I think on the whole an outsider who doesn't pretend to be born and bred but who is willing to get their heads down and tread a seat and become a local will always be personally popular, but a pseud who pretends to localism when they live elsewhere will struggle. Deservedly so, I think.
My suspicion would be that some areas of the UK have stronger 'identities' than others and would be tougher to get elected if you're not from there. I wasn't surprised to Wales, NI and Scotland high up the list for instance...
Was it always so, I wonder?
Two of the most famous Scottish-born MPs (Ramsey MacDonald and Keir Hardie) represented Welsh seats.
I guess they were seen as working-class rather than Scots, but class-based loyalties are now so much weaker.
And the (arguably) most famous English-born MP of them all represented Dundee. I guess class and British identity were much stronger then.
No it isn't. That's not true at all. I expect you'll be saying that until people are sitting in Parliament in boiler suits, miners lamps and nurses uniforms.
There are many many MPs on all sides of the house from working class backgrounds.
I think it's definitely lower than it has been in the past?
"the image conscious [Conservative] party published a second edition of a pamphlet, entitled the Party of Opportunity, designed to showcase the working-class credentials of 29 of its MPs – or, less than 10 per cent of the party’s representatives at the time of publication"
"Data available from the House of Commons library shows that around 37 per cent of MPs from the [Labour] party came from a manual occupation background in 1979. Fewer than 7 per cent did in 2015."
This may partly reflect the fact that the middle classes have grown (I assume) as Britain has become wealthier. Also many more people go to university now... which is probably one factor that would make you middle class...
But still I suspect it's lower than previous largely because Labour used to supply more...
I doubt any Parliament anywhere in the first world has significant numbers of former manual workers. It's more likely that they are populated by people from working class families who make good. That does not preclude them voting in the interests of the community from whence they came.
It's indisputable that this has declined significantly in Labour from 1979 to now.
I agree that people can vote in the interest of communities they don't come from/aren't currently part of... but I think it is significant that working class representation has fallen so much.
For instance - if Labour had had a more recognisably 'working class' leader campaigning for Remain - might that have swung the EU referendum the other way?
Alan Johnson campaigned for Remain and was working class
Alan Johnson was beaten by Harriet Harman for the Deputyship.
Not so much a class issue as a feminist one.
Incidentally, this is why Jess Phillips may be a good candidate for the leadership. She has the right feminist credentials, regional roots in a key area, and good working class background. Her husband still works as a lift engineer. She is ambitious too.
No it isn't. That's not true at all. I expect you'll be saying that until people are sitting in Parliament in boiler suits, miners lamps and nurses uniforms.
There are many many MPs on all sides of the house from working class backgrounds.
I think it's definitely lower than it has been in the past?
"the image conscious [Conservative] party published a second edition of a pamphlet, entitled the Party of Opportunity, designed to showcase the working-class credentials of 29 of its MPs – or, less than 10 per cent of the party’s representatives at the time of publication"
"Data available from the House of Commons library shows that around 37 per cent of MPs from the [Labour] party came from a manual occupation background in 1979. Fewer than 7 per cent did in 2015."
This may partly reflect the fact that the middle classes have grown (I assume) as Britain has become wealthier. Also many more people go to university now... which is probably one factor that would make you middle class...
But still I suspect it's lower than previous largely because Labour used to supply more...
I doubt any Parliament anywhere in the first world has significant numbers of former manual workers. It's more likely that they are populated by people from working class families who make good. That does not preclude them voting in the interests of the community from whence they came.
It's indisputable that this has declined significantly in Labour from 1979 to now.
I agree that people can vote in the interest of communities they don't come from/aren't currently part of... but I think it is significant that working class representation has fallen so much.
For instance - if Labour had had a more recognisably 'working class' leader campaigning for Remain - might that have swung the EU referendum the other way?
Alan Johnson campaigned for Remain and was working class
Alan Johnson was beaten by Harriet Harman for the Deputyship.
The St Paul's educated niece of the Countess of Longford
Why on earth would Remain voters have a tough time with Dunkirk?
A few crazed Leavers drew analogies between Nazi Germany and the EU, but that's so patently ridiculous (not to mention offensive) as to not register when watching war films.
On topic, different people want different things from their MPs. Enough want someone local to represent them to make that a desirable attribute in a candidate.
F1: as an aside, the probable best time to back Vettel, whether you think he'll get the title or just to balance an earlier Hamilton bet, is probably going to be after Monza. if all goes as expected, Hamilton should win and may, for the first time, take the lead in the title race.
However, Singapore should be very good for Ferrari and Red Bull, swinging the pendulum the other way.
Why on earth would Remain voters have a tough time with Dunkirk?
A few crazed Leavers drew analogies between Nazi Germany and the EU, but that's so patently ridiculous (not to mention offensive) as to not register when watching war films.
'The left hasn’t been as upset about Christopher Nolan’s film as conservative writers appear to have expected – but they’re fighting back anyway'
F1: from BBC gossip column: "Max Verstappen's dad, Jos, says he and his son are starting to question whether Red Bull can turn around their situation with Renault engine problems. (Ziggo Sport, via Autosport)"
Hmm. What's the alternative? Can't see either Ferrari or Mercedes being keen to help out. Well. Unless they got Verstappen. But the Renault situation makes it likelier Verstappen will want to leave anyway.
Verstappen may be unhappy, and who can blame him, but he’s on a long contract with RB and as you say the only two better teams are locked out already. He’s still only nineteen, he’ll just have to wait for a more competitive car.
There are many ways you could look at this, depending on your bias:
"Oh, a film about the dangers of a German-dominated Europe!" "Look at what we had to suffer before the EU (and NATO) helped keep the peace!" "This is the outcome of nation states looking after their own interests and not working together!" "We need to look after ourselves and not those untrustworthy continentals!" "Sovereignty!" (well, because. Just because.)
Miss Vance, did Remain voters have a problem with it?
I thought those making stupid comments were just a snowflake fringe, unrelated to anything other than over-sensitivity to history.
Probably not Remain voters - most of whom have 'moved on' - the Commentariat did have a few vapours:
To Brits, the film screams Brexit. “Dunkirk reveals the spirit that has driven Brexit: humiliation,” ran one headline in the Guardian. “I urge every youngster to go out and watch Dunkirk,” said Nigel Farage, the former UK Independence party leader, although his influence with youngsters is politely described as small.
Niall Ferguson, the historian and Remainer-turned-Brexiter, opined that Dunkirk showed our ability to make the best of things: “This is not the time for second thoughts [on Brexit] — any more than May 1940 was the time for peace talks.” Will Hutton, the economist, saw the lost benefits of economic interventionism: “It is too rarely acknowledged — and does not make such good cinema — but the dismissed, undervalued British economy was also performing acts of heroism . . . Brexit is our generation’s Dunkirk, but with no flotilla of small boats and no underlying economic strength to come to the rescue.”
How I wish that Christopher Nolan’s new film, “Dunkirk,” had not been released at this moment in history. The reviewers have been near unanimous in their praise: searing, complex, uncompromising about the savagery of war and death. Yet the essential message of the film, with its narrative of heroic retreat in order to fight another day, cannot help but feed the national pride in Britain’s capacity to triumph eventually, no matter what the odds.
Nothing could be less helpful to our collective psyche as the country blunders toward Brexit
No it isn't. That's not true at all. I expect you'll be saying that until people are sitting in Parliament in boiler suits, miners lamps and nurses uniforms.
There are many many MPs on all sides of the house from working class backgrounds.
I think it's definitely lower than it has been in the past?
"the image conscious [Conservative] party published a second edition of a pamphlet, entitled the Party of Opportunity, designed to showcase the working-class credentials of 29 of its MPs – or, less than 10 per cent of the party’s representatives at the time of publication"
"Data available from the House of Commons library shows that around 37 per cent of MPs from the [Labour] party came from a manual occupation background in 1979. Fewer than 7 per cent did in 2015."
This may partly reflect the fact that the middle classes have grown (I assume) as Britain has become wealthier. Also many more people go to university now... which is probably one factor that would make you middle class...
But still I suspect it's lower than previous largely because Labour used to supply more...
I doubt any Parliament anywhere in the first world has significant numbers of former manual workers. It's more likely that they are populated by people from working class families who make good. That does not preclude them voting in the interests of the community from whence they came.
It's indisputable that this has declined significantly in Labour from 1979 to now.
I agree that people can vote in the interest of communities they don't come from/aren't currently part of... but I think it is significant that working class representation has fallen so much.
For instance - if Labour had had a more recognisably 'working class' leader campaigning for Remain - might that have swung the EU referendum the other way?
Alan Johnson campaigned for Remain and was working class
Alan Johnson was beaten by Harriet Harman for the Deputyship.
Not so much a class issue as a feminist one.
Incidentally, this is why Jess Phillips may be a good candidate for the leadership. She has the right feminist credentials, regional roots in a key area, and good working class background. Her husband still works as a lift engineer. She is ambitious too.
Available at 119/1 on betfair if you like a long shot! I agree with you - I think another factor is she is building a profile... doing QT, and also a tv show with Jacob Rees Mogg. Worth a punt.
Yes... I'm betting on Aus not to get there but hoping to cash out at some point. Bangladesh really can be spectacular chokers...
They’re already 250 up, anything towards 300 is going to be a difficult chase for the Aussies.
Talking of 300 chases, England have a good chance today, although I’m a little nervous still at my lay of the draw. We still need ten wickets after all.
Churchill certainly had different views on Europe to those expressed in the Remain campaign.
"We must aim at nothing less than the union of Europe as a whole, and we look forward with confidence to the day when that union will be achieved."
The problem with that quotation is of course that Churchill never counted Britain as part of Europe.
In the 1946 Zurich speech perhaps not, not but by 1948 his language had shifted - in fact he appears to clarify his earlier position to make it clear that he did indeed see Britain as part of the new Europe.
Thus I saw the vast Soviet Union forming one of these groups. The Council of Europe, including Great Britain linked with her Empire and Commonwealth, would be another. Thirdly, there was the United States and her sister republics in the Western Hemisphere with all their great spheres of interest and influence.
There are many ways you could look at this, depending on your bias:
"Oh, a film about the dangers of a German-dominated Europe!" "Look at what we had to suffer before the EU (and NATO) helped keep the peace!" "This is the outcome of nation states looking after their own interests and not working together!" "We need to look after ourselves and not those untrustworthy continentals!" "Sovereignty!" (well, because. Just because.)
I think that's covered most of the reactions.
Lets see which ones appear in the press in November......
Churchill certainly had different views on Europe to those expressed in the Remain campaign.
"We must aim at nothing less than the union of Europe as a whole, and we look forward with confidence to the day when that union will be achieved."
The problem with that quotation is of course that Churchill never counted Britain as part of Europe.
In the 1946 Zurich speech perhaps not, not but by 1948 his language had shifted - in fact he appears to clarify his earlier position to make it clear that he did indeed see Britain as part of the new Europe.
Thus I saw the vast Soviet Union forming one of these groups. The Council of Europe, including Great Britain linked with her Empire and Commonwealth, would be another. Thirdly, there was the United States and her sister republics in the Western Hemisphere with all their great spheres of interest and influence.
There are many ways you could look at this, depending on your bias:
"Oh, a film about the dangers of a German-dominated Europe!" "Look at what we had to suffer before the EU (and NATO) helped keep the peace!" "This is the outcome of nation states looking after their own interests and not working together!" "We need to look after ourselves and not those untrustworthy continentals!" "Sovereignty!" (well, because. Just because.)
I think that's covered most of the reactions.
Lets see which ones appear in the press in November......
Most people should be able to form an opinion without 'the press' telling them what to think.
The key point is that Nissan isn't making the investments to source components locally. Its suppliers are. OEMs have a lot of power over their suppliers and manufacturers tend to like local sourcing anyway, for the reasons you give.
But I feel people have stopped listening to the smears and lies and dirty tricks. I think for all the talk about Venezuela and antisemitism, and the latest thing is sexism now, Jeremy’s overwhelming landslide victories in the leadership elections and the general election mean people have stopped listening to the smears.”
Labour members should be free to choose their next leader without needing the permission of MPs, the shadow fire minister Chris Williamson has said, arguing that those who oppose changing the rules are frightened of democracy.
Churchill certainly had different views on Europe to those expressed in the Remain campaign.
"We must aim at nothing less than the union of Europe as a whole, and we look forward with confidence to the day when that union will be achieved."
The problem with that quotation is of course that Churchill never counted Britain as part of Europe.
In the 1946 Zurich speech perhaps not, not but by 1948 his language had shifted - in fact he appears to clarify his earlier position to make it clear that he did indeed see Britain as part of the new Europe.
Thus I saw the vast Soviet Union forming one of these groups. The Council of Europe, including Great Britain linked with her Empire and Commonwealth, would be another. Thirdly, there was the United States and her sister republics in the Western Hemisphere with all their great spheres of interest and influence.
The Council of Europe, including Great Britain linked with her Empire and Commonwealth
In 1948 countries like Singapore and Jamaica were still part of the empire. Churchill's phrasing at the time might smack of imperialism to the modern ear, but it would be a stretch to imagine that the subsequent loss of territory made Great Britain less a part of the Europe he describes than it was before.
In the 1946 Zurich speech perhaps not, not but by 1948 his language had shifted - in fact he appears to clarify his earlier position to make it clear that he did indeed see Britain as part of the new Europe.
Thus I saw the vast Soviet Union forming one of these groups. The Council of Europe, including Great Britain linked with her Empire and Commonwealth, would be another. Thirdly, there was the United States and her sister republics in the Western Hemisphere with all their great spheres of interest and influence.
You are confusing two different ideas Churchill had. One was a movement for European unity on the core part of the mainland, which Churchill approved of. The other is that he foresaw this being part of a wider 'Council' which would include Spain, Scandinavia and Britain, although these would be separate from it. Or to put it another way, if you say by 1948 he believed all the nations of Europe should unite as a fully federal block, you are also saying he believed Mexico, Cuba and Venezuela should give up their independence and become states of the US, because he advocates them as part of a similar regional council in the selfsame paragraph, as a group of regional UNs under the main UN. That is why he specifically mentions Britain as part of this wider council - because it would not be part of the USE he was waxing lyrical about.
You should have considered in any case the personality of Churchill. He believed himself, in or out of office, to be at the centre of world affairs. Therefore he believed his country was too. And he also firmly believed in concepts of Empire - this is the man who used brutal force in the Middle East and so viciously opposed any devolution to India that he spent ten years being ignored on everything else.
I'll just give you one comment he made that to my mind sums up his attitude. In one of his many rows with de Gaulle, he berated the French for being insignificant and fifth rate, and said the only way they would throw off the Germans was with American help. He then added, 'it is for this reason that in a choice between Europe and the open sea, we will always choose the open sea.' De Gaulle took that as evidence the British would never buy into a USE and why he kept vetoing entry until his enforced retirement.
I do hope that helps you understand why I find it faintly exasperating that uneducated people invoke Churchill in support of Britain's role in a USE, and why I think it is entirely misleading to do so.
Australia need 265 to win. That's a tall ask against two of the world's best spinners on a turning track when even Tamim Iqbal proved helpless against Nathan Lyon. First defeat to Bangladesh looming?
In that case please explain Ceredigion: Sitting Liberal Democrat MP -7%, First time Plaid candidate (from Lampeter) +2%, Labour candidate (stood in local elections) +11%, Conservative (London) +7%, UKIP (Cardiff) -8%, Green (Brecon) -4%
Mark Williams isn't from Ceredigion, although he made his home in Borth and worked the seat very hard. In fact I don't think he speaks Welsh either, but it may just be he never spoke it in my hearing.
He doesn't speak Welsh, and was the first such to represent Ceredigion in recent times.
My guess is Labour did just well enough among Aberystwyth & Lampeter students & university staff to hand the seat to Plaid.
Aberystwyth broke up on the 3rd June, so most of its students would have left by the time of the election. Trinity St David broke up still earlier, on the 23rd May.
A more plausible suggestion is Williams' base was supported by the students, but his lack of Welsh and outsider status meant his support among permanent residents was too weak to hold the seat in their absence.
I'm always confused by this assumption that students flee en masse from university towns the moment term ends. If they are not in student residences then most of them will be tied into 12 month rental contracts so are likely to stick around, especially if they have summer jobs etc. Plus they may vote by post if they really are absent (despite the patronising assumptions made by many on here, I suspect most students are smart enough to find out if their vote makes more difference in their university or "home" constituency and register accordingly)
The key point is that Nissan isn't making the investments to source components locally. Its suppliers are. OEMs have a lot of power over their suppliers and manufacturers tend to like local sourcing anyway, for the reasons you give.
Nissan derisks Brexit by getting their suppliers to take the risk instead. These suppliers have to decide whether it's worth investing in plants in the NE England just to supply a factory that may not have a long term future. Nissan reckons, probably correctly, that the suppliers will make this investment. They don't have a lot of choice.
PS This is critical for local content rules. When the UK eventually gets round to signing its own trade deals with third countries the local content threshold will apply to UK plus third country content rather than EU plus third country content, as at present. Manufacturers either have to boost UK content or they will move everything including component supply to the EU.
In that case please explain Ceredigion: Sitting Liberal Democrat MP -7%, First time Plaid candidate (from Lampeter) +2%, Labour candidate (stood in local elections) +11%, Conservative (London) +7%, UKIP (Cardiff) -8%, Green (Brecon) -4%
Mark Williams isn't from Ceredigion, although he made his home in Borth and worked the seat very hard. In fact I don't think he speaks Welsh either, but it may just be he never spoke it in my hearing.
He doesn't speak Welsh, and was the first such to represent Ceredigion in recent times.
My guess is Labour did just well enough among Aberystwyth & Lampeter students & university staff to hand the seat to Plaid.
Aberystwyth broke up on the 3rd June, so most of its students would have left by the time of the election. Trinity St David broke up still earlier, on the 23rd May.
A more plausible suggestion is Williams' base was supported by the students, but his lack of Welsh and outsider status meant his support among permanent residents was too weak to hold the seat in their absence.
I'm always confused by this assumption that students flee en masse from university towns the moment term ends. If they are not in student residences then most of them will be tied into 12 month rental contracts so are likely to stick around, especially if they have summer jobs etc. Plus they may vote by post if they really are absent (despite the patronising assumptions made by many on here, I suspect most students are smart enough to find out if their vote makes more difference in their university or "home" constituency and register accordingly)
In Aberystwyth and Lampeter roughly 90% are in university accommodation, as that's practically the only affordable accommodation going. It may well be different in big cities.
You should have considered in any case the personality of Churchill. He believed himself, in or out of office, to be at the centre of world affairs. Therefore he believed his country was too. And he also firmly believed in concepts of Empire - this is the man who used brutal force in the Middle East and so viciously opposed any devolution to India that he spent ten years being ignored on everything else.
I'll just give you one comment he made that to my mind sums up his attitude. In one of his many rows with de Gaulle, he berated the French for being insignificant and fifth rate, and said the only way they would throw off the Germans was with American help. He then added, 'it is for this reason that in a choice between Europe and the open sea, we will always choose the open sea.' De Gaulle took that as evidence the British would never buy into a USE and why he kept vetoing entry until his enforced retirement.
I do hope that helps you understand why I find it faintly exasperating that uneducated people invoke Churchill in support of Britain's role in a USE, and why I think it is entirely misleading to do so.
Considering the personality of Churchill, and his desire to see Britain at the centre of world affairs, do you really think that in any possible future, he would have been content to see Britain as being a junior partner to a USE within a loose Council of Europe?
If you reread his full comments in parliament in 1953, which are often cited as evidence that Churchill did not want Britain to join a federal Europe (...we are with them, but not of them. We have our own Commonwealth and Empire.) it becomes all the more clear why the debacle of Suez was the defining turning point in our post-war destiny.
Hope everyone enjoyed the fight - what an amazing evening, only just recovering from the whisky drunk, so not been hugely focused on politics.
What's this I hear about Labour now wanting to be in the SM & CU? Is that for ever or just for the transition period?
They are being creatively ambiguous. It's the zeitgeist, if I am allowed to use the language of nowhere.
A good strategy IMO. By the time they are called on it, no one will remember what was good or bad about the single market or customs union and it will simply be an administrative detail. Of course that point was probably reached by the general population six months ago.
Churchill certainly had different views on Europe to those expressed in the Remain campaign.
"We must aim at nothing less than the union of Europe as a whole, and we look forward with confidence to the day when that union will be achieved."
I’ve not seen the film yet, but I agree with those more distinguished PB-ers who wonder why Remainers should have a 'tough time’ with Dunkirk.
I may get a chance to see it this week.
Clearly Leavers like it, and to use it as a stick to beat Remainers, but this says more about their nostalgic empire based fantasies than the people they direct their bile at. I expect the Churchill film will be much the same, indeed it is no coincidence that such films have been released at such times.
Churchill certainly had different views on Europe to those expressed in the Remain campaign.
"We must aim at nothing less than the union of Europe as a whole, and we look forward with confidence to the day when that union will be achieved."
I’ve not seen the film yet, but I agree with those more distinguished PB-ers who wonder why Remainers should have a 'tough time’ with Dunkirk.
I may get a chance to see it this week.
Clearly Leavers like it, and to use it as a stick to beat Remainers, but this says more about their nostalgic empire based fantasies than the people they direct their bile at. I expect the Churchill film will be much the same, indeed it is no coincidence that such films have been released at such times.
The interesting thing, I suppose, is that Leavers should adopt what was clearly a defeat as a metaphor for Brexit. I guess I will be told, once again, that I don't understand.
You should have considered in any case the personality of Churchill. He believed himself, in or out of office, to be at the centre of world affairs. Therefore he believed his country was too. And he also firmly believed in concepts of Empire - this is the man who used brutal force in the Middle East and so viciously opposed any devolution to India that he spent ten years being ignored on everything else.
I'll just give you one comment he made that to my mind sums up his attitude. In one of his many rows with de Gaulle, he berated the French for being insignificant and fifth rate, and said the only way they would throw off the Germans was with American help. He then added, 'it is for this reason that in a choice between Europe and the open sea, we will always choose the open sea.' De Gaulle took that as evidence the British would never buy into a USE and why he kept vetoing entry until his enforced retirement.
I do hope that helps you understand why I find it faintly exasperating that uneducated people invoke Churchill in support of Britain's role in a USE, and why I think it is entirely misleading to do so.
Considering the personality of Churchill, and his desire to see Britain at the centre of world affairs, do you really think that in any possible future, he would have been content to see Britain as being a junior partner to a USE within a loose Council of Europe?
If you reread his full comments in parliament in 1953, which are often cited as evidence that Churchill did not want Britain to join a federal Europe (...we are with them, but not of them. We have our own Commonwealth and Empire.) it becomes all the more clear why the debacle of Suez was the defining turning point in our post-war destiny.
Churchill was an imperialist at a time when it was still just about feasible to believe in the Empire as a thing. In different times he would have different views, or he might cut a delusional Rees-Mogg type figure. We have no way of knowing IMO.
Churchill certainly had different views on Europe to those expressed in the Remain campaign.
"We must aim at nothing less than the union of Europe as a whole, and we look forward with confidence to the day when that union will be achieved."
I’ve not seen the film yet, but I agree with those more distinguished PB-ers who wonder why Remainers should have a 'tough time’ with Dunkirk.
I may get a chance to see it this week.
Clearly Leavers like it, and to use it as a stick to beat Remainers, but this says more about their nostalgic empire based fantasies than the people they direct their bile at. I expect the Churchill film will be much the same, indeed it is no coincidence that such films have been released at such times.
It's very good - though the non-synchronous nature of the segments (the air episode lasts an hour, the sea a day and the land a week) threw me at first
Actually, it was the Remainer press (FT, Guardian & NYT) that used it as a stick to beat Brexit....
And its a complete coincidence that the films have been released at such a time - Nolan started thinking about Dunkirk in the mid-nineties and the producers of Darkest Hour secured the rights before the 2015 GE.
Churchill certainly had different views on Europe to those expressed in the Remain campaign.
"We must aim at nothing less than the union of Europe as a whole, and we look forward with confidence to the day when that union will be achieved."
I’ve not seen the film yet, but I agree with those more distinguished PB-ers who wonder why Remainers should have a 'tough time’ with Dunkirk.
I may get a chance to see it this week.
Clearly Leavers like it, and to use it as a stick to beat Remainers, but this says more about their nostalgic empire based fantasies than the people they direct their bile at. I expect the Churchill film will be much the same, indeed it is no coincidence that such films have been released at such times.
The interesting thing, I suppose, is that Leavers should adopt what was clearly a defeat as a metaphor for Brexit. I guess I will be told, once again, that I don't understand.
Brexit is a perfect vehicle for this zombie cult. It fuses three of the archetypes of heroic English failure.
There is the last stand, exemplified by Gen George Gordon at Khartoum, another fiasco that quickly became a byword for heroism in the face of inevitable disaster: Brexit is imperial England’s last last stand.
There is the suicidal cavalry charge: May hilariously threatened Europe that if it does not play nice, she and Boris will destroy its economic artillery with their flashing sabres.
And there is the doomed expedition into terra incognita to find a promised land. This kind of heroic failure is exemplified by Sir John Franklin’s fatal search for the Northwest Passage in the 1840s.
Nissan derisks Brexit by getting their suppliers to take the risk instead. These suppliers have to decide whether it's worth investing in plants in the NE England just to supply a factory that may not have a long term future. Nissan reckons, probably correctly, that the suppliers will make this investment. They don't have a lot of choice.
PS This is critical for local content rules. When the UK eventually gets round to signing its own trade deals with third countries the local content threshold will apply to UK plus third country content rather than EU plus third country content, as at present. Manufacturers either have to boost UK content or they will move everything including component supply to the EU.
But as Harry Cole points out, the suppliers turn round to the Government and ask "How much will you pay us to build a factory here?" thus passing the risk onto taxpayers.
Q:Why are they asking us to come up with their invoice? A: If we come up with a proposed Bill then that sets out the minimum we agree to and all the items we see as justified. The EU banks those and adds on all the items not covered, some of which will be very justifiable. Doing it this way around is to the benefit of the EU.
Churchill certainly had different views on Europe to those expressed in the Remain campaign.
"We must aim at nothing less than the union of Europe as a whole, and we look forward with confidence to the day when that union will be achieved."
I’ve not seen the film yet, but I agree with those more distinguished PB-ers who wonder why Remainers should have a 'tough time’ with Dunkirk.
I may get a chance to see it this week.
Clearly Leavers like it, and to use it as a stick to beat Remainers, but this says more about their nostalgic empire based fantasies than the people they direct their bile at. I expect the Churchill film will be much the same, indeed it is no coincidence that such films have been released at such times.
The interesting thing, I suppose, is that Leavers should adopt what was clearly a defeat as a metaphor for Brexit. I guess I will be told, once again, that I don't understand.
Brexit is a perfect vehicle for this zombie cult. It fuses three of the archetypes of heroic English failure.
There is the last stand, exemplified by Gen George Gordon at Khartoum, another fiasco that quickly became a byword for heroism in the face of inevitable disaster: Brexit is imperial England’s last last stand.
There is the suicidal cavalry charge: May hilariously threatened Europe that if it does not play nice, she and Boris will destroy its economic artillery with their flashing sabres.
And there is the doomed expedition into terra incognita to find a promised land. This kind of heroic failure is exemplified by Sir John Franklin’s fatal search for the Northwest Passage in the 1840s.
And Boudicca has been co-opted to the pantheon, if the statue on the Embankment is any guide.
Churchill certainly had different views on Europe to those expressed in the Remain campaign.
"We must aim at nothing less than the union of Europe as a whole, and we look forward with confidence to the day when that union will be achieved."
I’ve not seen the film yet, but I agree with those more distinguished PB-ers who wonder why Remainers should have a 'tough time’ with Dunkirk.
I may get a chance to see it this week.
Clearly Leavers like it, and to use it as a stick to beat Remainers, but this says more about their nostalgic empire based fantasies than the people they direct their bile at. I expect the Churchill film will be much the same, indeed it is no coincidence that such films have been released at such times.
It's very good - though the non-synchronous nature of the segments (the air episode lasts an hour, the sea a day and the land a week) threw me at first
Actually, it was the Remainer press (FT, Guardian & NYT) that used it as a stick to beat Brexit....
And its a complete coincidence that the films have been released at such a time - Nolan started thinking about Dunkirk in the mid-nineties and the producers of Darkest Hour secured the rights before the 2015 GE.
Apparently any admiration for the film, which is clearly a great cultural reflection of our national pride, is grossly offensive to some. Guffaw.
I thought it absolutely outstanding. Brannagh perfectly cast as the Admiral on the Mole, and Hardy as the fighter pilot too.
Because it is a haggle. although neither side wants to be seen to compromise? The EU supposedly came up with a set of demands that were totalled up by other people as €100 billion, although that could be netted off and massaged down to around €60 billion. The UK are said to have hinted at €40 billion, which presumably is low-balled because that is what you would do in this kind of negotiation. They are in the ballpark. You end up at about €60 billion with a chunk of it delivered through the "special programmes" gambit. Bob's your uncle.
You should have considered in any case the personality of Churchill. He believed himself, in or out of office, to be at the centre of world affairs. Therefore he believed his country was too. And he also firmly believed in concepts of Empire - this is the man who used brutal force in the Middle East and so viciously opposed any devolution to India that he spent ten years being ignored on everything else.
I'll just give you one comment he made that to my mind sums up his attitude. In one of his many rows with de Gaulle, he berated the French for being insignificant and fifth rate, and said the only way they would throw off the Germans was with American help. He then added, 'it is for this reason that in a choice between Europe and the open sea, we will always choose the open sea.' De Gaulle took that as evidence the British would never buy into a USE and why he kept vetoing entry until his enforced retirement.
I do hope that helps you understand why I find it faintly exasperating that uneducated people invoke Churchill in support of Britain's role in a USE, and why I think it is entirely misleading to do so.
Considering the personality of Churchill, and his desire to see Britain at the centre of world affairs, do you really think that in any possible future, he would have been content to see Britain as being a junior partner to a USE within a loose Council of Europe?
If you reread his full comments in parliament in 1953, which are often cited as evidence that Churchill did not want Britain to join a federal Europe (...we are with them, but not of them. We have our own Commonwealth and Empire.) it becomes all the more clear why the debacle of Suez was the defining turning point in our post-war destiny.
Churchill was an imperialist at a time when it was still just about feasible to believe in the Empire as a thing. In different times he would have different views, or he might cut a delusional Rees-Mogg type figure. We have no way of knowing IMO.
Churchill was in the wilderness for a reason in the 1930's, his refusal to concede any move towards Indian independence being the major one, but his navy cuts and budgets in the 20's were other reasons that show how his own mythmaking glossed over major errors.
Churchill certainly had different views on Europe to those expressed in the Remain campaign.
"We must aim at nothing less than the union of Europe as a whole, and we look forward with confidence to the day when that union will be achieved."
I’ve not seen the film yet, but I agree with those more distinguished PB-ers who wonder why Remainers should have a 'tough time’ with Dunkirk.
I may get a chance to see it this week.
Clearly Leavers like it, and to use it as a stick to beat Remainers, but this says more about their nostalgic empire based fantasies than the people they direct their bile at. I expect the Churchill film will be much the same, indeed it is no coincidence that such films have been released at such times.
It's very good - though the non-synchronous nature of the segments (the air episode lasts an hour, the sea a day and the land a week) threw me at first
Actually, it was the Remainer press (FT, Guardian & NYT) that used it as a stick to beat Brexit....
And its a complete coincidence that the films have been released at such a time - Nolan started thinking about Dunkirk in the mid-nineties and the producers of Darkest Hour secured the rights before the 2015 GE.
That shows some confusion about the film industry, I think. The number of films that get made is an order of magnitude (at the very least) less than those for which rights are secured. What counts is what gets funded, and when.
Q:Why are they asking us to come up with their invoice? A: If we come up with a proposed Bill then that sets out the minimum we agree to and all the items we see as justified. The EU banks those and adds on all the items not covered, some of which will be very justifiable. Doing it this way around is to the benefit of the EU.
Of course, which is why, for all the handwringing from journalists who don’t want us to leave at all, the UK team is playing this right.
Q:Why are they asking us to come up with their invoice? A: If we come up with a proposed Bill then that sets out the minimum we agree to and all the items we see as justified. The EU banks those and adds on all the items not covered, some of which will be very justifiable. Doing it this way around is to the benefit of the EU.
Of course, which is why, for all the handwringing from journalists who don’t want us to leave at all, the UK team is playing this right.
I am happy with how the negotiations are proceeding. Would be good to get the transition agreed to provide business with a bit of certainty, but the position papers are eminently sensible.
Churchill certainly had different views on Europe to those expressed in the Remain campaign.
"We must aim at nothing less than the union of Europe as a whole, and we look forward with confidence to the day when that union will be achieved."
I’ve not seen the film yet, but I agree with those more distinguished PB-ers who wonder why Remainers should have a 'tough time’ with Dunkirk.
I may get a chance to see it this week.
Clearly Leavers like it, and to use it as a stick to beat Remainers, but this says more about their nostalgic empire based fantasies than the people they direct their bile at. I expect the Churchill film will be much the same, indeed it is no coincidence that such films have been released at such times.
It's very good - though the non-synchronous nature of the segments (the air episode lasts an hour, the sea a day and the land a week) threw me at first
Actually, it was the Remainer press (FT, Guardian & NYT) that used it as a stick to beat Brexit....
And its a complete coincidence that the films have been released at such a time - Nolan started thinking about Dunkirk in the mid-nineties and the producers of Darkest Hour secured the rights before the 2015 GE.
That shows some confusion about the film industry, I think. The number of films that get made is an order of magnitude (at the very least) less than those for which rights are secured. What counts is what gets funded, and when.
Both films were cast before the Brexit vote and Dunkirk started filming before it was held. The notion that Hollywood saw the Brexit vote and thought 'what films can we make'? wrt these two is whats confused.
Churchill certainly had different views on Europe to those expressed in the Remain campaign.
"We must aim at nothing less than the union of Europe as a whole, and we look forward with confidence to the day when that union will be achieved."
I’ve not seen the film yet, but I agree with those more distinguished PB-ers who wonder why Remainers should have a 'tough time’ with Dunkirk.
I may get a chance to see it this week.
Clearly Leavers like it, and to use it as a stick to beat Remainers, but this says more about their nostalgic empire based fantasies than the people they direct their bile at. I expect the Churchill film will be much the same, indeed it is no coincidence that such films have been released at such times.
It's very good - though the non-synchronous nature of the segments (the air episode lasts an hour, the sea a day and the land a week) threw me at first
Actually, it was the Remainer press (FT, Guardian & NYT) that used it as a stick to beat Brexit....
And its a complete coincidence that the films have been released at such a time - Nolan started thinking about Dunkirk in the mid-nineties and the producers of Darkest Hour secured the rights before the 2015 GE.
That shows some confusion about the film industry, I think. The number of films that get made is an order of magnitude (at the very least) less than those for which rights are secured. What counts is what gets funded, and when.
Both films were cast before the Brexit vote and Dunkirk started filming before it was held. The notion that Hollywood saw the Brexit vote and thought 'what films can we make'? wrt these two is whats confused.
Ms Carlotta, shame on you for letting facts get in the way of a good 'isn't Brexit just awwwwwwful' story
Mr. Sandpit, there's been some damned gimpish reporting recently. Different case but same idiocy came from a blonde numpty for ITV News, a few weeks ago, claiming that the Grenfell fire put a question mark over the government.
There's been such a run of success in opinion-forming from cities in general and London in particular, of the middle class over the working class, that some seem utterly unable to come to terms with the referendum result. The treatment of UK positions as aspirations, hopes etc and EU positions as set in stone tablets handed down by God Almighty is just daft.
In recent times it seems nuance has been thrown out of the window (well, reduced in popularity at least) in favour of binary, black-and-white treatment of subjects.
Churchill certainly had different views on Europe to those expressed in the Remain campaign.
"We must aim at nothing less than the union of Europe as a whole, and we look forward with confidence to the day when that union will be achieved."
I’ve not seen the film yet, but I agree with those more distinguished PB-ers who wonder why Remainers should have a 'tough time’ with Dunkirk.
I may get a chance to see it this week.
Clearly Leavers like it, and to use it as a stick to beat Remainers, but this says more about their nostalgic empire based fantasies than the people they direct their bile at. I expect the Churchill film will be much the same, indeed it is no coincidence that such films have been released at such times.
It's very good - though the non-synchronous nature of the segments (the air episode lasts an hour, the sea a day and the land a week) threw me at first
Actually, it was the Remainer press (FT, Guardian & NYT) that used it as a stick to beat Brexit....
And its a complete coincidence that the films have been released at such a time - Nolan started thinking about Dunkirk in the mid-nineties and the producers of Darkest Hour secured the rights before the 2015 GE.
Yes that threw my wife initially . I read that the that the director did not want to spoon-feed and the audience would work it out.The film was fantastic at the cinema as the sound was truly brilliant.Watching at home may make the film less inspiring.Also by the way I voted remain.
Q:Why are they asking us to come up with their invoice? A: If we come up with a proposed Bill then that sets out the minimum we agree to and all the items we see as justified. The EU banks those and adds on all the items not covered, some of which will be very justifiable. Doing it this way around is to the benefit of the EU.
Of course, which is why, for all the handwringing from journalists who don’t want us to leave at all, the UK team is playing this right.
Mr. Gin, as others have suggested, they just want to wring all they can from us.
Their approach to trade/Ireland is also stupid. We can't have a border settlement separate from a trade settlement. But the EU won't discuss trade.
The really stupid element is the attitude of the Irish Government. They think that playing the hard ball line of the EU is in the best interests of Ireland.
Q:Why are they asking us to come up with their invoice? A: If we come up with a proposed Bill then that sets out the minimum we agree to and all the items we see as justified. The EU banks those and adds on all the items not covered, some of which will be very justifiable. Doing it this way around is to the benefit of the EU.
This is true, but because time is not at all on our side, but to some extent is on the side of the EU*, they can force the issue.
* Uncertainty is bad for everyone generally, but the EU wins on the zero sum aspects - do we invest/operate in the UK or in the EU questions - as long as the uncertainty continues.
Churchill certainly had different views on Europe to those expressed in the Remain campaign.
"We must aim at nothing less than the union of Europe as a whole, and we look forward with confidence to the day when that union will be achieved."
I’ve not seen the film yet, but I agree with those more distinguished PB-ers who wonder why Remainers should have a 'tough time’ with Dunkirk.
I may get a chance to see it this week.
Clearly Leavers like it, and to use it as a stick to beat Remainers, but this says more about their nostalgic empire based fantasies than the people they direct their bile at. I expect the Churchill film will be much the same, indeed it is no coincidence that such films have been released at such times.
It's very good - though the non-synchronous nature of the segments (the air episode lasts an hour, the sea a day and the land a week) threw me at first
Actually, it was the Remainer press (FT, Guardian & NYT) that used it as a stick to beat Brexit....
And its a complete coincidence that the films have been released at such a time - Nolan started thinking about Dunkirk in the mid-nineties and the producers of Darkest Hour secured the rights before the 2015 GE.
That shows some confusion about the film industry, I think. The number of films that get made is an order of magnitude (at the very least) less than those for which rights are secured. What counts is what gets funded, and when.
Both films were cast before the Brexit vote and Dunkirk started filming before it was held. The notion that Hollywood saw the Brexit vote and thought 'what films can we make'? wrt these two is whats confused.
Its more the atmosphere in the run up to Brexit that set the movies theme as part of the zeitgeist.
Yeah, I saw Juncker had been shooting his mouth off, which is what prompted my question of why the EU still hasn't given us a detailed breakdown on monies owed?
It does look as though unfortunately the EU is simply not interested in a sensible negotiation...
You are confusing two different ideas Churchill had. One was a movement for European unity on the core part of the mainland, which Churchill approved of. The other is that he foresaw this being part of a wider 'Council' which would include Spain, Scandinavia and Britain, although these would be separate from it. Or to put it another way, if you say by 1948 he believed all the nations of Europe should unite as a fully federal block, you are also saying he believed Mexico, Cuba and Venezuela should give up their independence and become states of the US, because he advocates them as part of a similar regional council in the selfsame paragraph, as a group of regional UNs under the main UN. That is why he specifically mentions Britain as part of this wider council - because it would not be part of the USE he was waxing lyrical about.
- Snip for length -
I'll just give you one comment he made that to my mind sums up his attitude. In one of his many rows with de Gaulle, he berated the French for being insignificant and fifth rate, and said the only way they would throw off the Germans was with American help. He then added, 'it is for this reason that in a choice between Europe and the open sea, we will always choose the open sea.' De Gaulle took that as evidence the British would never buy into a USE and why he kept vetoing entry until his enforced retirement.
I do hope that helps you understand why I find it faintly exasperating that uneducated people invoke Churchill in support of Britain's role in a USE, and why I think it is entirely misleading to do so.
Thanks for this excellent summary ydoethur. Like you I get tired of people misusing Churchill's words as some sort of indication of support for British membership of a united Europe. He saw Britain (rightly or wrongly), along with the US, as the arbiter of peace and order in Europe, from a position of external power, not as another member of a single European state.
Perhaps the most telling quote from Churchill is not the misquoted and stitched together one one so beloved of Eurosceptics but the one recorded in Hansard from 11th May 1953.
"Where do we stand? We are not members of the European Defence Community, nor do we intend to be merged in a Federal European system. We feel we have a special relation to both. This can be expressed by prepositions, by the preposition "with" but not "of"—we are with them, but not of them. We have our own Commonwealth and Empire."
That is the direct quote from Hansard as repeated by the very Europhile Joe Danzig.
Mr. Monksfield, that's a helpful, mature and sober view of the negotiations.
The EU placed the Irish border as one of the first things to be sorted. Sorting it requires at least some knowledge of the trade agreement. The EU won't discuss trade. That's a contradictory and irreconcilable pair of positions.
It's like someone saying they believe sex should only happen after marriage, but will only marry people who can satisfy them in bed. And then complaining that the other person hasn't proposed yet.
Mr. Gin, as others have suggested, they just want to wring all they can from us.
Their approach to trade/Ireland is also stupid. We can't have a border settlement separate from a trade settlement. But the EU won't discuss trade.
They didn't ask for this to happen.
Well whether they "asked" for Brexit (and one could argue the contempt with which they treated Cameron and his negotiation paved the way for Brexit as he literally had nothing to "sell" to Britain) we are where we are.
HMG is clearly serious about the negotiation and has gone in with good faith while the EU doesn't seem to be serious at all...
Yeah, I saw Juncker had been shooting his mouth off, which us what prompted my question of why the EU still hasn't given us a detailed breakdown on monies owed?
It does look as though unfortunately the EU is simply not interested in a sensible negotiation...
Mr. Gin, as others have suggested, they just want to wring all they can from us.
Their approach to trade/Ireland is also stupid. We can't have a border settlement separate from a trade settlement. But the EU won't discuss trade.
They didn't ask for this to happen. They set out their negotiating position and ISTR Davis agreed to it.
It's going to be no good now sitting like the spoilt child of Europe going:
Waaaaaaah, I want my cake and eat it.
Waaaaaaah, Nasty Europeans.
Waaaaaaah, We're the special country,
I hardly think that the case. One need only look at what Juncker said, and compare it with the requirements of Article 50:
“…Not just on the border problems regarding Ireland and Northern Ireland, which is a very serious problem in respect of which we have had no definitive response, but we also have the status of European citizens living in the UK and UK citizens living on the continent.
We need to be crystal clear that we will commence no negotiations on the new relationship - particularly a new economic and trade relationship - between the UK and the EU before all these questions are resolved…”
Article 50: “…In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament….”
I voted remain, and I think our government disgracefully unprepared for the Brexit negotiation, but it is entirely clear that Europe is not abiding by their own rules in pursuing this course.
It is quite clearly impossible to settle in any way what will happen with (for example) the Irish border unless there is some measure of agreement on the post Brexit settlement we are discussing. To demand that the border issue be decided before even commencing talking about what is going to be the relationship between the two countries on either side of it is clearly absurd.
Yeah, I saw Juncker had been shooting his mouth off, which us what prompted my question of why the EU still hasn't given us a detailed breakdown on monies owed?
It does look as though unfortunately the EU is simply not interested in a sensible negotiation...
Mr. Gin, as others have suggested, they just want to wring all they can from us.
Their approach to trade/Ireland is also stupid. We can't have a border settlement separate from a trade settlement. But the EU won't discuss trade.
They didn't ask for this to happen.
Well whether they "asked" for Brexit (and one could argue the contempt with which they treated Cameron and his negotiation paved the way for Brexit as he literally had nothing to "sell" to Britain) we are where we are.
HMG is clearly serious about the negotiation and has gone in with good faith while the EU doesn't seem to be serious at all...
Nah, it is merely conflicting objectives and neither party accepting reality. It is why the default option of WTO Brexit is nailed on. One would have thought some contingency planning by our government is in order...
Perhaps the most telling quote from Churchill is not the misquoted and stitched together one one so beloved of Eurosceptics but the one recorded in Hansard from 11th May 1953.
"Where do we stand? We are not members of the European Defence Community, nor do we intend to be merged in a Federal European system. We feel we have a special relation to both. This can be expressed by prepositions, by the preposition "with" but not "of"—we are with them, but not of them. We have our own Commonwealth and Empire."
That is the direct quote from Hansard as repeated by the very Europhile Joe Danzig.
The preceding paragraph shows how anachronistic the context in which he is speaking is.
If, today, the French had the same military system that the Socialist Government set up in Great Britain—what I may call the Shinwell system—namely, two years' military service and the power to send National Service men or conscripts abroad beyond Europe, they would, I believe, have had much less difficulty in maintaining their positions in Indo-China and could also have developed a far stronger army in defence of their own soil in line with their allies. The fact that they have hitherto found themselves unable to take these kinds of military measures has exposed them to great difficulty.
Yeah, I saw Juncker had been shooting his mouth off, which us what prompted my question of why the EU still hasn't given us a detailed breakdown on monies owed?
It does look as though unfortunately the EU is simply not interested in a sensible negotiation...
Fog in Leavers' heads, continent cut off.
Morning Mr Meeks.
I thought that might tempt you out to play.
Your concern is a good one, mind. Some within the EU don't seem much interested in a negotiation.
The British negotiating approach has been lamentable. They've been tough where they should have been conciliatory and as a consequence have felt obliged to be conciliatory when they should have been tough.
By wasting all their political capital on puffing out their chests and painting themselves in woad at a time when a friendly approach would have worked wonders, they are unable to reject contemptuously the EU's more outrageous demands because it will look like more of the same old ranting from the crazy British.
Mr. Monksfield, that's a helpful, mature and sober view of the negotiations.
The EU placed the Irish border as one of the first things to be sorted. Sorting it requires at least some knowledge of the trade agreement. The EU won't discuss trade. That's a contradictory and irreconcilable pair of positions.
It's like someone saying they believe sex should only happen after marriage, but will only marry people who can satisfy them in bed. And then complaining that the other person hasn't proposed yet.
I have some sympathy for this view, however there are only three basic options for the Irish border: (1) The EU/UK maintain a high degree of integration; (2) A border that is harder than there has ever been is placed between Northern Ireland and the Republic; (3) Northern Ireland becomes detached from the UK and operates in an integrated way with the Republic, without necessarily becoming part of a single state.
The UK "position" paper on the subject is waffle. I am guessing (2) is the most likely outcome, but it is going to be very messy. The Good Friday Agreement aimed to make the border ambiguous, rather than dispense with it entirely. It now becomes very explicit. Northern Ireland as a concept is entirely about that border, to create a safe space for a particular demographic. It is not a frontier between independent states.
Comments
http://www.focusfeatures.com/darkesthour/?redirect=off
I thought those making stupid comments were just a snowflake fringe, unrelated to anything other than over-sensitivity to history.
Incidentally, this is why Jess Phillips may be a good candidate for the leadership. She has the right feminist credentials, regional roots in a key area, and good working class background. Her husband still works as a lift engineer. She is ambitious too.
A few crazed Leavers drew analogies between Nazi Germany and the EU, but that's so patently ridiculous (not to mention offensive) as to not register when watching war films.
However, Singapore should be very good for Ferrari and Red Bull, swinging the pendulum the other way.
Bangladesh really can be spectacular chokers...
"We must aim at nothing less than the union of Europe as a whole, and we look forward with confidence to the day when that union will be achieved."
http://tinyurl.com/yabk3g7s
"Oh, a film about the dangers of a German-dominated Europe!"
"Look at what we had to suffer before the EU (and NATO) helped keep the peace!"
"This is the outcome of nation states looking after their own interests and not working together!"
"We need to look after ourselves and not those untrustworthy continentals!"
"Sovereignty!" (well, because. Just because.)
I think that's covered most of the reactions.
To Brits, the film screams Brexit. “Dunkirk reveals the spirit that has driven Brexit: humiliation,” ran one headline in the Guardian. “I urge every youngster to go out and watch Dunkirk,” said Nigel Farage, the former UK Independence party leader, although his influence with youngsters is politely described as small.
Niall Ferguson, the historian and Remainer-turned-Brexiter, opined that Dunkirk showed our ability to make the best of things: “This is not the time for second thoughts [on Brexit] — any more than May 1940 was the time for peace talks.” Will Hutton, the economist, saw the lost benefits of economic interventionism: “It is too rarely acknowledged — and does not make such good cinema — but the dismissed, undervalued British economy was also performing acts of heroism . . . Brexit is our generation’s Dunkirk, but with no flotilla of small boats and no underlying economic strength to come to the rescue.”
https://www.ft.com/content/adf46768-736d-11e7-aca6-c6bd07df1a3c
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/26/dunkirk-brexit-retreat-europe-britain-eec
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/28/opinion/dunkirk-christopher-nolan-brexit.html
How I wish that Christopher Nolan’s new film, “Dunkirk,” had not been released at this moment in history. The reviewers have been near unanimous in their praise: searing, complex, uncompromising about the savagery of war and death. Yet the essential message of the film, with its narrative of heroic retreat in order to fight another day, cannot help but feed the national pride in Britain’s capacity to triumph eventually, no matter what the odds.
Nothing could be less helpful to our collective psyche as the country blunders toward Brexit
I agree with you - I think another factor is she is building a profile... doing QT, and also a tv show with Jacob Rees Mogg. Worth a punt.
Talking of 300 chases, England have a good chance today, although I’m a little nervous still at my lay of the draw. We still need ten wickets after all.
Thus I saw the vast Soviet Union forming one of these groups. The Council of Europe, including Great Britain linked with her Empire and Commonwealth, would be another. Thirdly, there was the United States and her sister republics in the Western Hemisphere with all their great spheres of interest and influence.
http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/WSCHague.html
Maybe they don't read the Guardian or FT?
Which would be odd, as that's where much of their BREXIT news appears to come from.....
The Council of Europe, including Great Britain linked with her Empire and Commonwealth
(Okay, I live in hope...)
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/communities/housing/news/88511/shadow-minister-politicians-who-support-neoliberalism-have
Perhaps he should ask his leader about politicians who really have blood on their hands.....
https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/902291036566945793
A quick search throws plenty of dodgy Dunkirk metaphors from the pro Brexit press.
But I feel people have stopped listening to the smears and lies and dirty tricks. I think for all the talk about Venezuela and antisemitism, and the latest thing is sexism now, Jeremy’s overwhelming landslide victories in the leadership elections and the general election mean people have stopped listening to the smears.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/28/make-labour-leadership-rules-more-democratic-urges-shadow-minister?CMP=share_btn_tw
Also
Labour members should be free to choose their next leader without needing the permission of MPs, the shadow fire minister Chris Williamson has said, arguing that those who oppose changing the rules are frightened of democracy.
It was the Remain press that was upset.
https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/902457810801352704
You should have considered in any case the personality of Churchill. He believed himself, in or out of office, to be at the centre of world affairs. Therefore he believed his country was too. And he also firmly believed in concepts of Empire - this is the man who used brutal force in the Middle East and so viciously opposed any devolution to India that he spent ten years being ignored on everything else.
I'll just give you one comment he made that to my mind sums up his attitude. In one of his many rows with de Gaulle, he berated the French for being insignificant and fifth rate, and said the only way they would throw off the Germans was with American help. He then added, 'it is for this reason that in a choice between Europe and the open sea, we will always choose the open sea.' De Gaulle took that as evidence the British would never buy into a USE and why he kept vetoing entry until his enforced retirement.
I do hope that helps you understand why I find it faintly exasperating that uneducated people invoke Churchill in support of Britain's role in a USE, and why I think it is entirely misleading to do so.
Hope everyone enjoyed the fight - what an amazing evening, only just recovering from the whisky drunk, so not been hugely focused on politics.
What's this I hear about Labour now wanting to be in the SM & CU? Is that for ever or just for the transition period?
I have work to do. Have a good morning everyone.
Sad.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/28/neo-nazi-stabbing-fake-colorado-joshua-witt?CMP=share_btn_tw
PS This is critical for local content rules. When the UK eventually gets round to signing its own trade deals with third countries the local content threshold will apply to UK plus third country content rather than EU plus third country content, as at present. Manufacturers either have to boost UK content or they will move everything including component supply to the EU.
Must dash.
If you reread his full comments in parliament in 1953, which are often cited as evidence that Churchill did not want Britain to join a federal Europe (...we are with them, but not of them. We have our own Commonwealth and Empire.) it becomes all the more clear why the debacle of Suez was the defining turning point in our post-war destiny.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1953/may/11/foreign-affairs#S5CV0515P0_19530511_HOC_220
Clearly Leavers like it, and to use it as a stick to beat Remainers, but this says more about their nostalgic empire based fantasies than the people they direct their bile at. I expect the Churchill film will be much the same, indeed it is no coincidence that such films have been released at such times.
Actually, it was the Remainer press (FT, Guardian & NYT) that used it as a stick to beat Brexit....
And its a complete coincidence that the films have been released at such a time - Nolan started thinking about Dunkirk in the mid-nineties and the producers of Darkest Hour secured the rights before the 2015 GE.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-rise-of-the-violent-left/534192/
Brexit is a perfect vehicle for this zombie cult. It fuses three of the archetypes of heroic English failure.
There is the last stand, exemplified by Gen George Gordon at Khartoum, another fiasco that quickly became a byword for heroism in the face of inevitable disaster: Brexit is imperial England’s last last stand.
There is the suicidal cavalry charge: May hilariously threatened Europe that if it does not play nice, she and Boris will destroy its economic artillery with their flashing sabres.
And there is the doomed expedition into terra incognita to find a promised land. This kind of heroic failure is exemplified by Sir John Franklin’s fatal search for the Northwest Passage in the 1840s.
Another Brexit dividend...
http://iaindale.com/posts/2017/08/27/britain-will-have-to-pay-an-eu-exit-bill-but-it-s-up-to-the-eu-to-explain-how-it-should-be-calculated
A: If we come up with a proposed Bill then that sets out the minimum we agree to and all the items we see as justified. The EU banks those and adds on all the items not covered, some of which will be very justifiable. Doing it this way around is to the benefit of the EU.
Their approach to trade/Ireland is also stupid. We can't have a border settlement separate from a trade settlement. But the EU won't discuss trade.
I thought it absolutely outstanding. Brannagh perfectly cast as the Admiral on the Mole, and Hardy as the fighter pilot too.
The number of films that get made is an order of magnitude (at the very least) less than those for which rights are secured.
What counts is what gets funded, and when.
There's been such a run of success in opinion-forming from cities in general and London in particular, of the middle class over the working class, that some seem utterly unable to come to terms with the referendum result. The treatment of UK positions as aspirations, hopes etc and EU positions as set in stone tablets handed down by God Almighty is just daft.
In recent times it seems nuance has been thrown out of the window (well, reduced in popularity at least) in favour of binary, black-and-white treatment of subjects.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnson-a-joke-trump-white-house-officials-eu-diplomats-kerr_uk_59a5370ce4b0446b3b86408b
* Uncertainty is bad for everyone generally, but the EU wins on the zero sum aspects - do we invest/operate in the UK or in the EU questions - as long as the uncertainty continues.
It's going to be no good now sitting like the spoilt child of Europe going:
Waaaaaaah, I want my cake and eat it.
Waaaaaaah, Nasty Europeans.
Waaaaaaah, We're the special country,
Waaaaaaah, Waaaaaaah!
It does look as though unfortunately the EU is simply not interested in a sensible negotiation...
Perhaps the most telling quote from Churchill is not the misquoted and stitched together one one so beloved of Eurosceptics but the one recorded in Hansard from 11th May 1953.
"Where do we stand? We are not members of the European Defence Community, nor do we intend to be merged in a Federal European system. We feel we have a special relation to both. This can be expressed by prepositions, by the preposition "with" but not "of"—we are with them, but not of them. We have our own Commonwealth and Empire."
That is the direct quote from Hansard as repeated by the very Europhile Joe Danzig.
https://neweuropeans.net/article/604/revealing-deception-about-winston-churchill
The EU placed the Irish border as one of the first things to be sorted. Sorting it requires at least some knowledge of the trade agreement. The EU won't discuss trade. That's a contradictory and irreconcilable pair of positions.
It's like someone saying they believe sex should only happen after marriage, but will only marry people who can satisfy them in bed. And then complaining that the other person hasn't proposed yet.
HMG is clearly serious about the negotiation and has gone in with good faith while the EU doesn't seem to be serious at all...
One need only look at what Juncker said, and compare it with the requirements of Article 50:
“…Not just on the border problems regarding Ireland and Northern Ireland, which is a very serious problem in respect of which we have had no definitive response, but we also have the status of European citizens living in the UK and UK citizens living on the continent.
We need to be crystal clear that we will commence no negotiations on the new relationship - particularly a new economic and trade relationship - between the UK and the EU before all these questions are resolved…”
Article 50:
“…In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament….”
I voted remain, and I think our government disgracefully unprepared for the Brexit negotiation, but it is entirely clear that Europe is not abiding by their own rules in pursuing this course.
It is quite clearly impossible to settle in any way what will happen with (for example) the Irish border unless there is some measure of agreement on the post Brexit settlement we are discussing. To demand that the border issue be decided before even commencing talking about what is going to be the relationship between the two countries on either side of it is clearly absurd.
I thought that might tempt you out to play.
If, today, the French had the same military system that the Socialist Government set up in Great Britain—what I may call the Shinwell system—namely, two years' military service and the power to send National Service men or conscripts abroad beyond Europe, they would, I believe, have had much less difficulty in maintaining their positions in Indo-China and could also have developed a far stronger army in defence of their own soil in line with their allies. The fact that they have hitherto found themselves unable to take these kinds of military measures has exposed them to great difficulty.
The British negotiating approach has been lamentable. They've been tough where they should have been conciliatory and as a consequence have felt obliged to be conciliatory when they should have been tough.
By wasting all their political capital on puffing out their chests and painting themselves in woad at a time when a friendly approach would have worked wonders, they are unable to reject contemptuously the EU's more outrageous demands because it will look like more of the same old ranting from the crazy British.
The UK "position" paper on the subject is waffle. I am guessing (2) is the most likely outcome, but it is going to be very messy. The Good Friday Agreement aimed to make the border ambiguous, rather than dispense with it entirely. It now becomes very explicit. Northern Ireland as a concept is entirely about that border, to create a safe space for a particular demographic. It is not a frontier between independent states.