Rudd is good. A glimpse of human in an increasingly barren Tory party. If they had any sense they would promote her.
Meanwhile, back in real Tory circles JRM continues to excite.
I seem to remember many Tories on here said the same about Liz Kendall and Corbyn in 2015. (For Kendall read Rudd and for Corbyn read JRM).
You are truly lost.
No, it is exactly the same scenario.
Tories were advising Labour members to pick Kendall over Corbyn as she was more 'electable' despite the fact that none of them would vote for a Kendall led Labour Party.
Now Labour supporters are advising Tory members to pick Rudd over JRM (or Boris) despite the fact none of them would vote for a Rudd led Tory Party.
Look at it this way. You may not vote for them, but some will get you off your fat arse and actively oppose them more than others. You need to activate your own base without being a recruiting sergeant for the opposition
May and Corbyn discovered this in June. JRM would be Labour's recruiting sergeant from heaven.
Corbyn was supposed to be the Tories recruiting sergeant from heaven but it did not quite work out that way as he motivated the left for him as much as JRM could motivate the right for him.
People want to vote for someone not just against someone.
Because the voters didn't believe Corbyn was in with a chance and wanted to limit May's majority. Now they believe Corbyn is in with a shout, and they will run a mile.
+1
But where will they run.......of to Lib Dems, UKIP? either way it may still lead to a hung Parliament - very very few will go Tory according to your analysis
Rudd is good. A glimpse of human in an increasingly barren Tory party. If they had any sense they would promote her.
Meanwhile, back in real Tory circles JRM continues to excite.
I seem to remember many Tories on here said the same about Liz Kendall and Corbyn in 2015. (For Kendall read Rudd and for Corbyn read JRM).
You are truly lost.
No, it is exactly the same scenario.
Tories were advising Labour members to pick Kendall over Corbyn as she was more 'electable' despite the fact that none of them would vote for a Kendall led Labour Party.
Now Labour supporters are advising Tory members to pick Rudd over JRM (or Boris) despite the fact none of them would vote for a Rudd led Tory Party.
Look at it this way. You may not vote for them, but some will get you off your fat arse and actively oppose them more than others. You need to activate your own base without being a recruiting sergeant for the opposition
May and Corbyn discovered this in June. JRM would be Labour's recruiting sergeant from heaven.
Corbyn was supposed to be the Tories recruiting sergeant from heaven but it did not quite work out that way as he motivated the left for him as much as JRM could motivate the right for him.
People want to vote for someone not just against someone.
Because the voters didn't believe Corbyn was in with a chance and wanted to limit May's majority. Now they believe Corbyn is in with a shout, and they will run a mile.
Not at the moment they aren't, at the moment we are heading for a Corbyn minority government.
Opinion polls are an excellent way for sending your party a message without the risk of electing the wrong people.
Rudd is good. A glimpse of human in an increasingly barren Tory party. If they had any sense they would promote her.
Meanwhile, back in real Tory circles JRM continues to excite.
I seem to remember many Tories on here said the same about Liz Kendall and Corbyn in 2015. (For Kendall read Rudd and for Corbyn read JRM).
You are truly lost.
No, it is exactly the same scenario.
Tories were advising Labour members to pick Kendall over Corbyn as she was more 'electable' despite the fact that none of them would vote for a Kendall led Labour Party.
Now Labour supporters are advising Tory members to pick Rudd over JRM (or Boris) despite the fact none of them would vote for a Rudd led Tory Party.
Look at it this way. You may not vote for them, but some will get you off your fat arse and actively oppose them more than others. You need to activate your own base without being a recruiting sergeant for the opposition
May and Corbyn discovered this in June. JRM would be Labour's recruiting sergeant from heaven.
Corbyn was supposed to be the Tories recruiting sergeant from heaven but it did not quite work out that way as he motivated the left for him as much as JRM could motivate the right for him.
People want to vote for someone not just against someone.
Because the voters didn't believe Corbyn was in with a chance and wanted to limit May's majority. Now they believe Corbyn is in with a shout, and they will run a mile.
Not at the moment they aren't, at the moment we are heading for a Corbyn minority government.
Let's run with your fantasy of a second referendum. It has these potential outcomes:
c) The EU says OK, let's forget this ever happened. Carry on as before. We'll even let you have another Referendum down the road, if you want. Yeah, right --> epic fail of reality
I think if the UK rescinded A50 - the EU overall would be fine with it. Less hassle all round. None of the countries really want us to go anyway.
After we've left into whatever transition deal - it's trickier but not impossible.
Many in the EU are pleased that the most recalcitrant obstructive and troublesome member has decided to leave. They aren't going to permit a reversal of A50.
The UK has to leave and take the dire economic consequences and loss of international influence. At some point in the future, it (or parts of it) could enter the queue for rejoining, on the terms that the EU then offers to new members.
Let's run with your fantasy of a second referendum. It has these potential outcomes:
c) The EU says OK, let's forget this ever happened. Carry on as before. We'll even let you have another Referendum down the road, if you want. Yeah, right --> epic fail of reality
I think if the UK rescinded A50 - the EU overall would be fine with it. Less hassle all round. None of the countries really want us to go anyway.
After we've left into whatever transition deal - it's trickier but not impossible.
I disagree. The UK has long been a thorn in the side of the EU and prevented many countries from moving the bloc in a direction they wanted. And whilst we are supported in our free market ethos by some of the Central European countries, most of the older members are not at all happy about that philosophy, nor about our continual opt outs from what they consider vital parts of the whole project.
Faced with the prospect of a recalcitrant UK deciding very reluctantly to stay in the EU and continue to moan about and fight against further integration, I am sure they would view that prospect with some dismay.
All the countries in the EU disagree with each other from time to time.
But who was calling for the UK to leave beforehand? No one as far as I can recall.
What was the reaction at the Leave vote in Europe? Disappointment/disbelief/dismay... it wasn't thank god we've finally got rid of the British.
When the Irish rejected Nice/Lisbon - everyone was happy for them to change their mind. The Norwegians have had 2 referenda on joining. If they wanted a third I don't think it would be opposed.
Rudd is good. A glimpse of human in an increasingly barren Tory party. If they had any sense they would promote her.
Meanwhile, back in real Tory circles JRM continues to excite.
I seem to remember many Tories on here said the same about Liz Kendall and Corbyn in 2015. (For Kendall read Rudd and for Corbyn read JRM).
You are truly lost.
No, it is exactly the same scenario.
Tories were advising Labour members to pick Kendall over Corbyn as she was more 'electable' despite the fact that none of them would vote for a Kendall led Labour Party.
Now Labour supporters are advising Tory members to pick Rudd over JRM (or Boris) despite the fact none of them would vote for a Rudd led Tory Party.
Look at it this way. You may not vote for them, but some will get you off your fat arse and actively oppose them more than others. You need to activate your own base without being a recruiting sergeant for the opposition
May and Corbyn discovered this in June. JRM would be Labour's recruiting sergeant from heaven.
Corbyn was supposed to be the Tories recruiting sergeant from heaven but it did not quite work out that way as he motivated the left for him as much as JRM could motivate the right for him.
People want to vote for someone not just against someone.
Because the voters didn't believe Corbyn was in with a chance and wanted to limit May's majority. Now they believe Corbyn is in with a shout, and they will run a mile.
Not at the moment they aren't, at the moment we are heading for a Corbyn minority government.
Opinion polls are an excellent way for sending your party a message without the risk of electing the wrong people.
It is perfectly possible the Tories could win most seats next time and Corbyn still become PM through deals with minor parties a la New Zealand.
Let's run with your fantasy of a second referendum. It has these potential outcomes:
c) The EU says OK, let's forget this ever happened. Carry on as before. We'll even let you have another Referendum down the road, if you want. Yeah, right --> epic fail of reality
I think if the UK rescinded A50 - the EU overall would be fine with it. Less hassle all round. None of the countries really want us to go anyway.
After we've left into whatever transition deal - it's trickier but not impossible.
I disagree. The UK has long been a thorn in the side of the EU and prevented many countries from moving the bloc in a direction they wanted. And whilst we are supported in our free market ethos by some of the Central European countries, most of the older members are not at all happy about that philosophy, nor about our continual opt outs from what they consider vital parts of the whole project.
Faced with the prospect of a recalcitrant UK deciding very reluctantly to stay in the EU and continue to moan about and fight against further integration, I am sure they would view that prospect with some dismay.
All the countries in the EU disagree with each other from time to time.
But who was calling for the UK to leave beforehand? No one as far as I can recall.
What was the reaction at the Leave vote in Europe? Disappointment/disbelief/dismay... it wasn't thank god we've finally got rid of the British.
When the Irish rejected Nice/Lisbon - everyone was happy for them to change their mind. The Norwegians have had 2 referenda on joining. If they wanted a third I don't think it would be opposed.
Until the vote the EU had never really understood the depth of anti-EU sentiment in the UK. Now they do and they know that even were we to reverse the decision, as MarqueeMark made clear, we would remain a recalcitrant, reluctant and destabilising member on the fringes of the bloc.
The examples you give of Nice and Lisbon are spurious. The only possible consequence of the Irish voting again and changing their vote was acceptance of the further integration of the EU. The EU needed that vote to be reversed for the project to continue. That is certainly not the case with a reversal of the Brexit decision.
Let's run with your fantasy of a second referendum. It has these potential outcomes:
c) The EU says OK, let's forget this ever happened. Carry on as before. We'll even let you have another Referendum down the road, if you want. Yeah, right --> epic fail of reality
I think if the UK rescinded A50 - the EU overall would be fine with it. Less hassle all round. None of the countries really want us to go anyway.
After we've left into whatever transition deal - it's trickier but not impossible.
Many in the EU are pleased that the most recalcitrant obstructive and troublesome member has decided to leave. They aren't going to permit a reversal of A50.
The UK has to leave and take the dire economic consequences and loss of international influence. At some point in the future, it (or parts of it) could enter the queue for rejoining, on the terms that the EU then offers to new members.
EFTA maybe, we are not rejoining the EU.
Some time in the future the UK will be joining an organisation, probably a much larger version of the EU, as quite simply, it will be the only way we can or be allowed to trade. If everyone one else has agreed trade and contract laws that they are happy with, then we will have to join, or starve. Pity that we will doing it from a position of weakness rather than in a much more powerful institution.
Let's run with your fantasy of a second referendum. It has these potential outcomes:
c) The EU says OK, let's forget this ever happened. Carry on as before. We'll even let you have another Referendum down the road, if you want. Yeah, right --> epic fail of reality
I think if the UK rescinded A50 - the EU overall would be fine with it. Less hassle all round. None of the countries really want us to go anyway.
After we've left into whatever transition deal - it's trickier but not impossible.
I disagree. The UK has long been a thorn in the side of the EU and prevented many countries from moving the bloc in a direction they wanted. And whilst we are supported in our free market ethos by some of the Central European countries, most of the older members are not at all happy about that philosophy, nor about our continual opt outs from what they consider vital parts of the whole project.
Faced with the prospect of a recalcitrant UK deciding very reluctantly to stay in the EU and continue to moan about and fight against further integration, I am sure they would view that prospect with some dismay.
Not at all. It would (/will) be conclusive proof that even thinking about leaving is both difficult and damaging.
Let's run with your fantasy of a second referendum. It has these potential outcomes:
c) The EU says OK, let's forget this ever happened. Carry on as before. We'll even let you have another Referendum down the road, if you want. Yeah, right --> epic fail of reality
I think if the UK rescinded A50 - the EU overall would be fine with it. Less hassle all round. None of the countries really want us to go anyway.
After we've left into whatever transition deal - it's trickier but not impossible.
Many in the EU are pleased that the most recalcitrant obstructive and troublesome member has decided to leave. They aren't going to permit a reversal of A50.
The UK has to leave and take the dire economic consequences and loss of international influence. At some point in the future, it (or parts of it) could enter the queue for rejoining, on the terms that the EU then offers to new members.
EFTA maybe, we are not rejoining the EU.
Some time in the future the UK will be joining an organisation, probably a much larger version of the EU, as quite simply, it will be the only way we can or be allowed to trade. If everyone one else has agreed trade and contract laws that they are happy with, then we will have to join, or starve. Pity that we will doing it from a position of weakness rather than in a much more powerful institution.
The idea that the EU will be the centre of world trade in the future is deluded. Trade and contract laws will more and more be decided at levels well above the regional bloc of the EU and will be dominated by non EU countries. The idea that we will only be 'allowed' to trade if we are part of an EU type bloc is just laughable.
Wow. Corbyn really having an impact. I find it amazing Tories looking for their own Corbyn.
...at the same time as advancing convincing reasons why playing to your base from the extremes will not work for Labour!
Corbyn is making progress because he is the only person who appears to have an agenda to deal with a broken society and economy.
May understands the problem, but is too weak and boxed in by her party to be able to progress any of the radical agenda she set out (at least in terms of understanding the problem) on the steps of No. 10.
Let's run with your fantasy of a second referendum. It has these potential outcomes:
c) The EU says OK, let's forget this ever happened. Carry on as before. We'll even let you have another Referendum down the road, if you want. Yeah, right --> epic fail of reality
I think if the UK rescinded A50 - the EU overall would be fine with it. Less hassle all round. None of the countries really want us to go anyway.
After we've left into whatever transition deal - it's trickier but not impossible.
I disagree. The UK has long been a thorn in the side of the EU and prevented many countries from moving the bloc in a direction they wanted. And whilst we are supported in our free market ethos by some of the Central European countries, most of the older members are not at all happy about that philosophy, nor about our continual opt outs from what they consider vital parts of the whole project.
Faced with the prospect of a recalcitrant UK deciding very reluctantly to stay in the EU and continue to moan about and fight against further integration, I am sure they would view that prospect with some dismay.
Not at all. It would (/will) be conclusive proof that even thinking about leaving is both difficult and damaging.
If you really think that is the basis for a stable and harmonious bloc then you are another one who is divorced from reality.
Until the vote the EU had never really understood the depth of anti-EU sentiment in the UK. Now they do and they know that even were we to reverse the decision, as MarqueeMark made clear, we would remain a recalcitrant, reluctant and destabilising member on the fringes of the bloc.
The examples you give of Nice and Lisbon are spurious. The only possible consequence of the Irish voting again and changing their vote was acceptance of the further integration of the EU. The EU needed that vote to be reversed for the project to continue. That is certainly not the case with a reversal of the Brexit decision.
European parliament president: “If the UK, after the election, wants to withdraw [article 50], then the procedure is very clear,” he said in an interview. “If the UK wanted to stay, everybody would be in favour. I would be very happy.”
Let's run with your fantasy of a second referendum. It has these potential outcomes:
c) The EU says OK, let's forget this ever happened. Carry on as before. We'll even let you have another Referendum down the road, if you want. Yeah, right --> epic fail of reality
I think if the UK rescinded A50 - the EU overall would be fine with it. Less hassle all round. None of the countries really want us to go anyway.
After we've left into whatever transition deal - it's trickier but not impossible.
I disagree. The UK has long been a thorn in the side of the EU and prevented many countries from moving the bloc in a direction they wanted. And whilst we are supported in our free market ethos by some of the Central European countries, most of the older members are not at all happy about that philosophy, nor about our continual opt outs from what they consider vital parts of the whole project.
Faced with the prospect of a recalcitrant UK deciding very reluctantly to stay in the EU and continue to moan about and fight against further integration, I am sure they would view that prospect with some dismay.
Not at all. It would (/will) be conclusive proof that even thinking about leaving is both difficult and damaging.
If you really think that is the basis for a stable and harmonious bloc then you are another one who is divorced from reality.
I cannot see that I was? Yours is an argument for not having thought about leaving in the first place.
Nevertheless it remains the case that staying is less damaging than pressing on towards the precipice.
Because the voters didn't believe Corbyn was in with a chance and wanted to limit May's majority. Now they believe Corbyn is in with a shout, and they will run a mile.
Not at the moment they aren't, at the moment we are heading for a Corbyn minority government.
That feels about right. Voters at present would like a change from the present shambles, but only a minority enthuse about Corbyn. He is however reasonably respected now by many non-Labour activists as a serious, honest man with steady nerves. The idea that he'd lead a minority govermnent dependent on the votes of centrist Labour MPs plus some LibDems and SNP will seem quite appealing to centrist voters - the old "coalition of chaos" accusation won't work at all.
In 1997, a big factor was abstention by Tory voters - I can well seeing this being relevant again.
Rudd is good. A glimpse of human in an increasingly barren Tory party. If they had any sense they would promote her.
Meanwhile, back in real Tory circles JRM continues to excite.
I seem to remember many Tories on here said the same about Liz Kendall and Corbyn in 2015. (For Kendall read Rudd and for Corbyn read JRM).
You are truly lost.
No, it is exactly the same scenario.
Tories were advising Labour members to pick Kendall over Corbyn as she was more 'electable' despite the fact that none of them would vote for a Kendall led Labour Party.
Now Labour supporters are advising Tory members to pick Rudd over JRM (or Boris) despite the fact none of them would vote for a Rudd led Tory Party.
Even disregarding his ludicrous views and party-act persona, JRM has never shown either inclination or ability to lead or manage anything. In politics his career has gone nowhere.
JRM wants to be Speaker, it looks like he has realised the limits of his abilities and talents, and being PM is not in his plans. However, if he was elected, his sense of noblesse oblige would require him to have a darn good try. Whether that would be the best for the country is doubtful.
Let's run with your fantasy of a second referendum. It has these potential outcomes:
c) The EU says OK, let's forget this ever happened. Carry on as before. We'll even let you have another Referendum down the road, if you want. Yeah, right --> epic fail of reality
I think if the UK rescinded A50 - the EU overall would be fine with it. Less hassle all round. None of the countries really want us to go anyway.
After we've left into whatever transition deal - it's trickier but not impossible.
I disagree. The UK has long been a thorn in the side of the EU and prevented many countries from moving the bloc in a direction they wanted. And whilst we are supported in our free market ethos by some of the Central European countries, most of the older members are not at all happy about that philosophy, nor about our continual opt outs from what they consider vital parts of the whole project.
Faced with the prospect of a recalcitrant UK deciding very reluctantly to stay in the EU and continue to moan about and fight against further integration, I am sure they would view that prospect with some dismay.
FWIW my view is that they'd roll their eyes but welcome us back, exactly like a wayward brother coming home after a wild bender. I don't think they'd impose any special conditions (joining the Euro or whatever) but they'd want to be reasonably satisfied that neither major party was going to initiate the leaving process again any time soon. Yes, they think we're often tiresome, but we're not alone in that, and on balance still an asset.
But I can't see it happening. Public opinion is mostly not much engaged and without a major shift the parties won't move. What I expect is a fudged Norway-style exit where surprisingly little changes. I don't think there's the political will in Britain for anything more.
Rudd is good. A glimpse of human in an increasingly barren Tory party. If they had any sense they would promote her.
Meanwhile, back in real Tory circles JRM continues to excite.
I seem to remember many Tories on here said the same about Liz Kendall and Corbyn in 2015. (For Kendall read Rudd and for Corbyn read JRM).
You are truly lost.
No, it is exactly the same scenario.
Tories were advising Labour members to pick Kendall over Corbyn as she was more 'electable' despite the fact that none of them would vote for a Kendall led Labour Party.
Now Labour supporters are advising Tory members to pick Rudd over JRM (or Boris) despite the fact none of them would vote for a Rudd led Tory Party.
Even disregarding his ludicrous views and party-act persona, JRM has never shown either inclination or ability to lead or manage anything. In politics his career has gone nowhere.
Even disregarding his ludicrous views and party-act persona, JEREMY CORBYN has never shown either inclination or ability to lead or manage anything. In politics his career has gone nowhere...
One could have written in 2015.
Indeed. And he does find himself where he is more by luck than judgement.
Nevertheless, as I said below, his agenda and critique of the status quo has captured much of the mood among working age people, particularly non home owners, in a way that JRM never will.
JRM wants to be Speaker, it looks like he has realised the limits of his abilities and talents, and being PM is not in his plans. However, if he was elected, his sense of noblesse oblige would require him to have a darn good try. Whether that would be the best for the country is doubtful.
Does he? Link? I think he'd be a very good Speaker.
Because the voters didn't believe Corbyn was in with a chance and wanted to limit May's majority. Now they believe Corbyn is in with a shout, and they will run a mile.
Not at the moment they aren't, at the moment we are heading for a Corbyn minority government.
That feels about right. Voters at present would like a change from the present shambles, but only a minority enthuse about Corbyn. He is however reasonably respected now by many non-Labour activists as a serious, honest man with steady nerves. The idea that he'd lead a minority govermnent dependent on the votes of centrist Labour MPs plus some LibDems and SNP will seem quite appealing to centrist voters - the old "coalition of chaos" accusation won't work at all.
In 1997, a big factor was abstention by Tory voters - I can well seeing this being relevant again.
There is a fair chance that Labour will emerge as the largest party in a Hung Parliament.
Let's run with your fantasy of a second referendum. It has these potential outcomes:
c) The EU says OK, let's forget this ever happened. Carry on as before. We'll even let you have another Referendum down the road, if you want. Yeah, right --> epic fail of reality
I think if the UK rescinded A50 - the EU overall would be fine with it. Less hassle all round. None of the countries really want us to go anyway.
After we've left into whatever transition deal - it's trickier but not impossible.
Many in the EU are pleased that the most recalcitrant obstructive and troublesome member has decided to leave. They aren't going to permit a reversal of A50.
The UK has to leave and take the dire economic consequences and loss of international influence. At some point in the future, it (or parts of it) could enter the queue for rejoining, on the terms that the EU then offers to new members.
EFTA maybe, we are not rejoining the EU.
Some time in the future the UK will be joining an organisation, probably a much larger version of the EU, as quite simply, it will be the only way we can or be allowed to trade. If everyone one else has agreed trade and contract laws that they are happy with, then we will have to join, or starve. Pity that we will doing it from a position of weakness rather than in a much more powerful institution.
The idea that the EU will be the centre of world trade in the future is deluded. Trade and contract laws will more and more be decided at levels well above the regional bloc of the EU and will be dominated by non EU countries. The idea that we will only be 'allowed' to trade if we are part of an EU type bloc is just laughable.
If you read what I said, it mentioned a larger version of the EU, and as world trade grows, contract law and trade agreements will have to be agreed between the different blocs. EU, China, Russia, Nafta, Seato, South America, the African and Arab equivalents. Countries will join together to form these blocs to protect themselves and control the power of transnational companies. The Blocs will then have to agree amongst themselves.
Because the voters didn't believe Corbyn was in with a chance and wanted to limit May's majority. Now they believe Corbyn is in with a shout, and they will run a mile.
Not at the moment they aren't, at the moment we are heading for a Corbyn minority government.
That feels about right. Voters at present would like a change from the present shambles, but only a minority enthuse about Corbyn. He is however reasonably respected now by many non-Labour activists as a serious, honest man with steady nerves. The idea that he'd lead a minority govermnent dependent on the votes of centrist Labour MPs plus some LibDems and SNP will seem quite appealing to centrist voters - the old "coalition of chaos" accusation won't work at all.
In 1997, a big factor was abstention by Tory voters - I can well seeing this being relevant again.
There is a fair chance that Labour will emerge as the largest party in a Hung Parliament.
Based on the latest poll from Mori and a straight 2% swing from Labour to Tories the Tories and Labour would both be on 290 seats.
However if the Tories lose a few seats back to the SNP Labour would be the largest party if they hold the gains they made from the nationalists.
Either way however given the SNP are on 35 seats (and PC on 4), it would be a Labour minority government supported by the SNP and PC.
Let's run with your fantasy of a second referendum. It has these potential outcomes:
c) The EU says OK, let's forget this ever happened. Carry on as before. We'll even let you have another Referendum down the road, if you want. Yeah, right --> epic fail of reality
I think if the UK rescinded A50 - the EU overall would be fine with it. Less hassle all round. None of the countries really want us to go anyway.
After we've left into whatever transition deal - it's trickier but not impossible.
Many in the EU are pleased that the most recalcitrant obstructive and troublesome member has decided to leave. They aren't going to permit a reversal of A50.
The UK has to leave and take the dire economic consequences and loss of international influence. At some point in the future, it (or parts of it) could enter the queue for rejoining, on the terms that the EU then offers to new members.
EFTA maybe, we are not rejoining the EU.
Some time in the future the UK will be joining an organisation, probably a much larger version of the EU, as quite simply, it will be the only way we can or be allowed to trade. If everyone one else has agreed trade and contract laws that they are happy with, then we will have to join, or starve. Pity that we will doing it from a position of weakness rather than in a much more powerful institution.
You can be in EFTA and the customs union without being in the EU.
Because the voters didn't believe Corbyn was in with a chance and wanted to limit May's majority. Now they believe Corbyn is in with a shout, and they will run a mile.
Not at the moment they aren't, at the moment we are heading for a Corbyn minority government.
That feels about right. Voters at present would like a change from the present shambles, but only a minority enthuse about Corbyn. He is however reasonably respected now by many non-Labour activists as a serious, honest man with steady nerves. The idea that he'd lead a minority govermnent dependent on the votes of centrist Labour MPs plus some LibDems and SNP will seem quite appealing to centrist voters - the old "coalition of chaos" accusation won't work at all.
In 1997, a big factor was abstention by Tory voters - I can well seeing this being relevant again.
We are certainly heading for our 3rd hung parliament in 4 consecutive general elections at the moment.
Rudd is good. A glimpse of human in an increasingly barren Tory party. If they had any sense they would promote her.
Meanwhile, back in real Tory circles JRM continues to excite.
I seem to remember many Tories on here said the same about Liz Kendall and Corbyn in 2015. (For Kendall read Rudd and for Corbyn read JRM).
You are truly lost.
No, it is exactly the same scenario.
Tories were advising Labour members to pick Kendall over Corbyn as she was more 'electable' despite the fact that none of them would vote for a Kendall led Labour Party.
Now Labour supporters are advising Tory members to pick Rudd over JRM (or Boris) despite the fact none of them would vote for a Rudd led Tory Party.
Even disregarding his ludicrous views and party-act persona, JRM has never shown either inclination or ability to lead or manage anything. In politics his career has gone nowhere.
Even disregarding his ludicrous views and party-act persona, JEREMY CORBYN has never shown either inclination or ability to lead or manage anything. In politics his career has gone nowhere...
One could have written in 2015.
Indeed. And he does find himself where he is more by luck than judgement.
Nevertheless, as I said below, his agenda and critique of the status quo has captured much of the mood among working age people, particularly non home owners, in a way that JRM never will.
In his support for Brexit, concern over immigration, distrust of central government, support for cheaper shoes for the poor etc Mogg captures much of the mood too.
Because the voters didn't believe Corbyn was in with a chance and wanted to limit May's majority. Now they believe Corbyn is in with a shout, and they will run a mile.
Not at the moment they aren't, at the moment we are heading for a Corbyn minority government.
That feels about right. Voters at present would like a change from the present shambles, but only a minority enthuse about Corbyn. He is however reasonably respected now by many non-Labour activists as a serious, honest man with steady nerves. The idea that he'd lead a minority govermnent dependent on the votes of centrist Labour MPs plus some LibDems and SNP will seem quite appealing to centrist voters - the old "coalition of chaos" accusation won't work at all.
In 1997, a big factor was abstention by Tory voters - I can well seeing this being relevant again.
We are certainly heading for our 3rd hung parliament in 4 consecutive general elections at the moment.
The people have spoken, they don't want strong, single party government. Roll on PR.
It's not so much what is said, which I'm sure plenty on here would disagree with, but the similar tenor of most of these pieces (outside the Breitbart/Russian troll area of the spectrum).
If you cannot be loved, at least be feared; never be laughed at.
The voice from the upper-middle class safe zone:
' Mr. Grant, like others who have spent their careers watching British and European politics, predicts rough seas for Britain as it casts off nearly 45 years of intimate trade and legal ties with those annoying Europeans.
“Everywhere I go,” he said, “people are asking me, ‘What’s wrong with your country?’ ” '
The answer:
' A raid on a three-bedroom house in north-west London has found 35 men living in rooms full of mattresses.
The discovery was made on Winchester Avenue, Queensbury, at about 6am on Tuesday following complaints from neighbours, Brent council said. The men, all of eastern European origin, had piled bedding in every room except bathrooms, with one mattress even laid out under a canopy in the back garden.
Images from the semi-detached property show dozens of shoes piled on top of each other, clothes strewn across radiators and rubbish clogging the garden. '
Rudd is good. A glimpse of human in an increasingly barren Tory party. If they had any sense they would promote her.
Meanwhile, back in real Tory circles JRM continues to excite.
I seem to remember many Tories on here said the same about Liz Kendall and Corbyn in 2015. (For Kendall read Rudd and for Corbyn read JRM).
I seem to remember many Tories on here paying £3 to vote for Corbyn!
I didn't (I voted for Burnham in the end)
An even more annoying idiot than Corbyn. Thankfully he has found a suitable role at the right pay grade and hopefully will never trouble Westminster again.
Let's run with your fantasy of a second referendum. It has these potential outcomes:
c) The EU says OK, let's forget this ever happened. Carry on as before. We'll even let you have another Referendum down the road, if you want. Yeah, right --> epic fail of reality
I think if the UK rescinded A50 - the EU overall would be fine with it. Less hassle all round. None of the countries really want us to go anyway.
After we've left into whatever transition deal - it's trickier but not impossible.
I disagree. The UK has long been a thorn in the side of the EU and prevented many countries from moving the bloc in a direction they wanted. And whilst we are supported in our free market ethos by some of the Central European countries, most of the older members are not at all happy about that philosophy, nor about our continual opt outs from what they consider vital parts of the whole project.
Faced with the prospect of a recalcitrant UK deciding very reluctantly to stay in the EU and continue to moan about and fight against further integration, I am sure they would view that prospect with some dismay.
FWIW my view is that they'd roll their eyes but welcome us back, exactly like a wayward brother coming home after a wild bender. I don't think they'd impose any special conditions (joining the Euro or whatever) but they'd want to be reasonably satisfied that neither major party was going to initiate the leaving process again any time soon. Yes, they think we're often tiresome, but we're not alone in that, and on balance still an asset.
But I can't see it happening. Public opinion is mostly not much engaged and without a major shift the parties won't move. What I expect is a fudged Norway-style exit where surprisingly little changes. I don't think there's the political will in Britain for anything more.
I think so too, in terms of where the British public opinion will end up, but we're not ready to accept a rule-taking arrangement yet. In particular Leavers aren't ready to accept it. There needs to be some major compromises. It won't look at all like fudge. Eurofudge is for internal horsetrading. The EU is pretty hard-edged when dealing with third parties.
It's not so much what is said, which I'm sure plenty on here would disagree with, but the similar tenor of most of these pieces (outside the Breitbart/Russian troll area of the spectrum).
If you cannot be loved, at least be feared; never be laughed at.
The UK has arguably the greatest global city in the world at the moment, London and is a UN Security Council Power and the 5th largest economy and it is the home of Parliamentary Democracy and Common Law and the birthplace of English, the world's most common second language and the second most spoken first language after Mandarin.
We have never been and will never be as loved as Ireland, Sweden, New Zealand or Canada and we are not feared in the same way the USA, Russia and China (and have not been since the end of the British Empire) are but that does not mean we don't have a lot going for us.
Let's run with your fantasy of a second referendum. It has these potential outcomes:
c) The EU says OK, let's forget this ever happened. Carry on as before. We'll even let you have another Referendum down the road, if you want. Yeah, right --> epic fail of reality
I think if the UK rescinded A50 - the EU overall would be fine with it. Less hassle all round. None of the countries really want us to go anyway.
After we've left into whatever transition deal - it's trickier but not impossible.
I disagree. The UK has long been a thorn in the side of the EU and prevented many countries from moving the bloc in a direction they wanted. And whilst we are supported in our free market ethos by some of the Central European countries, most of the older members are not at all happy about that philosophy, nor about our continual opt outs from what they consider vital parts of the whole project.
Faced with the prospect of a recalcitrant UK deciding very reluctantly to stay in the EU and continue to moan about and fight against further integration, I am sure they would view that prospect with some dismay.
FWIW my view is that they'd roll their eyes but welcome us back, exactly like a wayward brother coming home after a wild bender. I don't think they'd impose any special conditions (joining the Euro or whatever) but they'd want to be reasonably satisfied that neither major party was going to initiate the leaving process again any time soon. Yes, they think we're often tiresome, but we're not alone in that, and on balance still an asset.
But I can't see it happening. Public opinion is mostly not much engaged and without a major shift the parties won't move. What I expect is a fudged Norway-style exit where surprisingly little changes. I don't think there's the political will in Britain for anything more.
If that last line is correct, Nick, don't you worry that politicians are still out of line with public opinion? I know I do.
Because the voters didn't believe Corbyn was in with a chance and wanted to limit May's majority. Now they believe Corbyn is in with a shout, and they will run a mile.
Not at the moment they aren't, at the moment we are heading for a Corbyn minority government.
That feels about right. Voters at present would like a change from the present shambles, but only a minority enthuse about Corbyn. He is however reasonably respected now by many non-Labour activists as a serious, honest man with steady nerves. The idea that he'd lead a minority govermnent dependent on the votes of centrist Labour MPs plus some LibDems and SNP will seem quite appealing to centrist voters - the old "coalition of chaos" accusation won't work at all.
In 1997, a big factor was abstention by Tory voters - I can well seeing this being relevant again.
We are certainly heading for our 3rd hung parliament in 4 consecutive general elections at the moment.
The people have spoken, they don't want strong, single party government. Roll on PR.
Because the voters didn't believe Corbyn was in with a chance and wanted to limit May's majority. Now they believe Corbyn is in with a shout, and they will run a mile.
Not at the moment they aren't, at the moment we are heading for a Corbyn minority government.
That feels about right. Voters at present would like a change from the present shambles, but only a minority enthuse about Corbyn. He is however reasonably respected now by many non-Labour activists as a serious, honest man with steady nerves. The idea that he'd lead a minority govermnent dependent on the votes of centrist Labour MPs plus some LibDems and SNP will seem quite appealing to centrist voters - the old "coalition of chaos" accusation won't work at all.
In 1997, a big factor was abstention by Tory voters - I can well seeing this being relevant again.
There is a fair chance that Labour will emerge as the largest party in a Hung Parliament.
Based on the latest poll from Mori and a straight 2% swing from Labour to Tories the Tories and Labour would both be on 290 seats.
However if the Tories lose a few seats back to the SNP Labour would be the largest party if they hold the gains they made from the nationalists.
Either way however given the SNP are on 35 seats (and PC on 4), it would be a Labour minority government supported by the SNP and PC.
In a bizarre turn of events I think many Labour and Tory supporters would rather see a Labour Govt constrained by the SNP - than a Corbyn led Labour majority Govt !!
It's not so much what is said, which I'm sure plenty on here would disagree with, but the similar tenor of most of these pieces (outside the Breitbart/Russian troll area of the spectrum).
If you cannot be loved, at least be feared; never be laughed at.
The voice from the upper-middle class safe zone:
' Mr. Grant, like others who have spent their careers watching British and European politics, predicts rough seas for Britain as it casts off nearly 45 years of intimate trade and legal ties with those annoying Europeans.
“Everywhere I go,” he said, “people are asking me, ‘What’s wrong with your country?’ ” '
The answer:
' A raid on a three-bedroom house in north-west London has found 35 men living in rooms full of mattresses.
The discovery was made on Winchester Avenue, Queensbury, at about 6am on Tuesday following complaints from neighbours, Brent council said. The men, all of eastern European origin, had piled bedding in every room except bathrooms, with one mattress even laid out under a canopy in the back garden.
Images from the semi-detached property show dozens of shoes piled on top of each other, clothes strewn across radiators and rubbish clogging the garden. '
Because the voters didn't believe Corbyn was in with a chance and wanted to limit May's majority. Now they believe Corbyn is in with a shout, and they will run a mile.
Not at the moment they aren't, at the moment we are heading for a Corbyn minority government.
That feels about right. Voters at present would like a change from the present shambles, but only a minority enthuse about Corbyn. He is however reasonably respected now by many non-Labour activists as a serious, honest man with steady nerves. The idea that he'd lead a minority govermnent dependent on the votes of centrist Labour MPs plus some LibDems and SNP will seem quite appealing to centrist voters - the old "coalition of chaos" accusation won't work at all.
In 1997, a big factor was abstention by Tory voters - I can well seeing this being relevant again.
There is a fair chance that Labour will emerge as the largest party in a Hung Parliament.
Based on the latest poll from Mori and a straight 2% swing from Labour to Tories the Tories and Labour would both be on 290 seats.
However if the Tories lose a few seats back to the SNP Labour would be the largest party if they hold the gains they made from the nationalists.
Either way however given the SNP are on 35 seats (and PC on 4), it would be a Labour minority government supported by the SNP and PC.
I think Labour would outperform the polls in Scotland to the detriment of the SNP - and could end up with as many as 30 seats there next time.
I take the point about much of this, the reaction to the A50 case was very disappointing from some very senior figures including TMay and there was some ridiculously hostile talk, but I don't quite follow the bit about the enabling Act
The government’s response to this judicial requirement for Parliamentary oversight was no more open-handed. It rammed a two section enabling Act through Parliament, simply empowering the Prime Minister to pull the trigger, which she duly did on 29 March 2017. Parliament was to be bypassed.
How was parliament to be bypassed, when Parliament (due to a judicial decision) passed the enabling Act? It sounds like you aren't a fan of the nature of the Act, and certainly not the strategy undertaken since, but that doesn't change that Parliament passed the Act, therefore any by-passing going on in relation to the triggering of A50, the point of the Act, was with Parliament's consent wasn't it?
Let's run with your fantasy of a second referendum. It has these potential outcomes:
c) The EU says OK, let's forget this ever happened. Carry on as before. We'll even let you have another Referendum down the road, if you want. Yeah, right --> epic fail of reality
I think if the UK rescinded A50 - the EU overall would be fine with it. Less hassle all round. None of the countries really want us to go anyway.
After we've left into whatever transition deal - it's trickier but not impossible.
Many in the EU are pleased that the most recalcitrant obstructive and troublesome member has decided to leave. They aren't going to permit a reversal of A50.
The UK has to leave and take the dire economic consequences and loss of international influence. At some point in the future, it (or parts of it) could enter the queue for rejoining, on the terms that the EU then offers to new members.
EFTA maybe, we are not rejoining the EU.
Some time in the future the UK will be joining an organisation, probably a much larger version of the EU, as quite simply, it will be the only way we can or be allowed to trade. If everyone one else has agreed trade and contract laws that they are happy with, then we will have to join, or starve. Pity that we will doing it from a position of weakness rather than in a much more powerful institution.
You can be in EFTA and the customs union without being in the EU.
You can be in EFTA and thus in the EEA if you want. But not sure you can be in the Customs Union whilst being in EFTA. At least, there are no EFTA members who are in the Customs union.
It's not so much what is said, which I'm sure plenty on here would disagree with, but the similar tenor of most of these pieces (outside the Breitbart/Russian troll area of the spectrum).
If you cannot be loved, at least be feared; never be laughed at.
My impression is that most people in countries that have important links with this country don't care very much whether or not we are EU members.
Because the voters didn't believe Corbyn was in with a chance and wanted to limit May's majority. Now they believe Corbyn is in with a shout, and they will run a mile.
Not at the moment they aren't, at the moment we are heading for a Corbyn minority government.
That feels about right. Voters at present would like a change from the present shambles, but only a minority enthuse about Corbyn. He is however reasonably respected now by many non-Labour activists as a serious, honest man with steady nerves. The idea that he'd lead a minority govermnent dependent on the votes of centrist Labour MPs plus some LibDems and SNP will seem quite appealing to centrist voters - the old "coalition of chaos" accusation won't work at all.
In 1997, a big factor was abstention by Tory voters - I can well seeing this being relevant again.
There is a fair chance that Labour will emerge as the largest party in a Hung Parliament.
Based on the latest poll from Mori and a straight 2% swing from Labour to Tories the Tories and Labour would both be on 290 seats.
However if the Tories lose a few seats back to the SNP Labour would be the largest party if they hold the gains they made from the nationalists.
Either way however given the SNP are on 35 seats (and PC on 4), it would be a Labour minority government supported by the SNP and PC.
I think Labour would outperform the polls in Scotland to the detriment of the SNP - and could end up with as many as 30 seats there next time.
Unless Labour wins a clear majority of SNP seats next time and about 35 to 40 Scottish seats overall, which is unlikely even on your hopeful expectations let alone current Scottish polls, they will still be dependent on SNP support to form a government and get a majority.
It's not so much what is said, which I'm sure plenty on here would disagree with, but the similar tenor of most of these pieces (outside the Breitbart/Russian troll area of the spectrum).
If you cannot be loved, at least be feared; never be laughed at.
The voice from the upper-middle class safe zone:
' Mr. Grant, like others who have spent their careers watching British and European politics, predicts rough seas for Britain as it casts off nearly 45 years of intimate trade and legal ties with those annoying Europeans.
“Everywhere I go,” he said, “people are asking me, ‘What’s wrong with your country?’ ” '
The answer:
' A raid on a three-bedroom house in north-west London has found 35 men living in rooms full of mattresses.
The discovery was made on Winchester Avenue, Queensbury, at about 6am on Tuesday following complaints from neighbours, Brent council said. The men, all of eastern European origin, had piled bedding in every room except bathrooms, with one mattress even laid out under a canopy in the back garden.
Images from the semi-detached property show dozens of shoes piled on top of each other, clothes strewn across radiators and rubbish clogging the garden. '
Let's run with your fantasy of a second referendum. It has these potential outcomes:
c) The EU says OK, let's forget this ever happened. Carry on as before. We'll even let you have another Referendum down the road, if you want. Yeah, right --> epic fail of reality
I think if the UK rescinded A50 - the EU overall would be fine with it. Less hassle all round. None of the countries really want us to go anyway.
After we've left into whatever transition deal - it's trickier but not impossible.
Many in the EU are pleased that the most recalcitrant obstructive and troublesome member has decided to leave. They aren't going to permit a reversal of A50.
The UK has to leave and take the dire economic consequences and loss of international influence. At some point in the future, it (or parts of it) could enter the queue for rejoining, on the terms that the EU then offers to new members.
EFTA maybe, we are not rejoining the EU.
Some time in the future the UK will be joining an organisation, probably a much larger version of the EU, as quite simply, it will be the only way we can or be allowed to trade. If everyone one else has agreed trade and contract laws that they are happy with, then we will have to join, or starve. Pity that we will doing it from a position of weakness rather than in a much more powerful institution.
The idea that the EU will be the centre of world trade in the future is deluded. Trade and contract laws will more and more be decided at levels well above the regional bloc of the EU and will be dominated by non EU countries. The idea that we will only be 'allowed' to trade if we are part of an EU type bloc is just laughable.
If you read what I said, it mentioned a larger version of the EU, and as world trade grows, contract law and trade agreements will have to be agreed between the different blocs. EU, China, Russia, Nafta, Seato, South America, the African and Arab equivalents. Countries will join together to form these blocs to protect themselves and control the power of transnational companies. The Blocs will then have to agree amongst themselves.
Not really. The EU is an unwelcome anomaly when it comes to negotiating at the WTO level. It is the only bloc that has an international legal personality and so negotiates in place of its member states. All other Free Trade Areas like NAFTA and SEATO lack a legal personality and so do not have a membership of the WTO in place of their members.
Because the voters didn't believe Corbyn was in with a chance and wanted to limit May's majority. Now they believe Corbyn is in with a shout, and they will run a mile.
Not at the moment they aren't, at the moment we are heading for a Corbyn minority government.
That feels about right. Voters at present would like a change from the present shambles, but only a minority enthuse about Corbyn. He is however reasonably respected now by many non-Labour activists as a serious, honest man with steady nerves. The idea that he'd lead a minority govermnent dependent on the votes of centrist Labour MPs plus some LibDems and SNP will seem quite appealing to centrist voters - the old "coalition of chaos" accusation won't work at all.
In 1997, a big factor was abstention by Tory voters - I can well seeing this being relevant again.
There is a fair chance that Labour will emerge as the largest party in a Hung Parliament.
Based on the latest poll from Mori and a straight 2% swing from Labour to Tories the Tories and Labour would both be on 290 seats.
However if the Tories lose a few seats back to the SNP Labour would be the largest party if they hold the gains they made from the nationalists.
Either way however given the SNP are on 35 seats (and PC on 4), it would be a Labour minority government supported by the SNP and PC.
In a bizarre turn of events I think many Labour and Tory supporters would rather see a Labour Govt constrained by the SNP - than a Corbyn led Labour majority Govt !!
Even I probably would, though adding the LDs to the mix would be the best combination of all if Corbyn is going to become PM.
Because the voters didn't believe Corbyn was in with a chance and wanted to limit May's majority. Now they believe Corbyn is in with a shout, and they will run a mile.
Not at the moment they aren't, at the moment we are heading for a Corbyn minority government.
That feels about right. Voters at present would like a change from the present shambles, but only a minority enthuse about Corbyn. He is however reasonably respected now by many non-Labour activists as a serious, honest man with steady nerves. The idea that he'd lead a minority govermnent dependent on the votes of centrist Labour MPs plus some LibDems and SNP will seem quite appealing to centrist voters - the old "coalition of chaos" accusation won't work at all.
In 1997, a big factor was abstention by Tory voters - I can well seeing this being relevant again.
There is a fair chance that Labour will emerge as the largest party in a Hung Parliament.
Based on the latest poll from Mori and a straight 2% swing from Labour to Tories the Tories and Labour would both be on 290 seats.
However if the Tories lose a few seats back to the SNP Labour would be the largest party if they hold the gains they made from the nationalists.
Either way however given the SNP are on 35 seats (and PC on 4), it would be a Labour minority government supported by the SNP and PC.
I think Labour would outperform the polls in Scotland to the detriment of the SNP - and could end up with as many as 30 seats there next time.
Unless Labour wins a clear majority of SNP seats next time and about 35 to 40 Scottish seats overall, which is unlikely even on your hopeful expectations let alone current Scottish polls, they will still be dependent on SNP support to form a government and get a majority.
Not quite. 20 gains from SNP plus a further 20 - 25 from the Tories and a gain from Plaid in Arfon would give Labour circa 310 seats. Support from Plaid and the LibDems - plus the Green and any SDLP who might get elected - would be enough.
It's not so much what is said, which I'm sure plenty on here would disagree with, but the similar tenor of most of these pieces (outside the Breitbart/Russian troll area of the spectrum).
If you cannot be loved, at least be feared; never be laughed at.
The UK has arguably the greatest global city in the world at the moment, London and is a UN Security Council Power and the 5th largest economy and it is the home of Parliamentary Democracy and Common Law and the birthplace of English, the world's most common second language and the second most spoken first language after Mandarin.
We have never been and will never be as loved as Ireland, Sweden, New Zealand or Canada and we are not feared in the same way the USA, Russia and China (and have not been since the end of the British Empire) are but that does not mean we don't have a lot going for us.
Agreed. There's always so much hysteria on this issue - yes, people can get carried away at how amazing we are or can be, but most people probably realise we are not going to be world beaters, a super power, but that doesn't mean we cannot be a significant power. Is being in the EU a better way to be that significant power? Many believe so and fair enough, but is it the only way? Again, some will think so, but even if that is correct, that doesn't mean the country lacks a purpose, lacks strength or appeal or any other things - we're still bigg-ish, rich-ish even in the worst case scenarios. Hopefully we won't achieve a worst case, but while those promising eternal milk and honey are selling a dream, it doesn't mean the complete opposite is the only option.
The people have spoken, they don't want strong, single party government..
If despite what may be 12 years of Tory or Tory led government and a massive upheaval of the EU exit we don't end up with a big Labour majority next time, that will definitely seem to be what the people are saying.
Though the people still seem to get mad afterwards, as parties then, gasp, have to work with others, and punish those who do or call cooperation betrayal.
For what it is worth I think a Labour majority is pretty likely, though I go back on forth over whether it will be smallish or a landslide.
JRM wants to be Speaker, it looks like he has realised the limits of his abilities and talents, and being PM is not in his plans. However, if he was elected, his sense of noblesse oblige would require him to have a darn good try. Whether that would be the best for the country is doubtful.
Does he? Link? I think he'd be a very good Speaker.
It seems a reasonable fit for him - he clearly likes the minutiae of parliamentary procedure.
For those confidently predicting the next election - you can get 2.1 on no overall majority on Betfair.
The trouble with that is that under our system a balanced parliament usually requires a strong third party showing. With little sign of a LibDem recovery, UKIP near to death and the SNP as likely to fall back, a majority remains the most likely outcome, if most probably small; NOM is possible but a fluke result that cannot reliably be predicted in the current two-party environment.
It's not so much what is said, which I'm sure plenty on here would disagree with, but the similar tenor of most of these pieces (outside the Breitbart/Russian troll area of the spectrum).
If you cannot be loved, at least be feared; never be laughed at.
The voice from the upper-middle class safe zone:
' Mr. Grant, like others who have spent their careers watching British and European politics, predicts rough seas for Britain as it casts off nearly 45 years of intimate trade and legal ties with those annoying Europeans.
“Everywhere I go,” he said, “people are asking me, ‘What’s wrong with your country?’ ” '
The answer:
' A raid on a three-bedroom house in north-west London has found 35 men living in rooms full of mattresses.
The discovery was made on Winchester Avenue, Queensbury, at about 6am on Tuesday following complaints from neighbours, Brent council said. The men, all of eastern European origin, had piled bedding in every room except bathrooms, with one mattress even laid out under a canopy in the back garden.
Images from the semi-detached property show dozens of shoes piled on top of each other, clothes strewn across radiators and rubbish clogging the garden. '
Let's run with your fantasy of a second referendum. It has these potential outcomes:
c) The EU says OK, let's forget this ever happened. Carry on as before. We'll even let you have another Referendum down the road, if you want. Yeah, right --> epic fail of reality
I think if the UK rescinded A50 - the EU overall would be fine with it. Less hassle all round. None of the countries really want us to go anyway.
After we've left into whatever transition deal - it's trickier but not impossible.
Many in the EU are pleased that the most recalcitrant obstructive and troublesome member has decided to leave. They aren't going to permit a reversal of A50.
The UK has to leave and take the dire economic consequences and loss of international influence. At some point in the future, it (or parts of it) could enter the queue for rejoining, on the terms that the EU then offers to new members.
EFTA maybe, we are not rejoining the EU.
Some time in the future the UK will be joining an organisation, probably a much larger version of the EU, as quite simply, it will be the only way we can or be allowed to trade. If everyone one else has agreed trade and contract laws that they are happy with, then we will have to join, or starve. Pity that we will doing it from a position of weakness rather than in a much more powerful institution.
You can be in EFTA and the customs union without being in the EU.
You can be in EFTA and thus in the EEA if you want. But not sure you can be in the Customs Union whilst being in EFTA. At least, there are no EFTA members who are in the Customs union.
Turkey is not in the EU and in the Customs Union (albeit not in EFTA). I don't think it is prohibited to be in EFTA and in the Customs Union, though Switzerland did manage to produce a FTA with China in 2013 and the EU still does not have one.
It's not so much what is said, which I'm sure plenty on here would disagree with, but the similar tenor of most of these pieces (outside the Breitbart/Russian troll area of the spectrum).
If you cannot be loved, at least be feared; never be laughed at.
My impression is that most people in countries that have important links with this country don't care very much whether or not we are EU members.
Mebbes, but I think the proposition of pieces like this is that the manner of leaving is at least as damaging as the leaving.
Let's run with your fantasy of a second referendum. It has these potential outcomes:
c) The EU says OK, let's forget this ever happened. Carry on as before. We'll even let you have another Referendum down the road, if you want. Yeah, right --> epic fail of reality
I think if the UK rescinded A50 - the EU overall would be fine with it. Less hassle all round. None of the countries really want us to go anyway.
After we've left into whatever transition deal - it's trickier but not impossible.
I disagree. The UK has long been a thorn in the side of the EU and prevented many countries from moving the bloc in a direction they wanted. And whilst we are supported in our free market ethos by some of the Central European countries, most of the older members are not at all happy about that philosophy, nor about our continual opt outs from what they consider vital parts of the whole project.
Faced with the prospect of a recalcitrant UK deciding very reluctantly to stay in the EU and continue to moan about and fight against further integration, I am sure they would view that prospect with some dismay.
FWIW my view is that they'd roll their eyes but welcome us back, exactly like a wayward brother coming home after a wild bender. I don't think they'd impose any special conditions (joining the Euro or whatever) but they'd want to be reasonably satisfied that neither major party was going to initiate the leaving process again any time soon. Yes, they think we're often tiresome, but we're not alone in that, and on balance still an asset.
I find it very hard to believe, although you would know Europe better than me. Without special conditions (or rather making sure we sign up to everything) we'd be in the same position as before where the majority constantly moaned about us being disruptive to their aims. But others claim that they've already moved on, they don't care about us and whether we leave anymore, so there's some very different views expressed on whether they do want us back, were it possible.
It's not so much what is said, which I'm sure plenty on here would disagree with, but the similar tenor of most of these pieces (outside the Breitbart/Russian troll area of the spectrum).
If you cannot be loved, at least be feared; never be laughed at.
The UK has arguably the greatest global city in the world at the moment, London and is a UN Security Council Power and the 5th largest economy and it is the home of Parliamentary Democracy and Common Law and the birthplace of English, the world's most common second language and the second most spoken first language after Mandarin.
We have never been and will never be as loved as Ireland, Sweden, New Zealand or Canada and we are not feared in the same way the USA, Russia and China (and have not been since the end of the British Empire) are but that does not mean we don't have a lot going for us.
That article contains a lot of valuable insight
The ambitious Mr. Johnson was crucial to the victory of Brexit in the June 2016 referendum. But for many, the blusterings of Boris have lost their charm. The “great ship” he loves to cite is a nationalist fantasy, a remnant of Britain’s persistent post-imperial confusion about its proper place in the world, hanging on to expensive symbols like a nuclear deterrent while its once glorious navy is often incapable of patrolling its own coastline.
Britain is undergoing a full-blown identity crisis. It is a “hollowed-out country,” “ill at ease with itself,” “deeply provincial,” engaged in a “controlled suicide,” say puzzled experts. And these are Britain’s friends.
The European country considered the most outward-looking and globalized is fractured by the backlash against the very model that made Britain strong. “It’s very sad, but Brexit is a controlled suicide,” he [Jan Techau] said.
Because the voters didn't believe Corbyn was in with a chance and wanted to limit May's majority. Now they believe Corbyn is in with a shout, and they will run a mile.
Not at the moment they aren't, at the moment we are heading for a Corbyn minority government.
That feels about right. Voters at present would like a change from the present shambles, but only a minority enthuse about Corbyn. He is however reasonably respected now by many non-Labour activists as a serious, honest man with steady nerves. The idea that he'd lead a minority govermnent dependent on the votes of centrist Labour MPs plus some LibDems and SNP will seem quite appealing to centrist voters - the old "coalition of chaos" accusation won't work at all.
In 1997, a big factor was abstention by Tory voters - I can well seeing this being relevant again.
There is a fair chance that Labour will emerge as the largest party in a Hung Parliament.
Based on the latest poll from Mori and a straight 2% swing from Labour to Tories the Tories and Labour would both be on 290 seats.
However if the Tories lose a few seats back to the SNP Labour would be the largest party if they hold the gains they made from the nationalists.
Either way however given the SNP are on 35 seats (and PC on 4), it would be a Labour minority government supported by the SNP and PC.
I think Labour would outperform the polls in Scotland to the detriment of the SNP - and could end up with as many as 30 seats there next time.
Unless Labour wins a clear majority of SNP seats next time and about 35 to 40 Scottish seats overall, which is unlikely even on your hopeful expectations let alone current Scottish polls, they will still be dependent on SNP support to form a government and get a majority.
Not quite. 20 gains from SNP plus a further 20 - 25 from the Tories and a gain from Plaid in Arfon would give Labour circa 310 seats. Support from Plaid and the LibDems - plus the Green and any SDLP who might get elected - would be enough.
I hope not to see how chaotic such a rainbow coalition would be (though in that scenario Labour are almost over the line, so a very strong hand), but it would be interesting to see how the smaller parties pushed to see what they could get, rather than being treated as automatically favourable as some do.
It's not so much what is said, which I'm sure plenty on here would disagree with, but the similar tenor of most of these pieces (outside the Breitbart/Russian troll area of the spectrum).
If you cannot be loved, at least be feared; never be laughed at.
My impression is that most people in countries that have important links with this country don't care very much whether or not we are EU members.
The people who couldn’t contemplate BREXIT then couldn’t contemplate Trump are clearly still grieving deeply.....as one businessman observed recently the biggest trade barrier he faces is language....on which front we are well placed.
Will the EU abandon English as a procedural language? If they keep it countries with larger populations than Ireland and Malta (many of them) may have something to say....
For those confidently predicting the next election - you can get 2.1 on no overall majority on Betfair.
The trouble with that is that under our system a balanced parliament usually requires a strong third party showing. With little sign of a LibDem recovery, UKIP near to death and the SNP as likely to fall back, a majority remains the most likely outcome, if most probably small; NOM is possible but a fluke result that cannot reliably be predicted in the current two-party environment.
As long as the SNP are the largest party in Scotland, especially given they still hold most seats in Scotland even if they have fallen back, a majority is unlikely unless either Labour or the Tories get a lead of close to 7%+ which Labour is nowhere near currently.
Therefore the odds are it will be another hung parliament.
Tories can't run on coalition of chaos and strong and stable next time.
No they cannot. Suggestions?
I think they'll fall back on the only thing governments can after a long time in office - it's not time for a change, don't risk it. Sometimes it works, sometimes it very much doesn't.
I should hope that they are. It is beyond clear now that Brexit has the potential to be a colossal disaster for UK, that a significant part of the Leave campaign was funded by mischief-makers for their own nefarious ends...... ends which had absolutely nothing to do with the needs or indeed wants of the British people, and that some of the leaders of that campaign were in it purely to feather their own nests.
Yes, there were and are honest men and women who worked for and voted Leave, but there are some very unpleasant stories now coming into the public domain.
All of the above applies to Remain(ing) (replacing mischief-makers with vested interests) except that it was obvious from the off which is why Remain lost. Potential disaster is omnipresent.
Because the voters didn't believe Corbyn was in with a chance and wanted to limit May's majority. Now they believe Corbyn is in with a shout, and they will run a mile.
Not at the moment they aren't, at the moment we are heading for a Corbyn minority government.
That feels about right. Voters at present would like a change from the present shambles, but only a minority enthuse about Corbyn. He is however reasonably respected now by many non-Labour activists as a serious, honest man with steady nerves. The idea that he'd lead a minority govermnent dependent on the votes of centrist Labour MPs plus some LibDems and SNP will seem quite appealing to centrist voters - the old "coalition of chaos" accusation won't work at all.
In 1997, a big factor was abstention by Tory voters - I can well seeing this being relevant again.
There is a fair chance that Labour will emerge as the largest party in a Hung Parliament.
Based on the latest poll from Mori and a straight 2% swing from Labour to Tories the Tories and Labour would both be on 290 seats.
However if the Tories lose a few seats back to the SNP Labour would be the largest party if they hold the gains they made from the nationalists.
Either way however given the SNP are on 35 seats (and PC on 4), it would be a Labour minority government supported by the SNP and PC.
I think Labour would outperform the polls in Scotland to the detriment of the SNP - and could end up with as many as 30 seats there next time.
Unless Labour wins a clear majority of SNP seats next time and about 35 to 40 Scottish seats overall, which is unlikely even on your hopeful expectations let alone current Scottish polls, they will still be dependent on SNP support to form a government and get a majority.
Not quite. 20 gains from SNP plus a further 20 - 25 from the Tories and a gain from Plaid in Arfon would give Labour circa 310 seats. Support from Plaid and the LibDems - plus the Green and any SDLP who might get elected - would be enough.
So a Corbyn government would then still be dependent on Welsh nationalists, the LDs and the Greens to get anything through, so again a Corbyn minority government without a majority.
Rudd is good. A glimpse of human in an increasingly barren Tory party. If they had any sense they would promote her.
Meanwhile, back in real Tory circles JRM continues to excite.
I seem to remember many Tories on here said the same about Liz Kendall and Corbyn in 2015. (For Kendall read Rudd and for Corbyn read JRM).
You are truly lost.
No, it is exactly the same scenario.
Tories were advising Labour members to pick Kendall over Corbyn as she was more 'electable' despite the fact that none of them would vote for a Kendall led Labour Party.
Now Labour supporters are advising Tory members to pick Rudd over JRM (or Boris) despite the fact none of them would vote for a Rudd led Tory Party.
Look at it this way. You may not vote for them, but some will get you off your fat arse and actively oppose them more than others. You need to activate your own base without being a recruiting sergeant for the opposition
May and Corbyn discovered this in June. JRM would be Labour's recruiting sergeant from heaven.
Corbyn was supposed to be the Tories recruiting sergeant from heaven but it did not quite work out that way as he motivated the left for him as much as JRM could motivate the right for him.
People want to vote for someone not just against someone.
Because the voters didn't believe Corbyn was in with a chance and wanted to limit May's majority. Now they believe Corbyn is in with a shout, and they will run a mile.
Not at the moment they aren't, at the moment we are heading for a Corbyn minority government.
Opinion polls are an excellent way for sending your party a message without the risk of electing the wrong people.
It is perfectly possible the Tories could win most seats next time and Corbyn still become PM through deals with minor parties a la New Zealand.
They had better be careful, deals with other parties are grubby after all.
It's not so much what is said, which I'm sure plenty on here would disagree with, but the similar tenor of most of these pieces (outside the Breitbart/Russian troll area of the spectrum).
If you cannot be loved, at least be feared; never be laughed at.
The UK has arguably the greatest global city in the world at the moment, London and is a UN Security Council Power and the 5th largest economy and it is the home of Parliamentary Democracy and Common Law and the birthplace of English, the world's most common second language and the second most spoken first language after Mandarin.
We have never been and will never be as loved as Ireland, Sweden, New Zealand or Canada and we are not feared in the same way the USA, Russia and China (and have not been since the end of the British Empire) are but that does not mean we don't have a lot going for us.
Agreed. There's always so much hysteria on this issue - yes, people can get carried away at how amazing we are or can be, but most people probably realise we are not going to be world beaters, a super power, but that doesn't mean we cannot be a significant power. Is being in the EU a better way to be that significant power? Many believe so and fair enough, but is it the only way? Again, some will think so, but even if that is correct, that doesn't mean the country lacks a purpose, lacks strength or appeal or any other things - we're still bigg-ish, rich-ish even in the worst case scenarios. Hopefully we won't achieve a worst case, but while those promising eternal milk and honey are selling a dream, it doesn't mean the complete opposite is the only option.
The people have spoken, they don't want strong, single party government..
If despite what may be 12 years of Tory or Tory led government and a massive upheaval of the EU exit we don't end up with a big Labour majority next time, that will definitely seem to be what the people are saying.
Though the people still seem to get mad afterwards, as parties then, gasp, have to work with others, and punish those who do or call cooperation betrayal.
For what it is worth I think a Labour majority is pretty likely, though I go back on forth over whether it will be smallish or a landslide.
It's not so much what is said, which I'm sure plenty on here would disagree with, but the similar tenor of most of these pieces (outside the Breitbart/Russian troll area of the spectrum).
If you cannot be loved, at least be feared; never be laughed at.
The UK has arguably the greatest global city in the world at the moment, London and is a UN Security Council Power and the 5th largest economy and it is the home of Parliamentary Democracy and Common Law and the birthplace of English, the world's most common second language and the second most spoken first language after Mandarin.
We have never been and will never be as loved as Ireland, Sweden, New Zealand or Canada and we are not feared in the same way the USA, Russia and China (and have not been since the end of the British Empire) are but that does not mean we don't have a lot going for us.
That article contains a lot of valuable insight
The ambitious Mr. Johnson was crucial to the victory of Brexit in the June 2016 referendum. But for many, the blusterings of Boris have lost their charm. The “great ship” he loves to cite is a nationalist fantasy, a remnant of Britain’s persistent post-imperial confusion about its proper place in the world, hanging on to expensive symbols like a nuclear deterrent while its once glorious navy is often incapable of patrolling its own coastline.
Britain is undergoing a full-blown identity crisis. It is a “hollowed-out country,” “ill at ease with itself,” “deeply provincial,” engaged in a “controlled suicide,” say puzzled experts. And these are Britain’s friends.
The European country considered the most outward-looking and globalized is fractured by the backlash against the very model that made Britain strong. “It’s very sad, but Brexit is a controlled suicide,” he [Jan Techau] said.
Rudd is good. A glimpse of human in an increasingly barren Tory party. If they had any sense they would promote her.
Meanwhile, back in real Tory circles JRM continues to excite.
I seem to remember many Tories on here said the same about Liz Kendall and Corbyn in 2015. (For Kendall read Rudd and for Corbyn read JRM).
You are truly lost.
No, it is exactly the same scenario.
Tories were advising Labour members to pick Kendall over Corbyn as she was more 'electable' despite the fact that none of them would vote for a Kendall led Labour Party.
Now Labour supporters are advising Tory members to pick Rudd over JRM (or Boris) despite the fact none of them would vote for a Rudd led Tory Party.
Look at it this way. You may not vote for them, but some will get you off your fat arse and actively oppose them more than others. You need to activate your own base without being a recruiting sergeant for the opposition
May and Corbyn discovered this in June. JRM would be Labour's recruiting sergeant from heaven.
Corbyn was supposed to be the Tories recruiting sergeant from heaven but it did not quite work out that way as he motivated the left for him as much as JRM could motivate the right for him.
People want to vote for someone not just against someone.
Because the voters didn't believe Corbyn was in with a chance and wanted to limit May's majority. Now they believe Corbyn is in with a shout, and they will run a mile.
Not at the moment they aren't, at the moment we are heading for a Corbyn minority government.
Opinion polls are an excellent way for sending your party a message without the risk of electing the wrong people.
It is perfectly possible the Tories could win most seats next time and Corbyn still become PM through deals with minor parties a la New Zealand.
They had better be careful, deals with other parties are grubby after all.
The Tories would almost certainly go into opposition next time if they do not get a majority, especially as it is unlikely they will have enough with the DUP again in those circumstances and leave it up to Labour to do the deals.
I should hope that they are. It is beyond clear now that Brexit has the potential to be a colossal disaster for UK, that a significant part of the Leave campaign was funded by mischief-makers for their own nefarious ends...... ends which had absolutely nothing to do with the needs or indeed wants of the British people, and that some of the leaders of that campaign were in it purely to feather their own nests.
Yes, there were and are honest men and women who worked for and voted Leave, but there are some very unpleasant stories now coming into the public domain.
All of the above applies to Remain(ing) (replacing mischief-makers with vested interests) except that it was obvious from the off which is why Remain lost. Potential disaster is omnipresent.
Indeed.
And hard times generally are pretty much assured in the future as the UK can't continue to live so far beyond its means in an increasingly globalised world.
When you're on the wrong path, as the UK was before the Referendum, continuing as you were is guaranteed to make things worse.
Whatever happens after the Leave vote at least gives the UK the chance to change for the better.
It's not so much what is said, which I'm sure plenty on here would disagree with, but the similar tenor of most of these pieces (outside the Breitbart/Russian troll area of the spectrum).
If you cannot be loved, at least be feared; never be laughed at.
The UK has arguably the greatest global city in the world at the moment, London and is a UN Security Council Power and the 5th largest economy and it is the home of Parliamentary Democracy and Common Law and the birthplace of English, the world's most common second language and the second most spoken first language after Mandarin.
We have never been and will never be as loved as Ireland, Sweden, New Zealand or Canada and we are not feared in the same way the USA, Russia and China (and have not been since the end of the British Empire) are but that does not mean we don't have a lot going for us.
That article contains a lot of valuable insight
The ambitious Mr. Johnson was crucial to the victory of Brexit in the June 2016 referendum. But for many, the blusterings of Boris have lost their charm. The “great ship” he loves to cite is a nationalist fantasy, a remnant of Britain’s persistent post-imperial confusion about its proper place in the world, hanging on to expensive symbols like a nuclear deterrent while its once glorious navy is often incapable of patrolling its own coastline.
Britain is undergoing a full-blown identity crisis. It is a “hollowed-out country,” “ill at ease with itself,” “deeply provincial,” engaged in a “controlled suicide,” say puzzled experts. And these are Britain’s friends.
The European country considered the most outward-looking and globalized is fractured by the backlash against the very model that made Britain strong. “It’s very sad, but Brexit is a controlled suicide,” he [Jan Techau] said.
I see no valuable insight there at all. Just biased opinion mostly unrelated to any actual facts.
It's not so much what is said, which I'm sure plenty on here would disagree with, but the similar tenor of most of these pieces (outside the Breitbart/Russian troll area of the spectrum).
If you cannot be loved, at least be feared; never be laughed at.
The UK has arguably the greatest global city in the world at the moment, London and is a UN Security Council Power and the 5th largest economy and it is the home of Parliamentary Democracy and Common Law and the birthplace of English, the world's most common second language and the second most spoken first language after Mandarin.
We have never been and will never be as loved as Ireland, Sweden, New Zealand or Canada and we are not feared in the same way the USA, Russia and China (and have not been since the end of the British Empire) are but that does not mean we don't have a lot going for us.
That article contains a lot of valuable insight
The ambitious Mr. Johnson was crucial to the victory of Brexit in the June 2016 referendum. But for many, the blusterings of Boris have lost their charm. The “great ship” he loves to cite is a nationalist fantasy, a remnant of Britain’s persistent post-imperial confusion about its proper place in the world, hanging on to expensive symbols like a nuclear deterrent while its once glorious navy is often incapable of patrolling its own coastline.
Britain is undergoing a full-blown identity crisis. It is a “hollowed-out country,” “ill at ease with itself,” “deeply provincial,” engaged in a “controlled suicide,” say puzzled experts. And these are Britain’s friends.
The European country considered the most outward-looking and globalized is fractured by the backlash against the very model that made Britain strong. “It’s very sad, but Brexit is a controlled suicide,” he [Jan Techau] said.
Given the rise of the far right and populist left in Europe it does not have much to shout about on being outward-looking and globalized either.
Because the voters didn't believe Corbyn was in with a chance and wanted to limit May's majority. Now they believe Corbyn is in with a shout, and they will run a mile.
Not at the moment they aren't, at the moment we are heading for a Corbyn minority government.
That feels about right. Voters at present would like a change from the present shambles, but only a minority enthuse about Corbyn. He is however reasonably respected now by many non-Labour activists as a serious, honest man with steady nerves. The idea that he'd lead a minority govermnent dependent on the votes of centrist Labour MPs plus some LibDems and SNP will seem quite appealing to centrist voters - the old "coalition of chaos" accusation won't work at all.
In 1997, a big factor was abstention by Tory voters - I can well seeing this being relevant again.
Lewisham-East was lost by the Tories in 1992: Lewisham-West was secured for Labour later. As I live here I can comment upon the facts: Ethnic cleansing is not an issue; corrupt politicians (with off-shore accounts) are. And I know whom they are (some I may have been to school with or met down 'The Ram' or on Perry-Hill.
The ambitious Mr. Johnson was crucial to the victory of Brexit in the June 2016 referendum. But for many, the blusterings of Boris have lost their charm. The “great ship” he loves to cite is a nationalist fantasy, a remnant of Britain’s persistent post-imperial confusion about its proper place in the world, hanging on to expensive symbols like a nuclear deterrent while its once glorious navy is often incapable of patrolling its own coastline.
Britain is undergoing a full-blown identity crisis. It is a “hollowed-out country,” “ill at ease with itself,” “deeply provincial,” engaged in a “controlled suicide,” say puzzled experts. And these are Britain’s friends.
The European country considered the most outward-looking and globalized is fractured by the backlash against the very model that made Britain strong. “It’s very sad, but Brexit is a controlled suicide,” he [Jan Techau] said.
Some of that is not insight. 'hollowed-out country' and 'controlled suicide' are not insightful comments. It's hard to argue that we are ill at ease at the moment and uncertain of much because of division, but those are not analytical terms, they are emotive criticism which don't mean anything. The talk about post imperial confusion just annoys me, frankly, as it has never accorded with what I have seen in my life - if anything we often seem to be too belittling of our position give we are still one of the richer nations on the planet. Certainly no superpower but nobody says we are. Great power? Depends on the definition, but it's certainly up to be questioned if we could reach so high. But is it post imperial confusion to suggest we could in fact still be relatively strong and prosperous? Even if it is a fantasy, is it based on post imperial confusion? I just don't see it, it is one of those lazy, lazy assumptions that gets trotted out over and over.
The nuclear deterrent is a case in point. For one it is party policy for both main parties at present, and not a leave vs remain issue as far as I am aware. For another, yes, we are holding on to it and personally I am not certain of that being necessary, but do people really hold onto it because of post imperial confusion about our place in the world, do they hold onto it because they think it's a good thing for nations to have. Good idea or not, I don't see that post imperial confusion is behind the reasoning on it.
Let's run with your fantasy of a second referendum. It has these potential outcomes:
c) The EU says OK, let's forget this ever happened. Carry on as before. We'll even let you have another Referendum down the road, if you want. Yeah, right --> epic fail of reality
I think if the UK rescinded A50 - the EU overall would be fine with it. Less hassle all round. None of the countries really want us to go anyway.
After we've left into whatever transition deal - it's trickier but not impossible.
Many in the EU are pleased that the most recalcitrant obstructive and troublesome member has decided to leave. They aren't going to permit a reversal of A50.
The UK has to leave and take the dire economic consequences and loss of international influence. At some point in the future, it (or parts of it) could enter the queue for rejoining, on the terms that the EU then offers to new members.
EFTA maybe, we are not rejoining the EU.
Some time in the future the UK will be joining an organisation, probably a much larger version of the EU, as quite simply, it will be the only way we can or be allowed to trade. If everyone one else has agreed trade and contract laws that they are happy with, then we will have to join, or starve. Pity that we will doing it from a position of weakness rather than in a much more powerful institution.
You can be in EFTA and the customs union without being in the EU.
You can be in EFTA and thus in the EEA if you want. But not sure you can be in the Customs Union whilst being in EFTA. At least, there are no EFTA members who are in the Customs union.
Turkey is not in the EU and in the Customs Union (albeit not in EFTA). I don't think it is prohibited to be in EFTA and in the Customs Union, though Switzerland did manage to produce a FTA with China in 2013 and the EU still does not have one.
Customs Union membership precludes the ability to make ones own trade deals. As such EFTA membership and Customs Union membership are self excluding because an EFTA country being in the Customs Union would prevent EFTA from making its own trade deals.
It's not so much what is said, which I'm sure plenty on here would disagree with, but the similar tenor of most of these pieces (outside the Breitbart/Russian troll area of the spectrum).
If you cannot be loved, at least be feared; never be laughed at.
The UK has arguably the greatest global city in the world at the moment, London and is a UN Security Council Power and the 5th largest economy and it is the home of Parliamentary Democracy and Common Law and the birthplace of English, the world's most common second language and the second most spoken first language after Mandarin.
We have never been and will never be as loved as Ireland, Sweden, New Zealand or Canada and we are not feared in the same way the USA, Russia and China (and have not been since the end of the British Empire) are but that does not mean we don't have a lot going for us.
That article contains a lot of valuable insight
The ambitious Mr. Johnson was crucial to the victory of Brexit in the June 2016 referendum. But for many, the blusterings of Boris have lost their charm. The “great ship” he loves to cite is a nationalist fantasy, a remnant of Britain’s persistent post-imperial confusion about its proper place in the world, hanging on to expensive symbols like a nuclear deterrent while its once glorious navy is often incapable of patrolling its own coastline.
Britain is undergoing a full-blown identity crisis. It is a “hollowed-out country,” “ill at ease with itself,” “deeply provincial,” engaged in a “controlled suicide,” say puzzled experts. And these are Britain’s friends.
The European country considered the most outward-looking and globalized is fractured by the backlash against the very model that made Britain strong. “It’s very sad, but Brexit is a controlled suicide,” he [Jan Techau] said.
You call it “valuable insight”.
Others might call it preposterous nonsense...
I see some insight in there - but other bits are not even attempts at insight, they are just cliche criticisms.
The ambitious Mr. Johnson was crucial to the victory of Brexit in the June 2016 referendum. But for many, the blusterings of Boris have lost their charm. The “great ship” he loves to cite is a nationalist fantasy, a remnant of Britain’s persistent post-imperial confusion about its proper place in the world, hanging on to expensive symbols like a nuclear deterrent while its once glorious navy is often incapable of patrolling its own coastline.
Britain is undergoing a full-blown identity crisis. It is a “hollowed-out country,” “ill at ease with itself,” “deeply provincial,” engaged in a “controlled suicide,” say puzzled experts. And these are Britain’s friends.
The European country considered the most outward-looking and globalized is fractured by the backlash against the very model that made Britain strong. “It’s very sad, but Brexit is a controlled suicide,” he [Jan Techau] said.
Some of that is not insight. 'hollowed-out country' and 'controlled suicide' are not insightful comments. It's hard to argue that we are ill at ease at the moment and uncertain of much because of division, but those are not analytical terms, they are emotive criticism which don't mean anything. The talk about post imperial confusion just annoys me, frankly, as it has never accorded with what I have seen in my life - if anything we often seem to be too belittling of our position give we are still one of the richer nations on the planet. Certainly no superpower but nobody says we are. Great power? Depends on the definition, but it's certainly up to be questioned if we could reach so high. But is it post imperial confusion to suggest we could in fact still be relatively strong and prosperous? Even if it is a fantasy, is it based on post imperial confusion? I just don't see it, it is one of those lazy, lazy assumptions that gets trotted out over and over.
The nuclear deterrent is a case in point. For one it is party policy for both main parties at present, and not a leave vs remain issue as far as I am aware. For another, yes, we are holding on to it and personally I am not certain of that being necessary, but do people really hold onto it because of post imperial confusion about our place in the world, do they hold onto it because they think it's a good thing for nations to have. Good idea or not, I don't see that post imperial confusion is behind the reasoning on it.
I should hope that they are. It is beyond clear now that Brexit has the potential to be a colossal disaster for UK, that a significant part of the Leave campaign was funded by mischief-makers for their own nefarious ends...... ends which had absolutely nothing to do with the needs or indeed wants of the British people, and that some of the leaders of that campaign were in it purely to feather their own nests.
Yes, there were and are honest men and women who worked for and voted Leave, but there are some very unpleasant stories now coming into the public domain.
All of the above applies to Remain(ing) (replacing mischief-makers with vested interests) except that it was obvious from the off which is why Remain lost. Potential disaster is omnipresent.
Indeed.
And hard times generally are pretty much assured in the future as the UK can't continue to live so far beyond its means in an increasingly globalised world.
When you're on the wrong path, as the UK was before the Referendum, continuing as you were is guaranteed to make things worse.
Whatever happens after the Leave vote at least gives the UK the chance to change for the better.
At the moment we are looking more likely to end up like Cuba with fewer immigrants, than a globalized free trading Singapore though. Most voted for Brexit over sovereignty and immigration concerns not because austerity did not go far enough and we had too many regulations.
Let's run with your fantasy of a second referendum. It has these potential outcomes:
c) The EU says OK, let's forget this ever happened. Carry on as before. We'll even let you have another Referendum down the road, if you want. Yeah, right --> epic fail of reality
I think if the UK rescinded A50 - the EU overall would be fine with it. Less hassle all round. None of the countries really want us to go anyway.
After we've left into whatever transition deal - it's trickier but not impossible.
Many in the EU are pleased that the most recalcitrant obstructive and troublesome member has decided to leave. They aren't going to permit a reversal of A50.
The UK has to leave and take the dire economic consequences and loss of international influence. At some point in the future, it (or parts of it) could enter the queue for rejoining, on the terms that the EU then offers to new members.
EFTA maybe, we are not rejoining the EU.
Some time in the future the UK will be joining an organisation, probably a much larger version of the EU, as quite simply, it will be the only way we can or be allowed to trade. If everyone one else has agreed trade and contract laws that they are happy with, then we will have to join, or starve. Pity that we will doing it from a position of weakness rather than in a much more powerful institution.
You can be in EFTA and the customs union without being in the EU.
You can be in EFTA and thus in the EEA if you want. But not sure you can be in the Customs Union whilst being in EFTA. At least, there are no EFTA members who are in the Customs union.
Turkey is not in the EU and in the Customs Union (albeit not in EFTA). I don't think it is prohibited to be in EFTA and in the Customs Union, though Switzerland did manage to produce a FTA with China in 2013 and the EU still does not have one.
Turkey has A customs union with the EU, but it is not in THE EU customs union.
It's not so much what is said, which I'm sure plenty on here would disagree with, but the similar tenor of most of these pieces (outside the Breitbart/Russian troll area of the spectrum).
If you cannot be loved, at least be feared; never be laughed at.
The UK has arguably the greatest global city in the world at the moment, London and is a UN Security Council Power and the 5th largest economy and it is the home of Parliamentary Democracy and Common Law and the birthplace of English, the world's most common second language and the second most spoken first language after Mandarin.
We have never been and will never be as loved as Ireland, Sweden, New Zealand or Canada and we are not feared in the same way the USA, Russia and China (and have not been since the end of the British Empire) are but that does not mean we don't have a lot going for us.
That article contains a lot of valuable insight
The ambitious Mr. Johnson was crucial to the victory of Brexit in the June 2016 referendum. But for many, the blusterings of Boris have lost their charm. The “great ship” he loves to cite is a nationalist fantasy, a remnant of Britain’s persistent post-imperial confusion about its proper place in the world, hanging on to expensive symbols like a nuclear deterrent while its once glorious navy is often incapable of patrolling its own coastline.
Britain is undergoing a full-blown identity crisis. It is a “hollowed-out country,” “ill at ease with itself,” “deeply provincial,” engaged in a “controlled suicide,” say puzzled experts. And these are Britain’s friends.
The European country considered the most outward-looking and globalized is fractured by the backlash against the very model that made Britain strong. “It’s very sad, but Brexit is a controlled suicide,” he [Jan Techau] said.
Given the rise of the far right and populist left in Europe it does not have much to shout about on being outward-looking and globalized either.
Its the view from the upper middle class safe zone.
As the negative effects of globalisation spread up the socioeconomic scale expect views to change.
For example, protectionism will be supported to defend middle class jobs and earnings but under the guise of 'maintaining professional standards'.
The ambitious Mr. Johnson was crucial to the victory of Brexit in the June 2016 referendum. But for many, the blusterings of Boris have lost their charm. The “great ship” he loves to cite is a nationalist fantasy, a remnant of Britain’s persistent post-imperial confusion about its proper place in the world, hanging on to expensive symbols like a nuclear deterrent while its once glorious navy is often incapable of patrolling its own coastline.
Britain is undergoing a full-blown identity crisis. It is a “hollowed-out country,” “ill at ease with itself,” “deeply provincial,” engaged in a “controlled suicide,” say puzzled experts. And these are Britain’s friends.
The European country considered the most outward-looking and globalized is fractured by the backlash against the very model that made Britain strong. “It’s very sad, but Brexit is a controlled suicide,” he [Jan Techau] said.
Some of that is not insight. 'hollowed-out country' and 'controlled suicide' are not insightful comments. It's hard to argue that we are ill at ease at the moment and uncertain of much because of division, but those are not analytical terms, they are emotive criticism which don't mean anything. The talk about post imperial confusion just annoys me, frankly, as it has never accorded with what I have seen in my life - if anything we often seem to be too belittling of our position give we are still one of the richer nations on the planet. Certainly no superpower but nobody says we are. Great power? Depends on the definition, but it's certainly up to be questioned if we could reach so high. But is it post imperial confusion to suggest we could in fact still be relatively strong and prosperous? Even if it is a fantasy, is it based on post imperial confusion? I just don't see it, it is one of those lazy, lazy assumptions that gets trotted out over and over.
The nuclear deterrent is a case in point. For one it is party policy for both main parties at present, and not a leave vs remain issue as far as I am aware. For another, yes, we are holding on to it and personally I am not certain of that being necessary, but do people really hold onto it because of post imperial confusion about our place in the world, do they hold onto it because they think it's a good thing for nations to have. Good idea or not, I don't see that post imperial confusion is behind the reasoning on it.
This is a successful and prosperous country with a weak government. There are far worse fates.
Let's run with your fantasy of a second referendum. It has these potential outcomes:
c) The EU says OK, let's forget this ever happened. Carry on as before. We'll even let you have another Referendum down the road, if you want. Yeah, right --> epic fail of reality
I think if the UK rescinded A50 - the EU overall would be fine with it. Less hassle all round. None of the countries really want us to go anyway.
After we've left into whatever transition deal - it's trickier but not impossible.
Many in the EU are pleased that the most recalcitrant obstructive and troublesome member has decided to leave. They aren't going to permit a reversal of A50.
The UK has to leave and take the dire economic consequences and loss of international influence. At some point in the future, it (or parts of it) could enter the queue for rejoining, on the terms that the EU then offers to new members.
EFTA maybe, we are not rejoining the EU.
Some time in the future the UK will be joining an organisation, probably a much larger version of the EU, as quite simply, it will be the only way we can or be allowed to trade. If everyone one else has agreed trade and contract laws that they are happy with, then we will have to join, or starve. Pity that we will doing it from a position of weakness rather than in a much more powerful institution.
You can be in EFTA and the customs union without being in the EU.
You can be in EFTA and thus in the EEA if you want. But not sure you can be in the Customs Union whilst being in EFTA. At least, there are no EFTA members who are in the Customs union.
Turkey is not in the EU and in the Customs Union (albeit not in EFTA). I don't think it is prohibited to be in EFTA and in the Customs Union, though Switzerland did manage to produce a FTA with China in 2013 and the EU still does not have one.
Customs Union membership precludes the ability to make ones own trade deals. As such EFTA membership and Customs Union membership are self excluding because an EFTA country being in the Customs Union would prevent EFTA from making its own trade deals.
Interesting. I see EFTA has trade deals with Mexico, South Africa and South Korea and Singapore as well as with the EU.
Let's run with your fantasy of a second referendum. It has these potential outcomes:
c) The EU says OK, let's forget this ever happened. Carry on as before. We'll even let you have another Referendum down the road, if you want. Yeah, right --> epic fail of reality
I think if the UK rescinded A50 - the EU overall would be fine with it. Less hassle all round. None of the countries really want us to go anyway.
After we've left into whatever transition deal - it's trickier but not impossible.
Many in the EU are pleased that the most recalcitrant obstructive and troublesome member has decided to leave. They aren't going to permit a reversal of A50.
The UK has to leave and take the dire economic consequences and loss of international influence. At some point in the future, it (or parts of it) could enter the queue for rejoining, on the terms that the EU then offers to new members.
EFTA maybe, we are not rejoining the EU.
Some time in the future the UK will be joining an organisation, probably a much larger version of the EU, as quite simply, it will be the only way we can or be allowed to trade. If everyone one else has agreed trade and contract laws that they are happy with, then we will have to join, or starve. Pity that we will doing it from a position of weakness rather than in a much more powerful institution.
You can be in EFTA and the customs union without being in the EU.
You can be in EFTA and thus in the EEA if you want. But not sure you can be in the Customs Union whilst being in EFTA. At least, there are no EFTA members who are in the Customs union.
Turkey is not in the EU and in the Customs Union (albeit not in EFTA). I don't think it is prohibited to be in EFTA and in the Customs Union, though Switzerland did manage to produce a FTA with China in 2013 and the EU still does not have one.
Turkey has A customs union with the EU, but it is not in THE EU customs union.
Because the voters didn't believe Corbyn was in with a chance and wanted to limit May's majority. Now they believe Corbyn is in with a shout, and they will run a mile.
Not at the moment they aren't, at the moment we are heading for a Corbyn minority government.
That feels about right. Voters at present would like a change from the present shambles, but only a minority enthuse about Corbyn. He is however reasonably respected now by many non-Labour activists as a serious, honest man with steady nerves. The idea that he'd lead a minority govermnent dependent on the votes of centrist Labour MPs plus some LibDems and SNP will seem quite appealing to centrist voters - the old "coalition of chaos" accusation won't work at all.
In 1997, a big factor was abstention by Tory voters - I can well seeing this being relevant again.
Lewisham-East was lost by the Tories in 1992: Lewisham-West was secured for Labour later. As I live here I can comment upon the facts: Ethnic cleansing is not an issue; corrupt politicians (with off-shore accounts) are. And I know whom they are (some I may have been to school with or met down 'The Ram' or on Perry-Hill.
She told Sunday Mail: 'It happened at a Labour Party social event in 2013, before I was an MSP. It was a private function, a room full of people.
'A man, who was a senior figure in the party, touched me in a manner that some would say is 'handsy'. He was sitting next to me when he groped me, in full view of other people.
'I don't want to go into the full details but he touched my body, in an intimate way, without invitation or permission. This shouldn't happen to anyone.
It's not so much what is said, which I'm sure plenty on here would disagree with, but the similar tenor of most of these pieces (outside the Breitbart/Russian troll area of the spectrum).
If you cannot be loved, at least be feared; never be laughed at.
The UK has arguably the greatest global city in the world at the moment, London and is a UN Security Council Power and the 5th largest economy and it is the home of Parliamentary Democracy and Common Law and the birthplace of English, the world's most common second language and the second most spoken first language after Mandarin.
We have never been and will never be as loved as Ireland, Sweden, New Zealand or Canada and we are not feared in the same way the USA, Russia and China (and have not been since the end of the British Empire) are but that does not mean we don't have a lot going for us.
That article contains a lot of valuable insight
The ambitious Mr. Johnson was crucial to the victory of Brexit in the June 2016 referendum. But for many, the blusterings of Boris have lost their charm. The “great ship” he loves to cite is a nationalist fantasy, a remnant of Britain’s persistent post-imperial confusion about its proper place in the world, hanging on to expensive symbols like a nuclear deterrent while its once glorious navy is often incapable of patrolling its own coastline.
Britain is undergoing a full-blown identity crisis. It is a “hollowed-out country,” “ill at ease with itself,” “deeply provincial,” engaged in a “controlled suicide,” say puzzled experts. And these are Britain’s friends.
The European country considered the most outward-looking and globalized is fractured by the backlash against the very model that made Britain strong. “It’s very sad, but Brexit is a controlled suicide,” he [Jan Techau] said.
Given the rise of the far right and populist left in Europe it does not have much to shout about on being outward-looking and globalized either.
Its the view from the upper middle class safe zone.
As the negative effects of globalisation spread up the socioeconomic scale expect views to change.
For example, protectionism will be supported to defend middle class jobs and earnings but under the guise of 'maintaining professional standards'.
Populism is certainly on the rise across the western world
Seems perfectly reasonable not to answer questions about an ongoing investigation. She’d be a fool to come out and say he is innocent or guilty.
A cynic might say that they ordered the bucket of whitewash investigation (will there be a peerage this time too?) purely so they can deflect questions like this from the media until the storm blows over.
Seems perfectly reasonable not to answer questions about an ongoing investigation. She’d be a fool to come out and say he is innocent or guilty.
A cynic might say that they ordered the bucket of whitewash investigation (will there be a peerage this time too?) purely so they can deflect questions like this from the media until the storm blows over.
I think an investigation is inevitable if he denies wrongdoing.
Some of that is not insight. 'hollowed-out country' and 'controlled suicide' are not insightful comments. It's hard to argue that we are ill at ease at the moment and uncertain of much because of division, but those are not analytical terms, they are emotive criticism which don't mean anything. The talk about post imperial confusion just annoys me, frankly, as it has never accorded with what I have seen in my life - if anything we often seem to be too belittling of our position give we are still one of the richer nations on the planet. Certainly no superpower but nobody says we are. Great power? Depends on the definition, but it's certainly up to be questioned if we could reach so high. But is it post imperial confusion to suggest we could in fact still be relatively strong and prosperous? Even if it is a fantasy, is it based on post imperial confusion? I just don't see it, it is one of those lazy, lazy assumptions that gets trotted out over and over.
The nuclear deterrent is a case in point. For one it is party policy for both main parties at present, and not a leave vs remain issue as far as I am aware. For another, yes, we are holding on to it and personally I am not certain of that being necessary, but do people really hold onto it because of post imperial confusion about our place in the world, do they hold onto it because they think it's a good thing for nations to have. Good idea or not, I don't see that post imperial confusion is behind the reasoning on it.
Sadly, while introspection and self-critique are good traits to have, too many Brits are all too willing uncritically to believe any criticism of the UK. It is almost as if some, such as Yellow Submarine in the last thread talking about 'caving in' to the EU's demands on citizenship, want us to fail as a nation in order to prove how rotten this government is.
Britain is not its government (thank god, regardless of party in power) and is a stronger, nicer, richer country than you would think if you just read PB (or any group of political analysts for that matter).
But I don't think the UK is unique in this regard. If the article you reference had references to the UK blanked out, you could justifiably guess that it was talking about the US, France, Turkey, Russia - or even Sweden or Germany. Our social and economic problems in Britain are not unique - the whole world is going through pretty much the same - or if not the same, very equivalent - social and economic ructions.
Introspection and self-critique are only good traits if they lead to optimistic, forward-looking, ambitious but realistic plans. Otherwise, it's just bellyaching and victimhood. Nobody loves a whiner.
Seems perfectly reasonable not to answer questions about an ongoing investigation. She’d be a fool to come out and say he is innocent or guilty.
A cynic might say that they ordered the bucket of whitewash investigation (will there be a peerage this time too?) purely so they can deflect questions like this from the media until the storm blows over.
I think an investigation is inevitable if he denies wrongdoing.
It may be better if the investigation is not conducted by a political party.
It doesn’t require a cynic to spot a similar pattern of Labour party behaviour in the Bex Bailey and Ava Etemadzadeh and Monica Lennon cases -- shut up, before it harms us ... and you.
Some of that is not insight. 'hollowed-out country' and 'controlled suicide' are not insightful comments. It's hard to argue that we are ill at ease at the moment and uncertain of much because of division, but those are not analytical terms, they are emotive criticism which don't mean anything. The talk about post imperial confusion just annoys me, frankly, as it has never accorded with what I have seen in my life - if anything we often seem to be too belittling of our position give we are still one of the richer nations on the planet. Certainly no superpower but nobody says we are. Great power? Depends on the definition, but it's certainly up to be questioned if we could reach so high. But is it post imperial confusion to suggest we could in fact still be relatively strong and prosperous? Even if it is a fantasy, is it based on post imperial confusion? I just don't see it, it is one of those lazy, lazy assumptions that gets trotted out over and over.
The nuclear deterrent is a case in point. For one it is party policy for both main parties at present, and not a leave vs remain issue as far as I am aware. For another, yes, we are holding on to it and personally I am not certain of that being necessary, but do people really hold onto it because of post imperial confusion about our place in the world, do they hold onto it because they think it's a good thing for nations to have. Good idea or not, I don't see that post imperial confusion is behind the reasoning on it.
Sadly, while introspection and self-critique are good traits to have, too many Brits are all too willing uncritically to believe any criticism of the UK. It is almost as if some, such as Yellow Submarine in the last thread talking about 'caving in' to the EU's demands on citizenship, want us to fail as a nation in order to prove how rotten this government is.
Britain is not its government (thank god, regardless of party in power) and is a stronger, nicer, richer country than you would think if you just read PB (or any group of political analysts for that matter).
But I don't think the UK is unique in this regard. If the article you reference had references to the UK blanked out, you could justifiably guess that it was talking about the US, France, Turkey, Russia - or even Sweden or Germany. Our social and economic problems in Britain are not unique - the whole world is going through pretty much the same - or if not the same, very equivalent - social and economic ructions.
Introspection and self-critique are only good traits if they lead to optimistic, forward-looking, ambitious but realistic plans. Otherwise, it's just bellyaching and victimhood. Nobody loves a whiner.
At any rate, the whole Western world is going through the same, bar commodity exporters.
@MTimT With respect that's a really silly misrepresentation of the point I was making. Even if I was saying that your twisting of my words is an example of you doing what you were accusing me of.
Sadly, while introspection and self-critique are good traits to have, too many Brits are all too willing uncritically to believe any criticism of the UK. It is almost as if some, such as Yellow Submarine in the last thread talking about 'caving in' to the EU's demands on citizenship, want us to fail as a nation in order to prove how rotten this government is.
Britain is not its government (thank god, regardless of party in power) and is a stronger, nicer, richer country than you would think if you just read PB (or any group of political analysts for that matter).
But I don't think the UK is unique in this regard. If the article you reference had references to the UK blanked out, you could justifiably guess that it was talking about the US, France, Turkey, Russia - or even Sweden or Germany. Our social and economic problems in Britain are not unique - the whole world is going through pretty much the same - or if not the same, very equivalent - social and economic ructions.
Introspection and self-critique are only good traits if they lead to optimistic, forward-looking, ambitious but realistic plans. Otherwise, it's just bellyaching and victimhood. Nobody loves a whiner.
At any rate, the whole Western world is going through the same, bar commodity exporters.
Western dominance was based on two centuries of technological superiority derived from the industrial revolution.
When that dominance goes we are left with the question I posed a decade ago - in a globalised world economy how do we maintain a higher standard of living compared to peoples who are as intelligent and educated as we are but who are willing to work harder, at lower cost and under fewer restrictions that we do ?
Seems perfectly reasonable not to answer questions about an ongoing investigation. She’d be a fool to come out and say he is innocent or guilty.
A cynic might say that they ordered the bucket of whitewash investigation (will there be a peerage this time too?) purely so they can deflect questions like this from the media until the storm blows over.
I think an investigation is inevitable if he denies wrongdoing.
It may be better if the investigation is not conducted by a political party.
It doesn’t require a cynic to spot a similar pattern of Labour party behaviour in the Bex Bailey and Ava Etemadzadeh and Monica Lennon cases -- shut up, before it harms us ... and you.
Haven’t they done just that? Appointed an independent QC to lead an investigation? I think the idea of an independent body that deals with harassment and other complaints is probably a good idea.
I see we're back to Brexit as a distraction from Gropegate which is it's self a distraction from Brexit. *Sighs*
And yet, as I raised the other week, nobody seems to have changed their mind (with a couple of notable exceptions - I think HYUFD and Big_G_NorthWales have, when I last raised this point). But to all intents and purposes it still seems we are as divided as we were last year and hardly anyone at all is reaching out to meet the other side half way.
Instead, we are digging in for what looks to be a very long, ugly war that will have no winners.
If there were to be a compromise agreement, what would it look like? Associate membership? "The whole EU inc., say the Euro" but without freedom of movement of people?
Would a compromise be desirable or possible at this point? Or are we too far gone?
Comments
But who was calling for the UK to leave beforehand?
No one as far as I can recall.
What was the reaction at the Leave vote in Europe?
Disappointment/disbelief/dismay... it wasn't thank god we've finally got rid of the British.
When the Irish rejected Nice/Lisbon - everyone was happy for them to change their mind.
The Norwegians have had 2 referenda on joining. If they wanted a third I don't think it would be opposed.
The examples you give of Nice and Lisbon are spurious. The only possible consequence of the Irish voting again and changing their vote was acceptance of the further integration of the EU. The EU needed that vote to be reversed for the project to continue. That is certainly not the case with a reversal of the Brexit decision.
Corbyn is making progress because he is the only person who appears to have an agenda to deal with a broken society and economy.
May understands the problem, but is too weak and boxed in by her party to be able to progress any of the radical agenda she set out (at least in terms of understanding the problem) on the steps of No. 10.
“If the UK, after the election, wants to withdraw [article 50], then the procedure is very clear,” he said in an interview. “If the UK wanted to stay, everybody would be in favour. I would be very happy.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/20/european-parliament-will-welcome-britain-back-if-voters-veto-brexit
Emmanuel Macron:
"the newly elected French leader said the decision to leave the EU could still be reversed if the UK wished to do so."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/13/brexit-talks-to-start-next-week
Italy PM:
"Britain may yet change its mind"
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-36753697/italy-s-foreign-minister-suggests-brexit-may-not-happen
Donald Tusk:
Brexit can be stopped
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brexit-reversed-uk-donald-tusk-european-council-president-leave-eu-theresa-may-commons-mps-a8016691.html
The only person I've found who says it can't be done is Merkel who says it is wishful thinking and irrevocable.
Although Wolfgang Schauble her Finance Minister says:
"If [the British want to] change their decision, of course, they would find open doors"
http://uk.businessinsider.com/germany-offers-britain-an-open-door-to-change-its-mind-about-brexit-2017-6?IR=T
Nevertheless it remains the case that staying is less damaging than pressing on towards the precipice.
In 1997, a big factor was abstention by Tory voters - I can well seeing this being relevant again.
But I can't see it happening. Public opinion is mostly not much engaged and without a major shift the parties won't move. What I expect is a fudged Norway-style exit where surprisingly little changes. I don't think there's the political will in Britain for anything more.
Nevertheless, as I said below, his agenda and critique of the status quo has captured much of the mood among working age people, particularly non home owners, in a way that JRM never will.
However if the Tories lose a few seats back to the SNP Labour would be the largest party if they hold the gains they made from the nationalists.
Either way however given the SNP are on 35 seats (and PC on 4), it would be a Labour minority government supported by the SNP and PC.
' Mr. Grant, like others who have spent their careers watching British and European politics, predicts rough seas for Britain as it casts off nearly 45 years of intimate trade and legal ties with those annoying Europeans.
“Everywhere I go,” he said, “people are asking me, ‘What’s wrong with your country?’ ” '
The answer:
' A raid on a three-bedroom house in north-west London has found 35 men living in rooms full of mattresses.
The discovery was made on Winchester Avenue, Queensbury, at about 6am on Tuesday following complaints from neighbours, Brent council said. The men, all of eastern European origin, had piled bedding in every room except bathrooms, with one mattress even laid out under a canopy in the back garden.
Images from the semi-detached property show dozens of shoes piled on top of each other, clothes strewn across radiators and rubbish clogging the garden. '
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/20/london-council-finds-35-men-living-in-one-three-bedroom-house
We have never been and will never be as loved as Ireland, Sweden, New Zealand or Canada and we are not feared in the same way the USA, Russia and China (and have not been since the end of the British Empire) are but that does not mean we don't have a lot going for us.
The government’s response to this judicial requirement for Parliamentary oversight was no more open-handed. It rammed a two section enabling Act through Parliament, simply empowering the Prime Minister to pull the trigger, which she duly did on 29 March 2017. Parliament was to be bypassed.
How was parliament to be bypassed, when Parliament (due to a judicial decision) passed the enabling Act? It sounds like you aren't a fan of the nature of the Act, and certainly not the strategy undertaken since, but that doesn't change that Parliament passed the Act, therefore any by-passing going on in relation to the triggering of A50, the point of the Act, was with Parliament's consent wasn't it?
Though the people still seem to get mad afterwards, as parties then, gasp, have to work with others, and punish those who do or call cooperation betrayal.
For what it is worth I think a Labour majority is pretty likely, though I go back on forth over whether it will be smallish or a landslide.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21511904
I find it very hard to believe, although you would know Europe better than me. Without special conditions (or rather making sure we sign up to everything) we'd be in the same position as before where the majority constantly moaned about us being disruptive to their aims. But others claim that they've already moved on, they don't care about us and whether we leave anymore, so there's some very different views expressed on whether they do want us back, were it possible.
The ambitious Mr. Johnson was crucial to the victory of Brexit in the June 2016 referendum. But for many, the blusterings of Boris have lost their charm. The “great ship” he loves to cite is a nationalist fantasy, a remnant of Britain’s persistent post-imperial confusion about its proper place in the world, hanging on to expensive symbols like a nuclear deterrent while its once glorious navy is often incapable of patrolling its own coastline.
Britain is undergoing a full-blown identity crisis. It is a “hollowed-out country,” “ill at ease with itself,” “deeply provincial,” engaged in a “controlled suicide,” say puzzled experts. And these are Britain’s friends.
The European country considered the most outward-looking and globalized is fractured by the backlash against the very model that made Britain strong. “It’s very sad, but Brexit is a controlled suicide,” he [Jan Techau] said.
Will the EU abandon English as a procedural language? If they keep it countries with larger populations than Ireland and Malta (many of them) may have something to say....
Therefore the odds are it will be another hung parliament.
I think they'll fall back on the only thing governments can after a long time in office - it's not time for a change, don't risk it. Sometimes it works, sometimes it very much doesn't.
Others might call it preposterous nonsense...
And hard times generally are pretty much assured in the future as the UK can't continue to live so far beyond its means in an increasingly globalised world.
When you're on the wrong path, as the UK was before the Referendum, continuing as you were is guaranteed to make things worse.
Whatever happens after the Leave vote at least gives the UK the chance to change for the better.
The nuclear deterrent is a case in point. For one it is party policy for both main parties at present, and not a leave vs remain issue as far as I am aware. For another, yes, we are holding on to it and personally I am not certain of that being necessary, but do people really hold onto it because of post imperial confusion about our place in the world, do they hold onto it because they think it's a good thing for nations to have. Good idea or not, I don't see that post imperial confusion is behind the reasoning on it.
As the negative effects of globalisation spread up the socioeconomic scale expect views to change.
For example, protectionism will be supported to defend middle class jobs and earnings but under the guise of 'maintaining professional standards'.
http://www.efta.int/sites/default/files/publications/bulletins/EFTA_Free_Trade_Relations_July-August_2006.pdf
https://www.dailysabah.com/business/2016/08/30/talks-between-turkey-eu-to-update-customs-union-deal-to-start-in-2017
'A man, who was a senior figure in the party, touched me in a manner that some would say is 'handsy'. He was sitting next to me when he groped me, in full view of other people.
'I don't want to go into the full details but he touched my body, in an intimate way, without invitation or permission. This shouldn't happen to anyone.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5051243/I-sexually-assaulted-male-colleague-party-Labour-MSP-claims.html
https://order-order.com/2017/11/05/thornberry-im-happy-to-go/
She’d be a fool to come out and say he is innocent or guilty.
Britain is not its government (thank god, regardless of party in power) and is a stronger, nicer, richer country than you would think if you just read PB (or any group of political analysts for that matter).
But I don't think the UK is unique in this regard. If the article you reference had references to the UK blanked out, you could justifiably guess that it was talking about the US, France, Turkey, Russia - or even Sweden or Germany. Our social and economic problems in Britain are not unique - the whole world is going through pretty much the same - or if not the same, very equivalent - social and economic ructions.
Introspection and self-critique are only good traits if they lead to optimistic, forward-looking, ambitious but realistic plans. Otherwise, it's just bellyaching and victimhood. Nobody loves a whiner.
It doesn’t require a cynic to spot a similar pattern of Labour party behaviour in the Bex Bailey and Ava Etemadzadeh and Monica Lennon cases -- shut up, before it harms us ... and you.
When that dominance goes we are left with the question I posed a decade ago - in a globalised world economy how do we maintain a higher standard of living compared to peoples who are as intelligent and educated as we are but who are willing to work harder, at lower cost and under fewer restrictions that we do ?
I think the idea of an independent body that deals with harassment and other complaints is probably a good idea.
Instead, we are digging in for what looks to be a very long, ugly war that will have no winners.
If there were to be a compromise agreement, what would it look like? Associate membership? "The whole EU inc., say the Euro" but without freedom of movement of people?
Would a compromise be desirable or possible at this point? Or are we too far gone?