Ultimately, there's no getting around that. If people feel an identity, they will act with one.
If an EU member state whose people shared a national identity strongly wished to secede from the EU in future, the fact that it might be legally, constitutionally,or economically, extremely difficult to do so would not stop them from doing so, if they wished to do so.
The only option would be for the EU to resist it by force (something williamglenn would no doubt strongly approve of) or, the other softer approach, is to stop it happening in the first place by gradually breaking down national identities by promoting regional and European ones at their expense.
Something the EU has been pursuing as subsidiary policy for years, despite Europhiles insisting that's wrong and claiming anyone who thinks otherwise is barking.
I won't object to your mischaracterisation of my views, but I do think you're wrong on the substance. A nation that it confident in its national identity is one that is more able to play a constructive role within the EU. England needs its national identity back, and it's not the EU, but the UK, that is denying us our self-determination.
Says the man who has regularly objected to the concept of the nation state.
I've merely said that the nation state isn't the end point of civilisation. The European Union is a model of something that goes beyond the nation state, and does it very well. Your comparison of it with Yugoslavia is facile.
Not at all. Yugoslavia is a perfect example of what happens when you force different nations together against their will. All such artificial constructs must eventually fail and it is certainly not an advancement of civilisation to make power more centralised and remote.
A Swiss Brexit would be good reason to resign since it would mean that we were still under the control of the EU despite not being a member, we would still not have control of our borders despite not being a member, we were still subject to EU laws despite being not being amember. We would be in the EU in all but name despite Brexit. It would be a betrayal of the referendum result.
On the contrary, it perfectly reflects the narrow vote to leave.
When you have two options, Leave or Remain, throwing away all the benefits of Leave and all the benefits of Rrmain is not a compromise that reflects any result. It would be damn foolish.
I completely agree. I'm an ardent Brexiteer who would rather we join the Euro than end up in a "soft brexit".
Mr. Borough, in defence of sensible Labour people, they did try (albeit with a dire candidate) to remove Corbyn.
On the other hand, they have taken to singing his name and pretending he isn't in favour of Venezuelan economics, CND military policy, and has the numeracy skills of a drunken baboon.
A Swiss Brexit would be good reason to resign since it would mean that we were still under the control of the EU despite not being a member, we would still not have control of our borders despite not being a member, we were still subject to EU laws despite being not being amember. We would be in the EU in all but name despite Brexit. It would be a betrayal of the referendum result.
On the contrary, it perfectly reflects the narrow vote to leave.
When you have two options, Leave or Remain, throwing away all the benefits of Leave and all the benefits of Rrmain is not a compromise that reflects any result. It would be damn foolish.
A Swiss Brexit would be good reason to resign since it would mean that we were still under the control of the EU despite not being a member, we would still not have control of our borders despite not being a member, we were still subject to EU laws despite being not being amember. We would be in the EU in all but name despite Brexit. It would be a betrayal of the referendum result.
On the contrary, it perfectly reflects the narrow vote to leave.
When you have two options, Leave or Remain, throwing away all the benefits of Leave and all the benefits of Rrmain is not a compromise that reflects any result. It would be damn foolish.
I completely agree. I'm an ardent Brexiteer who would rather we join the Euro than end up in a "soft brexit".
Music to my ears! Hard Brexit cannot work and Soft Brexit is too mediocre to contemplate for a great nation. Our destiny is to be at the heart of the EU.
Ultimately, there's no getting around that. If people feel an identity, they will act with one.
If an EU member state whose people shared a national identity strongly wished to secede from the EU in future, the fact that it might be legally, constitutionally,or economically, extremely difficult to do so would not stop them from doing so, if they wished to do so.
The only option would be for the EU to resist it by force (something williamglenn would no doubt strongly approve of) or, the other softer approach, is to stop it happening in the first place by gradually breaking down national identities by promoting regional and European ones at their expense.
Something the EU has been pursuing as subsidiary policy for years, despite Europhiles insisting that's wrong and claiming anyone who thinks otherwise is barking.
I won't object to your mischaracterisation of my views, but I do think you're wrong on the substance. A nation that it confident in its national identity is one that is more able to play a constructive role within the EU. England needs its national identity back, and it's not the EU, but the UK, that is denying us our self-determination.
Says the man who has regularly objected to the concept of the nation state.
I've merely said that the nation state isn't the end point of civilisation. The European Union is a model of something that goes beyond the nation state, and does it very well. Your comparison of it with Yugoslavia is facile.
If Boris is intending to flounce as a calculated step on his great mission to endow us with a Prime Minister christened Alexander Boris de Pfeffel, then if he's doing it right he won't be acting alone. He'll have some cabinet co-flouncers, and he'll have backbench and minister-of-state level MPs primed and ready to get the bandwagon rolling.
I take it that he won't be making the mistake of relying on Michael Gove for a second time.
But, if Michael Gove wants to be leader (and I think he does) he's going to have to avoid making the same mistakes again himself, and show he can be trusted.
Personally, I think he can't resist playing politics (with a small "p") and that will prevent him ever getting to the top.
My own view is that some of the people who are continually marked out for the top job don't actually want it; however people thinking they do might help them in their various aims. An example of this is Osborne, who I really don't think wanted to be PM.
Gove might be the same. I'm unsure he really wants the top job, but the talk of the potential gives him a certain amount of power and influence within and outwith the party.
On the other hand, I get the impression that BoJo really wants the top job.
I think George Osborne absolutely wanted to be PM, had it all lined up, and thought it slipped through his fingers for reasons beyond his control.
What gives you that impression? IMV if he'd particularly wanted the top job he'd have behaved more like Brown did when he was chancellor. Instead he seemed more keen to act interference for the Cameron project, and took some of the flack.
Ultimately, there's no getting around that. If people feel an identity, they will act with one.
If an EU member state whose people shared a national identity strongly wished to secede from the EU in future, the fact that it might be legally, constitutionally,or economically, extremely difficult to do so would not stop them from doing so, if they wished to do so.
The only option would be for the EU to resist it by force (something williamglenn would no doubt strongly approve of) or, the other softer approach, is to stop it happening in the first place by gradually breaking down national identities by promoting regional and European ones at their expense.
Something the EU has been pursuing as subsidiary policy for years, despite Europhiles insisting that's wrong and claiming anyone who thinks otherwise is barking.
I won't object to your mischaracterisation of my views, but I do think you're wrong on the substance. A nation that it confident in its national identity is one that is more able to play a constructive role within the EU. England needs its national identity back, and it's not the EU, but the UK, that is denying us our self-determination.
Says the man who has regularly objected to the concept of the nation state.
I've merely said that the nation state isn't the end point of civilisation. The European Union is a model of something that goes beyond the nation state, and does it very well. Your comparison of it with Yugoslavia is facile.
Not at all. Yugoslavia is a perfect example of what happens when you force different nations together against their will. All such artificial constructs must eventually fail and it is certainly not an advancement of civilisation to make power more centralised and remote.
But without Yugoslavia, we would never have had the Yugo. So, it wasn't all bad.
Mr. Borough, in defence of sensible Labour people, they did try (albeit with a dire candidate) to remove Corbyn....
In a period which has thrown up a series of massive political surprises and strange twists, one of the strangest, so strange that it already seems like a half-forgotten bad dream, is how on earth did the once-great Labour Party manage to come up with the eminently forgettable Owen Smith as their stop-Corbyn candidate.
Ultimately, there's no getting around that. If people feel an identity, they will act with one.
If an EU member state whose people shared a national identity strongly wished to secede from the EU in future, the fact that it might be legally, constitutionally,or economically, extremely difficult to do so would not stop them from doing so, if they wished to do so.
The only option would be for the EU to resist it by force (something williamglenn would no doubt strongly approve of) or, the other softer approach, is to stop it happening in the first place by gradually breaking down national identities by promoting regional and European ones at their expense.
Something the EU has been pursuing as subsidiary policy for years, despite Europhiles insisting that's wrong and claiming anyone who thinks otherwise is barking.
I won't object to your mischaracterisation of my views, but I do think you're wrong on the substance. A nation that it confident in its national identity is one that is more able to play a constructive role within the EU. England needs its national identity back, and it's not the EU, but the UK, that is denying us our self-determination.
Says the man who has regularly objected to the concept of the nation state.
I've merely said that the nation state isn't the end point of civilisation. The European Union is a model of something that goes beyond the nation state, and does it very well. Your comparison of it with Yugoslavia is facile.
Not at all. Yugoslavia is a perfect example of what happens when you force different nations together against their will. All such artificial constructs must eventually fail and it is certainly not an advancement of civilisation to make power more centralised and remote.
Which country was forced to join the EU against its will?
As I recall, all joined voluntarily. Norway and Switzerland decided not to, and have not been punished in any way. There are a large numbsr of other countries eager to join.
Only one has voted to leave, and the EU has happily waved us off, but no sign of any force or coercion.
When it comes to other issues, such as currency, that has been completely voluntary too.
Mr. Borough, in defence of sensible Labour people, they did try (albeit with a dire candidate) to remove Corbyn.
On the other hand, they have taken to singing his name and pretending he isn't in favour of Venezuelan economics, CND military policy, and has the numeracy skills of a drunken baboon.
No one on the left can have any credibility at all about the long term interest of the country while they campaign or vote for Jeremy Corbyn to have a majority in parliament. On economics alone, his far left economics has wrecked this country's economy in the past and has led to complete societal breakdown in places like Venezuela. It would be far worse than even the most pessimistic economic forecasts of reduced growth post-Brexit. And that is before you get into the national security implications of a man who reflexively sympathises with groups from the IRA to Hezbollah, has been in the pay of Russian and Iranian governments and wants to unilaterally disarm our defence capabilities.
Those that wish to keep their heads down and dreamily hope of managing him in office are self-interested cowards of the highest order. The only moral thing for sensible Labour politicians to do is to warn low information voters that this man does not deserve to be in government.
A Swiss Brexit would be good reason to resign since it would mean that we were still under the control of the EU despite not being a member, we would still not have control of our borders despite not being a member, we were still subject to EU laws despite being not being amember. We would be in the EU in all but name despite Brexit. It would be a betrayal of the referendum result.
On the contrary, it perfectly reflects the narrow vote to leave.
When you have two options, Leave or Remain, throwing away all the benefits of Leave and all the benefits of Rrmain is not a compromise that reflects any result. It would be damn foolish.
I completely agree. I'm an ardent Brexiteer who would rather we join the Euro than end up in a "soft brexit".
Music to my ears! Hard Brexit cannot work and Soft Brexit is too mediocre to contemplate for a great nation. Our destiny is to be at the heart of the EU.
We'll see how it plays out won't we?
N.B If we end up with a disastrous soft brexit that isn't going to change my mind...
Mr. Borough, in defence of sensible Labour people, they did try (albeit with a dire candidate) to remove Corbyn.
On the other hand, they have taken to singing his name and pretending he isn't in favour of Venezuelan economics, CND military policy, and has the numeracy skills of a drunken baboon.
No one on the left can have any credibility at all about the long term interest of the country while they campaign or vote for Jeremy Corbyn to have a majority in parliament. On economics alone, his far left economics has wrecked this country's economy in the past and has led to complete societal breakdown in places like Venezuela. It would be far worse than even the most pessimistic economic forecasts of reduced growth post-Brexit. And that is before you get into the national security implications of a man who reflexively sympathises with groups from the IRA to Hezbollah, has been in the pay of Russian and Iranian governments and wants to unilaterally disarm our defence capabilities.
Those that wish to keep their heads down and dreamily hope of managing him in office are self-interested cowards of the highest order. The only moral thing for sensible Labour politicians to do is to warn low information voters that this man does not deserve to be in government.
I think he will be fine.
I would much rather a Corbyn Brexit than a Boris Brexit.
@Alan_McGuinness: PM tells @BethRigby confident ministers will be united behind Brexit strategy. "Cabinet absolutely clear about destination we're aiming for"
@Alan_McGuinness: @BethRigby PM on Boris Johnson: "Boris is doing good work as Foreign Secretary. He has been doing that here at the United Nations."
@Alan_McGuinness: PM tells @BethRigby confident ministers will be united behind Brexit strategy. "Cabinet absolutely clear about destination we're aiming for"
@Alan_McGuinness: @BethRigby PM on Boris Johnson: "Boris is doing good work as Foreign Secretary. He has been doing that here at the United Nations."
Mr. Borough, in defence of sensible Labour people, they did try (albeit with a dire candidate) to remove Corbyn.
On the other hand, they have taken to singing his name and pretending he isn't in favour of Venezuelan economics, CND military policy, and has the numeracy skills of a drunken baboon.
No one on the left can have any credibility at all about the long term interest of the country while they campaign or vote for Jeremy Corbyn to have a majority in parliament. On economics alone, his far left economics has wrecked this country's economy in the past and has led to complete societal breakdown in places like Venezuela. It would be far worse than even the most pessimistic economic forecasts of reduced growth post-Brexit. And that is before you get into the national security implications of a man who reflexively sympathises with groups from the IRA to Hezbollah, has been in the pay of Russian and Iranian governments and wants to unilaterally disarm our defence capabilities.
Those that wish to keep their heads down and dreamily hope of managing him in office are self-interested cowards of the highest order. The only moral thing for sensible Labour politicians to do is to warn low information voters that this man does not deserve to be in government.
I think he will be fine.
I would much rather a Corbyn Brexit than a Boris Brexit.
That is tough for you, as neither are on offer.
There can only be a Brexit that negotiated with the EU, so it is an EU/Corbyn or EU/Boris or EU/May Brexit or a No Deal Brexit.
Mr. Borough, in defence of sensible Labour people, they did try (albeit with a dire candidate) to remove Corbyn.
On the other hand, they have taken to singing his name and pretending he isn't in favour of Venezuelan economics, CND military policy, and has the numeracy skills of a drunken baboon.
No one on the left can have any credibility at all about the long term interest of the country while they campaign or vote for Jeremy Corbyn to have a majority in parliament. On economics alone, his far left economics has wrecked this country's economy in the past and has led to complete societal breakdown in places like Venezuela. It would be far worse than even the most pessimistic economic forecasts of reduced growth post-Brexit. And that is before you get into the national security implications of a man who reflexively sympathises with groups from the IRA to Hezbollah, has been in the pay of Russian and Iranian governments and wants to unilaterally disarm our defence capabilities.
Those that wish to keep their heads down and dreamily hope of managing him in office are self-interested cowards of the highest order. The only moral thing for sensible Labour politicians to do is to warn low information voters that this man does not deserve to be in government.
I think he will be fine.
I would much rather a Corbyn Brexit than a Boris Brexit.
How much of this can the moderates take before they grow a backbone?
Tinkering around with constitutional structures is a peculiar fetish which many in Labour love but it almost never produces the intended political result.
In the early 1980s the left developed the electoral college system for electing the leader designed to ensure that only a left-wing candidate could win. But the new system produced Neil Kinnock, John Smith and finally Tony Blair.
In the last parliament Ed Miliband changed the system to all-member ballots, a system designed to ensure that left-wingers were shut out forever. But the new system produced Jeremy Corbyn.
So the idea that another round of tinkering will produce a permanent political change in the party is dubious to say the least.
Mr. Borough, in defence of sensible Labour people, they did try (albeit with a dire candidate) to remove Corbyn.
On the other hand, they have taken to singing his name and pretending he isn't in favour of Venezuelan economics, CND military policy, and has the numeracy skills of a drunken baboon.
No one on the left can have any credibility at all about the long term interest of the country while they campaign or vote for Jeremy Corbyn to have a majority in parliament. On economics alone, his far left economics has wrecked this country's economy in the past and has led to complete societal breakdown in places like Venezuela. It would be far worse than even the most pessimistic economic forecasts of reduced growth post-Brexit. And that is before you get into the national security implications of a man who reflexively sympathises with groups from the IRA to Hezbollah, has been in the pay of Russian and Iranian governments and wants to unilaterally disarm our defence capabilities.
Those that wish to keep their heads down and dreamily hope of managing him in office are self-interested cowards of the highest order. The only moral thing for sensible Labour politicians to do is to warn low information voters that this man does not deserve to be in government.
I think he will be fine.
I would much rather a Corbyn Brexit than a Boris Brexit.
Then you are an idiot in denial. The 1970s were hell, and the socialists in charge then were moderates compared to Corbyn. UK economic carnage would also be moderate in ramifications compared to the upending of the Western democracy-led international order once two leading NATO powers were led by useful idiots for Moscow. Russia would run riot and five years later would be too late to turn back the clock.
If it happened I know I would immediately move my money out the country and I would encourage others to do the same.
Ultimately, there's no getting around that. If people feel an identity, they will act with one.
If an EU member state whose people shared a national identity strongly wished to secede from the EU in future, the fact that it might be legally, constitutionally,or economically, extremely difficult to do so would not stop them from doing so, if they wished to do so.
The only option would be for the EU to resist it by force (something williamglenn would no doubt strongly approve of) or, the other softer approach, is to stop it happening in the first place by gradually breaking down national identities by promoting regional and European ones at their expense.
Something the EU has been pursuing as subsidiary policy for years, despite Europhiles insisting that's wrong and claiming anyone who thinks otherwise is barking.
I won't object to your mischaracterisation of my views, but I do think you're wrong on the substance. A nation that it confident in its national identity is one that is more able to play a constructive role within the EU. England needs its national identity back, and it's not the EU, but the UK, that is denying us our self-determination.
Says the man who has regularly objected to the concept of the nation state.
I've merely said that the nation state isn't the end point of civilisation. The European Union is a model of something that goes beyond the nation state, and does it very well. Your comparison of it with Yugoslavia is facile.
Not at all. Yugoslavia is a perfect example of what happens when you force different nations together against their will. All such artificial constructs must eventually fail and it is certainly not an advancement of civilisation to make power more centralised and remote.
Which country was forced to join the EU against its will?
As I recall, all joined voluntarily. Norway and Switzerland decided not to, and have not been punished in any way. There are a large numbsr of other countries eager to join.
Only one has voted to leave, and the EU has happily waved us off, but no sign of any force or coercion.
When it comes to other issues, such as currency, that has been completely voluntary too.
What the countries joined and what they eventually end up with are two very different things. That is why we are leaving and we will not be the last.
A Swiss Brexit would be good reason to resign since it would mean that we were still under the control of the EU despite not being a member, we would still not have control of our borders despite not being a member, we were still subject to EU laws despite being not being amember. We would be in the EU in all but name despite Brexit. It would be a betrayal of the referendum result.
On the contrary, it perfectly reflects the narrow vote to leave.
When you have two options, Leave or Remain, throwing away all the benefits of Leave and all the benefits of Rrmain is not a compromise that reflects any result. It would be damn foolish.
I completely agree. I'm an ardent Brexiteer who would rather we join the Euro than end up in a "soft brexit".
Music to my ears! Hard Brexit cannot work and Soft Brexit is too mediocre to contemplate for a great nation. Our destiny is to be at the heart of the EU.
We'll see how it plays out won't we?
N.B If we end up with a disastrous soft brexit that isn't going to change my mind...
Fair enough. I think that's why contrary to the Treasury's alleged view, we don't need an early announcement of a status quo transition deal. We need to get closer to the hard Brexit cliff edge and then see how people feel.
Ultimately, there's no getting around that. If people feel an identity, they will act with one.
If an EU member state whose people shared a national identity strongly wished to secede from the EU in future, the fact that it might be legally, constitutionally,or economically, extremely difficult to do so would not stop them from doing so, if they wished to do so.
The only option would be for the EU to resist it by force (something williamglenn would no doubt strongly approve of) or, the other softer approach, is to stop it happening in the first place by gradually breaking down national identities by promoting regional and European ones at their expense.
Something the EU has been pursuing as subsidiary policy for years, despite Europhiles insisting that's wrong and claiming anyone who thinks otherwise is barking.
I won't object to your mischaracterisation of my views, but I do think you're wrong on the substance. A nation that it confident in its national identity is one that is more able to play a constructive role within the EU. England needs its national identity back, and it's not the EU, but the UK, that is denying us our self-determination.
Says the man who has regularly objected to the concept of the nation state.
I've merely said that the nation state isn't the end point of civilisation. The European Union is a model of something that goes beyond the nation state, and does it very well. Your comparison of it with Yugoslavia is facile.
Not at all. Yugoslavia is a perfect example of what happens when you force different nations together against their will. All such artificial constructs must eventually fail and it is certainly not an advancement of civilisation to make power more centralised and remote.
But without Yugoslavia, we would never have had the Yugo. So, it wasn't all bad.
I do worry about you sometimes Robert. I think you have spent too long in the California sun
How much of this can the moderates take before they grow a backbone?
Tinkering around with constitutional structures is a peculiar fetish which many in Labour love but it almost never produces the intended political result.
In the early 1980s the left developed the electoral college system for electing the leader designed to ensure that only a left-wing candidate could win. But the new system produced Neil Kinnock, John Smith and finally Tony Blair.
In the last parliament Ed Miliband changed the system to all-member ballots, a system designed to ensure that left-wingers were shut out forever. But the new system produced Jeremy Corbyn.
So the idea that another round of tinkering will produce a permanent political change in the party is dubious to say the least.
You may be working on the assumption that Labour people don't learn.
Mr. Borough, in defence of sensible Labour people, they did try (albeit with a dire candidate) to remove Corbyn.
On the other hand, they have taken to singing his name and pretending he isn't in favour of Venezuelan economics, CND military policy, and has the numeracy skills of a drunken baboon.
No one on the left can have any credibility at all about the long term interest of the country while they campaign or vote for Jeremy Corbyn to have a majority in parliament. On economics alone, his far left economics has wrecked this country's economy in the past and has led to complete societal breakdown in places like Venezuela. It would be far worse than even the most pessimistic economic forecasts of reduced growth post-Brexit. And that is before you get into the national security implications of a man who reflexively sympathises with groups from the IRA to Hezbollah, has been in the pay of Russian and Iranian governments and wants to unilaterally disarm our defence capabilities.
Those that wish to keep their heads down and dreamily hope of managing him in office are self-interested cowards of the highest order. The only moral thing for sensible Labour politicians to do is to warn low information voters that this man does not deserve to be in government.
I think he will be fine.
I would much rather a Corbyn Brexit than a Boris Brexit.
Then you are an idiot in denial. The 1970s were hell, and the socialists in charge then were moderates compared to Corbyn. UK economic carnage would also be moderate in ramifications compared to the upending of the Western democracy-led international order once two leading NATO powers were led by useful idiots for Moscow. Russia would run riot and five years later would be too late to turn back the clock.
If it happened I know I would immediately move my money out the country and I would encourage others to do the same.
It has been pointed out several times that the Conservatives were in power for half of the 1970's. They gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts. Not really sure why the Right bang on about it... the Thirties were pretty bad too under the Tories. And about as relevant.
Ultimately, there's no getting around that. If people feel an identity, they will act with one.
If an EU member state whose people shared a national identity strongly wished to secede from the EU in future, the fact that it might be legally, constitutionally,or economically, extremely difficult to do so would not stop them from doing so, if they wished to do so.
The only option would be for the EU to resist it by force (something williamglenn would no doubt strongly approve of) or, the other softer approach, is to stop it happening in the first place by gradually breaking down national identities by promoting regional and European ones at their expense.
Something the EU has been pursuing as subsidiary policy for years, despite Europhiles insisting that's wrong and claiming anyone who thinks otherwise is barking.
I won't object to your mischaracterisation of my views, but I do think you're wrong on the substance. A nation that it confident in its national identity is one that is more able to play a constructive role within the EU. England needs its national identity back, and it's not the EU, but the UK, that is denying us our self-determination.
Says the man who has regularly objected to the concept of the nation state.
I've merely said that the nation state isn't the end point of civilisation. The European Union is a model of something that goes beyond the nation state, and does it very well. Your comparison of it with Yugoslavia is facile.
Not at all. Yugoslavia is a perfect example of what happens when you force different nations together against their will. All such artificial constructs must eventually fail and it is certainly not an advancement of civilisation to make power more centralised and remote.
Which country was forced to join the EU against its will?
As I recall, all joined voluntarily. Norway and Switzerland decided not to, and have not been punished in any way. There are a large numbsr of other countries eager to join.
Only one has voted to leave, and the EU has happily waved us off, but no sign of any force or coercion.
When it comes to other issues, such as currency, that has been completely voluntary too.
" the EU has happily waved us off, but no sign of any force or coercion" is themost magnificent failure to describe the actual state of affairs.
As to joining voluntarily, certainly the rank and file Greeks were conned into joining by a conspiracy of the EU, the repulsive plutocracy which rules the country, and a large vampire squid. Same may apply to other latecomers.
Mr. Borough, in defence of sensible Labour people, they did try (albeit with a dire candidate) to remove Corbyn.
On the other hand, they have taken to singing his name and pretending he isn't in favour of Venezuelan economics, CND military policy, and has the numeracy skills of a drunken baboon.
No one on the left can have any credibility at all about the long term interest of the country while they campaign or vote for Jeremy Corbyn to have a majority in parliament. On economics alone, his far left economics has wrecked this country's economy in the past and has led to complete societal breakdown in places like Venezuela. It would be far worse than even the most pessimistic economic forecasts of reduced growth post-Brexit. And that is before you get into the national security implications of a man who reflexively sympathises with groups from the IRA to Hezbollah, has been in the pay of Russian and Iranian governments and wants to unilaterally disarm our defence capabilities.
Those that wish to keep their heads down and dreamily hope of managing him in office are self-interested cowards of the highest order. The only moral thing for sensible Labour politicians to do is to warn low information voters that this man does not deserve to be in government.
I think he will be fine.
I would much rather a Corbyn Brexit than a Boris Brexit.
Then you are an idiot in denial. The 1970s were hell, and the socialists in charge then were moderates compared to Corbyn. UK economic carnage would also be moderate in ramifications compared to the upending of the Western democracy-led international order once two leading NATO powers were led by useful idiots for Moscow. Russia would run riot and five years later would be too late to turn back the clock.
If it happened I know I would immediately move my money out the country and I would encourage others to do the same.
It has been pointed out several times that the Conservatives were in power for half of the 1970's. They gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts. Not really sure why the Right bang on about it... the Thirties were pretty bad too under the Tories.
Or was it the miners that gave us the three day week?
There is a vague possibility that there are two sides to any story.
Ultimately, there's no getting around that. If people feel an identity, they will act with one.
If an EU member state whose people shared a national identity strongly wished to secede from the EU in future, the fact that it might be legally, constitutionally,or economically, extremely difficult to do so would not stop them from doing so, if they wished to do so.
The only option would be for the EU to resist it by force (something williamglenn would no doubt strongly approve of) or, the other softer approach, is to stop it happening in the first place by gradually breaking down national identities by promoting regional and European ones at their expense.
Something the EU has been pursuing as subsidiary policy for years, despite Europhiles insisting that's wrong and claiming anyone who thinks otherwise is barking.
I won't object to your mischaracterisation of my views, but I do think you're wrong on the substance. A nation that it confident in its national identity is one that is more able to play a constructive role within the EU. England needs its national identity back, and it's not the EU, but the UK, that is denying us our self-determination.
Says the man who has regularly objected to the concept of the nation state.
I've merely said that the nation state isn't the end point of civilisation. The European Union is a model of something that goes beyond the nation state, and does it very well. Your comparison of it with Yugoslavia is facile.
Not at all. Yugoslavia is a perfect example of what happens when you force different nations together against their will. All such artificial constructs must eventually fail and it is certainly not an advancement of civilisation to make power more centralised and remote.
But without Yugoslavia, we would never have had the Yugo. So, it wasn't all bad.
I do worry about you sometimes Robert. I think you have spent too long in the California sun
I was in Croatia during the Yugoslav civil war, it was truly scary.
I can't figure the politics of this as far as Boris is concerned. It seems like lunacy.
There are only two options regarding what May was or is going to say in her speech. If she was going to say everything that Boris wanted to hear then right now she will need to be frantically rewriting her speech or it will seem like she has surrendered to him. If she was not going to say what he wanted to hear then she is Dan sure not going to change it now or again she will appear (rightly) to be surrendering to him.
This is surely a no-win situation for Boris.
Boris has seen the speech first draft (as will other Senior Ministers). It can only be that he didn't like it. The ball is in TM's court now. She will either cave in or Boris walks with several others, but he'd prefer to be fired to play the martyr.
Boris has gone from "we'll have our cake and eat it" to "no cake - who wants it"
It has been pointed out several times that the Conservatives were in power for half of the 1970's. They gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts.
A bit of a rewrite of history there. It was the unions - which had been allowed to grow vicious and all-powerful under Wilson - which gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts. It's true that Heath failed to slay the monster, but the next Tory PM did, thank God.
Mr. Borough, in defence of sensible Labour people, they did try (albeit with a dire candidate) to remove Corbyn.
On the other hand, they have taken to singing his name and pretending he isn't in favour of Venezuelan economics, CND military policy, and has the numeracy skills of a drunken baboon.
No one on the left can have any credibility at all about the long term interest of the country while they campaign or vote for Jeremy Corbyn to have a majority in parliament. On economics alone, his far left economics has wrecked this country's economy in the past and has led to complete societal breakdown in places like Venezuela. It would be far worse than even the most pessimistic economic forecasts of reduced growth post-Brexit. And that is before you get into the national security implications of a man who reflexively sympathises with groups from the IRA to Hezbollah, has been in the pay of Russian and Iranian governments and wants to unilaterally disarm our defence capabilities.
Those that wish to keep their heads down and dreamily hope of managing him in office are self-interested cowards of the highest order. The only moral thing for sensible Labour politicians to do is to warn low information voters that this man does not deserve to be in government.
I think he will be fine.
I would much rather a Corbyn Brexit than a Boris Brexit.
Then you are an idiot in denial. The 1970s were hell, and the socialists in charge then were moderates compared to Corbyn. UK economic carnage would also be moderate in ramifications compared to the upending of the Western democracy-led international order once two leading NATO powers were led by useful idiots for Moscow. Russia would run riot and five years later would be too late to turn back the clock.
If it happened I know I would immediately move my money out the country and I would encourage others to do the same.
It has been pointed out several times that the Conservatives were in power for half of the 1970's. They gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts. Not really sure why the Right bang on about it... the Thirties were pretty bad too under the Tories.
Or was it the miners that gave us the three day week.
There is a vague possibility that there are two sides to any story.
Indeed. Which was what I was trying to point out to our hyper-ventilating friend.
Ultimately, there's no getting around that. If people feel an identity, they will act with one.
If an EU member state whose people shared a national identity strongly wished to secede from the EU in future, the fact that it might be legally, constitutionally,or economically, extremely difficult to do so would not stop them from doing so, if they wished to do so.
The only option would be for the EU to resist it by force (something williamglenn would no doubt strongly approve of) or, the other softer approach, is to stop it happening in the first place by gradually breaking down national identities by promoting regional and European ones at their expense.
Something the EU has been pursuing as subsidiary policy for years, despite Europhiles insisting that's wrong and claiming anyone who thinks otherwise is barking.
I won't object to your mischaracterisation of my views, but I do think you're wrong on the substance. A nation that it confident in its national identity is one that is more able to play a constructive role within the EU. England needs its national identity back, and it's not the EU, but the UK, that is denying us our self-determination.
Says the man who has regularly objected to the concept of the nation state.
I've merely said that the nation state isn't the end point of civilisation. The European Union is a model of something that goes beyond the nation state, and does it very well. Your comparison of it with Yugoslavia is facile.
Not at all. Yugoslavia is a perfect example of what happens when you force different nations together against their will. All such artificial constructs must eventually fail and it is certainly not an advancement of civilisation to make power more centralised and remote.
But without Yugoslavia, we would never have had the Yugo. So, it wasn't all bad.
I do worry about you sometimes Robert. I think you have spent too long in the California sun
I once flew Yugoslav Airways back in 1980s. Once all the passengers had settled in their seats, the lead stewardess came on over the cabin tannoy and said that the pilot was unsure of the destination and asked for a show of hands as to whether we thought we were flying to Split or Dubrovnik!
Says the man who has regularly objected to the concept of the nation state.
I've merely said that the nation state isn't the end point of civilisation. The European Union is a model of something that goes beyond the nation state, and does it very well. Your comparison of it with Yugoslavia is facile.
Not at all. Yugoslavia is a perfect example of what happens when you force different nations together against their will. All such artificial constructs must eventually fail and it is certainly not an advancement of civilisation to make power more centralised and remote.
Which country was forced to join the EU against its will?
As I recall, all joined voluntarily. Norway and Switzerland decided not to, and have not been punished in any way. There are a large numbsr of other countries eager to join.
Only one has voted to leave, and the EU has happily waved us off, but no sign of any force or coercion.
When it comes to other issues, such as currency, that has been completely voluntary too.
Morning all from a gloriously sunny day in the Canadian Rockies!
In the absence of @SeanT (in his new uxorious state) I feel that it falls to me to go off topic with tales of sybaritic adventures from far away. I survived some pretty challenging mountain biking yesterday, have swum outdoors at night, eaten delicious oysters and flown over the Clayquot Sound in a 1953 De Havilland Beavor seaplane.
Sorry.
I see that Tory fuckwittery is continuing. How tiresome.
Re the above, one example of ... not force, exactly... but a contemptuous attitude to democracy was the decision, when the proposed EU Constitution was rejected by both the Dutch and French, to represent it under a different name and impose it anyway. That kind of approach does not bode well for an organisation which claims to be creating a new sort of political civilisation beyond the nation state. Indeed, the fact that so many extreme parties are developing within Europe in a way which would have seemed unimaginable 30 years ago, shows the strains caused by this approach.
A choice made because there is no other option is not done as a result of force, it is true, but it is not entirely voluntary either. I am sceptical of all movements which claim that their onwards march is "inevitable", for reasons which will be obvious to anyone with even a passing knowledge of history.
Mr. Borough, in defence of sensible Labour people, they did try (albeit with a dire candidate) to remove Corbyn.
On the other hand, they have taken to singing his name and pretending he isn't in favour of Venezuelan economics, CND military policy, and has the numeracy skills of a drunken baboon.
No one on the left can have any credibility at all about the long term interest of the country while they campaign or vote for Jeremy Corbyn to have a majority in parliament. On economics alone, his far left economics has wrecked this country's economy in the past and has led to complete societal breakdown in places like Venezuela. It would be far worse than even the most pessimistic economic forecasts of reduced growth post-Brexit. And that is before you get into the national security implications of a man who reflexively sympathises with groups from the IRA to Hezbollah, has been in the pay of Russian and Iranian governments and wants to unilaterally disarm our defence capabilities.
Those that wish to keep their heads down and dreamily hope of managing him in office are self-interested cowards of the highest order. The only moral thing for sensible Labour politicians to do is to warn low information voters that this man does not deserve to be in government.
I think he will be fine.
I would much rather a Corbyn Brexit than a Boris Brexit.
I think your politics are irrational, now, because you have a bone to pick with Andrew Lansley/Jeremy Hunt and the NHS, so are happy to cut off your nose to spite your face.
You started off as a Cameroon and supporter of the coalition.
As to joining voluntarily, certainly the rank and file Greeks were conned into joining by a conspiracy of the EU, the repulsive plutocracy which rules the country, and a large vampire squid. Same may apply to other latecomers.
I think your history re Greece is wrong. You are answering the question "should the Greeks have joined the Euro?" (Answer obviously "no".)
The Greeks begged to join the Euro. They weren't conned into it. They thought it cemented their position as a modern European state.
The opinion polls at the time had close to 80% supporting Greek membership of the Euro. And in the immediate aftermath, it was party time in Athens. Interest rates on mortgages collapsed overnight and people went out to spend their windfalls. The fact that the Greek economy was a bubble based on a bit of overpriced property, tourists and and import bill three times its exports (yes really) was kind of missed.
Ultimately, there's no getting around that. If people feel an identity, they will act with one.
If an EU member state whose people shared a national identity strongly wished to secede from the EU in future, the fact that it might be legally, constitutionally,or economically, extremely difficult to do so would not stop them from doing so, if they wished to do so.
The only option would be for the EU to resist it by force (something williamglenn would no doubt strongly approve of) or, the other softer approach, is to stop it happening in the first place by gradually breaking down national identities by promoting regional and European ones at their expense.
Something the EU has been pursuing as subsidiary policy for years, despite Europhiles insisting that's wrong and claiming anyone who thinks otherwise is barking.
I won't object to your mischaracterisation of my views, but I do think you're wrong on the substance. A nation that it confident in its national identity is one that is more able to play a constructive role within the EU. England needs its national identity back, and it's not the EU, but the UK, that is denying us our self-determination.
Says the man who has regularly objected to the concept of the nation state.
I've merely said that the nation state isn't the end point of civilisation. The European Union is a model of something that goes beyond the nation state, and does it very well. Your comparison of it with Yugoslavia is facile.
Not at all. Yugoslavia is a perfect example of what happens when you force different nations together against their will. All such artificial constructs must eventually fail and it is certainly not an advancement of civilisation to make power more centralised and remote.
But without Yugoslavia, we would never have had the Yugo. So, it wasn't all bad.
I do worry about you sometimes Robert. I think you have spent too long in the California sun
I once flew Yugoslav Airways back in 1980s. Once all the passengers had settled in their seats, the lead stewardess came on over the cabin tannoy and said that the pilot was unsure of the destination and asked for a show of hands as to whether we thought we were flying to Split or Dubrovnik!
It has been pointed out several times that the Conservatives were in power for half of the 1970's. They gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts.
A bit of a rewrite of history there. It was the unions - which had been allowed to grow vicious and all-powerful under Wilson - which gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts. It's true that Heath failed to slay the monster, but the next Tory PM did, thank God.
I was trying to show there is more than one way to look at a situation. The idea that the "Seventies were Hell" is patent nonsense yet oft repeated. Most people got better off. The quality of life grew. And the fact is that the Tories were in power 5 years of the 70's.
Forget the bloody name-calling and talk about practicalities. If Brexit types want WTO then we have the small hurdle to overcome of we don't have the time needed to set up for it. Give me detail of how we overcome the very real barriers not rhetoric and abuse.
Agreed.
My suggestion would be that, in the unlikely event of us not having a short more of the same transition deal, we'd go zero tariffs/importer certification on all foods. Food riots are not going to happen.
From the way some were talking about it on the previous thread, they were making it sound like the EU would succeed where the U-boats failed in 1942.
Ha. Indeed.
Despite the twisting of the historical facts yesterday, Remainers doom mongering about Brexit forget that we don't tend to surrender to bullying by third parties...
What would 'not surrendering' look like in this instance?
And on the other side of the coin, it also suggests to me that more blame will be put at the feet of the EU than anyone else.
Yes, treating a country that wants to leave the custom union like a country outside the customs union - disgraceful.
It has been pointed out several times that the Conservatives were in power for half of the 1970's. They gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts.
A bit of a rewrite of history there. It was the unions - which had been allowed to grow vicious and all-powerful under Wilson - which gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts. It's true that Heath failed to slay the monster, but the next Tory PM did, thank God.
I was trying to show there is more than one way to look at a situation. The idea that the "Seventies were Hell" is patent nonsense yet oft repeated. Most people got better off. The quality of life grew. And the fact is that the Tories were in power 5 years of the 70's.
And government debt-to-GDP actually fell about 20%.
The only thing that matters for the UK from the Article 50 negotiations is continuity. Precisely what matters is that things on the 1st April 2019 will as far as possible be the same as they were on the 29th March of that year. Everything else is irrelevant. The money doesn't matter and the future arrangement will be hammered out later anyway. There won't be a Swiss deal, an EEA deal, a Canada deal or even a WTO deal on that date.
A Swiss Brexit would be good reason to resign since it would mean that we were still under the control of the EU despite not being a member, we would still not have control of our borders despite not being a member, we were still subject to EU laws despite being not being amember. We would be in the EU in all but name despite Brexit. It would be a betrayal of the referendum result.
On the contrary, it perfectly reflects the narrow vote to leave.
When you have two options, Leave or Remain, throwing away all the benefits of Leave and all the benefits of Rrmain is not a compromise that reflects any result. It would be damn foolish.
I completely agree. I'm an ardent Brexiteer who would rather we join the Euro than end up in a "soft brexit".
Music to my ears! Hard Brexit cannot work and Soft Brexit is too mediocre to contemplate for a great nation. Our destiny is to be at the heart of the EU.
We'll see how it plays out won't we?
N.B If we end up with a disastrous soft brexit that isn't going to change my mind...
Fair enough. I think that's why contrary to the Treasury's alleged view, we don't need an early announcement of a status quo transition deal. We need to get closer to the hard Brexit cliff edge and then see how people feel.
Also worth noting that although I support a hard brexit I recognise that a transition is needed to get there. I'm quite content with a time limited "status quo" transition that gives us the latitude to negotiate with 3rd parties to put in place arrangements for when it ends.
I'm not quite sure why I used the hard/soft labels considering they lack a clear definition. In brief I wish to leave SM & CU, but not by jumping off a cliff.
It has been pointed out several times that the Conservatives were in power for half of the 1970's. They gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts.
A bit of a rewrite of history there. It was the unions - which had been allowed to grow vicious and all-powerful under Wilson - which gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts. It's true that Heath failed to slay the monster, but the next Tory PM did, thank God.
I was trying to show there is more than one way to look at a situation. The idea that the "Seventies were Hell" is patent nonsense and oft repeated. Most people got better off. The quality of life grew. And the fact is that the Tories were in power 5 years of the 70's.
Flares. polonecks. David Cassidy. The plastic radiator grille on the Series III. The Seventies were hell alright.
Mr. Borough, in defence of sensible Labour people, they did try (albeit with a dire candidate) to remove Corbyn.
On the other hand, they have taken to singing his name and pretending he isn't in favour of Venezuelan economics, CND military policy, and has the numeracy skills of a drunken baboon.
No one on the left can have any credibility at all about the long term interest of the country while they campaign or vote for Jeremy Corbyn to have a majority in parliament. On economics alone, his far left economics has wrecked this country's economy in the past and has led to complete societal breakdown in places like Venezuela. It would be far worse than even the most pessimistic economic forecasts of reduced growth post-Brexit. And that is before you get into the national security implications of a man who reflexively sympathises with groups from the IRA to Hezbollah, has been in the pay of Russian and Iranian governments and wants to unilaterally disarm our defence capabilities.
Those that wish to keep their heads down and dreamily hope of managing him in office are self-interested cowards of the highest order. The only moral thing for sensible Labour politicians to do is to warn low information voters that this man does not deserve to be in government.
I think he will be fine.
I would much rather a Corbyn Brexit than a Boris Brexit.
Then you are an idiot in denial. The 1970s were hell, and the socialists in charge then were moderates compared to Corbyn. UK economic carnage would also be moderate in ramifications compared to the upending of the Western democracy-led international order once two leading NATO powers were led by useful idiots for Moscow. Russia would run riot and five years later would be too late to turn back the clock.
If it happened I know I would immediately move my money out the country and I would encourage others to do the same.
It has been pointed out several times that the Conservatives were in power for half of the 1970's. They gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts. Not really sure why the Right bang on about it... the Thirties were pretty bad too under the Tories. And about as relevant.
The first 1974 election, where "who governs" was answered with "not you, mate" is the simplest and most effective rebuttal to the above terrible point, terribly made.
I was trying to show there is more than one way to look at a situation. The idea that the "Seventies were Hell" is patent nonsense yet oft repeated. Most people got better off. The quality of life grew. And the fact is that the Tories were in power 5 years of the 70's.
It was an abysmal decade, especially for anyone working in industry. Easily the worst of my lifetime, and I'm into my seventh. (Don't remember much about the first, though!)
Mr. Borough, in defence of sensible Labour people, they did try (albeit with a dire candidate) to remove Corbyn.
On the other hand, they have taken to singing his name and pretending he isn't in favour of Venezuelan economics, CND military policy, and has the numeracy skills of a drunken baboon.
No one on the left can have any credibility at all about the long term interest of the country while they campaign or vote for Jeremy Corbyn to have a majority in parliament. On economics alone, his far left economics has wrecked this country's economy in the past and has led to complete societal breakdown in places like Venezuela. It would be far worse than even the most pessimistic economic forecasts of reduced growth post-Brexit. And that is before you get into the national security implications of a man who reflexively sympathises with groups from the IRA to Hezbollah, has been in the pay of Russian and Iranian governments and wants to unilaterally disarm our defence capabilities.
Those that wish to keep their heads down and dreamily hope of managing him in office are self-interested cowards of the highest order. The only moral thing for sensible Labour politicians to do is to warn low information voters that this man does not deserve to be in government.
I think he will be fine.
I would much rather a Corbyn Brexit than a Boris Brexit.
I think your politics are irrational, now, because you have a bone to pick with Andrew Lansley/Jeremy Hunt and the NHS, so are happy to cut off your nose to spite your face.
You started off as a Cameroon and supporter of the coalition.
But Mr Fox is by no means unique in his political trajectory. My fist inkling the the general election was not going to be the predicted Tory walkover was when canvassing people down on the (Labour) system as Tories and they said they were voting Labour because of Brexit. Nothing that has happened since June will have brought people like that back to the Tories - on the contrary.
A Swiss Brexit would be good reason to resign since it would mean that we were still under the control of the EU despite not being a member, we would still not have control of our borders despite not being a member, we were still subject to EU laws despite being not being amember. We would be in the EU in all but name despite Brexit. It would be a betrayal of the referendum result.
On the contrary, it perfectly reflects the narrow vote to leave.
When you have two options, Leave or Remain, throwing away all the benefits of Leave and all the benefits of Rrmain is not a compromise that reflects any result. It would be damn foolish.
I completely agree. I'm an ardent Brexiteer who would rather we join the Euro than end up in a "soft brexit".
Music to my ears! Hard Brexit cannot work and Soft Brexit is too mediocre to contemplate for a great nation. Our destiny is to be at the heart of the EU.
We'll see how it plays out won't we?
N.B If we end up with a disastrous soft brexit that isn't going to change my mind...
Fair enough. I think that's why contrary to the Treasury's alleged view, we don't need an early announcement of a status quo transition deal. We need to get closer to the hard Brexit cliff edge and then see how people feel.
Also worth noting that although I support a hard brexit I recognise that a transition is needed to get there. I'm quite content with a time limited "status quo" transition that gives us the latitude to negotiate with 3rd parties to put in place arrangements for when it ends.
I'm not quite sure why I used the hard/soft labels considering they lack a clear definition. In brief I wish to leave SM & CU, but not by jumping off a cliff.
We had a seven year transition when we joined the EEC.
There's really no reason why you couldn't have a - say - four year transition where the relationship was loosened in a series of steps over the period.
Miss Cyclefree, glad you're having a splendid time
Ironically, if the EU had respected that vote rather than changing the header and pretending Lisbon was something totally different, we wouldn't have an Article 50 and wouldn't've left.
It has been pointed out several times that the Conservatives were in power for half of the 1970's. They gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts.
A bit of a rewrite of history there. It was the unions - which had been allowed to grow vicious and all-powerful under Wilson - which gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts. It's true that Heath failed to slay the monster, but the next Tory PM did, thank God.
I was trying to show there is more than one way to look at a situation. The idea that the "Seventies were Hell" is patent nonsense yet oft repeated. Most people got better off. The quality of life grew. And the fact is that the Tories were in power 5 years of the 70's.
And government debt-to-GDP actually fell about 20%.
Strange but true.
Indeed. I can only speak for myself and my neighbours, but we got inside toilets, central heating, colour TV, much cleaner air, amongst other things. A car was not commonly owned in 1969. By 1979 almost every family in my street had one. We may have had industrial strife, but this was certainly not a benighted decade.
I was trying to show there is more than one way to look at a situation. The idea that the "Seventies were Hell" is patent nonsense yet oft repeated. Most people got better off. The quality of life grew. And the fact is that the Tories were in power 5 years of the 70's.
It was an abysmal decade, especially for anyone working in industry. Easily the worst of my lifetime, and I'm into my seventh. (Don't remember much about the first, though!)
As an aside, one of the curiosities of Brexit is likely to be that it will increase our dependence on EU trade in the near term. Because it will take time to replicate existing EU arrangements, it's entirely possible that on Brexit day, the only entity we have an FTA with is... the EU.
(One would hope that Dr Liam Fox will have largely replicated existing EU deals with Korea, Canada, EFTA, Mexico, Israel, Turkey, South Africa, etc. within 18 months of us exiting. Albeit I'd feel a bit comfortable if someone else was in that role.)
It has been pointed out several times that the Conservatives were in power for half of the 1970's. They gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts.
A bit of a rewrite of history there. It was the unions - which had been allowed to grow vicious and all-powerful under Wilson - which gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts. It's true that Heath failed to slay the monster, but the next Tory PM did, thank God.
I was trying to show there is more than one way to look at a situation. The idea that the "Seventies were Hell" is patent nonsense yet oft repeated. Most people got better off. The quality of life grew. And the fact is that the Tories were in power 5 years of the 70's.
And government debt-to-GDP actually fell about 20%.
Indeed. I can only speak for myself and my neighbours, but we got inside toilets, central heating, colour TV, much cleaner air, amongst other things. A car was not commonly owned in 1969. By 1979 almost every family in my street had one. We may have had industrial strife, but this was certainly not a benighted decade.
It has been pointed out several times that the Conservatives were in power for half of the 1970's. They gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts.
A bit of a rewrite of history there. It was the unions - which had been allowed to grow vicious and all-powerful under Wilson - which gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts. It's true that Heath failed to slay the monster, but the next Tory PM did, thank God.
I was trying to show there is more than one way to look at a situation. The idea that the "Seventies were Hell" is patent nonsense and oft repeated. Most people got better off. The quality of life grew. And the fact is that the Tories were in power 5 years of the 70's.
Flares. polonecks. David Cassidy. The plastic radiator grille on the Series III. The Seventies were hell alright.
It has been pointed out several times that the Conservatives were in power for half of the 1970's. They gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts.
A bit of a rewrite of history there. It was the unions - which had been allowed to grow vicious and all-powerful under Wilson - which gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts. It's true that Heath failed to slay the monster, but the next Tory PM did, thank God.
I was trying to show there is more than one way to look at a situation. The idea that the "Seventies were Hell" is patent nonsense yet oft repeated. Most people got better off. The quality of life grew. And the fact is that the Tories were in power 5 years of the 70's.
Indeed. The 1970s was a time of steadily rising living standards for everyone, not just those at the top of the income scale. Despite the industrial strife and high inflation wages rose faster than prices almost every year and in material terms people's lives improved much more quickly than they have done over the past decade. And, for those in jobs, employment was much more secure and stable than it is now. No one had heard of zero hours contracts and firms generally bent over backwards to avoid making staff redundant unless it was absolutely unavoidable.
I was trying to show there is more than one way to look at a situation. The idea that the "Seventies were Hell" is patent nonsense yet oft repeated. Most people got better off. The quality of life grew. And the fact is that the Tories were in power 5 years of the 70's.
It was an abysmal decade, especially for anyone working in industry. Easily the worst of my lifetime, and I'm into my seventh. (Don't remember much about the first, though!)
For you maybe. Not for me or my neighbours.
I'm not talking about any individual's experience (mine was rather good!), but the country as a whole. Massive inflation, high unemployment, strikes and widespread industrial violence every week, rubbish piling up in the streets, power cuts, the transport system in chaos, a hideous them-vs-us divide even in those industries which were not strike-wrecked, our economy falling way behind our European neighbours, nationalised industries run entirely for the convenience of union members, abysmally wasteful government, IRA bombings, and so on and so on. Some of those problems lasted into the 80s, of course, but at least they were then finally being addressed and we stopped managing the decline and giving in to the thugs.
It has been pointed out several times that the Conservatives were in power for half of the 1970's. They gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts.
A bit of a rewrite of history there. It was the unions - which had been allowed to grow vicious and all-powerful under Wilson - which gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts. It's true that Heath failed to slay the monster, but the next Tory PM did, thank God.
I was trying to show there is more than one way to look at a situation. The idea that the "Seventies were Hell" is patent nonsense yet oft repeated. Most people got better off. The quality of life grew. And the fact is that the Tories were in power 5 years of the 70's.
And government debt-to-GDP actually fell about 20%.
Strange but true.
Due to rampant inflation?
That's part of the picture.
But.
The UK economy actually grew reasonably well during the period, so the denominator was a lot larger than expected. Real British GDP was 29% higher at the end of 1979 that it was a decade earlier. That compares to 23% in the 90s, and 19% in the 'noughties.
It has been pointed out several times that the Conservatives were in power for half of the 1970's. They gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts.
A bit of a rewrite of history there. It was the unions - which had been allowed to grow vicious and all-powerful under Wilson - which gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts. It's true that Heath failed to slay the monster, but the next Tory PM did, thank God.
I was trying to show there is more than one way to look at a situation. The idea that the "Seventies were Hell" is patent nonsense yet oft repeated. Most people got better off. The quality of life grew. And the fact is that the Tories were in power 5 years of the 70's.
And government debt-to-GDP actually fell about 20%.
Strange but true.
Still sucks that the government "requested" we sold our place in Italy
It has been pointed out several times that the Conservatives were in power for half of the 1970's. They gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts.
A bit of a rewrite of history there. It was the unions - which had been allowed to grow vicious and all-powerful under Wilson - which gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts. It's true that Heath failed to slay the monster, but the next Tory PM did, thank God.
I was trying to show there is more than one way to look at a situation. The idea that the "Seventies were Hell" is patent nonsense yet oft repeated. Most people got better off. The quality of life grew. And the fact is that the Tories were in power 5 years of the 70's.
Indeed. The 1970s was a time of steadily rising living standards for everyone, not just those at the top of the income scale. Despite the industrial strife and high inflation wages rose faster than prices almost every year and in material terms people's lives improved much more quickly than they have done over the past decade. And, for those in jobs, employment was much more secure and stable than it is now. No one had heard of zero hours contracts and firms generally bent over backwards to avoid making staff redundant unless it was absolutely unavoidable.
I was running a small business during the 70's and I agree. However, I would say that I ought to have read the signs very late in the 70's....... I suppose I did in way..... because the 80's were tougher.
I was trying to show there is more than one way to look at a situation. The idea that the "Seventies were Hell" is patent nonsense yet oft repeated. Most people got better off. The quality of life grew. And the fact is that the Tories were in power 5 years of the 70's.
It was an abysmal decade, especially for anyone working in industry. Easily the worst of my lifetime, and I'm into my seventh. (Don't remember much about the first, though!)
For you maybe. Not for me or my neighbours.
I'm not talking about any individual's experience (mine was rather good!), but the country as a whole. Massive inflation, high unemployment, strikes and widespread industrial violence every week, rubbish piling up in the streets, power cuts, the transport system in chaos, a hideous them-vs-us divide even in those industries which were not strike-wrecked, our economy falling way behind our European neighbours, nationalised industries run entirely for the convenience of union members, abysmally wasteful government, IRA bombings, and so on and so on. Some of those problems lasted into the 80s, of course, but at least they were then finally being addressed and we stopped managing the decline and giving in to the thugs.
Well then, post Brexit you can enjoy it all over again .....
I was trying to show there is more than one way to look at a situation. The idea that the "Seventies were Hell" is patent nonsense yet oft repeated. Most people got better off. The quality of life grew. And the fact is that the Tories were in power 5 years of the 70's.
It was an abysmal decade, especially for anyone working in industry. Easily the worst of my lifetime, and I'm into my seventh. (Don't remember much about the first, though!)
My father made good money in the 1970s as a builder.The Barber Conservative boom made him a lot of money.As previously said we got colour TV , central heating and went on our first foreign holidays .I remember it fondly maybe idealistically as a child.
I was trying to show there is more than one way to look at a situation. The idea that the "Seventies were Hell" is patent nonsense yet oft repeated. Most people got better off. The quality of life grew. And the fact is that the Tories were in power 5 years of the 70's.
It was an abysmal decade, especially for anyone working in industry. Easily the worst of my lifetime, and I'm into my seventh. (Don't remember much about the first, though!)
For you maybe. Not for me or my neighbours.
I'm not talking about any individual's experience (mine was rather good!), but the country as a whole. Massive inflation, high unemployment, strikes and widespread industrial violence every week, rubbish piling up in the streets, power cuts, the transport system in chaos, a hideous them-vs-us divide even in those industries which were not strike-wrecked, our economy falling way behind our European neighbours, nationalised industries run entirely for the convenience of union members, abysmally wasteful government, IRA bombings, and so on and so on. Some of those problems lasted into the 80s, of course, but at least they were then finally being addressed and we stopped managing the decline and giving in to the thugs.
It has been pointed out several times that the Conservatives were in power for half of the 1970's. They gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts.
A bit of a rewrite of history there. It was the unions - which had been allowed to grow vicious and all-powerful under Wilson - which gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts. It's true that Heath failed to slay the monster, but the next Tory PM did, thank God.
I was trying to show there is more than one way to look at a situation. The idea that the "Seventies were Hell" is patent nonsense yet oft repeated. Most people got better off. The quality of life grew. And the fact is that the Tories were in power 5 years of the 70's.
And government debt-to-GDP actually fell about 20%.
Strange but true.
Still sucks that the government "requested" we sold our place in Italy
You are not the only one. Can anyone follow what is actually going on with Boris at the moment?
Maybe he was expecting to get support from colleagues, and instead has found the opposite? Dunno, but that would be consistent with what looks like back-pedalling.
It has been pointed out several times that the Conservatives were in power for half of the 1970's. They gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts.
A bit of a rewrite of history there. It was the unions - which had been allowed to grow vicious and all-powerful under Wilson - which gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts. It's true that Heath failed to slay the monster, but the next Tory PM did, thank God.
I was trying to show there is more than one way to look at a situation. The idea that the "Seventies were Hell" is patent nonsense yet oft repeated. Most people got better off. The quality of life grew. And the fact is that the Tories were in power 5 years of the 70's.
Indeed. The 1970s was a time of steadily rising living standards for everyone, not just those at the top of the income scale. Despite the industrial strife and high inflation wages rose faster than prices almost every year and in material terms people's lives improved much more quickly than they have done over the past decade. And, for those in jobs, employment was much more secure and stable than it is now. No one had heard of zero hours contracts and firms generally bent over backwards to avoid making staff redundant unless it was absolutely unavoidable.
I was running a small business during the 70's and I agree. However, I would say that I ought to have read the signs very late in the 70's....... I suppose I did in way..... because the 80's were tougher.
Yes the early 80s were tough recession 3 million unemployed.I saw recently 1976 was voted the favourite year .Maybe the long hot summer left a lot with good memories.
Yes the early 80s were tough recession 3 million unemployed.I saw recently 1976 was voted the favourite year .Maybe the long hot summer left a lot with good memories.
It has been pointed out several times that the Conservatives were in power for half of the 1970's. They gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts.
A bit of a rewrite of history there. It was the unions - which had been allowed to grow vicious and all-powerful under Wilson - which gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts. It's true that Heath failed to slay the monster, but the next Tory PM did, thank God.
I was trying to show there is more than one way to look at a situation. The idea that the "Seventies were Hell" is patent nonsense yet oft repeated. Most people got better off. The quality of life grew. And the fact is that the Tories were in power 5 years of the 70's.
And government debt-to-GDP actually fell about 20%.
Strange but true.
Still sucks that the government "requested" we sold our place in Italy
Morning all from a gloriously sunny day in the Canadian Rockies!
In the absence of @SeanT (in his new uxorious state) I feel that it falls to me to go off topic with tales of sybaritic adventures from far away. I survived some pretty challenging mountain biking yesterday, have swum outdoors at night, eaten delicious oysters and flown over the Clayquot Sound in a 1953 De Havilland Beavor seaplane.
Ohhh... lovely! I would love to fly one of those ("fly", not "fly in")
Mr. Borough, in defence of sensible Labour people, they did try (albeit with a dire candidate) to remove Corbyn.
On the other hand, they have taken to singing his name and pretending he isn't in favour of Venezuelan economics, CND military policy, and has the numeracy skills of a drunken baboon.
No one on the left can have any credibility at all about the long term interest of the country while they campaign or vote for Jeremy Corbyn to have a majority in parliament. On economics alone, his far left economics has wrecked this country's economy in the past and has led to complete societal breakdown in places like Venezuela. It would be far worse than even the most pessimistic economic forecasts of reduced growth post-Brexit. And that is before you get into the national security implications of a man who reflexively sympathises with groups from the IRA to Hezbollah, has been in the pay of Russian and Iranian governments and wants to unilaterally disarm our defence capabilities.
Those that wish to keep their heads down and dreamily hope of managing him in office are self-interested cowards of the highest order. The only moral thing for sensible Labour politicians to do is to warn low information voters that this man does not deserve to be in government.
I think he will be fine.
I would much rather a Corbyn Brexit than a Boris Brexit.
I think your politics are irrational, now, because you have a bone to pick with Andrew Lansley/Jeremy Hunt and the NHS, so are happy to cut off your nose to spite your face.
You started off as a Cameroon and supporter of the coalition.
Not really a Cameroon, but a Cleggite supporter of the coalition, which will be looked back upon as a goldon period of government. I have no particular dislike of Lansley, indded thought there was some good in his reforms, Hunt less so. I find that I rarely like ministers of health.
Corbyn's Brexit will be one that is far more a ccepting of the EU citizens here*, and better for workers rights and environmental protections, I also think the more positive attitude to the EU would pay off with better terms of trade.
*no one expects or desires mass deportations, and it would be the simplist way of breaking the deadlock to make a unilateral announcement that all EU citizens can stay on. It would be good for the UK as well as tbe negotiations.
Must get ready for the footy! Liverpool twice in one week.
If he quits he doesn't get to do a speech to conference.
If he gives a barnstorming zone that hits the erogenous zone of Tory members he could win the Tory leadership contest by acclimation.
Boris or his henchmen have bungled with this resignation lark. Until then it was all going swimmingly. Boris had established himself as Mr Ultra-Hard Brexit and May was cornered: agree with him and she'd be dancing to his tune; disagree and she'd frame him as being more in touch with the base than she was herself. Now Boris has made himself look cowardly and weak, and if he doesn't make a leadership move he'll go down as another Portillo.
If he quits he doesn't get to do a speech to conference.
If he gives a barnstorming zone that hits the erogenous zone of Tory members he could win the Tory leadership contest by acclimation.
Boris or his henchmen have bungled with this resignation lark. Until then it was all going swimmingly. Boris had established himself as Mr Ultra-Hard Brexit and May was cornered: agree with him and she'd be dancing to his tune; disagree and she'd frame him as being more in touch with the base than she was herself. Now Boris has made himself look cowardly and weak, and if he doesn't make a leadership move he'll go down as another Portillo.
If he quits he doesn't get to do a speech to conference.
If he gives a barnstorming zone that hits the erogenous zone of Tory members he could win the Tory leadership contest by acclimation.
Boris or his henchmen have bungled with this resignation lark. Until then it was all going swimmingly. Boris had established himself as Mr Ultra-Hard Brexit and May was cornered: agree with him and she'd be dancing to his tune; disagree and she'd frame him as being more in touch with the base than she was herself. Now Boris has made himself look cowardly and weak, and if he doesn't make a leadership move he'll go down as another Portillo.
Mr. Borough, in defence of sensible Labour people, they did try (albeit with a dire candidate) to remove Corbyn.
On the other hand, they have taken to singing his name and pretending he isn't in favour of Venezuelan economics, CND military policy, and has the numeracy skills of a drunken baboon.
No one on the left can have any credibility at all about the long term interest of the country while they campaign or vote for Jeremy Corbyn to have a majority in parliament. On economics alone, his far left economics has wrecked this country's economy in the past and has led to complete societal breakdown in places like Venezuela. It would be far worse than even the most pessimistic economic forecasts of reduced growth post-Brexit. And that is before you get into the national security implications of a man who reflexively sympathises with groups from the IRA to Hezbollah, has been in the pay of Russian and Iranian governments and wants to unilaterally disarm our defence capabilities.
Those that wish to keep their heads down and dreamily hope of managing him in office are self-interested cowards of the highest order. The only moral thing for sensible Labour politicians to do is to warn low information voters that this man does not deserve to be in government.
I think he will be fine.
I would much rather a Corbyn Brexit than a Boris Brexit.
I think your politics are irrational, now, because you have a bone to pick with Andrew Lansley/Jeremy Hunt and the NHS, so are happy to cut off your nose to spite your face.
You started off as a Cameroon and supporter of the coalition.
Not really a Cameroon, but a Cleggite supporter of the coalition, which will be looked back upon as a goldon period of government. I have no particular dislike of Lansley, indded thought there was some good in his reforms, Hunt less so. I find that I rarely like ministers of health.
Corbyn's Brexit will be one that is far more a ccepting of the EU citizens here*, and better for workers rights and environmental protections, I also think the more positive attitude to the EU would pay off with better terms of trade.
*no one expects or desires mass deportations, and it would be the simplist way of breaking the deadlock to make a unilateral announcement that all EU citizens can stay on. It would be good for the UK as well as tbe negotiations.
Must get ready for the footy! Liverpool twice in one week.
What do we do when the EU says pay us Eur20bn or your 1m+ Brits get deported? It's not blackmail - just an upfront contribution to healthcare costs.
If he quits he doesn't get to do a speech to conference.
If he gives a barnstorming zone that hits the erogenous zone of Tory members he could win the Tory leadership contest by acclimation.
Boris or his henchmen have bungled with this resignation lark. Until then it was all going swimmingly. Boris had established himself as Mr Ultra-Hard Brexit and May was cornered: agree with him and she'd be dancing to his tune; disagree and she'd frame him as being more in touch with the base than she was herself. Now Boris has made himself look cowardly and weak, and if he doesn't make a leadership move he'll go down as another Portillo.
It has been pointed out several times that the Conservatives were in power for half of the 1970's. They gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts.
A bit of a rewrite of history there. It was the unions - which had been allowed to grow vicious and all-powerful under Wilson - which gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts. It's true that Heath failed to slay the monster, but the next Tory PM did, thank God.
They live in cloud cuckoo land. They genuinely think more economic damage will come from being an independent country than in trying to replace capitalism.
It has been pointed out several times that the Conservatives were in power for half of the 1970's. They gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts.
A bit of a rewrite of history there. It was the unions - which had been allowed to grow vicious and all-powerful under Wilson - which gave us the 3-day week and rolling power cuts. It's true that Heath failed to slay the monster, but the next Tory PM did, thank God.
They live in cloud cuckoo land. They genuinely think more economic damage will come from being an independent country than in trying to replace capitalism.
What's cloud cuckoo land is believing that Britain isn't currently an independent country. People with such a tenuous grasp of reality as to believe that are going to steer the country onto the rocks.
If he quits he doesn't get to do a speech to conference.
If he gives a barnstorming zone that hits the erogenous zone of Tory members he could win the Tory leadership contest by acclamation.
Or maybe the chattering classes have whipped themselves into a frenzy over Boris arguing for his preferences for Brexit, just as Hammond did before him. The metro Remainers have a vested interest in trying to damage both May and Boris so they have blown a mountain out of a molehill.
Comments
On the other hand, they have taken to singing his name and pretending he isn't in favour of Venezuelan economics, CND military policy, and has the numeracy skills of a drunken baboon.
As I recall, all joined voluntarily. Norway and Switzerland decided not to, and have not been punished in any way. There are a large numbsr of other countries eager to join.
Only one has voted to leave, and the EU has happily waved us off, but no sign of any force or coercion.
When it comes to other issues, such as currency, that has been completely voluntary too.
Those that wish to keep their heads down and dreamily hope of managing him in office are self-interested cowards of the highest order. The only moral thing for sensible Labour politicians to do is to warn low information voters that this man does not deserve to be in government.
N.B If we end up with a disastrous soft brexit that isn't going to change my mind...
I would much rather a Corbyn Brexit than a Boris Brexit.
@Alan_McGuinness: @BethRigby PM on Boris Johnson: "Boris is doing good work as Foreign Secretary. He has been doing that here at the United Nations."
There can only be a Brexit that negotiated with the EU, so it is an EU/Corbyn or EU/Boris or EU/May Brexit or a No Deal Brexit.
I think he will be fine.
On such naievity countries are destroyed.
In the early 1980s the left developed the electoral college system for electing the leader designed to ensure that only a left-wing candidate could win. But the new system produced Neil Kinnock, John Smith and finally Tony Blair.
In the last parliament Ed Miliband changed the system to all-member ballots, a system designed to ensure that left-wingers were shut out forever. But the new system produced Jeremy Corbyn.
So the idea that another round of tinkering will produce a permanent political change in the party is dubious to say the least.
If it happened I know I would immediately move my money out the country and I would encourage others to do the same.
https://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2017/09/daily-mail-climate-change-coverage-inaccurate/
That may be erroneous.
And about as relevant.
As to joining voluntarily, certainly the rank and file Greeks were conned into joining by a conspiracy of the EU, the repulsive plutocracy which rules the country, and a large vampire squid. Same may apply to other latecomers.
There is a vague possibility that there are two sides to any story.
In the absence of @SeanT (in his new uxorious state) I feel that it falls to me to go off topic with tales of sybaritic adventures from far away. I survived some pretty challenging mountain biking yesterday, have swum outdoors at night, eaten delicious oysters and flown over the Clayquot Sound in a 1953 De Havilland Beavor seaplane.
Sorry.
I see that Tory fuckwittery is continuing. How tiresome.
Re the above, one example of ... not force, exactly... but a contemptuous attitude to democracy was the decision, when the proposed EU Constitution was rejected by both the Dutch and French, to represent it under a different name and impose it anyway. That kind of approach does not bode well for an organisation which claims to be creating a new sort of political civilisation beyond the nation state. Indeed, the fact that so many extreme parties are developing within Europe in a way which would have seemed unimaginable 30 years ago, shows the strains caused by this approach.
A choice made because there is no other option is not done as a result of force, it is true, but it is not entirely voluntary either. I am sceptical of all movements which claim that their onwards march is "inevitable", for reasons which will be obvious to anyone with even a passing knowledge of history.
You started off as a Cameroon and supporter of the coalition.
The Greeks begged to join the Euro. They weren't conned into it. They thought it cemented their position as a modern European state.
The opinion polls at the time had close to 80% supporting Greek membership of the Euro. And in the immediate aftermath, it was party time in Athens. Interest rates on mortgages collapsed overnight and people went out to spend their windfalls. The fact that the Greek economy was a bubble based on a bit of overpriced property, tourists and and import bill three times its exports (yes really) was kind of missed.
Most people got better off. The quality of life grew.
And the fact is that the Tories were in power 5 years of the 70's.
Strange but true.
I'm not quite sure why I used the hard/soft labels considering they lack a clear definition. In brief I wish to leave SM & CU, but not by jumping off a cliff.
There's really no reason why you couldn't have a - say - four year transition where the relationship was loosened in a series of steps over the period.
Ironically, if the EU had respected that vote rather than changing the header and pretending Lisbon was something totally different, we wouldn't have an Article 50 and wouldn't've left.
We may have had industrial strife, but this was certainly not a benighted decade.
(One would hope that Dr Liam Fox will have largely replicated existing EU deals with Korea, Canada, EFTA, Mexico, Israel, Turkey, South Africa, etc. within 18 months of us exiting. Albeit I'd feel a bit comfortable if someone else was in that role.)
I'll leave it there.
But.
The UK economy actually grew reasonably well during the period, so the denominator was a lot larger than expected. Real British GDP was 29% higher at the end of 1979 that it was a decade earlier. That compares to 23% in the 90s, and 19% in the 'noughties.
(I need an icon of a little person rolling around on their back laughing their cotton socks off.... OGH needs to install a few home-comforts)
Anyway, must be off.
But I do have very happy memories of walking in the Welsh hills in that long hot summer.
If he quits he doesn't get to do a speech to conference.
If he gives a barnstorming zone that hits the erogenous zone of Tory members he could win the Tory leadership contest by acclamation.
It sounds like you are having a blast.
Corbyn's Brexit will be one that is far more a ccepting of the EU citizens here*, and better for workers rights and environmental protections, I also think the more positive attitude to the EU would pay off with better terms of trade.
*no one expects or desires mass deportations, and it would be the simplist way of breaking the deadlock to make a unilateral announcement that all EU citizens can stay on. It would be good for the UK as well as tbe negotiations.
Must get ready for the footy! Liverpool twice in one week.
It's not impossible that he will resign as the climax of the speech, of course.
Rats in a sack...
If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly