It is quite likely that the only form of "transition" offered by the EU will be as an Article 50 extension and therefore the UK will still be in the EU on 29th March 2019 on a technicality. The Brexiteers will hate it but it is probably the only way a "transition" can be made under treaty, which is important to the EU and gives us protection too. It can be sold as "membership in name only".
The only thing that really matters to us from the Article 50 talks is a de facto extension of EU membership. At some point we will have to face up to the reality of Brexit and the big compromises we need to make. As we approach the cliff edge, we should start getting a bit more realistic.
No absolutely not! The EU wants us out before the European Parliament elections in May 2019.
Plus the purpose of a transition is that there are deals we need to be able to make that we can't sign as formal members. If we are an "associate partner nation" or something like that for two years then as not being members we would be allowed to sign trade deals with third parties that we can't currently do.
They appear to be trying to bugger that up as well. According to Mr Chope:
It also became clear to me during our visit that the EU would require that any transitional deal would have to be signed as part of a withdrawal agreement before any agreement was in place on the UK’s future relationship with the EU: during the transitional period, the status quo would prevail with the Single Market, Customs Union and European Court of Justice etc. having the same roles as at present; the UK would have no ability to control EU immigration during that period and would not even have the right to enter into trade deals with other countries.
People seem to have been brainwashed to believe that they didn't get anything from the EU. Which is why places like Cornwall voted to leave and are now demanding that their EU cash continue from the UK government. Same with South Wales. Same with Grimsby wanting its industry protecting from "and its gone".
At the moment, politically ZombieMay has decreed that any kind of "leave the EU" deal that doesn't involve shooting anyone who isn't pure-bred Anglo-Saxon won't be accepted by the public. But as we get into 2018 and the harsh reality of what leave everything actually means I expect this will shift. Sunderland has already had a wobble when they realised it could mean the end of Nissan, expect Grimsby et al to do the same.
I would love to see what Cambs/Lincs do when they realise that no single market means no industry - unless they want to go pick fruit and make ready meals. Which they didn't, hence the migrants...
It should be remembered that not everyone received the same amount of EU money.
I suspect that upper-middle class quangocrats in Cardiff and Bristol who knew how to play the subsidy rules did rather better than those up the Welsh valleys or down in deepest Cornwall.
It should also be remembered that we are a net contributor to the EU. There is no EU money, we are just getting some of our money back, but with conditions attached.
That's always been the deal. The question is whether we want instant chaos or damage limitation. €60 billion buys us damage limitation.
Britain doesn’t pay ransom demands.
It's not a slam dunk. Some people prefer the chaos route. I would take issue with the "ransom" term however. No-one kidnapped us. We narrowly, but willingly, voted for chaos. If someone offers us a "transition" agreement and an outline of an eventual relationship, neither of which are mentioned in Article 50, for a consideration, we get to decide whether we want them or not.
The way the EU side has framed the negotiations is not in good faith. They’re asking us for a large cheque which has no legal basis before they will discuss trade arrangements - while continually pointing to the clock on the wall and saying how bad things will be if we don’t sign the cheque.
IMO they’ve massively overplayed what was a good hand, and they’re in danger of us walking away and spending the next 18 months preparing to leave the EU with no money changing hands after 29th March 2019.
We'll see. I have always been fairly confident that we will have an Article 50 Withdrawal Agreement with the EU, because it is in our interests to do so. Even if we don't agree now, we will later on worse terms, which in itself is an incentive to agree now. Suppose we leave without an agreement, then what? Are we never going to have any formal relationship with the other major countries of the continent we inhabit? Not having that relationship also impedes our deals with third countries. So we go back to the EU and say, can we talk? They will say, Sure ... now, about that €60 billion ...
Edit. I should say the EU do think they have a legal basis for the payment, but the basis isn't clear cut. So it is more accurate to say the legal basis is in dispute. These things are always negotiated. If we were a country seceding from another we would be liable for our share of the bigger country's national debt. The EU's reste a liquider is effectively its national debt and makes up the largest part of the €60 billion.
People seem to have been brainwashed to believe that they didn't get anything from the EU. Which is why places like Cornwall voted to leave and are now demanding that their EU cash continue from the UK government. Same with South Wales. Same with Grimsby wanting its industry protecting from "and its gone".
At the moment, politically ZombieMay has decreed that any kind of "leave the EU" deal that doesn't involve shooting anyone who isn't pure-bred Anglo-Saxon won't be accepted by the public. But as we get into 2018 and the harsh reality of what leave everything actually means I expect this will shift. Sunderland has already had a wobble when they realised it could mean the end of Nissan, expect Grimsby et al to do the same.
I would love to see what Cambs/Lincs do when they realise that no single market means no industry - unless they want to go pick fruit and make ready meals. Which they didn't, hence the migrants...
It should be remembered that not everyone received the same amount of EU money.
I suspect that upper-middle class quangocrats in Cardiff and Bristol who knew how to play the subsidy rules did rather better than those up the Welsh valleys or down in deepest Cornwall.
It should also be remembered that we are a net contributor to the EU. There is no EU money, we are just getting some of our money back, but with conditions attached.
There is no EU money, but tax revenue derived from Eurozone regulated financial services will only be ‘ours’ in future at their discretion.
"If x is offended, I apologise" is classic passive-aggression, making out that it's the other person's fault for being offended, rather than your fault for being an arse.
It is quite likely that the only form of "transition" offered by the EU will be as an Article 50 extension and therefore the UK will still be in the EU on 29th March 2019 on a technicality. The Brexiteers will hate it but it is probably the only way a "transition" can be made under treaty, which is important to the EU and gives us protection too. It can be sold as "membership in name only".
The only thing that really matters to us from the Article 50 talks is a de facto extension of EU membership. At some point we will have to face up to the reality of Brexit and the big compromises we need to make. As we approach the cliff edge, we should start getting a bit more realistic.
No absolutely not! The EU wants us out before the European Parliament elections in May 2019.
Plus the purpose of a transition is that there are deals we need to be able to make that we can't sign as formal members. If we are an "associate partner nation" or something like that for two years then as not being members we would be allowed to sign trade deals with third parties that we can't currently do.
They appear to be trying to bugger that up as well. According to Mr Chope:
It also became clear to me during our visit that the EU would require that any transitional deal would have to be signed as part of a withdrawal agreement before any agreement was in place on the UK’s future relationship with the EU: during the transitional period, the status quo would prevail with the Single Market, Customs Union and European Court of Justice etc. having the same roles as at present; the UK would have no ability to control EU immigration during that period and would not even have the right to enter into trade deals with other countries.
People seem to have been brainwashed to believe that they didn't get anything from the EU. Which is why places like Cornwall voted to leave and are now demanding that their EU cash continue from the UK government. Same with South Wales. Same with Grimsby wanting its industry protecting from "and its gone".
At the moment, politically ZombieMay has decreed that any kind of "leave the EU" deal that doesn't involve shooting anyone who isn't pure-bred Anglo-Saxon won't be accepted by the public. But as we get into 2018 and the harsh reality of what leave everything actually means I expect this will shift. Sunderland has already had a wobble when they realised it could mean the end of Nissan, expect Grimsby et al to do the same.
I would love to see what Cambs/Lincs do when they realise that no single market means no industry - unless they want to go pick fruit and make ready meals. Which they didn't, hence the migrants...
It should be remembered that not everyone received the same amount of EU money.
I suspect that upper-middle class quangocrats in Cardiff and Bristol who knew how to play the subsidy rules did rather better than those up the Welsh valleys or down in deepest Cornwall.
It should also be remembered that we are a net contributor to the EU. There is no EU money, we are just getting some of our money back, but with conditions attached.
There is that. There is also the fact that the sums involved are paltry, when compared to public spending and private investment in such places.
People seem to have been brainwashed to believe that they didn't get anything from the EU. Which is why places like Cornwall voted to leave and are now demanding that their EU cash continue from the UK government. Same with South Wales. Same with Grimsby wanting its industry protecting from "and its gone".
At the moment, politically ZombieMay has decreed that any kind of "leave the EU" deal that doesn't involve shooting anyone who isn't pure-bred Anglo-Saxon won't be accepted by the public. But as we get into 2018 and the harsh reality of what leave everything actually means I expect this will shift. Sunderland has already had a wobble when they realised it could mean the end of Nissan, expect Grimsby et al to do the same.
I would love to see what Cambs/Lincs do when they realise that no single market means no industry - unless they want to go pick fruit and make ready meals. Which they didn't, hence the migrants...
So poor English whites will become even poorer English whites and we will have the consolation of pointing at them and laughing. Hurrah.
So the depths of the global financial meltdown (and less a decade or so's growth) are what we can look forward to?
And, unlike the financial crisis, it is hard to see how we could get out of the economic slowdown that Brexit is already beginning to create. Where will the new growth come from? There's no scope for fiscal or monetary stimulus, increasing external trade is very unlikely as we cut ourselves off from the EU. Demand at home will remain subdued. Immigration is falling and will continue to do so. So where are the forces that could stimulate growth?
Interesting that Gove and Boris are best of buddies again. I wonder if Gove's sabotaging of Boris's leadership bid was just a ruse they hatched together - a way of ensuring that Boris wasn't leader during the perilous Brexit period without making him appear a bottler.
For those interested, the CPI was unchanged at 3%.
RPI 4%. Although the ONS do their best to hide the RPI figure, it's actually rather important, since inflation-linked government bonds are pegged to it. The treasury will have to budget for an increased payout. RPI also is used for some pensions, and for NSI tax-free inflation-linked bonds which I hope people bought while they could (they are no longer available to new investors, but amazingly you can still roll them over if you're an existing investor).
TBF politicians do the same as ordinary people. Very few, I find, are capable of saying a simple "I'm sorry." The normal thing is to go off into an explanation of why you did it, which ends up close to a justification.
Perhaps she should get a special entry in the PB Cynics Dictionary ........
Four Burnley Liberal Democrat councillors have quit the party and will stand as independents on Burnley Borough Council.
Gannow ward councillors Charlie Briggs, Neil Mottershead and Mark Payne, as well as Rosehill with Burnley Wood councillor Christine White will now sit on the council as the Burnley and Padiham Independent Party.
They have claimed that they did not agree with the pro-Europe’s party stance on Brexit and that the party had become too southern-centric.
However, the quartet have been branded as “lower than a snake’s belly” by furious Burnley Lib Dem leader Gordon Birtwistle who accused them of stabbing him and their voters in the back.
Interesting that Gove and Boris are best of buddies again. I wonder if Gove's sabotaging of Boris's leadership bid was just a ruse they hatched together - a way of ensuring that Boris wasn't leader during the perilous Brexit period without making him appear a bottler.
David Davis isn't happy with them.
David Davis is furious at moves by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove to team up on Brexit and will resist their attempts to impose their views on the government, The Times has learnt.
The secretary of state for exiting the European Union is understood to be deeply unimpressed by suggestions that cabinet colleagues are holding discussions about “getting on with” Brexit. At the weekend it emerged that they had written a memo to Theresa May, saying that they were “profoundly worried” about “insufficient energy” in some parts of government and urging preparations for a “no-deal” exit.
There are concerns that the collaboration between Mr Johnson, the foreign secretary, and Mr Gove, the environment secretary, could hinder work on Brexit in the run-up to the European Council summit next month. EU negotiators may want to know whether the pair, who jointly ran the Vote Leave campaign before falling out over their leadership ambitions, agree.
“He [Mr Davis] was furious with Boris and Michael for their intervention,” an ally of the Brexit secretary said. “He wants to demonstrate he’s in charge and in control. He’s angry that other people are interfering.” Another MP confirmed that relations with Mr Johnson in particular were poor.
People seem to have been brainwashed to believe that they didn't get anything from the EU. Which is why places like Cornwall voted to leave and are now demanding that their EU cash continue from the UK government. Same with South Wales. Same with Grimsby wanting its industry protecting from "and its gone".
At the moment, politically ZombieMay has decreed that any kind of "leave the EU" deal that doesn't involve shooting anyone who isn't pure-bred Anglo-Saxon won't be accepted by the public. But as we get into 2018 and the harsh reality of what leave everything actually means I expect this will shift. Sunderland has already had a wobble when they realised it could mean the end of Nissan, expect Grimsby et al to do the same.
I would love to see what Cambs/Lincs do when they realise that no single market means no industry - unless they want to go pick fruit and make ready meals. Which they didn't, hence the migrants...
'Wales is a net beneficiary of the EU' is such a lovely phrase. It's true too. When the numbers are crunched Wales benefits (roughly) to the tune of about 50m a year.
But speak to people in South Wales and they'd prefer to not send money to the EU for it to be recycled back. They'd prefer to keep the money here and have a proper say in what it's spent on, directly by their own govt.
The EU was very good at sticking EU PROJECT signs outside gleaming buildings in places like Tredegar, with nobody actually inside the buildings.
Extraordinarily wasteful, in towns and villages that desperately needed the money spent wisely.
People in South Wales knew what they were voting for.
Ramming through a policy in a very sensitive area with no work preparing the ground, and doing so in the middle of an election campaign in the teeth of opposition from your own side, is bloody stupid. But doing so when you don't even understand the damned policy is an order of magnitude worse.
Honestly.
If it hadn't been for that, May would be enjoying a majority of 50-60 or so, perhaps more.
TBF politicians do the same as ordinary people. Very few, I find, are capable of saying a simple "I'm sorry." The normal thing is to go off into an explanation of why you did it, which ends up close to a justification.
And when someone does offer an apology, like Nick Clegg, people just take the p*ss.
But the point is that Emma Coad would be the first to be outraged if a Conservative uttered anything like that, and any Labour person who would be outraged, should also be condemning her. But the tumbleweeds are rolling.
For those interested, the CPI was unchanged at 3%.
RPI 4%. Although the ONS do their best to hide the RPI figure, it's actually rather important, since inflation-linked government bonds are pegged to it. The treasury will have to budget for an increased payout. RPI also is used for some pensions, and for NSI tax-free inflation-linked bonds which I hope people bought while they could (they are no longer available to new investors, but amazingly you can still roll them over if you're an existing investor).
The RPI is used not only for inflation-linkd government bonds but many pay agreements, company and state pension increases, rail fare increases and so on.
The Office of National Statistics tries to downplay it because they consider it mathematically flawed. But so is CPI which manages to steer past the massive increase in house prices over the last decades when the cost of mortgages and rent are people's biggest expenditure.
Imagine what Labour’s reaction would have been if her words had been spoken by a Conservative candidate? Racist comments shouldn’t be compatible with holding the Labour Whip.
Sounds like he referred to himself as being from "the ghetto"
Jolly hockey-sticks and Spitfires all round!!!!!! Let us send a gunboat and sort Johnny Foreigner out!!
Spiffing!
Since the EU countries benefit from a large trade balance with the UK in their favour, their threat is "pay us the ransom money or we will shoot ourselves in the foot and you will be sorry".
Jolly hockey-sticks and Spitfires all round!!!!!! Let us send a gunboat and sort Johnny Foreigner out!!
Spiffing!
Since the EU countries benefit from a large trade balance with the UK in their favour, their threat is "pay us the ransom money or we will shoot ourselves in the foot and you will be sorry".
Bear in mind that they may be shooting themsleves in the foot, but for us it is like getting shot in both feet.
Ramming through a policy in a very sensitive area with no work preparing the ground, and doing so in the middle of an election campaign in the teeth of opposition from your own side, is bloody stupid. But doing so when you don't even understand the damned policy is an order of magnitude worse.
Honestly.
If it hadn't been for that, May would be enjoying a majority of 50-60 or so, perhaps more.
They thought they knew better than Sir Lynton Crosby and David Cameron about winning general election majorities.
I'm sure there's a phrase involving hubris and nemesis that applies here.
Four Burnley Liberal Democrat councillors have quit the party and will stand as independents on Burnley Borough Council.
Gannow ward councillors Charlie Briggs, Neil Mottershead and Mark Payne, as well as Rosehill with Burnley Wood councillor Christine White will now sit on the council as the Burnley and Padiham Independent Party.
They have claimed that they did not agree with the pro-Europe’s party stance on Brexit and that the party had become too southern-centric.
However, the quartet have been branded as “lower than a snake’s belly” by furious Burnley Lib Dem leader Gordon Birtwistle who accused them of stabbing him and their voters in the back.
TBF politicians do the same as ordinary people. Very few, I find, are capable of saying a simple "I'm sorry." The normal thing is to go off into an explanation of why you did it, which ends up close to a justification.
And when someone does offer an apology, like Nick Clegg, people just take the p*ss.
But the point is that Emma Coad would be the first to be outraged if a Conservative uttered anything like that, and any Labour person who would be outraged, should also be condemning her. But the tumbleweeds are rolling.
Not Coad-related but there is the situation where someone is very upset by something you have done. You don't think you are at fault or not as at fault as the other party thinks you are. You want to ease the situation and would really like to say, "I am sorry you think that", but it sounds disingenuous. So do you say, "I'm sorry", even though you are not, so you can move on? Do you go into explanations? Or do you just stay silent?
It is quite likely that the only form of "transition" offered by the EU will be as an Article 50 extension and therefore the UK will still be in the EU on 29th March 2019 on a technicality. The Brexiteers will hate it but it is probably the only way a "transition" can be made under treaty, which is important to the EU and gives us protection too. It can be sold as "membership in name only".
The only thing that really matters to us from the Article 50 talks is a de facto extension of EU membership. At some point we will have to face up to the reality of Brexit and the big compromises we need to make. As we approach the cliff edge, we should start getting a bit more realistic.
No absolutely not! The EU wants us out before the European Parliament elections in May 2019.
Plus the purpose of a transition is that there are deals we need to be able to make that we can't sign as formal members. If we are an "associate partner nation" or something like that for two years then as not being members we would be allowed to sign trade deals with third parties that we can't currently do.
They appear to be trying to bugger that up as well. According to Mr Chope:
It also became clear to me during our visit that the EU would require that any transitional deal would have to be signed as part of a withdrawal agreement before any agreement was in place on the UK’s future relationship with the EU: during the transitional period, the status quo would prevail with the Single Market, Customs Union and European Court of Justice etc. having the same roles as at present; the UK would have no ability to control EU immigration during that period and would not even have the right to enter into trade deals with other countries.
@Cyclefree - what a depressing tale. By way of comparison, I know somebody who went to university, left without obtaining any sort of degree, and since then has been living at home. He's now been there for more than 5 years, playing video games and watching TV and films. He has never worked for more than a couple of consecutive weeks in that time, and even that happens less than once a year. We are all worried about his future, but his mother seems prepared to keep supporting him indefinitely.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but I don't understand Mr Palmer's attitude at all. Being shy and retiring is not justification to be parasitic on your family and society in general. You said that he can be nasty if challenged; that makes me think he's quite aware of what he's doing. The person I describe above quite openly says he doesn't have to worry about housing because he will eventually inherit, and thinks that claiming JSA in order to fund holidays is acceptable.
I think a big part of the problem is the Internet and related media; it acts like the soma in Huxley's Brave New World. You don't need to get depressed if you endlessly stimulate yourself with new shows and games. This person, and your acquaintance, are too intelligent to not be aware of what they are doing and the consequences for others. It is a form of narcissistic selfishness.
In terms of responses, I don't think shutting the door totally is realistic. What might work is forcing them out of the house during working hours, so they can't do what they want whenever they want. Not having WiFi at home is another option to consider.
Apologies for the essay; just thought I'd share my story.
Thank you. Helpful.
JSA may also be an option because as I understand it you have to show that you are looking for work to get it. Personally, I think that claiming benefits when you are pefectly capable of working but cannot be bothered is quite wrong. But that’s me.
And @viewcode is also right: there is, IMO, a strong element of deliberate manipulation going on. It’s not inconsistent with mental health issues of course. People who are mentally ill can be very manipulative. The child is intelligent.
Imagine what Labour’s reaction would have been if her words had been spoken by a Conservative candidate? Racist comments shouldn’t be compatible with holding the Labour Whip.
Sounds like he referred to himself as being from "the ghetto"
Did he refer to himself as token?
And very much along those lines I wonder if Ms Dent Coad would address people who self-identify using the N word use the same terminology?
The MPs will largely (not completely) follow the voters on this.
And I suspect, so would the EU.
If the EU were smart (about us staying) they would be throwing a bone on FOM after Christmas.
Even IF the EU were smart, I ca't see FOM her ethey can offer a bone.
They just can't. Any concession on FOM is one that MANY other states will want too.
They probably can't - but it's never been FOM that's caused the problem with FOM in the first place. It's the equality laws which provide that for non contributory welfare systems (NHS/in work benefits etc) then there must be no barriers that do not apply to domestic citizens. It means that for EU migrants (and in fact any migrant), the risk of emigrating to the UK is lower than to other nations in the EU whose systems are contributory.
The contributory aspect is down to the UK. We could change that. Blaming the EU for that is pointless.
But you get to the heart of the problem IMO: a lot of people would be fine with having a contributory system but less happy if it meant that, say, a British citizen just leaving school could not get benefits. They would like British citizens to be treated as special in their own state whereas the whole underlying philosophy of the EU, certainly post-Maastricht, is that a British citizen should get no special consideration in their home state. Or, to put it another way, all EU citizens should be treated equally throughout the EU. There is a fundamental difference of approach here which may be hard to reconcile. One views the nation state as the primary unit within which decisions should be made and the other does not.
Our particular welfare system is very British in its history and approach. Other welfare systems are different and have characteristics which reflect their origins and different concerns. See, for instance, French generosity on child benefit which reflects a long-standing fear that France is not producing enough babies. Arguably, the EU’s approach on FoM has stretched those national welfare systems to breaking point. The British have, on one reading of the referendum result, said that they would prefer to keep their national welfare system rather than share it.
FoM coupled with a rule which did not permit anyone coming here to avail themselves of any benefits at all, fairly widely defined, for say 5 years might well have changed matters.
That observation is spot on. The idea that the HoC can be involved in the negotiations in anything other than an entirely token way is just daft. The HoC produces an executive that negotiates on the UK's behalf until such time as the HoC withdraws that authority by a vote of no confidence in the government. It is how government works. These amendments are absurd.
Imagine what Labour’s reaction would have been if her words had been spoken by a Conservative candidate? Racist comments shouldn’t be compatible with holding the Labour Whip.
Sounds like he referred to himself as being from "the ghetto"
I don't think he called himself either a "token ghetto boy", or a "ghetto man low-life".
Her non apology seems to from the same stable as that of Harvey Weinstein / Boris Johnson / Richard Nixon etc...
TBF politicians do the same as ordinary people. Very few, I find, are capable of saying a simple "I'm sorry." The normal thing is to go off into an explanation of why you did it, which ends up close to a justification.
And when someone does offer an apology, like Nick Clegg, people just take the p*ss.
But the point is that Emma Coad would be the first to be outraged if a Conservative uttered anything like that, and any Labour person who would be outraged, should also be condemning her. But the tumbleweeds are rolling.
Not Coad-related but there is the situation where someone is very upset by something you have done. You don't think you are at fault or not as at fault as the other party thinks you are. You want to ease the situation and would really like to say, "I am sorry you think that", but it sounds disingenuous. So do you say, "I'm sorry", even though you are not, so you can move on? Do you go into explanations? Or do you just stay silent?
You either apologise, or you don't. There is no half way house.
Comments
Edit. I should say the EU do think they have a legal basis for the payment, but the basis isn't clear cut. So it is more accurate to say the legal basis is in dispute. These things are always negotiated. If we were a country seceding from another we would be liable for our share of the bigger country's national debt. The EU's reste a liquider is effectively its national debt and makes up the largest part of the €60 billion.
oh *wow*
Spiffing!
Unfortunately, he's both an ape, and fictional, so it seems unlikely.
Miss Vance, indeed, Starmer's batting for the other side.
https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/930372238431391744
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/930374401517850624
Four Burnley Liberal Democrat councillors have quit the party and will stand as independents on Burnley Borough Council.
Gannow ward councillors Charlie Briggs, Neil Mottershead and Mark Payne, as well as Rosehill with Burnley Wood councillor Christine White will now sit on the council as the Burnley and Padiham Independent Party.
They have claimed that they did not agree with the pro-Europe’s party stance on Brexit and that the party had become too southern-centric.
However, the quartet have been branded as “lower than a snake’s belly” by furious Burnley Lib Dem leader Gordon Birtwistle who accused them of stabbing him and their voters in the back.
http://www.burnleyexpress.net/news/shock-as-four-lib-dem-councillors-quit-1-8854646
David Davis is furious at moves by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove to team up on Brexit and will resist their attempts to impose their views on the government, The Times has learnt.
The secretary of state for exiting the European Union is understood to be deeply unimpressed by suggestions that cabinet colleagues are holding discussions about “getting on with” Brexit. At the weekend it emerged that they had written a memo to Theresa May, saying that they were “profoundly worried” about “insufficient energy” in some parts of government and urging preparations for a “no-deal” exit.
There are concerns that the collaboration between Mr Johnson, the foreign secretary, and Mr Gove, the environment secretary, could hinder work on Brexit in the run-up to the European Council summit next month. EU negotiators may want to know whether the pair, who jointly ran the Vote Leave campaign before falling out over their leadership ambitions, agree.
“He [Mr Davis] was furious with Boris and Michael for their intervention,” an ally of the Brexit secretary said. “He wants to demonstrate he’s in charge and in control. He’s angry that other people are interfering.” Another MP confirmed that relations with Mr Johnson in particular were poor.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/brexit-secretary-david-davis-angry-at-interference-by-michael-gove-and-boris-johnson-vn8xtd9dp
'Wales is a net beneficiary of the EU' is such a lovely phrase. It's true too. When the numbers are crunched Wales benefits (roughly) to the tune of about 50m a year.
But speak to people in South Wales and they'd prefer to not send money to the EU for it to be recycled back. They'd prefer to keep the money here and have a proper say in what it's spent on, directly by their own govt.
The EU was very good at sticking EU PROJECT signs outside gleaming buildings in places like Tredegar, with nobody actually inside the buildings.
Extraordinarily wasteful, in towns and villages that desperately needed the money spent wisely.
People in South Wales knew what they were voting for.
Ramming through a policy in a very sensitive area with no work preparing the ground, and doing so in the middle of an election campaign in the teeth of opposition from your own side, is bloody stupid. But doing so when you don't even understand the damned policy is an order of magnitude worse.
Honestly.
If it hadn't been for that, May would be enjoying a majority of 50-60 or so, perhaps more.
But the point is that Emma Coad would be the first to be outraged if a Conservative uttered anything like that, and any Labour person who would be outraged, should also be condemning her. But the tumbleweeds are rolling.
The Office of National Statistics tries to downplay it because they consider it mathematically flawed. But so is CPI which manages to steer past the massive increase in house prices over the last decades when the cost of mortgages and rent are people's biggest expenditure.
Since the EU countries benefit from a large trade balance with the UK in their favour, their threat is "pay us the ransom money or we will shoot ourselves in the foot and you will be sorry".
Nobody wins from Brexit
I'm sure there's a phrase involving hubris and nemesis that applies here.
NEW THREAD
JSA may also be an option because as I understand it you have to show that you are looking for work to get it. Personally, I think that claiming benefits when you are pefectly capable of working but cannot be bothered is quite wrong. But that’s me.
And @viewcode is also right: there is, IMO, a strong element of deliberate manipulation going on. It’s not inconsistent with mental health issues of course. People who are mentally ill can be very manipulative. The child is intelligent.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/13/brussels-has-run-vast-debts-behalf-want-brexit-success-must/
But you get to the heart of the problem IMO: a lot of people would be fine with having a contributory system but less happy if it meant that, say, a British citizen just leaving school could not get benefits. They would like British citizens to be treated as special in their own state whereas the whole underlying philosophy of the EU, certainly post-Maastricht, is that a British citizen should get no special consideration in their home state. Or, to put it another way, all EU citizens should be treated equally throughout the EU. There is a fundamental difference of approach here which may be hard to reconcile. One views the nation state as the primary unit within which decisions should be made and the other does not.
Our particular welfare system is very British in its history and approach. Other welfare systems are different and have characteristics which reflect their origins and different concerns. See, for instance, French generosity on child benefit which reflects a long-standing fear that France is not producing enough babies. Arguably, the EU’s approach on FoM has stretched those national welfare systems to breaking point. The British have, on one reading of the referendum result, said that they would prefer to keep their national welfare system rather than share it.
FoM coupled with a rule which did not permit anyone coming here to avail themselves of any benefits at all, fairly widely defined, for say 5 years might well have changed matters.
Her non apology seems to from the same stable as that of Harvey Weinstein / Boris Johnson / Richard Nixon etc...
There is no half way house.