I don't think it matters too much where Theresa May makes her speech. The contents matter more. The tone matters most of all. It's time for the Government to come down from the barricades and start talking about the type of next door neighbour it wants Britain to be.
The problem with May - unlike any other Prime Minister in recent history - is that it is absolutely impossible to judge the value of her pronouncements. Most politicians have some degree of core belief - Thatcher in the market economy and privatisation, Blair in modernising the Labour Party and also in engagement in Europe, Cameron in social liberalism and economic austerity, even with Brown and Major it was clear what their core beliefs were. And knowing that enabled us to judge the degree to which they believed what they were saying at any particular point and the way in which they were trying to move the debate.
But May is impossible to read - it is wholly unclear if she supports a hard Brexit, soft Brexit or even no Brexit (her position before the referendum). Does she genuinely believe in easing austerity and a more interventionist economic policy or is this merely rhetoric forced on her by changing public attitudes and Corbyn's unexpected election success? What kind of country does she want the UK to be?
She has changed her mind and gone back on firm commitments so often that her credibility is nil and it is hard to see how any speech from her can do much to move the Brexit process - or anything else - forward.
She needs to declare a Reconstruction: a recognition that a decision has been made and whether or not individuals like it, the future needs to be built in the interests of all, Leavers and Remainers, Britain and the EU. A candid recognition that many are appalled and alienated would help a lot (instead of Orwellian attempts to impose a consensus on "saboteurs" and "citizens of nowhere"), as would an aim of showing those who are appalled and alienated that the future can work for them too.
All of that is possible without knowing anything about her core beliefs.
She should have done that at the start of her premiership. But she chose the path of division and decided that her priority was to unite the Tory Party even though that process widened the divisions in the country which the referendum opened up.
Her opportunity to appear as a unifier has gone and it will not return.
There is no 'unifier' possible. As ORB showed this week 43% of the country want immigration control to be prioritised in the Brexit talks and 43% want free trade to be prioritised you can please one or the other you cannot please both
Brexit could spark democratic liberation of continent, says Gove
Justice secretary says other EU members might follow UK’s ‘galvanising, liberating, empowering moment of patriotic renewal’
You only "win" by winning hearts and minds. You can "win" in a narrow sense by screwing a country over because you can, but then you have created a long term problem that you don't want and will have a nasty tendency to bite you on the bum in future when you least want it. Think Germany 1918-39 as opposed to 1945 onwards.
The strategic danger for the EU is just that, that for all the posturings of Juncker and the studied languid ennui of Barnier they screw us over, have a good chuckle for a few years, feel immensely smug, and then something happens like Putin invades the Baltics and we decide we're washing our hair that night and don't fancy hanging around with some old mates who decided we weren't worthy but are now in a scrape with the neighbourhood bully.
It seems to me that the UK made the pre-emptive moves, i.e. no single market, no customs union. In the circumstances, is it not appropriate to ask what custom arrangements are proposed for the land border?
No it is not.
The customs arrangements will be the same for the land border as it will be for the sea, air or chunnel border. The EU demands that as part of the sanctity of their Single Market, so you can't separate the land border from any other border we need to negotiate what kind of customs arrangements we have and then we will know what kind of border we are to have.
John Major says we need a special solution for Northern Ireland. Is he wrong?
No we do need a special solution for Northern Ireland. Already within the EU we have one (the UK and Ireland are both outside Schengen and in the Common Travel Area instead). But you can't separate trade from the border.
If the UK and EU can negotiate a customs agreement then we can have a free border between the UK and Ireland. If we can't then we can't. So it all hinges upon the trade agreement. So lets talk about trade.
May is going to fuck up this Florence business because the speech is, by necessity, going to be calibrated toward the eurosceptic Sontarons of the tory party not the EU or the governments of Europe.
Yes. Theresa, stung by her snap-election fiasco, is desperate to contest the next one and salvage her reputation. To achieve this it's an absolute must to have the Tory eurosceptic Right on board. Obviously that's not going to help with Britain's post-Brexit relationship with Europe, but that's a secondary consideration these days (if that).
Coming back to the more domestic agenda, I was musing last evening on the politics of the lifting of the public sector pay cap. On reflection, I may have to give the Government some credit for its politics.
There's huge public support for the Police (individually more so than collectively) and the Fire Service (no one who heard what the fire crews attending Grenfell went through can have anything other than admiration) and arguably for Prison Officers. Enforcing a 1% pay cap on these areas seems harsh and mean-spirited to many so lifting it (even if no one knows where the money to pay these workers is coming from) seems a good and popular move.
That drives a wedge through the public sector between the "deserving" and the "undeserving". There are plenty who would argue nurses and paramedics are also deserving of a larger pay rise and I'd expect the Government to recognise this but what about the local authority workers and other parts of the public sector ?
"Pen pushers", chief executives earning over £200k and those enjoying the benefits of the generous local Government pensions scheme may not get the volume of public sympathy afforded to fire fighters. I'd argue social workers dealing with vulnerable children and adults and housing officers do an incredible job under very stressful circumstances but that isn't universally true across the public sector.
The Union response to the lifting of the cap for some parts of the public sector may be to push for it to be lifted across the board (the public may support the FBU if it turns down a 2% rise, it may be less sympathetic if other public sector workers try the same tactic) and seek to achieve it by industrial action.
The Government response - it would like to be able to pay more but can't - will resonate and the Conservatives will no doubt play their usual card of Union militancy and put Corbyn on the spot.
Mr Stodge, much of your post makes sense as always. However, I must pick you up on one thing
"even if no one knows where the money to pay these workers is coming from)"
The govt. has been absolutely clear about this. It is coming from existing budgets. Which means fewer Police, prison officers and fire fighters.
And is precisely the opposite of what these groups are wanting.
Inflation is running at 2.9%, average earnings at 2.1% so even the average private sector worker is having a pay rise below inflation. The government is only increasing pay up near that level any higher and that would lead to yet more cuts and of course current low unemployment is also partly a reflection of wages not being too high
Brexit could spark democratic liberation of continent, says Gove
Justice secretary says other EU members might follow UK’s ‘galvanising, liberating, empowering moment of patriotic renewal’
You only "win" by winning hearts and minds. You can "win" in a narrow sense by screwing a country over because you can, but then you have created a long term problem that you don't want and will have a nasty tendency to bite you on the bum in future when you least want it. Think Germany 1918-39 as opposed to 1945 onwards.
The strategic danger for the EU is just that, that for all the posturings of Juncker and the studied languid ennui of Barnier they screw us over, have a good chuckle for a few years, feel immensely smug, and then something happens like Putin invades the Baltics and we decide we're washing our hair that night and don't fancy hanging around with some old mates who decided we weren't worthy but are now in a scrape with the neighbourhood bully.
They're not screwing us over; they're piling the pressure on the Brexiteers who don't have any answeres.
Well following Juncker's Borg like musings yesterday, if it's that or WTO, then WTO it is. Hopefully it won't come to that of course, but I always feared this was the real choice: Out or USE. You can bet your bottom Dollar that had we voted in by 52/48 we'd never have heard the end of it from Juncker that it was "full sails ahead, and you lot voted for it all".
In the absence of anything much positive to say last year, Remain's campaign boiled down to a Borg choice of "yes, it's a bit crap, but resistance is futile". Personally I'd rather take my chances roaming the galaxy a bit more like Blake's 7.
Resistance will occur and likely be successful, going by the German media response discussed down thread. And it will not be resistance by running away. So, the speech is no reason for us to run away further than we already have.
Tell me, how does Juncker's breadth and depth of vision compare with Delor's 30 or so years ago? Would you conclude that federalist ideology has moved forwards or merely circled its wagons well in that time?
There are more federal realities on the ground compared to Delors' day (Euro, Schengen etc) so in those terms they have moved forward. Interestingly I think I read on here the other day that Delors himself had suggested the UK might not want to go further down this road and back off to just trade. Wise old boy if that were the case.
Brexit could spark democratic liberation of continent, says Gove
Justice secretary says other EU members might follow UK’s ‘galvanising, liberating, empowering moment of patriotic renewal’
You only "win" by winning hearts and minds. You can "win" in a narrow sense by screwing a country over because you can, but then you have created a long term problem that you don't want and will have a nasty tendency to bite you on the bum in future when you least want it. Think Germany 1918-39 as opposed to 1945 onwards.
The strategic danger for the EU is just that, that for all the posturings of Juncker and the studied languid ennui of Barnier they screw us over, have a good chuckle for a few years, feel immensely smug, and then something happens like Putin invades the Baltics and we decide we're washing our hair that night and don't fancy hanging around with some old mates who decided we weren't worthy but are now in a scrape with the neighbourhood bully.
They're not screwing us over; they're piling the pressure on the Brexiteers who don't have any answeres.
It seems to me that the UK made the pre-emptive moves, i.e. no single market, no customs union. In the circumstances, is it not appropriate to ask what custom arrangements are proposed for the land border?
We could, for example, say: "None at all. We are wholly open to anything that comes in via the EU", a unilateral declaration of free trade with the EU so to speak. In which case we need no infrastructure on our side of the border (with the fall back that you can do the odd informal check between NI and the other 97.5% of the UK at the very limited entry and exit points between NI and GB.
Yes, we can choose to be a serious country or we can choose to be an international joke. That's sovereignty for you.
No we do need a special solution for Northern Ireland. Already within the EU we have one (the UK and Ireland are both outside Schengen and in the Common Travel Area instead). But you can't separate trade from the border.
If the UK and EU can negotiate a customs agreement then we can have a free border between the UK and Ireland. If we can't then we can't. So it all hinges upon the trade agreement. So lets talk about trade.
No customs 'agreement' would be sufficient to have no border infrastructure. It would have to be a customs union, in which case we stay in the common commercial policy and give up on the idea of our own wonderful trade deals.
Mr Stodge, much of your post makes sense as always. However, I must pick you up on one thing
"even if no one knows where the money to pay these workers is coming from)"
The govt. has been absolutely clear about this. It is coming from existing budgets. Which means fewer Police, prison officers and fire fighters.
And is precisely the opposite of what these groups are wanting.
To be fair, Mr Dean (and how Everton could use your goal-scoring talents now), you did mention this last evening.
"Existing budgets" can mean almost anything. The cost of the Police isn't just the cost of the staff but the logistics including the stations (many of which have been closed and just left such as at East Ham and Epping to give but two examples) and other accommodation so it may be trimming those budgets may enable enough to be raised to cover salaries.
I can't comment for prison officers but as far as Fire Fighters are concerned, you have the staff, the equipment and the stations. As far as the last-named is concerned, we are seeing more collaborative activities with other blue light functions and sharing of resources across boundaries so that "cover" is shared across authorities.
Mr Fire Stopper (Twisted) will doubtless have a view on this but some Fire & Rescue Services have large HQ buildings whixh have training facilities but occupy huge grounds parts of which could be sold off for residential development and thereby obtain a significant capital receipt for the service.
May is going to fuck up this Florence business because the speech is, by necessity, going to be calibrated toward the eurosceptic Sontarons of the tory party not the EU or the governments of Europe.
Yes. Theresa, stung by her snap-election fiasco, is desperate to contest the next one and salvage her reputation. To achieve this it's an absolute must to have the Tory eurosceptic Right on board. Obviously that's not going to help with Britain's post-Brexit relationship with Europe, but that's a secondary consideration these days (if that).
43% of the country want immigration control put first in the latest ORB, that is 1% more than the Tories got at the general election
Brexit could spark democratic liberation of continent, says Gove
Justice secretary says other EU members might follow UK’s ‘galvanising, liberating, empowering moment of patriotic renewal’
You only "win" by winning hearts and minds. You can "win" in a narrow sense by screwing a country over because you can, but then you have created a long term problem that you don't want and will have a nasty tendency to bite you on the bum in future when you least want it. Think Germany 1918-39 as opposed to 1945 onwards.
The strategic danger for the EU is just that, that for all the posturings of Juncker and the studied languid ennui of Barnier they screw us over, have a good chuckle for a few years, feel immensely smug, and then something happens like Putin invades the Baltics and we decide we're washing our hair that night and don't fancy hanging around with some old mates who decided we weren't worthy but are now in a scrape with the neighbourhood bully.
They're not screwing us over; they're piling the pressure on the Brexiteers who don't have any answeres.
It seems to me that the UK made the pre-emptive moves, i.e. no single market, no customs union. In the circumstances, is it not appropriate to ask what custom arrangements are proposed for the land border?
We could, for example, say: "None at all. We are wholly open to anything that comes in via the EU", a unilateral declaration of free trade with the EU so to speak. In which case we need no infrastructure on our side of the border (with the fall back that you can do the odd informal check between NI and the other 97.5% of the UK at the very limited entry and exit points between NI and GB.
Yes, we can choose to be a serious country or we can choose to be an international joke. That's sovereignty for you.
I don't follow.
To act as if daring the EU to enforce its own laws and borders would be a propaganda victory or would drive a wedge between Ireland and the EU is Baldrick level stuff.
It seems to me that the UK made the pre-emptive moves, i.e. no single market, no customs union. In the circumstances, is it not appropriate to ask what custom arrangements are proposed for the land border?
No it is not.
The customs arrangements will be the same for the land border as it will be for the sea, air or chunnel border. The EU demands that as part of the sanctity of their Single Market, so you can't separate the land border from any other border we need to negotiate what kind of customs arrangements we have and then we will know what kind of border we are to have.
John Major says we need a special solution for Northern Ireland. Is he wrong?
No we do need a special solution for Northern Ireland. Already within the EU we have one (the UK and Ireland are both outside Schengen and in the Common Travel Area instead). But you can't separate trade from the border.
If the UK and EU can negotiate a customs agreement then we can have a free border between the UK and Ireland. If we can't then we can't. So it all hinges upon the trade agreement. So lets talk about trade.
A solid answer. Which is why the stance of the Irish Government should change but so far has not. There was no sign in their media at the start of September of any sense of the change required, which reinforces my view of a WTO exit.
No we do need a special solution for Northern Ireland. Already within the EU we have one (the UK and Ireland are both outside Schengen and in the Common Travel Area instead). But you can't separate trade from the border.
If the UK and EU can negotiate a customs agreement then we can have a free border between the UK and Ireland. If we can't then we can't. So it all hinges upon the trade agreement. So lets talk about trade.
No customs 'agreement' would be sufficient to have no border infrastructure. It would have to be a customs union, in which case we stay in the common commercial policy and give up on the idea of our own wonderful trade deals.
That's what we need to discuss. Once we have reached a deal on trade, the border issues will then fall into place. We can't finalise the border issues until we know what trade deal there is.
No we do need a special solution for Northern Ireland. Already within the EU we have one (the UK and Ireland are both outside Schengen and in the Common Travel Area instead). But you can't separate trade from the border.
If the UK and EU can negotiate a customs agreement then we can have a free border between the UK and Ireland. If we can't then we can't. So it all hinges upon the trade agreement. So lets talk about trade.
No customs 'agreement' would be sufficient to have no border infrastructure. It would have to be a customs union, in which case we stay in the common commercial policy and give up on the idea of our own wonderful trade deals.
That's what we need to discuss. Once we have reached a deal on trade, the border issues will then fall into place. We can't finalise the border issues until we know what trade deal there is.
We can unilaterally solve all these issues by cancelling Brexit.
May is going to fuck up this Florence business because the speech is, by necessity, going to be calibrated toward the eurosceptic Sontarons of the tory party not the EU or the governments of Europe.
Yes. Theresa, stung by her snap-election fiasco, is desperate to contest the next one and salvage her reputation. To achieve this it's an absolute must to have the Tory eurosceptic Right on board. Obviously that's not going to help with Britain's post-Brexit relationship with Europe, but that's a secondary consideration these days (if that).
43% of the country want immigration control put first in the latest ORB, that is 1% more than the Tories got at the general election
So that sounds like a terrible thing for the Tories to concentrate most on then, there are very minimal gains to be made there.
It seems to me that the UK made the pre-emptive moves, i.e. no single market, no customs union. In the circumstances, is it not appropriate to ask what custom arrangements are proposed for the land border?
We could, for example, say: "None at all. We are wholly open to anything that comes in via the EU", a unilateral declaration of free trade with the EU so to speak. In which case we need no infrastructure on our side of the border (with the fall back that you can do the odd informal check between NI and the other 97.5% of the UK at the very limited entry and exit points between NI and GB.
Yes, we can choose to be a serious country or we can choose to be an international joke. That's sovereignty for you.
I don't follow.
To act as if daring the EU to enforce its own laws and borders would be a propaganda victory or would drive a wedge between Ireland and the EU is Baldrick level stuff.
Inflation is running at 2.9%, average earnings at 2.1% so even the average private sector worker is having a pay rise below inflation. The government is only increasing pay up near that level any higher and that would lead to yet more cuts and of course current low unemployment is also partly a reflection of wages not being too high
Would you support raising budgets by 3% and salaries for Police, Prison Officers and Fire Fighters by 3% even if that meant a) Council Tax rises of 5% across the board to cover the increased salaries or b) increased Government borrowing to meet the salary shortfall or c) cuts in other public sector budgets to meet the shortfall ?
No we do need a special solution for Northern Ireland. Already within the EU we have one (the UK and Ireland are both outside Schengen and in the Common Travel Area instead). But you can't separate trade from the border.
If the UK and EU can negotiate a customs agreement then we can have a free border between the UK and Ireland. If we can't then we can't. So it all hinges upon the trade agreement. So lets talk about trade.
No customs 'agreement' would be sufficient to have no border infrastructure. It would have to be a customs union, in which case we stay in the common commercial policy and give up on the idea of our own wonderful trade deals.
That's what we need to discuss. Once we have reached a deal on trade, the border issues will then fall into place. We can't finalise the border issues until we know what trade deal there is.
We can unilaterally solve all these issues by cancelling Brexit.
It seems to me that the UK made the pre-emptive moves, i.e. no single market, no customs union. In the circumstances, is it not appropriate to ask what custom arrangements are proposed for the land border?
We could, for example, say: "None at all. We are wholly open to anything that comes in via the EU", a unilateral declaration of free trade with the EU so to speak. In which case we need no infrastructure on our side of the border (with the fall back that you can do the odd informal check between NI and the other 97.5% of the UK at the very limited entry and exit points between NI and GB.
Yes, we can choose to be a serious country or we can choose to be an international joke. That's sovereignty for you.
I don't follow.
To act as if daring the EU to enforce its own laws and borders would be a propaganda victory or would drive a wedge between Ireland and the EU is Baldrick level stuff.
Mr Stodge, much of your post makes sense as always. However, I must pick you up on one thing
"even if no one knows where the money to pay these workers is coming from)"
The govt. has been absolutely clear about this. It is coming from existing budgets. Which means fewer Police, prison officers and fire fighters.
And is precisely the opposite of what these groups are wanting.
To be fair, Mr Dean (and how Everton could use your goal-scoring talents now), you did mention this last evening.
"Existing budgets" can mean almost anything. The cost of the Police isn't just the cost of the staff but the logistics including the stations (many of which have been closed and just left such as at East Ham and Epping to give but two examples) and other accommodation so it may be trimming those budgets may enable enough to be raised to cover salaries.
I can't comment for prison officers but as far as Fire Fighters are concerned, you have the staff, the equipment and the stations. As far as the last-named is concerned, we are seeing more collaborative activities with other blue light functions and sharing of resources across boundaries so that "cover" is shared across authorities.
Mr Fire Stopper (Twisted) will doubtless have a view on this but some Fire & Rescue Services have large HQ buildings whixh have training facilities but occupy huge grounds parts of which could be sold off for residential development and thereby obtain a significant capital receipt for the service.
It should not effect Police Officer numbers the increase in wages coming out of existing budgets.What it will mean is cuts in Police civilian staff.Which in essence will make an impact in how many police officers are operational in active policing.However the Conservatives should have insisted in amalgamating many of the 43 Police Forces .For example one Yorkshire force instead of 4.
"women accounted for 48% of the total workforce - compared with 51% across the general population"
Oh noes! A 3% difference! Or 'statistical noise', effectively. Likewise, for minorities,: "Ofcom also said those from a black, African or ethnic minority background made up 12% of workers, and disabled people just 3%, despite accounting for 14% and 18% of the general population"
The disabled disparity looks actually significant, but I find the 18% (almost one in five) surprisingly high. The definition used would be helpful.
"women accounted for 48% of the total workforce - compared with 51% across the general population"
Oh noes! A 3% difference! Or 'statistical noise', effectively. Likewise, for minorities,: "Ofcom also said those from a black, African or ethnic minority background made up 12% of workers, and disabled people just 3%, despite accounting for 14% and 18% of the general population"
The disabled disparity looks actually significant, but I find the 18% (almost one in five) surprisingly high. The definition used would be helpful.
The 18% must include all sorts of other issues I imagine like possibly depression or other mental issues. If so how do you identify how many of the workforce have one of these "unseen disabilities". It seems like a garbage figure to me.
It seems to me that the UK made the pre-emptive moves, i.e. no single market, no customs union. In the circumstances, is it not appropriate to ask what custom arrangements are proposed for the land border?
No it is not.
The customs arrangements will be the same for the land border as it will be for the sea, air or chunnel border. The EU demands that as part of the sanctity of their Single Market, so you can't separate the land border from any other border we need to negotiate what kind of customs arrangements we have and then we will know what kind of border we are to have.
John Major says we need a special solution for Northern Ireland. Is he wrong?
No we do need a special solution for Northern Ireland. Already within the EU we have one (the UK and Ireland are both outside Schengen and in the Common Travel Area instead). But you can't separate trade from the border.
If the UK and EU can negotiate a customs agreement then we can have a free border between the UK and Ireland. If we can't then we can't. So it all hinges upon the trade agreement. So lets talk about trade.
A solid answer. Which is why the stance of the Irish Government should change but so far has not. There was no sign in their media at the start of September of any sense of the change required, which reinforces my view of a WTO exit.
Every post of yours suggests that you are firmly of the opinion that it is everyone else that is out of step with Britain. You might consider the obvious alternative.
Brexit could spark democratic liberation of continent, says Gove
Justice secretary says other EU members might follow UK’s ‘galvanising, liberating, empowering moment of patriotic renewal’
I've doubted Michael Gove's sense of balance ever since he called Theresa May a "continuity Catholic", observed that she was the country's "first Catholic prime minister", and, wiping the foam from his lips, said that her father was a Catholic before her. (Foster probably thinks he's a fine chap, but Mogg won't be counting on his support.) Now he's talking about the liberation of the continent? Will the liberators carry King James bibles? I suspect his view of his political future may be considerably out of kilter with other people's. His memoirs should be interesting!
On the Irish border...
Most NI residents will, whatever happens, be waved through on entering the Republic, because they are entitled to formal Irish citizenship if they haven't already got it. Irish passports will also let them glide through at Calais, even if it happens that most British residents of England, Wales or Scotland, not being among the 10% of mainland Brits having the right to Irish citizenship, get held up.
At the moment the statutory position (Ireland Act 1949) is that
"the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country for the purposes of any law in force in any part of the United Kingdom (...) whether by virtue of a rule of law or of an Act of Parliament or any other enactment or instrument whatsoever".
Mr. CD13, the Diadochi period would be good for a Game of Thrones[ish] historical drama.
Meleager, an early contender to be regent, found his position diminished when Perdiccas (who became regent) had his followers trampled to death by elephants.
"women accounted for 48% of the total workforce - compared with 51% across the general population"
Oh noes! A 3% difference! Or 'statistical noise', effectively. Likewise, for minorities,: "Ofcom also said those from a black, African or ethnic minority background made up 12% of workers, and disabled people just 3%, despite accounting for 14% and 18% of the general population"
The disabled disparity looks actually significant, but I find the 18% (almost one in five) surprisingly high. The definition used would be helpful.
3% difference is a lot when you consider the numbers involved. A point regularly (fairly) made about a 52%:48% difference by quite a few posters on here.
"women accounted for 48% of the total workforce - compared with 51% across the general population"
Oh noes! A 3% difference! Or 'statistical noise', effectively. Likewise, for minorities,: "Ofcom also said those from a black, African or ethnic minority background made up 12% of workers, and disabled people just 3%, despite accounting for 14% and 18% of the general population"
The disabled disparity looks actually significant, but I find the 18% (almost one in five) surprisingly high. The definition used would be helpful.
"Oh noes! A 3% difference! Or 'statistical noise" Maybe the Brexit decision was lost by 'statistical noise'.
"women accounted for 48% of the total workforce - compared with 51% across the general population"
Oh noes! A 3% difference! Or 'statistical noise', effectively. Likewise, for minorities,: "Ofcom also said those from a black, African or ethnic minority background made up 12% of workers, and disabled people just 3%, despite accounting for 14% and 18% of the general population"
The disabled disparity looks actually significant, but I find the 18% (almost one in five) surprisingly high. The definition used would be helpful.
Interesting. Either Honda get their act together next season (at which point they might decide to become a constructor by buying a team) or both Red Bull teams might go on the block... Porsche ??
In any event, it's going to shake things up significantly - and complicating it all is the increasing interest the major manufacturers are showing in Formula E.
May is going to fuck up this Florence business because the speech is, by necessity, going to be calibrated toward the eurosceptic Sontarons of the tory party not the EU or the governments of Europe.
Yes. Theresa, stung by her snap-election fiasco, is desperate to contest the next one and salvage her reputation. To achieve this it's an absolute must to have the Tory eurosceptic Right on board. Obviously that's not going to help with Britain's post-Brexit relationship with Europe, but that's a secondary consideration these days (if that).
43% of the country want immigration control put first in the latest ORB, that is 1% more than the Tories got at the general election
So that sounds like a terrible thing for the Tories to concentrate most on then, there are very minimal gains to be made there.
Huge potential losses to UKIP though if the Tories abandoned control of free movement to stay in the single market, 43% could be enough for a small Tory overall majority given a 0.5% swing to them would see them.pick up 10 Labour seats and they are 8 short of a majority
Mr Stodge, much of your post makes sense as always. However, I must pick you up on one thing
"even if no one knows where the money to pay these workers is coming from)"
The govt. has been absolutely clear about this. It is coming from existing budgets. Which means fewer Police, prison officers and fire fighters.
And is precisely the opposite of what these groups are wanting.
To be fair, Mr Dean (and how Everton could use your goal-scoring talents now), you did mention this last evening.
"Existing budgets" can mean almost anything. The cost of the Police isn't just the cost of the staff but the logistics including the stations (many of which have been closed and just left such as at East Ham and Epping to give but two examples) and other accommodation so it may be trimming those budgets may enable enough to be raised to cover salaries.
I can't comment for prison officers but as far as Fire Fighters are concerned, you have the staff, the equipment and the stations. As far as the last-named is concerned, we are seeing more collaborative activities with other blue light functions and sharing of resources across boundaries so that "cover" is shared across authorities.
Mr Fire Stopper (Twisted) will doubtless have a view on this but some Fire & Rescue Services have large HQ buildings whixh have training facilities but occupy huge grounds parts of which could be sold off for residential development and thereby obtain a significant capital receipt for the service.
This is all very true. However, the pay cap is a 2-pronged issue. It is concern about pay AND resources particularly man power, in the prison, probation, mental health, youth and children's services. (The areas I have some familiarity with). In the end it is about reduced budgets (net). The problem will not go away simply by paying staff a little more (especially if it is below inflation). An example is IT. Anecdote alert. It is a disciplinary offence to leave a computer logged in. To save money hot desking was introduced in a role I used to fulfill. There was often a queue to use the available computers which meant staff milling about. Secondly, the equipment was so old, that it took a full 2 minutes to log off, and a further 2 to log back in. Result, demoralisation, experienced staff leaving. This problem, I am told has only got worse since.
Inflation is running at 2.9%, average earnings at 2.1% so even the average private sector worker is having a pay rise below inflation. The government is only increasing pay up near that level any higher and that would lead to yet more cuts and of course current low unemployment is also partly a reflection of wages not being too high
Would you support raising budgets by 3% and salaries for Police, Prison Officers and Fire Fighters by 3% even if that meant a) Council Tax rises of 5% across the board to cover the increased salaries or b) increased Government borrowing to meet the salary shortfall or c) cuts in other public sector budgets to meet the shortfall ?
No, 2.1% ie the current growth in average wages including the private sector is the maximum I would support
"women accounted for 48% of the total workforce - compared with 51% across the general population"
Oh noes! A 3% difference! Or 'statistical noise', effectively. Likewise, for minorities,: "Ofcom also said those from a black, African or ethnic minority background made up 12% of workers, and disabled people just 3%, despite accounting for 14% and 18% of the general population"
The disabled disparity looks actually significant, but I find the 18% (almost one in five) surprisingly high. The definition used would be helpful.
This sort of crap never ends.
And it just encourages the BBC.
You can bet your bottom dollar that the most under-represented of all minorities amongst the BBC workforce is Conservative voters. Oddly, they don't check for that. I wonder why not?
It seems to me that the UK made the pre-emptive moves, i.e. no single market, no customs union. In the circumstances, is it not appropriate to ask what custom arrangements are proposed for the land border?
We could, for example, say: "None at all. We are wholly open to anything that comes in via the EU", a unilateral declaration of free trade with the EU so to speak. In which case we need no infrastructure on our side of the border (with the fall back that you can do the odd informal check between NI and the other 97.5% of the UK at the very limited entry and exit points between NI and GB.
Yes, we can choose to be a serious country or we can choose to be an international joke. That's sovereignty for you.
I don't follow.
You have to understand William's rather warped mindset. He has made it explicit in that past that he dislikes the concept of the nation state and believes in centralised power. He has also made it clear through his many postings that he disagrees with individuality and the concept of personal freedom. Everything must fall before the power of the ruling technocrat elite. These are principles that seem to dominate his thinking when it comes to Brexit but are also part of a much deeper malignancy that disdains any individual or collective choice that does not conform to the ideals of the superstate.
In the absence of anything much positive to say last year, Remain's campaign boiled down to a Borg choice of "yes, it's a bit crap, but resistance is futile". Personally I'd rather take my chances roaming the galaxy a bit more like Blake's 7.
We're leaving the EU, not Europe. The borg will be looming over us at every turn.
Yes but I'll be roaming the galaxy with the lovely Jenna (whilst having a sneaky thing for Servalan).
SPOILER WARNING: Blake's 7 all get killed by the Federation in the end though.
It seems to me that the UK made the pre-emptive moves, i.e. no single market, no customs union. In the circumstances, is it not appropriate to ask what custom arrangements are proposed for the land border?
We could, for example, say: "None at all. We are wholly open to anything that comes in via the EU", a unilateral declaration of free trade with the EU so to speak. In which case we need no infrastructure on our side of the border (with the fall back that you can do the odd informal check between NI and the other 97.5% of the UK at the very limited entry and exit points between NI and GB.
Yes, we can choose to be a serious country or we can choose to be an international joke. That's sovereignty for you.
I'd choose my international joke over your serious country every single time.
It seems to me that the UK made the pre-emptive moves, i.e. no single market, no customs union. In the circumstances, is it not appropriate to ask what custom arrangements are proposed for the land border?
We could, for example, say: "None at all. We are wholly open to anything that comes in via the EU", a unilateral declaration of free trade with the EU so to speak. In which case we need no infrastructure on our side of the border (with the fall back that you can do the odd informal check between NI and the other 97.5% of the UK at the very limited entry and exit points between NI and GB.
Yes, we can choose to be a serious country or we can choose to be an international joke. That's sovereignty for you.
I don't follow.
You have to understand William's rather warped mindset. He has made it explicit in that past that he dislikes the concept of the nation state and believes in centralised power. He has also made it clear through his many postings that he disagrees with individuality and the concept of personal freedom. Everything must fall before the power of the ruling technocrat elite. These are principles that seem to dominate his thinking when it comes to Brexit but are also part of a much deeper malignancy that disdains any individual or collective choice that does not conform to the ideals of the superstate.
It's fitting that your view of me is as distorted as your view of the EU itself.
It seems to me that the UK made the pre-emptive moves, i.e. no single market, no customs union. In the circumstances, is it not appropriate to ask what custom arrangements are proposed for the land border?
We could, for example, say: "None at all. We are wholly open to anything that comes in via the EU", a unilateral declaration of free trade with the EU so to speak. In which case we need no infrastructure on our side of the border (with the fall back that you can do the odd informal check between NI and the other 97.5% of the UK at the very limited entry and exit points between NI and GB.
Yes, we can choose to be a serious country or we can choose to be an international joke. That's sovereignty for you.
I don't follow.
You have to understand William's rather warped mindset. He has made it explicit in that past that he dislikes the concept of the nation state and believes in centralised power. He has also made it clear through his many postings that he disagrees with individuality and the concept of personal freedom. Everything must fall before the power of the ruling technocrat elite. These are principles that seem to dominate his thinking when it comes to Brexit but are also part of a much deeper malignancy that disdains any individual or collective choice that does not conform to the ideals of the superstate.
It's fitting that your view of me is as distorted as your view of the EU itself.
Actually at least some of what I wrote you have stated yourself. The rest I imply from your pitiful posts.
You have to understand William's rather warped mindset. He has made it explicit in that past that he dislikes the concept of the nation state and believes in centralised power. He has also made it clear through his many postings that he disagrees with individuality and the concept of personal freedom. Everything must fall before the power of the ruling technocrat elite. These are principles that seem to dominate his thinking when it comes to Brexit but are also part of a much deeper malignancy that disdains any individual or collective choice that does not conform to the ideals of the superstate.
I don't think it matters too much where Theresa May makes her speech. The contents matter more. The tone matters most of all. It's time for the Government to come down from the barricades and start talking about the type of next door neighbour it wants Britain to be.
The problem with May - unlike any other Prime Minister in recent
I think her core belief is that every social problem has a bureaucratic solution.
I think she's a traditional provincial small-c English conservative. She believes in things like families, churches, community, country and working hard.
Her own grammar education and vicar's daughter upbringing are probably huge influencers on her, and she's got to where she's got to by knuckling down, working hard, and trying not to get in people's way, but she likes to also be seen as a fighter.
It seems to me that the UK made the pre-emptive moves, i.e. no single market, no customs union. In the circumstances, is it not appropriate to ask what custom arrangements are proposed for the land border?
We could, for example, say: "None at all. We are wholly open to anything that comes in via the EU", a unilateral declaration of free trade with the EU so to speak. In which case we need no infrastructure on our side of the border (with the fall back that you can do the odd informal check between NI and the other 97.5% of the UK at the very limited entry and exit points between NI and GB.
Yes, we can choose to be a serious country or we can choose to be an international joke. That's sovereignty for you.
I don't follow.
You have to understand William's rather warped mindset. He has made it explicit in that past that he dislikes the concept of the nation state and believes in centralised power. He has also made it clear through his many postings that he disagrees with individuality and the concept of personal freedom. Everything must fall before the power of the ruling technocrat elite. These are principles that seem to dominate his thinking when it comes to Brexit but are also part of a much deeper malignancy that disdains any individual or collective choice that does not conform to the ideals of the superstate.
Yes based on WG's logic we may as well abolish all nations and have an Asian Union, an African Union, an Oceanic Union, a South and North American Union and the European Union and just leave nations as regional states within them
"women accounted for 48% of the total workforce - compared with 51% across the general population"
Oh noes! A 3% difference! Or 'statistical noise', effectively. Likewise, for minorities,: "Ofcom also said those from a black, African or ethnic minority background made up 12% of workers, and disabled people just 3%, despite accounting for 14% and 18% of the general population"
The disabled disparity looks actually significant, but I find the 18% (almost one in five) surprisingly high. The definition used would be helpful.
This sort of crap never ends.
And it just encourages the BBC.
You can bet your bottom dollar that the most under-represented of all minorities amongst the BBC workforce is Conservative voters. Oddly, they don't check for that. I wonder why not?
And, I wonder what would happen to my career if I was already there, and I declared that, that I voted Leave, and unapologetically flopped The Telegraph out at lunch.
It seems to me that the UK made the pre-emptive moves, i.e. no single market, no customs union. In the circumstances, is it not appropriate to ask what custom arrangements are proposed for the land border?
We could, for example, say: "None at all. We are wholly open to anything that comes in via the EU", a unilateral declaration of free trade with the EU so to speak. In which case we need no infrastructure on our side of the border (with the fall back that you can do the odd informal check between NI and the other 97.5% of the UK at the very limited entry and exit points between NI and GB.
Yes, we can choose to be a serious country or we can choose to be an international joke. That's sovereignty for you.
I don't follow.
You have to understand William's rather warped mindset. He has made it explicit in that past that he dislikes the concept of the nation state and believes in centralised power. He has also made it clear through his many postings that he disagrees with individuality and the concept of personal freedom. Everything must fall before the power of the ruling technocrat elite. These are principles that seem to dominate his thinking when it comes to Brexit but are also part of a much deeper malignancy that disdains any individual or collective choice that does not conform to the ideals of the superstate.
Yes based on WG's logic we may as well abolish all nations and have an Asian Union, an African Union, an Oceanic Union, a South and North American Union and the European Union and just leave nations as regional states within them
No, the EU would conquer them all.
I think WG's dreams are like the final episode of season 2 of Man In The High Castle, only with Juncker in the command centre.
I don't think it matters too much where Theresa May makes her speech. The contents matter more. The tone matters most of all. It's time for the Government to come down from the barricades and start talking about the type of next door neighbour it wants Britain to be.
The problem with May - unlike any other Prime Minister in recent
I think her core belief is that every social problem has a bureaucratic solution.
I think she's a traditional provincial small-c English conservative. She believes in things like families, churches, community, country and working hard.
Her own grammar education and vicar's daughter upbringing are probably huge influencers on her, and she's got to where she's got to by knuckling down, working hard, and trying not to get in people's way, but she likes to also be seen as a fighter.
I can't think of any occasion on which she has fought for anything against the prevailing opinions of her party and those around her. On the contrary - she has rapidly abandoned her position on many occasions when the going got tough - the dementia tax being an obvious example.
I don't think it matters too much where Theresa May makes her speech. The contents matter more. The tone matters most of all. It's time for the Government to come down from the barricades and start talking about the type of next door neighbour it wants Britain to be.
The problem with May - unlike any other Prime Minister in recent
I think her core belief is that every social problem has a bureaucratic solution.
I think she's a traditional provincial small-c English conservative. She believes in things like families, churches, community, country and working hard.
Her own grammar education and vicar's daughter upbringing are probably huge influencers on her, and she's got to where she's got to by knuckling down, working hard, and trying not to get in people's way, but she likes to also be seen as a fighter.
I can't think of any occasion on which she has fought for anything against the prevailing opinions of her party and those around her. On the contrary - she has rapidly abandoned her position on many occasions when the going got tough - the dementia tax being an obvious example.
"women accounted for 48% of the total workforce - compared with 51% across the general population"
Oh noes! A 3% difference! Or 'statistical noise', effectively. Likewise, for minorities,: "Ofcom also said those from a black, African or ethnic minority background made up 12% of workers, and disabled people just 3%, despite accounting for 14% and 18% of the general population"
The disabled disparity looks actually significant, but I find the 18% (almost one in five) surprisingly high. The definition used would be helpful.
"Oh noes! A 3% difference! Or 'statistical noise" Maybe the Brexit decision was lost by 'statistical noise'.
It seems to me that the UK made the pre-emptive moves, i.e. no single market, no customs union. In the circumstances, is it not appropriate to ask what custom arrangements are proposed for the land border?
We could, for example, say: "None at all. We are wholly open to anything that comes in via the EU", a unilateral declaration of free trade with the EU so to speak. In which case we need no infrastructure on our side of the border (with the fall back that you can do the odd informal check between NI and the other 97.5% of the UK at the very limited entry and exit points between NI and GB.
Yes, we can choose to be a serious country or we can choose to be an international joke. That's sovereignty for you.
I don't follow.
You have to understand William's rather warped mindset. He has made it explicit in that past that he dislikes the concept of the nation state and believes in centralised power. He has also made it clear through his many postings that he disagrees with individuality and the concept of personal freedom. Everything must fall before the power of the ruling technocrat elite. These are principles that seem to dominate his thinking when it comes to Brexit but are also part of a much deeper malignancy that disdains any individual or collective choice that does not conform to the ideals of the superstate.
Yes based on WG's logic we may as well abolish all nations and have an Asian Union, an African Union, an Oceanic Union, a South and North American Union and the European Union and just leave nations as regional states within them
No, the EU would conquer them all.
I think WG's dreams are like the final episode of season 2 of Man In The High Castle, only with Juncker in the command centre.
Brexit could spark democratic liberation of continent, says Gove
Justice secretary says other EU members might follow UK’s ‘galvanising, liberating, empowering moment of patriotic renewal’
You only "win" by winning hearts and minds. You can "win" in a narrow sense by screwing a country over because you can, but then you have created a long term problem that you don't want and will have a nasty tendency to bite you on the bum in future when you least want it. Think Germany 1918-39 as opposed to 1945 onwards.
The strategic danger for the EU is just that, that for all the posturings of Juncker and the studied languid ennui of Barnier they screw us over, have a good chuckle for a few years, feel immensely smug, and then something happens like Putin invades the Baltics and we decide we're washing our hair that night and don't fancy hanging around with some old mates who decided we weren't worthy but are now in a scrape with the neighbourhood bully.
Brexit is irrelevant to that question. No British or any other European nation is going to fight Russia to liberate Daugavpils. They're just fucking not.
It seems to me that the UK made the pre-emptive moves, i.e. no single market, no customs union. In the circumstances, is it not appropriate to ask what custom arrangements are proposed for the land border?
We could, for example, say: "None at all. We are wholly open to anything that comes in via the EU", a unilateral declaration of free trade with the EU so to speak. In which case we need no infrastructure on our side of the border (with the fall back that you can do the odd informal check between NI and the other 97.5% of the UK at the very limited entry and exit points between NI and GB.
Yes, we can choose to be a serious country or we can choose to be an international joke. That's sovereignty for you.
I don't follow.
You have to understand William's rather warped mindset. He has made it explicit in that past that he dislikes the concept of the nation state and believes in centralised power. He has also made it clear through his many postings that he disagrees with individuality and the concept of personal freedom. Everything must fall before the power of the ruling technocrat elite. These are principles that seem to dominate his thinking when it comes to Brexit but are also part of a much deeper malignancy that disdains any individual or collective choice that does not conform to the ideals of the superstate.
It's fitting that your view of me is as distorted as your view of the EU itself.
That as it maybe, but it is a good comment on how you come across
I don't think it matters too much where Theresa May makes her speech. The contents matter more. The tone matters most of all. It's time for the Government to come down from the barricades and start talking about the type of next door neighbour it wants Britain to be.
The problem with May - unlike any other Prime Minister in recent
I think her core belief is that every social problem has a bureaucratic solution.
I think she's a traditional provincial small-c English conservative. She believes in things like families, churches, community, country and working hard.
Her own grammar education and vicar's daughter upbringing are probably huge influencers on her, and she's got to where she's got to by knuckling down, working hard, and trying not to get in people's way, but she likes to also be seen as a fighter.
I can't think of any occasion on which she has fought for anything against the prevailing opinions of her party and those around her. On the contrary - she has rapidly abandoned her position on many occasions when the going got tough - the dementia tax being an obvious example.
The Nasty Party speech? She also voted for gay marriage when most Tory MPs did not
Brexit could spark democratic liberation of continent, says Gove
Justice secretary says other EU members might follow UK’s ‘galvanising, liberating, empowering moment of patriotic renewal’
You only "win" by winning hearts and minds. You can "win" in a narrow sense by screwing a country over because you can, but then you have created a long term problem that you don't want and will have a nasty tendency to bite you on the bum in future when you least want it. Think Germany 1918-39 as opposed to 1945 onwards.
The strategic danger for the EU is just that, that for all the posturings of Juncker and the studied languid ennui of Barnier they screw us over, have a good chuckle for a few years, feel immensely smug, and then something happens like Putin invades the Baltics and we decide we're washing our hair that night and don't fancy hanging around with some old mates who decided we weren't worthy but are now in a scrape with the neighbourhood bully.
Brexit is irrelevant to that question. No British or any other European nation is going to fight Russia to liberate Daugavpils. They're just fucking not.
Perhaps Mrs May is thinking of the precedent of the 1801 Treaty of Florence, in which the Kingdom of Naples capitulated to the overwhelming force of Napoleon, but wasn't treated as harshly as might have been feared.
Are you, a thoroughgoing Conservative, suggesting that Mrs May is on the point of abject surrender, in the hopes that she might be let off more lightly?
Mind you, I would not be surprised by anything that woman does.
Perhaps Mrs May is thinking of the precedent of the 1801 Treaty of Florence, in which the Kingdom of Naples capitulated to the overwhelming force of Napoleon, but wasn't treated as harshly as might have been feared.
Are you, a thoroughgoing Conservative, suggesting that Mrs May is on the point of abject surrender, in the hopes that she might be let off more lightly?
Mind you, I would not be surprised by anything that woman does.
Very much doubt she will surrender - if she was a quitter she would not be PM now
So far today Jacob Rees-Mogg has announced that increased use of foodbanks is rather uplifting and opined that businesses complaining about the economic effects of Brexit are just guilty of poor management. No doubt he knows his target market in the Conservative electorate well.
Brexit could spark democratic liberation of continent, says Gove
Justice secretary says other EU members might follow UK’s ‘galvanising, liberating, empowering moment of patriotic renewal’
You only "win" by winning hearts and minds. You can "win" in a narrow sense by screwing a country over because you can, but then you have created a long term problem that you don't want and will have a nasty tendency to bite you on the bum in future when you least want it. Think Germany 1918-39 as opposed to 1945 onwards.
The strategic danger for the EU is just that, that for all the posturings of Juncker and the studied languid ennui of Barnier they screw us over, have a good chuckle for a few years, feel immensely smug, and then something happens like Putin invades the Baltics and we decide we're washing our hair that night and don't fancy hanging around with some old mates who decided we weren't worthy but are now in a scrape with the neighbourhood bully.
Brexit is irrelevant to that question. No British or any other European nation is going to fight Russia to liberate Daugavpils. They're just fucking not.
So far today Jacob Rees-Mogg has announced that increased use of foodbanks is rather uplifting and opined that businesses complaining about the economic effects of Brexit are just guilty of poor management. No doubt he knows his target market in the Conservative electorate well.
His comments on food banks related to the governments change of stance from labour, who did not publicise them, and the much bigger uptake in their use
The Nasty Party speech? She also voted for gay marriage when most Tory MPs did not
This was after the Conservative Party had suffered a second landslide election defeat and had decided Iain Duncan Smith was the answer to all their problems.
So far today Jacob Rees-Mogg has announced that increased use of foodbanks is rather uplifting and opined that businesses complaining about the economic effects of Brexit are just guilty of poor management. No doubt he knows his target market in the Conservative electorate well.
He is just another example of how disconnected the Conservatives are becoming from reality. Michael Gove's recent statements do not exactly give me confidence that he pays any attention to the real world. As for Boris .....
The Nasty Party speech? She also voted for gay marriage when most Tory MPs did not
This was after the Conservative Party had suffered a second landslide election defeat and had decided Iain Duncan Smith was the answer to all their problems.
None of the modernisers had the courage to confront the party about its obessesion with Europe. They chose appeasement, and it's left them presiding over Brexit.
I don't think it matters too much where Theresa May makes her speech. The contents matter more. The tone matters most of all. It's time for the Government to come down from the barricades and start talking about the type of next door neighbour it wants Britain to be.
The problem with May - unlike any other Prime Minister in recent
I think her core belief is that every social problem has a bureaucratic solution.
I think she's a traditional provincial small-c English conservative. She believes in things like families, churches, community, country and working hard.
Her own grammar education and vicar's daughter upbringing are probably huge influencers on her, and she's got to where she's got to by knuckling down, working hard, and trying not to get in people's way, but she likes to also be seen as a fighter.
I can't think of any occasion on which she has fought for anything against the prevailing opinions of her party and those around her. On the contrary - she has rapidly abandoned her position on many occasions when the going got tough - the dementia tax being an obvious example.
"women accounted for 48% of the total workforce - compared with 51% across the general population"
Oh noes! A 3% difference! Or 'statistical noise', effectively. Likewise, for minorities,: "Ofcom also said those from a black, African or ethnic minority background made up 12% of workers, and disabled people just 3%, despite accounting for 14% and 18% of the general population"
The disabled disparity looks actually significant, but I find the 18% (almost one in five) surprisingly high. The definition used would be helpful.
This sort of crap never ends.
And it just encourages the BBC.
You can bet your bottom dollar that the most under-represented of all minorities amongst the BBC workforce is Conservative voters. Oddly, they don't check for that. I wonder why not?
And, I wonder what would happen to my career if I was already there, and I declared that, that I voted Leave, and unapologetically flopped The Telegraph out at lunch.
I do wonder whether we should set up (1) an institute dedicated to picking holes in climate science (not oil company funded), (2) an institute for conservative ideas in social science. They might just confirm prevailing liberal ideas, of course, but formally starting from the 'let's see if' angle could make a worthwhile contribution.The media operates across the spectrum, but running a national newspaper's operation and journalism out of, for example, Malton, North Yorkshire might give a different worldview.
N.B. climate change as a liberal idea is purely a comment on its political status and does not imply rejection of the scientific consensus on my part.
Brexit could spark democratic liberation of continent, says Gove
Justice secretary says other EU members might follow UK’s ‘galvanising, liberating, empowering moment of patriotic renewal’
You only "win" by winning hearts and minds. You can "win" in a narrow sense by screwing a country over because you can, but then you have created a long term problem that you don't want and will have a nasty tendency to bite you on the bum in future when you least want it. Think Germany 1918-39 as opposed to 1945 onwards.
The strategic danger for the EU is just that, that for all the posturings of Juncker and the studied languid ennui of Barnier they screw us over, have a good chuckle for a few years, feel immensely smug, and then something happens like Putin invades the Baltics and we decide we're washing our hair that night and don't fancy hanging around with some old mates who decided we weren't worthy but are now in a scrape with the neighbourhood bully.
Brexit is irrelevant to that question. No British or any other European nation is going to fight Russia to liberate Daugavpils. They're just fucking not.
You think those few thousand troops (half of whom will be fat REMFs) are going to dig and make Ivan pay for every yard?
I was just adding some facts to the discussion, so there's no need to put words in my mouth. The question which now arises is "Do you think that NATO will ignore their troops being attacked by Russia?"
Brexit could spark democratic liberation of continent, says Gove
Justice secretary says other EU members might follow UK’s ‘galvanising, liberating, empowering moment of patriotic renewal’
You only "win" by winning hearts and minds. You can "win" in a narrow sense by screwing a country over because you can, but then you have created a long term problem that you don't want and will have a nasty tendency to bite you on the bum in future when you least want it. Think Germany 1918-39 as opposed to 1945 onwards.
The strategic danger for the EU is just that, that for all the posturings of Juncker and the studied languid ennui of Barnier they screw us over, have a good chuckle for a few years, feel immensely smug, and then something happens like Putin invades the Baltics and we decide we're washing our hair that night and don't fancy hanging around with some old mates who decided we weren't worthy but are now in a scrape with the neighbourhood bully.
Brexit is irrelevant to that question. No British or any other European nation is going to fight Russia to liberate Daugavpils. They're just fucking not.
You think those few thousand troops (half of whom will be fat REMFs) are going to dig and make Ivan pay for every yard?
I was just adding some facts to the discussion, so there's no need to put words in my mouth. The question which now arises is "Do you think that NATO will ignore their troops being attacked by Russia?"
And do you think the UK will assert its sovereignty by ignoring Article 5?
"women accounted for 48% of the total workforce - compared with 51% across the general population"
Oh noes! A 3% difference! Or 'statistical noise', effectively. Likewise, for minorities,: "Ofcom also said those from a black, African or ethnic minority background made up 12% of workers, and disabled people just 3%, despite accounting for 14% and 18% of the general population"
The disabled disparity looks actually significant, but I find the 18% (almost one in five) surprisingly high. The definition used would be helpful.
This sort of crap never ends.
And it just encourages the BBC.
You can bet your bottom dollar that the most under-represented of all minorities amongst the BBC workforce is Conservative voters. Oddly, they don't check for that. I wonder why not?
And, I wonder what would happen to my career if I was already there, and I declared that, that I voted Leave, and unapologetically flopped The Telegraph out at lunch.
Brexit could spark democratic liberation of continent, says Gove
Justice secretary says other EU members might follow UK’s ‘galvanising, liberating, empowering moment of patriotic renewal’
You only "win" by winning hearts and minds. You can "win" in a narrow sense by screwing a country over because you can, but then you have created a long term problem that you don't want and will have a nasty tendency to bite you on the bum in future when you least want it. Think Germany 1918-39 as opposed to 1945 onwards.
The strategic danger for the EU is just that, that for all the posturings of Juncker and the studied languid ennui of Barnier they screw us over, have a good chuckle for a few years, feel immensely smug, and then something happens like Putin invades the Baltics and we decide we're washing our hair that night and don't fancy hanging around with some old mates who decided we weren't worthy but are now in a scrape with the neighbourhood bully.
Brexit is irrelevant to that question. No British or any other European nation is going to fight Russia to liberate Daugavpils. They're just fucking not.
The Nasty Party speech? She also voted for gay marriage when most Tory MPs did not
This was after the Conservative Party had suffered a second landslide election defeat and had decided Iain Duncan Smith was the answer to all their problems.
None of the modernisers had the courage to confront the party about its obessesion with Europe. They chose appeasement, and it's left them presiding over Brexit.
Had the Conservative Party become a Europhile party, it would no longer be the principal party of the centre-right.
The little-noticed change could help President Donald Trump’s aides raise the money they need to pay attorneys as the Russia probe expands — but raises the potential for hidden conflicts of interest or other ethics trouble.
Comments
The strategic danger for the EU is just that, that for all the posturings of Juncker and the studied languid ennui of Barnier they screw us over, have a good chuckle for a few years, feel immensely smug, and then something happens like Putin invades the Baltics and we decide we're washing our hair that night and don't fancy hanging around with some old mates who decided we weren't worthy but are now in a scrape with the neighbourhood bully.
If the UK and EU can negotiate a customs agreement then we can have a free border between the UK and Ireland. If we can't then we can't. So it all hinges upon the trade agreement. So lets talk about trade.
"Existing budgets" can mean almost anything. The cost of the Police isn't just the cost of the staff but the logistics including the stations (many of which have been closed and just left such as at East Ham and Epping to give but two examples) and other accommodation so it may be trimming those budgets may enable enough to be raised to cover salaries.
I can't comment for prison officers but as far as Fire Fighters are concerned, you have the staff, the equipment and the stations. As far as the last-named is concerned, we are seeing more collaborative activities with other blue light functions and sharing of resources across boundaries so that "cover" is shared across authorities.
Mr Fire Stopper (Twisted) will doubtless have a view on this but some Fire & Rescue Services have large HQ buildings whixh have training facilities but occupy huge grounds parts of which could be sold off for residential development and thereby obtain a significant capital receipt for the service.
Read this for a more serious examination of some of the questions at stake: https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2017/0909/903432-brexit-connelly/
Anyway stuff to do.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41265644
"women accounted for 48% of the total workforce - compared with 51% across the general population"
Oh noes! A 3% difference! Or 'statistical noise', effectively. Likewise, for minorities,:
"Ofcom also said those from a black, African or ethnic minority background made up 12% of workers, and disabled people just 3%, despite accounting for 14% and 18% of the general population"
The disabled disparity looks actually significant, but I find the 18% (almost one in five) surprisingly high. The definition used would be helpful.
PMSL
"You seem to view the inhabitants of the UK as rebels who need to be brought to heel by their overlords."
I suspect Mr Glenn has been watching too much Game Of Thrones. "Bend the knee or your heads will roll."
On the Irish border...
Most NI residents will, whatever happens, be waved through on entering the Republic, because they are entitled to formal Irish citizenship if they haven't already got it. Irish passports will also let them glide through at Calais, even if it happens that most British residents of England, Wales or Scotland, not being among the 10% of mainland Brits having the right to Irish citizenship, get held up.
At the moment the statutory position (Ireland Act 1949) is that
"the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country for the purposes of any law in force in any part of the United Kingdom (...) whether by virtue of a rule of law or of an Act of Parliament or any other enactment or instrument whatsoever".
Meleager, an early contender to be regent, found his position diminished when Perdiccas (who became regent) had his followers trampled to death by elephants.
Anyway, time to be off.
Maybe the Brexit decision was lost by 'statistical noise'.
And it just encourages the BBC.
Either Honda get their act together next season (at which point they might decide to become a constructor by buying a team) or both Red Bull teams might go on the block... Porsche ??
In any event, it's going to shake things up significantly - and complicating it all is the increasing interest the major manufacturers are showing in Formula E.
An example is IT. Anecdote alert. It is a disciplinary offence to leave a computer logged in. To save money hot desking was introduced in a role I used to fulfill. There was often a queue to use the available computers which meant staff milling about. Secondly, the equipment was so old, that it took a full 2 minutes to log off, and a further 2 to log back in. Result, demoralisation, experienced staff leaving.
This problem, I am told has only got worse since.
Her own grammar education and vicar's daughter upbringing are probably huge influencers on her, and she's got to where she's got to by knuckling down, working hard, and trying not to get in people's way, but she likes to also be seen as a fighter.
I think WG's dreams are like the final episode of season 2 of Man In The High Castle, only with Juncker in the command centre.
Mind you, I would not be surprised by anything that woman does.
*sigh!*
N.B. climate change as a liberal idea is purely a comment on its political status and does not imply rejection of the scientific consensus on my part.
The question which now arises is "Do you think that NATO will ignore their troops being attacked by Russia?"
NEW THREAD
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/13/trump-ethics-watchdog-legal-defense-242690
The U.S. Office of Government Ethics has quietly reversed its own internal policy prohibiting anonymous donations from lobbyists to White House staffers who have legal defense funds.
The little-noticed change could help President Donald Trump’s aides raise the money they need to pay attorneys as the Russia probe expands — but raises the potential for hidden conflicts of interest or other ethics trouble.