This sentence jumped out though: "But again, leaving was Britain’s choice. The EU did not initiate any of this."
This is what struck me:
The EU is an existential, not a transactional project
I think for the British it has always been a transactional project. We've reached the end of the road in papering over the cracks.
An ex-colleague at Defra told me that during CAP negotiations he showed the (I think) Italians a graph that showed how much they put into EU budget for agriculture vs. received back... they were completely nonplussed at that perspective.
Exactly. Should all taxpayers get a graph of much they put in and how much they get back.
If the downturn is severe and the Tories make the wrong choice (almost inevitable) It's by no means impossible to see a scenario with a Labour landslide of Blair-like proportions.
Who is their Blair, reassuring middle England and the business community?
The business community are 90% Remain. They are aghast at where this NEW Tory Party has landed them. Just look at the Remain figures in the big cities particularly London and what happened to Tory support at the last election in those places. And that was BEFORE any noticable downturn.
It's an extraordinary thing when you think of the damage the EU has done to the Tory Party over the decades and it's easy to see as this chapter closes that the best has been saved for last. They don't need a Blair. Just being something less barking than the Tories will do.
The Tories won in 1992 even in a recession because of Kinnock, Corbyn is the biggest motivator to vote against Labour since him
Yes both were derided by the MSM but they have less influence than 92 especially with voters who might vote Labour.
Kinnock won 9 more seats in 1992 than Corbyn did in 2017
May got 13 fewer seats than Cameron. What's your point ?
Sorry but its a load of bullshit on a false premise. Yes the EU agreed to that spending and yes we were part of the EU. But the EU agreed to that spending knowing full well we were potentially on the way out. It didn't ask for guarantees from us before it signed to these commitments that we would be a party to them afterwards if we left, the commitments were made in the name of the EU not in our name.
If the EU wants us to fund these projects then it needs to give us something good in return, like a good trade deal.
So said the member of the board who signed off the accounts resigning a couple of years later.
His point: the company ought to have known I was leaving and my signature means nothing.
If the downturn is severe and the Tories make the wrong choice (almost inevitable) It's by no means impossible to see a scenario with a Labour landslide of Blair-like proportions.
Who is their Blair, reassuring middle England and the business community?
The business community are 90% Remain. They are aghast at where this NEW Tory Party has landed them. Just look at the Remain figures in the big cities particularly London and what happened to Tory support at the last election in those places. And that was BEFORE any noticable downturn.
It's an extraordinary thing when you think of the damage the EU has done to the Tory Party over the decades and it's easy to see as this chapter closes that the best has been saved for last. They don't need a Blair. Just being something less barking than the Tories will do.
The Tories won in 1992 even in a recession because of Kinnock, Corbyn is the biggest motivator to vote against Labour since him
Yes both were derided by the MSM but they have less influence than 92 especially with voters who might vote Labour.
Kinnock won 9 more seats in 1992 than Corbyn did in 2017
May got 13 fewer seats than Cameron. What's your point ?
Relative to 2015 not 2010.
Corbyn has the same negative vote factor as Kinnock did
If the downturn is severe and the Tories make the wrong choice (almost inevitable) It's by no means impossible to see a scenario with a Labour landslide of Blair-like proportions.
Who is their Blair, reassuring middle England and the business community?
The business community are 90% Remain. They are aghast at where this NEW Tory Party has landed them. Just look at the Remain figures in the big cities particularly London and what happened to Tory support at the last election in those places. And that was BEFORE any noticable downturn.
It's an extraordinary thing when you think of the damage the EU has done to the Tory Party over the decades and it's easy to see as this chapter closes that the best has been saved for last. They don't need a Blair. Just being something less barking than the Tories will do.
The Tories won in 1992 even in a recession because of Kinnock, Corbyn is the biggest motivator to vote against Labour since him
Yes both were derided by the MSM but they have less influence than 92 especially with voters who might vote Labour.
Kinnock won 9 more seats in 1992 than Corbyn did in 2017
May got 13 fewer seats than Cameron. What's your point ?
Relative to 2015 not 2010.
Corbyn has the same negative vote factor as Kinnock did
Of course, someone who increased the party's votes by 10 percentage points has a negative factor.
Perhaps but I doubt either party will ever propose again counting your house as part of your assets for personal social care purposes. On planning there is still huge local opposition to any significant building on green belt land or on green fields
Follow the Swedish model.
Follow the Houston model. Build everywhere even where dangerous, make yourself a fortune, and damn the consequences.
If the downturn is severe and the Tories make the wrong choice (almost inevitable) It's by no means impossible to see a scenario with a Labour landslide of Blair-like proportions.
Who is their Blair, reassuring middle England and the business community?
The business community are 90% Remain. They are aghast at where this NEW Tory Party has landed them. Just look at the Remain figures in the big cities particularly London and what happened to Tory support at the last election in those places. And that was BEFORE any noticable downturn.
It's an extraordinary thing when you think of the damage the EU has done to the Tory Party over the decades and it's easy to see as this chapter closes that the best has been saved for last. They don't need a Blair. Just being something less barking than the Tories will do.
The Tories won in 1992 even in a recession because of Kinnock, Corbyn is the biggest motivator to vote against Labour since him
Yes both were derided by the MSM but they have less influence than 92 especially with voters who might vote Labour.
Kinnock won 9 more seats in 1992 than Corbyn did in 2017
May got 13 fewer seats than Cameron. What's your point ?
Relative to 2015 not 2010.
Corbyn has the same negative vote factor as Kinnock did
Of course, someone who increased the party's votes by 10 percentage points has a negative factor.
You forgot to take your tablets this morning.
May increased the Tory voteshare by 5% too and got slightly more than Major did in 1992 helped by the 'keep Corbyn out' factor. Kinnock got 7% more votes in 1992 than his predecessor Foot had in 1983 too
Perhaps but I doubt either party will ever propose again counting your house as part of your assets for personal social care purposes. On planning there is still huge local opposition to any significant building on green belt land or on green fields
Follow the Swedish model.
Follow the Houston model. Build everywhere even where dangerous, make yourself a fortune, and damn the consequences.
You are a proper Tory, aren`t you, Mr HYUFD?
When have I ever said that? I support building on brownbelt land first where possible
Sorry but its a load of bullshit on a false premise. Yes the EU agreed to that spending and yes we were part of the EU. But the EU agreed to that spending knowing full well we were potentially on the way out. It didn't ask for guarantees from us before it signed to these commitments that we would be a party to them afterwards if we left, the commitments were made in the name of the EU not in our name.
If the EU wants us to fund these projects then it needs to give us something good in return, like a good trade deal.
So said the member of the board who signed off the accounts resigning a couple of years later.
His point: the company ought to have known I was leaving and my signature means nothing.
Err no it means that if the company took on a liability with the member of the boards signature then the company is liable for that liability. The future ex-board member is not personally liable for the companies liabilities.
Your analogy backs my point up not yours. A limited liability company has its own liabilities, past board members are not personally liable for the companies debts.
Sorry but its a load of bullshit on a false premise. Yes the EU agreed to that spending and yes we were part of the EU. But the EU agreed to that spending knowing full well we were potentially on the way out. It didn't ask for guarantees from us before it signed to these commitments that we would be a party to them afterwards if we left, the commitments were made in the name of the EU not in our name.
If the EU wants us to fund these projects then it needs to give us something good in return, like a good trade deal.
So said the member of the board who signed off the accounts resigning a couple of years later.
His point: the company ought to have known I was leaving and my signature means nothing.
Your analogy backs my point up not yours. A limited liability company has its own liabilities, past board members are not personally liable for the companies debts.
Sorry but its a load of bullshit on a false premise. Yes the EU agreed to that spending and yes we were part of the EU. But the EU agreed to that spending knowing full well we were potentially on the way out. It didn't ask for guarantees from us before it signed to these commitments that we would be a party to them afterwards if we left, the commitments were made in the name of the EU not in our name.
If the EU wants us to fund these projects then it needs to give us something good in return, like a good trade deal.
So said the member of the board who signed off the accounts resigning a couple of years later.
His point: the company ought to have known I was leaving and my signature means nothing.
Err no it means that if the company took on a liability with the member of the boards signature then the company is liable for that liability. The future ex-board member is not personally liable for the companies liabilities.
Your analogy backs my point up not yours. A limited liability company has its own liabilities, past board members are not personally liable for the companies debts.
Nor are present members, so the analogy fails, for everyone. Dissolution of a business partnership is what you need to look at, and that in practice comes down to what it says in the partnership deed.
Sorry but its a load of bullshit on a false premise. Yes the EU agreed to that spending and yes we were part of the EU. But the EU agreed to that spending knowing full well we were potentially on the way out. It didn't ask for guarantees from us before it signed to these commitments that we would be a party to them afterwards if we left, the commitments were made in the name of the EU not in our name.
If the EU wants us to fund these projects then it needs to give us something good in return, like a good trade deal.
So said the member of the board who signed off the accounts resigning a couple of years later.
His point: the company ought to have known I was leaving and my signature means nothing.
Err no it means that if the company took on a liability with the member of the boards signature then the company is liable for that liability. The future ex-board member is not personally liable for the companies liabilities.
Your analogy backs my point up not yours. A limited liability company has its own liabilities, past board members are not personally liable for the companies debts.
Unless they gave personal guarantees on the debts/liabilities.
Labour offer nothing like an alternative government. But the Conservatives have not yet begun to grasp how completely they are destroying their reputation for competence and pragmatism by pursuing Brexit in such an extreme, ideological and offensive way. Many who have no love for Labour will see no alternative to voting for them.
That is very true. During the last election campaign the local conservative MP was doing a photo op in the market square. He asked a local businessman to join him. The reply - "not so fast, I haven't made my mind up yet." Conservative voters switching to Labour isn't the whole story. Disheartening the base so they are less inclined to turn out can have a big impact, and one that the polls don't fully capture. Ask Ed Miliband about that.
And yet more of the base turned out and voted for the Tories than at any election since 1992. Its easy to forget that. Of course most of this was the collapse of UKIP and the return of some of the previously disenchanted but it remains a fact.
Brexit is popular with the Conservative base.
The dementia tax wasn't
It will soon be forgotten about. Particularly by the people it affects the most.
Only because the Tories have now dropped it
Which is a shame. Hopefully we’ll see a Royal Commission or cross-party enquiry on both social care and planning/housing. These issues have been on the too-difficult list for more than a decade now and any proposal from politicians is framed in derogatory language by their opponents.
Perhaps but I doubt either party will ever propose again counting your house as part of your assets for personal social care purposes.
On planning there is still huge local opposition to any significant building on green belt land or on green fields
These two issues are incredibly difficult, but they are getting more so very quickly and will always count against the incumbent government.
You and I both know that Corbyn’s Labour Party offers no genuine solutions to these problems, but both issues are costing our party votes and will continue to do so until they are resolved.
On social care either we need to take all assets into account, or we need to accept that raises in tax are necessary. As Conservatives we should really be thinking of the first option.
I wrote a thread header last year on all the mistakes Britain has made so I absolutely accept the point that casting Britain as a perpetual victim is nonsense.
My point was a different one: the apparent lack of self-reflection by the EU does not bode well for it.
So what could the EU have done differently?
It could have properly reformed CAP, for instance, as it promised it would in return for us giving up part of our rebate. One huge broken promise there and a lack of good faith. For an organisation constantly trumpeting about how it wants to prepare itself for the future to still be spending as much of its budget on agriculture as it is is risible.
It could have enforced the rules equally on all members. Italy was repeatedly fined for breaches of various financial directives, simply refused to pay and got let off. Rule of law?
It could have not introduced Directives which were not designed to destroy or harm a significant industry in one country only eg the Ports Directive or the attempt to introduce a FTT.
It could have taken steps to properly enforce the rules under FoM which do permit states to deport those who are a danger to the country. FoM is not quite as unlimited as its supporters believe.
It could have understood that Britain had a very different historical, cultural and legal perspective and sought to accommodate this in an intelligent way. For instance, there was a proposal which would have had the effect of destroying the whole concept of trust law based on equity in this country. This may seem an arcane point but equitable principles are part of the warp and weft of our culture and law and history and the idea that this should be destroyed on the basis of QMV by bureaucrats and states with no knowledge or understanding of this is beyond stupid.
It could have not boasted about about repackaging a rejected Constitution under a different name without addressing any of the concerns, thus showing both arrogance and a contempt for democracy.
It could have taken genuine steps to address issues of corruption and waste rather than attack whistleblowers and concerned employees.
It could have taken steps against the French when they refused to comply with rulings against them on CJD and British beef.
It could have taken steps to really establish and enforce a Single Market in services, which would benefit Britain in particular. It did not. There is now - and has been - a fair amount of cherry-picking, frankly, by the EU. It is not just Britain which is guilty of this.
There were lots of things it could have done differently, which might have changed last year's result. The proximate cause of the referendum was the Tory party's internal difficulties but the issues go back further than that.
The EU is not blameless in its approach to a major state with a different - and equally valuable - perspective. Too often - and I do not absolve Britain from responsibility in this - it focused only on the difference and sought to iron this out or quash it via majority against Britain's wishes rather than seek to learn from the value which Britain could give. It danced all too often to a Franco-German tune only and had a tin ear for how this appeared to Britain and others.
We have been de jure senior Board members. De facto we weren't, except when it came to payment. Did no-one - on either side - not realise what resentments this might store up?
I would like to hope that some of the more reflective people within the EU hierarchy and European capitals understand that when a divorce happens both sides bear responsibility for the marriage reaching that stage.
Sorry but its a load of bullshit on a false premise. Yes the EU agreed to that spending and yes we were part of the EU. But the EU agreed to that spending knowing full well we were potentially on the way out. It didn't ask for guarantees from us before it signed to these commitments that we would be a party to them afterwards if we left, the commitments were made in the name of the EU not in our name.
If the EU wants us to fund these projects then it needs to give us something good in return, like a good trade deal.
So said the member of the board who signed off the accounts resigning a couple of years later.
His point: the company ought to have known I was leaving and my signature means nothing.
Err no it means that if the company took on a liability with the member of the boards signature then the company is liable for that liability. The future ex-board member is not personally liable for the companies liabilities.
Your analogy backs my point up not yours. A limited liability company has its own liabilities, past board members are not personally liable for the companies debts.
Nor are present members, so the analogy fails, for everyone. Dissolution of a business partnership is what you need to look at, and that in practice comes down to what it says in the partnership deed.
If the outgoing partner owes money to the partnership, he pays up on leaving. But, it would be unusual for him to commit to contribute to future expenditure by the partnership, without getting something in return.
Labour offer nothing like an alternative government. But the Conservatives have not yet begun to grasp how completely they are destroying their reputation for competence and pragmatism by pursuing Brexit in such an extreme, ideological and offensive way. Many who have no love for Labour will see no alternative to voting for them.
That is very true. During the last election campaign the local conservative MP was doing a photo op
And yet more of the base turned out and voted for the Tories than at any election since 1992. Its easy to forget that. Of course most of this was the collapse of UKIP and the return of some of the previously disenchanted but it remains a fact.
Brexit is popular with the Conservative base.
The dementia tax wasn't
It will soon be forgotten about. Particularly by the people it affects the most.
Only because the Tories have now dropped it
Which is a shame. Hopefully we’ll see a Royal Commission or cross-party enquiry
Perhaps but I doubt either party will ever propose again counting your house as part of your assets for personal social care purposes.
On planning there is still huge local opposition to any significant building on green belt land or on green fields
These two issues are incredibly difficult, but they are getting more so very quickly and will always count against the incumbent government.
You and I both know that Corbyn’s Labour Party offers no genuine solutions to these problems, but both issues are costing our party votes and will continue to do so until they are resolved.
On social care either we need to take all assets into account, or we need to accept that raises in tax are necessary. As Conservatives we should really be thinking of the first option.
I prefer the social insurance option for social care which is the German, Dutch and Japanese approach and also the most conservative.
On planning I want to build on brownbelt areas first where we can
On the social care front, the Government is scuppered now. They have no mandate to do what was in the manifesto, although that might not stop them. But considering how hugely negative the reception to Nick Timothy's great idea was, it would be politically very bad (and indeed the backbenchers would probably block).
So, it has to be the care cost cap as mandated via Cameron's 2015 win surely?
Of course, it seems likely that will not bring in enough cash.
It could have not boasted about about repackaging a rejected Constitution under a different name without addressing any of the concerns, thus showing both arrogance and a contempt for democracy.
It could have taken genuine steps to address issues of corruption and waste rather than attack whistleblowers and concerned employees.
It could have taken steps against the French when they refused to comply with rulings against them on CJD and British beef.
It could have taken steps to really establish and enforce a Single Market in services, which would benefit Britain in particular. It did not. There is now - and has been - a fair amount of cherry-picking, frankly, by the EU. It is not just Britain which is guilty of this.
There were lots of things it could have done differently, which might have changed last year's result. The proximate cause of the referendum was the Tory party's internal difficulties but the issues go back further than that.
The EU is not blameless in its approach to a major state with a different - and equally valuable - perspective. Too often - and I do not absolve Britain from responsibility in this - it focused only on the difference and sought to iron this out or quash it via majority against Britain's wishes rather than seek to learn from the value which Britain could give. It danced all too often to a Franco-German tune only and had a tin ear for how this appeared to Britain and others.
We have been de jure senior Board members. De facto we weren't, except when it came to payment. Did no-one - on either side - not realise what resentments this might store up?
I would like to hope that some of the more reflective people within the EU hierarchy and European capitals understand that when a divorce happens both sides bear responsibility for the marriage reaching that stage.
Great post. I too agree the UK bears a lot of responsibility for it getting to this point, but for me, it was always astonishing that the Franco-German alliance never understood the need to make that a genuine three-way alliance if the UK were ever to be able to sit happily with the EU. The fact that they not only did not, but very deliberately and publicly rubbed our (and every other EU country's) noses in it is purely on them.
Sorry but its a load of bullshit on a false premise. Yes the EU agreed to that spending and yes we were part of the EU. But the EU agreed to that spending knowing full well we were potentially on the way out. It didn't ask for guarantees from us before it signed to these commitments that we would be a party to them afterwards if we left, the commitments were made in the name of the EU not in our name.
If the EU wants us to fund these projects then it needs to give us something good in return, like a good trade deal.
So said the member of the board who signed off the accounts resigning a couple of years later.
His point: the company ought to have known I was leaving and my signature means nothing.
Err no it means that if the company took on a liability with the member of the boards signature then the company is liable for that liability. The future ex-board member is not personally liable for the companies liabilities.
Your analogy backs my point up not yours. A limited liability company has its own liabilities, past board members are not personally liable for the companies debts.
Unless they gave personal guarantees on the debts/liabilities.
Or unless the debts/liabilities were taken by the Board fraudulently or otherwise illegally.
It could have understood that Britain had a very different historical, cultural and legal perspective and sought to accommodate this in an intelligent way.
That's all very well, but how do you square this with the overwhelming support for the EU in Ireland?
It could have understood that Britain had a very different historical, cultural and legal perspective and sought to accommodate this in an intelligent way.
That's all very well, but how do you square this with the overwhelming support for the EU in Ireland?
On planning I want to build on brownbelt areas first where we can
The dilemma for the conservatives is that this ^ approach is losing them elections.
Young and middle aged people aren't becoming conservatives because they're forced to spend 10/15/20 of their prime earning years paying rent. The tory plan2 student loans, with a frozen payback threshold, is turning this reality into a permanent state of affairs for post-millenials.
The tory client vote don't care though, they can hand their kids £100k for a deposit.
It could have taken steps to really establish and enforce a Single Market in services, which would benefit Britain in particular. It did not. There is now - and has been - a fair amount of cherry-picking, frankly, by the EU. It is not just Britain which is guilty of this.
Great post in general, but I think you underestimate the difficulties of enforcing a single market in services, without denuding constituent countries of even more power.
Take Financial Services, which is effectively the only area where there has been a single EU services market. That required millions of pages of regulation, and a decade to negotiate, to create the "passport". Fortunately, every EU country had some existing body regulating financial services. And fortunately, financial services products could be largely provided by people sitting outside a country.
Now, taking driving instruction. It's a service. But there's no single European market for driving instruction. It's regulated differently in different countries, and driving is different in different countries, and there's not even commonality on which side of the road you can drive on. Is preventing a French driving instructor in a French car from offering driving lessons in Dover a sensible safety precaution? Or is it an unwarranted attack on the single market?
And don't get me started on the difficulties in creating a single European legal market...
In general, the EU tried to solve the problem by allowing countries to create much of their own services legislation, but also by allowing many professional qualifications to carry across borders. Is this perfect? No. But I think your criticism underestimates the genuine difficulties involved in creating anything approaching a "Single Market for Services". Indeed, I would go further: despite our demands for it, any attempt to enforce it - and the consequences to sovereignty - would have seen us depart the EU much earlier.
On the social care front, the Government is scuppered now. They have no mandate to do what was in the manifesto, although that might not stop them. But considering how hugely negative the reception to Nick Timothy's great idea was, it would be politically very bad (and indeed the backbenchers would probably block).
So, it has to be the care cost cap as mandated via Cameron's 2015 win surely?
Of course, it seems likely that will not bring in enough cash.
The dementia tax has been scrapped that is clear, although the £100 000 of assets guarantee and care costs cap may stay. Longer term the conservative solution should be social insurance for social care as I have said
I think the EU press is also culpable. In France, Germany and in the UK, the press pushes for no compromise. It makes it hard for politicians to make difficult compromises.
Mr. T, isn't it just like art, in that prices go up and down but won't collapse to zero, so if you have a load of cash and you want to invest it in various places, the gold acts as a refuge (especially as prices rise when the global situation looks ropey)?
On planning I want to build on brownbelt areas first where we can
The dilemma for the conservatives is that this ^ approach is losing them elections.
Young and middle aged people aren't becoming conservatives because they're forced to spend 10/15/20 of their prime earning years paying rent. The tory plan2 student loans, with a frozen payback threshold, is turning this reality into a permanent state of affairs for post-millenials.
The tory client vote don't care though, they can hand their kids £100k for a deposit.
60% of people are still homeowners and Osborne's inheritance tax cut (which Corbyn and McDonnell will reverse) coupled with scrapping the dementia tax and increasing the care costs cap will help those homeowners help their children get a deposit for a house or flat yes.
Of course the Tory commitment to end free movement will also help ease pressure for more housing and that in turn will reduce the pressure on the green belt. Corbyn of course has now said he wants to keep free movement for years to stay in the single market
Sorry but its a load of bullshit on a false premise. Yes the EU agreed to that spending and yes we were part of the EU. But the EU agreed to that spending knowing full well we were potentially on the way out. It didn't ask for guarantees from us before it signed to these commitments that we would be a party to them afterwards if we left, the commitments were made in the name of the EU not in our name.
If the EU wants us to fund these projects then it needs to give us something good in return, like a good trade deal.
So said the member of the board who signed off the accounts resigning a couple of years later.
His point: the company ought to have known I was leaving and my signature means nothing.
Err no it means that if the company took on a liability with the member of the boards signature then the company is liable for that liability. The future ex-board member is not personally liable for the companies liabilities.
Your analogy backs my point up not yours. A limited liability company has its own liabilities, past board members are not personally liable for the companies debts.
Unless they gave personal guarantees on the debts/liabilities.
Sorry but its a load of bullshit on a false premise. Yes the EU agreed to that spending and yes we were part of the EU. But the EU agreed to that spending knowing full well we were potentially on the way out. It didn't ask for guarantees from us before it signed to these commitments that we would be a party to them afterwards if we left, the commitments were made in the name of the EU not in our name.
If the EU wants us to fund these projects then it needs to give us something good in return, like a good trade deal.
So said the member of the board who signed off the accounts resigning a couple of years later.
His point: the company ought to have known I was leaving and my signature means nothing.
Err no it means that if the company took on a liability with the member of the boards signature then the company is liable for that liability. The future ex-board member is not personally liable for the companies liabilities.
Your analogy backs my point up not yours. A limited liability company has its own liabilities, past board members are not personally liable for the companies debts.
Nor are present members, so the analogy fails, for everyone. Dissolution of a business partnership is what you need to look at, and that in practice comes down to what it says in the partnership deed.
Present members aren't responsible (individually) for the EU's liabilities either, the EU as a whole is. The analogy doesn't fail as the EU isn't being dissolved. The EU is continuing without us so it retains the the assets and the liabilities of the EU. The fact we signed off on some of the liabilities is neither here nor there - and if it is relevant then so is a share of the assets.
Mr. T, isn't it just like art, in that prices go up and down but won't collapse to zero, so if you have a load of cash and you want to invest it in various places, the gold acts as a refuge (especially as prices rise when the global situation looks ropey)?
I understand the theory. Never understood why it works - it's so arbitrary.
I guess my real point is that the value of gold is not intrinsic but is an issue of trust between the parties valuing it - which ultimately is no different than paper money.
Mr. T, I'd guess (excessive abundance of wealth and what to do with it is not a pressing concern of mine) that spreading money about diminishes overall risk, because share prices might collapse or property markets decline, but everything (gold, art, real estate, shares etc etc) going down at once is much less likely.
Yes - it does. This sentence jumped out though: "But again, leaving was Britain’s choice. The EU did not initiate any of this."
The first part is true. The second is, in its own way, delusional. Britain's departure was not inevitable. How the EU developed, how it behaved towards Britain (and other member states) and how it dealt with Britain over the deal negotiations did have something to do with Britain's departure. The failure of the EU to recognise this, to show even the slightest inkling of understanding that when a member leaves after over 40 years experience, some self-reflection on whether you might, could or should have done things differently to keep them on board, especially given the closeness of the result, is one reason perhaps why relations aren't now as good as they could be.
While it is true that Britain cannot ignore Continental Europe, the reverse is also true. It would help now if the EU recognised this. They too are ignoring the lessons of history.
The other point that might be made is that, in wanting a clean break, the EU is ignoring the express words of its own Article 50. Still, it is not the first time that it has ignored its own rules when convenient, ironically one of the reasons Britain has found the organisation do maddening at times.
Still, we are where we are and the government should be making urgent plans for a hard WTO departure with all that that will entail.
That is a good post Cyclefree and I agree with it.I hope you are correct and the government are making urgent plans for the WTO departure.If in private and public they feel they are been blackmailed it would be a dereliction of duty not to.
The Remain camp is growing in strength across all parts of civil society. No government could take the country over the WTO cliff against that backdrop. If that's where things stand in 2019 it's quite likely we'll see Ukraine style protests culminating in the government being deposed.
Mr. Thompson, agree entirely. It's ridiculous for the EU to claim we have to take 'our share' of liabilities but assets all belong to the EU.
F1: Stroll doing rather well in the wet.
Re assets: it's generally accepted, and one of the EU negotiating papers even admits, that EU will need to offset assets against liabilities.
Where there is a difference is how this is calculated. The EU believes that as the UK has only x% of the people, that it should only get x% of the assets. The UK posits that as it has paid y% of net contributions to the EU budget, it should get y% of the assets. There is a massive difference between the two numbers, because so many EU countries have been net beneficiaries from EU membership, and/or only joined relatively recently.
The key thing to remember is that all members of the Brexit elite are as shielded from its consequences as all those in the other part of the Establishment who rail against them. These are wealthy, privileged, very well connected people essentially playing a game that on a personal level they cannot lose.
Mr. Thompson, agree entirely. It's ridiculous for the EU to claim we have to take 'our share' of liabilities but assets all belong to the EU.
F1: Stroll doing rather well in the wet.
Re assets: it's generally accepted, and one of the EU negotiating papers even admits, that EU will need to offset assets against liabilities.
Where there is a difference is how this is calculated. The EU believes that as the UK has only x% of the people, that it should only get x% of the assets. The UK posits that as it has paid y% of net contributions to the EU budget, it should get y% of the assets. There is a massive difference between the two numbers, because so many EU countries have been net beneficiaries from EU membership, and/or only joined relatively recently.
So on their basis if Russia joined ( however unlikely) on day one it would own a serious percentage of all EU assets just on the basis it's got 150 million people (or whatever it's big population is)?
And they wonder why we wanted out? We can leave them an abacus and instructions on how to use it.
Mr. Thompson, agree entirely. It's ridiculous for the EU to claim we have to take 'our share' of liabilities but assets all belong to the EU.
F1: Stroll doing rather well in the wet.
Re assets: it's generally accepted, and one of the EU negotiating papers even admits, that EU will need to offset assets against liabilities.
Where there is a difference is how this is calculated. The EU believes that as the UK has only x% of the people, that it should only get x% of the assets. The UK posits that as it has paid y% of net contributions to the EU budget, it should get y% of the assets. There is a massive difference between the two numbers, because so many EU countries have been net beneficiaries from EU membership, and/or only joined relatively recently.
And that would need to be negotiated, but we're nowhere near that yet. The cliff edge is getting closer. The EU will get no money from us, we'll get no assets and our economy will be hugely damaged for many years to come.
The key thing to remember is that all members of the Brexit elite are as shielded from its consequences as all those in the other part of the Establishment who rail against them. These are wealthy, privileged, very well connected people essentially playing a game that on a personal level they cannot lose.
They can lose their reputations, and that should be enough of a threat to make them baulk at taking us over the cliff. Noblesse désoblige.
I wrote a thread header last year on all the mistakes Britain has made so I absolutely accept the point that casting Britain as a perpetual victim is nonsense.
My point was a different one: the apparent lack of self-reflection by the EU does not bode well for it.
So what could the EU have done differently?
It could have properly reformed CAP, for instance, as it promised it would in return for us giving up part of our rebate. One huge broken promise there and a lack of good faith. For an organisation constantly trumpeting about how it wants to prepare itself for the future to still be spending as much of its budget on agriculture as it is is risible.
It could have enforced the rules equally on all members. Italy was repeatedly fined for breaches of various financial directives, simply refused to pay and got let off. Rule of law?
It could have not introduced Directives which were not designed to destroy or harm a significant industry in one country only eg the Ports Directive or the attempt to introduce a FTT.
It could have taken steps to properly enforce the rules under FoM which do permit states to deport those who are a danger to the country. FoM is not quite as unlimited as its supporters believe.
It could have understood that Britain had a very different historical, cultural and legal perspective and sought to accommodate this in an intelligent way. For instance, there was a proposal which would have had the effect of destroying the whole concept of trust law based on equity in this country. This may seem an arcane point but equitable principles are part of the warp and weft of our culture and law and history and the idea that this should be destroyed on the basis of QMV by bureaucrats and states with no knowledge or understanding of this is beyond stupid.
(cont'd)
The EU is a glass half full. The argument is that a glass half full is better than no glass at all. At the end of the day it is what the members agree. It isn't a superstate. Nor is there an alternative to it.
Mr. Thompson, agree entirely. It's ridiculous for the EU to claim we have to take 'our share' of liabilities but assets all belong to the EU.
F1: Stroll doing rather well in the wet.
Re assets: it's generally accepted, and one of the EU negotiating papers even admits, that EU will need to offset assets against liabilities.
Where there is a difference is how this is calculated. The EU believes that as the UK has only x% of the people, that it should only get x% of the assets. The UK posits that as it has paid y% of net contributions to the EU budget, it should get y% of the assets. There is a massive difference between the two numbers, because so many EU countries have been net beneficiaries from EU membership, and/or only joined relatively recently.
Interesting I thought they were claiming that the assets were there's alone. I guess they've realised that is cutting off their own nose. No doubt if we were a net recipient they'd be saying "so long, good luck" so fast that there'd be no hint of assets and liabilities to be reconciled.
Mr. Thompson, agree entirely. It's ridiculous for the EU to claim we have to take 'our share' of liabilities but assets all belong to the EU.
F1: Stroll doing rather well in the wet.
Re assets: it's generally accepted, and one of the EU negotiating papers even admits, that EU will need to offset assets against liabilities.
Where there is a difference is how this is calculated. The EU believes that as the UK has only x% of the people, that it should only get x% of the assets. The UK posits that as it has paid y% of net contributions to the EU budget, it should get y% of the assets. There is a massive difference between the two numbers, because so many EU countries have been net beneficiaries from EU membership, and/or only joined relatively recently.
Interesting I thought they were claiming that the assets were there's alone. I guess they've realised that is cutting off their own nose. No doubt if we were a net recipient they'd be saying "so long, good luck" so fast that there'd be no hint of assets and liabilities to be reconciled.
That's a good point. I doubt anyone else will leave but if Poland, for example, decides it's better off out, they have a population of 38.6 million.
I'm only here to point out that I've left. I just want to make that clear.
This site is more fun when you are around. So do come back. But as someone who alternates in spending too much time here and disappearing for long stretches, I know the feeling.
I wrote a thread header last year on all the mistakes Britain has made so I absolutely accept the point that casting Britain as a perpetual victim is nonsense.
My point was a different one: the apparent lack of self-reflection by the EU does not bode well for it.
So what could the EU have done differently?
It could have properly reformed CAP, for instance, as it promised it would in return for us giving up part of our rebate. One huge broken promise there and a lack of good faith. For an organisation constantly trumpeting about how it wants to prepare itself for the future to still be spending as much of its budget on agriculture as it is is risible.
It could have enforced the rules equally on all members. Italy was repeatedly fined for breaches of various financial directives, simply refused to pay and got let off. Rule of law?
It could have not introduced Directives which were not designed to destroy or harm a significant industry in one country only eg the Ports Directive or the attempt to introduce a FTT.
It could have taken steps to properly enforce the rules under FoM which do permit states to deport those who are a danger to the country. FoM is not quite as unlimited as its supporters believe.
It could have understood that Britain had a very different historical, cultural and legal perspective and sought to accommodate this in an intelligent way. For instance, there was a proposal which would have had the effect of destroying the whole concept of trust law based on equity in this country. This may seem an arcane point but equitable principles are part of the warp and weft of our culture and law and history and the idea that this should be destroyed on the basis of QMV by bureaucrats and states with no knowledge or understanding of this is beyond stupid.
(cont'd)
The EU is a glass half full. The argument is that a glass half full is better than no glass at all. At the end of the day it is what the members agree. It isn't a superstate. Nor is there an alternative to it.
I'm only here to point out that I've left. I just want to make that clear.
This site is more fun when you are around. So do come back. But as someone who alternates in spending too much time here and disappearing for long stretches, I know the feeling.
The site certainly is more fun with seant on it , the last few weeks (months)of the remain side's moaning is boring the hell out of the place.
I'm only here to point out that I've left. I just want to make that clear.
This site is more fun when you are around. So do come back. But as someone who alternates in spending too much time here and disappearing for long stretches, I know the feeling.
The site certainly is more fun with seant on it , the last few weeks (months)of the remain side's moaning is boring the hell out of the place.
Grim reality tends to be more boring than crazed fantasy.
I'm only here to point out that I've left. I just want to make that clear.
This site is more fun when you are around. So do come back. But as someone who alternates in spending too much time here and disappearing for long stretches, I know the feeling.
The site certainly is more fun with seant on it , the last few weeks (months)of the remain side's moaning is boring the hell out of the place.
Hey, how do you think the rest of us felt with the decades of moaning from the EUrophobes?
I'm only here to point out that I've left. I just want to make that clear.
This site is more fun when you are around. So do come back. But as someone who alternates in spending too much time here and disappearing for long stretches, I know the feeling.
The site certainly is more fun with seant on it , the last few weeks (months)of the remain side's moaning is boring the hell out of the place.
Hey, how do you think the rest of us felt with the decades of moaning from the EUrophobes?
Suck it up, winners.
Lol,I seem to be jumping 90% of the post recently ,it wasn't that bad for you was it Josias ;-)
I'm only here to point out that I've left. I just want to make that clear.
This site is more fun when you are around. So do come back. But as someone who alternates in spending too much time here and disappearing for long stretches, I know the feeling.
I meant there isn't realistically an alternative forum to get stuff done across Europe, which I believe to be CF's issue. Not having a forum and not getting stuff done are alternatives, obviously.
Sorry but its a load of bullshit on a false premise. Yes the EU agreed to that spending and yes we were part of the EU. But the EU agreed to that spending knowing full well we were potentially on the way out. It didn't ask for guarantees from us before it signed to these commitments that we would be a party to them afterwards if we left, the commitments were made in the name of the EU not in our name.
If the EU wants us to fund these projects then it needs to give us something good in return, like a good trade deal.
So said the member of the board who signed off the accounts resigning a couple of years later.
His point: the company ought to have known I was leaving and my signature means nothing.
Err no it means that if the company took on a liability with the member of the boards signature then the company is liable for that liability. The future ex-board member is not personally liable for the companies liabilities.
Your analogy backs my point up not yours. A limited liability company has its own liabilities, past board members are not personally liable for the companies debts.
Not an illegal act. If , for example, there was an issue of fraud or corporate manslaughter you cannot get off by resigning.
It could have taken steps to really establish and enforce a Single Market in services, which would benefit Britain in particular. It did not. There is now - and has been - a fair amount of cherry-picking, frankly, by the EU. It is not just Britain which is guilty of this.
Great post in general, but I think you underestimate the difficulties of enforcing a single market in services, without denuding constituent countries of even more power.
Take Financial Services, which is effectively the only area where there has been a single EU services market. That required millions of pages of regulation, and a decade to negotiate, to create the "passport". Fortunately, every EU country had some existing body regulating financial services. And fortunately, financial services products could be largely provided by people sitting outside a country.
Now, taking driving instruction. It's a service. But there's no single European market for driving instruction. It's regulated differently in different countries, and driving is different in different countries, and there's not even commonality on which side of the road you can drive on. Is preventing a French driving instructor in a French car from offering driving lessons in Dover a sensible safety precaution? Or is it an unwarranted attack on the single market?
And don't get me started on the difficulties in creating a single European legal market...
In general, the EU tried to solve the problem by allowing countries to create much of their own services legislation, but also by allowing many professional qualifications to carry across borders. Is this perfect? No. But I think your criticism underestimates the genuine difficulties involved in creating anything approaching a "Single Market for Services". Indeed, I would go further: despite our demands for it, any attempt to enforce it - and the consequences to sovereignty - would have seen us depart the EU much earlier.
Thank you. That may well be so.
But then let's have less of the canting nonsense about the Single Market and how it is like a God which cannot be touched or amended.
If it is OK to do this to get round the difficulties of establishing a single market in services then it is also possible, if the will is there, to have adapted the principle of free movement so that it did not disproportionately favour or disfavour particular states, especially when the alternative was departure.
It could have understood that Britain had a very different historical, cultural and legal perspective and sought to accommodate this in an intelligent way.
That's all very well, but how do you square this with the overwhelming support for the EU in Ireland?
Money?
That and it gave Ireland a way of no longer being seen as Britain's appendage. Plus Ireland - being largely Catholic - already felt itself to be culturally more European, at least in some respects, than Britain.
Edited: I would also say that Britain's very different legal, historical and cultural heritage defined it as Britain - and that meant to a certain extent as being not Continental European and in opposition to the hegemonic power in Europe, whether France, Spain or Germany.
The same was not true for Ireland. Its Irish identity was formed in opposition to Britain not in opposition to whatever the main Irish ower was. If anything, Ireland at various times sought help from Britain's enemies - see Wolf Tone, the French and the rebellion which led to the 1801 Act of Union.
I'm only here to point out that I've left. I just want to make that clear.
This site is more fun when you are around. So do come back. But as someone who alternates in spending too much time here and disappearing for long stretches, I know the feeling.
The site certainly is more fun with seant on it , the last few weeks (months)of the remain side's moaning is boring the hell out of the place.
Grim reality tends to be more boring than crazed fantasy.
Dunno... The most OTT post I've seen so far has come from a Remainer - William Glenn - Who I think was implying earlier that we're going to have "overthrow" of the government and maybe even a civil war?
Sorry but its a load of bullshit on a false premise. Yes the EU agreed to that spending and yes we were part of the EU. But the EU agreed to that spending knowing full well we were potentially on the way out. It didn't ask for guarantees from us before it signed to these commitments that we would be a party to them afterwards if we left, the commitments were made in the name of the EU not in our name.
If the EU wants us to fund these projects then it needs to give us something good in return, like a good trade deal.
So said the member of the board who signed off the accounts resigning a couple of years later.
His point: the company ought to have known I was leaving and my signature means nothing.
Err no it means that if the company took on a liability with the member of the boards signature then the company is liable for that liability. The future ex-board member is not personally liable for the companies liabilities.
Your analogy backs my point up not yours. A limited liability company has its own liabilities, past board members are not personally liable for the companies debts.
Not an illegal act. If , for example, there was an issue of fraud or corporate manslaughter you cannot get off by resigning.
But we are not talking about either fraud or criminal behaviour
It could have understood that Britain had a very different historical, cultural and legal perspective and sought to accommodate this in an intelligent way.
That's all very well, but how do you square this with the overwhelming support for the EU in Ireland?
Money?
That and it gave Ireland a way of no longer being seen as Britain's appendage. Plus Ireland - being largely Catholic - already felt itself to be culturally more European, at least in some respects, than Britain.
Edited: I would also say that Britain's very different legal, historical and cultural heritage defined it as Britain - and that meant to a certain extent as being not Continental European and in opposition to the hegemonic power in Europe, whether France, Spain or Germany.
The same was not true for Ireland. Its Irish identity was formed in opposition to Britain not in opposition to whatever the main Irish ower was. If anything, Ireland at various times sought help from Britain's enemies - see Wolf Tone, the French and the rebellion which led to the 1801 Act of Union.
Bloody predictive text.....
"in opposition to whatever the main European power was." Not "Irish ower", whatever that is.
If I may disagree with all three of you for the moment. This thread encapsulates many PB recent concepts over the past week so forgive me if I use it as a coatrack to deal with several at once. The concepts are:
* The EU forced the UK to Vote Leave/Article 50 by acting unreasonably * The EU is acting illegally/unreasonably/unrealistically in the present negotiations * The EU will die/suffer greatly following UK departure
The EU did nothing to/with the UK that the UK did not consent to, or indeed actively encourage.
Untrue. I suggest you go and look at John Major's letters to the Commission over the extension of EU competence into areas we did not agree to via rulings of the ECJ.
It could have understood that Britain had a very different historical, cultural and legal perspective and sought to accommodate this in an intelligent way.
That's all very well, but how do you square this with the overwhelming support for the EU in Ireland?
Money?
That and it gave Ireland a way of no longer being seen as Britain's appendage. Plus Ireland - being largely Catholic - already felt itself to be culturally more European, at least in some respects, than Britain.
Edited: I would also say that Britain's very different legal, historical and cultural heritage defined it as Britain - and that meant to a certain extent as being not Continental European and in opposition to the hegemonic power in Europe, whether France, Spain or Germany.
The same was not true for Ireland. Its Irish identity was formed in opposition to Britain not in opposition to whatever the main Irish ower was. If anything, Ireland at various times sought help from Britain's enemies - see Wolf Tone, the French and the rebellion which led to the 1801 Act of Union.
It could have understood that Britain had a very different historical, cultural and legal perspective and sought to accommodate this in an intelligent way.
That's all very well, but how do you square this with the overwhelming support for the EU in Ireland?
Money?
That and it gave Ireland a way of no longer being seen as Britain's appendage. Plus Ireland - being largely Catholic - already felt itself to be culturally more European, at least in some respects, than Britain.
Edited: I would also say that Britain's very different legal, historical and cultural heritage defined it as Britain - and that meant to a certain extent as being not Continental European and in opposition to the hegemonic power in Europe, whether France, Spain or Germany.
The same was not true for Ireland. Its Irish identity was formed in opposition to Britain not in opposition to whatever the main Irish ower was. If anything, Ireland at various times sought help from Britain's enemies - see Wolf Tone, the French and the rebellion which led to the 1801 Act of Union.
Bloody predictive text.....
"in opposition to whatever the main European power was." Not "Irish ower", whatever that is.
The top Irish landowner was the Church, the Crown was #3 so your post made sense...
I'm only here to point out that I've left. I just want to make that clear.
This site is more fun when you are around. So do come back. But as someone who alternates in spending too much time here and disappearing for long stretches, I know the feeling.
The site certainly is more fun with seant on it , the last few weeks (months)of the remain side's moaning is boring the hell out of the place.
Grim reality tends to be more boring than crazed fantasy.
There's something in that. I feel like Che Guevara, after the commies seized Havana, when he was appointed Agriculture Minister, and hated the tedium of it, after all the excitement of the revolution.
Eventually he fucked off to Bolivia to get himself killed.
OTOH politics (and hence PB) just IS more boring, Brexit or otherwise (especially as I am sure we headed for a dull fudged softish Brexit, despite all the theatrics). Ou sont les indyrefs and Trump elex d'antan?
and I've run out of insults to hurl. And I'm just not that angry any more. Life has been too good to me. I can't work up the rage for more than 10 minutes, I used to go whole days of fulminating.
Hey ho.
If the next general election is Boris v Corbyn that would certainly liven things up.
In the meantime we have the German and New Zealand elections later this month.
O/T Just coming back from the 'Game for Grenfell' at Loftus Road, was pretty much a capacity crowd, plenty of celebrities turned out for teams Shearer and Ferdinand including Mo Farah, Jose Mourinho, Ed Westwick, Damian Lewis, Russell Howard, Jarvis Cocker and Jack Whitehall and they also brought on some firemen who attended the blaze as well as a few survivors which was a nice touch
Mr. T, be interesting to see how the Visegrad countries react to German efforts to get them to take more migrants the Chancellor invited to her own country.
I'm only here to point out that I've left. I just want to make that clear.
This site is more fun when you are around. So do come back. But as someone who alternates in spending too much time here and disappearing for long stretches, I know the feeling.
I meant there isn't realistically an alternative forum to get stuff done across Europe, which I believe to be CF's issue. Not having a forum and not getting stuff done are alternatives, obviously.
I'm only here to point out that I've left. I just want to make that clear.
This site is more fun when you are around. So do come back. But as someone who alternates in spending too much time here and disappearing for long stretches, I know the feeling.
The site certainly is more fun with seant on it , the last few weeks (months)of the remain side's moaning is boring the hell out of the place.
Grim reality tends to be more boring than crazed fantasy.
There's something in that. I feel like Che Guevara, after the commies seized Havana, when he was appointed Agriculture Minister, and hated the tedium of it, after all the excitement of the revolution.
Eventually he fucked off to Bolivia to get himself killed.
OTOH politics (and hence PB) just IS more boring, Brexit or otherwise (especially as I am sure we headed for a dull fudged softish Brexit, despite all the theatrics). Ou sont les indyrefs and Trump elex d'antan?
and I've run out of insults to hurl. And I'm just not that angry any more. Life has been too good to me. I can't work up the rage for more than 10 minutes, I used to go whole days of fulminating.
Hey ho.
If the next general election is Boris v Corbyn that would certainly liven things up.
In the meantime we have the German and New Zealand elections later this month.
O/T Just coming back from the 'Game for Grenfell' at Loftus Road, was pretty much a capacity crowd, plenty of celebrities turned out for teams Shearer and Ferdinand including Mo Farah, Jose Mourinho, Ed Westwick, Damian Lewis, Russell Howard, Jarvis Cocker and Jack Whitehall and they also brought on some firemen who attended the blaze as well as a few survivors which was a nice touch
With the exception of economic implosion (widespread bank failures, Great Depressions), civil racial conflict (internment of Muslims etc) or actual war - and I mean war with missiles landing in Europe and Britain sending large armies overseas - then I cannot foresee any political events outdoing the period 2013-2017 for excitement and surprise, for at least a decade.
There now. I've tempted Fate. Where is She?
Indeed but PB survived perfectly well from 2004 to 2012 before all the excitement amd drama of the last few years
I'm only here to point out that I've left. I just want to make that clear.
This site is more fun when you are around. So do come back. But as someone who alternates in spending too much time here and disappearing for long stretches, I know the feeling.
The site certainly is more fun with seant on it , the last few weeks (months)of the remain side's moaning is boring the hell out of the place.
Grim reality tends to be more boring than crazed fantasy.
There's something in that. I feel like Che Guevara, after the commies seized Havana, when he was appointed Agriculture Minister, and hated the tedium of it, after all the excitement of the revolution.
Eventually he fucked off to Bolivia to get himself killed.
OTOH politics (and hence PB) just IS more boring, Brexit or otherwise (especially as I am sure we headed for a dull fudged softish Brexit, despite all the theatrics). Ou sont les indyrefs and Trump elex d'antan?
and I've run out of insults to hurl. And I'm just not that angry any more. Life has been too good to me. I can't work up the rage for more than 10 minutes, I used to go whole days of fulminating.
Hey ho.
If the next general election is Boris v Corbyn that would certainly liven things up.
In the meantime we have the German and New Zealand elections later this month.
O/T Just coming back from the 'Game for Grenfell' at Loftus Road, was pretty much a capacity crowd, plenty of celebrities turned out for teams Shearer and Ferdinand including Mo Farah, Jose Mourinho, Ed Westwick, Damian Lewis, Russell Howard, Jarvis Cocker and Jack Whitehall and they also brought on some firemen who attended the blaze as well as a few survivors which was a nice touch
With the exception of economic implosion (widespread bank failures, Great Depressions), civil racial conflict (internment of Muslims etc) or actual war - and I mean war with missiles landing in Europe and Britain sending large armies overseas - then I cannot foresee any political events outdoing the period 2013-2017 for excitement and surprise, for at least a decade.
There now. I've tempted Fate. Where is She?
Indeed but PB survived perfectly well from 2004 to 2012 before all the excitement amd drama of the last few years
There was also quite a lot of drama in those years: the rise of Cameron, the aftermath of the Iraq war, Brown, Northern Rock, the financial crisis, Obama, 7/7, the first coalition for a while.......
I'm only here to point out that I've left. I just want to make that clear.
This site is more fun when you are around. So do come back. But as someone who alternates in spending too much time here and disappearing for long stretches, I know the feeling.
The site certainly is more fun with seant on it , the last few weeks (months)of the remain side's moaning is boring the hell out of the place.
Grim reality tends to be more boring than crazed fantasy.
There's something in that. I feel like Che Guevara, after the commies seized Havana, when he was appointed Agriculture Minister, and hated the tedium of it, after all the excitement of the revolution.
Eventually he fucked off to Bolivia to get himself killed.
OTOH politics (and hence PB) just IS more boring, Brexit or otherwise (especially as I am sure we headed for a dull fudged softish Brexit, despite all the theatrics). Ou sont les indyrefs and Trump elex d'antan?
and I've run out of insults to hurl. And I'm just not that angry any more. Life has been too good to me. I can't work up the rage for more than 10 minutes, I used to go whole days of fulminating.
Hey ho.
If the next general election is Boris v Corbyn that would certainly liven things up.
In the meantime we have the German and New Zealand elections later this month.
O/T Just coming back from the 'Game for Grenfell' at Loftus Road, was pretty much a capacity crowd, plenty of celebrities turned out for teams Shearer and Ferdinand including Mo Farah, Jose Mourinho, Ed Westwick, Damian Lewis, Russell Howard, Jarvis Cocker and Jack Whitehall and they also brought on some firemen who attended the blaze as well as a few survivors which was a nice touch
With the exception of economic implosion (widespread bank failures, Great Depressions), civil racial conflict (internment of Muslims etc) or actual war - and I mean war with missiles landing in Europe and Britain sending large armies overseas - then I cannot foresee any political events outdoing the period 2013-2017 for excitement and surprise, for at least a decade.
There now. I've tempted Fate. Where is She?
Indeed but PB survived perfectly well from 2004 to 2012 before all the excitement amd drama of the last few years
That was when we had daily debates on the merits of different policy ideas. Now it is just brexit brexit brexit.
I'm only here to point out that I've left. I just want to make that clear.
This site is more fun when you are around. So do come back. But as someone who alternates in spending too much time here and disappearing for long stretches, I know the feeling.
The site certainly is more fun with seant on it , the last few weeks (months)of the remain side's moaning is boring the hell out of the place.
Grim reality tends to be more boring than crazed fantasy.
There's something in that. I feel like Che Guevara, after the commies seized Havana, when he was appointed Agriculture Minister, and hated the tedium of it, after all the excitement of the revolution.
Eventually he fucked off to Bolivia to get himself killed.
OTOH politics (and hence PB) just IS more boring, Brexit or otherwise (especially as I am sure we headed for a dull fudged softish Brexit, despite all the theatrics). Ou sont les indyrefs and Trump elex d'antan?
and I've run out of insults to hurl. And I'm just not that angry any more. Life has been too good to me. I can't work up the rage for more than 10 minutes, I used to go whole days of fulminating.
Hey ho.
If the next general election is Boris v Corbyn that would certainly liven things up.
In the meantime we have the German and New Zealand elections later this month.
O/T Just coming back from the 'Game for Grenfell' at Loftus Road, was pretty much a capacity crowd, plenty of celebrities turned out for teams Shearer and Ferdinand including Mo Farah, Jose Mourinho, Ed Westwick, Damian Lewis, Russell Howard, Jarvis Cocker and Jack Whitehall and they also brought on some firemen who attended the blaze as well as a few survivors which was a nice touch
With the exception of economic implosion (widespread bank failures, Great Depressions), civil racial conflict (internment of Muslims etc) or actual war - and I mean war with missiles landing in Europe and Britain sending large armies overseas - then I cannot foresee any political events outdoing the period 2013-2017 for excitement and surprise, for at least a decade.
There now. I've tempted Fate. Where is She?
"Fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a bumpy night!"
I'm only here to point out that I've left. I just want to make that clear.
This site is more fun when you are around. So do come back. But as someone who alternates in spending too much time here and disappearing for long stretches, I know the feeling.
The site certainly is more fun with seant on it , the last few weeks (months)of the remain side's moaning is boring the hell out of the place.
Grim reality tends to be more boring than crazed fantasy.
There's something in that. I feel like Che Guevara, after the commies seized Havana, when he was appointed Agriculture Minister, and hated the tedium of it, after all the excitement of the revolution.
Eventually he fucked off to Bolivia to get himself killed.
OTOH politics (and hence PB) just IS more boring, Brexit or otherwise (especially as I am sure we headed for a dull fudged softish Brexit, despite all the theatrics). Ou sont les indyrefs and Trump elex d'antan?
and I've run out of insults to hurl. And I'm just not that angry any more. Life has been too good to me. I can't work up the rage for more than 10 minutes, I used to go whole days of fulminating.
Hey ho.
If the next general election is Boris v Corbyn that would certainly liven things up.
In the meantime we have the German and New Zealand elections later this month.
O/T Just coming back from the 'Game for Grenfell' at Loftus Road, was pretty much a capacity crowd, plenty of celebrities turned out for teams Shearer and Ferdinand including Mo Farah, Jose Mourinho, Ed Westwick, Damian Lewis, Russell Howard, Jarvis Cocker and Jack Whitehall and they also brought on some firemen who attended the blaze as well as a few survivors which was a nice touch
With the exception of economic implosion (widespread bank failures, Great Depressions), civil racial conflict (internment of Muslims etc) or actual war - and I mean war with missiles landing in Europe and Britain sending large armies overseas - then I cannot foresee any political events outdoing the period 2013-2017 for excitement and surprise, for at least a decade.
There now. I've tempted Fate. Where is She?
Indeed but PB survived perfectly well from 2004 to 2012 before all the excitement amd drama of the last few years
I started to follow PB in 2012-13; so maybe it's all my fault.
"Tougher German Rules Leave Refugee Families in the Lurch
When German Chancellor Angela Merkel allowed hundreds of thousands of men into the country, many of the refugees believed they would be able to bring their families later. Now the rules have changed, and countless women and children are trapped in perilous situations. "
With the exception of economic implosion (widespread bank failures, Great Depressions), civil racial conflict (internment of Muslims etc) or actual war - and I mean war with missiles landing in Europe and Britain sending large armies overseas - then I cannot foresee any political events outdoing the period 2013-2017 for excitement and surprise, for at least a decade.
There now. I've tempted Fate. Where is She?
A Conservative party realizing, post unsuccessful Brexit negotiations, that Europe really does not appreciate or value the UK's defence and intelligence contributions, deciding that maintaining any power projection capability is silly and hence slashing the Navy to a coastal defence force, reducing the Army to a Home Army, scrapping our NW capability and ending all force contributions to overseas ventures - now that would qualify. Not going to happen, though, but think of how that would get Corbyn's knickers in a twist.
It could have understood that Britain had a very different historical, cultural and legal perspective and sought to accommodate this in an intelligent way.
That's all very well, but how do you square this with the overwhelming support for the EU in Ireland?
Money?
That and it gave Ireland a way of no longer being seen as Britain's appendage. Plus Ireland - being largely Catholic - already felt itself to be culturally more European, at least in some respects, than Britain.
Edited: I would also say that Britain's very different legal, historical and cultural heritage defined it as Britain - and that meant to a certain extent as being not Continental European and in opposition to the hegemonic power in Europe, whether France, Spain or Germany.
The same was not true for Ireland. Its Irish identity was formed in opposition to Britain not in opposition to whatever the main Irish ower was. If anything, Ireland at various times sought help from Britain's enemies - see Wolf Tone, the French and the rebellion which led to the 1801 Act of Union.
If I may disagree with all three of you for the moment. This thread encapsulates many PB recent concepts over the past week so forgive me if I use it as a coatrack to deal with several at once. The concepts are:
* The EU forced the UK to Vote Leave/Article 50 by acting unreasonably * The EU is acting illegally/unreasonably/unrealistically in the present negotiations * The EU will die/suffer greatly following UK departure
The EU did nothing to/with the UK that the UK did not consent to, or indeed actively encourage.
Untrue. I suggest you go and look at John Major's letters to the Commission over the extension of EU competence into areas we did not agree to via rulings of the ECJ.
Do you have a link/summary of that I could read more about as I'm interested in that?
Comments
On topic, I agree with David.
Off topic,
https://twitter.com/JamieRoss7/status/903953998507540480
https://www.goldbroker.com/news/weird-things-are-happening-with-gold-1178
His point: the company ought to have known I was leaving and my signature means nothing.
Corbyn has the same negative vote factor as Kinnock did
You forgot to take your tablets this morning.
You are a proper Tory, aren`t you, Mr HYUFD?
Your analogy backs my point up not yours. A limited liability company has its own liabilities, past board members are not personally liable for the companies debts.
(Without the cricketing skill obvs.)
You and I both know that Corbyn’s Labour Party offers no genuine solutions to these problems, but both issues are costing our party votes and will continue to do so until they are resolved.
On social care either we need to take all assets into account, or we need to accept that raises in tax are necessary. As Conservatives we should really be thinking of the first option.
My point was a different one: the apparent lack of self-reflection by the EU does not bode well for it.
So what could the EU have done differently?
It could have properly reformed CAP, for instance, as it promised it would in return for us giving up part of our rebate. One huge broken promise there and a lack of good faith. For an organisation constantly trumpeting about how it wants to prepare itself for the future to still be spending as much of its budget on agriculture as it is is risible.
It could have enforced the rules equally on all members. Italy was repeatedly fined for breaches of various financial directives, simply refused to pay and got let off. Rule of law?
It could have not introduced Directives which were not designed to destroy or harm a significant industry in one country only eg the Ports Directive or the attempt to introduce a FTT.
It could have taken steps to properly enforce the rules under FoM which do permit states to deport those who are a danger to the country. FoM is not quite as unlimited as its supporters believe.
It could have understood that Britain had a very different historical, cultural and legal perspective and sought to accommodate this in an intelligent way. For instance, there was a proposal which would have had the effect of destroying the whole concept of trust law based on equity in this country. This may seem an arcane point but equitable principles are part of the warp and weft of our culture and law and history and the idea that this should be destroyed on the basis of QMV by bureaucrats and states with no knowledge or understanding of this is beyond stupid.
(cont'd)
It could have not boasted about about repackaging a rejected Constitution under a different name without addressing any of the concerns, thus showing both arrogance and a contempt for democracy.
It could have taken genuine steps to address issues of corruption and waste rather than attack whistleblowers and concerned employees.
It could have taken steps against the French when they refused to comply with rulings against them on CJD and British beef.
It could have taken steps to really establish and enforce a Single Market in services, which would benefit Britain in particular. It did not. There is now - and has been - a fair amount of cherry-picking, frankly, by the EU. It is not just Britain which is guilty of this.
There were lots of things it could have done differently, which might have changed last year's result. The proximate cause of the referendum was the Tory party's internal difficulties but the issues go back further than that.
The EU is not blameless in its approach to a major state with a different - and equally valuable - perspective. Too often - and I do not absolve Britain from responsibility in this - it focused only on the difference and sought to iron this out or quash it via majority against Britain's wishes rather than seek to learn from the value which Britain could give. It danced all too often to a Franco-German tune only and had a tin ear for how this appeared to Britain and others.
We have been de jure senior Board members. De facto we weren't, except when it came to payment. Did no-one - on either side - not realise what resentments this might store up?
I would like to hope that some of the more reflective people within the EU hierarchy and European capitals understand that when a divorce happens both sides bear responsibility for the marriage reaching that stage.
On planning I want to build on brownbelt areas first where we can
F1: qualifying going swimmingly, I see.
So, it has to be the care cost cap as mandated via Cameron's 2015 win surely?
Of course, it seems likely that will not bring in enough cash.
Edited extra bit: at 3.40pm.
Or unless the debts/liabilities were taken by the Board fraudulently or otherwise illegally.
May delay the pre-race nonsense until tomorrow.
I have never really understood gold as an investment ...
https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/09/richard-graham-four-ways-in-which-the-media-distorts-our-eu-negotiations.html
Young and middle aged people aren't becoming conservatives because they're forced to spend 10/15/20 of their prime earning years paying rent. The tory plan2 student loans, with a frozen payback threshold, is turning this reality into a permanent state of affairs for post-millenials.
The tory client vote don't care though, they can hand their kids £100k for a deposit.
Take Financial Services, which is effectively the only area where there has been a single EU services market. That required millions of pages of regulation, and a decade to negotiate, to create the "passport". Fortunately, every EU country had some existing body regulating financial services. And fortunately, financial services products could be largely provided by people sitting outside a country.
Now, taking driving instruction. It's a service. But there's no single European market for driving instruction. It's regulated differently in different countries, and driving is different in different countries, and there's not even commonality on which side of the road you can drive on. Is preventing a French driving instructor in a French car from offering driving lessons in Dover a sensible safety precaution? Or is it an unwarranted attack on the single market?
And don't get me started on the difficulties in creating a single European legal market...
In general, the EU tried to solve the problem by allowing countries to create much of their own services legislation, but also by allowing many professional qualifications to carry across borders. Is this perfect? No. But I think your criticism underestimates the genuine difficulties involved in creating anything approaching a "Single Market for Services". Indeed, I would go further: despite our demands for it, any attempt to enforce it - and the consequences to sovereignty - would have seen us depart the EU much earlier.
Of course the Tory commitment to end free movement will also help ease pressure for more housing and that in turn will reduce the pressure on the green belt. Corbyn of course has now said he wants to keep free movement for years to stay in the single market
https://twitter.com/WeyandSabine/status/903991841200189440
https://twitter.com/WeyandSabine/status/903992692316807169
F1: Stroll doing rather well in the wet.
I guess my real point is that the value of gold is not intrinsic but is an issue of trust between the parties valuing it - which ultimately is no different than paper money.
Where there is a difference is how this is calculated. The EU believes that as the UK has only x% of the people, that it should only get x% of the assets. The UK posits that as it has paid y% of net contributions to the EU budget, it should get y% of the assets. There is a massive difference between the two numbers, because so many EU countries have been net beneficiaries from EU membership, and/or only joined relatively recently.
F1: grid's going to look interesting. Regretting I didn't back Force India for a podium. Quite the qualifying session.
And they wonder why we wanted out? We can leave them an abacus and instructions on how to use it.
Very surprised by Ferrari's poor pace. Vettel had been competitive in Q2 (Raikkonen had been slow throughout).
Mr. T (the other one), I'm sorry to hear you're not here.
Suck it up, winners.
Edit. Replied to the wrong post. Apols
But then let's have less of the canting nonsense about the Single Market and how it is like a God which cannot be touched or amended.
If it is OK to do this to get round the difficulties of establishing a single market in services then it is also possible, if the will is there, to have adapted the principle of free movement so that it did not disproportionately favour or disfavour particular states, especially when the alternative was departure.
Edited: I would also say that Britain's very different legal, historical and cultural heritage defined it as Britain - and that meant to a certain extent as being not Continental European and in opposition to the hegemonic power in Europe, whether France, Spain or Germany.
The same was not true for Ireland. Its Irish identity was formed in opposition to Britain not in opposition to whatever the main Irish ower was. If anything, Ireland at various times sought help from Britain's enemies - see Wolf Tone, the French and the rebellion which led to the 1801 Act of Union.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/02/great-saudi-sell-off-bankers-lawyers-flocking-gulf
"in opposition to whatever the main European power was." Not "Irish ower", whatever that is.
In the meantime we have the German and New Zealand elections later this month.
O/T Just coming back from the 'Game for Grenfell' at Loftus Road, was pretty much a capacity crowd, plenty of celebrities turned out for teams Shearer and Ferdinand including Mo Farah, Jose Mourinho, Ed Westwick, Damian Lewis, Russell Howard, Jarvis Cocker and Jack Whitehall and they also brought on some firemen who attended the blaze as well as a few survivors which was a nice touch
It's boring competence we're short of.
When German Chancellor Angela Merkel allowed hundreds of thousands of men into the country, many of the refugees believed they would be able to bring their families later. Now the rules have changed, and countless women and children are trapped in perilous situations. "
Spiegel