She will never concede on Freedom of Movement as she knows she would be toppled as Tory leader in 5 minutes, payments for a FTA deal is one thing, leaving free movement permanently in place quite another
Remainers be happy - we get to keep some of the aspects of EU membership - handing over our cash.
Yep, it’s good news. No Deal is sailing into the sunset. The grown-ups have slapped down the children and will now, hopefully, make the best of a bad job.
It was those same 'grown ups' who made the bad job in the first place.
She will never concede on Freedom of Movement as she knows she would be toppled as Tory leader in 5 minutes, payments for a FTA deal is one thing, leaving free movement permanently in place quite another
She has goven way on everything else. FOM is only a matter of time.
What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.
80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.
If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.
2: Our national anthem.
Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".
I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
1. Farmers, shop and family business owners also often inherit their jobs
2. Australia still has the Queen as Head of State. No reason we cannot keep 'God Save the Queen' as the royal anthem played in the presence of the monarch or a member of the royal family and have a new anthem composed as the UK anthem.
'God save our Queen' is a spirit-sapping dirge. Because of it, in big football matches, England already wear a defeated aspect before a ball is even kicked.
Jerusalem is such a beautiful hymn. It would be my preferred national anthem.
It should certainly be England's national anthemn.
She will never concede on Freedom of Movement as she knows she would be toppled as Tory leader in 5 minutes, payments for a FTA deal is one thing, leaving free movement permanently in place quite another
She has goven way on everything else. FOM is only a matter of time.
Nah. Can’t see that. Might be of bit of fudge, but substantially that’s a dealbreaker.
What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.
80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.
If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.
2: Our national anthem.
Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".
I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
1. Farmers, shop and family business owners also often inherit their jobs
2. Australia still has the Queen as Head of State. No reason we cannot keep 'God Save the Queen' as the royal anthem played in the presence of the monarch or a member of the royal family and have a new anthem composed as the UK anthem.
'God save our Queen' is a spirit-sapping dirge. Because of it, in big football matches, England already wear a defeated aspect before a ball is even kicked.
Jerusalem is such a beautiful hymn. It would be my preferred national anthem.
While Jerusalem would appeal to both conservatives and socialists, I can't help feeling its explicitly Christian references might cause a bit of a headache. At least the God in God Save the Queen can be fudged (or tableted).
The man has a point though. Britain has turned away from our friends and relations in Europe, to a sort of inward looking isolationism.
No he doesnt. Are still engaged with the world, and you don't need to be in the club to stand together on the critical things. Or indeed to be frinds. Just anther comment overplaying what happened and looking silly.
She will never concede on Freedom of Movement as she knows she would be toppled as Tory leader in 5 minutes, payments for a FTA deal is one thing, leaving free movement permanently in place quite another
She has goven way on everything else. FOM is only a matter of time.
They have conceded on a few transitory items - long term these will disappear.
Times article says regulation to be devolved to Ulster - seems a reasonable fudge.
Once Brexit is done the ROI can be ignored.
So unless we allow NI to write regulations for the whole UK, there will need to be a border in the Irish Sea?
looks like 3 nil to the EU then on the first round.
There was a chance you'd ever have scored if differently? I thought we cannot judge who has won until it's all agreed and we know for certain what we're getting in return?
She will never concede on Freedom of Movement as she knows she would be toppled as Tory leader in 5 minutes, payments for a FTA deal is one thing, leaving free movement permanently in place quite another
She has goven way on everything else. FOM is only a matter of time.
She won't as for Tory voters and members ending FOM is non negotiable, she would face a vote of no confidence within 24 hours if she did, which is why she won't
The man has a point though. Britain has turned away from our friends and relations in Europe, to a sort of inward looking isolationism.
No he totally doesn’t.
Since when can states only cooperate through the EU? So Canada and the US can’t work together on intelligence because they’re not in the EU? Or the UK and Australia, or Switzerland and Norway? Or even in future a non EU U.K. and France? Rubbish.
Most of us believe that families should hand down land, businesses, cash to their descendants, rather than to people chosen on the basis of merit, howsoever defined.
What is 'meritocracy' anyway? If you had wealthy and educated parents, went to a private or top state school, were born without a disability etc you automatically started with an advantage over many of your peers before you even reached adulthood.
Those who go from rags to riches are only a tiny minority of our society even today.
Hattersley claims that the idea of "meritocracy" is incompatible with social democracy. Even if meritocracy "worked" and social progression and regression were easy paths to those earned it, a country in which the gifted and talented lord it over the rest of us plebs is scarcely more attractive than a land in which those gifted their position by inheritance, lottery win or other good fortune lord over us instead.
What can be worse than knowing that not only are we plebs, but that we truly deserve to be bottom of the heap?
(I appreciate there are not many socialists on this forum, but I don't think you have to be one to see that Hattersley has a point!)
Why? What remote difference to the average American does the fact that 1 person, highly likely to be from a middle class if not privately and Ivy League educated background, in 300 million gets to be President every 8 years rather than having a hereditary constitutional monarch as their Head of State instead? They still have to get all their domestic policies and Treaties through Congress anyway much as Parliament ultimately makes our laws now.
I think its aspirational to every child that anyone can grow up to become Head of State. When Barack Obama was born in 1961 the blacks were not very well treated by Americans, yet still he could grow up to become President and so can anyone else. In theory at least.
I'll take that over gawping at the outside of Bucks Palace anyday.
Since when can states only cooperate through the EU? So Canada and the US can’t work together on intelligence because they’re not in the EU? Or the UK and Australia, or Switzerland and Norway? Or even in future a non EU U.K. and France? Rubbish.
Barnier is out of order.
If you actually read his speech, he makes that exact point. People are getting indignant about things he didn't say.
Remainers be happy - we get to keep some of the aspects of EU membership - handing over our cash.
Yep, it’s good news. No Deal is sailing into the sunset. The grown-ups have slapped down the children and will now, hopefully, make the best of a bad job.
From that Guardian article though it seems Mogg will join the likes of Peter Bone and vote against the payment for a deal with the EU. It should still get thorough anyway but will cement JRM as champion of the diehard Brexiteers in any future Tory leadership contest
This could set May free. Realising she doesn’t need to placate the loons in her party like JRM could be a liberating experience for her. Once we get to talking about a deal I have a feeling things will change quite a bit on both sides. They’ll be working towards a mutually beneficial outcome. Jacob and his mates will be furious, but so what?
Most of us believe that families should hand down land, businesses, cash to their descendants, rather than to people chosen on the basis of merit, howsoever defined.
What is 'meritocracy' anyway? If you had wealthy and educated parents, went to a private or top state school, were born without a disability etc you automatically started with an advantage over many of your peers before you even reached adulthood.
Those who go from rags to riches are only a tiny minority of our society even today.
Hattersley claims that the idea of "meritocracy" is incompatible with social democracy. Even if meritocracy "worked" and social progression and regression were easy paths to those earned it, a country in which the gifted and talented lord it over the rest of us plebs is scarcely more attractive than a land in which those gifted their position by inheritance, lottery win or other good fortune lord over us instead.
What can be worse than knowing that not only are we plebs, but that we truly deserve to be bottom of the heap?
(I appreciate there are not many socialists on this forum, but I don't think you have to be one to see that Hattersley has a point!)
Wow. That is an absolutely tremendous piece of writing.
And it got Blairism and its contradictions years before most spotted it. Kudos to Hattersley.
Why? What remote difference to the average American does the fact that 1 person, highly likely to be from a middle class if not privately and Ivy League educated background, in 300 million gets to be President every 8 years rather than having a hereditary constitutional monarch as their Head of State instead? They still have to get all their domestic policies and Treaties through Congress anyway much as Parliament ultimately makes our laws now.
I think its aspirational to every child that anyone can grow up to become Head of State. When Barack Obama was born in 1961 the blacks were not very well treated by Americans, yet still he could grow up to become President and so can anyone else. In theory at least.
I'll take that over gawping at the outside of Bucks Palace anyday.
Anyone can grow up to be PM, the person who actually runs things, so how does that limit people's aspiration?
Most of us believe that families should hand down land, businesses, cash to their descendants, rather than to people chosen on the basis of merit, howsoever defined.
What is 'meritocracy' anyway? If you had wealthy and educated parents, went to a private or top state school, were born without a disability etc you automatically started with an advantage over many of your peers before you even reached adulthood.
Those who go from rags to riches are only a tiny minority of our society even today.
Hattersley claims that the idea of "meritocracy" is incompatible with social democracy. Even if meritocracy "worked" and social progression and regression were easy paths to those earned it, a country in which the gifted and talented lord it over the rest of us plebs is scarcely more attractive than a land in which those gifted their position by inheritance, lottery win or other good fortune lord over us instead.
What can be worse than knowing that not only are we plebs, but that we truly deserve to be bottom of the heap?
(I appreciate there are not many socialists on this forum, but I don't think you have to be one to see that Hattersley has a point!)
Which is why the "don't worry you won't have to pay off all your student debt" was such a weak defence of the present system.
Because the context continues "don't worry you won't have to pay off all your student debt because you're a loser who won't get a good job".
Most of us believe that families should hand down land, businesses, cash to their descendants, rather than to people chosen on the basis of merit, howsoever defined.
What is 'meritocracy' anyway? If you had wealthy and educated parents, went to a private or top state school, were born without a disability etc you automatically started with an advantage over many of your peers before you even reached adulthood.
Those who go from rags to riches are only a tiny minority of our society even today.
Hattersley claims that the idea of "meritocracy" is incompatible with social democracy. Even if meritocracy "worked" and social progression and regression were easy paths to those earned it, a country in which the gifted and talented lord it over the rest of us plebs is scarcely more attractive than a land in which those gifted their position by inheritance, lottery win or other good fortune lord over us instead.
What can be worse than knowing that not only are we plebs, but that we truly deserve to be bottom of the heap?
(I appreciate there are not many socialists on this forum, but I don't think you have to be one to see that Hattersley has a point!)
Hattersley is an interesting character (I heard him speak at Hay a few years ago) but yes a pure 'meritocracy' is not really much better than a society built on a hereditary principle, especially if that meritocracy is run on purely libertarian lines with virtually no welfare state, social housing etc while that hereditary society is built on more paternalist lines.
What is needed is a society which is meritocratic to the extent that it recognises and rewards talent but which also recognises the benefits of tradition and stability and has compassion for those who fall on hard times or never achieve.
Regarding Heads of State, you don't actually need one, you know. So, fear of President Blair or (worse) Linekar shouldn't be an issue.
Switzerland's Head of State is a committee of seven people for example.
Indeed, I was going to post the same thing but you beat me to it. Note, though, that the committee has a President who serves for one year as President of the Swiss Confederation - albeit in a primus inter pares role, (it is the committee itself which is technically "head of state") the President can perform representational duties in a similar manner to the President of other countries.
Bearing in mind the concept of Queen-in-Parliament, I've long thought the most closely "British" solution for replacing the monarchy would be to make Parliament the "head of state". The representational role could be fulfilled by the Speaker, for example, but I wouldn't want to make the Speaker personally the head of state.
Why? What remote difference to the average American does the fact that 1 person, highly likely to be from a middle class if not privately and Ivy League educated background, in 300 million gets to be President every 8 years rather than having a hereditary constitutional monarch as their Head of State instead? They still have to get all their domestic policies and Treaties through Congress anyway much as Parliament ultimately makes our laws now.
I think its aspirational to every child that anyone can grow up to become Head of State. When Barack Obama was born in 1961 the blacks were not very well treated by Americans, yet still he could grow up to become President and so can anyone else. In theory at least.
I'll take that over gawping at the outside of Bucks Palace anyday.
Why not gawp outside No 10 then as Wilson did as a child?
Remainers be happy - we get to keep some of the aspects of EU membership - handing over our cash.
Yep, it’s good news. No Deal is sailing into the sunset. The grown-ups have slapped down the children and will now, hopefully, make the best of a bad job.
From that Guardian article though it seems Mogg will join the likes of Peter Bone and vote against the payment for a deal with the EU. It should still get thorough anyway but will cement JRM as champion of the diehard Brexiteers in any future Tory leadership contest
This could set May free. Realising she doesn’t need to placate the loons in her party like JRM could be a liberating experience for her. Once we get to talking about a deal I have a feeling things will change quite a bit on both sides. They’ll be working towards a mutually beneficial outcome. Jacob and his mates will be furious, but so what?
I think the break with the hard Brexiteers was inevitable on May's part and it now seems to be underway
She will never concede on Freedom of Movement as she knows she would be toppled as Tory leader in 5 minutes, payments for a FTA deal is one thing, leaving free movement permanently in place quite another
She has goven way on everything else. FOM is only a matter of time.
She won't as for Tory voters and members ending FOM is non negotiable, she would face a vote of no confidence within 24 hours if she did, which is why she won't
No, by then the Tory cheerleaders will be hailing continuing FOM as a great feat of negotiation, just as they are now for the Exit bill.
Hattersley claims that the idea of "meritocracy" is incompatible with social democracy. Even if meritocracy "worked" and social progression and regression were easy paths to those earned it, a country in which the gifted and talented lord it over the rest of us plebs is scarcely more attractive than a land in which those gifted their position by inheritance, lottery win or other good fortune lord over us instead.
What can be worse than knowing that not only are we plebs, but that we truly deserve to be bottom of the heap?
(I appreciate there are not many socialists on this forum, but I don't think you have to be one to see that Hattersley has a point!)
Wow. That is an absolutely tremendous piece of writing.
And it got Blairism and its contradictions years before most spotted it. Kudos to Hattersley.
Goodness knows how many opinion pieces I've read - not just two-a-penny in the newspapers, but post the blogging explosion and the likes of CiF, they're a brain bombardment. I should stop reading as many as I do, and spend more time reading more useful material instead (more textbooks, more professional stuff, more academic journal articles) ...
But sometimes you do find something that stops you in your tracks, and either says something that was nagging at you before but voices it far more clearly, or alternatively makes you think entirely again.
Very few comment pieces that really stick in the memory well over 10 years after first reading them (heh, getting on towards 20 in that one's case, worryingly!) but that one was superb. Quality whether you agree or disagree is something I value highly in comment pieces - and at least if you disagree after reading it you're going to have to sharpen your argument up.
No, by then the Tory cheerleaders will be hailing continuing FOM as a great feat of negotiation, just as they are now for the Exit bill.
It is just a matter of time with May in charge.
You seem to be criticising her on the grounds that she's doing exactly what you want (not that she is, as it happens, but that's the less interesting part of the condition).
Which is why the "don't worry you won't have to pay off all your student debt" was such a weak defence of the present system.
Because the context continues "don't worry you won't have to pay off all your student debt because you're a loser who won't get a good job".
Excellent point. It is by no means an indefensible system, but "if you're complete loser and uni was a waste of time, at least that massive debt you're in will get written off in the end (well the Student Loan Company part, not your overdraft, sorry)" simply brings us back to other serious problems in the system - the large number of degrees that do not generate any statistically discernible "graduate premium" compared to just starting work after A-levels, and the crappy foreseen life trajectories that many millenials are becoming so frustrated with that they have even developed, as if by magic, the ability and energy and anger to saunter up to the polling booths on election days.
Remainers be happy - we get to keep some of the aspects of EU membership - handing over our cash.
Yep, it’s good news. No Deal is sailing into the sunset. The grown-ups have slapped down the children and will now, hopefully, make the best of a bad job.
From that Guardian article though it seems Mogg will join the likes of Peter Bone and vote against the payment for a deal with the EU. It should still get thorough anyway but will cement JRM as champion of the diehard Brexiteers in any future Tory leadership contest
This could set May free. Realising she doesn’t need to placate the loons in her party like JRM could be a liberating experience for her. Once we get to talking about a deal I have a feeling things will change quite a bit on both sides. They’ll be working towards a mutually beneficial outcome. Jacob and his mates will be furious, but so what?
I think the break with the hard Brexiteers was inevitable on May's part and it now seems to be underway
About time, though the break was never going to be easy, not sure why now she's willing to.
Which is why the "don't worry you won't have to pay off all your student debt" was such a weak defence of the present system.
Because the context continues "don't worry you won't have to pay off all your student debt because you're a loser who won't get a good job".
Excellent point. It is by no means an indefensible system, but "if you're complete loser and uni was a waste of time, at least that massive debt you're in will get written off in the end (well the Student Loan Company part, not your overdraft, sorry)" simply brings us back to other serious problems in the system - the large number of degrees that do not generate any statistically discernible "graduate premium" compared to just starting work after A-levels, and the crappy foreseen life trajectories that many millenials are becoming so frustrated with that they have even developed, as if by magic, the ability and energy and anger to saunter up to the polling booths on election days.
Isn't it foreign language degrees that are the biggest waste of time (at least in material terms) and not media studies?
Remainers be happy - we get to keep some of the aspects of EU membership - handing over our cash.
Yep, it’s good news. No Deal is sailing into the sunset. The grown-ups have slapped down the children and will now, hopefully, make the best of a bad job.
From that Guardian article though it seems Mogg will join the likes of Peter Bone and vote against the payment for a deal with the EU. It should still get thorough anyway but will cement JRM as champion of the diehard Brexiteers in any future Tory leadership contest
This could set May free. Realising she doesn’t need to placate the loons in her party like JRM could be a liberating experience for her. Once we get to talking about a deal I have a feeling things will change quite a bit on both sides. They’ll be working towards a mutually beneficial outcome. Jacob and his mates will be furious, but so what?
I think the break with the hard Brexiteers was inevitable on May's part and it now seems to be underway
About time, though the break was never going to be easy, not sure why now she's willing to.
Hattersley claims that the idea of "meritocracy" is incompatible with social democracy. Even if meritocracy "worked" and social progression and regression were easy paths to those earned it, a country in which the gifted and talented lord it over the rest of us plebs is scarcely more attractive than a land in which those gifted their position by inheritance, lottery win or other good fortune lord over us instead.
What can be worse than knowing that not only are we plebs, but that we truly deserve to be bottom of the heap?
(I appreciate there are not many socialists on this forum, but I don't think you have to be one to see that Hattersley has a point!)
Wow. That is an absolutely tremendous piece of writing.
And it got Blairism and its contradictions years before most spotted it. Kudos to Hattersley.
Goodness knows how many opinion pieces I've read - not just two-a-penny in the newspapers, but post the blogging explosion and the likes of CiF, they're a brain bombardment. I should stop reading as many as I do, and spend more time reading more useful material instead (more textbooks, more professional stuff, more academic journal articles) ...
But sometimes you do find something that stops you in your tracks, and either says something that was nagging at you before but voices it far more clearly, or alternatively makes you think entirely again.
Very few comment pieces that really stick in the memory well over 10 years after first reading them (heh, getting on towards 20 in that one's case, worryingly!) but that one was superb. Quality whether you agree or disagree is something I value highly in comment pieces - and at least if you disagree after reading it you're going to have to sharpen your argument up.
Sorry, thought it was a load of crap. Just old-school socialist inverted snobbery stuff about not letting the have-nots stray from the reservation.
Why? What remote difference to the average American does the fact that 1 person, highly likely to be from a middle class if not privately and Ivy League educated background, in 300 million gets to be President every 8 years rather than having a hereditary constitutional monarch as their Head of State instead? They still have to get all their domestic policies and Treaties through Congress anyway much as Parliament ultimately makes our laws now.
I think its aspirational to every child that anyone can grow up to become Head of State. When Barack Obama was born in 1961 the blacks were not very well treated by Americans, yet still he could grow up to become President and so can anyone else. In theory at least.
I'll take that over gawping at the outside of Bucks Palace anyday.
Why not gawp outside No 10 then as Wilson did as a child?
You can’t do it anymore, can you?
I am old enough to have been able to stroll down Downing Street just because I could and skip around the rocks in the middle of Stonehenge. What larks.
Why? What remote difference to the average American does the fact that 1 person, highly likely to be from a middle class if not privately and Ivy League educated background, in 300 million gets to be President every 8 years rather than having a hereditary constitutional monarch as their Head of State instead? They still have to get all their domestic policies and Treaties through Congress anyway much as Parliament ultimately makes our laws now.
I think its aspirational to every child that anyone can grow up to become Head of State. When Barack Obama was born in 1961 the blacks were not very well treated by Americans, yet still he could grow up to become President and so can anyone else. In theory at least.
I'll take that over gawping at the outside of Bucks Palace anyday.
Why not gawp outside No 10 then as Wilson did as a child?
Well indeed, I have more respect for No 10 than I do Buckingham Palace.
I think we've had our own moments with meritocratic moments, not just once now but twice showing a woman can make it to the top on her own merits (as opposed to the woman who at the time got there as she didn't have any brothers). I just think it would be better to have that for the Head of State too.
Why? What remote difference to the average American does the fact that 1 person, highly likely to be from a middle class if not privately and Ivy League educated background, in 300 million gets to be President every 8 years rather than having a hereditary constitutional monarch as their Head of State instead? They still have to get all their domestic policies and Treaties through Congress anyway much as Parliament ultimately makes our laws now.
I think its aspirational to every child that anyone can grow up to become Head of State. When Barack Obama was born in 1961 the blacks were not very well treated by Americans, yet still he could grow up to become President and so can anyone else. In theory at least.
I'll take that over gawping at the outside of Bucks Palace anyday.
The American President is both Head of State and Head of Government. In Britain the positions are split. Head of State might be hereditary but it is a damn sight easier to become Head of Government (or Prime Minister) than in the United States. You do not need to be a millionaire for a start.
Which is why the "don't worry you won't have to pay off all your student debt" was such a weak defence of the present system.
Because the context continues "don't worry you won't have to pay off all your student debt because you're a loser who won't get a good job".
Excellent point. It is by no means an indefensible system, but "if you're complete loser and uni was a waste of time, at least that massive debt you're in will get written off in the end (well the Student Loan Company part, not your overdraft, sorry)" simply brings us back to other serious problems in the system - the large number of degrees that do not generate any statistically discernible "graduate premium" compared to just starting work after A-levels, and the crappy foreseen life trajectories that many millenials are becoming so frustrated with that they have even developed, as if by magic, the ability and energy and anger to saunter up to the polling booths on election days.
I studied medieval English history at university for three years and you don’t get much more obscure than that. I learned so much about understanding source material, dissecting very obscure points of view and constructing very tight, specific arguments. They were skills that have helped me throughout my working life. If taught properly surely almost all degree courses should do that.
Why? What remote difference to the average American does the fact that 1 person, highly likely to be from a middle class if not privately and Ivy League educated background, in 300 million gets to be President every 8 years rather than having a hereditary constitutional monarch as their Head of State instead? They still have to get all their domestic policies and Treaties through Congress anyway much as Parliament ultimately makes our laws now.
I think its aspirational to every child that anyone can grow up to become Head of State. When Barack Obama was born in 1961 the blacks were not very well treated by Americans, yet still he could grow up to become President and so can anyone else. In theory at least.
I'll take that over gawping at the outside of Bucks Palace anyday.
The American President is both Head of State and Head of Government. In Britain the positions are split. Head of State might be hereditary but it is a damn sight easier to become Head of Government (or Prime Minister) than in the United States. You do not need to be a millionaire for a start.
Obama to be fair was not that rich before he became President, his biggest income was book sales. It is all the funds you have to raise which is the issue
She will never concede on Freedom of Movement as she knows she would be toppled as Tory leader in 5 minutes, payments for a FTA deal is one thing, leaving free movement permanently in place quite another
She has goven way on everything else. FOM is only a matter of time.
She won't as for Tory voters and members ending FOM is non negotiable, she would face a vote of no confidence within 24 hours if she did, which is why she won't
No, by then the Tory cheerleaders will be hailing continuing FOM as a great feat of negotiation, just as they are now for the Exit bill.
It is just a matter of time with May in charge.
No, the whole reason we need to have a FTA in the first place is because we are leaving the single market to end free movement
Remainers be happy - we get to keep some of the aspects of EU membership - handing over our cash.
Yep, it’s good news. No Deal is sailing into the sunset. The grown-ups have slapped down the children and will now, hopefully, make the best of a bad job.
From that Guardian article though it seems Mogg will join the likes of Peter Bone and vote against the payment for a deal with the EU. It should still get thorough anyway but will cement JRM as champion of the diehard Brexiteers in any future Tory leadership contest
This could set May free. Realising she doesn’t need to placate the loons in her party like JRM could be a liberating experience for her. Once we get to talking about a deal I have a feeling things will change quite a bit on both sides. They’ll be working towards a mutually beneficial outcome. Jacob and his mates will be furious, but so what?
I think the break with the hard Brexiteers was inevitable on May's part and it now seems to be underway
About time, though the break was never going to be easy, not sure why now she's willing to.
... Sorry, thought it was a load of crap. Just old-school socialist inverted snobbery stuff about not letting the have-nots stray from the reservation.
I think it's absolutely fair to disagree with his preferred policy set - even to believe that if policies he espoused were put into place, they would have an effect exactly contrary to his intentions. But I do think it's unfair to characterise him as wanting have-nots to stay have-nots. His concern that the fruits of education reform were being seized by the parents of the sharpest elbow, deepening the inbuilt advantage of those born to the better-off, is really the opposite of that. Obviously his viewpoint required good educational opportunities to be available to all - and if you can't see how comprehensive schools can deliver that, then fair enough. But he wasn't proposing them from a position of "let's send everyone to appalling schools so that we're on all an equally low playing field". He thought they worked, or could be made to work with the right support, and that they would transform the lives of many of the have-nots.
At the heart of it, he couldn't see a way to reconcile the modern obsession with "meritocracy" with his traditional left-wing social-democratic beliefs. Now for someone coming from the same political space as him, that's a serious problem with meritocracy - for someone who wholeheartedly accepts meritocracy, it's probably a good argument against social democracy.
Which is why the "don't worry you won't have to pay off all your student debt" was such a weak defence of the present system.
Because the context continues "don't worry you won't have to pay off all your student debt because you're a loser who won't get a good job".
Excellent point. It is by no means an indefensible system, but "if you're complete loser and uni was a waste of time, at least that massive debt you're in will get written off in the end (well the Student Loan Company part, not your overdraft, sorry)" simply brings us back to other serious problems in the system - the large number of degrees that do not generate any statistically discernible "graduate premium" compared to just starting work after A-levels, and the crappy foreseen life trajectories that many millenials are becoming so frustrated with that they have even developed, as if by magic, the ability and energy and anger to saunter up to the polling booths on election days.
Isn't it foreign language degrees that are the biggest waste of time (at least in material terms) and not media studies?
Why? What remote difference to the average American does the fact that 1 person, highly likely to be from a middle class if not privately and Ivy League educated background, in 300 million gets to be President every 8 years rather than having a hereditary constitutional monarch as their Head of State instead? They still have to get all their domestic policies and Treaties through Congress anyway much as Parliament ultimately makes our laws now.
I think its aspirational to every child that anyone can grow up to become Head of State. When Barack Obama was born in 1961 the blacks were not very well treated by Americans, yet still he could grow up to become President and so can anyone else. In theory at least.
I'll take that over gawping at the outside of Bucks Palace anyday.
Why not gawp outside No 10 then as Wilson did as a child?
You can’t do it anymore, can you?
I am old enough to have been able to stroll down Downing Street just because I could and skip around the rocks in the middle of Stonehenge. What larks.
Yes my mother once did it and saw Wilson coming out of No 10, doubt you will ever be able to do so again without a prior appointment
Why? What remote difference to the average American does the fact that 1 person, highly likely to be from a middle class if not privately and Ivy League educated background, in 300 million gets to be President every 8 years rather than having a hereditary constitutional monarch as their Head of State instead? They still have to get all their domestic policies and Treaties through Congress anyway much as Parliament ultimately makes our laws now.
I think its aspirational to every child that anyone can grow up to become Head of State. When Barack Obama was born in 1961 the blacks were not very well treated by Americans, yet still he could grow up to become President and so can anyone else. In theory at least.
I'll take that over gawping at the outside of Bucks Palace anyday.
Why not gawp outside No 10 then as Wilson did as a child?
Well indeed, I have more respect for No 10 than I do Buckingham Palace.
I think we've had our own moments with meritocratic moments, not just once now but twice showing a woman can make it to the top on her own merits (as opposed to the woman who at the time got there as she didn't have any brothers). I just think it would be better to have that for the Head of State too.
I prefer the tradition and pageantry and apolitical nature of hereditary monarchy but you are entitled to your view
Remainers be happy - we get to keep some of the aspects of EU membership - handing over our cash.
Yep, it’s good news. No Deal is sailing into the sunset. The grown-ups have slapped down the children and will now, hopefully, make the best of a bad job.
From that Guardian article though it seems Mogg will join the likes of Peter Bone and vote against the payment for a deal with the EU. It should still get thorough anyway but will cement JRM as champion of the diehard Brexiteers in any future Tory leadership contest
This could set May free. Realising she doesn’t need to placate the loons in her party like JRM could be a liberating experience for her. Once we get to talking about a deal I have a feeling things will change quite a bit on both sides. They’ll be working towards a mutually beneficial outcome. Jacob and his mates will be furious, but so what?
I think the break with the hard Brexiteers was inevitable on May's part and it now seems to be underway
I am afraid you are completely misjudging the British public. They are not really focussed now that there are just rumours, but when the deal is formally announced and it is clear that there is no link between payment and trade and that we have conceded on ECJ people will start to get very angry. Maybe May can survive this, but once she starts the trade deal and it becomes clear that she is going to concede on FOM, EU regulation and interference with our future sovereignty people will see it for the sell out it is.
Of course, the elite thought that Cameron's negotiation was a great triumph but the British public saw straight through it as the sell out that it was, and this will be no different.
You laugh at JRM but he could easily be PM next year. If May falls, Boris, Gove and Davis will now be compromised by refusing to stand up for Leave and JRM will coast home if his name gets to the Tory members.
People are misjudging the dynamics of negotiation. Having caved now the EU will continue to insist on unreasonable terms knowing full well that the establishment will never walk away, which given their past form is quite correct. This will just get worse and worse until the dam breaks. The only good news is that nothing that May has conceded is binding at this stage.
Remainers be happy - we get to keep some of the aspects of EU membership - handing over our cash.
Yep, it’s good news. No Deal is , make the best of a bad job.
From that Guardian article though it seems in any future Tory leadership contest
This could set May free. Realisingfurious, but so what?
I think the break with the hard Brexiteers was inevitable on May's part and it now seems to be underway
I am afraid you are completely misjudging the British public. They are not really focussed now that there are just rumours, but when the deal is formally announced and it is clear that there is no link between payment and trade and that we have conceded on ECJ people will start to get very angry. Maybe May can survive this, but once she starts the trade deal and it becomes clear that she is going to concede on FOM, EU regulation and interference with our future sovereignty people will see it for the sell out it is.
Of course, the elite thought that Cameron's negotiation was a great triumph but the British public saw straight through it as the sell out that it was, and this will be no different.
You laugh at JRM but he could easily be PM next year. If May falls, Boris, Gove and Davis will now be compromised by refusing to stand up for Leave and JRM will coast home if his name gets to the Tory members.
People are misjudging the dynamics of negotiation. Having caved now the EU will continue to insist on unreasonable terms knowing full well that the establishment will never walk away, which given their past form is quite correct. This will just get worse and worse until the dam breaks. The only good news is that nothing that May has conceded is binding at this stage.
There is a link between payment and trade, it will not be paid all at once but as the trade talks progress. May has also made clear all along she is ending free movement and replacing it with a points system which is why we are leaving the single market for a FTA in the first place.
I do agree though JRM is now the clear hard Brexit candidate if and when May goes and Tory members and hard Brexiteer Tory MPs feel too many concessions have been made to the EU.
Which is why the "don't worry you won't have to pay off all your student debt" was such a weak defence of the present system.
Because the context continues "don't worry you won't have to pay off all your student debt because you're a loser who won't get a good job".
Excellent point. It is by no means an indefensible system, but "if you're complete loser and uni was a waste of time, at least that massive debt you're in will get written off in the end (well the Student Loan Company part, not your overdraft, sorry)" simply brings us back to other serious problems in the system - the large number of degrees that do not generate any statistically discernible "graduate premium" compared to just starting work after A-levels, and the crappy foreseen life trajectories that many millenials are becoming so frustrated with that they have even developed, as if by magic, the ability and energy and anger to saunter up to the polling booths on election days.
I studied medieval English history at university for three years and you don’t get much more obscure than that. I learned so much about understanding source material, dissecting very obscure points of view and constructing very tight, specific arguments. They were skills that have helped me throughout my working life. If taught properly surely almost all degree courses should do that.
I think that's true. I also think the obsession with STEM subjects could be unhealthy in future, bearing in mind many of Britain's specialisms are not just about technical skills (creative industries, design, media, publishing, law etc). As someone who has graduated on both sides of the tracks, I can see a place for all kinds of degree courses - most of the time I am using my education in my professional life it is about wider skills rather than subject content, and I am not even consciously aware that I am using it.
Nevertheless STEM subjects and a couple of others seem to have a very high graduate premium, as do the best universities, but there is a substantial tail of university plus course options where graduates earn less than A-level leavers without a degree. That ought to be a real concern. Whether that is to do with quality of teaching, how challenging the degree is, oversupply of graduates in particular sectors, employer confidence in the degree and institution (a lot of the premium for education is simply, in economic terms, "signalling" and some signals are better than others), whether the expansion of universities means some of the students are simply not well-suited to that environment, whether degree courses at low-ranked universities should have more "employability" (sandwich year/work experience) built into them ... I dunno.
... Sorry, thought it was a load of crap. Just old-school socialist inverted snobbery stuff about not letting the have-nots stray from the reservation.
I think it's absolutely fair to disagree with his preferred policy set - even to believe that if policies he espoused were put into place, they would have an effect exactly contrary to his intentions. But I do think it's unfair to characterise him as wanting have-nots to stay have-nots. His concern that the fruits of education reform were being seized by the parents of the sharpest elbow, deepening the inbuilt advantage of those born to the better-off, is really the opposite of that. Obviously his viewpoint required good educational opportunities to be available to all - and if you can't see how comprehensive schools can deliver that, then fair enough. But he wasn't proposing them from a position of "let's send everyone to appalling schools so that we're on all an equally low playing field".
At the heart of it, he couldn't see a way to reconcile the modern obsession with "meritocracy" with his traditional left-wing social-democratic beliefs. Now for someone coming from the same political space as him, that's a serious problem with meritocracy - for someone who wholeheartedly accepts meritocracy, it's probably a good argument against social democracy.
No, Hattersley adheres to the concept of the 'virtuous poor'. He loathed Thatcher because she shattered those old social structures and allowed the working man to turn his back on his roots - a heinous sin against against socialism in his eyes. He was obviously fulminating about Blair for identical reasons. But, of course, he very much benefited from the meritocracy himself and never looked back - hypocritical old goat.
She will never concede on Freedom of Movement as she knows she would be toppled as Tory leader in 5 minutes, payments for a FTA deal is one thing, leaving free movement permanently in place quite another
She has goven way on everything else. FOM is only a matter of time.
She won't as for Tory voters and members ending FOM is non negotiable, she would face a vote of no confidence within 24 hours if she did, which is why she won't
ECJ jurisdiction was non negotiable, we should have refused to even discuss it. Now we are about to cave in. The same will happen with FOM. You are right that under and FTA FOM and following EU regulations should be off the table (FTAs work on the basis of mutual recognition, not harmonisation) but you can bet now that this will be given away as well.
Why? What remote difference to the average American does the fact that 1 person, highly likely to be from a middle class if not privately and Ivy League educated background, in 300 million gets to be President every 8 years rather than having a hereditary constitutional monarch as their Head of State instead? They still have to get all their domestic policies and Treaties through Congress anyway much as Parliament ultimately makes our laws now.
I think its aspirational to every child that anyone can grow up to become Head of State. When Barack Obama was born in 1961 the blacks were not very well treated by Americans, yet still he could grow up to become President and so can anyone else. In theory at least.
I'll take that over gawping at the outside of Bucks Palace anyday.
The American President is both Head of State and Head of Government. In Britain the positions are split. Head of State might be hereditary but it is a damn sight easier to become Head of Government (or Prime Minister) than in the United States. You do not need to be a millionaire for a start.
Obama was not rich when he entered politics. He was shrewd with his income and savings (not a bad trait) and it was only after he'd moved on from being State Senator to Federal Senator and was already being tipped at 50/1 here as next President that he made his millions from his books.
While it works for Trump, for Obama to give credit to his millions for becoming President is putting the cart before the horse.
She will never concede on Freedom of Movement as she knows she would be toppled as Tory leader in 5 minutes, payments for a FTA deal is one thing, leaving free movement permanently in place quite another
She has goven way on everything else. FOM is only a matter of time.
She won't as for Tory voters and members ending FOM is non negotiable, she would face a vote of no confidence within 24 hours if she did, which is why she won't
ECJ jurisdiction was non negotiable, we should have refused to even discuss it. Now we are about to cave in. The same will happen with FOM. You are right that under and FTA FOM and following EU regulations should be off the table (FTAs work on the basis of mutual recognition, not harmonisation) but you can bet now that this will be given away as well.
We are only 'caving in' on ECJ jurisdiction for the 2 year transition period essentially and the same goes for FOM. Yet May has always been clear there will be a transition period.
She will never concede on Freedom of Movement as she knows she would be toppled as Tory leader in 5 minutes, payments for a FTA deal is one thing, leaving free movement permanently in place quite another
She has goven way on everything else. FOM is only a matter of time.
She won't as for Tory voters and members ending FOM is non negotiable, she would face a vote of no confidence within 24 hours if she did, which is why she won't
ECJ jurisdiction was non negotiable, we should have refused to even discuss it. Now we are about to cave in. The same will happen with FOM. You are right that under and FTA FOM and following EU regulations should be off the table (FTAs work on the basis of mutual recognition, not harmonisation) but you can bet now that this will be given away as well.
Sorry old boy/girl but you are ploughing this furrow alone. The PB Brexiteers are not with you!
She will never concede on Freedom of Movement as she knows she would be toppled as Tory leader in 5 minutes, payments for a FTA deal is one thing, leaving free movement permanently in place quite another
She has goven way on everything else. FOM is only a matter of time.
She won't as for Tory voters and members ending FOM is non negotiable, she would face a vote of no confidence within 24 hours if she did, which is why she won't
ECJ jurisdiction was non negotiable, we should have refused to even discuss it. Now we are about to cave in. The same will happen with FOM. You are right that under and FTA FOM and following EU regulations should be off the table (FTAs work on the basis of mutual recognition, not harmonisation) but you can bet now that this will be given away as well.
We are only 'caving in' on ECJ jurisdiction for the 2 year transition period essentially and the same goes for FOM. Yet May has always been clear there will be a transition period.
No. The ECJ jurisdiction over EU citizens will be there permanently, NOT for the transition. It is being dressed up as 'the UKSC can ask the ECJ for rulings when it is not qualified to decide' but that basically means that EU law concepts are being introduced that are superior to UK law concepts and that the UKSC will have to follow them. That is conceding the sovereignty of another Court and another legal system no matter how you dress it up.
She will never concede on Freedom of Movement as she knows she would be toppled as Tory leader in 5 minutes, payments for a FTA deal is one thing, leaving free movement permanently in place quite another
She has goven way on everything else. FOM is only a matter of time.
She won't as for Tory voters and members ending FOM is non negotiable, she would face a vote of no confidence within 24 hours if she did, which is why she won't
ECJ jurisdiction was non negotiable, we should have refused to even discuss it. Now we are about to cave in. The same will happen with FOM. You are right that under and FTA FOM and following EU regulations should be off the table (FTAs work on the basis of mutual recognition, not harmonisation) but you can bet now that this will be given away as well.
We are only 'caving in' on ECJ jurisdiction for the 2 year transition period essentially and the same goes for FOM. Yet May has always been clear there will be a transition period.
No. The ECJ jurisdiction over EU citizens will be there permanently, NOT for the transition. It is being dressed up as 'the UKSC can ask the ECJ for rulings when it is not qualified to decide' but that basically means that EU law concepts are being introduced that are superior to UK law concepts and that the UKSC will have to follow them. That is conceding the sovereignty of another Court and another legal system no matter how you dress it up.
Not for anything else beyond EU citizens in the UK though (which the EU wanted as part of their citizens rights package before FTA talks could begin).
There is a link between payment and trade, it will not be paid all at once but as the trade talks progress. May has also made clear all along she is ending free movement and replacing it with a points system which is why we are leaving the single market for a FTA in the first place.
I do agree though JRM is now the clear hard Brexit candidate if and when May goes and Tory members and hard Brexiteer Tory MPs feel too many concessions have been made to the EU.
I explained this yesterday. The legal requirement to make the Brexit bill payments will be included in the A50 treaty and will become legally binding on the UK. The actual delivery of the FTA cannot, by law, be included in the A50 treaty and will not be binding on the EU.
The EU have absolutely refused to link them together for that specific reason. The A50 will NOT include any provision for us to stop paying if the FTA is not delivered. This is what they have been arguing about for nine months. You are going to find this out when the agreement is released and there will be NO specific reference to the link, because there is none.
Unless someone can specifically address this point, we have been sold out.
She will never concede on Freedom of Movement as she knows she would be toppled as Tory leader in 5 minutes, payments for a FTA deal is one thing, leaving free movement permanently in place quite another
She has goven way on everything else. FOM is only a matter of time.
She won't as for Tory voters and members ending FOM is non negotiable, she would face a vote of no confidence within 24 hours if she did, which is why she won't
ECJ jurisdiction was non negotiable, we should have refused to even discuss it. Now we are about to cave in. The same will happen with FOM. You are right that under and FTA FOM and following EU regulations should be off the table (FTAs work on the basis of mutual recognition, not harmonisation) but you can bet now that this will be given away as well.
We are only 'caving in' on ECJ jurisdiction for the 2 year transition period essentially and the same goes for FOM. Yet May has always been clear there will be a transition period.
No. The ECJ jurisdiction over EU citizens will be there permanently, NOT for the transition. It is being dressed up as 'the UKSC can ask the ECJ for rulings when it is not qualified to decide' but that basically means that EU law concepts are being introduced that are superior to UK law concepts and that the UKSC will have to follow them. That is conceding the sovereignty of another Court and another legal system no matter how you dress it up.
Not for anything else beyond EU citizens in the UK though (which the EU wanted as part of their citizens rights package before FTA talks could begin).
It was a UK red line, and it was abandoned. So, when we move onto trade talks, exactly the same thing is going to happen. ECJ jurisdiction on trade. Same on FOM. We have conceded on our red lines, the EU have given nothing. What on earth makes you think the trade talks will be any different? They will just keep saying 'no' knowing that we will end up agreeing because our leaders are too scared to walk away.
Why? What remote difference to the average American does the fact that 1 person, highly likely to be from a middle class if not privately and Ivy League educated background, in 300 million gets to be President every 8 years rather than having a hereditary constitutional monarch as their Head of State instead? They still have to get all their domestic policies and Treaties through Congress anyway much as Parliament ultimately makes our laws now.
I think its aspirational to every child that anyone can grow up to become Head of State. When Barack Obama was born in 1961 the blacks were not very well treated by Americans, yet still he could grow up to become President and so can anyone else. In theory at least.
I'll take that over gawping at the outside of Bucks Palace anyday.
The American President is both Head of State and Head of Government. In Britain the positions are split. Head of State might be hereditary but it is a damn sight easier to become Head of Government (or Prime Minister) than in the United States. You do not need to be a millionaire for a start.
Obama was not rich when he entered politics. He was shrewd with his income and savings (not a bad trait) and it was only after he'd moved on from being State Senator to Federal Senator and was already being tipped at 50/1 here as next President that he made his millions from his books.
While it works for Trump, for Obama to give credit to his millions for becoming President is putting the cart before the horse.
Even if we allow that Obama is the exception that proves the rule, the other presidents have not been short of a bob or two, and as you say, Obama was already a millionaire by the time he ran for president. To be fair, Americans might point out that Clinton was born into a poor family.
Which is why the "don't worry you won't have to pay off all your student debt" was such a weak defence of the present system.
Because the context continues "don't worry you won't have to pay off all your student debt because you're a loser who won't get a good job".
Excellent point. It is by no means an indefensible system, but "if you're complete loser and uni was a waste of time, at least that massive debt you're in will get written off in the end (well the Student Loan Company part, not your overdraft, sorry)" simply brings us back to other serious problems in the system - the large number of degrees that do not generate any statistically discernible "graduate premium" compared to just starting work after A-levels, and the crappy foreseen life trajectories that many millenials are becoming so frustrated with that they have even developed, as if by magic, the ability and energy and anger to saunter up to the polling booths on election days.
Isn't it foreign language degrees that are the biggest waste of time (at least in material terms) and not media studies?
Thanks. It is noticeable that chemistry does badly too. But I thought there was something in the paper recently that modern language graduates had taken a dive in the market in the last year or two, though I cannot see it now so perhaps am misremembering.
There is a link between payment and trade, it will not be paid all at once but as the trade talks progress. May has also made clear all along she is ending free movement and replacing it with a points system which is why we are leaving the single market for a FTA in the first place.
I do agree though JRM is now the clear hard Brexit candidate if and when May goes and Tory members and hard Brexiteer Tory MPs feel too many concessions have been made to the EU.
I explained this yesterday. The legal requirement to make the Brexit bill payments will be included in the A50 treaty and will become legally binding on the UK. The actual delivery of the FTA cannot, by law, be included in the A50 treaty and will not be binding on the EU.
The EU have absolutely refused to link them together for that specific reason. The A50 will NOT include any provision for us to stop paying if the FTA is not delivered. This is what they have been arguing about for nine months. You are going to find this out when the agreement is released and there will be NO specific reference to the link, because there is none.
Unless someone can specifically address this point, we have been sold out.
The A50 process allows for a 2 year negotiation process after invocation of Article 50 and then the Treaties do not apply, the payments will be made based on progress on trade talks over
She will never concede on Freedom of Movement as she knows she would be toppled as Tory leader in 5 minutes, payments for a FTA deal is one thing, leaving free movement permanently in place quite another
She has goven way on everything else. FOM is only a matter of time.
She won't as for Tory voters and members ending FOM is non negotiable, she would face a vote of no confidence within 24 hours if she did, which is why she won't
ECJ jurisdiction was non negotiable, we should have refused to even discuss it. Now we are about to cave in. The same will happen with FOM. You are right that under and FTA FOM and following EU regulations should be off the table (FTAs work on the basis of mutual recognition, not harmonisation) but you can bet now that this will be given away as well.
We are only 'caving in' on ECJ jurisdiction for the 2 year transition period essentially and the same goes for FOM. Yet May has always been clear there will be a transition period.
No. The ECJ jurisdiction over EU citizens will be there dress it up.
Not for anything else beyond EU citizens in the UK though (which the EU wanted as part of their citizens rights package before FTA talks could begin).
It was a UK red line, and it was abandoned. So, when we move onto trade talks, exactly the same thing is going to happen. ECJ jurisdiction on trade. Same on FOM. We have conceded on our red lines, the EU have given nothing. What on earth makes you think the trade talks will be any different? They will just keep saying 'no' knowing that we will end up agreeing because our leaders are too scared to walk away.
No it wasn't, ECJ jurisdiction is not applying post transition to anything but EU citizens in the UK. There cannot be ECJ jurisdiction on FOM without FOM and UK single market membership so your point there is irrelevant
There is a link between payment and trade, it will not be paid all at once but as the trade talks progress. May has also made clear all along she is ending free movement and replacing it with a points system which is why we are leaving the single market for a FTA in the first place.
I do agree though JRM is now the clear hard Brexit candidate if and when May goes and Tory members and hard Brexiteer Tory MPs feel too many concessions have been made to the EU.
I explained this yesterday. The legal requirement to make the Brexit bill payments will be included in the A50 treaty and will become legally binding on the UK. The actual delivery of the FTA cannot, by law, be included in the A50 treaty and will not be binding on the EU.
The EU have absolutely refused to link them together for that specific reason. The A50 will NOT include any provision for us to stop paying if the FTA is not delivered. This is what they have been arguing about for nine months. You are going to find this out when the agreement is released and there will be NO specific reference to the link, because there is none.
Unless someone can specifically address this point, we have been sold out.
The EU reiterated as much today, as reported in the Guardian: Brussels sources rejected any linkage between the Brexit bill and the final trade deal, suggesting the UK will be disappointed in the belief that it will only have to pay the money if the trade terms are good enough. One senior insider said: “We don’t accept that logic: this is part of the withdrawal treaty and that will be voted on by the UK parliament and by the European parliament. We’re not going to reopen that. We need to close this.” The source added, “for us, we don’t link them”.
Although they are being typically disingenuous here - there is, of course, a link in that they have refused to talk about trade at all until we satisfy their demands on payment.
It's a matter of opinion as to whether we have "been sold out". Some would say that we are merely adopting the least worst position given the situation the leave vote has landed us in.
No it wasn't, ECJ jurisdiction is not applying post transition to anything but EU citizens in the UK. There cannot be ECJ jurisdiction on FOM without FOM and UK single market membership so your point there is irrelevant
The UK is just about to concede on this. The Times reports that the UK are going to agree that there will not be 'regulatory divergence' between NI and ROI. This means that we are going to have to be tied into SM rules, and the EU have always been clear that only the ECJ get to rule on these matters. The ECJ demand on citizens rights was just softening us up for this.
Usually an FTA is based on mutual acceptance of regulations, not one party following the others. So, we are headed for the worst case scenario - an FTA where we don't get the benefits of the SM but being bound to all the same regulations.
The remainers have made themselves right on Brexit - it will be a waste of time because we will give away all the advantages just so we don't have to upset the EU. We were promised no deal was better than a bad deal - but the remainers control this process, and they lied.
There is a link between payment and trade, it will not be paid all at once but as the trade talks progress. May has also made clear all along she is ending free movement and replacing it with a points system which is why we are leaving the single market for a FTA in the first place.
I do agree though JRM is now the clear hard Brexit candidate if and when May goes and Tory members and hard Brexiteer Tory MPs feel too many concessions have been made to the EU.
I explained this yesterday. The legal requirement to make the Brexit bill payments will be included in the A50 treaty and will become legally binding on the UK. The actual delivery of the FTA cannot, by law, be included in the A50 treaty and will not be binding on the EU.
The EU have absolutely refused to link them together for that specific reason. The A50 will NOT include any provision for us to stop paying if the FTA is not delivered. This is what they have been arguing about for nine months. You are going to find this out when the agreement is released and there will be NO specific reference to the link, because there is none.
Unless someone can specifically address this point, we have been sold out.
The A50 process allows for a 2 year negotiation process after invocation of Article 50 and then the Treaties do not apply, the payments will be made based on progress on trade talks over
Do you have any proof of this? No. It would have to be a term in the A50 treaty and the EU are briefing everyone that the linkage will never be made.
Answer the question directly - do you think the A50 treaty will include a clause that says we don't have to pay until the FTA is ratified? Yes or No?
Why? What remote difference to the average American does the fact that 1 person, highly likely to be from a middle class if not privately and Ivy League educated background, in 300 million gets to be President every 8 years rather than having a hereditary constitutional monarch as their Head of State instead? They still have to get all their domestic policies and Treaties through Congress anyway much as Parliament ultimately makes our laws now.
I think its aspirational to every child that anyone can grow up to become Head of State. When Barack Obama was born in 1961 the blacks were not very well treated by Americans, yet still he could grow up to become President and so can anyone else. In theory at least.
I'll take that over gawping at the outside of Bucks Palace anyday.
The American President is both Head of State and Head of Government. In Britain the positions are split. Head of State might be hereditary but it is a damn sight easier to become Head of Government (or Prime Minister) than in the United States. You do not need to be a millionaire for a start.
Obama was not rich when he entered politics. He was shrewd with his income and savings (not a bad trait) and it was only after he'd moved on from being State Senator to Federal Senator and was already being tipped at 50/1 here as next President that he made his millions from his books.
While it works for Trump, for Obama to give credit to his millions for becoming President is putting the cart before the horse.
Even if we allow that Obama is the exception that proves the rule, the other presidents have not been short of a bob or two, and as you say, Obama was already a millionaire by the time he ran for president. To be fair, Americans might point out that Clinton was born into a poor family.
Carter was making peanuts... literally! Truman was from a poor background I think and worked as a farmer for a lot of his adult life. FDR and Kennedy were minted I think.
I think accurate to say in American politics - particularly nowadays - You need a lot of money behind You.
No it wasn't, ECJ jurisdiction is not applying post transition to anything but EU citizens in the UK. There cannot be ECJ jurisdiction on FOM without FOM and UK single market membership so your point there is irrelevant
The UK is just about to concede on this. The Times reports that the UK are going to agree that there will not be 'regulatory divergence' between NI and ROI. This means that we are going to have to be tied into SM rules, and the EU have always been clear that only the ECJ get to rule on these matters. The ECJ demand on citizens rights was just softening us up for this.
Usually an FTA is based on mutual acceptance of regulations, not one party following the others. So, we are headed for the worst case scenario - an FTA where we don't get the benefits of the SM but being bound to all the same regulations.
The remainers have made themselves right on Brexit - it will be a waste of time because we will give away all the advantages just so we don't have to upset the EU. We were promised no deal was better than a bad deal - but the remainers control this process, and they lied.
No regulatory divergence between NI and ROI is not the same as keeping full free movement for the UK, end of
Comments
Wow. That is far better than I was expecting any deal to be.
Once Brexit is done the ROI can be ignored.
I cry like a disgraced televangelist every time I see the Andrew Lincoln/Keira Knightly plot.
It convinced me to 'come out' to my parents that I wasn't going to have an arranged marriage and that I had been in a relationship for two years.
Let's get the shit kicked out of us by love.
looks like 3 nil to the EU then on the first round.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCZCv98XKFs
We'd have to skip the 40 second intro except on very special occasions, though.
Switzerland's Head of State is a committee of seven people for example.
Since when can states only cooperate through the EU? So Canada and the US can’t work together on intelligence because they’re not in the EU? Or the UK and Australia, or Switzerland and Norway? Or even in future a non EU U.K. and France? Rubbish.
Barnier is out of order.
Hattersley claims that the idea of "meritocracy" is incompatible with social democracy. Even if meritocracy "worked" and social progression and regression were easy paths to those earned it, a country in which the gifted and talented lord it over the rest of us plebs is scarcely more attractive than a land in which those gifted their position by inheritance, lottery win or other good fortune lord over us instead.
What can be worse than knowing that not only are we plebs, but that we truly deserve to be bottom of the heap?
(I appreciate there are not many socialists on this forum, but I don't think you have to be one to see that Hattersley has a point!)
Actually that was my suggestion for House of Lords reform.
I'll take that over gawping at the outside of Bucks Palace anyday.
Want to choose a Head of State? Just let Kanye West make a call on who it should be.
Job done.
And it got Blairism and its contradictions years before most spotted it. Kudos to Hattersley.
Because the context continues "don't worry you won't have to pay off all your student debt because you're a loser who won't get a good job".
What is needed is a society which is meritocratic to the extent that it recognises and rewards talent but which also recognises the benefits of tradition and stability and has compassion for those who fall on hard times or never achieve.
Bearing in mind the concept of Queen-in-Parliament, I've long thought the most closely "British" solution for replacing the monarchy would be to make Parliament the "head of state". The representational role could be fulfilled by the Speaker, for example, but I wouldn't want to make the Speaker personally the head of state.
It is just a matter of time with May in charge.
But sometimes you do find something that stops you in your tracks, and either says something that was nagging at you before but voices it far more clearly, or alternatively makes you think entirely again.
Very few comment pieces that really stick in the memory well over 10 years after first reading them (heh, getting on towards 20 in that one's case, worryingly!) but that one was superb. Quality whether you agree or disagree is something I value highly in comment pieces - and at least if you disagree after reading it you're going to have to sharpen your argument up.
I am old enough to have been able to stroll down Downing Street just because I could and skip around the rocks in the middle of Stonehenge. What larks.
I think we've had our own moments with meritocratic moments, not just once now but twice showing a woman can make it to the top on her own merits (as opposed to the woman who at the time got there as she didn't have any brothers). I just think it would be better to have that for the Head of State too.
At the heart of it, he couldn't see a way to reconcile the modern obsession with "meritocracy" with his traditional left-wing social-democratic beliefs. Now for someone coming from the same political space as him, that's a serious problem with meritocracy - for someone who wholeheartedly accepts meritocracy, it's probably a good argument against social democracy.
https://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/careers/what-do-graduates-do-and-earn/subjects-with-the-highest-and-lowest-professional-premiums/
Of course, the elite thought that Cameron's negotiation was a great triumph but the British public saw straight through it as the sell out that it was, and this will be no different.
You laugh at JRM but he could easily be PM next year. If May falls, Boris, Gove and Davis will now be compromised by refusing to stand up for Leave and JRM will coast home if his name gets to the Tory members.
People are misjudging the dynamics of negotiation. Having caved now the EU will continue to insist on unreasonable terms knowing full well that the establishment will never walk away, which given their past form is quite correct. This will just get worse and worse until the dam breaks. The only good news is that nothing that May has conceded is binding at this stage.
I do agree though JRM is now the clear hard Brexit candidate if and when May goes and Tory members and hard Brexiteer Tory MPs feel too many concessions have been made to the EU.
Nevertheless STEM subjects and a couple of others seem to have a very high graduate premium, as do the best universities, but there is a substantial tail of university plus course options where graduates earn less than A-level leavers without a degree. That ought to be a real concern. Whether that is to do with quality of teaching, how challenging the degree is, oversupply of graduates in particular sectors, employer confidence in the degree and institution (a lot of the premium for education is simply, in economic terms, "signalling" and some signals are better than others), whether the expansion of universities means some of the students are simply not well-suited to that environment, whether degree courses at low-ranked universities should have more "employability" (sandwich year/work experience) built into them ... I dunno.
While it works for Trump, for Obama to give credit to his millions for becoming President is putting the cart before the horse.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/how-barack-obama-made-his-fortune.html
The EU have absolutely refused to link them together for that specific reason. The A50 will NOT include any provision for us to stop paying if the FTA is not delivered. This is what they have been arguing about for nine months. You are going to find this out when the agreement is released and there will be NO specific reference to the link, because there is none.
Unless someone can specifically address this point, we have been sold out.
Brussels sources rejected any linkage between the Brexit bill and the final trade deal, suggesting the UK will be disappointed in the belief that it will only have to pay the money if the trade terms are good enough. One senior insider said: “We don’t accept that logic: this is part of the withdrawal treaty and that will be voted on by the UK parliament and by the European parliament. We’re not going to reopen that. We need to close this.” The source added, “for us, we don’t link them”.
Although they are being typically disingenuous here - there is, of course, a link in that they have refused to talk about trade at all until we satisfy their demands on payment.
It's a matter of opinion as to whether we have "been sold out". Some would say that we are merely adopting the least worst position given the situation the leave vote has landed us in.
Usually an FTA is based on mutual acceptance of regulations, not one party following the others. So, we are headed for the worst case scenario - an FTA where we don't get the benefits of the SM but being bound to all the same regulations.
The remainers have made themselves right on Brexit - it will be a waste of time because we will give away all the advantages just so we don't have to upset the EU. We were promised no deal was better than a bad deal - but the remainers control this process, and they lied.
Answer the question directly - do you think the A50 treaty will include a clause that says we don't have to pay until the FTA is ratified? Yes or No?
Truman was from a poor background I think and worked as a farmer for a lot of his adult life.
FDR and Kennedy were minted I think.
I think accurate to say in American politics - particularly nowadays - You need a lot of money behind You.