a grip, and focus on doing a professional job.
How do you propose to enforce the Salisbury convention on those who disagree that it applies?
Well, of course, I can't. It's a convention.
But, it should: both the DUP and Conservatives were elected on very, very similar platforms relating to Brexit, and they have an absolute majority in the House of Commons.
Are the Conservatives really trying hard to retoxify themselves or something? First that Tory MP's comments earlier on this week, and now Hammond's alleged remarks. After thinking that he could be a caretaker style leader for the Tories, it seems he could just as well be as bad May.
Meanwhile, I see that Macron and Trump had the longest handshake ever yesterday.
The guardian thinks Macron is genius for befriending Trump - maybe 'hypocrisy' is not one of their words.
Were the Paris police busy holding back the enraged mob of anti Trump protesters?
Macron was just demonstrating a bit of political skill, by being polite to a buffoon. There are few friends in international politics, just aligned interests.
In other words he was following May's approach. Of course people like you will refuse to admit it.
May's first encounter with Trump involved her prostrating at his feet. Macron's involved him swerving to shake Merkel's hand. Macron robustly criticised Trump's decision to pull the US out of the Paris Climate Change accord, May said next to nothing. In short, Macron established his independence from Trump in the eyes of his own electorate and the world, May didn't. This has given him a freedom to manouevre with Trump which May failed to create for herself. That is to France's advantage. If you don't want to recognise that, so be it.
Nonsense. She went in and told Congress, and him, about the importance of NATO and the need for the US to stay engaged in the world, and she criticised his comments about women.
Wrong post after wrong post from you this morning.
Go and have a think, and a lie down.
May did not address Congress. She told the Republicans that together she and President Trump would lead the world. And then offered him something that no US President had ever been offered before: a full state visit in his first year in office. It's not me who needs the lie down.
The EU is never going to make a fundamental concession on freedom of movement. While a number of the national leaders may be willing to offer it, the leaders of the EU institutions won't. They are the ones we negotiate with, per the mandate agreed by the 27.
I now think Brexit will take place thanks to bureaucratic inertia. The boulder is already rolling!
There are already limits on freedom of movement that neither Labour nor Tory governments have chosen to enforce.
Seems to me from this morning that your eeyorish approach has taken root; I logged on this morning expecting you be to excited by Blair's suggestion. Are you resigned to deciding any result is poor for Britain now?
Apologies for not sharing your enthusiasm for national decline and impoverishment. It takes all sorts, I suppose. If you do not wish to engage with my arguments, so be it. Life will go on.
Except you're not even enthusiastic about possibilities to keep your beloved weddedneess to the economix EU through the benefits of the EEA. Do you see national decline in our divorce from the schlerotic bureaucracy of the EU?
I am all for the EEA. But that involves compromise on freedom of movement. I have no problem with this, the government and the Labour leadership both do.
More generally, yes I think leaving the EU will make the UK much more peripheral and significantly reduce our soft power.
Nope. It guarantees our political independence.
We are going through a period of uncertainty (and low influence) now because we are resetting all our major trading and economic relationships.
But it will settle down again, and our strong fundamentals won't have changed.
Curiously, though, you have a whole swathe of wealthy seats, which the Conservatives had either lost to the Lib Dems, or where the latter were very competitive, which are firmly back in Conservative hands. What makes wealthy voters in Harrogate, Solihull, Guildford or Cheadle behave differently from wealthy voters in Kensington, Battersea, Birmingham Edgbaston, or Twickenham?
Are the Conservatives really trying hard to retoxify themselves or something? First that Tory MP's comments earlier on this week, and now Hammond's alleged remarks. After thinking that he could be a caretaker style leader for the Tories, it seems he could just as well be as bad May.
Meanwhile, I see that Macron and Trump had the longest handshake ever yesterday.
The guardian thinks Macron is genius for befriending Trump - maybe 'hypocrisy' is not one of their words.
Were the Paris police busy holding back the enraged mob of anti Trump protesters?
Macron was just demonstrating a bit of political skill, by being polite to a buffoon. There are few friends in international politics, just aligned interests.
In other words he was following May's approach. Of course people like you will refuse to admit it.
May's first encounter with Trump involved her prostrating at his feet. Macron's involved him swerving to shake Merkel's hand. Macron robustly criticised Trump's decision to pull the US out of the Paris Climate Change accord, May said next to nothing. In short, Macron established his independence from Trump in the eyes of his own electorate and the world, May didn't. This has given him a freedom to manouevre with Trump which May failed to create for herself. That is to France's advantage. If you don't want to recognise that, so be it.
Nonsense. She went in and told Congress, and him, about the importance of NATO and the need for the US to stay engaged in the world, and she criticised his comments about women.
Wrong post after wrong post from you this morning.
Go and have a think, and a lie down.
May did not address Congress. She told the Republicans that together she and President Trump would lead the world. And then offered him something that no US President had ever been offered before: a full state visit in his first year in office. It's not me who needs the lie down.
Wrong. Go and check your facts.
May did not address Congress.
May did address the Republicans.
May did say that together the US and UK will lead the world.
May did offer Trump a full state visit in his first year of office.
Are the Conservatives really trying hard to retoxify themselves or something? First that Tory MP's comments earlier on this week, and now Hammond's alleged remarks. After thinking that he could be a caretaker style leader for the Tories, it seems he could just as well be as bad May.
Meanwhile, I see that Macron and Trump had the longest handshake ever yesterday.
The guardian thinks Macron is genius for befriending Trump - maybe 'hypocrisy' is not one of their words.
Were the Paris police busy holding back the enraged mob of anti Trump protesters?
Macron was just demonstrating a bit of political skill, by being polite to a buffoon. There are few friends in international politics, just aligned interests.
In other words he was following May's approach. Of course people like you will refuse to admit it.
May's
Nonsense. She went in and told Congress, and him, about the importance of NATO and the need for the US to stay engaged in the world, and she criticised his comments about women.
Wrong post after wrong post from you this morning.
Go and have a think, and a lie down.
May did not address Congress. She told the Republicans that together she and President Trump would lead the world. And then offered him something that no US President had ever been offered before: a full state visit in his first year in office. It's not me who needs the lie down.
Wrong. Go and check your facts.
May did not address Congress.
May did address the Republicans.
May did say that together the US and UK will lead the world.
May did offer Trump a full state visit in his first year of office.
Can we name the two face posters who took the P out of May meeting Trump and now saying how wonderful it is that Macron meeting Trump.
These posters have lost the plot.
The difference is subtle but important. Macron extended an invitation to Trump as arguably the most powerful leader of all the countries in the EU. He didn't need Trump. His electors knew Trump was a buffoon. Macron invited him from a position of strength.
May by contrast looked desperate. She was Billie no-mates. She couldn't have hidden her desperation if she'd wanted to. She and consequently the UK were humiliated. I felt for her like I felt for George Galloway on Big Brother
Are the Conservatives really trying hard to retoxify themselves or something? First that Tory MP's comments earlier on this week, and now Hammond's alleged remarks. After thinking that he could be a caretaker style leader for the Tories, it seems he could just as well be as bad May.
Meanwhile, I see that Macron and Trump had the longest handshake ever yesterday.
The guardian thinks Macron is genius for befriending Trump - maybe 'hypocrisy' is not one of their words.
Were the Paris police busy holding back the enraged mob of anti Trump protesters?
Macron was just demonstrating a bit of political skill, by being polite to a buffoon. There are few friends in international politics, just aligned interests.
In other words he was following May's approach. Of course people like you will refuse to admit it.
May's
Nonsense. She went in and told Congress, and him, about the importance of NATO and the need for the US to stay engaged in the world, and she criticised his comments about women.
Wrong post after wrong post from you this morning.
Go and have a think, and a lie down.
May did not address Congress. She told the Republicans that together she and President Trump would lead the world. And then offered him something that no US President had ever been offered before: a full state visit in his first year in office. It's not me who needs the lie down.
Wrong. Go and check your facts.
May did not address Congress.
May did address the Republicans.
May did say that together the US and UK will lead the world.
May did offer Trump a full state visit in his first year of office.
Curiously, though, you have a whole swathe of wealthy seats, which the Conservatives had either lost to the Lib Dems, or where the latter were very competitive, which are firmly back in Conservative hands. What makes wealthy voters in Harrogate, Solihull, Guildford or Cheadle behave differently from wealthy voters in Kensington, Battersea, Birmingham Edgbaston, or Twickenham?
The degree of cosmopolitan values that they hold?
To be honest, I'd have thought Guildford, Winchester and Cheadle could quite easily come under threat from the Liberal Democrats again, as Cheltenham nearly did this time.
Can we name the two face posters who took the P out of May meeting Trump and now saying how wonderful it is that Macron meeting Trump.
These posters have lost the plot.
The difference is subtle but important. Macron extended an invitation to Trump as arguably the most powerful leader of all the countries in the EU. He didn't need Trump. His electors knew Trump was a buffoon. Macron invited him from a position of strength.
May by contrast looked desperate. She was Billie no-mates. She couldn't have hidden her desperation if she'd wanted to. She and consequently the UK were humiliated. I felt for her like I felt for George Galloway on Big Brother
Are the Conservatives really trying hard to retoxify themselves or something? First that Tory MP's comments earlier on this week, and now Hammond's alleged remarks. After thinking that he could be a caretaker style leader for the Tories, it seems he could just as well be as bad May.
Meanwhile, I see that Macron and Trump had the longest handshake ever yesterday.
The guardian thinks Macron is genius for befriending Trump - maybe 'hypocrisy' is not one of their words.
Were the Paris police busy holding back the enraged mob of anti Trump protesters?
Macron was just demonstrating a bit of political skill, by being polite to a buffoon. There are few friends in international politics, just aligned interests.
In other words he was following May's approach. Of course people like you will refuse to admit it.
May's
Nonsense. She went in and told Congress, and him, about the importance of NATO and the need for the US to stay engaged in the world, and she criticised his comments about women.
Wrong post after wrong post from you this morning.
Go and have a think, and a lie down.
May
Wrong. Go and check your facts.
May did not address Congress.
May did address the Republicans.
May did say that together the US and UK will lead the world.
May did offer Trump a full state visit in his first year of office.
Are the Conservatives really trying hard to retoxify themselves or something? First that Tory MP's comments earlier on this week, and now Hammond's alleged remarks. After thinking that he could be a caretaker style leader for the Tories, it seems he could just as well be as bad May.
Meanwhile, I see that Macron and Trump had the longest handshake ever yesterday.
The guardian thinks Macron is genius for befriending Trump - maybe 'hypocrisy' is not one of their words.
Were the Paris police busy holding back the enraged mob of anti Trump protesters?
Macron was just demonstrating a bit of political skill, by being polite to a buffoon. There are few friends in international politics, just aligned interests.
In other words he was following May's approach. Of course people like you will refuse to admit it.
May's
Nonsense. She went in and told Congress, and him, about the importance of NATO and the need for the US to stay engaged in the world, and she criticised his comments about women.
Wrong post after wrong post from you this morning.
Go and have a think, and a lie down.
May did office. It's not me who needs the lie down.
Wrong. Go and check your facts.
May did not address Congress.
May did address the Republicans.
May did say that together the US and UK will lead the world.
May did offer Trump a full state visit in his first year of office.
She criticised Trump's comments about women before meeting him.
That is not "prostrating at Trump's feet".
Of course she made clear how important international institutions are to the UK. But that speech has not aged well. It ties the UK to Trump's victory specifically, not to the US generally. It's the speech of someone unable or unwilling to push an independent line. And it was not made to Congress.
Good luck and have a great day to anynPBers going to Silverstone, Trent Bridge, Wimbledon, Fairford, Beaulieu or one of the many other events on today around the country - I do miss England in the summer sometimes.
I won't be keeping up with any of the events either, as today's Mrs Sandpit's birthday so more important things take priority!
Just getting on with it is not an option. The best choice for our economy and for living standards involves creating a huge split in the Conservative party. And, as we know, the Tories always put party before country (and, of course, self before party).
No, it doesn't.
Corbyn's Labour would be an absolute, utter disaster.
May's Conservatives are already an absolute, utter disaster.
The choice is between strychnine and cyanide.
Nah. A false equivalence is always drawn between the Conservatives and Corbyn's Labour for those that hate Brexit, but it's rubbish.
For one thing, picture this: if the EU bill is a huge £50bn one-off fee for Brexit, Corbyn wants to borrow that amount each year, *every year*, on top of what we currently borrow at the moment. With no plan to cover it or even begin to consolidate the deficit.
The Conservatives are fiscally sane, understand macroeconomics, and are entirely pragmatic on national security and defence. As their manifesto made clear.
Corbyn's Labour is neither.
There is nothing pragmatic about Brexit. It's the insane and unshakeable belief by obsessives that spending years consumed with a matter of second order importance will somehow lead Britain to Shangri La. Apparently it's worth trashing Britain's previous reputation as a tolerant outward-looking nation, incinerating its international influence, alienating anyone who believes otherwise and blowing huge sums of money on the extrication process (at a time when Britain's finances remain shaky) for no obvious advantage and the huge opportunity cost that genuinely important issues will go ignored for the duration.
Are the Conservatives really trying hard to retoxify themselves or something? First that Tory MP's comments earlier on this week, and now Hammond's alleged remarks. After thinking that he could be a caretaker style leader for the Tories, it seems he could just as well be as bad May.
Meanwhile, I see that Macron and Trump had the longest handshake ever yesterday.
The guardian thinks Macron is genius for befriending Trump - maybe 'hypocrisy' is not one of their words.
Were the Paris police busy holding back the enraged mob of anti Trump protesters?
Macron was just demonstrating a bit of political skill, by being polite to a buffoon. There are few friends in international politics, just aligned interests.
In other words he was following May's approach. Of course people like you will refuse to admit it.
May's
No
May did office. It's not me who needs the lie down.
She criticised Trump's comments about women before meeting him.
That is not "prostrating at Trump's feet".
Of course she made clear how important international institutions are to the UK. But that speech has not aged well. It ties the UK to Trump's victory specifically, not to the US generally. It's the speech of someone unable or unwilling to push an independent line. And it was not made to Congress.
Ok, they were Republican Congressman - and didn't include Democratic ones.
But it was hardly prostrating at Trump's feet. It was taking advantage of an opportunity, and seeking to influence him. I think the speech has aged well, Trump is now committed to NATO and working with UK interests.
You influence from the inside as well as the outside.
Blair did almost precisely the same thing with George W Bush.
Can we name the two face posters who took the P out of May meeting Trump and now saying how wonderful it is that Macron meeting Trump.
These posters have lost the plot.
The difference is subtle but important. Macron extended an invitation to Trump as arguably the most powerful leader of all the countries in the EU. He didn't need Trump. His electors knew Trump was a buffoon. Macron invited him from a position of strength.
May by contrast looked desperate. She was Billie no-mates. She couldn't have hidden her desperation if she'd wanted to. She and consequently the UK were humiliated. I felt for her like I felt for George Galloway on Big Brother
Exactly. Macron first showed his electorate and the world that he was willing and able to act, speak and think independently of Trump. May didn't. She tied herself to him. It was an appalling misjudgement. One of many she has made in the last year.
Good luck and have a great day to anynPBers going to Silverstone, Trent Bridge, Wimbledon, Fairford, Beaulieu or one of the many other events on today around the country - I do miss England in the summer sometimes.
I won't be keeping up with any of the events either, as today's Mrs Sandpit's birthday so more important things take priority!
Just getting on with it is not an option. The best choice for our economy and for living standards involves creating a huge split in the Conservative party. And, as we know, the Tories always put party before country (and, of course, self before party).
No, it doesn't.
Corbyn's Labour would be an absolute, utter disaster.
May's Conservatives are already an absolute, utter disaster.
The choice is between strychnine and cyanide.
Nah. A false equivalence is always drawn between the Conservatives and Corbyn's Labour for those that hate Brexit, but it's rubbish.
For one thing, picture this: if the EU bill is a huge £50bn one-off fee for Brexit, Corbyn wants to borrow that amount each year, *every year*, on top of what we currently borrow at the moment. With no plan to cover it or even begin to consolidate the deficit.
The Conservatives are fiscally sane, understand macroeconomics, and are entirely pragmatic on national security and defence. As their manifesto made clear.
Corbyn's Labour is neither.
There is nothing pragmatic about Brexit. It's the insane and unshakeable belief by obsessives that spending years consumed with a matter of second order importance will somehow lead Britain to Shangri La. Apparently it's worth trashing Britain's previous reputation as a tolerant outward-looking nation, incinerating its international influence, alienating anyone who believes otherwise and blowing huge sums of money on the extrication process (at a time when Britain's finances remain shaky) for no obvious advantage and the huge opportunity cost that genuinely important issues will go ignored for the duration.
It's a national disaster.
And, yet, you yourself believed there was a pragmatic route for Brexit and once considered voting for it.
I don't want any of the negative things you describe any more than you do. But I think your anger at how you think it's panning out obscures the nuances in the real argument.
Can we name the two face posters who took the P out of May meeting Trump and now saying how wonderful it is that Macron meeting Trump.
These posters have lost the plot.
The difference is subtle but important. Macron extended an invitation to Trump as arguably the most powerful leader of all the countries in the EU. He didn't need Trump. His electors knew Trump was a buffoon. Macron invited him from a position of strength.
May by contrast looked desperate. She was Billie no-mates. She couldn't have hidden her desperation if she'd wanted to. She and consequently the UK were humiliated. I felt for her like I felt for George Galloway on Big Brother
David makes reference to the Repeal Bill.It's the Henry The 8th powers that must be worrying for all those who support collective parliamentary democracy.Blair pops up again today just to remind us of the dangers allowing of 1 person to have so much power,they develop a Messiah Complex and become a dictator. Mrs May has given assurances on workers' rights but she gave similar assurances, on at least half a dozen occasions, that she would not call an election.She also changed her party's manifesto 3 days after it was announced but, on the issue of social care,she asserted not once but twice that "nothing has changed",another huge porky.The end of result of this is that she is untrustworthy,the public can see it,the EU can see it,the world has seen it.You cannot trust a word she says. The Beecroft Report revealed the Tories' true hedge-fund agenda and their paymasters will ensure they carry them out.
Are the Conservatives really trying hard to retoxify themselves or something? First that Tory MP's comments earlier on this week, and now Hammond's alleged remarks. After thinking that he could be a caretaker style leader for the Tories, it seems he could just as well be as bad May.
Meanwhile, I see that Macron and Trump had the longest handshake ever yesterday.
The guardian thinks Macron is genius for befriending Trump - maybe 'hypocrisy' is not one of their words.
Were the Paris police busy holding back the enraged mob of anti Trump protesters?
Macron was just demonstrating a bit of political skill, by being polite to a buffoon. There are few friends in international politics, just aligned interests.
In other words he was following May's approach. Of course people like you will refuse to admit it.
May's
No
May did office. It's not me who needs the lie down.
She criticised Trump's comments about women before meeting him.
That is not "prostrating at Trump's feet".
Of course she made clearto push an independent line. And it was not made to Congress.
Ok, they were Republican Congressman - and didn't include Democratic ones.
But it was hardly prostrating at Trump's feet. It was taking advantage of an opportunity, and seeking to influence him. I think the speech has aged well, Trump is now committed to NATO and working with UK interests.
You influence from the inside as well as the outside.
Blair did almost precisely the same thing with George W Bush.
And tied himself to Bush while exerting almost no influence. It significantly diminished his leadership and did substantial harm to the UK's standing in the world. And Trump makes George W Bush look like a colossus.
Good luck to Old King Cole for the forthcoming radiotherapy - never nice, but much better than it used to be.
On topic, interesting as usual from David, and the Blair article is worth a read too. I think he's right that people recoiled from what they saw as a hard Tory manifesto, and coupled with Corbyn's energising of the young it produced the result we know. Like David, though, I think that Labour's party interest at present is tactical agnosticism: there will come a time for principlied stands which alienate some voters, but we're not in government and there's no real reason for it right now. Incidentally, I think the Apocalypse is still going too much by the Corbynistas she happens to know - we're a mixed bunch like all movements, but plenty of us are well able to see the value in centrist arguments without buying the whole package.
My understanding of the EU is that they are indeed willing to offer various compromises. Their approach to negotiations is always tough bargaining, crises, midnight talks, and ultimate fudged deals, but they are not intrinsically averse to compromise, quite the reverse. At present, however, they see no point in offering anything, since they feel with some exasperation that Britain doesn't actually know what it wants, and scarcely a day goes by without one Cabinet Minister contadicting another. They would prefer a Hard Brexit stance or a Soft Brexit stance or indeed ANY stance to a negotiating partner seemingly preoccupied with talking to itself and evidently unsure whether it even wants to have its current leader or someone quite different.
Just getting on with it is not an option. The best choice for our economy and for living standards involves creating a huge split in the Conservative party. And, as we know, the Tories always put party before country (and, of course, self before party).
No, it doesn't.
Corbyn's Labour would be an absolute, utter disaster.
May's Conservatives are already an absolute, utter disaster.
The choice is between strychnine and cyanide.
Nah. A false equivalence is always drawn between the Conservatives and Corbyn's Labour for those that hate Brexit, but it's rubbish.
For one thing, picture this: if the EU bill is a huge £50bn one-off fee for Brexit, Corbyn wants to borrow that amount each year, *every year*, on top of what we currently borrow at the moment. With no plan to cover it or even begin to consolidate the deficit.
The Conservatives are fiscally sane, understand macroeconomics, and are entirely pragmatic on national security and defence. As their manifesto made clear.
Corbyn's Labour is neither.
There is nothing pragmatic about Brexit. It's the insane and unshakeable belief by obsessives that spending years consumed with a matter of second order importance will somehow lead Britain to Shangri La. Apparently it's worth trashing Britain's previous reputation as a tolerant outward-looking nation, incinerating its international influence, alienating anyone who believes otherwise and blowing huge sums of money on the extrication process (at a time when Britain's finances remain shaky) for no obvious advantage and the huge opportunity cost that genuinely important issues will go ignored for the duration.
It's a national disaster.
And, yet, you yourself believed there was a pragmatic route for Brexit and once considered voting for it.
I don't want any of the negative things you describe any more than you do. But I think your anger at how you think it's panning out obscures the nuances in the real argument.
A pragmatic route required years of careful planning and a tolerant open tone to the debate. Instead Britain has a clueless planless government that wants to crush saboteurs, hates citizens of the world and has to implement a version of Brexit that was secured by pandering to xenophobia.
Curiously, though, you have a whole swathe of wealthy seats, which the Conservatives had either lost to the Lib Dems, or where the latter were very competitive, which are firmly back in Conservative hands. What makes wealthy voters in Harrogate, Solihull, Guildford or Cheadle behave differently from wealthy voters in Kensington, Battersea, Birmingham Edgbaston, or Twickenham?
The degree of cosmopolitan values that they hold?
To be honest, I'd have thought Guildford, Winchester and Cheadle could quite easily come under threat from the Liberal Democrats again, as Cheltenham nearly did this time.
To get something out of May you simply have to pick up the phone. Not that she has anything much left to offer
Anyone who wonders about our government debt situation and has a bit of time on their hands might care to have a look at last week's OBR report on debt:
An interesting side effect of the BoE QE that I hadn't realised is that the government is paying less in debt repayments on gilts than it would have.
"Conventional gilts held by the APF: The cost of servicing conventional gilts has been partly offset by the Bank of England’s quantitative easing programme. The Bank’s Asset Purchase Facility (APF) has bought just over a third of the outstanding stock of conventional gilts, £371 billion at the end of 2016-17,2 financed by creating electronic reserves that are held by financial institutions and on which it pays Bank Rate. Bank Rate averaged 0.4 per cent in 2016-17, so the Government in effect paid that rate on the conventional gilts held by the APF, saving it over £10 billion. When Bank Rate changes, the interest paid on outstanding reserves changes in line, so that the effective interest rate on the stock adjusts immediately rather than with a lag."
Just getting on with it is not an option. The best choice for our economy and for living standards involves creating a huge split in the Conservative party. And, as we know, the Tories always put party before country (and, of course, self before party).
No, it doesn't.
Corbyn's Labour would be an absolute, utter disaster.
May's Conservatives are already an absolute, utter disaster.
The choice is between strychnine and cyanide.
Nah. A false equivalence is always drawn between the Conservatives and Corbyn's Labour for those that hate Brexit, but it's rubbish.
For one thing, picture this: if the EU bill is a huge £50bn one-off fee for Brexit, Corbyn wants to borrow that amount each year, *every year*, on top of what we currently borrow at the moment. With no plan to cover it or even begin to consolidate the deficit.
The Conservatives are fiscally sane, understand macroeconomics, and are entirely pragmatic on national security and defence. As their manifesto made clear.
Corbyn's Labour is neither.
on the extrication process (at a time when Britain's finances remain shaky) for no obvious advantage and the huge opportunity cost that genuinely important issues will go ignored for the duration.
It's a national disaster.
And, yet, you yourself believed there was a pragmatic route for Brexit and once considered voting for it.
I don't want any of the negative things you describe any more than you do. But I think your anger at how you think it's panning out obscures the nuances in the real argument.
A pragmatic route required years of careful planning and a tolerant open tone to the debate. Instead Britain has a clueless planless government that wants to crush saboteurs, hates citizens of the world and has to implement a version of Brexit that was secured by pandering to xenophobia.
There is no nuance. It's a national disaster.
Of course it's a national disaster but if the electorate votes for a national disaster what can the politicians do but deliver it?
There are those of us who thought that in a modern parliamentary democracy the elected representatives would choose the route they thought best for the country but when I have raised this point here I am pretty soon reminded that Parliament agreed to be bound by the referendum result.
Curiously, though, you have a whole swathe of wealthy seats, which the Conservatives had either lost to the Lib Dems, or where the latter were very competitive, which are firmly back in Conservative hands. What makes wealthy voters in Harrogate, Solihull, Guildford or Cheadle behave differently from wealthy voters in Kensington, Battersea, Birmingham Edgbaston, or Twickenham?
The degree of cosmopolitan values that they hold?
To be honest, I'd have thought Guildford, Winchester and Cheadle could quite easily come under threat from the Liberal Democrats again, as Cheltenham nearly did this time.
To get something out of May you simply have to pick up the phone. Not that she has anything much left to offer
"Debt servicing costs have become more sensitive to changes in the effective interest rate and more exposed to inflation." [compared to 2007-8 - the last crisis]
It would be interesting to see an OBR model of what Labour's manifesto commitments would do to all this.
Just getting on with it is not an option. The best choice for our economy and for living standards involves creating a huge split in the Conservative party. And, as we know, the Tories always put party before country (and, of course, self before party).
No, it doesn't.
Corbyn's Labour would be an absolute, utter disaster.
May's Conservatives are already an absolute, utter disaster.
The choice is between strychnine and cyanide.
Nah. A false equivalence is always drawn between the Conservatives and Corbyn's Labour for those that hate Brexit, but it's rubbish.
For one thing, picture this: if the EU bill is a huge £50bn one-off fee for Brexit, Corbyn wants to borrow that amount each year, *every year*, on top of what we currently borrow at the moment. With no plan to cover it or even begin to consolidate the deficit.
The Conservatives are fiscally sane, understand macroeconomics, and are entirely pragmatic on national security and defence. As their manifesto made clear.
Corbyn's Labour is neither.
There is nothing pragmatic about Brexit. It's the insane and unshakeable belief by obsessives that spending years consumed with a matter of second order importance will somehow lead Britain to Shangri La. Apparently it's worth trashing Britain's previous reputation as a tolerant outward-looking nation, incinerating its international influence, alienating anyone who believes otherwise and blowing huge sums of money on the extrication process (at a time when Britain's finances remain shaky) for no obvious advantage and the huge opportunity cost that genuinely important issues will go ignored for the duration.
It's a national disaster.
And, yet, you yourself believed there was a pragmatic route for Brexit and once considered voting for it.
I don't want any of the negative things you describe any more than you do. But I think your anger at how you think it's panning out obscures the nuances in the real argument.
A pragmatic route required years of careful planning and a tolerant open tone to the debate. Instead Britain has a clueless planless government that wants to crush saboteurs, hates citizens of the world and has to implement a version of Brexit that was secured by pandering to xenophobia.
There is no nuance. It's a national disaster.
I think much of that is simply rhetoric.
But, I agree, I would prefer a more tolerant open tone to the debate.
Blair is deluded on free movement, it is the basis of the EU.
But it was Britain's choice to not implement as much restrictions on people (Rather than Labour such as Belgium), have a largely non contributory benefits system and allow the early FoM of many (new) EU countries as well as paying lip service to volumes and promises on non EU migration. None of that was to do with the EU.
Are the Conservatives really trying hard to retoxify themselves or something? First that Tory MP's comments earlier on this week, and now Hammond's alleged remarks. After thinking that he could be a caretaker style leader for the Tories, it seems he could just as well be as bad May.
Meanwhile, I see that Macron and Trump had the longest handshake ever yesterday.
The guardian thinks Macron is genius for befriending Trump - maybe 'hypocrisy' is not one of their words.
Were the Paris police busy holding back the enraged mob of anti Trump protesters?
Macron was just demonstrating a bit of political skill, by being polite to a buffoon. There are few friends in international politics, just aligned interests.
In other words he was following May's approach. Of course people like you will refuse to admit it.
May's
No
May did office. It's not me who needs the lie down.
Wrong. Go and check your facts.
May
She criticised Trump's comments about women before meeting him.
That is not "prostrating at Trump's feet".
Of course she made clearto push an independent line. And it was not made to Congress.
Ok, they were Republican Congressman - and didn't include Democratic ones.
But it was hardly prostrating at Trump's feet. It was taking advantage of an opportunity, and seeking to influence him. I think the speech has aged well, Trump is now committed to NATO and working with UK interests.
You influence from the inside as well as the outside.
Blair did almost precisely the same thing with George W Bush.
And tied himself to Bush while exerting almost no influence. It significantly diminished his leadership and did substantial harm to the UK's standing in the world. And Trump makes George W Bush look like a colossus.
Blair was worse. He - rather stupidly - said, "I'm with you whatever".
Can we name the two face posters who took the P out of May meeting Trump and now saying how wonderful it is that Macron meeting Trump.
These posters have lost the plot.
The difference is subtle but important. Macron extended an invitation to Trump as arguably the most powerful leader of all the countries in the EU. He didn't need Trump. His electors knew Trump was a buffoon. Macron invited him from a position of strength.
May by contrast looked desperate. She was Billie no-mates. She couldn't have hidden her desperation if she'd wanted to. She and consequently the UK were humiliated. I felt for her like I felt for George Galloway on Big Brother
Exactly. Macron first showed his electorate and the world that he was willing and able to act, speak and think independently of Trump. May didn't. She tied herself to him. It was an appalling misjudgement. One of many she has made in the last year.
LOL. I love the way Lefties have to tie themselves in knots to explain away two people doing exactly the same thing when one is supposed to be good and the other evil. You really do make yourselves look ridiculous.
Nah. A false equivalence is always drawn between the Conservatives and Corbyn's Labour for those that hate Brexit, but it's rubbish.
For one thing, picture this: if the EU bill is a huge £50bn one-off fee for Brexit, Corbyn wants to borrow that amount each year, *every year*, on top of what we currently borrow at the moment. With no plan to cover it or even begin to consolidate the deficit.
The Conservatives are fiscally sane, understand macroeconomics, and are entirely pragmatic on national security and defence. As their manifesto made clear.
Corbyn's Labour is neither.
on the extrication process (at a time when Britain's finances remain shaky) for no obvious advantage and the huge opportunity cost that genuinely important issues will go ignored for the duration.
It's a national disaster.
And, yet, you yourself believed there was a pragmatic route for Brexit and once considered voting for it.
I don't want any of the negative things you describe any more than you do. But I think your anger at how you think it's panning out obscures the nuances in the real argument.
A pragmatic route required years of careful planning and a tolerant open tone to the debate. Instead Britain has a clueless planless government that wants to crush saboteurs, hates citizens of the world and has to implement a version of Brexit that was secured by pandering to xenophobia.
There is no nuance. It's a national disaster.
Of course it's a national disaster but if the electorate votes for a national disaster what can the politicians do but deliver it?
There are those of us who thought that in a modern parliamentary democracy the elected representatives would choose the route they thought best for the country but when I have raised this point here I am pretty soon reminded that Parliament agreed to be bound by the referendum result.
So there you go. F*cked, mate.
Oh it has to be delivered, and consistently with how the victory was secured.
I expect that in generations to come the referendum result will be looked at as the moment when Britain's glissando really started.
Curiously, though, you have a whole swathe of wealthy seats, which the Conservatives had either lost to the Lib Dems, or where the latter were very competitive, which are firmly back in Conservative hands. What makes wealthy voters in Harrogate, Solihull, Guildford or Cheadle behave differently from wealthy voters in Kensington, Battersea, Birmingham Edgbaston, or Twickenham?
Birmingham Edgbaston is a slight oddity in my opinion (and I grew up just down the road), in that it includes Harborne which has become sought after by exactly the sort of young, professionals, often public sector, who seem to be solidly in Corbyn's camp.
Just for the record the Great Repeal Bill is deeply flawed and for exactly the reasons the Nationalists and many others are saying. It should be an opportunity top strengthen localism and devolution but instead is being used as a power grab completely unrelated to Brexit. It would not have been beyond the wit of those drafting it to ensure powers were devolved in a reasonable manner and would have ahead no effect on the overall Brexit at all. Instead they have got greedy.
My view is quite simple: with the DUP the Tories have an absolute majority (albeit a small one) in the Commons to carry out their Brexit programme. Both had the same in their manifestos, so the Salisbury convention applies in the Lords for any troublemakers as well.
This will be enough to see them through at least the next two years. And there are only so many by-elections that can take place within that period - not enough to topple them.
They need to calm down, get a grip, and focus on doing a professional job.
How do you propose to enforce the Salisbury convention on those who disagree that it applies?
Well, of course, I can't. It's a convention.
But, it should: both the DUP and Conservatives were elected on very, very similar platforms relating to Brexit, and they have an absolute majority in the House of Commons.
The Salisbury convention can be by-passed by threatening to appoint 100s of new peers, just as it was threatened in 1910.
Good to hear Blair on the radio this morning. Refreshing to hear a centrist. If only our politics could generate a new, fresh one.
Honestly it amazes me how out of touch he has become. This man used to be the master politician, with excellent instincts...
Now he is banging on about stopping Brexit - I really don't see any appetite for that except for a small minority in the country. He thinks the French and Germans will compromise on freedom of movement... Well for a start they don't get to dictate something that fundamental to the rest of the EU?
The idea of the EU meeting us halfway and us staying in seems impossible to implement on any reasonable timescale.
Are the Conservatives really trying hard to retoxify themselves or something? First that Tory MP's comments earlier on this week, and now Hammond's alleged remarks. After thinking that he could be a caretaker style leader for the Tories, it seems he could just as well be as bad May.
Meanwhile, I see that Macron and Trump had the longest handshake ever yesterday.
The guardian thinks Macron is genius for befriending Trump - maybe 'hypocrisy' is not one of their words.
Were the Paris police busy holding back the enraged mob of anti Trump protesters?
Macron was just demonstrating a bit of political skill, by being polite to a buffoon. There are few friends in international politics, just aligned interests.
In other words he was following May's approach. Of course people like you will refuse to admit it.
Just for the record the Great Repeal Bill is deeply flawed and for exactly the reasons the Nationalists and many others are saying. It should be an opportunity top strengthen localism and devolution but instead is being used as a power grab completely unrelated to Brexit. It would not have been beyond the wit of those drafting it to ensure powers were devolved in a reasonable manner and would have ahead no effect on the overall Brexit at all. Instead they have got greedy.
Indeed, I said to JohnO on Thursday would you be happy with Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell being given these powers?
If it isn't good enough for those two, then it isn't good enough for any government.
Can we name the two face posters who took the P out of May meeting Trump and now saying how wonderful it is that Macron meeting Trump.
These posters have lost the plot.
The difference is subtle but important. Macron extended an invitation to Trump as arguably the most powerful leader of all the countries in the EU. He didn't need Trump. His electors knew Trump was a buffoon. Macron invited him from a position of strength.
May by contrast looked desperate. She was Billie no-mates. She couldn't have hidden her desperation if she'd wanted to. She and consequently the UK were humiliated. I felt for her like I felt for George Galloway on Big Brother
Exactly. Macron first showed his electorate and the world that he was willing and able to act, speak and think independently of Trump. May didn't. She tied herself to him. It was an appalling misjudgement. One of many she has made in the last year.
LOL. I love the way Lefties have to tie themselves in knots to explain away two people doing exactly the same thing when one is supposed to be good and the other evil. You really do make yourselves look ridiculous.
LOL - I love the way righties seek to tie two very different approaches together so they can have a pop at lefties.
Just for the record the Great Repeal Bill is deeply flawed and for exactly the reasons the Nationalists and many others are saying. It should be an opportunity top strengthen localism and devolution but instead is being used as a power grab completely unrelated to Brexit. It would not have been beyond the wit of those drafting it to ensure powers were devolved in a reasonable manner and would have ahead no effect on the overall Brexit at all. Instead they have got greedy.
Indeed, I said to JohnO on Thursday would you be happy with Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell being given these powers?
If it isn't good enough for those two, then it isn't good enough for any government.
No, of course not. But that's just an excuse by those with an anti-Brexit agenda to try and win Conservatives round to stop Brexit.
A better answer is: how do Conservatives argue the positive case for Conservative values in the 21st Century, and intellectually defeat socialism again?
We are the good guys. We must show people we are, not assume they'll work it out for themselves.
Just for the record the Great Repeal Bill is deeply flawed and for exactly the reasons the Nationalists and many others are saying. It should be an opportunity top strengthen localism and devolution but instead is being used as a power grab completely unrelated to Brexit. It would not have been beyond the wit of those drafting it to ensure powers were devolved in a reasonable manner and would have ahead no effect on the overall Brexit at all. Instead they have got greedy.
Although Sturgeon and Carwyn-Jones have flagged up the power grab - the silence in Scotland from both SCON & SLAB is deafening - at least the MSM are picking up on this:
My view is quite simple: with the DUP the Tories have an absolute majority (albeit a small one) in the Commons to carry out their Brexit programme. Both had the same in their manifestos, so the Salisbury convention applies in the Lords for any troublemakers as well.
This will be enough to see them through at least the next two years. And there are only so many by-elections that can take place within that period - not enough to topple them.
They need to calm down, get a grip, and focus on doing a professional job.
How do you propose to enforce the Salisbury convention on those who disagree that it applies?
Well, of course, I can't. It's a convention.
But, it should: both the DUP and Conservatives were elected on very, very similar platforms relating to Brexit, and they have an absolute majority in the House of Commons.
The Salisbury convention can be by-passed by threatening to appoint 100s of new peers, just as it was threatened in 1910.
I don't think Her Majesty would appoint 100s of new peers in these circumstances.
Nah. A false equivalence is always drawn between the Conservatives and Corbyn's Labour for those that hate Brexit, but it's rubbish.
For one thing, picture this: if the EU bill is a huge £50bn one-off fee for Brexit, Corbyn wants to borrow that amount each year, *every year*, on top of what we currently borrow at the moment. With no plan to cover it or even begin to consolidate the deficit.
The Conservatives are fiscally sane, understand macroeconomics, and are entirely pragmatic on national security and defence. As their manifesto made clear.
Corbyn's Labour is neither.
on the extrication process (at a time when Britain's finances remain shaky) for no obvious advantage and the huge opportunity cost that genuinely important issues will go ignored for the duration.
It's a national disaster.
And, yet, you yourself believed there was a pragmatic route for Brexit and once considered voting for it.
I don't want any of the negative things you describe any more than you do. But I think your anger at how you think it's panning out obscures the nuances in the real argument.
A pragmatic route required years of careful planning and a tolerant open tone to the debate. Instead Britain has a clueless planless government that wants to crush saboteurs, hates citizens of the world and has to implement a version of Brexit that was secured by pandering to xenophobia.
There is no nuance. It's a national disaster.
Of course it's a national disaster but if the electorate votes for a national disaster what can the politicians do but deliver it?
There are those of us who thought that in a modern parliamentary democracy the elected representatives would choose the route they thought best for the country but when I have raised this point here I am pretty soon reminded that Parliament agreed to be bound by the referendum result.
So there you go. F*cked, mate.
Oh it has to be delivered, and consistently with how the victory was secured.
I expect that in generations to come the referendum result will be looked at as the moment when Britain's glissando really started.
People have been saying that about Britain since about the 1880s:
Can we name the two face posters who took the P out of May meeting Trump and now saying how wonderful it is that Macron meeting Trump.
These posters have lost the plot.
The difference is subtle but important. Macron extended an invitation to Trump as arguably the most powerful leader of all the countries in the EU. He didn't need Trump. His electors knew Trump was a buffoon. Macron invited him from a position of strength.
May by contrast looked desperate. She was Billie no-mates. She couldn't have hidden her desperation if she'd wanted to. She and consequently the UK were humiliated. I felt for her like I felt for George Galloway on Big Brother
Exactly. Macron first showed his electorate and the world that he was willing and able to act, speak and think independently of Trump. May didn't. She tied herself to him. It was an appalling misjudgement. One of many she has made in the last year.
LOL. I love the way Lefties have to tie themselves in knots to explain away two people doing exactly the same thing when one is supposed to be good and the other evil. You really do make yourselves look ridiculous.
That's not recognising the difference between a French letter and an Irish one.
Can we name the two face posters who took the P out of May meeting Trump and now saying how wonderful it is that Macron meeting Trump.
These posters have lost the plot.
The difference is subtle but important. Macron extended an invitation to Trump as arguably the most powerful leader of all the countries in the EU. He didn't need Trump. His electors knew Trump was a buffoon. Macron invited him from a position of strength.
May by contrast looked desperate. She was Billie no-mates. She couldn't have hidden her desperation if she'd wanted to. She and consequently the UK were humiliated. I felt for her like I felt for George Galloway on Big Brother
Exactly. Macron first showed his electorate and the world that he was willing and able to act, speak and think independently of Trump. May didn't. She tied herself to him. It was an appalling misjudgement. One of many she has made in the last year.
LOL. I love the way Lefties have to tie themselves in knots to explain away two people doing exactly the same thing when one is supposed to be good and the other evil. You really do make yourselves look ridiculous.
LOL - I love the way righties seek to tie two very different approaches together so they can have a pop at lefties.
The approaches are identical. It is only you and your fellow travellers who are trying to twist things.
Are the Conservatives really trying hard to retoxify themselves or something? First that Tory MP's comments earlier on this week, and now Hammond's alleged remarks. After thinking that he could be a caretaker style leader for the Tories, it seems he could just as well be as bad May.
Meanwhile, I see that Macron and Trump had the longest handshake ever yesterday.
The guardian thinks Macron is genius for befriending Trump - maybe 'hypocrisy' is not one of their words.
Were the Paris police busy holding back the enraged mob of anti Trump protesters?
Macron was just demonstrating a bit of political skill, by being polite to a buffoon. There are few friends in international politics, just aligned interests.
In other words he was following May's approach. Of course people like you will refuse to admit it.
May's first encounter with Trump involved her prostrating at his feet. Macron's involved him swerving to shake Merkel's hand. Macron robustly criticised Trump's decision to pull the US out of the Paris Climate Change accord, May said next to nothing. In short, Macron established his independence from Trump in the eyes of his own electorate and the world, May didn't. This has given him a freedom to manouevre with Trump which May failed to create for herself. That is to France's advantage. If you don't want to recognise that, so be it.
Hahaha. That is so full of hyperbole and downright untruths it's barely worth a response. Oh and you forgot to repeat how the British Tory party uniquely in the world serves it's own interests above the nation. Oh and where is the image which shows May at Trump's feet - surely you'd want to include it just for the sheer fun!
It's being created by the man who darkened Gina Millers skin and put a bone through her nose to make her look stupid!
Can we name the two face posters who took the P out of May meeting Trump and now saying how wonderful it is that Macron meeting Trump.
These posters have lost the plot.
The difference is subtle but important. Macron extended an invitation to Trump as arguably the most powerful leader of all the countries in the EU. He didn't need Trump. His electors knew Trump was a buffoon. Macron invited him from a position of strength.
May by contrast looked desperate. She was Billie no-mates. She couldn't have hidden her desperation if she'd wanted to. She and consequently the UK were humiliated. I felt for her like I felt for George Galloway on Big Brother
Exactly. Macron first showed his electorate and the world that he was willing and able to act, speak and think independently of Trump. May didn't. She tied herself to him. It was an appalling misjudgement. One of many she has made in the last year.
LOL. I love the way Lefties have to tie themselves in knots to explain away two people doing exactly the same thing when one is supposed to be good and the other evil. You really do make yourselves look ridiculous.
LOL - I love the way righties seek to tie two very different approaches together so they can have a pop at lefties.
The approaches are identical. It is only you and your fellow travellers who are trying to twist things.
Nah. A false equivalence is always drawn between the Conservatives and Corbyn's Labour for those that hate Brexit, but it's rubbish.
For one thing, picture this: if the EU bill is a huge £50bn one-off fee for Brexit, Corbyn wants to borrow that amount each year, *every year*, on top of what we currently borrow at the moment. With no plan to cover it or even begin to consolidate the deficit.
The Conservatives are fiscally sane, understand macroeconomics, and are entirely pragmatic on national security and defence. As their manifesto made clear.
Corbyn's Labour is neither.
on the extrication process (at a time when Britain's finances remain shaky) for no obvious advantage and the huge opportunity cost that genuinely important issues will go ignored for the duration.
It's a national disaster.
And, yet, you yourself believed there was a pragmatic route for Brexit and once considered voting for it.
I don't want any of the negative things you describe any more than you do. But I think your anger at how you think it's panning out obscures the nuances in the real argument.
A pragmatic route required years of careful planning and a tolerant open tone to the debate. Instead Britain has a clueless planless government that wants to crush saboteurs, hates citizens of the world and has to implement a version of Brexit that was secured by pandering to xenophobia.
There is no nuance. It's a national disaster.
Of course it's a national disaster but if the electorate votes for a national disaster what can the politicians do but deliver it?
There are those of us who thought that in a modern parliamentary democracy the elected representatives would choose the route they thought best for the country but when I have raised this point here I am pretty soon reminded that Parliament agreed to be bound by the referendum result.
So there you go. F*cked, mate.
Oh it has to be delivered, and consistently with how the victory was secured.
I expect that in generations to come the referendum result will be looked at as the moment when Britain's glissando really started.
People have been saying that about Britain since about the 1880s:
And Britain has been in relative decline since then. The path has so far been fairly gentle. From now on, it may well become much steeper, more like Argentina's over the last century.
Just for the record the Great Repeal Bill is deeply flawed and for exactly the reasons the Nationalists and many others are saying. It should be an opportunity top strengthen localism and devolution but instead is being used as a power grab completely unrelated to Brexit. It would not have been beyond the wit of those drafting it to ensure powers were devolved in a reasonable manner and would have ahead no effect on the overall Brexit at all. Instead they have got greedy.
Indeed, I said to JohnO on Thursday would you be happy with Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell being given these powers?
If it isn't good enough for those two, then it isn't good enough for any government.
No, of course not. But that's just an excuse by those with an anti-Brexit agenda to try and win Conservatives round to stop Brexit.
A better answer is: how do Conservatives argue the positive case for Conservative values in the 21st Century, and intellectually defeat socialism again?
We are the good guys. We must show people we are, not assume they'll work it out for themselves.
You (or they) could have started by trusting the people and their elected officials rather than looking at any authority outside of London with deep suspicion. I can see no reason at all why fisheries and agriculture should not be devolved, nor why the return of a huge swathe of powers from Brussels should not be used as an opportunity to strengthen local government. Instead it is pulling yet more power into the executive.
Is this a reason to stop Brexit? Of course not. But it is disappointing that the Tories have proved themselves so parochial (in the narrow minded sense) when it comes to the distribution of power across the nation.
Are the Conservatives really trying hard to retoxify themselves or something? First that Tory MP's comments earlier on this week, and now Hammond's alleged remarks. After thinking that he could be a caretaker style leader for the Tories, it seems he could just as well be as bad May.
Meanwhile, I see that Macron and Trump had the longest handshake ever yesterday.
The guardian thinks Macron is genius for befriending Trump - maybe 'hypocrisy' is not one of their words.
Were the Paris police busy holding back the enraged mob of anti Trump protesters?
Macron was just demonstrating a bit of political skill, by being polite to a buffoon. There are few friends in international politics, just aligned interests.
In other words he was following May's approach. Of course people like you will refuse to admit it.
May's first encounter with Trump involved her prostrating at his feet. Macron's involved him swerving to shake Merkel's hand. Macron robustly criticised Trump's decision to pull the US out of the Paris Climate Change accord, May said next to nothing. In short, Macron established his independence from Trump in the eyes of his own electorate and the world, May didn't. This has given him a freedom to manouevre with Trump which May failed to create for herself. That is to France's advantage. If you don't want to recognise that, so be it.
Hahaha. That is so full of hyperbole and downright untruths it's barely worth a response. Oh and you forgot to repeat how the British Tory party uniquely in the world serves it's own interests above the nation. Oh and where is the image which shows May at Trump's feet - surely you'd want to include it just for the sheer fun!
The Tories are not unique in putting their own interests first. But the fact that they do so continuously, no matter what damage it inflicts, does rather fly in the face of their claim to always prioritise what is best for Britain.
Just for the record the Great Repeal Bill is deeply flawed and for exactly the reasons the Nationalists and many others are saying. It should be an opportunity top strengthen localism and devolution but instead is being used as a power grab completely unrelated to Brexit. It would not have been beyond the wit of those drafting it to ensure powers were devolved in a reasonable manner and would have ahead no effect on the overall Brexit at all. Instead they have got greedy.
Indeed, I said to JohnO on Thursday would you be happy with Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell being given these powers?
If it isn't good enough for those two, then it isn't good enough for any government.
No, of course not. But that's just an excuse by those with an anti-Brexit agenda to try and win Conservatives round to stop Brexit.
A better answer is: how do Conservatives argue the positive case for Conservative values in the 21st Century, and intellectually defeat socialism again?
We are the good guys. We must show people we are, not assume they'll work it out for themselves.
This is nothing to do with stopping Brexit.
Did you really Vote Leave to give even more control to the executive?
Nah. A false equivalence is always drawn between the Conservatives and Corbyn's Labour for those that hate Brexit, but it's rubbish.
For one thing, picture this: if the EU bill is a huge £50bn one-off fee for Brexit, Corbyn wants to borrow that amount each year, *every year*, on top of what we currently borrow at the moment. With no plan to cover it or even begin to consolidate the deficit.
The Conservatives are fiscally sane, understand macroeconomics, and are entirely pragmatic on national security and defence. As their manifesto made clear.
Corbyn's Labour is neither.
on the extrication process (at a time when Britain's finances remain shaky) for no obvious advantage and the huge opportunity cost that genuinely important issues will go ignored for the duration.
It's a national disaster.
And, yet, you yourself believed there was a pragmatic route for Brexit and once considered voting for it.
I don't want any of the negative things you describe any more than you do. But I think your anger at how you think it's panning out obscures the nuances in the real argument.
A pragmatic route required years of careful planning and a tolerant open tone to the debate. Instead Britain has a clueless planless government that wants to crush saboteurs, hates citizens of the world and has to implement a version of Brexit that was secured by pandering to xenophobia.
There is no nuance. It's a national disaster.
Of course it's a national disaster but if the electorate votes for a national disaster what can the politicians do but deliver it?
So there you go. F*cked, mate.
Oh it has to be delivered, and consistently with how the victory was secured.
I expect that in generations to come the referendum result will be looked at as the moment when Britain's glissando really started.
People have been saying that about Britain since about the 1880s:
And Britain has been in relative decline since then. The path has so far been fairly gentle. From now on, it may well become much steeper, more like Argentina's over the last century.
Relative decline as other (much larger nations) industralised and became more economically powerful, meanwhile the quality of life domestically has got better and better.
We can't control the former, we can largely control the latter.
Just for the record the Great Repeal Bill is deeply flawed and for exactly the reasons the Nationalists and many others are saying. It should be an opportunity top strengthen localism and devolution but instead is being used as a power grab completely unrelated to Brexit. It would not have been beyond the wit of those drafting it to ensure powers were devolved in a reasonable manner and would have ahead no effect on the overall Brexit at all. Instead they have got greedy.
Indeed, I said to JohnO on Thursday would you be happy with Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell being given these powers?
If it isn't good enough for those two, then it isn't good enough for any government.
No, of course not. But that's just an excuse by those with an anti-Brexit agenda to try and win Conservatives round to stop Brexit.
A better answer is: how do Conservatives argue the positive case for Conservative values in the 21st Century, and intellectually defeat socialism again?
We are the good guys. We must show people we are, not assume they'll work it out for themselves.
You (or they) could have started by trusting the people and their elected officials rather than looking at any authority outside of London with deep suspicion. I can see no reason at all why fisheries and agriculture should not be devolved, nor why the return of a huge swathe of powers from Brussels should not be used as an opportunity to strengthen local government. Instead it is pulling yet more power into the executive.
Is this a reason to stop Brexit? Of course not. But it is disappointing that the Tories have proved themselves so parochial (in the narrow minded sense) when it comes to the distribution of power across the nation.
My view is quite simple: with the DUP the Tories have an absolute majority (albeit a small one) in the Commons to carry out their Brexit programme. Both had the same in their manifestos, so the Salisbury convention applies in the Lords for any troublemakers as well.
This will be enough to see them through at least the next two years. And there are only so many by-elections that can take place within that period - not enough to topple them.
They need to calm down, get a grip, and focus on doing a professional job.
How do you propose to enforce the Salisbury convention on those who disagree that it applies?
Well, of course, I can't. It's a convention.
But, it should: both the DUP and Conservatives were elected on very, very similar platforms relating to Brexit, and they have an absolute majority in the House of Commons.
The Salisbury convention can be by-passed by threatening to appoint 100s of new peers, just as it was threatened in 1910.
I don't think Her Majesty would appoint 100s of new peers in these circumstances.
Well, it took some arm twisting in 1910 but they got the promise out of the King in the end.
Nah. A false equivalence is always drawn between the Conservatives and Corbyn's Labour for those that hate Brexit, but it's rubbish.
For one thing, picture this: if the EU bill is a huge £50bn one-off fee for Brexit, Corbyn wants to borrow that amount each year, *every year*, on top of what we currently borrow at the moment. With no plan to cover it or even begin to consolidate the deficit.
The Conservatives are fiscally sane, understand macroeconomics, and are entirely pragmatic on national security and defence. As their manifesto made clear.
Corbyn's Labour is neither.
on the extrication process (at a time when Britain's finances remain shaky) for no obvious advantage and the huge opportunity cost that genuinely important issues will go ignored for the duration.
It's a national disaster.
And, yet, you yourself believed there was a pragmatic route for Brexit and once considered voting for it.
I don't want any of the negative things you describe any more than you do. But I think your anger at how you think it's panning out obscures the nuances in the real argument.
A pragmatic route required years of careful planning and a tolerant open tone to the debate. Instead Britain has a clueless planless government that wants to crush saboteurs, hates citizens of the world and has to implement a version of Brexit that was secured by pandering to xenophobia.
There is no nuance. It's a national disaster.
Of course it's a national disaster but if the electorate votes for a national disaster what can the politicians do but deliver it?
There are those of us who thought that in a modern parliamentary democracy the elected representatives would choose the route they thought best for the country but when I have raised this point here I am pretty soon reminded that Parliament agreed to be bound by the referendum result.
So there you go. F*cked, mate.
Oh it has to be delivered, and consistently with how the victory was secured.
I expect that in generations to come the referendum result will be looked at as the moment when Britain's glissando really started.
People have been saying that about Britain since about the 1880s:
Morning all, from sunny Kiev. A very perceptive article from David as usual, I think he's right that the public in general are going to get fed up of all the Brexit stuff - the vote was a year ago and they want the politicians to just get on with it.
I think that a common reaction, but actually the politicians are getting on with it. Indeed the Queens Speech contains nothing else. The idea that such major and all encompassing change can happen overnight is delusional.
I agree with that, the politicians and government are indeed doing almost nothing else.
I
Government
I certainly wouldn't describe myself as being a Leadsom, although maybe a Hannan on a good day. The Royal Colleges and the DoH have clearly got this on their radar (so to speak!), and the tabloid hysteria and scaremongering adds way more heat than light to the debate.
The general public will be wondering how the rest of the world's hospitals manage to cope perfectly well outside Euratom.
One of the biggest challenges we face is the urgent need to recreate institutional frameworks (such as new regulatory bodies) for managing regulations across a wide variety of fields, that are currently dealt with through the EU. Otherwise we will reach the A50 date and be unable to answer basic questions about how to get things regulated or certified, and all the legislation freshly copied into UK law will be unworkable since it won't have the mechanisms in place to make it all work.
You might think this is an obvious point, but it isn't one I have heard anyone on government talking about.
Yes, that's a fair point.
Also, you have the associated institutional infrastructure, recruitment, training as well as some actual physical infrastructure for things like more sophisticated customs posts.
This is why, at the end of the day, I think a 3-4 year transition period is essential. We will need the time to programme manage a portfolio of complex public sector projects to get us match-fit for Brexit.
Hint to Government: I am a skilled programme manager!
A transitional period also solves the money problem. The problem is that even a time limited EEA agreement has been ruled out as a "betrayal".
Just for the record the Great Repeal Bill is deeply flawed and for exactly the reasons the Nationalists and many others are saying. It should be an opportunity top strengthen localism and devolution but instead is being used as a power grab completely unrelated to Brexit. It would not have been beyond the wit of those drafting it to ensure powers were devolved in a reasonable manner and would have ahead no effect on the overall Brexit at all. Instead they have got greedy.
Politicians in London think more powers should be in the hands of politicians in London shocker.
Just for the record the Great Repeal Bill is deeply flawed and for exactly the reasons the Nationalists and many others are saying. It should be an opportunity top strengthen localism and devolution but instead is being used as a power grab completely unrelated to Brexit. It would not have been beyond the wit of those drafting it to ensure powers were devolved in a reasonable manner and would have ahead no effect on the overall Brexit at all. Instead they have got greedy.
Indeed, I said to JohnO on Thursday would you be happy with Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell being given these powers?
If it isn't good enough for those two, then it isn't good enough for any government.
We are the good guys. We must show people we are, not assume they'll work it out for themselves.
Just for the record the Great Repeal Bill is deeply flawed and for exactly the reasons the Nationalists and many others are saying. It should be an opportunity top strengthen localism and devolution but instead is being used as a power grab completely unrelated to Brexit. It would not have been beyond the wit of those drafting it to ensure powers were devolved in a reasonable manner and would have ahead no effect on the overall Brexit at all. Instead they have got greedy.
Politicians in London think more powers should be in the hands of politicians in London shocker.
In times of crisis it is normally best to take power to the centre so decisions can be taken swiftly and decisively.
"Debt servicing costs have become more sensitive to changes in the effective interest rate and more exposed to inflation." [compared to 2007-8 - the last crisis]
It would be interesting to see an OBR model of what Labour's manifesto commitments would do to all this.
There's a lot more floating rate and indexed linked debt out there that there used to be. While interest rates and inflation are low, this is a positive. But it also means that interest payments will rise if and when inflation rises.
The US overtook the U.K. in terms of total GDP at the end of the 19th century, and Germany started outperforming in several manufacturing measures.
It's been relative decline since then, but we have done a great job of evolving beyond industrialisation and empire.
Until Brexit.
Brexit is part of that process and will help slow relative decline. The EU thinks it can challenge the US and China (and India) by becoming a superpower. It can't and it will lose. We need to find a new path - our own evolutionary niche - rather than continually trying to emulate the dinosaurs.
Can we name the two face posters who took the P out of May meeting Trump and now saying how wonderful it is that Macron meeting Trump.
These posters have lost the plot.
The difference is subtle but important. Macron extended an invitation to Trump as arguably the most powerful leader of all the countries in the EU. He didn't need Trump. His electors knew Trump was a buffoon. Macron invited him from a position of strength.
May by contrast looked desperate. She was Billie no-mates. She couldn't have hidden her desperation if she'd wanted to. She and consequently the UK were humiliated. I felt for her like I felt for George Galloway on Big Brother
Exactly. Macron first showed his electorate and the world that he was willing and able to act, speak and think independently of Trump. May didn't. She tied herself to him. It was an appalling misjudgement. One of many she has made in the last year.
LOL. I love the way Lefties have to tie themselves in knots to explain away two people doing exactly the same thing when one is supposed to be good and the other evil. You really do make yourselves look ridiculous.
LOL - I love the way righties seek to tie two very different approaches together so they can have a pop at lefties.
The approaches are identical. It is only you and your fellow travellers who are trying to twist things.
LOL how the debate is now about who distorts the debate most.
Just for the record the Great Repeal Bill is deeply flawed and for exactly the reasons the Nationalists and many others are saying. It should be an opportunity top strengthen localism and devolution but instead is being used as a power grab completely unrelated to Brexit. It would not have been beyond the wit of those drafting it to ensure powers were devolved in a reasonable manner and would have ahead no effect on the overall Brexit at all. Instead they have got greedy.
Politicians in London think more powers should be in the hands of politicians in London shocker.
In times of crisis it is normally best to take power to the centre so decisions can be taken swiftly and decisively.
I've always been of the view that there's no government like no government.
It looks good to me - something we can all be relieved about and grateful for even 75 years on.
I very much liked Mrs Miniver, which is unfahionably patriotic and sentimental (and occasionally American, since that was the target audience) about the same period. I'm not a fan of routine patriotism, as you'll have gathered, but there are moments when we remember that we all have a lot in common.
Just for the record the Great Repeal Bill is deeply flawed and for exactly the reasons the Nationalists and many others are saying. It should be an opportunity top strengthen localism and devolution but instead is being used as a power grab completely unrelated to Brexit. It would not have been beyond the wit of those drafting it to ensure powers were devolved in a reasonable manner and would have ahead no effect on the overall Brexit at all. Instead they have got greedy.
Politicians in London think more powers should be in the hands of politicians in London shocker.
In times of crisis it is normally best to take power to the centre so decisions can be taken swiftly and decisively.
Brexit: A view from Germany. The EU will be the only loser if it plays games over Britain's departure
Markus Krall: “The EU’s negotiators are approaching the Brexit talks like a game of chicken. As far as they are concerned, the one who first blinks will lose. “
Good luck and have a great day to anynPBers going to Silverstone, Trent Bridge, Wimbledon, Fairford, Beaulieu or one of the many other events on today around the country - I do miss England in the summer sometimes.
I won't be keeping up with any of the events either, as today's Mrs Sandpit's birthday so more important things take priority!
Just getting on with it is not an option. The best choice for our economy and for living standards involves creating a huge split in the Conservative party. And, as we know, the Tories always put party before country (and, of course, self before party).
No, it doesn't.
Corbyn's Labour would be an absolute, utter disaster.
May's Conservatives are already an absolute, utter disaster.
The choice is between strychnine and cyanide.
Nah. A false equivalence is always drawn between the Conservatives and Corbyn's Labour for those that hate Brexit, but it's rubbish.
For one thing, picture this: if the EU bill is a huge £50bn one-off fee for Brexit, Corbyn wants to borrow that amount each year, *every year*, on top of what we currently borrow at the moment. With no plan to cover it or even begin to consolidate the deficit.
The Conservatives are fiscally sane, understand macroeconomics, and are entirely pragmatic on national security and defence. As their manifesto made clear.
Corbyn's Labour is neither.
There is nothing pragmatic about Brexit. It's the insane and unshakeable belief by obsessives that spending years consumed with a matter of second order importance will somehow lead Britain to Shangri La. Apparently it's worth trashing Britain's previous reputation as a tolerant outward-looking nation, incinerating its international influence, alienating anyone who believes otherwise and blowing huge sums of money on the extrication process (at a time when Britain's finances remain shaky) for no obvious advantage and the huge opportunity cost that genuinely important issues will go ignored for the duration.
Nah. A false equivalence is always drawn between the Conservatives and Corbyn's Labour for those that hate Brexit, but it's rubbish.
The Conservatives are fiscally sane, understand macroeconomics, and are entirely pragmatic on national security and defence. As their manifesto made clear.
Corbyn's Labour is neither.
It's a national disaster.
And, yet, you yourself believed there was a pragmatic route for Brexit and once considered voting for it.
I don't want any of the negative things you describe any more than you do. But I think your anger at how you think it's panning out obscures the nuances in the real argument.
A pragmatic route required years of careful planning and a tolerant open tone to the debate. Instead Britain has a clueless planless government that wants to crush saboteurs, hates citizens of the world and has to implement a version of Brexit that was secured by pandering to xenophobia.
There is no nuance. It's a national disaster.
Of course it's a national disaster but if the electorate votes for a national disaster what can the politicians do but deliver it?
So there you go. F*cked, mate.
Oh it has to be delivered, and consistently with how the victory was secured.
I expect that in generations to come the referendum result will be looked at as the moment when Britain's glissando really started.
People have been saying that about Britain since about the 1880s:
And Britain has been in relative decline since then. The path has so far been fairly gentle. From now on, it may well become much steeper, more like Argentina's over the last century.
How are we measuring decline?
Immigrants still risking their lives to get here is one measure.
Good luck to Old King Cole for the forthcoming radiotherapy - never nice, but much better than it used to be.
On topic, interesting as usual from David, and the Blair article is worth a read too. I think he's right that people recoiled from what they saw as a hard Tory manifesto, and coupled with Corbyn's energising of the young it produced the result we know. Like David, though, I think that Labour's party interest at present is tactical agnosticism: there will come a time for principlied stands which alienate some voters, but we're not in government and there's no real reason for it right now. Incidentally, I think the Apocalypse is still going too much by the Corbynistas she happens to know - we're a mixed bunch like all movements, but plenty of us are well able to see the value in centrist arguments without buying the whole package.
My understanding of the EU is that they are indeed willing to offer various compromises. Their approach to negotiations is always tough bargaining, crises, midnight talks, and ultimate fudged deals, but they are not intrinsically averse to compromise, quite the reverse. At present, however, they see no point in offering anything, since they feel with some exasperation that Britain doesn't actually know what it wants, and scarcely a day goes by without one Cabinet Minister contadicting another. They would prefer a Hard Brexit stance or a Soft Brexit stance or indeed ANY stance to a negotiating partner seemingly preoccupied with talking to itself and evidently unsure whether it even wants to have its current leader or someone quite different.
Blair is right that the centre has largely run out of ideas and needs to rethink itself.
But he misses the fact that the left have been doing a lot of thinking and have been open to new ideas. Organizations like the New Economics Foundation, Tax Justice Network, are grappling with modern world but free of the ideological third way baggage Blair brings where we have to be careful not to offend big business or they will stop selling us iPhones, coffee, medicines, mortgages etc.
For instance, Adair Turner's book is a fundamental challenge to how banks work in our economy. Corbyn and his team have engaged with that and been open to breaking taboos around monetary finance.
Off topic, I did an Opinium survey earlier this week. It's not been published, so perhaps there's a party out there privately testing the waters - presumably the Tories. Or maybe it's still to come - as usual it was combined with questions about advertising placards (have you seen this forgettable billboard about Carling beer? etc.) and other stuff which no doubt reflects their other clients.
Comments
So we voted out so what't does that mean ?
Corbyn's Labour would be an absolute, utter disaster.
My trust in him is zero.
The choice is between strychnine and cyanide.
Still, I'm sure we can trust Blair on his secret reports. He's a proven expert negotiator when it comes to the EU. Ahem.
Wrong post after wrong post from you this morning.
Go and have a think, and a lie down.
More generally, yes I think leaving the EU will make the UK much more peripheral and significantly reduce our soft power.
Raikkonen is 3.25-3.35 to get a podium. In a race where Bottas and Ricciardo both have penalties, that looks pretty tempting.
Also, you have the associated institutional infrastructure, recruitment, training as well as some actual physical infrastructure for things like more sophisticated customs posts.
This is why, at the end of the day, I think a 3-4 year transition period is essential. We will need the time to programme manage a portfolio of complex public sector projects to get us match-fit for Brexit.
Hint to Government: I am a skilled programme manager!
(AFAIK, the grid penalties are applied when assessing positions for qualifying bets.)
For one thing, picture this: if the EU bill is a huge £50bn one-off fee for Brexit, Corbyn wants to borrow that amount each year, *every year*, on top of what we currently borrow at the moment. With no plan to cover it or even begin to consolidate the deficit.
The Conservatives are fiscally sane, understand macroeconomics, and are entirely pragmatic on national security and defence. As their manifesto made clear.
Corbyn's Labour is neither.
Weirdly, after being 3rd fastest in P2, Raikkonen's odds lengthened to 34, from 26.
But, it should: both the DUP and Conservatives were elected on very, very similar platforms relating to Brexit, and they have an absolute majority in the House of Commons.
We are going through a period of uncertainty (and low influence) now because we are resetting all our major trading and economic relationships.
But it will settle down again, and our strong fundamentals won't have changed.
Curiously, though, you have a whole swathe of wealthy seats, which the Conservatives had either lost to the Lib Dems, or where the latter were very competitive, which are firmly back in Conservative hands. What makes wealthy voters in Harrogate, Solihull, Guildford or Cheadle behave differently from wealthy voters in Kensington, Battersea, Birmingham Edgbaston, or Twickenham?
May did address the Republicans.
May did say that together the US and UK will lead the world.
May did offer Trump a full state visit in his first year of office.
She makes clear the importance of the UN, NATO, and defends the nuclear deal with Iran.
http://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-says-donald-trumps-lewd-remarks-about-women-unacceptable-10722058
She criticised Trump's comments about women before meeting him.
That is not "prostrating at Trump's feet".
May by contrast looked desperate. She was Billie no-mates. She couldn't have hidden her desperation if she'd wanted to. She and consequently the UK were humiliated. I felt for her like I felt for George Galloway on Big Brother
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJrWFoq2GIQ
To be honest, I'd have thought Guildford, Winchester and Cheadle could quite easily come under threat from the Liberal Democrats again, as Cheltenham nearly did this time.
You have to manipulate his ego if you want to get something out of him.
It's a national disaster.
But it was hardly prostrating at Trump's feet. It was taking advantage of an opportunity, and seeking to influence him. I think the speech has aged well, Trump is now committed to NATO and working with UK interests.
You influence from the inside as well as the outside.
Blair did almost precisely the same thing with George W Bush.
I don't want any of the negative things you describe any more than you do. But I think your anger at how you think it's panning out obscures the nuances in the real argument.
Are Britons so surprised that we are at the back of the queue of American interests? If only we had been warned...
Mrs May has given assurances on workers' rights but she gave similar assurances, on at least half a dozen occasions, that she would not call an election.She also changed her party's manifesto 3 days after it was announced but, on the issue of social care,she asserted not once but twice that "nothing has changed",another huge porky.The end of result of this is that she is untrustworthy,the public can see it,the EU can see it,the world has seen it.You cannot trust a word she says.
The Beecroft Report revealed the Tories' true hedge-fund agenda and their paymasters will ensure they carry them out.
On topic, interesting as usual from David, and the Blair article is worth a read too. I think he's right that people recoiled from what they saw as a hard Tory manifesto, and coupled with Corbyn's energising of the young it produced the result we know. Like David, though, I think that Labour's party interest at present is tactical agnosticism: there will come a time for principlied stands which alienate some voters, but we're not in government and there's no real reason for it right now. Incidentally, I think the Apocalypse is still going too much by the Corbynistas she happens to know - we're a mixed bunch like all movements, but plenty of us are well able to see the value in centrist arguments without buying the whole package.
My understanding of the EU is that they are indeed willing to offer various compromises. Their approach to negotiations is always tough bargaining, crises, midnight talks, and ultimate fudged deals, but they are not intrinsically averse to compromise, quite the reverse. At present, however, they see no point in offering anything, since they feel with some exasperation that Britain doesn't actually know what it wants, and scarcely a day goes by without one Cabinet Minister contadicting another. They would prefer a Hard Brexit stance or a Soft Brexit stance or indeed ANY stance to a negotiating partner seemingly preoccupied with talking to itself and evidently unsure whether it even wants to have its current leader or someone quite different.
There is no nuance. It's a national disaster.
http://cdn.budgetresponsibility.org.uk/July_2017_Fiscal_risks.pdf
An interesting side effect of the BoE QE that I hadn't realised is that the government is paying less in debt repayments on gilts than it would have.
"Conventional gilts held by the APF: The cost of servicing conventional gilts has been partly offset by the Bank of England’s quantitative easing programme. The Bank’s Asset Purchase Facility (APF) has bought just over a third of the outstanding stock of conventional gilts, £371 billion at the end of 2016-17,2 financed by creating electronic reserves that are held by financial institutions and on which it pays Bank Rate. Bank Rate averaged 0.4 per cent in 2016-17, so the Government in effect paid that rate on the conventional gilts held by the APF, saving it over £10 billion. When Bank Rate changes, the interest paid on outstanding reserves changes in line, so that the effective interest rate on the stock adjusts immediately rather than with a lag."
There are those of us who thought that in a modern parliamentary democracy the elected representatives would choose the route they thought best for the country but when I have raised this point here I am pretty soon reminded that Parliament agreed to be bound by the referendum result.
So there you go. F*cked, mate.
"Debt servicing costs have become more sensitive to changes in the effective interest rate and more exposed to inflation." [compared to 2007-8 - the last crisis]
It would be interesting to see an OBR model of what Labour's manifesto commitments would do to all this.
But, I agree, I would prefer a more tolerant open tone to the debate.
But it was Britain's choice to not implement as much restrictions on people (Rather than Labour such as Belgium), have a largely non contributory benefits system and allow the early FoM of many (new) EU countries as well as paying lip service to volumes and promises on non EU migration.
None of that was to do with the EU.
I expect that in generations to come the referendum result will be looked at as the moment when Britain's glissando really started.
Edit: and it stayed Labour.
Yes, I am boring everyone I know about it. But I am bloody excited:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7O7BtBnsG4&spfreload=5
Now he is banging on about stopping Brexit - I really don't see any appetite for that except for a small minority in the country. He thinks the French and Germans will compromise on freedom of movement... Well for a start they don't get to dictate something that fundamental to the rest of the EU?
The idea of the EU meeting us halfway and us staying in seems impossible to implement on any reasonable timescale.
If it isn't good enough for those two, then it isn't good enough for any government.
A better answer is: how do Conservatives argue the positive case for Conservative values in the 21st Century, and intellectually defeat socialism again?
We are the good guys. We must show people we are, not assume they'll work it out for themselves.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/brexit-repeal-bill-the-power-grab-row-explained-1-4504717
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/07/the-myth-of-britains-decline/
Is this a reason to stop Brexit? Of course not. But it is disappointing that the Tories have proved themselves so parochial (in the narrow minded sense) when it comes to the distribution of power across the nation.
Did you really Vote Leave to give even more control to the executive?
We can't control the former, we can largely control the latter.
The US overtook the U.K. in terms of total GDP at the end of the 19th century, and Germany started outperforming in several manufacturing measures.
It's been relative decline since then, but we have done a great job of evolving beyond industrialisation and empire.
Until Brexit.
https://twitter.com/paul1kirby/status/886157043173871616
In times of crisis it is normally best to take power to the centre so decisions can be taken swiftly and decisively.
I very much liked Mrs Miniver, which is unfahionably patriotic and sentimental (and occasionally American, since that was the target audience) about the same period. I'm not a fan of routine patriotism, as you'll have gathered, but there are moments when we remember that we all have a lot in common.
Page 5 shows that the highest growth in disposible incomes in the last decade is for the bottom fifth of earners.
Which is not what I would have expected.
Markus Krall: “The EU’s negotiators are approaching the Brexit talks like a game of chicken. As far as they are concerned, the one who first blinks will lose. “
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/07/a-view-from-germany/
Much of this rings true. "Europe's" opinions about Brexit are not necessarily those of the Brussels apparatchiks.
How are we measuring decline?
Immigrants still risking their lives to get here is one measure.
But he misses the fact that the left have been doing a lot of thinking and have been open to new ideas. Organizations like the New Economics Foundation, Tax Justice Network, are grappling with modern world but free of the ideological third way baggage Blair brings where we have to be careful not to offend big business or they will stop selling us iPhones, coffee, medicines, mortgages etc.
For instance, Adair Turner's book is a fundamental challenge to how banks work in our economy. Corbyn and his team have engaged with that and been open to breaking taboos around monetary finance.