If we used the Single Transferable vote, it's likely that on current vote shares, parties like the Lib Dems, Greens, and UKIP would win far below a proportionate share of the seats, because they'd be polling well below a quota in most multi-member constituencies.
Conversely, the Conservatives and Labour would both win more than a proportionate share.
Off topic, I've tried for many a year, but the only decent thing I can find about Doctor Who is the theme music, which is innovative, distinctive, and appropriate.
I think the drama itself is utter dross. Yet over 800 episodes have been made, and it's being going for over 5 decades, so I must be wrong on some fundamental level.
For me, Brexit will not determine the next GE. Whatever the impact on the country, leavers will claim it would have been worse had we stayed in, and remainers will claim it would have been better. Both sides will say they have been vidicated; net result: broadly neutral.
Rather, I believe that unless there is a sea-change in government policy (unlikely), rising inequality will make it difficult for the Tories to win next time.
Today's Guardian opinion provides a very clear summary of how the very richest in our country have protected and ehanced their position at the expense of the rest since the crash.
"While the rest of society have shared in an equality of misery following the crash, the top 1% – households with incomes of £275,000 – have now recovered all the ground they lost during the world’s worst post-second world war slump. The share of income going to the very richest is now 8.5%. That’s double their share in 1985. The question has to be asked: has the value of the 1% in society doubled in the last 20 years? "
It's somewhat misleading to portray 99% sharing an "equality of misery". There's a big difference between being in the top 20% or top 40%, and being in the bottom 20%.
Globalisation tends to reduce inequalities between countries, and increase them within them.
We have two problems: (1) The West is no longer economic top-dog, and so we can no longer kick-back, relax and assume our quality of life will improve automatically year-on-year as we did from c.1750 to c.2000 (2) there is a small but significant cadre of very, very wealthy, very mobile, people who are able to live and reside anywhere (the 1%) who massively skew the figures, and aren't particularly bothered what others think of them.
But are extremely frustrating, but Socialism provides answers to neither and there are fewer people in absolute poverty, worldwide, than ever before.
If we used the Single Transferable vote, it's likely that on current vote shares, parties like the Lib Dems, Greens, and UKIP would win far below a proportionate share of the seats, because they'd be polling well below a quota in most multi-member constituencies.
Conversely, the Conservatives and Labour would both win more than a proportionate share.
But i belive voting patterns would change as there would be less wasted votes. It alos allows the voter to order preference to put anyone above their least worst option.
Mr. Royale, but which version of the theme do you like?
I like Old Who, mostly. New Who... not so much. Has its moments (Blink is great), but too much deus ex machina, sonic screwdriver fixing everything or emotions meaning the Doctor wins.
Speaking of politically correct things, in Twitterland (I've stopped responded, grew bored with the madness) on a thread about people specifically avoiding male authors, someone has 'tears of laughter' that I'm alienating potential readers [I sinfully said discrimination based on gender was wrong].
So... they're going to double not-read my books? Oh noes! I've alienated the 'will not read books by men' demographic
[I apologise for the off-topic nature, but that's just so bloody off the wall I thought it worth mentioning].
If we used the Single Transferable vote, it's likely that on current vote shares, parties like the Lib Dems, Greens, and UKIP would win far below a proportionate share of the seats, because they'd be polling well below a quota in most multi-member constituencies.
Conversely, the Conservatives and Labour would both win more than a proportionate share.
But i belive voting patterns would change as there would be less wasted votes. It alos allows the voter to order preference to put anyone above their least worst option.
I like multi member STV, particularly the fact independents can have a good chance of getting in.
Who would make best Prime Minister? May lead: OA: +5 ABC!: +3 C2DE: +8
Much of Corbyn's support would collapse as soon as our debtors called it in (which could be anything from 6 months to 3 years post his election) because an awful lot of Corbynism is predicated on middle class, and not working class, support.
Those who earn in the £20-£70k bracket, and own homes and property would - given his Marxist philosophy - be full square in his bullseye for extra taxation over cuts sooner or later, whether they like it or not.
If we used the Single Transferable vote, it's likely that on current vote shares, parties like the Lib Dems, Greens, and UKIP would win far below a proportionate share of the seats, because they'd be polling well below a quota in most multi-member constituencies.
Conversely, the Conservatives and Labour would both win more than a proportionate share.
But i belive voting patterns would change as there would be less wasted votes. It alos allows the voter to order preference to put anyone above their least worst option.
I like multi member STV, particularly the fact independents can have a good chance of getting in.
And allows you to vote for people of different parties rather than the party ticket
(1) If some of his support was predicated on stopping Brexit in GE2017, how much of that will still be there once it's happened and is history in 5 years time? (2) If Brexit is the disaster some believe it will be, then how much appetite will there be to embark on a socialist experiment in GE2022, if, by then, the Tories are offering a truly dull but stable option to clear it all up under a new leader?
Two thoughts for the Tories:
(1) Don't lose your cool, give up, and re-earn a reputation for internal division - let Labour own that (2) Manage out all economic disruption by GE2022 to aid your pitch, and don't panic too much: you have the votes to last the term in this Parliament, if skilfully played
Davis committed his own Brexit blunder the day Article 50 was triggered in March, according to EU and British officials, when he placed a call to Timo Soini, Finland’s foreign minister and a critic of the EU. Having been told he was speaking to Soini, Davis announced down the phone in enthusiastic terms that Brexit had begun, and that he needed the Finn’s support to secure a good deal from the EU. Only when he heard the voice at the other end of the line did Davis realize he was in fact speaking to Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator. It was the second time the two men had spoken since Davis was given the job.
BBC R4's "Dead Ringers" did what I thought was a parody of Davis - the "Brexit Bulldog", however it seems more and more likely that they were simply reporting what is said at the negotiating table.
Off topic, I've tried for many a year, but the only decent thing I can find about Doctor Who is the theme music, which is innovative, distinctive, and appropriate.
I think the drama itself is utter dross. Yet over 800 episodes have been made, and it's being going for over 5 decades, so I must be wrong on some fundamental level.
Why do you doubt yourself?
Thousands of soap opera episodes have been made in those same 5 decades and they all remain unwatched by me. And yet on some fundamental level I know that I am right.
Davis committed his own Brexit blunder the day Article 50 was triggered in March, according to EU and British officials, when he placed a call to Timo Soini, Finland’s foreign minister and a critic of the EU. Having been told he was speaking to Soini, Davis announced down the phone in enthusiastic terms that Brexit had begun, and that he needed the Finn’s support to secure a good deal from the EU. Only when he heard the voice at the other end of the line did Davis realize he was in fact speaking to Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator. It was the second time the two men had spoken since Davis was given the job.
So David Davis asked to be put through to somebody, was told he was speaking to them, and then made the assumption he was indeed speaking to them, before realising he wasn't speaking to them when they actually spoke? How exactly is this a blunder on his part?
It's very clear there is a serious agenda at work from certain civil servants, diplomats and media outlets in these anecdotes. And on these anecdotes alone we are supposed to believe Brexit has already proved to be a disaster.
Off topic, I've tried for many a year, but the only decent thing I can find about Doctor Who is the theme music, which is innovative, distinctive, and appropriate.
I think the drama itself is utter dross. Yet over 800 episodes have been made, and it's being going for over 5 decades, so I must be wrong on some fundamental level.
Why do you doubt yourself?
Thousands of soap opera episodes have been made in those same 5 decades and they all remain unwatched by me. And yet on some fundamental level I know that I am right.
FWIW, I think people are reading far too much into who had files on the desk in a PR picture of the negotiations, and who didn't, and how long Davis stayed, or did not.
Google "how brexit should be done" to see it outside the paywall.
It is a good article that I in particular recommend Leavers should read, who think things aren't turning out the way they hoped.
I think the EU are doing as a good as job as they can on their immediate objectives (orderly exit and the inevitable damage of Brexit to fall on the UK rather than them). The UK hasn't articulated its objective, but the main one should be continuity. We want things to carry on in the same way out of membership as we obtained through membership. Out of membership arrangements for the UK are a hard sell to make to the EU, given they need to shore up their operation and so boost the value of membership. However it is something the EU need to address given we are not going back into the EU and they will want us on their side. It's coming up with carefully calibrated offer to the UK that is sufficiently costly and poor value that membership is always the better option, but not such bad value no-one would take it.
It is very good indeed. The grown-up approach it proposes would bring on board a lot of very worried Remain voters who recognise the result and the fact that it must be respected, but who see a government making a complete hash of the departure process.
I'd also add one other point: we should make clear that there is no demand that the EU27 could make that would lead to us to quit the negotiating table. We reserve the right to reject proposals, but we are absolutely committed to finding solutions to all impasses at every stage. If the EU27 wish to walk away that is a matter for them and something that each member state government will then have to justify to its voters.
The approach reveals its true agenda in its closing paragraphs. It wants to drag out the negotiating approach for as long as possible, to negotiate a system that re-establishes EU membership in all but name, and then, if/when the opportunity arises, re-establish EU membership in name too.
"The BBC will offer protection to stars who receive online abuse and threats when their salaries are published this week.
The corporation’s bosses are braced for attacks on presenters and other high paid ‘talent’ when the list of stars earning £150,000 or more is made public.
A BBC source said: “People are extremely worried about safety, not only for themselves but also their families. There is a worry they will receive a torrent of abuse online.”
Why would anyone abuse them unless they were being grossly overpaid? Ahh I see now. Time to raise the licence tax anyone?
I notice a trend like fake news...Now it is all about "abuse". While it is undoubted that abuse of politicians happens, what they really mean is harsh criticism, like diane abbott performance during the GE campaign.
trump won due to fake news, now get caught with a PR nightmare and cry potential for being abused.
FWIW, I think people are reading far too much into who had files on the desk in a PR picture of the negotiations, and who didn't, and how long Davis stayed, or did not.
One would expect that almost all the detail of negotiation will happen well below the Barnier/Davis level.
In any well oiled negotiation, the only time the top people need to meet is at the end for the signatures and the hand shakes.
(1) If some of his support was predicated on stopping Brexit in GE2017, how much of that will still be there once it's happened and is history in 5 years time? (2) If Brexit is the disaster some believe it will be, then how much appetite will there be to embark on a socialist experiment in GE2022, if, by then, the Tories are offering a truly dull but stable option to clear it all up under a new leader?
Two thoughts for the Tories:
(1) Don't lose your cool, give up, and re-earn a reputation for internal division - let Labour own that (2) Manage out all economic disruption by GE2022 to aid your pitch, and don't panic too much: you have the votes to last the term in this Parliament, if skilfully played
1. Personally I'm not convinced Brexit was a major factor in Labours better than expected performance. 2. Doubt the next election will be in 2022 - my money is on 2019. 3. If Brexit is a disaster, I doubt people will be keen on getting the implementers of that disaster to clear it up. Whoever the new leader is will be linked to Brexit.
FWIW, I think people are reading far too much into who had files on the desk in a PR picture of the negotiations, and who didn't, and how long Davis stayed, or did not.
One would expect that almost all the detail of negotiation will happen well below the Barnier/Davis level.
In any well oiled negotiation, the only time the top people need to meet is at the end for the signatures and the hand shakes.
Precisely. It's the same in my line of business as well.
Cutting the ribbon, or getting official sign-off, on the decision hogs all the limelight, but there's weeks of hard work amongst the minions leading up to it.
(1) If some of his support was predicated on stopping Brexit in GE2017, how much of that will still be there once it's happened and is history in 5 years time? (2) If Brexit is the disaster some believe it will be, then how much appetite will there be to embark on a socialist experiment in GE2022, if, by then, the Tories are offering a truly dull but stable option to clear it all up under a new leader?
Two thoughts for the Tories:
(1) Don't lose your cool, give up, and re-earn a reputation for internal division - let Labour own that (2) Manage out all economic disruption by GE2022 to aid your pitch, and don't panic too much: you have the votes to last the term in this Parliament, if skilfully played
1. Personally I'm not convinced Brexit was a major factor in Labours better than expected performance. 2. Doubt the next election will be in 2022 - my money is on 2019. 3. If Brexit is a disaster, I doubt people will be keen on getting the implementers of that disaster to clear it up. Whoever the new leader is will be linked to Brexit.
Fair enough, but I think there's a lot of confirmation bias in your post there.
FWIW, I think people are reading far too much into who had files on the desk in a PR picture of the negotiations, and who didn't, and how long Davis stayed, or did not.
One would expect that almost all the detail of negotiation will happen well below the Barnier/Davis level.
In any well oiled negotiation, the only time the top people need to meet is at the end for the signatures and the hand shakes.
In my (limited) experience you also need to bring in the top people to break log jams. They are the only people with the authority to make big concessions.
Google "how brexit should be done" to see it outside the paywall.
It is a good article that I in particular recommend Leavers should read, who think things aren't turning out the way they hoped.
I think the EU are doing as a good as job as they can on their immediate objectives (orderly exit and the inevitable damage of Brexit to fall on the UK rather than them). The UK hasn't articulated its objective, but the main one should be continuity. We want things to carry on in the same way out of membership as we obtained through membership. Out of membership arrangements for the UK are a hard sell to make to the EU, given they need to shore up their operation and so boost the value of membership. However it is something the EU need to address given we are not going back into the EU and they will want us on their side. It's coming up with carefully calibrated offer to the UK that is sufficiently costly and poor value that membership is always the better option, but not such bad value no-one would take it.
It is very good indeed. The grown-up approach it proposes would bring on board a lot of very worried Remain voters who recognise the result and the fact that it must be respected, but who see a government making a complete hash of the departure process.
I'd also add one other point: we should make clear that there is no demand that the EU27 could make that would lead to us to quit the negotiating table. We reserve the right to reject proposals, but we are absolutely committed to finding solutions to all impasses at every stage. If the EU27 wish to walk away that is a matter for them and something that each member state government will then have to justify to its voters.
The approach reveals its true agenda in its closing paragraphs. It wants to drag out the negotiating approach for as long as possible, to negotiate a system that re-establishes EU membership in all but name, and then, if/when the opportunity arises, re-establish EU membership in name too.
No, it recognises that you cannot get the kind of deal we need in two years - especially given the complete absence of any preparatory work on the UK's side.
FWIW, I think people are reading far too much into who had files on the desk in a PR picture of the negotiations, and who didn't, and how long Davis stayed, or did not.
Journalists and commentators can only talk about the frivolities because they don't know what the substance of the negotiations are.
FWIW, I think people are reading far too much into who had files on the desk in a PR picture of the negotiations, and who didn't, and how long Davis stayed, or did not.
One would expect that almost all the detail of negotiation will happen well below the Barnier/Davis level.
In any well oiled negotiation, the only time the top people need to meet is at the end for the signatures and the hand shakes.
That notion may be accurate but it nonetheless makes a nonsense of Mrs May's election claim that she alone could negotiate a successful Brexit.
FWIW, I think people are reading far too much into who had files on the desk in a PR picture of the negotiations, and who didn't, and how long Davis stayed, or did not.
I am not sure that many people were taking the picture to be a literal truth. It is rather neatly symbolic though.
FWIW, I think people are reading far too much into who had files on the desk in a PR picture of the negotiations, and who didn't, and how long Davis stayed, or did not.
Journalists and commentators can only talk about the frivolities because they don't know what the substance of the negotiations are.
Neither does the government. It is still arguing with itself over how long it would like any transition period to be.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc, which is Latin (or possibly Greek) for we need to update electoral law to cover modern, internet-based campaigning techniques. Now that both the main parties (and maybe the SNP too) have shown they can use the new media, perhaps there might be a consensus on what controls are needed.
FWIW, I think people are reading far too much into who had files on the desk in a PR picture of the negotiations, and who didn't, and how long Davis stayed, or did not.
One would expect that almost all the detail of negotiation will happen well below the Barnier/Davis level.
In any well oiled negotiation, the only time the top people need to meet is at the end for the signatures and the hand shakes.
+1. Literally all Barnier / Davis were they to do was to agree that phase 1 has been finished, sign it off and move on to the next topics....
FWIW, I think people are reading far too much into who had files on the desk in a PR picture of the negotiations, and who didn't, and how long Davis stayed, or did not.
I am not sure that many people were taking the picture to be a literal truth. It is rather neatly symbolic though.
Plenty on here were using it to attack Davis, including yourself.
For me, Brexit will not determine the next GE. Whatever the impact on the country, leavers will claim it would have been worse had we stayed in, and remainers will claim it would have been better. Both sides will say they have been vidicated; net result: broadly neutral.
Rather, I believe that unless there is a sea-change in government policy (unlikely), rising inequality will make it difficult for the Tories to win next time.
Today's Guardian opinion provides a very clear summary of how the very richest in our country have protected and ehanced their position at the expense of the rest since the crash.
"While the rest of society have shared in an equality of misery following the crash, the top 1% – households with incomes of £275,000 – have now recovered all the ground they lost during the world’s worst post-second world war slump. The share of income going to the very richest is now 8.5%. That’s double their share in 1985. The question has to be asked: has the value of the 1% in society doubled in the last 20 years? "
It's somewhat misleading to portray 99% sharing an "equality of misery". There's a big difference between being in the top 20% or top 40%, and being in the bottom 20%.
Indeed - I suspect that the middle and upper middle are the biggest losers overall with tax/NI changes. There is no system in the world which can easily get at the top 1% - and today the BBC has pledged to protect theirs from any 'abuse' they might receive - twas ever thus.
Google "how brexit should be done" to see it outside the paywall.
It is a good article that I in particular recommend Leavers should read, who think things aren't turning out the way they hoped.
I think the EU are doing as a good as job as they can on their immediate objectives (orderly exit and the inevitable damage of Brexit to fall on the UK rather than them). The UK hasn't articulated its objective, but the main one should be continuity. We want things to carry on in the same way out of membership as we obtained through membership. Out of membership arrangements for the UK are a hard sell to make to the EU, given they need to shore up their operation and so boost the value of membership. However it is something the EU need to address given we are not going back into the EU and they will want us on their side. It's coming up with carefully calibrated offer to the UK that is sufficiently costly and poor value that membership is always the better option, but not such bad value no-one would take it.
It is very good indeed. The grown-up approach it proposes would bring on board a lot of very worried Remain voters who recognise the result and the fact that it must be respected, but who see a government making a complete hash of the departure process.
I'd also add one other point: we should make clear that there is no demand that the EU27 could make that would lead to us to quit the negotiating table. We reserve the right to reject proposals, but we are absolutely committed to finding solutions to all impasses at every stage. If the EU27 wish to walk away that is a matter for them and something that each member state government will then have to justify to its voters.
The approach reveals its true agenda in its closing paragraphs. It wants to drag out the negotiating approach for as long as possible, to negotiate a system that re-establishes EU membership in all but name, and then, if/when the opportunity arises, re-establish EU membership in name too.
No, it recognises that you cannot get the kind of deal we need in two years - especially given the complete absence of any preparatory work on the UK's side.
The only deal it wants is to "exorcise" (that's the journalist's own words) the voters' mandate to get out of Brexit.
FWIW, I think people are reading far too much into who had files on the desk in a PR picture of the negotiations, and who didn't, and how long Davis stayed, or did not.
I am not sure that many people were taking the picture to be a literal truth. It is rather neatly symbolic though.
Plenty on here were using it to attack Davis, including yourself.
It probably symbolises very little.
It symbolises a complete lack of preparation and ignorance of how things really work. Two things that Davis can very legitimately be criticised for. With under two years until we leave the EU, the government in which he sits has yet to work out how long it would like any transition period to last or what it should cover. Instead, various ministers are leaking stories designed to damage other ministers.
Who would make best Prime Minister? May lead: OA: +5 ABC!: +3 C2DE: +8
Much of Corbyn's support would collapse as soon as our debtors called it in (which could be anything from 6 months to 3 years post his election) because an awful lot of Corbynism is predicated on middle class, and not working class, support.
Those who earn in the £20-£70k bracket, and own homes and property would - given his Marxist philosophy - be full square in his bullseye for extra taxation over cuts sooner or later, whether they like it or not.
Correct - as this is where most of the £££ s are due to their sheer numbers. There simply aren't enough £100,000 earners to raise the money he needs.
Google "how brexit should be done" to see it outside the paywall.
It is a good article that I in particular recommend Leavers should read, who think things aren't turning out the way they hoped.
I think the EU are doing as a good as job as they can on their immediate objectives (orderly exit and the inevitable damage of Brexit to fall on the UK rather than them). The UK hasn't articulated its objective, but the main one should be continuity. We want things to carry on in the same way out of membership as we obtained through membership. Out of membership arrangements for the UK are a hard sell to make to the EU, given they need to shore up their operation and so boost the value of membership. However it is something the EU need to address given we are not going back into the EU and they will want us on their side. It's coming up with carefully calibrated offer to the UK that is sufficiently costly and poor value that membership is always the better option, but not such bad value no-one would take it.
It is very good indeed. The grown-up approach it proposes would bring on board a lot of very worried Remain voters who recognise the result and the fact that it must be respected, but who see a government making a complete hash of the departure process.
I'd also add one other point: we should make clear that there is no demand that the EU27 could make that would lead to us to quit the negotiating table. We reserve the right to reject proposals, but we are absolutely committed to finding solutions to all impasses at every stage. If the EU27 wish to walk away that is a matter for them and something that each member state government will then have to justify to its voters.
The approach reveals its true agenda in its closing paragraphs. It wants to drag out the negotiating approach for as long as possible, to negotiate a system that re-establishes EU membership in all but name, and then, if/when the opportunity arises, re-establish EU membership in name too.
No, it recognises that you cannot get the kind of deal we need in two years - especially given the complete absence of any preparatory work on the UK's side.
The only deal it wants is to "exorcise" (that's the journalist's own words) the voters' mandate to get out of Brexit.
Strong and stable door bolted. Greening promises more cash for schools 6 weeks late. Odd how the magic money wasn't found during the election campaign.
Davis committed his own Brexit blunder the day Article 50 was triggered in March, according to EU and British officials, when he placed a call to Timo Soini, Finland’s foreign minister and a critic of the EU. Having been told he was speaking to Soini, Davis announced down the phone in enthusiastic terms that Brexit had begun, and that he needed the Finn’s support to secure a good deal from the EU. Only when he heard the voice at the other end of the line did Davis realize he was in fact speaking to Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator. It was the second time the two men had spoken since Davis was given the job.
So David Davis asked to be put through to somebody, was told he was speaking to them, and then made the assumption he was indeed speaking to them, before realising he wasn't speaking to them when they actually spoke? How exactly is this a blunder on his part?
It's very clear there is a serious agenda at work from certain civil servants, diplomats and media outlets in these anecdotes. And on these anecdotes alone we are supposed to believe Brexit has already proved to be a disaster.
Quite - for many in the media and on here any anti-British chicanery is absolutely fair play and the Europeans can do no wrong.
FWIW, I think people are reading far too much into who had files on the desk in a PR picture of the negotiations, and who didn't, and how long Davis stayed, or did not.
I am not sure that many people were taking the picture to be a literal truth. It is rather neatly symbolic though.
No it really isn't - instead it feeds pre-existing prejudices. It's all rather childish.
FWIW, I think people are reading far too much into who had files on the desk in a PR picture of the negotiations, and who didn't, and how long Davis stayed, or did not.
I am not sure that many people were taking the picture to be a literal truth. It is rather neatly symbolic though.
No it really isn't - instead it feeds pre-existing prejudices. It's all rather childish.
The UK is completely unprepared for the Brexit negotiations. The cabinet cannot agree a common position on a point as fundamental as a transition period. Instead, ministers brief against each other and leak stories designed to damage rivals. If you want to talk about childish, best to start there.
Davis committed his own Brexit blunder the day Article 50 was triggered in March, according to EU and British officials, when he placed a call to Timo Soini, Finland’s foreign minister and a critic of the EU. Having been told he was speaking to Soini, Davis announced down the phone in enthusiastic terms that Brexit had begun, and that he needed the Finn’s support to secure a good deal from the EU. Only when he heard the voice at the other end of the line did Davis realize he was in fact speaking to Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator. It was the second time the two men had spoken since Davis was given the job.
So David Davis asked to be put through to somebody, was told he was speaking to them, and then made the assumption he was indeed speaking to them, before realising he wasn't speaking to them when they actually spoke? How exactly is this a blunder on his part?
It's very clear there is a serious agenda at work from certain civil servants, diplomats and media outlets in these anecdotes. And on these anecdotes alone we are supposed to believe Brexit has already proved to be a disaster.
Quite - for many in the media and on here any anti-British chicanery is absolutely fair play and the Europeans can do no wrong.
Presumably the person who Davis asked to place the call for him was one of his advisers, not a dastardly anti-British foreigner.
Crucial for a slow, sustainable, methodical, broadly based and open-minded Brexit is for the referendum “mandate” to stay in place.
But if that mandate is extinguished — “exorcised” may be a better word — then the opportunity disappears. The fear that the mandate will not be there forever explains why many Brexiteers want to get it done as swiftly as possible.
There are at least three ways in which the mandate may be extinguished. There could be a further referendum, or (which would be preferable, if you take parliamentary supremacy seriously) it could be done by the House of Commons reasserting itself, or there could be some significant event that renders the mandate superseded.
It openly says extinguishing the mandate of the referendum should better be described with the word "exorcised". It makes very clear the true intention of the author. Those that actually supported Brexit may want to think twice before embracing his approach of saying the Conservatives have done everything wrong, moving to a system needing EU unanimity and crafting a deal where we still can't control migration, be free of EU law or sign new trade deals.
If the government were ever stupid enough to heed such advice, the first thing Remainers would do is say the Leavers lied about all the benefits of leaving and we may as well rejoin. While making the case for doing so without another referendum, as Green does. It's similar to how Remainers wanted the Conservatives to be open to ideas from other parties and then mocked them from doing so when they did exactly that.
FWIW, I think people are reading far too much into who had files on the desk in a PR picture of the negotiations, and who didn't, and how long Davis stayed, or did not.
I am not sure that many people were taking the picture to be a literal truth. It is rather neatly symbolic though.
No it really isn't - instead it feeds pre-existing prejudices. It's all rather childish.
The UK is completely unprepared for the Brexit negotiations. The cabinet cannot agree a common position on a point as fundamental as a transition period. Instead, ministers brief against each other and leak stories designed to damage rivals. If you want to talk about childish, best to start there.
Genuine question, why do you, Surbiton, FF43, ScottP, williamglenn and others hate this country so much?
Who would make best Prime Minister? May lead: OA: +5 ABC!: +3 C2DE: +8
Much of Corbyn's support would collapse as soon as our debtors called it in (which could be anything from 6 months to 3 years post his election) because an awful lot of Corbynism is predicated on middle class, and not working class, support.
Those who earn in the £20-£70k bracket, and own homes and property would - given his Marxist philosophy - be full square in his bullseye for extra taxation over cuts sooner or later, whether they like it or not.
Correct - as this is where most of the £££ s are due to their sheer numbers. There simply aren't enough £100,000 earners to raise the money he needs.
Davis committed his own Brexit blunder the day Article 50 was triggered in March, according to EU and British officials, when he placed a call to Timo Soini, Finland’s foreign minister and a critic of the EU. Having been told he was speaking to Soini, Davis announced down the phone in enthusiastic terms that Brexit had begun, and that he needed the Finn’s support to secure a good deal from the EU. Only when he heard the voice at the other end of the line did Davis realize he was in fact speaking to Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator. It was the second time the two men had spoken since Davis was given the job.
So David Davis asked to be put through to somebody, was told he was speaking to them, and then made the assumption he was indeed speaking to them, before realising he wasn't speaking to them when they actually spoke? How exactly is this a blunder on his part?
It's very clear there is a serious agenda at work from certain civil servants, diplomats and media outlets in these anecdotes. And on these anecdotes alone we are supposed to believe Brexit has already proved to be a disaster.
Quite - for many in the media and on here any anti-British chicanery is absolutely fair play and the Europeans can do no wrong.
Presumably the person who Davis asked to place the call for him was one of his advisers, not a dastardly anti-British foreigner.
You have no grounds for that presumption at all. If it was the case, I think the clearly anti-British Bloomberg article would have said it explicitly. Yet it conveniently does not describe how the mix up happens.
FWIW, I think people are reading far too much into who had files on the desk in a PR picture of the negotiations, and who didn't, and how long Davis stayed, or did not.
I am not sure that many people were taking the picture to be a literal truth. It is rather neatly symbolic though.
No it really isn't - instead it feeds pre-existing prejudices. It's all rather childish.
The UK is completely unprepared for the Brexit negotiations. The cabinet cannot agree a common position on a point as fundamental as a transition period. Instead, ministers brief against each other and leak stories designed to damage rivals. If you want to talk about childish, best to start there.
Genuine question, why do you, Surbiton, FF43, ScottP, williamglenn and others hate this country so much?
Technologically impressive; but also deeply sinister.
It's about time Conservatives started realising what we're up against with Corbyn and Momentum and started aiming their fire in the right direction. And it's getting to the point where May should sack anyone not doing that.
FWIW, I think people are reading far too much into who had files on the desk in a PR picture of the negotiations, and who didn't, and how long Davis stayed, or did not.
I am not sure that many people were taking the picture to be a literal truth. It is rather neatly symbolic though.
No it really isn't - instead it feeds pre-existing prejudices. It's all rather childish.
The UK is completely unprepared for the Brexit negotiations. The cabinet cannot agree a common position on a point as fundamental as a transition period. Instead, ministers brief against each other and leak stories designed to damage rivals. If you want to talk about childish, best to start there.
Genuine question, why do you, Surbiton, FF43, ScottP, williamglenn and others hate this country so much?
That is not a genuine question.
Re-read all your posts, I think you will find that it is.
FWIW, I think people are reading far too much into who had files on the desk in a PR picture of the negotiations, and who didn't, and how long Davis stayed, or did not.
I am not sure that many people were taking the picture to be a literal truth. It is rather neatly symbolic though.
No it really isn't - instead it feeds pre-existing prejudices. It's all rather childish.
The UK is completely unprepared for the Brexit negotiations. The cabinet cannot agree a common position on a point as fundamental as a transition period. Instead, ministers brief against each other and leak stories designed to damage rivals. If you want to talk about childish, best to start there.
Genuine question, why do you, Surbiton, FF43, ScottP, williamglenn and others hate this country so much?
I’m a Remainer. No I don’t ‘hate’ this country, nor, so far as I can see do any of the posters you mention. We are, however, genuinely worried for the future, a future which was not envisaged until after June 23rd last year. The Cameron Government of which Mrs May was a leading member assumed that the vote would be for Remain and, it would appear, no-one with any seniority had any concept of what might happen, and how the entanglement of the past 45 or so years could be disentangled. I’m an old man; I don’t think the effect on me will be that much but I do worry for my grandchildren.
Crucial for a slow, sustainable, methodical, broadly based and open-minded Brexit is for the referendum “mandate” to stay in place.
But if that mandate is extinguished — “exorcised” may be a better word — then the opportunity disappears. The fear that the mandate will not be there forever explains why many Brexiteers want to get it done as swiftly as possible.
There are at least three ways in which the mandate may be extinguished. There could be a further referendum, or (which would be preferable, if you take parliamentary supremacy seriously) it could be done by the House of Commons reasserting itself, or there could be some significant event that renders the mandate superseded.
It openly says extinguishing the mandate of the referendum should better be described with the word "exorcised". It makes very clear the true intention of the author. Those that actually supported Brexit may want to think twice before embracing his approach of saying the Conservatives have done everything wrong, moving to a system needing EU unanimity and crafting a deal where we still can't control migration, be free of EU law or sign new trade deals.
If the government were ever stupid enough to heed such advice, the first thing Remainers would do is say the Leavers lied about all the benefits of leaving and we may as well rejoin. While making the case for doing so without another referendum, as Green does. It's similar to how Remainers wanted the Conservatives to be open to ideas from other parties and then mocked them from doing so when they did exactly that.
The author is merely pointing out that for many Brexiteers leaving the EU on 29th March 2019 is what matters most. If that means a half-arsed departure that causes immense damage, then so be it. What the author advocates is an approach that may take longer but which will yield more positive results. A badly executed, harmful Brexit will, of course, increase calls for us to rejoin. A successful, well-planned, properly thought-through Brexit will not. And as he also points out: any trade deal with the EU will require unanimous approval from member states.
Presumably the person who Davis asked to place the call for him was one of his advisers, not a dastardly anti-British foreigner.
Here's a prediction I hope doesn't come true.
At some point - the Daily Mail or some such publication will write a story about a fifth column of EU nationals who work as civil servants for the British government.
Crucial for a slow, sustainable, methodical, broadly based and open-minded Brexit is for the referendum “mandate” to stay in place.
But if that mandate is extinguished — “exorcised” may be a better word — then the opportunity disappears. The fear that the mandate will not be there forever explains why many Brexiteers want to get it done as swiftly as possible.
There are at least three ways in which the mandate may be extinguished. There could be a further referendum, or (which would be preferable, if you take parliamentary supremacy seriously) it could be done by the House of Commons reasserting itself, or there could be some significant event that renders the mandate superseded.
It openly says extinguishing the mandate of the referendum should better be described with the word "exorcised". It makes very clear the true intention of the author. Those that actually supported Brexit may want to think twice before embracing his approach of saying the Conservatives have done everything wrong, moving to a system needing EU unanimity and crafting a deal where we still can't control migration, be free of EU law or sign new trade deals.
If the government were ever stupid enough to heed such advice, the first thing Remainers would do is say the Leavers lied about all the benefits of leaving and we may as well rejoin. While making the case for doing so without another referendum, as Green does. It's similar to how Remainers wanted the Conservatives to be open to ideas from other parties and then mocked them from doing so when they did exactly that.
The author is merely pointing out that for many Brexiteers leaving the EU on 29th March 2019 is what matters most. If that means a half-arsed departure that causes immense damage, then so be it. What the author advocates is an approach that may take longer but which will yield more positive results. A badly executed, harmful Brexit will, of course, increase calls for us to rejoin. A successful, well-planned, properly thought-through Brexit will not. And as he also points out: any trade deal with the EU will require unanimous approval from member states.
What matters most is a deal that actually achieves the benefits of leaving the EU. What you and Green both want is to stay in the EU. What you want as a second best option is to stay in the EU in everything but name. You will call anything else that deviates from that a "half-arsed departure". You will call anyone that has any different views at all incompetent and obsessive.
FWIW, I think people are reading far too much into who had files on the desk in a PR picture of the negotiations, and who didn't, and how long Davis stayed, or did not.
I am not sure that many people were taking the picture to be a literal truth. It is rather neatly symbolic though.
No it really isn't - instead it feeds pre-existing prejudices. It's all rather childish.
The UK is completely unprepared for the Brexit negotiations. The cabinet cannot agree a common position on a point as fundamental as a transition period. Instead, ministers brief against each other and leak stories designed to damage rivals. If you want to talk about childish, best to start there.
Genuine question, why do you, Surbiton, FF43, ScottP, williamglenn and others hate this country so much?
I’m a Remainer. No I don’t ‘hate’ this country, nor, so far as I can see do any of the posters you mention. We are, however, genuinely worried for the future, a future which was not envisaged until after June 23rd last year. The Cameron Government of which Mrs May was a leading member assumed that the vote would be for Remain and, it would appear, no-one with any seniority had any concept of what might happen, and how the entanglement of the past 45 or so years could be disentangled. I’m an old man; I don’t think the effect on me will be that much but I do worry for my grandchildren.
I'm 62 next week, I have seven grandchildren.
I voted Leave against my own narrow self interest, but for the sake of my grandchildrens future. If we had stayed in the EU for much longer we would have no country for them to prosper in.
FWIW, I think people are reading far too much into who had files on the desk in a PR picture of the negotiations, and who didn't, and how long Davis stayed, or did not.
I am not sure that many people were taking the picture to be a literal truth. It is rather neatly symbolic though.
No it really isn't - instead it feeds pre-existing prejudices. It's all rather childish.
The UK is completely unprepared for the Brexit negotiations. The cabinet cannot agree a common position on a point as fundamental as a transition period. Instead, ministers brief against each other and leak stories designed to damage rivals. If you want to talk about childish, best to start there.
Genuine question, why do you, Surbiton, FF43, ScottP, williamglenn and others hate this country so much?
That is not a genuine question.
Re-read all your posts, I think you will find that it is.
I was born and raised in the UK, my family and friends live here, I brought my children up here, the business I helped to create - and which employs over 20 people and has a turnover of over £6 million a year - is based here.
I love this country and am totally invested in its future. But I can confirm that I absolutely detest your version of what loving this country entails.
Crucial for a slow, sustainable, methodical, broadly based and open-minded Brexit is for the referendum “mandate” to stay in place.
But if that mandate is extinguished — “exorcised” may be a better word — then the opportunity disappears. The fear that the mandate will not be there forever explains why many Brexiteers want to get it done as swiftly as possible.
There are at least three ways in which the mandate may be extinguished. There could be a further referendum, or (which would be preferable, if you take parliamentary supremacy seriously) it could be done by the House of Commons reasserting itself, or there could be some significant event that renders the mandate superseded.
It openly says extinguishing the mandate of the referendum should better be described with the word "exorcised". It makes very clear the true intention of the author. Those that actually supported Brexit may want to think twice before embracing his approach of saying the Conservatives have done everything wrong, moving to a system needing EU unanimity and crafting a deal where we still can't control migration, be free of EU law or sign new trade deals.
If the government were ever stupid enough to heed such advice, the first thing Remainers would do is say the Leavers lied about all the benefits of leaving and we may as well rejoin. While making the case for doing so without another referendum, as Green does. It's similar to how Remainers wanted the Conservatives to be open to ideas from other parties and then mocked them from doing so when they did exactly that.
The require unanimous approval from member states.
What matters most is a deal that actually achieves the benefits of leaving the EU. What you and Green both want is to stay in the EU. What you want as a second best option is to stay in the EU in everything but name. You will call anything else that deviates from that a "half-arsed departure". You will call anyone that has any different views at all incompetent and obsessive.
Nope - I think we have to leave the EU. But I call a government that has not prepared for Brexit and whose ministers are leaking against each other incompetent. You don't. So be it.
FWIW, I think people are reading far too much into who had files on the desk in a PR picture of the negotiations, and who didn't, and how long Davis stayed, or did not.
I am not sure that many people were taking the picture to be a literal truth. It is rather neatly symbolic though.
No it really isn't - instead it feeds pre-existing prejudices. It's all rather childish.
The UK is completely unprepared for the Brexit negotiations. The cabinet cannot agree a common position on a point as fundamental as a transition period. Instead, ministers brief against each other and leak stories designed to damage rivals. If you want to talk about childish, best to start there.
Genuine question, why do you, Surbiton, FF43, ScottP, williamglenn and others hate this country so much?
That is not a genuine question.
Re-read all your posts, I think you will find that it is.
I was born and raised in the UK, my family and friends live here, I brought my children up here, the business I helped to create - and which employs over 20 people and has a turnover of over £6 million a year - is based here.
I love this country and am totally invested in its future. But I can confirm that I absolutely detest your version of what loving this country entails.
Davis committed his own Brexit blunder the day Article 50 was triggered in March, according to EU and British officials, when he placed a call to Timo Soini, Finland’s foreign minister and a critic of the EU. Having been told he was speaking to Soini, Davis announced down the phone in enthusiastic terms that Brexit had begun, and that he needed the Finn’s support to secure a good deal from the EU. Only when he heard the voice at the other end of the line did Davis realize he was in fact speaking to Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator. It was the second time the two men had spoken since Davis was given the job.
So David Davis asked to be put through to somebody, was told he was speaking to them, and then made the assumption he was indeed speaking to them, before realising he wasn't speaking to them when they actually spoke? How exactly is this a blunder on his part?
It's very clear there is a serious agenda at work from certain civil servants, diplomats and media outlets in these anecdotes. And on these anecdotes alone we are supposed to believe Brexit has already proved to be a disaster.
Quite - for many in the media and on here any anti-British chicanery is absolutely fair play and the Europeans can do no wrong.
Presumably the person who Davis asked to place the call for him was one of his advisers, not a dastardly anti-British foreigner.
You have no grounds for that presumption at all. If it was the case, I think the clearly anti-British Bloomberg article would have said it explicitly. Yet it conveniently does not describe how the mix up happens.
Reporting stories that paint the current government and its ministers in a poor light is not being anti-British. Labelling them as such is, of course.
The require unanimous approval from member states.
What matters most is a deal that actually achieves the benefits of leaving the EU. What you and Green both want is to stay in the EU. What you want as a second best option is to stay in the EU in everything but name. You will call anything else that deviates from that a "half-arsed departure". You will call anyone that has any different views at all incompetent and obsessive.
Nope - I think we have to leave the EU. But I call a government that has not prepared for Brexit and whose ministers are leaking against each other incompetent. You don't. So be it.
From what I've read of your thoughts on here, you want to stay in the Single Market, Freedom of Movement, the Currency Union, the European Arrest Warrant and Euratom. Have I missed any? How would that be any different to European Union full membership?
FWIW, I think people are reading far too much into who had files on the desk in a PR picture of the negotiations, and who didn't, and how long Davis stayed, or did not.
I am not sure that many people were taking the picture to be a literal truth. It is rather neatly symbolic though.
No it really isn't - instead it feeds pre-existing prejudices. It's all rather childish.
The UK is completely unprepared for the Brexit negotiations. The cabinet cannot agree a common position on a point as fundamental as a transition period. Instead, ministers brief against each other and leak stories designed to damage rivals. If you want to talk about childish, best to start there.
Genuine question, why do you, Surbiton, FF43, ScottP, williamglenn and others hate this country so much?
I’m a Remainer. No I don’t ‘hate’ this country, nor, so far as I can see do any of the posters you mention. We are, however, genuinely worried for the future, a future which was not envisaged until after June 23rd last year. The Cameron Government of which Mrs May was a leading member assumed that the vote would be for Remain and, it would appear, no-one with any seniority had any concept of what might happen, and how the entanglement of the past 45 or so years could be disentangled. I’m an old man; I don’t think the effect on me will be that much but I do worry for my grandchildren.
I'm 62 next week, I have seven grandchildren.
I voted Leave against my own narrow self interest, but for the sake of my grandchildrens future. If we had stayed in the EU for much longer we would have no country for them to prosper in.
They, and mine, would have had the whole of Europe to prosper in. Was talking today to a mother whose 20 something son had just been offered a job in Barcelona; open up a whole new set of opportunities. There ae people on this board who regularly commute across Europe. Don’t tell me it will be as easy to do that when we are out; I have too much experience of travel across what we call the Far East.
The require unanimous approval from member states.
What matters most is a deal that actually achieves the benefits of leaving the EU. What you and Green both want is to stay in the EU. What you want as a second best option is to stay in the EU in everything but name. You will call anything else that deviates from that a "half-arsed departure". You will call anyone that has any different views at all incompetent and obsessive.
Nope - I think we have to leave the EU. But I call a government that has not prepared for Brexit and whose ministers are leaking against each other incompetent. You don't. So be it.
From what I've read of your thoughts on here, you want to stay in the Single Market, Freedom of Movement, the Currency Union, the European Arrest Warrant and Euratom. Have I missed any? How would that be any different to European Union full membership?
I am not in favour of the UK being in the currency union. I wish we had not voted to leave the EU. But we did. So we have to. Norway is not in the European Union. Neither is Switzerland. From where we are now, I'd be happy with a deal that looks similar to the ones they have.
@paulwaugh: Re Tory Brexit wars, senior Tory tells me Boris + Gove "shd go back to being the juvenile scribblers they were before they entered politics"
@paulwaugh: Senior Tory adds: "Everyone knows it's them behind the briefing against Philip [Hammond] and it's all to do with Brexit."
FWIW, I think people are reading far too much into who had files on the desk in a PR picture of the negotiations, and who didn't, and how long Davis stayed, or did not.
I am not sure that many people were taking the picture to be a literal truth. It is rather neatly symbolic though.
No it really isn't - instead it feeds pre-existing prejudices. It's all rather childish.
The UK is completely unprepared for the Brexit negotiations. The cabinet cannot agree a common position on a point as fundamental as a transition period. Instead, ministers brief against each other and leak stories designed to damage rivals. If you want to talk about childish, best to start there.
Genuine question, why do you, Surbiton, FF43, ScottP, williamglenn and others hate this country so much?
I’m a Remainer. No I don’t ‘hate’ this country, nor, so far as I can see do any of the posters you mention. We are, however, genuinely worried for the future, a future which was not envisaged until after June 23rd last year. The Cameron Government of which Mrs May was a leading member assumed that the vote would be for Remain and, it would appear, no-one with any seniority had any concept of what might happen, and how the entanglement of the past 45 or so years could be disentangled. I’m an old man; I don’t think the effect on me will be that much but I do worry for my grandchildren.
I'm 62 next week, I have seven grandchildren.
I voted Leave against my own narrow self interest, but for the sake of my grandchildrens future. If we had stayed in the EU for much longer we would have no country for them to prosper in.
Just out of interest - how do you see leaving the EU to be against your self interest?
Davis committed his own Brexit blunder the day Article 50 was triggered in March, according to EU and British officials, when he placed a call to Timo Soini, Finland’s foreign minister and a critic of the EU. Having been told he was speaking to Soini, Davis announced down the phone in enthusiastic terms that Brexit had begun, and that he needed the Finn’s support to secure a good deal from the EU. Only when he heard the voice at the other end of the line did Davis realize he was in fact speaking to Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator. It was the second time the two men had spoken since Davis was given the job.
So David Davis asked to be put through to somebody, was told he was speaking to them, and then made the assumption he was indeed speaking to them, before realising he wasn't speaking to them when they actually spoke? How exactly is this a blunder on his part?
It's very clear there is a serious agenda at work from certain civil servants, diplomats and media outlets in these anecdotes. And on these anecdotes alone we are supposed to believe Brexit has already proved to be a disaster.
Quite - for many in the media and on here any anti-British chicanery is absolutely fair play and the Europeans can do no wrong.
Presumably the person who Davis asked to place the call for him was one of his advisers, not a dastardly anti-British foreigner.
You have no grounds for that presumption at all. If it was the case, I think the clearly anti-British Bloomberg article would have said it explicitly. Yet it conveniently does not describe how the mix up happens.
Reporting stories that paint the current government and its ministers in a poor light is not being anti-British. Labelling them as such is, of course.
The article was called "Britain's Brexit chaos" and did nothing but criticise the British side from a pro-EU perspective.
Despite constant attacks from you and other Remainers on here, I have also refrained from calling you anti-British or any other insults. I would ask that you show the same courtesy.
The require unanimous approval from member states.
What matters most is a deal that actually achieves the benefits of leaving the EU. What you and Green both want is to stay in the EU. What you want as a second best option is to stay in the EU in everything but name. You will call anything else that deviates from that a "half-arsed departure". You will call anyone that has any different views at all incompetent and obsessive.
Nope - I think we have to leave the EU. But I call a government that has not prepared for Brexit and whose ministers are leaking against each other incompetent. You don't. So be it.
From what I've read of your thoughts on here, you want to stay in the Single Market, Freedom of Movement, the Currency Union, the European Arrest Warrant and Euratom. Have I missed any? How would that be any different to European Union full membership?
I am not in favour of the UK being in the currency union. I wish we had not voted to leave the EU. But we did. So we have to. Norway is not in the European Union. Neither is Switzerland. From where we are now, I'd be happy with a deal that looks similar to the ones they have.
I meant to write the customs union, not the currency union. So do you support leaving that?
Davis committed his own Brexit blunder the day Article 50 was triggered in March, according to EU and British officials, when he placed a call to Timo Soini, Finland’s foreign minister and a critic of the EU. Having been told he was speaking to Soini, Davis announced down the phone in enthusiastic terms that Brexit had begun, and that he needed the Finn’s support to secure a good deal from the EU. Only when he heard the voice at the other end of the line did Davis realize he was in fact speaking to Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator. It was the second time the two men had spoken since Davis was given the job.
So David Davis asked to be put through to somebody, was told he was speaking to them, and then made the assumption he was indeed speaking to them, before realising he wasn't speaking to them when they actually spoke? How exactly is this a blunder on his part?
It's very clear there is a serious agenda at work from certain civil servants, diplomats and media outlets in these anecdotes. And on these anecdotes alone we are supposed to believe Brexit has already proved to be a disaster.
Quite - for many in the media and on here any anti-British chicanery is absolutely fair play and the Europeans can do no wrong.
Presumably the person who Davis asked to place the call for him was one of his advisers, not a dastardly anti-British foreigner.
You have no grounds for that presumption at all. If it was the case, I think the clearly anti-British Bloomberg article would have said it explicitly. Yet it conveniently does not describe how the mix up happens.
Reporting stories that paint the current government and its ministers in a poor light is not being anti-British. Labelling them as such is, of course.
The article was called "Britain's Brexit chaos" and did nothing but criticise the British side from a pro-EU perspective.
Despite constant attacks from you and other Remainers on here, I have also refrained from calling you anti-British or any other insults. I would ask that you show the same courtesy.
It paints the current government in a bad light and deservedly so. Equating this country's government with the country as a whole is very unBritish. So, I apologise. What you said was not anti-British, it was unBritish.
The require unanimous approval from member states.
What matters most is a deal that actually achieves the benefits of leaving the EU. What you and Green both want is to stay in the EU. What you want as a second best option is to stay in the EU in everything but name. You will call anything else that deviates from that a "half-arsed departure". You will call anyone that has any different views at all incompetent and obsessive.
Nope - I think we have to leave the EU. But I call a government that has not prepared for Brexit and whose ministers are leaking against each other incompetent. You don't. So be it.
From what I've read of your thoughts on here, you want to stay in the Single Market, Freedom of Movement, the Currency Union, the European Arrest Warrant and Euratom. Have I missed any? How would that be any different to European Union full membership?
I am not in favour of the UK being in the currency union. I wish we had not voted to leave the EU. But we did. So we have to. Norway is not in the European Union. Neither is Switzerland. From where we are now, I'd be happy with a deal that looks similar to the ones they have.
I meant to write the customs union, not the currency union. So do you support leaving that?
"The BBC will offer protection to stars who receive online abuse and threats when their salaries are published this week.
The corporation’s bosses are braced for attacks on presenters and other high paid ‘talent’ when the list of stars earning £150,000 or more is made public.
A BBC source said: “People are extremely worried about safety, not only for themselves but also their families. There is a worry they will receive a torrent of abuse online.”
Why would anyone abuse them unless they were being grossly overpaid? Ahh I see now. Time to raise the licence tax anyone?
Abusing anyone on the basis of how much they earn is unacceptable. Who here would turn down an offer from their employer to double their salary, even if it made you "overpaid"?
The require unanimous approval from member states.
What matters most is a deal that actually achieves the benefits of leaving the EU. What you and Green both want is to stay in the EU. What you want as a second best option is to stay in the EU in everything but name. You will call anything else that deviates from that a "half-arsed departure". You will call anyone that has any different views at all incompetent and obsessive.
Nope - I think we have to leave the EU. But I call a government that has not prepared for Brexit and whose ministers are leaking against each other incompetent. You don't. So be it.
From what I've read of your thoughts on here, you want to stay in the Single Market, Freedom of Movement, the Currency Union, the European Arrest Warrant and Euratom. Have I missed any? How would that be any different to European Union full membership?
I am not in favour of the UK being in the currency union. I wish we had not voted to leave the EU. But we did. So we have to. Norway is not in the European Union. Neither is Switzerland. From where we are now, I'd be happy with a deal that looks similar to the ones they have.
I meant to write the customs union, not the currency union. So do you support leaving that?
Not immediately, no. It would be very harmful.
So you don't support a Switzerland or Norway-style deal then. You want one that removes all the freedom they have over trade.
@paulwaugh: Re Tory Brexit wars, senior Tory tells me Boris + Gove "shd go back to being the juvenile scribblers they were before they entered politics"
@paulwaugh: Senior Tory adds: "Everyone knows it's them behind the briefing against Philip [Hammond] and it's all to do with Brexit."
It's about time Theresa May sacked this Senior Tory. The pro-Europeans briefed against the Eurosceptics. The Eurosceptics briefed back. It's about time a line was drawn underneath the matter.
The require unanimous approval from member states.
What matters most is a deal that actually achieves the benefits of leaving the EU. What you and Green both want is to stay in the EU. What you want as a second best option is to stay in the EU in everything but name. You will call anything else that deviates from that a "half-arsed departure". You will call anyone that has any different views at all incompetent and obsessive.
Nope - I think we have to leave the EU. But I call a government that has not prepared for Brexit and whose ministers are leaking against each other incompetent. You don't. So be it.
From what I've read of your thoughts on here, you want to stay in the Single Market, Freedom of Movement, the Currency Union, the European Arrest Warrant and Euratom. Have I missed any? How would that be any different to European Union full membership?
I am not in favour of the UK being in the currency union. I wish we had not voted to leave the EU. But we did. So we have to. Norway is not in the European Union. Neither is Switzerland. From where we are now, I'd be happy with a deal that looks similar to the ones they have.
I meant to write the customs union, not the currency union. So do you support leaving that?
Not immediately, no. It would be very harmful.
So you don't support a Switzerland or Norway-style deal then. You want one that removes all the freedom they have over trade.
I think a Norway or Switzerland style deal will take more than 20 months to agree. I would prefer to be in the customs union (and the single market) in the meantime.
It's the real world, though. The UK's negotiating leverage as a second tier country will not be that significant with a country that has an economy the size of South Korea's. Now imagine the situation with countries like the US, China and India.
The require unanimous approval from member states.
What matters most is a deal that actually achieves the benefits of leaving the EU. What you and Green both want is to stay in the EU. What you want as a second best option is to stay in the EU in everything but name. You will call anything else that deviates from that a "half-arsed departure". You will call anyone that has any different views at all incompetent and obsessive.
Nope - I think we have to leave the EU. But I call a government that has not prepared for Brexit and whose ministers are leaking against each other incompetent. You don't. So be it.
From what I've read of your thoughts on here, you want to stay in the Single Market, Freedom of Movement, the Currency Union, the European Arrest Warrant and Euratom. Have I missed any? How would that be any different to European Union full membership?
I am not in favour of the UK being in the currency union. I wish we had not voted to leave the EU. But we did. So we have to. Norway is not in the European Union. Neither is Switzerland. From where we are now, I'd be happy with a deal that looks similar to the ones they have.
I meant to write the customs union, not the currency union. So do you support leaving that?
Not immediately, no. It would be very harmful.
So you don't support a Switzerland or Norway-style deal then. You want one that removes all the freedom they have over trade.
I think a Norway or Switzerland style deal will take more than 20 months to agree. I would prefer to be in the customs union (and the single market) in the meantime.
The require unanimous approval from member states.
What matters most is a deal that actually achieves the benefits of leaving the EU. What you and Green both want is to stay in the EU. What you want as a second best option is to stay in the EU in everything but name. You will call anything else that deviates from that a "half-arsed departure". You will call anyone that has any different views at all incompetent and obsessive.
Nope - I think we have to leave the EU. But I call a government that has not prepared for Brexit and whose ministers are leaking against each other incompetent. You don't. So be it.
From what I've read of your thoughts on here, you want to stay in the Single Market, Freedom of Movement, the Currency Union, the European Arrest Warrant and Euratom. Have I missed any? How would that be any different to European Union full membership?
I am not in favour of the UK being in the currency union. I wish we had not voted to leave the EU. But we did. So we have to. Norway is not in the European Union. Neither is Switzerland. From where we are now, I'd be happy with a deal that looks similar to the ones they have.
I meant to write the customs union, not the currency union. So do you support leaving that?
Not immediately, no. It would be very harmful.
So you don't support a Switzerland or Norway-style deal then. You want one that removes all the freedom they have over trade.
I think a Norway or Switzerland style deal will take more than 20 months to agree. I would prefer to be in the customs union (and the single market) in the meantime.
But you support exiting in the next few years?
I don't think it's in our interests to leave, but I don't think there is any other option. The referendum vote has to be respected and implemented.
The require unanimous approval from member states.
What matters most is a deal that actually achieves the benefits of leaving the EU. What you and Green both want is to stay in the EU. What you want as a second best option is to stay in the EU in everything but name. You will call anything else that deviates from that a "half-arsed departure". You will call anyone that has any different views at all incompetent and obsessive.
Nope - I think we have to leave the EU. But I call a government that has not prepared for Brexit and whose ministers are leaking against each other incompetent. You don't. So be it.
From what I've read of your thoughts on here, you want to stay in the Single Market, Freedom of Movement, the Currency Union, the European Arrest Warrant and Euratom. Have I missed any? How would that be any different to European Union full membership?
I am not in favour of the UK being in the currency union. I wish we had not voted to leave the EU. But we did. So we have to. Norway is not in the European Union. Neither is Switzerland. From where we are now, I'd be happy with a deal that looks similar to the ones they have.
I meant to write the customs union, not the currency union. So do you support leaving that?
Not immediately, no. It would be very harmful.
So you don't support a Switzerland or Norway-style deal then. You want one that removes all the freedom they have over trade.
I think a Norway or Switzerland style deal will take more than 20 months to agree. I would prefer to be in the customs union (and the single market) in the meantime.
As a businessman, to me, the Customs Union is far more important. There is no way the referendum result conflicts with that. Turkey is in the CU and does not have any rights under FoM. I agree the single market is problematical since it is interlinked with Freedom of movement.
In addition to the points raised in the article, Korea felt they got the worse of the deal with the EU. They won't actually want to replicate it with the UK.
@paulwaugh: Re Tory Brexit wars, senior Tory tells me Boris + Gove "shd go back to being the juvenile scribblers they were before they entered politics"
@paulwaugh: Senior Tory adds: "Everyone knows it's them behind the briefing against Philip [Hammond] and it's all to do with Brexit."
Surely it's about May's successor rather than Brexit -- we were told Boris was a leaver in name only so what's changed? And if Senior Tory is wrong about that, maybe Senior Tory has fingered the wrong perps.
Mr. Surbiton, that is a rather important point. If Turkey can have a lower bureaucratic burden with the EU but still negotiate its own trade deals, that sort of approach is something that would have widespread support here, and be substantially different to being a member of *the* customs union, and thereby have the EU negotiate trade deals for us.
Mr. Urquhart, bringing morality into politics is rather disturbing, because then one's opponents don't merely have a different judgement, they become bad (the counterpoint to being on the 'good' side).
Strong and stable door bolted. Greening promises more cash for schools 6 weeks late. Odd how the magic money wasn't found during the election campaign.
What extra cash ? This is from the existing budget.
Just how this is to be done isn't entirely clear... raiding capital spending, perhaps ?
Not exactly. It sounds as though she will refuse roles which gag her from expressing political views - has the BBC ever done this to those previously playing the Dr. ? Seems unlikely.
As a businessman, to me, the Customs Union is far more important. There is no way the referendum result conflicts with that. Turkey is in the CU and does not have any rights under FoM. I agree the single market is problematical since it is interlinked with Freedom of movement.
Apart from the ECJ, the Customs Union is the one bit we definitely want to leave. If we are inside it we are unable to make our own trade deals but will still not get the benefit of the single market. Far better to take the Norway Option, stay in the Single Market but leave the Customs Union.
Comments
If we used the Single Transferable vote, it's likely that on current vote shares, parties like the Lib Dems, Greens, and UKIP would win far below a proportionate share of the seats, because they'd be polling well below a quota in most multi-member constituencies.
Conversely, the Conservatives and Labour would both win more than a proportionate share.
Who would make best Prime Minister?
May lead:
OA: +5
ABC!: +3
C2DE: +8
I think the drama itself is utter dross. Yet over 800 episodes have been made, and it's being going for over 5 decades, so I must be wrong on some fundamental level.
We have two problems: (1) The West is no longer economic top-dog, and so we can no longer kick-back, relax and assume our quality of life will improve automatically year-on-year as we did from c.1750 to c.2000 (2) there is a small but significant cadre of very, very wealthy, very mobile, people who are able to live and reside anywhere (the 1%) who massively skew the figures, and aren't particularly bothered what others think of them.
But are extremely frustrating, but Socialism provides answers to neither and there are fewer people in absolute poverty, worldwide, than ever before.
I like Old Who, mostly. New Who... not so much. Has its moments (Blink is great), but too much deus ex machina, sonic screwdriver fixing everything or emotions meaning the Doctor wins.
Speaking of politically correct things, in Twitterland (I've stopped responded, grew bored with the madness) on a thread about people specifically avoiding male authors, someone has 'tears of laughter' that I'm alienating potential readers [I sinfully said discrimination based on gender was wrong].
So... they're going to double not-read my books? Oh noes! I've alienated the 'will not read books by men' demographic
[I apologise for the off-topic nature, but that's just so bloody off the wall I thought it worth mentioning].
Those who earn in the £20-£70k bracket, and own homes and property would - given his Marxist philosophy - be full square in his bullseye for extra taxation over cuts sooner or later, whether they like it or not.
(1) If some of his support was predicated on stopping Brexit in GE2017, how much of that will still be there once it's happened and is history in 5 years time?
(2) If Brexit is the disaster some believe it will be, then how much appetite will there be to embark on a socialist experiment in GE2022, if, by then, the Tories are offering a
truly dull but stable option to clear it all up under a new leader?
Two thoughts for the Tories:
(1) Don't lose your cool, give up, and re-earn a reputation for internal division - let Labour own that
(2) Manage out all economic disruption by GE2022 to aid your pitch, and don't panic too much: you have the votes to last the term in this Parliament, if skilfully played
University graduates support Corbyn, expecting to get their (or their children's) tuition fee repayments cancelled.
It's economic self interest, stupid.
Thousands of soap opera episodes have been made in those same 5 decades and they all remain unwatched by me. And yet on some fundamental level I know that I am right.
It's very clear there is a serious agenda at work from certain civil servants, diplomats and media outlets in these anecdotes. And on these anecdotes alone we are supposed to believe Brexit has already proved to be a disaster.
Eastargumentenders
Coronationpostindustrialdepressionslitmywriststreet.
Abuse is real.
In any well oiled negotiation, the only time the top people need to meet is at the end for the signatures and the hand shakes.
2. Doubt the next election will be in 2022 - my money is on 2019.
3. If Brexit is a disaster, I doubt people will be keen on getting the implementers of that disaster to clear it up. Whoever the new leader is will be linked to Brexit.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/heres-how-labour-ran-an-under-the-radar-dark-ads-campaign?utm_source=Dr+Mark+Pack's+Liberal+Democrat+Newswire&utm_campaign=dda7d75d1a-MAILCHIMP&utm_medium=email&utm_term=.ryybx5pZk&goal=0_0ff3c09d5e-dda7d75d1a-312632233#.puA8xalj3
Cutting the ribbon, or getting official sign-off, on the decision hogs all the limelight, but there's weeks of hard work amongst the minions leading up to it.
They are the only people with the authority to make big concessions.
Solar energy generating nearly 20% of UK power.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
It probably symbolises very little.
If the government were ever stupid enough to heed such advice, the first thing Remainers would do is say the Leavers lied about all the benefits of leaving and we may as well rejoin. While making the case for doing so without another referendum, as Green does. It's similar to how Remainers wanted the Conservatives to be open to ideas from other parties and then mocked them from doing so when they did exactly that.
There would be even fewer if Corbyn were PM.
Technologically impressive; but also deeply sinister.
We are, however, genuinely worried for the future, a future which was not envisaged until after June 23rd last year. The Cameron Government of which Mrs May was a leading member assumed that the vote would be for Remain and, it would appear, no-one with any seniority had any concept of what might happen, and how the entanglement of the past 45 or so years could be disentangled.
I’m an old man; I don’t think the effect on me will be that much but I do worry for my grandchildren.
A perpetual tax machine. Useful.
Hmm. Don't tell Corbyn he might actually believe it.
At some point - the Daily Mail or some such publication will write a story about a fifth column of EU nationals who work as civil servants for the British government.
I voted Leave against my own narrow self interest, but for the sake of my grandchildrens future. If we had stayed in the EU for much longer we would have no country for them to prosper in.
I love this country and am totally invested in its future. But I can confirm that I absolutely detest your version of what loving this country entails.
I wouldn't humour the troll, if I were you.
There ae people on this board who regularly commute across Europe. Don’t tell me it will be as easy to do that when we are out; I have too much experience of travel across what we call the Far East.
@paulwaugh: Senior Tory adds: "Everyone knows it's them behind the briefing against Philip [Hammond] and it's all to do with Brexit."
Despite constant attacks from you and other Remainers on here, I have also refrained from calling you anti-British or any other insults. I would ask that you show the same courtesy.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/02/07/can-global-britain-forge-a-better-trade-deal-with-south-korea-this-is-why-its-unlikely/
Mr. Urquhart, bringing morality into politics is rather disturbing, because then one's opponents don't merely have a different judgement, they become bad (the counterpoint to being on the 'good' side).
Just how this is to be done isn't entirely clear... raiding capital spending, perhaps ?
It sounds as though she will refuse roles which gag her from expressing political views - has the BBC ever done this to those previously playing the Dr. ? Seems unlikely.