New Zealand still gives preference to just a single neighbour.
An interesting distinction. I thought we were leaving to avoid being part of the 'EU superstate'? At what point will you consider that we are faced with a single neighbour? If the answer is some approximation of never, perhaps you should rethink your view of what the EU is likely to become, as seen from the continent of Europe.
I think the possibility is indeed that the EU could become one, but I don't think anyone has suggested it is one today.
Is EU membership not shared history? There are more people living in the UK born in EU countries other than Ireland.
I wouldn't view it that way. EU membership is a very recent thing in comparison.
The majority of today's UK citizens have never been alive at a time when we weren't part of the European Community.
Though what the European Community is has changed repeatedly which is why you chose that disingenuous term.
There are zero UK voters who were not alive when we were not a part of the European Union. There are zero UK voters who were not alive at a time when we weren't part of a community with Poland, Romania etc
Well highlighted, if you accept this nonsensical argument you can "prove" anything...
There are zero UK voters who were not alive at a time when the UK was on course to leave the EU
Indeed. That's why I didn't come up with the argument williamglenn did and I was just rebutting it.
Is EU membership not shared history? There are more people living in the UK born in EU countries other than Ireland.
I wouldn't view it that way. EU membership is a very recent thing in comparison.
The majority of today's UK citizens have never been alive at a time when we weren't part of the European Community.
Though what the European Community is has changed repeatedly which is why you chose that disingenuous term.
There are zero UK voters who were not alive when we were not a part of the European Union. There are zero UK voters who were not alive at a time when we weren't part of a community with Poland, Romania etc
Well highlighted, if you accept this nonsensical argument you can "prove" anything...
There are zero UK voters who were not alive at a time when the UK was on course to leave the EU
That's not the formulation I used. I'm talking about people whose entire life has been lived while the UK was part of the political structures of modern Europe.
Mr. 43, hmm. I'm still awaiting the harsh penalties for German car manufacturers.
Maybe someone should leak that British cows were used for the seat upholstery. Might kickstart an investigation.
The EU isn't a perfect institution. You don't think the UK government would act in exactly the same way with UK companies in similar circumstances? It wouldn't make Westminster an undemocratic or illegitimate institution.
Is EU membership not shared history? There are more people living in the UK born in EU countries other than Ireland.
I wouldn't view it that way. EU membership is a very recent thing in comparison.
The majority of today's UK citizens have never been alive at a time when we weren't part of the European Community.
Though what the European Community is has changed repeatedly which is why you chose that disingenuous term.
There are zero UK voters who were not alive when we were not a part of the European Union. There are zero UK voters who were not alive at a time when we weren't part of a community with Poland, Romania etc
Well highlighted, if you accept this nonsensical argument you can "prove" anything...
There are zero UK voters who were not alive at a time when the UK was on course to leave the EU
That's not the formulation I used. I'm talking about people whose entire life has been lived while the UK was part of the political structures of modern Europe.
There you go again, deliberately confusing Modern Europe (whatever it means) with the EU
No way can splitting the cost of a single election leaflet between national and local spending be legal. If it is then it is a total piss take of the rules and that loophole needs to be closed down.
"It is a normal and legal part of election expenditure to split some costs between different legal areas. For example, a leaflet might both promote a local election candidate and a general election candidate and as a result its costs are split between the two candidate’s different expense limits."
Splitting spending between two candidates I can totally understand and makes sense, splitting between local and national spending is self evident bollocks.
Is EU membership not shared history? There are more people living in the UK born in EU countries other than Ireland.
I wouldn't view it that way. EU membership is a very recent thing in comparison.
The majority of today's UK citizens have never been alive at a time when we weren't part of the European Community.
Though what the European Community is has changed repeatedly which is why you chose that disingenuous term.
There are zero UK voters who were not alive when we were not a part of the European Union. There are zero UK voters who were not alive at a time when we weren't part of a community with Poland, Romania etc
Well highlighted, if you accept this nonsensical argument you can "prove" anything...
There are zero UK voters who were not alive at a time when the UK was on course to leave the EU
That's not the formulation I used. I'm talking about people whose entire life has been lived while the UK was part of the political structures of modern Europe.
And the point was there are NO voters whose entire life has been where the UK was part of the European Union.
There are NO voters whose entire life has been where the UK was in a union with Poland etc
Is EU membership not shared history? There are more people living in the UK born in EU countries other than Ireland.
I wouldn't view it that way. EU membership is a very recent thing in comparison.
The majority of today's UK citizens have never been alive at a time when we weren't part of the European Community.
Though what the European Community is has changed repeatedly which is why you chose that disingenuous term.
There are zero UK voters who were not alive when we were not a part of the European Union. There are zero UK voters who were not alive at a time when we weren't part of a community with Poland, Romania etc
Well highlighted, if you accept this nonsensical argument you can "prove" anything...
There are zero UK voters who were not alive at a time when the UK was on course to leave the EU
That's not the formulation I used. I'm talking about people whose entire life has been lived while the UK was part of the political structures of modern Europe.
And the point was there are NO voters whose entire life has been where the UK was part of the European Union.
There are NO voters whose entire life has been where the UK was in a union with Poland etc
Your first point isn't watertight assuming we accept Maastricht (1993) as the formation as some won't live an average lifespan, but main thrust is a valid argument. The second point is valid though - no one born since Polish accession has reached voting age.
Cohen is right, Jones has blown it with his old fans - mostly for being so disingenuous about it all rather than for him opposing Corbyn. Too associated with Lisa Nandy and the utterly pointless 'soft-left'. There was one point where Lisa Nandy et al. went to tell Corbyn to resign, and afterwards claimed they had just gone to tell Corbyn to diversify his Shadow Cabinet (this in the middle of all the resignations...) and ended up telling him to resign spontaneously - when there were newspaper reports on the previous day saying 'We're meeting Corbyn to tell him to resign tomorrow'.
Doesn't mean Jones won't stick around writing terrible articles for the Guardian for the next few decades though.
She lost seats and her majority, so is worse off than before the election (but her party is still the largest single bloc in the HoC). Those are the facts - all else is spin.
I asked which election she lost? The last one I can think of was North West Durham in 1992.
If you were asked before the election, would you honestly have seen that result as a win?
Yes. Her party won most votes, most seats and she ended the election as the only realistic PM. She won the election.
Yeah that's why Tory strategists woke up on the ninth of June saying 'phew, what a win! Glad that didn't backfire!'.
It's ridiculous to strip politics of all context, the expectations and actual goals of the contending parties. She didn't choose to call an election hoping to scrape through in a minority government with a ruined reputation. She called it hoping to achieve an increased majority.
The argument for "Europe" switches to and fro, from claims about practical benefits to expressions of political idealism and back again. If one disagrees with advocates of "Europe" about the practical advantages, they say, "Well, you may be right about this or that disadvantage, but surely it's a price worth paying for such a wonderful political ideal." And if one casts doubt on the political desirability of the ideal, they reply, "Never mind about that, just think of the economic advantages." The truth is that both arguments for "Europe" are fundamentally flawed.
It's a serious point. I am a Europhile in the sense that I think the EU is a force for the good and that Europe and the world are better places for it being there. I wish it well. (I am also a bit Eurosceptic in that I am not entirely convinced it will work long term). However I am very clear that the EU has to deliver tangible benefits to its citizens. We can go on about brotherhood until we are blue in the face but unless people are clothed, fed, have jobs, access to welfare, opportunities, it's pointless.
But, but, but, but .... I apply the same logic to the counter argument. Being masters of our own ship, sovereignty, deciding the EU is not for us are perfectly legitimate reasons for leaving. But we can go on about sovereignty until we are blue in the face but if that sovereignty means we are materially worse off there's no point. You wouldn't choose to do it, which is what sovereignty means. On that point the EU wins hands down. We are materially better off in the EU. And if people say, what price is liberty that you are prepared to sell out, I will start talking about peace in Europe, democracy, personal freedoms and the rule of law, because those are just as valid.
She lost seats and her majority, so is worse off than before the election (but her party is still the largest single bloc in the HoC). Those are the facts - all else is spin.
I asked which election she lost? The last one I can think of was North West Durham in 1992.
If you were asked before the election, would you honestly have seen that result as a win?
Yes. Her party won most votes, most seats and she ended the election as the only realistic PM. She won the election.
Yeah that's why Tory strategists woke up on the ninth of June saying 'phew, what a win! Glad that didn't backfire!'.
Corbynites are acting like they won. Doesn't mean they did. They didn't. Corbyn lost.
The Tories didn't win as well as they hoped, but that doesn't mean they didn't win. They did.
That is not as indisputable a fact as you portray it.
That we are materially better off in the EU is disputable in the sense that people do dispute it. However there are good objective reasons for believing it to be the case and few objective reasons for not believing it.
That is not as indisputable a fact as you portray it.
That we are materially better off in the EU is disputable in the sense that people do dispute it. However there are good objective reasons for believing it to be the case and few objective reasons for not believing it.
A reason to not believe it is that it requires a counterfactual for comparison and therefore it's neither provable nor falsifiable.
She lost seats and her majority, so is worse off than before the election (but her party is still the largest single bloc in the HoC). Those are the facts - all else is spin.
I asked which election she lost? The last one I can think of was North West Durham in 1992.
If you were asked before the election, would you honestly have seen that result as a win?
Yes. Her party won most votes, most seats and she ended the election as the only realistic PM. She won the election.
Yeah that's why Tory strategists woke up on the ninth of June saying 'phew, what a win! Glad that didn't backfire!'.
Corbynites are acting like they won. Doesn't mean they did. They didn't. Corbyn lost.
The Tories didn't win as well as they hoped, but that doesn't mean they didn't win. They did.
Yep, those were 'winner's tears'.
Nobody fights elections for the sake of fighting elections, it is always about furthering some political project, meeting differing goals. May's decision to call the election and fight it as she did damaged her project terribly and set her back on achieving her goals. It strengthened her main opponents and brought them closer to achieving their broader objectives.
Politics isn't a football match, starting at 0-0, with each side hoping to get the biggest number and counting a win or a loss on that basis. The Tories didn't win 3-2 hoping for a 4-0. They needlessly threw away a majority government. If you don't get it there's not much more to say.
She lost seats and her majority, so is worse off than before the election (but her party is still the largest single bloc in the HoC). Those are the facts - all else is spin.
I asked which election she lost? The last one I can think of was North West Durham in 1992.
If you were asked before the election, would you honestly have seen that result as a win?
Yes. Her party won most votes, most seats and she ended the election as the only realistic PM. She won the election.
Yeah that's why Tory strategists woke up on the ninth of June saying 'phew, what a win! Glad that didn't backfire!'.
Corbynites are acting like they won. Doesn't mean they did. They didn't. Corbyn lost.
The Tories didn't win as well as they hoped, but that doesn't mean they didn't win. They did.
Yep, those were 'winner's tears'.
Nobody fights elections for the sake of fighting elections, it is always about furthering some political project, meeting differing goals. May's decision to call the election and fight it as she did damaged her project terribly and set her back on achieving her goals. It strengthened her main opponents and brought them closer to achieving their broader objectives.
Politics isn't a football match, starting at 0-0, with each side hoping to get the biggest number and counting a win or a loss on that basis. The Tories didn't win 3-2 hoping for a 4-0. They needlessly threw away a majority government. If you don't get it there's not much more to say.
The term used was that she is an "election loser". She did not, by any reasonable objective measure, lose the election.
If you don't get that, there's no more to be said.
She lost seats and her majority, so is worse off than before the election (but her party is still the largest single bloc in the HoC). Those are the facts - all else is spin.
I asked which election she lost? The last one I can think of was North West Durham in 1992.
If you were asked before the election, would you honestly have seen that result as a win?
Yes. Her party won most votes, most seats and she ended the election as the only realistic PM. She won the election.
Yeah that's why Tory strategists woke up on the ninth of June saying 'phew, what a win! Glad that didn't backfire!'.
Corbynites are acting like they won. Doesn't mean they did. They didn't. Corbyn lost.
The Tories didn't win as well as they hoped, but that doesn't mean they didn't win. They did.
Yep, those were 'winner's tears'.
Nobody fights elections for the sake of fighting elections, it is always about furthering some political project, meeting differing goals. May's decision to call the election and fight it as she did damaged her project terribly and set her back on achieving her goals. It strengthened her main opponents and brought them closer to achieving their broader objectives.
Politics isn't a football match, starting at 0-0, with each side hoping to get the biggest number and counting a win or a loss on that basis. The Tories didn't win 3-2 hoping for a 4-0. They needlessly threw away a majority government. If you don't get it there's not much more to say.
The term used was that she is an "election loser". She did not, by any reasonable objective measure, lose the election.
If you don't get that, there's no more to be said.
Theresa May: 'If I lose just six seats, I will lose this election'.
That is not as indisputable a fact as you portray it.
That we are materially better off in the EU is disputable in the sense that people do dispute it. However there are good objective reasons for believing it to be the case and few objective reasons for not believing it.
A reason to not believe it is that it requires a counterfactual for comparison and therefore it's neither provable nor falsifiable.
I accept you dispute that we will be materially worse off outside the EU. Going back to my logic, the point is, whether we we are materially better off or not changes everything. If it doesn't, we are back to competing philosophies where one philosophy is just as good as the other. If people say, you can't eat brotherhood, then we can say, you can't eat sovereignty.
That is not as indisputable a fact as you portray it.
That we are materially better off in the EU is disputable in the sense that people do dispute it. However there are good objective reasons for believing it to be the case and few objective reasons for not believing it.
A reason to not believe it is that it requires a counterfactual for comparison and therefore it's neither provable nor falsifiable.
I accept you dispute that we will be materially worse off outside the EU. Going back to my logic, the point is whether we we are materially better off or not changes everything. If it doesn't, we are back to competing philosophies where one philosophy is just as good as the other. If people say, you can't eat brotherhood, then we can say, you can't eat sovereignty.
Does anybody remember J.G.A. Pocock's old essay, where he argued that the EU overly fetishized material wealth over values and such? Can't really remember it, can't really remember if I agree with it. Will have to remember to find it.
But there is a question about 'we will be materially worse off outside the EU'. 'We'? Are all our interests the same and recognised to be the same? I've said it before, but my Leave-voting family didn't flinch at the warnings about GDP and so on, because they've palpably felt their community to be in decline regardless of what GDP does. Top-line figures don't translate smoothly everywhere and for everybody.
Mr. Winstanley, indeed, that's a sentiment shared by those who feel those at the top in various countries feel more connected with one another than their own countrymen, likewise the thinning middle class with a few graduating to increased wealth and many seeing their own circumstances decline.
For that matter, it's a question of GDP being, roughly, a measure of mean improvement but if the median's going backwards that just means things are a bit worse for most people and super-lovely for those at the top end.
Unfortunately, the top end are, obviously, dramatically over-represented in the media and politics, and hence the sometimes enormous disconnect between the elected and the electorate.
That is not as indisputable a fact as you portray it.
That we are materially better off in the EU is disputable in the sense that people do dispute it. However there are good objective reasons for believing it to be the case and few objective reasons for not believing it.
A reason to not believe it is that it requires a counterfactual for comparison and therefore it's neither provable nor falsifiable.
I accept you dispute that we will be materially worse off outside the EU. Going back to my logic, the point is whether we we are materially better off or not changes everything. If it doesn't, we are back to competing philosophies where one philosophy is just as good as the other. If people say, you can't eat brotherhood, then we can say, you can't eat sovereignty.
Does anybody remember J.G.A. Pocock's old essay, where he argued that the EU overly fetishized material wealth over values and such? Can't really remember it, can't really remember if I agree with it. Will have to remember to find it.
But there is a question about 'we will be materially worse off outside the EU'. 'We'? Are all our interests the same and recognised to be the same? I've said it before, but my Leave-voting family didn't flinch at the warnings about GDP and so on, because they've palpably felt their community to be in decline regardless of what GDP does. Top-line figures don't translate smoothly everywhere and for everybody.
Your latter point was a huge driver for the Brexit vote (and the Trump vote in the US). Large parts of the population don't see life getting better for them personally, often quite the reverse. They see insecure jobs and stagnant wages, and are fed up with governments of all colours seemingly not being on their side.
When given an opportunity to rebel at the ballot box, they've taken it.
What's happened to James Chapman is genuinely quite sad. He was clearly once a competent political aide. When I first read the claim that the directive had gone out to not attack him because of possible mental health issues, I wondered if it was a bit of a smear. Seeing what he has posted since says otherwise, and it seems likely someone has had an intervention causing his account to go silent. Given the provocations present there, it actually says a lot about the teams around May and Davis they put the man's mental health first. As I've said before, despite all the hate she gets, Theresa May has a strong moral character. Everyone complains when politicians are venal and morally inconsistent, but then write someone off who isn't like that as "dull" and "uncharismatic".
While he is an extreme case, milder versions of this sort of Chapman Syndrome do seem to be commonplace. I did not realise before the referendum how many people were so emotionally vested in the EU, and many have had something of a breakdown since it's happened. You can tell the people who are obsessed with complaining about Brexit, always saying the EU is right on everything, and automatically think anyone involved in Brexit on the UK is completely self-serving and completely incompetent in every area. Previously, rational people have completely lost the ability to have a sensible objective viewpoint on this.
The argument for "Europe" switches to and fro, from claims about practical benefits to expressions of political idealism and back again. If one disagrees with advocates of "Europe" about the practical advantages, they say, "Well, you may be right about this or that disadvantage, but surely it's a price worth paying for such a wonderful political ideal." And if one casts doubt on the political desirability of the ideal, they reply, "Never mind about that, just think of the economic advantages." The truth is that both arguments for "Europe" are fundamentally flawed.
if that sovereignty means we are materially worse off there's no point.
Its a trade off. And plenty of voters decided that being (a little) worse off is worth it. Of course some thought there was only upside to leaving, but I suspect the majority did not (so constant bleating about money for the NHS persuades no one) - indeed the evidence suggests that voters concerns on the NHS focussed on immigration's impact (however valid or not that concern might be) - and had little to do with the supposed funding of the NHS from funds currently sent to the EU.
I suspect that voters concerns about immigration had gone unaddressed for so long (shut up you xenophobic racists, its the price we pay for being in the wonderful EU, and what's wrong with a cheaper Polish plumber anyway?) that the only way they could get attention was a 'brick through the window' - that at least has worked.
A great line from William Hague in his (fascinating) interview with Peter Hennessey this morning: "You can take back control of a gun, but that doesn't mean you have to use it to shoot at your feet".
That is not as indisputable a fact as you portray it.
That we are materially better off in the EU is disputable in the sense that people do dispute it. However there are good objective reasons for believing it to be the case and few objective reasons for not believing it.
A reason to not believe it is that it requires a counterfactual for comparison and therefore it's neither provable nor falsifiable.
I accept you dispute that we will be materially worse off outside the EU. Going back to my logic, the point is whether we we are materially better off or not changes everything. If it doesn't, we are back to competing philosophies where one philosophy is just as good as the other. If people say, you can't eat brotherhood, then we can say, you can't eat sovereignty.
Does anybody remember J.G.A. Pocock's old essay, where he argued that the EU overly fetishized material wealth over values and such? Can't really remember it, can't really remember if I agree with it. Will have to remember to find it.
But there is a question about 'we will be materially worse off outside the EU'. 'We'? Are all our interests the same and recognised to be the same? I've said it before, but my Leave-voting family didn't flinch at the warnings about GDP and so on, because they've palpably felt their community to be in decline regardless of what GDP does. Top-line figures don't translate smoothly everywhere and for everybody.
In what ways do they think their community to be in decline and do they think Brexit will improve those ways?
I should say, my post was written with my assessment of the outcomes. I am confident in my assessment and have good reasons for believing it, but almost all Leavers thought Brexit will improve things (and still do). Opinion polls tell us that.
She lost seats and her majority, so is worse off than before the election (but her party is still the largest single bloc in the HoC). Those are the facts - all else is spin.
I asked which election she lost? The last one I can think of was North West Durham in 1992.
If you were asked before the election, would you honestly have seen that result as a win?
Yes. Her party won most votes, most seats and she ended the election as the only realistic PM. She won the election.
Yeah that's why Tory strategists woke up on the ninth of June saying 'phew, what a win! Glad that didn't backfire!'.
Corbynites are acting like they won. Doesn't mean they did. They didn't. Corbyn lost.
The Tories didn't win as well as they hoped, but that doesn't mean they didn't win. They did.
Yep, those were 'winner's tears'.
Nobody fights elections for the sake of fighting elections, it is always about furthering some political project, meeting differing goals. May's decision to call the election and fight it as she did damaged her project terribly and set her back on achieving her goals. It strengthened her main opponents and brought them closer to achieving their broader objectives.
Politics isn't a football match, starting at 0-0, with each side hoping to get the biggest number and counting a win or a loss on that basis. The Tories didn't win 3-2 hoping for a 4-0. They needlessly threw away a majority government. If you don't get it there's not much more to say.
The term used was that she is an "election loser". She did not, by any reasonable objective measure, lose the election.
If you don't get that, there's no more to be said.
Theresa May: 'If I lose just six seats, I will lose this election'.
There's your objective measure.
She was wrong.
Actually, wasn't it "if I lose six seats, Corbyn becomes PM"? That was wrong too.
OK, let me ask it this was, you claim May lost the election. In that case, who won it?
A great line from William Hague in his (fascinating) interview with Peter Hennessey this morning: "You can take back control of a gun, but that doesn't mean you have to use it to shoot at your feet".
In order to get control of the gun you have to shoot yourself in the foot.
The question is whether it is worth it in the long run.
That is not as indisputable a fact as you portray it.
That we are materially better off in the EU is disputable in the sense that people do dispute it. However there are good objective reasons for believing it to be the case and few objective reasons for not believing it.
A reason to not believe it is that it requires a counterfactual for comparison and therefore it's neither provable nor falsifiable.
I accept you dispute that we will be materially worse off outside the EU. Going back to my logic, the point is whether we we are materially better off or not changes everything. If it doesn't, we are back to competing philosophies where one philosophy is just as good as the other. If people say, you can't eat brotherhood, then we can say, you can't eat sovereignty.
Does anybody remember J.G.A. Pocock's old essay, where he argued that the EU overly fetishized material wealth over values and such? Can't really remember it, can't really remember if I agree with it. Will have to remember to find it.
But there is a question about 'we will be materially worse off outside the EU'. 'We'? Are all our interests the same and recognised to be the same? I've said it before, but my Leave-voting family didn't flinch at the warnings about GDP and so on, because they've palpably felt their community to be in decline regardless of what GDP does. Top-line figures don't translate smoothly everywhere and for everybody.
Your latter point was a huge driver for the Brexit vote (and the Trump vote in the US). Large parts of the population don't see life getting better for them personally, often quite the reverse. They see insecure jobs and stagnant wages, and are fed up with governments of all colours seemingly not being on their side.
When given an opportunity to rebel at the ballot box, they've taken it.
Apart from kicking the establishment in the ballots what else have they achieved to improve thier lot?
A great line from William Hague in his (fascinating) interview with Peter Hennessey this morning: "You can take back control of a gun, but that doesn't mean you have to use it to shoot at your feet".
The headbangers have control of the trigger. They will pull it as often as they can
That is not as indisputable a fact as you portray it.
That we are materially better off in the EU is disputable in the sense that people do dispute it. However there are good objective reasons for believing it to be the case and few objective reasons for not believing it.
A reason to not believe it is that it requires a counterfactual for comparison and therefore it's neither provable nor falsifiable.
I accept you dispute that we will be materially worse off outside the EU. Going back to my logic, the point is whether we we are materially better off or not changes everything. If it doesn't, we are back to competing philosophies where one philosophy is just as good as the other. If people say, you can't eat brotherhood, then we can say, you can't eat sovereignty.
I've said it before, but my Leave-voting family didn't flinch at the warnings about GDP and so on, because they've palpably felt their community to be in decline regardless of what GDP does. Top-line figures don't translate smoothly everywhere and for everybody.
Indeed - while Guardian writers and BBC correspondents might welcome the arrival of the cheap Polish plumber, others might not....
That is not as indisputable a fact as you portray it.
That we are materially better off in the EU is disputable in the sense that people do dispute it. However there are good objective reasons for believing it to be the case and few objective reasons for not believing it.
A reason to not believe it is that it requires a counterfactual for comparison and therefore it's neither provable nor falsifiable.
I accept you dispute that we will be materially worse off outside the EU. Going back to my logic, the point is whether we we are materially better off or not changes everything. If it doesn't, we are back to competing philosophies where one philosophy is just as good as the other. If people say, you can't eat brotherhood, then we can say, you can't eat sovereignty.
Does anybody remember J.G.A. Pocock's old essay, where he argued that the EU overly fetishized material wealth over values and such? Can't really remember it, can't really remember if I agree with it. Will have to remember to find it.
But there is a question about 'we will be materially worse off outside the EU'. 'We'? Are all our interests the same and recognised to be the same? I've said it before, but my Leave-voting family didn't flinch at the warnings about GDP and so on, because they've palpably felt their community to be in decline regardless of what GDP does. Top-line figures don't translate smoothly everywhere and for everybody.
almost all Leavers thought Brexit will improve things (and still do). Opinion polls tell us that.
Theresa May: 'If I lose just six seats, I will lose this election'.
There's your objective measure.
She was wrong.
Actually, wasn't it "if I lose six seats, Corbyn becomes PM"? That was wrong too.
OK, let me ask it this was, you claim May lost the election. In that case, who won it?
'Won' implies too much finality, it's an unrealistic analogy for how politics actually works. 'Gain and loss' is better than 'win and loss', because it puts elections in the right context of their broader political projects. Plenty of people gained in the election, Corbyn's gain was probably greater than all others (except potentially the DUP!).
But then it's like the Chinese Marxist who was asked what he thought about the French Revolution, and replied 'it's too soon to say'. I happen to think Labour's crushing loss in 1931 ended up a gain for the party, as lots of older MPs were dislodged and the generation that made up the Attlee government were given a chance. I will look forward to making a final decision on 2017 after a few decades have passed.
That is not as indisputable a fact as you portray it.
That we are materially better off in the EU is disputable in the sense that people do dispute it. However there are good objective reasons for believing it to be the case and few objective reasons for not believing it.
A reason to not believe it is that it requires a counterfactual for comparison and therefore it's neither provable nor falsifiable.
I accept you dispute that we will be materially worse off outside the EU. Going back to my logic, the point is whether we we are materially better off or not changes everything. If it doesn't, we are back to competing philosophies where one philosophy is just as good as the other. If people say, you can't eat brotherhood, then we can say, you can't eat sovereignty.
I've said it before, but my Leave-voting family didn't flinch at the warnings about GDP and so on, because they've palpably felt their community to be in decline regardless of what GDP does. Top-line figures don't translate smoothly everywhere and for everybody.
Indeed - while Guardian writers and BBC correspondents might welcome the arrival of the cheap Polish plumber, others might not....
“That's your bloody GDP. Not ours.” <- That was the quote of the campaign for me, not anything said by a politician. That was the mood on the doorstep when I went out to campaign and I'm shocked that the Remain campaigners didn't pick up on it. They might have had management at the multinationals nodding along with them but the shop floor guys (ie. most of the workforce) were dead set on voting to leave.
You can argue that they were mistaken in their views (as doubtless you will) but the entire Remain campaign only broadcast a positive message to those who were already well off, they only acquired those further down the ladder through the projection of fear.
She lost seats and her majority, so is worse off than before the election (but her party is still the largest single bloc in the HoC). Those are the facts - all else is spin.
I asked which election she lost? The last one I can think of was North West Durham in 1992.
If you were asked before the election, would you honestly have seen that result as a win?
Yes. Her party won most votes, most seats and she ended the election as the only realistic PM. She won the election.
Yeah that's why Tory strategists woke up on the ninth of June saying 'phew, what a win! Glad that didn't backfire!'.
Corbynites are acting like they won. Doesn't mean they did. They didn't. Corbyn lost.
The Tories didn't win as well as they hoped, but that doesn't mean they didn't win. They did.
Yep, those were 'winner's tears'.
Nobody fights elections for the sake of fighting elections, it is always about furthering some political project, meeting differing goals. May's decision to call the election and fight it as she did damaged her project terribly and set her back on achieving her goals. It strengthened her main opponents and brought them closer to achieving their broader objectives.
Politics isn't a football match, starting at 0-0, with each side hoping to get the biggest number and counting a win or a loss on that basis. The Tories didn't win 3-2 hoping for a 4-0. They needlessly threw away a majority government. If you don't get it there's not much more to say.
The term used was that she is an "election loser". She did not, by any reasonable objective measure, lose the election.
If you don't get that, there's no more to be said.
Theresa May: 'If I lose just six seats, I will lose this election'.
There's your objective measure.
She was wrong.
Actually, wasn't it "if I lose six seats, Corbyn becomes PM"? That was wrong too.
OK, let me ask it this was, you claim May lost the election. In that case, who won it?
In March 1974 the answer to the question ‘Who governs’ was ‘Not you’.
And in June 2017 there was a statement .’I need a big majority to do this my way' Will you give it to me?’ And the answer was ‘No'
That is not as indisputable a fact as you portray it.
That we are materially better off in the EU is disputable in the sense that people do dispute it. However there are good objective reasons for believing it to be the case and few objective reasons for not believing it.
A reason to not believe it is that it requires a counterfactual for comparison and therefore it's neither provable nor falsifiable.
I accept you dispute that we will be materially worse off outside the EU. Going back to my logic, the point is whether we we are materially better off or not changes everything. If it doesn't, we are back to competing philosophies where one philosophy is just as good as the other. If people say, you can't eat brotherhood, then we can say, you can't eat sovereignty.
Does anybody remember J.G.A. Pocock's old essay, where he argued that the EU overly fetishized material wealth over values and such? Can't really remember it, can't really remember if I agree with it. Will have to remember to find it.
But there is a question about 'we will be materially worse off outside the EU'. 'We'? Are all our interests the same and recognised to be the same? I've said it before, but my Leave-voting family didn't flinch at the warnings about GDP and so on, because they've palpably felt their community to be in decline regardless of what GDP does. Top-line figures don't translate smoothly everywhere and for everybody.
In what ways do they think their community to be in decline and do they think Brexit will improve those ways?
I should say, my post was written with my assessment of the outcomes. I am confident in my assessment and have good reasons for believing it, but almost all Leavers thought Brexit will improve things (and still do). Opinion polls tell us that.
The economic argument for leaving the EU is based on the slightly more restricted trade with the EU being outweighed by the less restricted trade with the rest of the world, with extra bumps for a more skill-based immigration system and better domestic regulation. Obviously the trade restrictions come first and everything else comes later, so there will be a slowdown in the short term. That says nothing about whether the long term benefits will outweigh it or not, as those bits haven't happened yet.
Theresa May: 'If I lose just six seats, I will lose this election'.
There's your objective measure.
She was wrong.
Actually, wasn't it "if I lose six seats, Corbyn becomes PM"? That was wrong too.
OK, let me ask it this was, you claim May lost the election. In that case, who won it?
'Won' implies too much finality
No it doesn't, it reflects the fact that the election had results from which a parliament was formed.
Yes, a parliament of a complexion that Theresa May desperately wanted to avoid, because it has left her in a worse position than if she had never called it. Maybe I have a PR mindset, of politics as a shifting balance of power, rather than a First-Past-the-Post mindset. But regardless, the PR mindset is more true to how politics actually works even here...
There can't be many people he hasn't pissed off this past week (including a lot of those sympathetic to keeping us in the EU) ?
He was lauded as a heroic truth-teller by many Remainers. As I said, Chapman Syndrome in milder versions is pretty widespread, which makes a lot of people willing to claim anyone who opposes Brexit is fantastic and anyone who supports it is terrible.
That is not as indisputable a fact as you portray it.
That we are materially better off in the EU is disputable in the sense that people do dispute it. However there are good objective reasons for believing it to be the case and few objective reasons for not believing it.
A reason to not believe it is that it requires a counterfactual for comparison and therefore it's neither provable nor falsifiable.
I accept you dispute that we will be materially worse off outside the EU. Going back to my logic, the point is whether we we are materially better off or not changes everything. If it doesn't, we are back to competing philosophies where one philosophy is just as good as the other. If people say, you can't eat brotherhood, then we can say, you can't eat sovereignty.
I've said it before, but my Leave-voting family didn't flinch at the warnings about GDP and so on, because they've palpably felt their community to be in decline regardless of what GDP does. Top-line figures don't translate smoothly everywhere and for everybody.
Indeed - while Guardian writers and BBC correspondents might welcome the arrival of the cheap Polish plumber, others might not....
You can argue that they were mistaken in their views (as doubtless you will)
I think on balance they probably are. But preserving their absolute right to 'get it wrong' is orders of magnitude more important than a 4% smaller economy by 2030.
Leaving the EU is probably a bad idea. Trying to thwart a democratic vote is a very much worse idea.
WRT better/worse off, outside the EU, one needs to define what one means.
Currently, GDP per head is $40,000 or thereabouts. A decade from now, I would expect that figure to be higher, inside or outside the EU.
However, it may very well be the case that the increase in GDP per head would be higher if we were to stay inside the EU than if we left it (the reverse may also be true). In that case, the argument is whether the trade off between forfeited growth on the one hand, and greater self-government on the other, is worth it.
She lost seats and her majority, so is worse off than before the election (but her party is still the largest single bloc in the HoC). Those are the facts - all else is spin.
I asked which election she lost? The last one I can think of was North West Durham in 1992.
If you were asked before the election, would you honestly have seen that result as a win?
Yes. Her party won most votes, most seats and she ended the election as the only realistic PM. She won the election.
Yeah that's why Tory strategists woke up on the ninth of June saying 'phew, what a win! Glad that didn't backfire!'.
Corbynites are acting like they won. Doesn't mean they did. They didn't. Corbyn lost.
The Tories didn't win as well as they hoped, but that doesn't mean they didn't win. They did.
The term used was that she is an "election loser". She did not, by any reasonable objective measure, lose the election.
If you don't get that, there's no more to be said.
Theresa May: 'If I lose just six seats, I will lose this election'.
There's your objective measure.
She was wrong.
Actually, wasn't it "if I lose six seats, Corbyn becomes PM"? That was wrong too.
OK, let me ask it this was, you claim May lost the election. In that case, who won it?
In March 1974 the answer to the question ‘Who governs’ was ‘Not you’.
And in June 2017 there was a statement .’I need a big majority to do this my way' Will you give it to me?’ And the answer was ‘No'
The answer was "Labour support a hard Brexit too, and many of us want their fantasyland economics, so that's what we're deciding on."
If Labour had proposed staying in the single market, they would have done far worse.
Which I doubt. While most British PMs in my lifetime have spoken 'educated southern British' I suspect the last one to speak RP was Sir Alec......Thatcher & Heath came close, but May doesn't and Major certainly didn't, let alone Blair or Callaghan....
That is not as indisputable a fact as you portray it.
That we are materially better off in the EU is disputable in the sense that people do dispute it. However there are good objective reasons for believing it to be the case and few objective reasons for not believing it.
A reason to not believe it is that it requires a counterfactual for comparison and therefore it's neither provable nor falsifiable.
I accept you dispute tignty.
Does anybody remember J.use they've palpably felt their community to be in decline regardless of what GDP does. Top-line figures don't translate smoothly everywhere and for everybody.
In what ways do they think their community to be in decline and do they think Brexit will improve those ways?
I should say, my post was written with my assessment of the outcomes. I am confident in my assessment and have good reasons for believing it, but almost all Leavers thought Brexit will improve things (and still do). Opinion polls tell us that.
The economic argument for leaving the EU is based on the slightly more restricted trade with the EU being outweighed by the less restricted trade with the rest of the world, with extra bumps for a more skill-based immigration system and better domestic regulation. Obviously the trade restrictions come first and everything else comes later, so there will be a slowdown in the short term. That says nothing about whether the long term benefits will outweigh it or not, as those bits haven't happened yet.
Wait. Stop.
A sensible assessment of the Leave position.
I think EXPERTS agree that the NPV of the opportunity cost will be significant (but short of discernible to the naked eyes for most people). As for better domestic regulation, unless you are planning on reverting to imperial measures and maximum working hours for chimney sweeps, I believe that is all out of our hands anyway, vested in one supranational body or another. Certainly for services it is, and I daresay for widgets also.
I would also add that we are in a new paradigm (aren't we always) where sovereignty and "making our laws" is no longer compatible with those supranational standard-making bodies some of which we remain enthusiastically a part.
As for "it's not my bloody GDP" - excellent quote. But of course it is exactly everyone's GDP although, to borrow our Brexit Secretary's turn of phrase, it might not have seemed like it at times.
That is not as indisputable a fact as you portray it.
That we are materially better off in the EU is disputable in the sense that people do dispute it. However there are good objective reasons for believing it to be the case and few objective reasons for not believing it.
A reason to not believe it is that it requires a counterfactual for comparison and therefore it's neither provable nor falsifiable.
I accept you dispute that we will be materially worse off outside the EU. Going back to my logic, the point is whether we we are materially better off or not changes everything. If it doesn't, we are back to competing philosophies where one philosophy is just as good as the other. If people say, you can't eat brotherhood, then we can say, you can't eat sovereignty.
I've said it before, but my Leave-voting family didn't flinch at the warnings about GDP and so on, because they've palpably felt their community to be in decline regardless of what GDP does. Top-line figures don't translate smoothly everywhere and for everybody.
Indeed - while Guardian writers and BBC correspondents might welcome the arrival of the cheap Polish plumber, others might not....
You can argue that they were mistaken in their views (as doubtless you will)
I think on balance they probably are. But preserving their absolute right to 'get it wrong' is orders of magnitude more important than a 4% smaller economy by 2030.
Leaving the EU is probably a bad idea. Trying to thwart a democratic vote is a very much worse idea.
The Remainers that cared about democracy have accepted Brexit and want to just get on with it. Those still fighting it don't particularly care about it. The difference will be proven by eurosceptic defections putting themselves up for election again, while pro-European defections will never do such a thing.
In what ways do they think their community to be in decline and do they think Brexit will improve those ways?
Couldn't say to be honest, I don't chat much politics when I get to see them. I'd probably just end up trying to translate their off-hand comments into things I can understand, and introduce my own ideas by back door.
The economic argument for leaving the EU is based on the slightly more restricted trade with the EU being outweighed by the less restricted trade with the rest of the world, with extra bumps for a more skill-based immigration system and better domestic regulation. Obviously the trade restrictions come first and everything else comes later, so there will be a slowdown in the short term. That says nothing about whether the long term benefits will outweigh it or not, as those bits haven't happened yet.
"...this is the labour market programme of the pre-Thatcher industrial policies of the Labour party in the 70s and 60s which Theresa May wants to reimpose on the British economy. So don't entertain the fantasy that this is going to make Britain like Hong Kong was in the 70s - it's going to make Britain like Britain was in the 70s. That is a step backwards. That is a step away from freedom. That is a step away from prosperity."
Theresa May: 'If I lose just six seats, I will lose this election'.
There's your objective measure.
She was wrong.
Actually, wasn't it "if I lose six seats, Corbyn becomes PM"? That was wrong too.
OK, let me ask it this was, you claim May lost the election. In that case, who won it?
'Won' implies too much finality
No it doesn't, it reflects the fact that the election had results from which a parliament was formed.
Yes, a parliament of a complexion that Theresa May desperately wanted to avoid, because it has left her in a worse position than if she had never called it.
But one in which she has most seats, having won most votes, and is the only plausible PM.
That's even more of a win in a PR mindset than an FPTP one!
The economic argument for leaving the EU is based on the slightly more restricted trade with the EU being outweighed by the less restricted trade with the rest of the world, with extra bumps for a more skill-based immigration system and better domestic regulation. Obviously the trade restrictions come first and everything else comes later, so there will be a slowdown in the short term. That says nothing about whether the long term benefits will outweigh it or not, as those bits haven't happened yet.
"...this is the labour market programme of the pre-Thatcher industrial policies of the Labour party in the 70s and 60s which Theresa May wants to reimpose on the British economy.
Just as well May didn't get her wish at the GE then, I suppose?
WRT better/worse off, outside the EU, one needs to define what one means.
Currently, GDP per head is $40,000 or thereabouts. A decade from now, I would expect that figure to be higher, inside or outside the EU.
However, it may very well be the case that the increase in GDP per head would be higher if we were to stay inside the EU than if we left it (the reverse may also be true). In that case, the argument is whether the trade off between forfeited growth on the one hand, and greater self-government on the other, is worth it.
Yes - broadly agree. It seems to me that what happened in the referendum was that too many people simply didn't accept that any economic benefit from the EU was either there for them or worth it if they perceived its presence. I disagreed but respect their view and have been dismayed by the howls from the more strident 'remainers' here and in the media who continue to show either ignorance and/or disdain about many of their fellow countryfolk for taking a different view. We are where we are but the object now surely should be for the people to come together and make the best of it rather than the unedifying 'demonizing of their opponents we see constantly. Chapman is an extreme example of this nonsense but only a matter of hours ago he was still being lauded by some on here as a sort of messiah.
Theresa May: 'If I lose just six seats, I will lose this election'.
There's your objective measure.
She was wrong.
Actually, wasn't it "if I lose six seats, Corbyn becomes PM"? That was wrong too.
OK, let me ask it this was, you claim May lost the election. In that case, who won it?
'Won' implies too much finality
No it doesn't, it reflects the fact that the election had results from which a parliament was formed.
Yes, a parliament of a complexion that Theresa May desperately wanted to avoid, because it has left her in a worse position than if she had never called it.
But one in which she has most seats, having won most votes, and is the only plausible PM.
That's even more of a win in a PR mindset than an FPTP one!
That’s true, but under PR all parties would be expecting some sort of coalition.
Much of our problem, I suggest is because in our HoC one is either ‘For” or ‘Against’. One side of the chamber or the other. And now I must be off for my daily trip to the local Radiotherapy Unit. Only about 20 to go!
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 1h On Brexit – @WilliamJHague to Peter Hennessy: "You can take back control of a gun but it doesn’t mean you use it to shoot your foot off."
Theresa May: 'If I lose just six seats, I will lose this election'.
There's your objective measure.
She was wrong.
Actually, wasn't it "if I lose six seats, Corbyn becomes PM"? That was wrong too.
OK, let me ask it this was, you claim May lost the election. In that case, who won it?
'Won' implies too much finality
No it doesn't, it reflects the fact that the election had results from which a parliament was formed.
Yes, a parliament of a complexion that Theresa May desperately wanted to avoid, because it has left her in a worse position than if she had never called it. Maybe I have a PR mindset, of politics as a shifting balance of power, rather than a First-Past-the-Post mindset. But regardless, the PR mindset is more true to how politics actually works even here...
... but that doesn't mean she lost.
There is literally no sane way you can argue that she lost. This does not mean the election wasn't an absolute bollocksed-up catastrophe of an embarassing fuster cluck.
Which I doubt. While most British PMs in my lifetime have spoken 'educated southern British' I suspect the last one to speak RP was Sir Alec......Thatcher & Heath came close, but May doesn't and Major certainly didn't, let alone Blair or Callaghan....
Gladstone had quite a strong Liverpudlian accent.
I doubt Lloyd George spoke RP. Especially in Welsh!
Mr. (Miss?) Dean, it seems remarkable how wrong that tweet appears to be, given it's from a political editor.
Mr.,thank you. And yes, it displays remarkable ignorance. It wasn't until the advent of radio that anyone expected anyone to speak with a particular accent other than local to them.
Steinbeck has a long diversion in "Travels with Charley" about how the advent of the wireless led to the decline of regional accents in the US....they then re-emerged, to an extent, with more local stations/programming.
Expensive bread, cheap New Zealand wine, terrible cheese.
People seem more exercised over Charlottesville on pb, than in LA.
PB is full of SJW's thse days what did you expect
Plenty of Republican senators etc are exercised by Charlottesville, including Marco Rubio, Todd Young, Mitt Romney, John McCain. Unless they/we are all social justice warriors?
And joined by Stonewall Jackson's grandsons: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/08/stonewall_jackson_s_grandsons_the_monuments_must_go.html Last weekend, Charlottesville showed us unequivocally that Confederate statues offer pre-existing iconography for racists. The people who descended on Charlottesville last weekend were there to make a naked show of force for white supremacy. To them, the Robert E. Lee statue is a clear symbol of their hateful ideology…
Perhaps Pagan's thinking is analogous to that of the Corbynites, to whom everyone but their fellow true believers are 'Tories' ?
No my thinking is simply that it seems far too many on here condemn or excuse actions based on the group doing them rather than condemning people on the action itself.
Something is either right or wrong and it shouldn't make any difference whether done by someone from alt right/hard left/muslim community/christian community/people with no hair
It is Chapman’s combination of journalistic skills and deep knowledge of the Brexit challenges that look set to make him a powerful figure in the coming months.
Which coming month will see the de-facto Brexit opposition leader at his most powerful?
It seems to me that what happened in the referendum was that too many people simply didn't accept that any economic benefit from the EU was either there for them or worth it if they perceived its presence. I disagreed but respect their view and have been dismayed by the howls from the more strident 'remainers' here and in the media who continue to show either ignorance and/or disdain about many of their fellow countryfolk for taking a different view.
BoZo toured the country in a bus claiming that Brexit could magic £350m a week to be spent on the NHS
I disdain all of the people who said it, and the people who believed it
The economic argument for leaving the EU is based on the slightly more restricted trade with the EU being outweighed by the less restricted trade with the rest of the world, with extra bumps for a more skill-based immigration system and better domestic regulation. Obviously the trade restrictions come first and everything else comes later, so there will be a slowdown in the short term. That says nothing about whether the long term benefits will outweigh it or not, as those bits haven't happened yet.
"...this is the labour market programme of the pre-Thatcher industrial policies of the Labour party in the 70s and 60s which Theresa May wants to reimpose on the British economy. So don't entertain the fantasy that this is going to make Britain like Hong Kong was in the 70s - it's going to make Britain like Britain was in the 70s. That is a step backwards. That is a step away from freedom. That is a step away from prosperity."
1970s Labour economics was about trying to fix the prices in the market regardless of what supply and demand were doing. The argument for improving the immigration system is about directly addressing supply. Greater supply of high skill labour and lower supply of low skill or unskilled labour. Supply side economics makes far more sense.
Almost every week we get an article saying there will be a lot fewer low skilled jobs in the world and it's going to cause a big problem with a glut of unskilled unemployed. We will have enough problems dealing with our existing unskilled population without adding several million more over the next decade.
That Ever-Remainers see Jean-Claude Juncker as an objective examiner to assess the British shows exactly where their sympathies lie. Doing this at the same time as claiming that David Davis drinks too much is particularly ridiculous.
Mr. (Miss?) Dean, it seems remarkable how wrong that tweet appears to be, given it's from a political editor.
Mr.,thank you. And yes, it displays remarkable ignorance. It wasn't until the advent of radio that anyone expected anyone to speak with a particular accent other than local to them.
Steinbeck has a long diversion in "Travels with Charley" about how the advent of the wireless led to the decline of regional accents in the US....they then re-emerged, to an extent, with more local stations/programming.
I seem to recall there was some theory that at the time of the American Revolution both the "British" and "Americans" (for the difference was a bit more blurred up till then I guess) spoke with something more approaching what is the American accent now ie it's the Brits who've changed more. Certainly US English has persevered many "older" forms at least in non standard American such as varmint vs vermin gotten vs got etc.
That said English has itself preserved things that vanished long ago in Scandinavian and German/Dutch like "th". It constantly evolves, check out Prince Harry now against his grandma in the 40's.
It seems to me that what happened in the referendum was that too many people simply didn't accept that any economic benefit from the EU was either there for them or worth it if they perceived its presence. I disagreed but respect their view and have been dismayed by the howls from the more strident 'remainers' here and in the media who continue to show either ignorance and/or disdain about many of their fellow countryfolk for taking a different view.
BoZo toured the country in a bus claiming that Brexit could magic £350m a week to be spent on the NHS
I disdain all of the people who said it, and the people who believed it
Then you're as bad as Chapman. You arrogantly assume you know why people voted the way they did just because you're angry about the result. What a child.
That Ever-Remainers see Jean-Claude Juncker as an objective examiner to assess the British shows exactly where their sympathies lie. Doing this at the same time as claiming that David Davis drinks too much is particularly ridiculous.
Is 'they need us more than we need them' a claim open to objective assessment against the reality of the dynamics of the negotiations that we're seeing?
The economic argument for leaving the EU is based on the slightly more restricted trade with the EU being outweighed by the less restricted trade with the rest of the world, with extra bumps for a more skill-based immigration system and better domestic regulation. Obviously the trade restrictions come first and everything else comes later, so there will be a slowdown in the short term. That says nothing about whether the long term benefits will outweigh it or not, as those bits haven't happened yet.
"...this is the labour market programme of the pre-Thatcher industrial policies of the Labour party in the 70s and 60s which Theresa May wants to reimpose on the British economy. So don't entertain the fantasy that this is going to make Britain like Hong Kong was in the 70s - it's going to make Britain like Britain was in the 70s. That is a step backwards. That is a step away from freedom. That is a step away from prosperity."
1970s Labour economics was about trying to fix the prices in the market regardless of what supply and demand were doing. The argument for improving the immigration system is about directly addressing supply. Greater supply of high skill labour and lower supply of low skill or unskilled labour. Supply side economics makes far more sense.
Almost every week we get an article saying there will be a lot fewer low skilled jobs in the world and it's going to cause a big problem with a glut of unskilled unemployed. We will have enough problems dealing with our existing unskilled population without adding several million more over the next decade.
This is my issue with freedom of movement, not the number, the lack of control - who knows what our demand will be in a couple of years time? What will happen during the next euro crisis? However proponents of the EU seem to want to spin this into xenophobia.
Comments
Hobart to Invercargill is 1061 miles.
London to Narva is 1227 miles.
There are NO voters whose entire life has been where the UK was in a union with Poland etc
Someone born in 1992 is 25 years old.
Doesn't mean Jones won't stick around writing terrible articles for the Guardian for the next few decades though.
It's ridiculous to strip politics of all context, the expectations and actual goals of the contending parties. She didn't choose to call an election hoping to scrape through in a minority government with a ruined reputation. She called it hoping to achieve an increased majority.
But, but, but, but .... I apply the same logic to the counter argument. Being masters of our own ship, sovereignty, deciding the EU is not for us are perfectly legitimate reasons for leaving. But we can go on about sovereignty until we are blue in the face but if that sovereignty means we are materially worse off there's no point. You wouldn't choose to do it, which is what sovereignty means. On that point the EU wins hands down. We are materially better off in the EU. And if people say, what price is liberty that you are prepared to sell out, I will start talking about peace in Europe, democracy, personal freedoms and the rule of law, because those are just as valid.
The Tories didn't win as well as they hoped, but that doesn't mean they didn't win. They did.
https://order-order.com/2017/08/17/peoples-march-for-europe-pm-must-explain-chappers-deleted-twitter/
Is this the silliest ever sillly season story?
And "materially better off" is open to all sorts of interpretation.
Nobody fights elections for the sake of fighting elections, it is always about furthering some political project, meeting differing goals. May's decision to call the election and fight it as she did damaged her project terribly and set her back on achieving her goals. It strengthened her main opponents and brought them closer to achieving their broader objectives.
Politics isn't a football match, starting at 0-0, with each side hoping to get the biggest number and counting a win or a loss on that basis. The Tories didn't win 3-2 hoping for a 4-0. They needlessly threw away a majority government. If you don't get it there's not much more to say.
There can't be many people he hasn't pissed off this past week (including a lot of those sympathetic to keeping us in the EU) ?
If you don't get that, there's no more to be said.
Maybe he got locked out by his lawyer trying to attempt damage limitation.
There's your objective measure.
But there is a question about 'we will be materially worse off outside the EU'. 'We'? Are all our interests the same and recognised to be the same? I've said it before, but my Leave-voting family didn't flinch at the warnings about GDP and so on, because they've palpably felt their community to be in decline regardless of what GDP does. Top-line figures don't translate smoothly everywhere and for everybody.
For that matter, it's a question of GDP being, roughly, a measure of mean improvement but if the median's going backwards that just means things are a bit worse for most people and super-lovely for those at the top end.
Unfortunately, the top end are, obviously, dramatically over-represented in the media and politics, and hence the sometimes enormous disconnect between the elected and the electorate.
When given an opportunity to rebel at the ballot box, they've taken it.
While he is an extreme case, milder versions of this sort of Chapman Syndrome do seem to be commonplace. I did not realise before the referendum how many people were so emotionally vested in the EU, and many have had something of a breakdown since it's happened. You can tell the people who are obsessed with complaining about Brexit, always saying the EU is right on everything, and automatically think anyone involved in Brexit on the UK is completely self-serving and completely incompetent in every area. Previously, rational people have completely lost the ability to have a sensible objective viewpoint on this.
I suspect that voters concerns about immigration had gone unaddressed for so long (shut up you xenophobic racists, its the price we pay for being in the wonderful EU, and what's wrong with a cheaper Polish plumber anyway?) that the only way they could get attention was a 'brick through the window' - that at least has worked.
I should say, my post was written with my assessment of the outcomes. I am confident in my assessment and have good reasons for believing it, but almost all Leavers thought Brexit will improve things (and still do). Opinion polls tell us that.
Actually, wasn't it "if I lose six seats, Corbyn becomes PM"? That was wrong too.
OK, let me ask it this was, you claim May lost the election. In that case, who won it?
The question is whether it is worth it in the long run.
I complain about Brexit all the time (cos it's really, really stupid) and I have never claimed the EU is right on everything
How about a preference for foreign non Muslim fruit pickers versus foreign Muslim fruit pickers?
https://twitter.com/account/suspended
Edit - but the original is back:
https://twitter.com/jameschappers
The chappers one I mean.
But then it's like the Chinese Marxist who was asked what he thought about the French Revolution, and replied 'it's too soon to say'. I happen to think Labour's crushing loss in 1931 ended up a gain for the party, as lots of older MPs were dislodged and the generation that made up the Attlee government were given a chance. I will look forward to making a final decision on 2017 after a few decades have passed.
You can argue that they were mistaken in their views (as doubtless you will) but the entire Remain campaign only broadcast a positive message to those who were already well off, they only acquired those further down the ladder through the projection of fear.
And in June 2017 there was a statement .’I need a big majority to do this my way' Will you give it to me?’ And the answer was ‘No'
Leaving the EU is probably a bad idea. Trying to thwart a democratic vote is a very much worse idea.
WRT better/worse off, outside the EU, one needs to define what one means.
Currently, GDP per head is $40,000 or thereabouts. A decade from now, I would expect that figure to be higher, inside or outside the EU.
However, it may very well be the case that the increase in GDP per head would be higher if we were to stay inside the EU than if we left it (the reverse may also be true). In that case, the argument is whether the trade off between forfeited growth on the one hand, and greater self-government on the other, is worth it.
If Labour had proposed staying in the single market, they would have done far worse.
A sensible assessment of the Leave position.
I think EXPERTS agree that the NPV of the opportunity cost will be significant (but short of discernible to the naked eyes for most people). As for better domestic regulation, unless you are planning on reverting to imperial measures and maximum working hours for chimney sweeps, I believe that is all out of our hands anyway, vested in one supranational body or another. Certainly for services it is, and I daresay for widgets also.
I would also add that we are in a new paradigm (aren't we always) where sovereignty and "making our laws" is no longer compatible with those supranational standard-making bodies some of which we remain enthusiastically a part.
As for "it's not my bloody GDP" - excellent quote. But of course it is exactly everyone's GDP although, to borrow our Brexit Secretary's turn of phrase, it might not have seemed like it at times.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcIkIz98zXU
That's even more of a win in a PR mindset than an FPTP one!
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/898069234705682432
Yougov ask the question regularly including June this year when things should have started to become clearer
Do you think Britain will be economically better or worse off after we leave the European Union, or will it make no difference?
EU Ref 2016 Remain: (Better off): 3% (Worse off): 76% (Will make no real difference to the British economy): 12% (Don't know): 9%
EU Ref 2016 Leave: (Better off): 51% (Worse off): 7% (Will make no real difference to the British economy): 29% (Don't know): 12%
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZByWk6SPM0
Much of our problem, I suggest is because in our HoC one is either ‘For” or ‘Against’. One side of the chamber or the other.
And now I must be off for my daily trip to the local Radiotherapy Unit. Only about 20 to go!
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul
·
1h
On Brexit – @WilliamJHague to Peter Hennessy: "You can take back control of a gun but it doesn’t mean you use it to shoot your foot off."
There is literally no sane way you can argue that she lost. This does not mean the election wasn't an absolute bollocksed-up catastrophe of an embarassing fuster cluck.
Steinbeck has a long diversion in "Travels with Charley" about how the advent of the wireless led to the decline of regional accents in the US....they then re-emerged, to an extent, with more local stations/programming.
Something is either right or wrong and it shouldn't make any difference whether done by someone from alt right/hard left/muslim community/christian community/people with no hair
I disdain all of the people who said it, and the people who believed it
Claiming that the media who carried his press conference live misrepresented his remarks...
Almost every week we get an article saying there will be a lot fewer low skilled jobs in the world and it's going to cause a big problem with a glut of unskilled unemployed. We will have enough problems dealing with our existing unskilled population without adding several million more over the next decade.
[For the record, I agree that Boris is a careerist arse, and unfit to be Foreign Secretary].
That said English has itself preserved things that vanished long ago in Scandinavian and German/Dutch like "th". It constantly evolves, check out Prince Harry now against his grandma in the 40's.
https://twitter.com/vote_leave/status/725016387257831424
https://twitter.com/vote_leave/status/724965341407907841
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4262690/government-dismisses-claims-brexit-talks-will-be-delayed-over-divorce-bill-row-with-eu/
(Like the cheeky glass of wine on Drunker's desk.....)
Both sides were bullshit. It turns out the public, so the extent they're swayed by such things, prefer optimistic bullshit.