The problem with the new parliamentary boundaries is not so much te reduction of 50 seats but having to have constituency electorates within plus or minus 5% of the average instead of plus or minus 10%. Without flexibility this causes constituencies to be have unnatural boundaries in many cases.
Would a revamp of the boundaries on a 650 total pass in the house ?
The problem with the new parliamentary boundaries is not so much te reduction of 50 seats but having to have constituency electorates within plus or minus 5% of the average instead of plus or minus 10%. Without flexibility this causes constituencies to be have unnatural boundaries in many cases.
Would a revamp of the boundaries on a 650 total pass in the house ?
Would it be that simple? The reduction to 600 was contained in the Constituencies Act 2011, so its a fair assumption that primary legislation would be required to pass both houses in the usual manner, in order to change it back.
I never understand what you mean when you make comments like this. No-one is saying we can control what the EU agrees to, but we can certainly control what we ourselves bid for.
The point is that the Tories are bidding for a "Dan Hannan Brexit" (emphasis on free trade deals and "sovereignty", apparently with no intention of reducing immigration numbers), when the average Leave voter couldn't give a stuff about doing trade deals with the rest of the world and has probably never even heard of the European Court of Justice, but primarily just wants less immigration.
I was referring particularly to this bit of the article:
As far as what the average voter wants out of Brexit, the ask from the EU27 is simple: control over immigration and an end to the free movement of people, without economic dislocation.
If Stephen Bush hasn't yet worked out that that is specifically what our EU friends are refusing, then he hasn't been paying attention for the last two years. Theresa May has been doing a sterling job arguing for as close as one might reasonably get to that, but so far no dice.
I realise of course that the New Statesman is unlikely to do anything other than make party-political attacks on the government, but it's tiresome all the same when they try to pretend that there's some obvious solution which is somehow being deliberately ignored by the government. There isn't.
I never understand what you mean when you make comments like this. No-one is saying we can control what the EU agrees to, but we can certainly control what we ourselves bid for.
The point is that the Tories are bidding for a "Dan Hannan Brexit" (emphasis on free trade deals and "sovereignty", apparently with no intention of reducing immigration numbers), when the average Leave voter couldn't give a stuff about doing trade deals with the rest of the world and has probably never even heard of the European Court of Justice, but primarily just wants less immigration.
I was referring particularly to this bit of the article:
As far as what the average voter wants out of Brexit, the ask from the EU27 is simple: control over immigration and an end to the free movement of people, without economic dislocation.
If Stephen Bush hasn't yet worked out that that is specifically what our EU friends are refusing, then he hasn't been paying attention for the last two years. Theresa May has been doing a sterling job arguing for as close as one might reasonably get to that, but so far no dice.
How does Stephen Bush know what the average voter wants?
If there are significant members of the cabinet, attempting to weaken the UK's position (not preparing for No Deal might be one part of that), It may be the risk that has to be taken.
Whether you're a remainer or a leaver, it helps nobody to have a cabinet that is working to undermine the purpose of the government's policy.
The clearest possible sign that Brexit is going badly is the ever-increasing level of paranoia that Leave supporters are demonstrating.
You can call it paranoia - but its a realistic prospect, that a split cabinet becomes a distraction that creates an accidental no deal.
I call it paranoia when you and others suggest that significant members of the cabinet are attempting to weaken the UK's position. Throw a check on yourself and realise just how insulting and ridiculous it is to claim that only those fully signed up to Brexit have Britain's best interests in mind.
I think that could be the ploy to get the Brexit they want - i.e. one that is not outside the Single Market. If the cabinet is split on the kind of Brexit they wish to negotiate (and I think it is), then it's not paranoia to suggest they are still infighting to set the position. Hope that the longer the stasis continues, the later the planning starts, the narrower the choice gets.
Remember if you will, that I was a single market advocate - and worked with Liberal Leave - not Vote Leave.
Any politician who advocates this utter bollocks should be condemned. Corbyn and Hunt being total morons aren't mutually exclusive.
Add Tredinnick to the list. What utter idiots they all are. "Tredinnick supports alternative medicine including homeopathy. In October 2009, he told Parliament that blood does not clot under a full moon; In the same debate, Tredinnick characterised scientists as "racially prejudiced". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Tredinnick_(politician)
I was referring particularly to this bit of the article:
As far as what the average voter wants out of Brexit, the ask from the EU27 is simple: control over immigration and an end to the free movement of people, without economic dislocation.
If Stephen Bush hasn't yet worked out that that is specifically what our EU friends are refusing, then he hasn't been paying attention for the last two years. Theresa May has been doing a sterling job arguing for as close as one might reasonably get to that, but so far no dice.
I don't see that that's what the government has been arguing for at all. They themselves said they wished to completely leave the Single Market and Customs Union, the EU didn't demand they do that. It's the government which has completely unnecessarily made ability to strike trade deals around the world and "freedom" from the ECJ their red lines, which obviously complicates the idea of economic status-quo even further than it would otherwise be.
Mr Bush's whole point is that the closest Brexit to public opinion would be one where we get more immigration control in exchange for a slightly bigger contribution to the EU budget, with everything else staying the same. That's not at all what the government has been bidding for, so I'm baffled how you could say May has been arguing "for as close as one could reasonably get to it". Whether the EU would've agreed to such a proposal is a different matter, of course.
Any politician who advocates this utter bollocks should be condemned. Corbyn and Hunt being total morons aren't mutually exclusive.
Add Tredinnick to the list. What utter idiots they all are. "Tredinnick supports alternative medicine including homeopathy. In October 2009, he told Parliament that blood does not clot under a full moon; In the same debate, Tredinnick characterised scientists as "racially prejudiced". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Tredinnick_(politician)
I think there is a number of them in the HoC and HoL.
Any politician who advocates this utter bollocks should be condemned. Corbyn and Hunt being total morons aren't mutually exclusive.
Add Tredinnick to the list. What utter idiots they all are. "Tredinnick supports alternative medicine including homeopathy. In October 2009, he told Parliament that blood does not clot under a full moon; In the same debate, Tredinnick characterised scientists as "racially prejudiced". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Tredinnick_(politician)
Any politician who advocates this utter bollocks should be condemned. Corbyn and Hunt being total morons aren't mutually exclusive.
Add Tredinnick to the list. What utter idiots they all are. "Tredinnick supports alternative medicine including homeopathy. In October 2009, he told Parliament that blood does not clot under a full moon; In the same debate, Tredinnick characterised scientists as "racially prejudiced". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Tredinnick_(politician)
Aren't you one of those always arguing decisions like brexit should be left to our elected representatives as they have more information and a better grasp on reality?
I'm curious a) how many people on here have a job and b) how many of those are involved in trade ie buying and selling things.
It seems that not many have the foggiest idea how it actually works.
The bigger picture extends to the idiots that represent us, clueless. In sport the senior people have mostly been in and around the game for decades, most politicians have no idea how business works.
Your analogy assumes politics is just about business - it isn't.
Of course it doesn't, but the most successful countries trade effectively. This in turn funds public services.
You want to put the cart in front of the horse and that NEVER works.
Any politician who advocates this utter bollocks should be condemned. Corbyn and Hunt being total morons aren't mutually exclusive.
Add Tredinnick to the list. What utter idiots they all are. "Tredinnick supports alternative medicine including homeopathy. In October 2009, he told Parliament that blood does not clot under a full moon; In the same debate, Tredinnick characterised scientists as "racially prejudiced". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Tredinnick_(politician)
I have no problem with the NHS paying for homeopathy.
The reimbursement price, of course, should be the same as for sugar pills.
I was referring particularly to this bit of the article:
As far as what the average voter wants out of Brexit, the ask from the EU27 is simple: control over immigration and an end to the free movement of people, without economic dislocation.
If Stephen Bush hasn't yet worked out that that is specifically what our EU friends are refusing, then he hasn't been paying attention for the last two years. Theresa May has been doing a sterling job arguing for as close as one might reasonably get to that, but so far no dice.
I don't see that that's what the government has been arguing for at all. They themselves said they wished to completely leave the Single Market and Customs Union, the EU didn't demand they do that. It's the government which has completely unnecessarily made ability to strike trade deals around the world and "freedom" from the ECJ their red lines, which obviously complicates the idea of economic status-quo even further than it would otherwise be.
Mr Bush's whole point is that the closest Brexit to public opinion would be one where we get more immigration control in exchange for a slightly bigger contribution to the EU budget, with everything else staying the same. That's not at all what the government has been bidding for, so I'm baffled how you could say May has been arguing "for as close as one could reasonably get to it". Whether the EU would've agreed to such a proposal is a different matter, of course.
The average leave voter wanted the UK to make a bigger contribution to the EU?
I'm curious a) how many people on here have a job and b) how many of those are involved in trade ie buying and selling things.
It seems that not many have the foggiest idea how it actually works.
The bigger picture extends to the idiots that represent us, clueless. In sport the senior people have mostly been in and around the game for decades, most politicians have no idea how business works.
I've spent the last 15 years working for major food manufacturers who also import ingredients and export products to greater and lesser extents. I've spent those 15 years working with major retailers and wholesalers up to CEO level.
And what the food industry collectively is saying is that a hard exit from the single market threatens both their ability to source ingredients / finished goods (we import 35% of food including food "made" in the UK), threatens the ability to supply supermarkets, threatens their source of labour, of transport, the already thin margins they make, and the financial ability of consumers to buy products where prices are already rising faster than wages.
I've been told several times on here by the happy-clappy end of the leaver community (I voted leave too remember) that all these fears are remoaner lies, usually followed by where we could be in 5 years. Its where we'll be in 5 days after a hard brexit that is focusing the minds of my industry, and with respect we know how things work.
We did this last week. A huge amount of it based on no facts, simply subjective interpretations of possible scenarios, much of which is utter bollocks e.g. ability for trained doctors and nurses from the EU to work in the UK. Regardless of soft, hard, mr whippy, or no deal Brexit, properly trained doctors and nurses will pass any points based system (as they do in pretty much every other western country).
I have no problem with people buying bottles of water with statistically insignificant quantities of solutes but having the taxpayer fund it seems daft.
I'm curious a) how many people on here have a job and b) how many of those are involved in trade ie buying and selling things.
It seems that not many have the foggiest idea how it actually works.
The bigger picture extends to the idiots that represent us, clueless. In sport the senior people have mostly been in and around the game for decades, most politicians have no idea how business works.
I've spent the last 15 years working for major food manufacturers who also import ingredients and export products to greater and lesser extents. I've spent those 15 years working with major retailers and wholesalers up to CEO level.
And what the food industry collectively is saying is that a hard exit from the single market threatens both their ability to source ingredients / finished goods (we import 35% of food including food "made" in the UK), threatens the ability to supply supermarkets, threatens their source of labour, of transport, the already thin margins they make, and the financial ability of consumers to buy products where prices are already rising faster than wages.
I've been told several times on here by the happy-clappy end of the leaver community (I voted leave too remember) that all these fears are remoaner lies, usually followed by where we could be in 5 years. Its where we'll be in 5 days after a hard brexit that is focusing the minds of my industry, and with respect we know how things work.
I was referring particularly to this bit of the article:
As far as what the average voter wants out of Brexit, the ask from the EU27 is simple: control over immigration and an end to the free movement of people, without economic dislocation.
If Stephen Bush hasn't yet worked out that that is specifically what our EU friends are refusing, then he hasn't been paying attention for the last two years. Theresa May has been doing a sterling job arguing for as close as one might reasonably get to that, but so far no dice.
I don't see that that's what the government has been arguing for at all. They themselves said they wished to completely leave the Single Market and Customs Union, the EU didn't demand they do that. It's the government which has completely unnecessarily made ability to strike trade deals around the world and "freedom" from the ECJ their red lines, which obviously complicates the idea of economic status-quo even further than it would otherwise be.
Mr Bush's whole point is that the closest Brexit to public opinion would be one where we get more immigration control in exchange for a slightly bigger contribution to the EU budget, with everything else staying the same. That's not at all what the government has been bidding for, so I'm baffled how you could say May has been arguing "for as close as one could reasonably get to it". Whether the EU would've agreed to such a proposal is a different matter, of course.
The average leave voter wanted the UK to make a bigger contribution to the EU?
No, but their main priority was controlling immigration, not "trade deals" or "freedom from the ECJ".
If a Brexit deal was essentially less immigration, with everything else (including ECJ jurisdiction and no ability to strike chlorine-chicken deals with America) staying the same, do you think the average Brexit voter would be happy enough with it?
Any politician who advocates this utter bollocks should be condemned. Corbyn and Hunt being total morons aren't mutually exclusive.
Add Tredinnick to the list. What utter idiots they all are. "Tredinnick supports alternative medicine including homeopathy. In October 2009, he told Parliament that blood does not clot under a full moon; In the same debate, Tredinnick characterised scientists as "racially prejudiced". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Tredinnick_(politician)
I have no problem with the NHS paying for homeopathy.
The reimbursement price, of course, should be the same as for sugar pills.
You’re disregarding the skill required in succussion. Although I gather there’s a robot available now.
I don't see that that's what the government has been arguing for at all. They themselves said they wished to completely leave the Single Market and Customs Union, the EU didn't demand they do that. It's the government which has completely unnecessarily made ability to strike trade deals around the world and "freedom" from the ECJ their red lines, which obviously complicates the idea of economic status-quo even further than it would otherwise be.
Mr Bush's whole point is that the closest Brexit to public opinion would be one where we get more immigration control in exchange for a slightly bigger contribution to the EU budget, with everything else staying the same. That's not at all what the government has been bidding for, so I'm baffled how you could say May has been arguing "for as close as one could reasonably get to it". Whether the EU would've agreed to such a proposal is a different matter, of course.
The UK government has said we are leaving the Single Market because there's not a snowflake's chance in hell that we could effectively have the benefits of the EEA without the free movement of people. So that bit of the equation is a no-brainer, it's a completely waste of time even thinking about it if you take Stephen Bush's premise that Leave voters wanted above all control over immigration (which, as it happens, I think is right).
It's true that a very small number of people advocated that we try to remain in a Customs Union but not the Single Market (the 'Turkish' solution). I think it's an intriguing suggestion, not least because it might save our car industry and it also helps a huge amount with the Irish border question, but there is precisely zero indication that our EU friends are willing to offer it. After all, if the EU were serious about the Irish border, then what on earth is there to stop them writing to DD telling him that the Customs Union option might be available? Has anyone criticising the UK government on this actually taken the slightest bit of interest in why the EU isn't proposing it?
Instead, the sticking point is that the EU refuses to discuss ANYTHING about the on-going relationship. The fault on that lies 100% with the EU27, not with the UK, which has been asking since the very first day that Theresa May became PM for talks on the matter.
The problem with the new parliamentary boundaries is not so much te reduction of 50 seats but having to have constituency electorates within plus or minus 5% of the average instead of plus or minus 10%. Without flexibility this causes constituencies to be have unnatural boundaries in many cases.
Would a revamp of the boundaries on a 650 total pass in the house ?
Would it be that simple? The reduction to 600 was contained in the Constituencies Act 2011, so its a fair assumption that primary legislation would be required to pass both houses in the usual manner, in order to change it back.
But that could be done relatively easily with cross-Party support. No new legislation needed. Repeal the Act, re-instate the old rules.
I was referring particularly to this bit of the article:
As far as what the average voter wants out of Brexit, the ask from the EU27 is simple: control over immigration and an end to the free movement of people, without economic dislocation.
If Stephen Bush hasn't yet worked out that that is specifically what our EU friends are refusing, then he hasn't been paying attention for the last two years. Theresa May has been doing a sterling job arguing for as close as one might reasonably get to that, but so far no dice.
I don't see that that's what the government has been arguing for at all. They themselves said they wished to completely leave the Single Market and Customs Union, the EU didn't demand they do that. It's the government which has completely unnecessarily made ability to strike trade deals around the world and "freedom" from the ECJ their red lines, which obviously complicates the idea of economic status-quo even further than it would otherwise be.
Mr Bush's whole point is that the closest Brexit to public opinion would be one where we get more immigration control in exchange for a slightly bigger contribution to the EU budget, with everything else staying the same. That's not at all what the government has been bidding for, so I'm baffled how you could say May has been arguing "for as close as one could reasonably get to it". Whether the EU would've agreed to such a proposal is a different matter, of course.
The average leave voter wanted the UK to make a bigger contribution to the EU?
No, but their main priority was controlling immigration, not "trade deals" or "freedom from the ECJ".
If a Brexit deal was essentially less immigration, with everything else (including ECJ jurisdiction and no ability to strike chlorine-chicken deals with America) staying the same, do you think the average Brexit voter would be happy enough with it?
Controlling immigration is achieved by leaving the single market, which is what HMG are working towards. Additional contributions not required.
And really, I’d have chlorine soaked chicken over the horse lasagne and toxic eggs any day.
We did this last week. A huge amount of it based on no facts, simply subjective interpretations of possible scenarios, much of which is utter bollocks e.g. ability for trained doctors and nurses from the EU to work in the UK. Regardless of soft, hard, mr whippy, or no deal Brexit, properly trained doctors and nurses will pass any points based system (as they do in pretty much every other western country).
Australian nurses have had trouble with the language test, apparently.
I'm curious a) how many people on here have a job and b) how many of those are involved in trade ie buying and selling things.
It seems that not many have the foggiest idea how it actually works.
The bigger picture extends to the idiots that represent us, clueless. In sport the senior people have mostly been in and around the game for decades, most politicians have no idea how business works.
I've spent the last 15 years working for major food manufacturers who also import ingredients and export products to greater and lesser extents. I've spent those 15 years working with major retailers and wholesalers up to CEO level.
And what the food industry collectively is saying is that a hard exit from the single market threatens both their ability to source ingredients / finished goods (we import 35% of food including food "made" in the UK), threatens the ability to supply supermarkets, threatens their source of labour, of transport, the already thin margins they make, and the financial ability of consumers to buy products where prices are already rising faster than wages.
I've been told several times on here by the happy-clappy end of the leaver community (I voted leave too remember) that all these fears are remoaner lies, usually followed by where we could be in 5 years. Its where we'll be in 5 days after a hard brexit that is focusing the minds of my industry, and with respect we know how things work.
I'm curious a) how many people on here have a job and b) how many of those are involved in trade ie buying and selling things.
It seems that not many have the foggiest idea how it actually works.
The bigger picture extends to the idiots that represent us, clueless. In sport the senior people have mostly been in and around the game for decades, most politicians have no idea how business works.
I've spent the last 15 years working for major food manufacturers who also import ingredients and export products to greater and lesser extents. I've spent those 15 years working with major retailers and wholesalers up to CEO level.
And what the food industry collectively is saying is that a hard exit from the single market threatens both their ability to source ingredients / finished goods (we import 35% of food including food "made" in the UK), threatens the ability to supply supermarkets, threatens their source of labour, of transport, the already thin margins they make, and the financial ability of consumers to buy products where prices are already rising faster than wages.
I've been told several times on here by the happy-clappy end of the leaver community (I voted leave too remember) that all these fears are remoaner lies, usually followed by where we could be in 5 years. Its where we'll be in 5 days after a hard brexit that is focusing the minds of my industry, and with respect we know how things work.
The problem with the new parliamentary boundaries is not so much te reduction of 50 seats but having to have constituency electorates within plus or minus 5% of the average instead of plus or minus 10%. Without flexibility this causes constituencies to be have unnatural boundaries in many cases.
Would a revamp of the boundaries on a 650 total pass in the house ?
Would it be that simple? The reduction to 600 was contained in the Constituencies Act 2011, so its a fair assumption that primary legislation would be required to pass both houses in the usual manner, in order to change it back.
But that could be done relatively easily with cross-Party support. No new legislation needed. Repeal the Act, re-instate the old rules.
Repealing the act requires legislation. Wouldn’t it also have to redefine the parameters of the boundaries?
They have said we are leaving the Single Market because there's not a snowflake's chance in hell that we could effectively have the benefits of the EEA without the free movement of people.
I don't see how it's any more inconceivable than asking the EU to forego any checkpoints at the Irish border and thereby (from the EU's perspective) fatally undermining the Single Market. If part of our negotiating strategy was to ask the EU to breach one of it's previously fundamental tenets, we may as well have asked for it to be one which helped achieve the British public's preferred Brexit, rather than one which achieved Dan Hannan and a handful of other Brexit elitists' preferred Brexit.
I'm curious a) how many people on here have a job and b) how many of those are involved in trade ie buying and selling things.
It seems that not many have the foggiest idea how it actually works.
The bigger picture extends to the idiots that represent us, clueless. In sport the senior people have mostly been in and around the game for decades, most politicians have no idea how business works.
I've spent the last 15 years working for major food manufacturers who also import ingredients and export products to greater and lesser extents. I've spent those 15 years working with major retailers and wholesalers up to CEO level.
And what the food industry collectively is saying is that a hard exit from the single market threatens both their ability to source ingredients / finished goods (we import 35% of food including food "made" in the UK), threatens the ability to supply supermarkets, threatens their source of labour, of transport, the already thin margins they make, and the financial ability of consumers to buy products where prices are already rising faster than wages.
I've been told several times on here by the happy-clappy end of the leaver community (I voted leave too remember) that all these fears are remoaner lies, usually followed by where we could be in 5 years. Its where we'll be in 5 days after a hard brexit that is focusing the minds of my industry, and with respect we know how things work.
I'm curious a) how many people on here have a job and b) how many of those are involved in trade ie buying and selling things.
It seems that not many have the foggiest idea how it actually works.
The bigger picture extends to the idiots that represent us, clueless. In sport the senior people have mostly been in and around the game for decades, most politicians have no idea how business works.
I've spent the last 15 years working for major food manufacturers who also import ingredients and export products to greater and lesser extents. I've spent those 15 years working with major retailers and wholesalers up to CEO level.
And what the food industry collectively is saying is that a hard exit from the single market threatens both their ability to source ingredients / finished goods (we import 35% of food including food "made" in the UK), threatens the ability to supply supermarkets, threatens their source of labour, of transport, the already thin margins they make, and the financial ability of consumers to buy products where prices are already rising faster than wages.
I've been told several times on here by the happy-clappy end of the leaver community (I voted leave too remember) that all these fears are remoaner lies, usually followed by where we could be in 5 years. Its where we'll be in 5 days after a hard brexit that is focusing the minds of my industry, and with respect we know how things work.
RochdalePioneers - is this just saying food imports from the EU will be hit hard, and their brands will vanish from the shelves. Does it matter if Canadian cheddar replaces Kerrygold?
I was referring particularly to this bit of the article:
As far as what the average voter wants out of Brexit, the ask from the EU27 is simple: control over immigration and an end to the free movement of people, without economic dislocation.
If Stephen Bush hasn't yet worked out that that is specifically what our EU friends are refusing, then he hasn't been paying attention for the last two years. Theresa May has been doing a sterling job arguing for as close as one might reasonably get to that, but so far no dice.
I don't see that that's what the government has been arguing for at all. They themselves said they wished to completely leave the Single Market and Customs Union, the EU didn't demand they do that. It's the government which has completely unnecessarily made ability to strike trade deals around the world and "freedom" from the ECJ their red lines, which obviously complicates the idea of economic status-quo even further than it would otherwise be.
Mr Bush's whole point is that the closest Brexit to public opinion would be one where we get more immigration control in exchange for a slightly bigger contribution to the EU budget, with everything else staying the same. That's not at all what the government has been bidding for, so I'm baffled how you could say May has been arguing "for as close as one could reasonably get to it". Whether the EU would've agreed to such a proposal is a different matter, of course.
The average leave voter wanted the UK to make a bigger contribution to the EU?
No, but their main priority was controlling immigration, not "trade deals" or "freedom from the ECJ".
If a Brexit deal was essentially less immigration, with everything else (including ECJ jurisdiction and no ability to strike chlorine-chicken deals with America) staying the same, do you think the average Brexit voter would be happy enough with it?
Controlling immigration is achieved by leaving the single market, which is what HMG are working towards. Additional contributions not required.
And really, I’d have chlorine soaked chicken over the horse lasagne and toxic eggs any day.
The point about the additional contributions is that it would potentially solve the problem from the EU's perspective: if the UK was paying more in order to get controls over immigration, then that would disincentivise other, smaller EU countries from asking for those same immigration controls because they wouldn't have the money to pay for them in the way the UK would.
They have said we are leaving the Single Market because there's not a snowflake's chance in hell that we could effectively have the benefits of the EEA without the free movement of people.
I don't see how it's any more inconceivable than asking the EU to forego any checkpoints at the Irish border and thereby (from the EU's perspective) fatally undermining the Single Market. If part of our negotiating strategy was to ask the EU to breach one of it's previously fundamental tenets, we may as well have asked for it to be one which helped achieve the British public's preferred Brexit, rather than one which achieved Dan Hannan and a handful of other Brexit elitists' preferred Brexit.
As I said, what's to stop them coming back to DD with the suggestion that the best answer to the Irish border question is a customs union? The idea that they can't or won't do that because we've ruled it out makes no sense: we've also ruled out paying megabucks to them for nothing in return, but that doesn't seem to have inhibited them from demanding exactly that.
The point about the additional contributions is that it would potentially solve the problem from the EU's perspective: if the UK was paying more in order to get controls over immigration, then that would disincentivise other, smaller EU countries from asking for those same immigration controls because they wouldn't have the money to pay for them in the way the UK would.
Leaving the single market will help reduce immigration and end freedom of movement. The only thing remaining on that list is economic disruption. To many taking an economic hit may be preferable over paying the EU more
In any case, would the EU really offer single market access without FoM for some extra cash? I doubt it.
The point about the additional contributions is that it would potentially solve the problem from the EU's perspective: if the UK was paying more in order to get controls over immigration, then that would disincentivise other, smaller EU countries from asking for those same immigration controls because they wouldn't have the money to pay for them in the way the UK would.
Just to add: whether the British public would be happy about this is a different question. Personally, I think they certainly wouldn't like having to stump up more money for the EU, but they might be OK with it if that was the price of more immigration control with everything else going back to normal. But maybe PBers think that the people of Sunderland and Doncaster really were motivated by wanting trade deals with Asia and spitting fury with the ECJ above all else...
The point about the additional contributions is that it would potentially solve the problem from the EU's perspective: if the UK was paying more in order to get controls over immigration, then that would disincentivise other, smaller EU countries from asking for those same immigration controls because they wouldn't have the money to pay for them in the way the UK would.
Just to add: whether the British public would be happy about this is a different question. Personally, I think they certainly wouldn't like having to stump up more money for the EU, but they might be OK with it if that was the price of more immigration control with everything else going back to normal. But maybe PBers think that the people of Sunderland and Doncaster really were motivated by wanting trade deals with Asia and spitting fury with the ECJ above all else...
The jobs that the European immigrants currently do will still need to be done, so immigration may just substitute from elsewhere.
The clearest possible sign that Brexit is going badly is the ever-increasing level of paranoia that Leave supporters are demonstrating.
I only realised in the past couple of weeks that there is a proportion of Leavers who do not want a deal with the EU and seek to undermine it. It is cold calculation, not paranoia or delusion about negotiating strengths. Their calculation is that estrangement eliminates the risk of compromise and backsliding on things like the Single Market. They can't be open about their aims. Instead they attack those working for a solution by making impossible demands or questioning their motives That group of diehards is a minority of Leavers but they are well represented in the Conservative Party. Moderate Leavers (they do exist!) who want to make a success of Brexit should be worried. At some point the moderates will have to face down the diehards. Just another complication on the journey to Leave.
The clearest possible sign that Brexit is going badly is the ever-increasing level of paranoia that Leave supporters are demonstrating.
I only realised in the past couple of weeks that there is a proportion of Leavers who do not want a deal with the EU and seek to undermine it. It is cold calculation, not paranoia or delusion about negotiating strengths. Their calculation is that estrangement eliminates the risk of compromise and backsliding on things like the Single Market. They can't be open about their aims. Instead they attack those working for a solution by making impossible demands or questioning their motives That group of diehards is a minority of Leavers but they are well represented in the Conservative Party. Moderate Leavers (they do exist!) who want to make a success of Brexit should be worried. At some point the moderates will have to face down the diehards. Just another complication on the journey to Leave.
The cowardice of what you describe as moderate Leavers is stunning. Not a word of condemnation when the Chancellor is accused by the extremists of treachery or sabotage. It's just shrugged off as something other Leavers say.
They wonder why there has been no move towards an EEA Brexit. Their failure at any stage before or after the referendum to condemn the extremists is why.
What drop in sterling would this be? The pound is substantially higher against the dollar than it was a year ago. The devaluation is well out of the system by now.
Turns out David Davis is not the consummate deal-maker he thought he was. What a surprise!
Turns out that Eurocrats care more for their pet undemocratic project than the people of Europe. What a surprise!
In fairness that wasn't a surprise. Its why we left. Which makes moaning about it now seem a tad childish.
Absolutely. Davis has not exactly been highly rated on PB boards. His Cameron era sulk was ridiculous.
The man's an over promoted idiot. It's....suboptimal.
David Davis is the only prominent Leave campaigner who has "owned" Brexit and tried to make a success of it. Not one other of them has stepped up to the plate. I respect him for that, even if I suspect his willingness to take it on was due to an unwarranted belief in his powers of negotiation. He seems pretty disillusioned however.
Michael Gove stepped up to the plate and ran for the leadership to be PM. Andrea Leadsome stepped up to the plate and ran for the leadership to be PM. Boris Johnson stepped up to the plate and became Foreign Secretary. Liam Fox stepped up to the plate and became International Trade Secretary. What he's done since I'm not so sure about.
Who precisely was a prominent Leave campaigner who didn't step up to the plate?
What drop in sterling would this be? The pound is substantially higher against the dollar than it was a year ago. The devaluation is well out of the system by now.
According to my XE App £1-1.1 euro and 1.3US$. The £ has steadily appreciated against the $ ovewr the past year, although it’s well below the high it rerached in 2014, and of course well below where it was in 2008.
Turns out David Davis is not the consummate deal-maker he thought he was. What a surprise!
Turns out that Eurocrats care more for their pet undemocratic project than the people of Europe. What a surprise!
In fairness that wasn't a surprise. Its why we left. Which makes moaning about it now seem a tad childish.
Absolutely. Davis has not exactly been highly rated on PB boards. His Cameron era sulk was ridiculous.
The man's an over promoted idiot. It's....suboptimal.
David Davis is the only prominent Leave campaigner who has "owned" Brexit and tried to make a success of it. Not one other of them has stepped up to the plate. I respect him for that, even if I suspect his willingness to take it on was due to an unwarranted belief in his powers of negotiation. He seems pretty disillusioned however.
Michael Gove stepped up to the plate and ran for the leadership to be PM. Andrea Leadsome stepped up to the plate and ran for the leadership to be PM. Boris Johnson stepped up to the plate and became Foreign Secretary. Liam Fox stepped up to the plate and became International Trade Secretary. What he's done since I'm not so sure about.
Who precisely was a prominent Leave campaigner who didn't step up to the plate?
Farage
And exactly what part was he supposed to play? Were the Tories going to offer him any sort of position at all? No, not a cat in hells chance. What a dumb comment.
Any politician who advocates this utter bollocks should be condemned. Corbyn and Hunt being total morons aren't mutually exclusive.
Add Tredinnick to the list. What utter idiots they all are. "Tredinnick supports alternative medicine including homeopathy. In October 2009, he told Parliament that blood does not clot under a full moon; In the same debate, Tredinnick characterised scientists as "racially prejudiced". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Tredinnick_(politician)
I have no problem with the NHS paying for homeopathy.
The reimbursement price, of course, should be the same as for sugar pills.
You’re disregarding the skill required in succussion. Although I gather there’s a robot available now.
There is a perfectly rational case for homeopathy on the NHS, which is that if you think there's nothing wrong with your patient that a placebo won't cure, there is no point wasting real drugs on them.
I have been an unwitting homeopath for decades - I always thought arnica cream was a proper, conventional remedy like Savlon. It doesn't seem to have done anyone any harm.
The point about the additional contributions is that it would potentially solve the problem from the EU's perspective: if the UK was paying more in order to get controls over immigration, then that would disincentivise other, smaller EU countries from asking for those same immigration controls because they wouldn't have the money to pay for them in the way the UK would.
Leaving the single market will help reduce immigration and end freedom of movement. The only thing remaining on that list is economic disruption. To many taking an economic hit may be preferable over paying the EU more
In any case, would the EU really offer single market access without FoM for some extra cash? I doubt it.
They would not be allowed to even if they wanted to. It would be in breach of the treaties that underpin the EU. The ECJ would throw it out without a second glance.
I was referring particularly to this bit of the article:
As far as what the average voter wants out of Brexit, the ask from the EU27 is simple: control over immigration and an end to the free movement of people, without economic dislocation.
If Stephen Bush hasn't yet worked out that that is specifically what our EU friends are refusing, then he hasn't been paying attention for the last two years. Theresa May has been doing a sterling job arguing for as close as one might reasonably get to that, but so far no dice.
I don't see that that's what the government has been arguing for at all. They themselves said they wished to completely leave the Single Market and Customs Union, the EU didn't demand they do that. It's the government which has completely unnecessarily made ability to strike trade deals around the world and "freedom" from the ECJ their red lines, which obviously complicates the idea of economic status-quo even further than it would otherwise be.
Mr Bush's whole point is that the closest Brexit to public opinion would be one where we get more immigration control in exchange for a slightly bigger contribution to the EU budget, with everything else staying the same. That's not at all what the government has been bidding for, so I'm baffled how you could say May has been arguing "for as close as one could reasonably get to it". Whether the EU would've agreed to such a proposal is a different matter, of course.
The average leave voter wanted the UK to make a bigger contribution to the EU?
No, but their main priority was controlling immigration, not "trade deals" or "freedom from the ECJ".
If a Brexit deal was essentially less immigration, with everything else (including ECJ jurisdiction and no ability to strike chlorine-chicken deals with America) staying the same, do you think the average Brexit voter would be happy enough with it?
I suspect not wrt the ECJ but the key surely is that the EU show no willingness to compromise in any way on FOM. If they had Cameron would have made the deal and Remain would have won. FOM is the key issue which has prevented any progress for the UK throughout. It is also pretty clear that FOM is unacceptable to a very high proportion of UK voters. Personally it doesn't greatly bother me but we are where we are and there seems no easy solution.
Unsurprisingly Jacob Rees-Mogg doesn't destroy the custom union argument in 90 seconds. The poorest countries would see 0% tariffs applied on roasted coffee beans if they had the means to produce and sell them. Consumers in this country would also pay 0% if they could buy them - the same as the absent tariff on German coffee beans. If there is a problem it's with the coffee market. In any case an independent UK customs regime probably wouldn't look very different from the EU one. Advanced countries mostly apply an average of 1%-2% tariffs. The EU is in the middle of that range, as is the USA.
The clearest possible sign that Brexit is going badly is the ever-increasing level of paranoia that Leave supporters are demonstrating.
I only realised in the past couple of weeks that there is a proportion of Leavers who do not want a deal with the EU and seek to undermine it. It is cold calculation, not paranoia or delusion about negotiating strengths. Their calculation is that estrangement eliminates the risk of compromise and backsliding on things like the Single Market. They can't be open about their aims. Instead they attack those working for a solution by making impossible demands or questioning their motives That group of diehards is a minority of Leavers but they are well represented in the Conservative Party. Moderate Leavers (they do exist!) who want to make a success of Brexit should be worried. At some point the moderates will have to face down the diehards. Just another complication on the journey to Leave.
This has been the story of the Brexit process all the way through. Policy has been driven by a minority of extreme Brexiteers on the Tory backbenches since David Cameron became Party leader. He allowed them to push the Tory Party out of the EPP, then he promised a referendum on Lisbon and finally a referendum on the EU itself. There was no great popular demand for any of these moves - Cameron conceded them because he feared that if he did not the Brexiteers would fatally undermine his leadership. Now, as you say, the extreme Brexiteers are driving the government towards the cliff edge. I have no faith in the moderates in the Tory party being able to stop them - they are leaderless, they have no support amongst the party membership and the past decade has shown that they lack the courage required to challenge the Brexit wreckers.
The clearest possible sign that Brexit is going badly is the ever-increasing level of paranoia that Leave supporters are demonstrating.
I only realised in the past couple of weeks that there is a proportion of Leavers who do not want a deal with the EU and seek to undermine it. It is cold calculation, not paranoia or delusion about negotiating strengths. Their calculation is that estrangement eliminates the risk of compromise and backsliding on things like the Single Market. They can't be open about their aims. Instead they attack those working for a solution by making impossible demands or questioning their motives That group of diehards is a minority of Leavers but they are well represented in the Conservative Party. Moderate Leavers (they do exist!) who want to make a success of Brexit should be worried. At some point the moderates will have to face down the diehards. Just another complication on the journey to Leave.
The cowardice of what you describe as moderate Leavers is stunning. Not a word of condemnation when the Chancellor is accused by the extremists of treachery or sabotage. It's just shrugged off as something other Leavers say.
They wonder why there has been no move towards an EEA Brexit. Their failure at any stage before or after the referendum to condemn the extremists is why.
I think they may not be fully aware of the situation. We have lived with the Leave/Remain faultline for so long it has distracted from divisions within Leave (and also within Remain, probably, although that's an enervated group). But you are right. Leavers will have to face up to their extremists. They are the real "saboteurs".
Admittedly @DavidL is somewhat fortunate that precisely one year ago was close to the bottom
23rd June 2016 - 1.4904
The devaluation caused by Brexit is not well out of the system by now
The top figure quoted was boosted by the expectation of a remain vote. There has been a significant recovery against the $ - rather less against the €. Many of the inflationary effects have already been worked through and would only worsen significantly with another sharp drop. And even these affects of course can be positive for exporters.
.... Policy has been driven by a minority of extreme Brexiteers on the Tory backbenches since David Cameron became Party leader. He allowed them to push the Tory Party out of the EPP, then he promised a referendum on Lisbon and finally a referendum on the EU itself. There was no great popular demand for any of these moves ...
On the subject of boundaries, the Corbynistas should definitely vote for them to pass:
1) According to Electoral Calculus' analysis of the draft boundaries, Con and Lab would lose a similar proportion of seats (the big losers would be the LDs) 2) It gives Corbyn a chance to get rid of some of the Blairites without having to formally deselect them (particularly in London) 3) It could cause ructions within the Conservatives and amongst them and the DUP
.... Policy has been driven by a minority of extreme Brexiteers on the Tory backbenches since David Cameron became Party leader. He allowed them to push the Tory Party out of the EPP, then he promised a referendum on Lisbon and finally a referendum on the EU itself. There was no great popular demand for any of these moves ...
Really? I mean, really?
There was generalised popular discontent because of immigration and the aftermath of the financial crisis. It was channelled into the EU issue by fanatical nationalists who would have used any excuse they could find to undermine our membership of the EU.
.... Policy has been driven by a minority of extreme Brexiteers on the Tory backbenches since David Cameron became Party leader. He allowed them to push the Tory Party out of the EPP, then he promised a referendum on Lisbon and finally a referendum on the EU itself. There was no great popular demand for any of these moves ...
Really? I mean, really?
There was generalised popular discontent because of immigration and the aftermath of the financial crisis. It was channelled into the EU issue by fanatical nationalists who would have used any excuse they could find to undermine our membership of the EU.
Of course you would Jezza, just like you did last time.
Bit of a hostage to fortune there. Because it's possible Jeremy might soon find himself in a position to STOP Brexit (which I do not believe he wants to do, as it would spoil all his plans to Chavezicate the UK economy).
But now he's said he's still for Remain. So if he gets the chance to enforce Remain, he will be obliged to take it.
He'll probably then be for 'Moderate Leave'! (Norway I hope).
Not even Nick Clegg is for Remain any longer as one might recognise it. I'm reading his book.
We did this last week. A huge amount of it based on no facts, simply subjective interpretations of possible scenarios, much of which is utter bollocks e.g. ability for trained doctors and nurses from the EU to work in the UK. Regardless of soft, hard, mr whippy, or no deal Brexit, properly trained doctors and nurses will pass any points based system (as they do in pretty much every other western country).
Not really. The reasons that this matters are:
1) There are significant staff shortages extant., for example my Trust is short 500 nurses, 10% of posts, more so in some critical areas.
2) Getting visas is currently laborious and slow, applying these to EU workers means short term vacancies cannot be filled.
3) Visas are only part of the issue. Currently EEA qualifications are automatically recognised, so a Specialist in the EEA does not need to apply to the GMC to be recognised here. Recognition is once again slow and expensive. DD ruled out continuing recognition today.
4) The depreciation of Sterling means that pay is down for EU workers, even before salary cap etc.
5) The improving EU economy makes for better opportunities elsewhere.
6) The whole Brexit atmosphere makes EU citizens feel less welcome (could they bring family over later?)
The upshot is that Brexit will add significantly to the recruitment and retention crisis in British health care. The Tories promise much but fail to deliver. They promised 5000 extra GPs, but actually the number appears to be shrinking:
No, but their main priority was controlling immigration, not "trade deals" or "freedom from the ECJ".
If a Brexit deal was essentially less immigration, with everything else (including ECJ jurisdiction and no ability to strike chlorine-chicken deals with America) staying the same, do you think the average Brexit voter would be happy enough with it?
I suspect not wrt the ECJ but the key surely is that the EU show no willingness to compromise in any way on FOM. If they had Cameron would have made the deal and Remain would have won. FOM is the key issue which has prevented any progress for the UK throughout. It is also pretty clear that FOM is unacceptable to a very high proportion of UK voters. Personally it doesn't greatly bother me but we are where we are and there seems no easy solution.
Ultimately if the relationship is going to work, each side needs to provide things the other side actually wants not what we think they ought to want. The UK wants access to the EU system. It's more than just the ability to sell goods in their market. It's also about standardisation, linking into their third party agreements etc. The EU wants money; their citizens living and working freely in the UK; diplomatic support for their policy positions, for example on sanctions towards Russia and Iran, the EU Army within NATO and so on. We can say some of those things cross our red lines, but if we do we become less interesting to them. Equally if the EU restricts our access to their system they become less interesting to us.
There was generalised popular discontent because of immigration and the aftermath of the financial crisis. It was channelled into the EU issue by fanatical nationalists who would have used any excuse they could find to undermine our membership of the EU.
That may be so, but @anothernick's bald rewrite of history is utterly absurd. For example, on the Lisbon Treaty, an ICM poll of August 2007 (well before the financial crisis, of course) had 82% of voters wanting a referendum on the treaty. No great popular demand, obviously, just an internal Conservative Party thing!
Any politician who advocates this utter bollocks should be condemned. Corbyn and Hunt being total morons aren't mutually exclusive.
Add Tredinnick to the list. What utter idiots they all are. "Tredinnick supports alternative medicine including homeopathy. In October 2009, he told Parliament that blood does not clot under a full moon; In the same debate, Tredinnick characterised scientists as "racially prejudiced". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Tredinnick_(politician)
I have no problem with the NHS paying for homeopathy.
The reimbursement price, of course, should be the same as for sugar pills.
You’re disregarding the skill required in succussion. Although I gather there’s a robot available now.
There is a perfectly rational case for homeopathy on the NHS, which is that if you think there's nothing wrong with your patient that a placebo won't cure, there is no point wasting real drugs on them.
I have been an unwitting homeopath for decades - I always thought arnica cream was a proper, conventional remedy like Savlon. It doesn't seem to have done anyone any harm.
UKIP are heading for a homeopathic vote share at the next election.
We did this last week. A huge amount of it based on no facts, simply subjective interpretations of possible scenarios, much of which is utter bollocks e.g. ability for trained doctors and nurses from the EU to work in the UK. Regardless of soft, hard, mr whippy, or no deal Brexit, properly trained doctors and nurses will pass any points based system (as they do in pretty much every other western country).
Not really. The reasons that this matters are:
1) There are significant staff shortages extant., for example my Trust is short 500 nurses, 10% of posts, more so in some critical areas.
2) Getting visas is currently laborious and slow, applying these to EU workers means short term vacancies cannot be filled.
3) Visas are only part of the issue. Currently EEA qualifications are automatically recognised, so a Specialist in the EEA does not need to apply to the GMC to be recognised here. Recognition is once again slow and expensive. DD ruled out continuing recognition today.
4) The depreciation of Sterling means that pay is down for EU workers, even before salary cap etc.
5) The improving EU economy makes for better opportunities elsewhere.
6) The whole Brexit atmosphere makes EU citizens feel less welcome (could they bring family over later?)
The upshot is that Brexit will add significantly to the recruitment and retention crisis in British health care. The Tories promise much but fail to deliver. They promised 5000 extra GPs, but actually the number appears to be shrinking:
We did this last week. A huge amount of it based on no facts, simply subjective interpretations of possible scenarios, much of which is utter bollocks e.g. ability for trained doctors and nurses from the EU to work in the UK. Regardless of soft, hard, mr whippy, or no deal Brexit, properly trained doctors and nurses will pass any points based system (as they do in pretty much every other western country).
Not really. The reasons that this matters are:
1) There are significant staff shortages extant., for example my Trust is short 500 nurses, 10% of posts, more so in some critical areas.
2) Getting visas is currently laborious and slow, applying these to EU workers means short term vacancies cannot be filled.
3) Visas are only part of the issue. Currently EEA qualifications are automatically recognised, so a Specialist in the EEA does not need to apply to the GMC to be recognised here. Recognition is once again slow and expensive. DD ruled out continuing recognition today.
4) The depreciation of Sterling means that pay is down for EU workers, even before salary cap etc.
5) The improving EU economy makes for better opportunities elsewhere.
6) The whole Brexit atmosphere makes EU citizens feel less welcome (could they bring family over later?)
The upshot is that Brexit will add significantly to the recruitment and retention crisis in British health care. The Tories promise much but fail to deliver. They promised 5000 extra GPs, but actually the number appears to be shrinking:
There was generalised popular discontent because of immigration and the aftermath of the financial crisis. It was channelled into the EU issue by fanatical nationalists who would have used any excuse they could find to undermine our membership of the EU.
That may be so, but @anothernick's bald rewrite of history is utterly absurd. For example, on the Lisbon Treaty, an ICM poll of August 2007 (well before the financial crisis, of course) had 82% of voters wanting a referendum on the treaty. No great popular demand, obviously, just an internal Conservative Party thing!
A referendum in which about 5% of the electorate would have understood what they were voting for or against.
We did this last week. A huge amount of it based on no facts, simply subjective interpretations of possible scenarios, much of which is utter bollocks e.g. ability for trained doctors and nurses from the EU to work in the UK. Regardless of soft, hard, mr whippy, or no deal Brexit, properly trained doctors and nurses will pass any points based system (as they do in pretty much every other western country).
Not really. The reasons that this matters are:
1) There are significant staff shortages extant., for example my Trust is short 500 nurses, 10% of posts, more so in some critical areas.
2) Getting visas is currently laborious and slow, applying these to EU workers means short term vacancies cannot be filled.
3) Visas are only part of the issue. Currently EEA qualifications are automatically recognised, so a Specialist in the EEA does not need to apply to the GMC to be recognised here. Recognition is once again slow and expensive. DD ruled out continuing recognition today.
4) The depreciation of Sterling means that pay is down for EU workers, even before salary cap etc.
5) The improving EU economy makes for better opportunities elsewhere.
6) The whole Brexit atmosphere makes EU citizens feel less welcome (could they bring family over later?)
The upshot is that Brexit will add significantly to the recruitment and retention crisis in British health care. The Tories promise much but fail to deliver. They promised 5000 extra GPs, but actually the number appears to be shrinking:
Remain was mostly ahead, but not always, and sometimes only fairly narrowly. The idea that this was just a Cameron ploy, weakness, or internal Conservative Party politics is just completely wrong.
Off topic: Do we really need 24/7 coverage of the Hollywood Groper?
For those wondering when things will die down, I spoke to a made-up Hollywood scientist who calculated that moment will come at the precise second that anti-Weinstein coverage stops grossing more than Weinstein movies.
Comments
Howe’s resignation statement was one of THE poarliamentary occasionals of the 80’s.
As far as what the average voter wants out of Brexit, the ask from the EU27 is simple: control over immigration and an end to the free movement of people, without economic dislocation.
If Stephen Bush hasn't yet worked out that that is specifically what our EU friends are refusing, then he hasn't been paying attention for the last two years. Theresa May has been doing a sterling job arguing for as close as one might reasonably get to that, but so far no dice.
I realise of course that the New Statesman is unlikely to do anything other than make party-political attacks on the government, but it's tiresome all the same when they try to pretend that there's some obvious solution which is somehow being deliberately ignored by the government. There isn't.
If Hammond goes down squealing then he's finished - is he ready for that ?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22241-hail-jeremy-hunt-the-new-minister-for-magic/
Of course you would Jezza, just like you did last time.
Remember if you will, that I was a single market advocate - and worked with Liberal Leave - not Vote Leave.
"Tredinnick supports alternative medicine including homeopathy. In October 2009, he told Parliament that blood does not clot under a full moon;
In the same debate, Tredinnick characterised scientists as "racially prejudiced".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Tredinnick_(politician)
Mr Bush's whole point is that the closest Brexit to public opinion would be one where we get more immigration control in exchange for a slightly bigger contribution to the EU budget, with everything else staying the same. That's not at all what the government has been bidding for, so I'm baffled how you could say May has been arguing "for as close as one could reasonably get to it". Whether the EU would've agreed to such a proposal is a different matter, of course.
You want to put the cart in front of the horse and that NEVER works.
£350m a week...https://twitter.com/iandunt/status/918501014776541184
The reimbursement price, of course, should be the same as for sugar pills.
I have no problem with people buying bottles of water with statistically insignificant quantities of solutes but having the taxpayer fund it seems daft.
If a Brexit deal was essentially less immigration, with everything else (including ECJ jurisdiction and no ability to strike chlorine-chicken deals with America) staying the same, do you think the average Brexit voter would be happy enough with it?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41601179
"the unthinkable prospect of abandoning Brexit might start to become thinkable"
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-no-deal-talks-failure-stay-in-eu-european-union-after-all-a7996451.html
It's true that a very small number of people advocated that we try to remain in a Customs Union but not the Single Market (the 'Turkish' solution). I think it's an intriguing suggestion, not least because it might save our car industry and it also helps a huge amount with the Irish border question, but there is precisely zero indication that our EU friends are willing to offer it. After all, if the EU were serious about the Irish border, then what on earth is there to stop them writing to DD telling him that the Customs Union option might be available? Has anyone criticising the UK government on this actually taken the slightest bit of interest in why the EU isn't proposing it?
Instead, the sticking point is that the EU refuses to discuss ANYTHING about the on-going relationship. The fault on that lies 100% with the EU27, not with the UK, which has been asking since the very first day that Theresa May became PM for talks on the matter.
And really, I’d have chlorine soaked chicken over the horse lasagne and toxic eggs any day.
I just had my pension review. Best year ever...
It was devastating because the disappointment and regret was all too palpable. It was the beginning of the end.
In any case, would the EU really offer single market access without FoM for some extra cash? I doubt it.
They wonder why there has been no move towards an EEA Brexit. Their failure at any stage before or after the referendum to condemn the extremists is why.
I have been an unwitting homeopath for decades - I always thought arnica cream was a proper, conventional remedy like Savlon. It doesn't seem to have done anyone any harm.
12 October 2017 - 1.3250
Admittedly @DavidL is somewhat fortunate that precisely one year ago was close to the bottom
The devaluation caused by Brexit is not well out of the system by now
https://twitter.com/LiveSquawk/status/918510478023897088
and this caveat
EU Barnier’s Offer Tied To UK Meeting Exit Obligations To EU - Handelsblatt
Louis Theroux investigates opioid abuse in America:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0991fsb
1) According to Electoral Calculus' analysis of the draft boundaries, Con and Lab would lose a similar proportion of seats (the big losers would be the LDs)
2) It gives Corbyn a chance to get rid of some of the Blairites without having to formally deselect them (particularly in London)
3) It could cause ructions within the Conservatives and amongst them and the DUP
https://order-order.com/2017/10/12/starmer-demands-talks-move-on-despite-labour-voting-to-block-progress/
Not even Nick Clegg is for Remain any longer as one might recognise it. I'm reading his book.
1) There are significant staff shortages extant., for example my Trust is short 500 nurses, 10% of posts, more so in some critical areas.
2) Getting visas is currently laborious and slow, applying these to EU workers means short term vacancies cannot be filled.
3) Visas are only part of the issue. Currently EEA qualifications are automatically recognised, so a Specialist in the EEA does not need to apply to the GMC to be recognised here. Recognition is once again slow and expensive. DD ruled out continuing recognition today.
4) The depreciation of Sterling means that pay is down for EU workers, even before salary cap etc.
5) The improving EU economy makes for better opportunities elsewhere.
6) The whole Brexit atmosphere makes EU citizens feel less welcome (could they bring family over later?)
The upshot is that Brexit will add significantly to the recruitment and retention crisis in British health care. The Tories promise much but fail to deliver. They promised 5000 extra GPs, but actually the number appears to be shrinking:
http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/your-practice/practice-topics/employment/gp-workforce-declines-by-over-400-in-just-three-months/20034139.article
Unless we Remain.
everybody else does
Thanks
http://theconversation.com/polling-history-40-years-of-british-views-on-in-or-out-of-europe-61250
Remain was mostly ahead, but not always, and sometimes only fairly narrowly. The idea that this was just a Cameron ploy, weakness, or internal Conservative Party politics is just completely wrong.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2017/oct/12/harvey-weinsteins-rehab-just-your-basic-2000-a-night-sex-offender-programme