It's a prevalent enough point of view to be a fair generalisation.
Conversely, Mr. Meeks is of the view that racism won the vote for Leave, and that Leave voters are morally equivalent to Confederate slave owners. We have also repeatedly seen claims that people voted Leave because they were ignorant and stupid.
From these facts, I am simply making the very, very minor leap to the assumption that Remain voters such as those cited probably do indeed despise ignorant, stupid racists with shameful views. So why would such people as Umunna and Soubry chuck in what I am sure they regard as their promising political career because of people like that?
You've basically had a pop at Alastair and extrapolated his view to other REMAIN supporters.
There may be an infinitesimal group among REMAIN voters who think that and I would contend there are LEAVE voters whose view of REMAIN supporters isn't that generous - look at the responses to Alastair as an example.
There's plenty of stupidity on both sides if you want to look for it.
You were the one who used the term "all these people" and claimed they "despised the electorate" which is of course absurd. Do you think Ken Clarke despises the electorate ? If so, he's hidden it pretty well.
Black Wednesday happened exactly because every interest rate move had been down. ERM membership required a minimum exchange rate equivalent to DM2.92 to the £. Every time the £ struggled up off that floor rates were cut because they were too high. Lamont was scolded about this by the EC, and told that the £ should be higher in its band, not at the bottom. If that meant 15% rates forever that was just our tough shit.
Precisely how long did we have 15% rates?
I'll give you that william. Rates went to 14.75% in mid-1989, and were there for around 15 months. They were raised to that level to reduce RPI inflation. They were cut to 13.75% at the Conservative conference, the day we entered the ERM. They were at 10% the day we left.
Relative to inflation, which the bout of 15% rates contained, they should have been around 6% throughout. They fell to this level very rapidly thereafter with no recurrence of inflation, which Major was adamant would be the result. The economy then recovered, which it was showing no signs of doing with rates at 10%.
Had we not been pursuing an exchange rate policy, we would never have had the Lawson inflation of 1988-9 in the first place, and if we had done so nonetheless, we would not have had interest rates 4 points too high for two years.
Didn't the base rate spike briefly on the day we came out of the ERM? We were in France at the time and I seem to remember our french neighbours gleefully coming over to tell us Britain was finally completely screwed (whatever the french for that was)... to which we gave a gallic shrug that calmed them down a bit. Happy days!
The is a gaping hole ready to be filled by a new SDP formed of The LDs, Clarke, Soubry, Umunna, Miliband etc
Problem is they'll never win as the SDP. They need to take over their parties and make them the SDP.
Problem with that is both sides did it for 20 years and people had enough of it
That would require all those people to choose between two options.
1/ Leave your existing party, form another one, renounce hope of ministerial office or of being prime minister and based on principle oppose something the electorate you despise voted against a year ago.
2/ Agree with your leader and hope for crumbs from the table.
It's a tough call.
Why do you assume people who supported REMAIN "despise the electorate" ? That's a pretty crass and simplistic choice of words.
Pure Daily Mail nonsense.
It's a prevalent enough point of view to be a fair generalisation.
Conversely, Mr. Meeks is of the view that racism won the vote for Leave, and that Leave voters are morally equivalent to Confederate slave owners. We have also repeatedly seen claims that people voted Leave because they were ignorant and stupid.
From these facts, I am simply making the very, very minor leap to the assumption that Remain voters such as those cited probably do indeed despise ignorant, stupid racists with shameful views. So why would such people as Umunna and Soubry chuck in what I am sure they regard as their promising political career because of people like that?
The modern equivalent of Confederate Slave owners are the owners of big businesses whose immigrant staff live 16 to a flat in Brent
Agree 100%
I come from Brent (Wembley to be exact) and that is exactly what is happening, same in Slough that I am aware of.
Mr. Meeks is of the view that racism won the vote for Leave, and that Leave voters are morally equivalent to Confederate slave owners.
Mr Meeks is of the view that Leave was won on a prospectus of pandering to xenophobia. Given that numerous opinion polls show that immigration was the single most important consideration in determining Leave voters' choice and given the sickening poster campaigns that the Leave campaigns chose to run with at the end of their campaigns, that is scarcely arguable.
Mr Meeks did not make an equivalence between Leave voters and Confederate slave owners but a comparison between supporting Leave as the Leave campaign was fought and supporting the Confederacy as it existed in 1861: the theoretical arguments in favour of states' rights being overwhelmed by the reality in each case of what the fight was about.
You were the one who used the term "all these people" and claimed they "despised the electorate" which is of course absurd. Do you think Ken Clarke despises the electorate ? If so, he's hidden it pretty well.
Ken Clarke certainly despise's his Parties membership.
Hard to say if he despises the wider electorate (maybe he doesn't "despise" the electorate but I get the feeling he regards the voters as a nuisance especially when they don't do as they're told) but he did once famously say that Parliament would eventually end up as no more important than a local council debating chamber, so....
I think the most plausible route towards sanity would be for Labour's pro-Europeans to split off and ally themselves with the Lib Dems. Then all it would take is for a few moderate Tories to rebel and bring down the government, a Vince Cable-led anti-Brexit alliance to win the ensuing General Election and Bob's your uncle! It'd all be sorted out in six months. Then, once Trump's out of the White House, we can all get back to stitching the world economy together through TTIP, TPP etc.
The problem with that scenario is that the Brexiteers will feel that Brexit was stolen from them and will never accept it. They need to have their feet held to the fire until even IDS is begging Jean-Claude Juncker to let us stay in the EU.
The problem with that scenario is that, until the Brexiteers have been tortured enough, the rest of the country, the vast majority, will have to suffer the consequences of their folly.
I'm confident a sufficient level of discomfort can be reached before we actually leave the EU.
A key factor will be how Liam Fox is seen to be doing. If 'Empire 2.0' is off the table I think a lot of people will realise their vision will not become reality.
I think there's an awful lot of wishful thinking in believing that Leave voters are going to beg to stay in the EU.
I think the most plausible route towards sanity would be for Labour's pro-Europeans to split off and ally themselves with the Lib Dems. Then all it would take is for a few moderate Tories to rebel and bring down the government, a Vince Cable-led anti-Brexit alliance to win the ensuing General Election and Bob's your uncle! It'd all be sorted out in six months. Then, once Trump's out of the White House, we can all get back to stitching the world economy together through TTIP, TPP etc.
The problem with that scenario is that the Brexiteers will feel that Brexit was stolen from them and will never accept it. They need to have their feet held to the fire until even IDS is begging Jean-Claude Juncker to let us stay in the EU.
The problem with that scenario is that, until the Brexiteers have been tortured enough, the rest of the country, the vast majority, will have to suffer the consequences of their folly.
I'm confident a sufficient level of discomfort can be reached before we actually leave the EU.
A key factor will be how Liam Fox is seen to be doing. If 'Empire 2.0' is off the table I think a lot of people will realise their vision will not become reality.
I think there's an awful lot of wishful thinking in believing that Leave voters are going to beg to stay in the EU.
Leave voters are spectators at the moment. It's what Leave politicians and public figures do that counts. Are you confident none of them will break ranks as the pressure builds?
The is a gaping hole ready to be filled by a new SDP formed of The LDs, Clarke, Soubry, Umunna, Miliband etc
Problem is they'll never win as the SDP. They need to take over their parties and make them the SDP.
Problem with that is both sides did it for 20 years and people had enough of it
That would require all those people to choose between two options.
1/ Leave your existing party, form another one, renounce hope of ministerial office or of being prime minister and based on principle oppose something the electorate you despise voted against a year ago.
2/ Agree with your leader and hope for crumbs from the table.
It's a tough call.
Why do you assume people who supported REMAIN "despise the electorate" ? That's a pretty crass and simplistic choice of words.
Pure Daily Mail nonsense.
Not all such people do but some of the more vocal ones, including at least one regular thread header writer here, do.
There are two big groups of voters which have essentially been out-groups for many years. One group is socialists; the other is traditionalist Conservatives. Both groups united to vote in favour of Brexit.
I think the most plausible route towards sanity would be for Labour's pro-Europeans to split off and ally themselves with the Lib Dems. Then all it would take is for a few moderate Tories to rebel and bring down the government, a Vince Cable-led anti-Brexit alliance to win the ensuing General Election and Bob's your uncle! It'd all be sorted out in six months. Then, once Trump's out of the White House, we can all get back to stitching the world economy together through TTIP, TPP etc.
The problem with that scenario is that the Brexiteers will feel that Brexit was stolen from them and will never accept it. They need to have their feet held to the fire until even IDS is begging Jean-Claude Juncker to let us stay in the EU.
The problem with that scenario is that, until the Brexiteers have been tortured enough, the rest of the country, the vast majority, will have to suffer the consequences of their folly.
I'm confident a sufficient level of discomfort can be reached before we actually leave the EU.
A key factor will be how Liam Fox is seen to be doing. If 'Empire 2.0' is off the table I think a lot of people will realise their vision will not become reality.
I think there's an awful lot of wishful thinking in believing that Leave voters are going to beg to stay in the EU.
Leave voters are spectators at the moment. It's what Leave politicians and public figures do that counts. Are you confident none of them will break ranks as the pressure builds?
Pretty much. You've promised us the terrors of the Earth, and the terrors of the Earth have not materialised.
If we choose to change our food safety standards to allow in US imports - how will that affect a post Brexit deal with the EU?
We would be mad to do a trade deal with the US before we have done one with the EU. So expect us to do one - or, more accurately - accept what the Americans are prepared to give us.
I think the most plausible route towards sanity would be for Labour's pro-Europeans to split off and ally themselves with the Lib Dems. Then all it would take is for a few moderate Tories to rebel and bring down the government, a Vince Cable-led anti-Brexit alliance to win the ensuing General Election and Bob's your uncle! It'd all be sorted out in six months. Then, once Trump's out of the White House, we can all get back to stitching the world economy together through TTIP, TPP etc.
The problem with that scenario is that the Brexiteers will feel that Brexit was stolen from them and will never accept it. They need to have their feet held to the fire until even IDS is begging Jean-Claude Juncker to let us stay in the EU.
The problem with that scenario is that, until the Brexiteers have been tortured enough, the rest of the country, the vast majority, will have to suffer the consequences of their folly.
I'm confident a sufficient level of discomfort can be reached before we actually leave the EU.
A key factor will be how Liam Fox is seen to be doing. If 'Empire 2.0' is off the table I think a lot of people will realise their vision will not become reality.
I think there's an awful lot of wishful thinking in believing that Leave voters are going to beg to stay in the EU.
When it comes to William and the EU I think it's more like wishful drinking than wishful thinking...
Is Sir Kier about to abandon ship? Would make things easier for Jezza to support the "hard" Brexit he wants...
Except the vast bulk of LAB voters are totally opposed to the Leaver Luddites who are trying to destroy the UK economy. Corbyn is on dangerous ground
I actually think Jezza's on to something. If he engineers a hard Brexit, then blaming the baleful consequences on the Tories and capitalism will be child's play. Amid the ensuing economic Armageddon and societal collapse he can them foment his socialist uprising. The British Right and the eurosceptic movement have been led by the nose all the way. They are but pawns in Jezza's game.
The two main parties have both been captured by cabals who prioritise something other than the economic wellbeing of the nation. The country has entered a downward spiral for the foreseeable future.
The most plausible way out of the mess is for the Tory Brexiteers to pull back from the abyss and admit their mistakes, reunifying the party as the pro-European force it was between Suez and Maastricht. Those who don't buy into this vision should be expelled so that the party doesn't repeat the mistake of harbouring a Kipper cuckoo in the nest.
I think the most plausible route towards sanity would be for Labour's pro-Europeans to split off and ally themselves with the Lib Dems. Then all it would take is for a few moderate Tories to rebel and bring down the government, a Vince Cable-led anti-Brexit alliance to win the ensuing General Election and Bob's your uncle! It'd all be sorted out in six months.
Then, once Trump's out of the White House, we can all get back to stitching the world economy together through TTIP, TPP etc.
The problem with that scenario is that the Brexiteers will feel that Brexit was stolen from them and will never accept it. They need to have their feet held to the fire until even IDS is begging Jean-Claude Juncker to let us stay in the EU.
Looks like wishful thinking to me tbh. No new facts, just a reiteration of the Leave campaign line. It overlooks the point that the EU will not want to make it look desirable to leave.
I really do hope I am wrong and that this proves to be a prescient article, but I doubt it!
Is Sir Kier about to abandon ship? Would make things easier for Jezza to support the "hard" Brexit he wants...
Except the vast bulk of LAB voters are totally opposed to the Leaver Luddites who are trying to destroy the UK economy. Corbyn is on dangerous ground
I actually think Jezza's on to something. If he engineers a hard Brexit, then blaming the baleful consequences on the Tories and capitalism will be child's play. Amid the ensuing economic Armageddon and societal collapse he can them foment his socialist uprising. The British Right and the eurosceptic movement have been led by the nose all the way. They are but pawns in Jezza's game.
The two main parties have both been captured by cabals who prioritise something other than the economic wellbeing of the nation. The country has entered a downward spiral for the foreseeable future.
It seems to me that Corbyn's outlook is shared by most Labour voters, and support for Brexit is very strong among Conservative voters.
Centrist voters may be repelled by both, but Corbyn's economic views resonate with left wingers, and the Brexiteers' views resonate with right wing voters.
Just listening to Diane Abbott's Desert Island Discs.... Growing up, her family owned a house in Paddington that they let out privately on a room by room basis while they lived in their 2nd home in Harrow.
If we choose to change our food safety standards to allow in US imports - how will that affect a post Brexit deal with the EU?
We would be mad to do a trade deal with the US before we have done one with the EU. So expect us to do one - or, more accurately - accept what the Americans are prepared to give us.
If we do the EU deal first though - presumably one of the criteria might be to maintain existing food standards - thus potentially ruling out a deal with the US?
What I'm getting at is I think these deals may be interdependent... which makes it doubly strange why Liam Fox isn't on the Brexit committee.
I agree though that the EU deal is much more important.
If we choose to change our food safety standards to allow in US imports - how will that affect a post Brexit deal with the EU?
This relates to my current day job - I've just been commenting on it to the BBC in suitably non-partisan terms. The position is that if we do separate from the Single Market, we will be able to negotiate separate trade deals, with different criteria (stronger or weaker or just different) from those that apply within the single market. Animal welfare and environmental groups are concerned that our anxiety to reach a speedy trade deal with the USA might lead us to accept lower US standards, specifically in chicken production; that would, of course, introduce chickens that could not be resold to the EU, which would mean a new non-tariff barrier to trade.
We were very pleased with Michael Gove's comments on this, and have warmly welcomed them. Whether other Ministers agree is a matter of some debate, as the link says. There wlil be a Lords Select Committee report on this tomorrow.
If we choose to change our food safety standards to allow in US imports - how will that affect a post Brexit deal with the EU?
We would be mad to do a trade deal with the US before we have done one with the EU. So expect us to do one - or, more accurately - accept what the Americans are prepared to give us.
I think being seen to lessen our food standards would play very badly in the country for whichever government sanctioned that. Just think of the (somewhat irrational) furore over GM crops. We have real issues such as BSE not to far back in our collective memory too.
If we choose to change our food safety standards to allow in US imports - how will that affect a post Brexit deal with the EU?
We need to be clear with the US that we're not going to drop food standards to let them flood our market with crap. Remove tariffs on quality food like their USDA beef by all means though.
I've long thought that the UK-US trade deal will happen in stages, the first stage covering the easy things such as financial services and complex manufactured products like cars and planes; before moving on later to the more contentious issues like pharmaceuticals and foodstuffs.
Looks like wishful thinking to me tbh. No new facts, just a reiteration of the Leave campaign line. It overlooks the point that the EU will not want to make it look desirable to leave.
I really do hope I am wrong and that this proves to be a prescient article, but I doubt it!
They don't want leaving to look desirable... But they have to face up to economic realities as well.
So... A trade deal won't be done in a year or two but equally it won't take seven or ten years either.
Expect somewhere the middle - Around 3-4 years - Like most things in life the reality is neither as extremely terrible as the William Glenns of this world would have us believe, but nor is it the land of milk and honey that the Farage's of this world would have us believe either.
If we choose to change our food safety standards to allow in US imports - how will that affect a post Brexit deal with the EU?
This relates to my current day job - I've just been commenting on it to the BBC in suitably non-partisan terms. The position is that if we do separate from the Single Market, we will be able to negotiate separate trade deals, with different criteria (stronger or weaker or just different) from those that apply within the single market. Animal welfare and environmental groups are concerned that our anxiety to reach a speedy trade deal with the USA might lead us to accept lower US standards, specifically in chicken production; that would, of course, introduce chickens that could not be resold to the EU, which would mean a new non-tariff barrier to trade.
We were very pleased with Michael Gove's comments on this, and have warmly welcomed them. Whether other Ministers agree is a matter of some debate, as the link says. There wlil be a Lords Select Committee report on this tomorrow.
So what would that mean though in practice?
How do you stop chickens being resold? Would the UK have to have certificates for chickens suitable for EU export or something like that?
Just listening to Diane Abbott's Desert Island Discs.... Growing up, her family owned a house in Paddington that they let out privately on a room by room basis while they lived in their 2nd home in Harrow.
Looks like wishful thinking to me tbh. No new facts, just a reiteration of the Leave campaign line. It overlooks the point that the EU will not want to make it look desirable to leave.
I really do hope I am wrong and that this proves to be a prescient article, but I doubt it!
They don't want leaving to look desirable... But they have to face up to economic realities as well.
So... A trade deal won't be done in a year or two but equally it won't take seven or ten years either.
Expect somewhere the middle - Around 3-4 years - Like most things in life the reality is neither as extremely terrible as the William Glenns on this world would have us believe, but nor is it the land of milk and honey that the Farage's of this world would have us believe either.
Sounds reasonable... But those 3-4 years could be interesting, with the next GE slap bang in the middle of them. Ooh er!
If we choose to change our food safety standards to allow in US imports - how will that affect a post Brexit deal with the EU?
This relates to my current day job - I've just been commenting on it to the BBC in suitably non-partisan terms. The position is that if we do separate from the Single Market, we will be able to negotiate separate trade deals, with different criteria (stronger or weaker or just different) from those that apply within the single market. Animal welfare and environmental groups are concerned that our anxiety to reach a speedy trade deal with the USA might lead us to accept lower US standards, specifically in chicken production; that would, of course, introduce chickens that could not be resold to the EU, which would mean a new non-tariff barrier to trade.
We were very pleased with Michael Gove's comments on this, and have warmly welcomed them. Whether other Ministers agree is a matter of some debate, as the link says. There wlil be a Lords Select Committee report on this tomorrow.
Look forward to reading that report.
I think Gove is a good placement at DEFRA, it's going to be possibly the most affected department by Brexit and needs a strong hand on the tiller that's prepared to take on the massive vested interests in farming as the CAP gets replaced. We shouldn't be continuing to subsidise massive agribusiness and horse studs, as was reported over the weekend.
It's a prevalent enough point of view to be a fair generalisation.
Conversely, Mr. Meeks is of the view that racism won the vote for Leave, and that Leave voters are morally equivalent to Confederate slave owners. We have also repeatedly seen claims that people voted Leave because they were ignorant and stupid.
From these facts, I am simply making the very, very minor leap to the assumption that Remain voters such as those cited probably do indeed despise ignorant, stupid racists with shameful views. So why would such people as Umunna and Soubry chuck in what I am sure they regard as their promising political career because of people like that?
You've basically had a pop at Alastair and extrapolated his view to other REMAIN supporters.
There may be an infinitesimal group among REMAIN voters who think that and I would contend there are LEAVE voters whose view of REMAIN supporters isn't that generous - look at the responses to Alastair as an example.
There's plenty of stupidity on both sides if you want to look for it.
You were the one who used the term "all these people" and claimed they "despised the electorate" which is of course absurd. Do you think Ken Clarke despises the electorate ? If so, he's hidden it pretty well.
I don't see how I've "had a pop at Alastair". These are his actual views; I don't think I've misrepresented them. Like-minded ardent Remainers certainly do despise the electorate that voted Leave.
I'll give you that william. Rates went to 14.75% in mid-1989, and were there for around 15 months. They were raised to that level to reduce RPI inflation. They were cut to 13.75% at the Conservative conference, the day we entered the ERM. They were at 10% the day we left.
Relative to inflation, which the bout of 15% rates contained, they should have been around 6% throughout. They fell to this level very rapidly thereafter with no recurrence of inflation, which Major was adamant would be the result. The economy then recovered, which it was showing no signs of doing with rates at 10%.
Had we not been pursuing an exchange rate policy, we would never have had the Lawson inflation of 1988-9 in the first place, and if we had done so nonetheless, we would not have had interest rates 4 points too high for two years.
Didn't the base rate spike briefly on the day we came out of the ERM? We were in France at the time and I seem to remember our french neighbours gleefully coming over to tell us Britain was finally completely screwed (whatever the french for that was)... to which we gave a gallic shrug that calmed them down a bit. Happy days!
It went to 12 then 15% the same day, then both raises were cancelled and rates stayed at 10% (well, 9.875%) before falling 1% by the end of the month, another 1% in October, another 1% in November and another 1% in January.
Interest rates halved, pretty much, within four months. This wasn't because inflation suddenly fell on devaluation. It was because ERM membership kept our rates twice as high as they needed to be.
It's a prevalent enough point of view to be a fair generalisation.
Conversely, Mr. Meeks is of the view that racism won the vote for Leave, and that Leave voters are morally equivalent to Confederate slave owners. We have also repeatedly seen claims that people voted Leave because they were ignorant and stupid.
From these facts, I am simply making the very, very minor leap to the assumption that Remain voters such as those cited probably do indeed despise ignorant, stupid racists with shameful views. So why would such people as Umunna and Soubry chuck in what I am sure they regard as their promising political career because of people like that?
You've basically had a pop at Alastair and extrapolated his view to other REMAIN supporters.
There may be an infinitesimal group among REMAIN voters who think that and I would contend there are LEAVE voters whose view of REMAIN supporters isn't that generous - look at the responses to Alastair as an example.
There's plenty of stupidity on both sides if you want to look for it.
You were the one who used the term "all these people" and claimed they "despised the electorate" which is of course absurd. Do you think Ken Clarke despises the electorate ? If so, he's hidden it pretty well.
I don't see how I've "had a pop at Alastair". These are his actual views; I don't think I've misrepresented them. Like-minded ardent Remainers certainly do despise the electorate that voted Leave.
I've stated my actual views below, which (as should be clear) you did misrepresent.
It went to 12 then 15% the same day, then both raises were cancelled and rates stayed at 10% (well, 9.875%) before falling 1% by the end of the month, another 1% in October, another 1% in November and another 1% in January.
Interest rates halved, pretty much, within four months. This wasn't because inflation suddenly fell on devaluation. It was because ERM membership kept our rates twice as high as they needed to be.
What really did for Major and the Tories is that if those rate rises had worked, if the situation had stabilized, they would've been quite happy to keep rates at 15% indefinitely... Quite happy to throw their fellow countrymen and women to wolves just to peg us to the ERM...
I don't see how I've "had a pop at Alastair". These are his actual views; I don't think I've misrepresented them. Like-minded ardent Remainers certainly do despise the electorate that voted Leave.
No, you throw around words like "despise".
Alastair is perfectly within his rights to claim those who voted LEAVE were wrong to do so. Indeed, that's what democracy is all about.
He might even claim they were sold a false prospectus in order for them to vote the way they did - wow, a politician might have told a lie, how'd have thought it ? £350 million for the NHS as an example.
Does Alastair despise me ? If he does, he's not told me.
From the political side, the government (Local Authority and Central govt) need to engage with the survivors of the fire (NB ONLY those who lived in Grenfell Tower, not any of their scumbag hangers-on) to work through the issues they face, but none of that can and should happen without the technical report on what actually happened.
The immediate issue of rehousing displaced people seems to have been dealt with quickly, which is as much as can be expected in the timescale. Note that the AAIB took 20 months to write the Shoreham report, albeit with three interim reports highlighting significant issues it came across. This timescale is normal for something so complicated.
You're saying that the survivors are fine for now, and shouldn't expect more ("none of that can and should happen...") until the technical report is complete in 20 months or so?
(Snip)
As far as I'm aware a technical report has not been asked specifically asked for. I daresay the inquiry will produce something of the sort, but there is a danger that it will be a very different beast from an independent report produced by an uninvolved body. It will also take much longer.
Unless I'm wrong, and an independent technical report has been commissioned?
Mr. Meeks is of the view that racism won the vote for Leave, and that Leave voters are morally equivalent to Confederate slave owners.
Mr Meeks is of the view that Leave was won on a prospectus of pandering to xenophobia. Given that numerous opinion polls show that immigration was the single most important consideration in determining Leave voters' choice and given the sickening poster campaigns that the Leave campaigns chose to run with at the end of their campaigns, that is scarcely arguable.
Mr Meeks did not make an equivalence between Leave voters and Confederate slave owners but a comparison between supporting Leave as the Leave campaign was fought and supporting the Confederacy as it existed in 1861: the theoretical arguments in favour of states' rights being overwhelmed by the reality in each case of what the fight was about.
OK, so I was broadly right. Would it be fair to say that you despise Leave voters?
If we choose to change our food safety standards to allow in US imports - how will that affect a post Brexit deal with the EU?
We would be mad to do a trade deal with the US before we have done one with the EU. So expect us to do one - or, more accurately - accept what the Americans are prepared to give us.
If we do the EU deal first though - presumably one of the criteria might be to maintain existing food standards - thus potentially ruling out a deal with the US?
What I'm getting at is I think these deals may be interdependent... which makes it doubly strange why Liam Fox isn't on the Brexit committee.
I agree though that the EU deal is much more important.
Yes - all trade deals are very interdependent and are agreed with that knowledge in mind. That's why there are also very strict rules about not being able to change your position once you have agreed a deal. A deal with the EU would very likely preclude one with the US and vice versa - mainly because we will be the junior party in both negotiations and so very beholden to what the other side tells us they are prepared to give.
Macron has more in common with Thatcher than Blair in terms of being prepared to risk unpopularity. Those who thought he would do nothing to change France should think again.
Mr. Meeks is of the view that racism won the vote for Leave, and that Leave voters are morally equivalent to Confederate slave owners.
Mr Meeks is of the view that Leave was won on a prospectus of pandering to xenophobia. Given that numerous opinion polls show that immigration was the single most important consideration in determining Leave voters' choice and given the sickening poster campaigns that the Leave campaigns chose to run with at the end of their campaigns, that is scarcely arguable.
Mr Meeks did not make an equivalence between Leave voters and Confederate slave owners but a comparison between supporting Leave as the Leave campaign was fought and supporting the Confederacy as it existed in 1861: the theoretical arguments in favour of states' rights being overwhelmed by the reality in each case of what the fight was about.
OK, so I was broadly right. Would it be fair to say that you despise Leave voters?
You were wholly wrong. It would be fair to say that you're unable to read.
It's a prevalent enough point of view to be a fair generalisation.
Conversely, Mr. Meeks is of the view that racism won the vote for Leave, and that Leave voters are morally equivalent to Confederate slave owners. We have also repeatedly seen claims that people voted Leave because they were ignorant and stupid.
From these facts, I am simply making the very, very minor leap to the assumption that Remain voters such as those cited probably do indeed despise ignorant, stupid racists with shameful views. So why would such people as Umunna and Soubry chuck in what I am sure they regard as their promising political career because of people like that?
You've basically had a pop at Alastair and extrapolated his view to other REMAIN supporters.
There may be an infinitesimal group among REMAIN voters who think that and I would contend there are LEAVE voters whose view of REMAIN supporters isn't that generous - look at the responses to Alastair as an example.
There's plenty of stupidity on both sides if you want to look for it.
You were the one who used the term "all these people" and claimed they "despised the electorate" which is of course absurd. Do you think Ken Clarke despises the electorate ? If so, he's hidden it pretty well.
I don't see how I've "had a pop at Alastair". These are his actual views; I don't think I've misrepresented them. Like-minded ardent Remainers certainly do despise the electorate that voted Leave.
I've stated my actual views below, which (as should be clear) you did misrepresent.
So as I understand it you're saying that people who voted Leave on grounds purportedly other than xenophobia were in fact not really doing so at all, it was all about xenophobia; and likewise people who supported the Confederacy were not at all interested in states' rights or the right to secede, they were actually just in favour of slavery, including those who were not themselves slave owners?
Glad we cleared that up - I was concerned you might despise Leave voters or something!
If we choose to change our food safety standards to allow in US imports - how will that affect a post Brexit deal with the EU?
We would be mad to do a trade deal with the US before we have done one with the EU. So expect us to do one - or, more accurately - accept what the Americans are prepared to give us.
If we do the EU deal first though - presumably one of the criteria might be to maintain existing food standards - thus potentially ruling out a deal with the US?
What I'm getting at is I think these deals may be interdependent... which makes it doubly strange why Liam Fox isn't on the Brexit committee.
I agree though that the EU deal is much more important.
Yes - all trade deals are very interdependent and are agreed with that knowledge in mind. That's why there are also very strict rules about not being able to change your position once you have agreed a deal. A deal with the EU would very likely preclude one with the US and vice versa - mainly because we will be the junior party in both negotiations and so very beholden to what the other side tells us they are prepared to give.
I wonder how desperate our position would need to be before some of the Brexiteers start seriously floating the idea of becoming the 51st state.
I don't see how I've "had a pop at Alastair". These are his actual views; I don't think I've misrepresented them. Like-minded ardent Remainers certainly do despise the electorate that voted Leave.
No, you throw around words like "despise".
Alastair is perfectly within his rights to claim those who voted LEAVE were wrong to do so. Indeed, that's what democracy is all about.
He might even claim they were sold a false prospectus in order for them to vote the way they did - wow, a politician might have told a lie, how'd have thought it ? £350 million for the NHS as an example.
Does Alastair despise me ? If he does, he's not told me.
He goes quite a bit further than claiming they're merely wrong.
Conversely, Mr. Meeks is of the view that racism won the vote for Leave,
Perhaps you have confused Alastair with me. I am convinced that Leave won because of an appeal to racism (via Farage's poster and the like) and outright lies like the £350m NHS pledge
It's a prevalent enough point of view to be a fair generalisation.
Conversely, Mr. Meeks is of the view that racism won the vote for Leave, and that Leave voters are morally equivalent to Confederate slave owners. We have also repeatedly seen claims that people voted Leave because they were ignorant and stupid.
From these facts, I am simply making the very, very minor leap to the assumption that Remain voters such as those cited probably do indeed despise ignorant, stupid racists with shameful views. So why would such people as Umunna and Soubry chuck in what I am sure they regard as their promising political career because of people like that?
You've basically had a pop at Alastair and extrapolated his view to other REMAIN supporters.
There may be an infinitesimal group among REMAIN voters who think that and I would contend there are LEAVE voters whose view of REMAIN supporters isn't that generous - look at the responses to Alastair as an example.
There's plenty of stupidity on both sides if you want to look for it.
You were the one who used the term "all these people" and claimed they "despised the electorate" which is of course absurd. Do you think Ken Clarke despises the electorate ? If so, he's hidden it pretty well.
I don't see how I've "had a pop at Alastair". These are his actual views; I don't think I've misrepresented them. Like-minded ardent Remainers certainly do despise the electorate that voted Leave.
I've stated my actual views below, which (as should be clear) you did misrepresent.
So as I understand it you're saying that people who voted Leave on grounds purportedly other than xenophobia were in fact not really doing so at all, it was all about xenophobia; and likewise people who supported the Confederacy were not at all interested in states' rights or the right to secede, they were actually just in favour of slavery, including those who were not themselves slave owners?
Glad we cleared that up - I was concerned you might despise Leave voters or something!
Clear the spittle from your eyes and try reading what was written instead of what you want to read, and you might learn something.
If we choose to change our food safety standards to allow in US imports - how will that affect a post Brexit deal with the EU?
We would be mad to do a trade deal with the US before we have done one with the EU. So expect us to do one - or, more accurately - accept what the Americans are prepared to give us.
If we do the EU deal first though - presumably one of the criteria might be to maintain existing food standards - thus potentially ruling out a deal with the US?
What I'm getting at is I think these deals may be interdependent... which makes it doubly strange why Liam Fox isn't on the Brexit committee.
I agree though that the EU deal is much more important.
Yes - all trade deals are very interdependent and are agreed with that knowledge in mind. That's why there are also very strict rules about not being able to change your position once you have agreed a deal. A deal with the EU would very likely preclude one with the US and vice versa - mainly because we will be the junior party in both negotiations and so very beholden to what the other side tells us they are prepared to give.
I wonder how desperate our position would need to be before some of the Brexiteers start seriously floating the idea of becoming the 51st state.
If we were allowed to keep the Queen as head of state I am sure that the Fox wing of the imperialist Brexiteers would be very happy with something akin to being the 51st state.
If we choose to change our food safety standards to allow in US imports - how will that affect a post Brexit deal with the EU?
We would be mad to do a trade deal with the US before we have done one with the EU. So expect us to do one - or, more accurately - accept what the Americans are prepared to give us.
If we do the EU deal first though - presumably one of the criteria might be to maintain existing food standards - thus potentially ruling out a deal with the US?
What I'm getting at is I think these deals may be interdependent... which makes it doubly strange why Liam Fox isn't on the Brexit committee.
I agree though that the EU deal is much more important.
Yes - all trade deals are very interdependent and are agreed with that knowledge in mind. That's why there are also very strict rules about not being able to change your position once you have agreed a deal. A deal with the EU would very likely preclude one with the US and vice versa - mainly because we will be the junior party in both negotiations and so very beholden to what the other side tells us they are prepared to give.
I wonder how desperate our position would need to be before some of the Brexiteers start seriously floating the idea of becoming the 51st state.
51st State actually makes a lot of sense, especially now we have opted out of the EU. Of course it rather cuts against the idea of sovereignity, but that may not appear so important once the harsh realities of going it alone have sunk in.
Somehow a 1.7% forecast from the IMF has not greatly enhanced my confidence about my bet with Robert that growth will exceed 1.6% this year. Their record is awful and is usually a lagging indicator in that they fail to take into account how the economy is changing.
This forecast was down from 2.0% and their next forecast is likely to be down again in the same way that they consistently had to revise forecasts upwards when growth was accelerating. Its like making a weather forecast for next month by looking out of the window.
All of this applies to the EU forecasts as well of course which makes the Guardian's position even more ridiculous.
Somehow a 1.7% from the IMF has not greatly enhanced my confidence about my bet with Robert that growth will exceed 1.6% this year. Their record is awful and is usually a lagging indicator in that they fail to take into account how the economy is changing.
This forecast was down from 2.0% and their next forecast is likely to be down again in the same way that they consistently had to revise forecasts upwards when growth was accelerating. Its like making a weather forecast for next month by looking out of the window.
All of this applies to the EU forecasts as well of course which makes the Guardian's position even more ridiculous.
I take it that chlorine in our drinking water is also evidence of lowering standards?
"immersing poultry meat in chlorine dioxide solution of the strength used in the United States reduces prevalence of salmonella from 14% in controls to 2%. EU chicken samples typically have 15-20% salmonella.”
If we choose to change our food safety standards to allow in US imports - how will that affect a post Brexit deal with the EU?
This relates to my current day job - I've just been commenting on it to the BBC in suitably non-partisan terms. The position is that if we do separate from the Single Market, we will be able to negotiate separate trade deals, with different criteria (stronger or weaker or just different) from those that apply within the single market. Animal welfare and environmental groups are concerned that our anxiety to reach a speedy trade deal with the USA might lead us to accept lower US standards, specifically in chicken production; that would, of course, introduce chickens that could not be resold to the EU, which would mean a new non-tariff barrier to trade.
We were very pleased with Michael Gove's comments on this, and have warmly welcomed them. Whether other Ministers agree is a matter of some debate, as the link says. There wlil be a Lords Select Committee report on this tomorrow.
So what would that mean though in practice?
How do you stop chickens being resold? Would the UK have to have certificates for chickens suitable for EU export or something like that?
As a starting point, I presume that we would no longer be able to export chicken meat to the EU, since they would regard it as potentially unsafe. We could hope to negotiate some sort of labelling scheme that marked chickens not subjected to that sort of treatment as "meeting EU standards" and therefore safe for export. But pending any such agreement (which would require inspections, presumably), British farmers would potentially face a double whammy, undercut by low-standard US imports on the domestic market and cut off from exporting to Europe. And once the British chicken farming industry had been put to the sword, would US imports remain cheap?
It's a seriously bad idea, as Gove has pointed out.
Conversely, Mr. Meeks is of the view that racism won the vote for Leave,
Perhaps you have confused Alastair with me. I am convinced that Leave won because of an appeal to racism (via Farage's poster and the like) and outright lies like the £350m NHS pledge
Right, so you also consider them to be stupid suggestible racists. Would it be fair to say you despise them? Or can stupid and suggestible racists be meritorious people deserving of high regard?
It is Thornberryesque how reluctant Remainers are to admit to this. Like Thornberry sneering at a WWC house, they post up their links proving this thing and that thing, but simply typing "I hate / despise Leavers / the WWC" despite much evidence that this is so seems to be terribly hard to do.
I wonder if it's because if anyone said that it would ex post rather justify the objects of the hatred voting as they did, making Remain's defeat explicitly the fault of Remainers?
I take it that chlorine in our drinking water is also evidence of lowering standards?
"immersing poultry meat in chlorine dioxide solution of the strength used in the United States reduces prevalence of salmonella from 14% in controls to 2%. EU chicken samples typically have 15-20% salmonella.”
Precisely. The US and the EU take a different view on this, but it is utterly disingenuous to claim that the US rules are somehow weaker than the EU ones; there's a very plausible case for arguing that the US has got this right and the EU has got it wrong.
It's a prevalent enough point of view to be a fair generalisation.
Conversely, Mr. Meeks is of the view that racism won the vote for Leave, and that Leave voters are morally equivalent to Confederate slave owners. We have also repeatedly seen claims that people voted Leave because they were ignorant and stupid.
From these facts, I am simply making the very, very minor leap to the assumption that Remain voters such as those cited probably do indeed despise ignorant, stupid racists with shameful views. So why would such people as Umunna and Soubry chuck in what I am sure they regard as their promising political career because of people like that?
You've basically had a pop at Alastair and extrapolated his view to other REMAIN supporters.
There may be an infinitesimal group among REMAIN voters who think that and I would contend there are LEAVE voters whose view of REMAIN supporters isn't that generous - look at the responses to Alastair as an example.
There's plenty of stupidity on both sides if you want to look for it.
You were the one who used the term "all these people" and claimed they "despised the electorate" which is of course absurd. Do you think Ken Clarke despises the electorate ? If so, he's hidden it pretty well.
I don't see how I've "had a pop at Alastair". These are his actual views; I don't think I've misrepresented them. Like-minded ardent Remainers certainly do despise the electorate that voted Leave.
I've stated my actual views below, which (as should be clear) you did misrepresent.
So as I understand it you're saying that people who voted Leave on grounds purportedly other than xenophobia were in fact not really doing so at all, it was all about xenophobia; and likewise people who supported the Confederacy were not at all interested in states' rights or the right to secede, they were actually just in favour of slavery, including those who were not themselves slave owners?
Glad we cleared that up - I was concerned you might despise Leave voters or something!
Clear the spittle from your eyes and try reading what was written instead of what you want to read, and you might learn something.
I take it that chlorine in our drinking water is also evidence of lowering standards?
"immersing poultry meat in chlorine dioxide solution of the strength used in the United States reduces prevalence of salmonella from 14% in controls to 2%. EU chicken samples typically have 15-20% salmonella.”
Precisely. The US and the EU take a different view on this, but it is utterly disingenuous to claim that the US rules are somehow weaker than the EU ones; there's a very plausible case for arguing that the US has got this right and the EU has got it wrong.
Let's hope so, given that the US will tell us what the trade deal will cover and what the terms will be.
It's a prevalent enough point of view to be a fair generalisation.
Conversely, Mr. Meeks is of the view that racism won the vote for Leave, and that Leave voters are morally equivalent to Confederate slave owners. We have also repeatedly seen claims that people voted Leave because they were ignorant and stupid.
From these facts, I am simply making the very, very minor leap to the assumption that Remain voters such as those cited probably do indeed despise ignorant, stupid racists with shameful views. So why would such people as Umunna and Soubry chuck in what I am sure they regard as their promising political career because of people like that?
You've basically had a pop at Alastair and extrapolated his view to other REMAIN supporters.
There may be an infinitesimal group among REMAIN voters who think that and I would contend there are LEAVE voters whose view of REMAIN supporters isn't that generous - look at the responses to Alastair as an example.
There's plenty of stupidity on both sides if you want to look for it.
You were the one who used the term "all these people" and claimed they "despised the electorate" which is of course absurd. Do you think Ken Clarke despises the electorate ? If so, he's hidden it pretty well.
I don't see how I've "had a pop at Alastair". These are his actual views; I don't think I've misrepresented them. Like-minded ardent Remainers certainly do despise the electorate that voted Leave.
I've stated my actual views below, which (as should be clear) you did misrepresent.
So as I understand it you're saying that people who voted Leave on grounds purportedly other than xenophobia were in fact not really doing so at all, it was all about xenophobia; and likewise people who supported the Confederacy were not at all interested in states' rights or the right to secede, they were actually just in favour of slavery, including those who were not themselves slave owners?
Glad we cleared that up - I was concerned you might despise Leave voters or something!
Clear the spittle from your eyes and try reading what was written instead of what you want to read, and you might learn something.
So you do despise Leave voters? Yes / No?
Until you've shown that you have understood what I've already written, I'm not going to introduce new concepts for you to be befuddled by.
Somehow a 1.7% from the IMF has not greatly enhanced my confidence about my bet with Robert that growth will exceed 1.6% this year. Their record is awful and is usually a lagging indicator in that they fail to take into account how the economy is changing.
This forecast was down from 2.0% and their next forecast is likely to be down again in the same way that they consistently had to revise forecasts upwards when growth was accelerating. Its like making a weather forecast for next month by looking out of the window.
All of this applies to the EU forecasts as well of course which makes the Guardian's position even more ridiculous.
The EU forecasts have risen, haven't they?
No I think that they have stayed broadly the same with the US and UK being marked down.
It's a seriously bad idea, as Gove has pointed out.
Has he? I thought he had made general comments about not lowering environmental and food standards, not about this particular difference in environmental/food standards.
If we choose to change our food safety standards to allow in US imports - how will that affect a post Brexit deal with the EU?
This relates to my current day job - I've just been commenting on it to the BBC in suitably non-partisan terms. The position is that if we do separate from the Single Market, we will be able to negotiate separate trade deals, with different criteria (stronger or weaker or just different) from those that apply within the single market. Animal welfare and environmental groups are concerned that our anxiety to reach a speedy trade deal with the USA might lead us to accept lower US standards, specifically in chicken production; that would, of course, introduce chickens that could not be resold to the EU, which would mean a new non-tariff barrier to trade.
We were very pleased with Michael Gove's comments on this, and have warmly welcomed them. Whether other Ministers agree is a matter of some debate, as the link says. There wlil be a Lords Select Committee report on this tomorrow.
So what would that mean though in practice?
How do you stop chickens being resold? Would the UK have to have certificates for chickens suitable for EU export or something like that?
As a starting point, I presume that we would no longer be able to export chicken meat to the EU, since they would regard it as potentially unsafe. We could hope to negotiate some sort of labelling scheme that marked chickens not subjected to that sort of treatment as "meeting EU standards" and therefore safe for export. But pending any such agreement (which would require inspections, presumably), British farmers would potentially face a double whammy, undercut by low-standard US imports on the domestic market and cut off from exporting to Europe. And once the British chicken farming industry had been put to the sword, would US imports remain cheap?
It's a seriously bad idea, as Gove has pointed out.
You can bet your bottom dollar there would be provisions in the trade deal the US dictates to us that would make labelling very difficult.
If we choose to change our food safety standards to allow in US imports - how will that affect a post Brexit deal with the EU?
This relates to my current day job - I've just been commenting on it to the BBC in suitably non-partisan terms. The position is that if we do separate from the Single Market, we will be able to negotiate separate trade deals, with different criteria (stronger or weaker or just different) from those that apply within the single market. Animal welfare and environmental groups are concerned that our anxiety to reach a speedy trade deal with the USA might lead us to accept lower US standards, specifically in chicken production; that would, of course, introduce chickens that could not be resold to the EU, which would mean a new non-tariff barrier to trade.
We were very pleased with Michael Gove's comments on this, and have warmly welcomed them. Whether other Ministers agree is a matter of some debate, as the link says. There wlil be a Lords Select Committee report on this tomorrow.
So what would that mean though in practice?
How do you stop chickens being resold? Would the UK have to have certificates for chickens suitable for EU export or something like that?
low-standard US imports.
Much better EU chicken with seven to ten times the prevalence of Salmonella.....!
Somehow a 1.7% from the IMF has not greatly enhanced my confidence about my bet with Robert that growth will exceed 1.6% this year. Their record is awful and is usually a lagging indicator in that they fail to take into account how the economy is changing.
This forecast was down from 2.0% and their next forecast is likely to be down again in the same way that they consistently had to revise forecasts upwards when growth was accelerating. Its like making a weather forecast for next month by looking out of the window.
All of this applies to the EU forecasts as well of course which makes the Guardian's position even more ridiculous.
The EU forecasts have risen, haven't they?
No I think that they have stayed broadly the same with the US and UK being marked down.
Germany has been revised up by 0.2 points to 1.8%, France by 0.1 points to 1.5%, while Italy and Spain have both been revised up by 0.5 points to 1.3% and 3.1% respectively.
Somehow a 1.7% from the IMF has not greatly enhanced my confidence about my bet with Robert that growth will exceed 1.6% this year. Their record is awful and is usually a lagging indicator in that they fail to take into account how the economy is changing.
This forecast was down from 2.0% and their next forecast is likely to be down again in the same way that they consistently had to revise forecasts upwards when growth was accelerating. Its like making a weather forecast for next month by looking out of the window.
All of this applies to the EU forecasts as well of course which makes the Guardian's position even more ridiculous.
The EU forecasts have risen, haven't they?
No I think that they have stayed broadly the same with the US and UK being marked down.
Germany has been revised up by 0.2 points to 1.8%, France by 0.1 points to 1.5%, while Italy and Spain have both been revised up by 0.5 points to 1.3% and 3.1% respectively.
It's a seriously bad idea, as Gove has pointed out.
Has he? I thought he had made general comments about not lowering environmental and food standards, not about this particular difference in environmental/food standards.
Yep - he has plenty of wriggle room to wave through any deal. We will get the Americans' unlabelled chlorinated chicken and they will get the NHS!
Mr. Meeks is of the view that racism won the vote for Leave, and that Leave voters are morally equivalent to Confederate slave owners.
Mr Meeks is of the view that Leave was won on a prospectus of pandering to xenophobia. Given that numerous opinion polls show that immigration was the single most important consideration in determining Leave voters' choice and given the sickening poster campaigns that the Leave campaigns chose to run with at the end of their campaigns, that is scarcely arguable.
Mr Meeks did not make an equivalence between Leave voters and Confederate slave owners but a comparison between supporting Leave as the Leave campaign was fought and supporting the Confederacy as it existed in 1861: the theoretical arguments in favour of states' rights being overwhelmed by the reality in each case of what the fight was about.
OK, so I was broadly right. Would it be fair to say that you despise Leave voters?
Yes, whether he admits it to himself or not. It drips out of everything he writes on the subject.
It is Thornberryesque how reluctant Remainers are to admit to this. Like Thornberry sneering at a WWC house, they post up their links proving this thing and that thing, but simply typing "I hate / despise Leavers / the WWC" despite much evidence that this is so seems to be terribly hard to do.
I wonder if it's because if anyone said that it would ex post rather justify the objects of the hatred voting as they did, making Remain's defeat explicitly the fault of Remainers?
I neither hate nor despise Leave voters, I just think that they have made the wrong choice.
Somehow a 1.7% from the IMF has not greatly enhanced my confidence about my bet with Robert that growth will exceed 1.6% this year. Their record is awful and is usually a lagging indicator in that they fail to take into account how the economy is changing.
This forecast was down from 2.0% and their next forecast is likely to be down again in the same way that they consistently had to revise forecasts upwards when growth was accelerating. Its like making a weather forecast for next month by looking out of the window.
All of this applies to the EU forecasts as well of course which makes the Guardian's position even more ridiculous.
The EU forecasts have risen, haven't they?
No I think that they have stayed broadly the same with the US and UK being marked down.
Germany has been revised up by 0.2 points to 1.8%, France by 0.1 points to 1.5%, while Italy and Spain have both been revised up by 0.5 points to 1.3% and 3.1% respectively.
Spain looks set for a golden decade at least. GeoffM must look on with envy.
Catalonia could be a real spanner in the works for Spain. There is yet another unofficial independence referendum planned for October and the Catalan government is planning UDI should the vote be to separate. Obviously, no-one will recognise the move, but it could cause a whole lot of stasis.
I take it that chlorine in our drinking water is also evidence of lowering standards?
"immersing poultry meat in chlorine dioxide solution of the strength used in the United States reduces prevalence of salmonella from 14% in controls to 2%. EU chicken samples typically have 15-20% salmonella.”
If we choose to change our food safety standards to allow in US imports - how will that affect a post Brexit deal with the EU?
We would be mad to do a trade deal with the US before we have done one with the EU. So expect us to do one - or, more accurately - accept what the Americans are prepared to give us.
If we do the EU deal first though - presumably one of the criteria might be to maintain existing food standards - thus potentially ruling out a deal with the US?
What I'm getting at is I think these deals may be interdependent... which makes it doubly strange why Liam Fox isn't on the Brexit committee.
I agree though that the EU deal is much more important.
Yes - all trade deals are very interdependent and are agreed with that knowledge in mind. That's why there are also very strict rules about not being able to change your position once you have agreed a deal. A deal with the EU would very likely preclude one with the US and vice versa - mainly because we will be the junior party in both negotiations and so very beholden to what the other side tells us they are prepared to give.
I wonder how desperate our position would need to be before some of the Brexiteers start seriously floating the idea of becoming the 51st state.
51st State actually makes a lot of sense, especially now we have opted out of the EU. Of course it rather cuts against the idea of sovereignity, but that may not appear so important once the harsh realities of going it alone have sunk in.
Presumably anybody that is concerned about their chicken being washed in Chlorine can just rinse it with Sovereignty before consumption...
Or they could rinse it in chlorinated tap water.....oh hang on, the advice to rinse chickens was changed because it increased the risk of spreading salmonella.....which is higher in EU chickens than US ones....
It's a seriously bad idea, as Gove has pointed out.
Has he? I thought he had made general comments about not lowering environmental and food standards, not about this particular difference in environmental/food standards.
Yep - he has plenty of wriggle room to wave through any deal. We will get the Americans' unlabelled chlorinated chicken and they will get the NHS!
Such joy it will be to be free!!
If it was the other way round, the Guardian-reading classes would be horrified at the prospect of imports of cheap Salmonella-infested chicken from the US. The reaction is entirely driven by anti-US prejudice, and has zero to do with the reality, which is that the US rules are designed to address a quite reasonable public-health concern.
If we choose to change our food safety standards to allow in US imports - how will that affect a post Brexit deal with the EU?
We would be mad to do a trade deal with the US before we have done one with the EU. So expect us to do one - or, more accurately - accept what the Americans are prepared to give us.
If we do the EU deal first though - presumably one of the criteria might be to maintain existing food standards - thus potentially ruling out a deal with the US?
What I'm getting at is I think these deals may be interdependent... which makes it doubly strange why Liam Fox isn't on the Brexit committee.
I agree though that the EU deal is much more important.
Yes - all trade deals are very interdependent and are agreed with that knowledge in mind. That's why there are also very strict rules about not being able to change your position once you have agreed a deal. A deal with the EU would very likely preclude one with the US and vice versa - mainly because we will be the junior party in both negotiations and so very beholden to what the other side tells us they are prepared to give.
I wonder how desperate our position would need to be before some of the Brexiteers start seriously floating the idea of becoming the 51st state.
51st State actually makes a lot of sense, especially now we have opted out of the EU. Of course it rather cuts against the idea of sovereignity, but that may not appear so important once the harsh realities of going it alone have sunk in.
Comments
There may be an infinitesimal group among REMAIN voters who think that and I would contend there are LEAVE voters whose view of REMAIN supporters isn't that generous - look at the responses to Alastair as an example.
There's plenty of stupidity on both sides if you want to look for it.
You were the one who used the term "all these people" and claimed they "despised the electorate" which is of course absurd. Do you think Ken Clarke despises the electorate ? If so, he's hidden it pretty well.
I come from Brent (Wembley to be exact) and that is exactly what is happening, same in Slough that I am aware of.
Mr Meeks did not make an equivalence between Leave voters and Confederate slave owners but a comparison between supporting Leave as the Leave campaign was fought and supporting the Confederacy as it existed in 1861: the theoretical arguments in favour of states' rights being overwhelmed by the reality in each case of what the fight was about.
Hard to say if he despises the wider electorate (maybe he doesn't "despise" the electorate but I get the feeling he regards the voters as a nuisance especially when they don't do as they're told) but he did once famously say that Parliament would eventually end up as no more important than a local council debating chamber, so....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-theresa-may-food-standards-weakened-post-trade-deal-us-chlorine-soaked-chicken-liam-a7857036.html
If we choose to change our food safety standards to allow in US imports - how will that affect a post Brexit deal with the EU?
https://order-order.com/2017/07/24/ipso-throws-out-baroness-scotlands-complaints/
I really do hope I am wrong and that this proves to be a prescient article, but I doubt it!
Centrist voters may be repelled by both, but Corbyn's economic views resonate with left wingers, and the Brexiteers' views resonate with right wing voters.
What I'm getting at is I think these deals may be interdependent... which makes it doubly strange why Liam Fox isn't on the Brexit committee.
I agree though that the EU deal is much more important.
We were very pleased with Michael Gove's comments on this, and have warmly welcomed them. Whether other Ministers agree is a matter of some debate, as the link says. There wlil be a Lords Select Committee report on this tomorrow.
I can't see US standards being adopted here.
I've long thought that the UK-US trade deal will happen in stages, the first stage covering the easy things such as financial services and complex manufactured products like cars and planes; before moving on later to the more contentious issues like pharmaceuticals and foodstuffs.
So... A trade deal won't be done in a year or two but equally it won't take seven or ten years either.
Expect somewhere the middle - Around 3-4 years - Like most things in life the reality is neither as extremely terrible as the William Glenns of this world would have us believe, but nor is it the land of milk and honey that the Farage's of this world would have us believe either.
How do you stop chickens being resold? Would the UK have to have certificates for chickens suitable for EU export or something like that?
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/889494207328595968
I wonder whether Sir Kier will still be in his job at 10pm tonight?
I think Gove is a good placement at DEFRA, it's going to be possibly the most affected department by Brexit and needs a strong hand on the tiller that's prepared to take on the massive vested interests in farming as the CAP gets replaced. We shouldn't be continuing to subsidise massive agribusiness and horse studs, as was reported over the weekend.
Interest rates halved, pretty much, within four months. This wasn't because inflation suddenly fell on devaluation. It was because ERM membership kept our rates twice as high as they needed to be.
They deserved everything they received in 1997...
Alastair is perfectly within his rights to claim those who voted LEAVE were wrong to do so. Indeed, that's what democracy is all about.
He might even claim they were sold a false prospectus in order for them to vote the way they did - wow, a politician might have told a lie, how'd have thought it ? £350 million for the NHS as an example.
Does Alastair despise me ? If he does, he's not told me.
Unless I'm wrong, and an independent technical report has been commissioned?
https://www.thelocal.fr/20170723/popularity-tumbles-for-frances-macron-poll
Now trailing Sarkozy & Hollande.....
But bad move for Labour I think...
Glad we cleared that up - I was concerned you might despise Leave voters or something!
No, that one was not me. I would never even have dreamt that comparison up.
Errr.....
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/i-really-regret-my-vote-now-the-brexit-voters-who-wish-theyd-voted-to-remain-a3280361.html
This forecast was down from 2.0% and their next forecast is likely to be down again in the same way that they consistently had to revise forecasts upwards when growth was accelerating. Its like making a weather forecast for next month by looking out of the window.
All of this applies to the EU forecasts as well of course which makes the Guardian's position even more ridiculous.
https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/buying-and-supplying/food-safety/chlorinated-chicken-explained-why-do-the-americans-treat-their-poultry-with-chlorine/555618.article
It's a seriously bad idea, as Gove has pointed out.
It is Thornberryesque how reluctant Remainers are to admit to this. Like Thornberry sneering at a WWC house, they post up their links proving this thing and that thing, but simply typing "I hate / despise Leavers / the WWC" despite much evidence that this is so seems to be terribly hard to do.
I wonder if it's because if anyone said that it would ex post rather justify the objects of the hatred voting as they did, making Remain's defeat explicitly the fault of Remainers?
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/27/growth-unemployment-five-big-eurozone-economies
Such joy it will be to be free!!
If it suddenly looks like Jezza is out-Brexiting the Tories they'll act...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/12/puerto-rico-votes-become-americas-51st-state/