Was that even an option for the markets for Time Person of the Year? Glad I avoided that market.
Yes, #MeToo was the favourite.
Am I right in thinking that that is what has won just not using that specific phrase? Presumably the bookies won't be paying out?
Of course they'll pay out. They're not monsters! The TIME article (and indeed shortlist) is explicit that it is "The #MeToo movement" that is being recognised, regardless of the headline.
In any normal world he should be, but I can't see how the EU negotiations could survive his loss. It feels to me that if he falls, the Government falls. And neither looks unlikely this lunchtime.
Not so sure - just means a new Brexit minister - one the DUP have more faith in would strengthen the govt.
How? I'm not aware the DUP have any personal issues with David Davis. How do you rule out a hard border in Northern Ireland without a majority, being in the customs union, or allowing a different status for NI? Not sure how the identity of the Brexit minister affects that (apart from a very steep learning curve for the new incumbent.)
@bbclaurak: Bernard Jenkin third Brexiteer to push PM on whether she’s giving away too much in negotiations
@SamCoatesTimes: Co-ordinated pressure from Brexiteers in this PMQ demanding that there isn’t partial or sectoral post Brexit alignment with the EU, after hints of such on Monday.
i.e. Brexit can't be delivered.
No, that is the nub of it.
I think it was Tusk who said right after the referendum that the UK had two choices - hard Brexit or no Brexit.
Until recently I thought there was a good chance of hard Brexit, but now I think the odds have shifted to no Brexit.
Anyone catch BoJo, commenting on the US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's Capital, coming within a hair's breadth of telling us what the "Final Solution Setttlement" should be?
In any normal world he should be, but I can't see how the EU negotiations could survive his loss. It feels to me that if he falls, the Government falls. And neither looks unlikely this lunchtime.
Not so sure - just means a new Brexit minister - one the DUP have more faith in would strengthen the govt.
How? I'm not aware the DUP have any personal issues with David Davis. How do you rule out a hard border in Northern Ireland without a majority, being in the customs union, or allowing a different status for NI? Not sure how the identity of the Brexit minister affects that (apart from a very steep learning curve for the new incumbent.)
Labour equally has an Umunna+Starmer v Hoey, Skinner and Field problem
Hard Brexiteers are a tiny minority in the Labour Party - Hoey and Field are frankly embarrassing to most Labour members - they have no influence and are not a consideration in the policy-making process. Labour members do not see Brexit as a talismanic issue in the way that many Tories do.
@bbclaurak: Bernard Jenkin third Brexiteer to push PM on whether she’s giving away too much in negotiations
@SamCoatesTimes: Co-ordinated pressure from Brexiteers in this PMQ demanding that there isn’t partial or sectoral post Brexit alignment with the EU, after hints of such on Monday.
i.e. Brexit can't be delivered.
No, that is the nub of it.
I think it was Tusk who said right after the referendum that the UK had two choices - hard Brexit or no Brexit.
Until recently I thought there was a good chance of hard Brexit, but now I think the odds have shifted to no Brexit.
Hard Brexit creates highly dangerous situation in NI presumably.
I've always said Brexit wont happen, I didnt think it would be the NI who stopped it though, but that is how it is looking today. What a mess of dangerous proportions.
Labour equally has an Umunna+Starmer v Hoey, Skinner and Field problem
Hard Brexiteers are a tiny minority in the Labour Party - Hoey and Field are frankly embarrassing to most Labour members - they have no influence and are not a consideration in the policy-making process. Labour members do not see Brexit as a talismanic issue in the way that many Tories do.
Many Labour voters do though.
37% of 2015 Labour voters voted Leave and 20% of 2015 UKIP voters voted for Corbyn.
Was that even an option for the markets for Time Person of the Year? Glad I avoided that market.
Yes, #MeToo was the favourite.
Am I right in thinking that that is what has won just not using that specific phrase? Presumably the bookies won't be paying out?
Of course they'll pay out. They're not monsters! The TIME article (and indeed shortlist) is explicit that it is "The #MeToo movement" that is being recognised, regardless of the headline.
Does anyone have any experience of working at Macquarie? I've been contacted about an associate position in London, the pay is about the same as I have now, but it seems more interesting, their profile of investing directly in infrastructure is something that always seems appealing to me.
The reason defining scenario C is contentious for Brexiteers is that it implies that scenario A is to stay in the single market and customs union.
No, I think scenario A was for a FTA.
Yes but an FTA which facilitates an open border doesn't exist. It would have to be Norway plus.
As far as I can see the deal which collapsed on Monday would not have guaranteed an open border. Only common tarrifs (CU) and common regulation and product standards (SM) would do that. Someone kindly correct me if that is wrong.
The reason defining scenario C is contentious for Brexiteers is that it implies that scenario A is to stay in the single market and customs union.
No, I think scenario A was for a FTA.
Yes but an FTA which facilitates an open border doesn't exist. It would have to be Norway plus.
As far as I can see the deal which collapsed on Monday would not have guaranteed an open border. Only common tarrifs (CU) and common regulation and product standards (SM) would do that. Someone kindly correct me if that is wrong.
The point is that no one on here knows. Everyone is just guessing
The reason defining scenario C is contentious for Brexiteers is that it implies that scenario A is to stay in the single market and customs union.
No, I think scenario A was for a FTA.
Yes but an FTA which facilitates an open border doesn't exist. It would have to be Norway plus.
As far as I can see the deal which collapsed on Monday would not have guaranteed an open border. Only common tarrifs (CU) and common regulation and product standards (SM) would do that. Someone kindly correct me if that is wrong.
The second scenario certainly didn't guarantee an open border (rather it prevented a hard border with checkpoints), yet all parties seemed to be happy with it.
As someone who, when asked the question "Is the Pope Catholic?" answered "I don't know. Is he?" (Wearing my atheist credentials proudly) - What is the current issue with the US moving their embassy to Jerusalem? I'm vaguely aware it's a very religious city.... but.... don't understand what the problem is (seriously)?
In any normal world he should be, but I can't see how the EU negotiations could survive his loss. It feels to me that if he falls, the Government falls. And neither looks unlikely this lunchtime.
Not so sure - just means a new Brexit minister - one the DUP have more faith in would strengthen the govt.
How? I'm not aware the DUP have any personal issues with David Davis. How do you rule out a hard border in Northern Ireland without a majority, being in the customs union, or allowing a different status for NI? Not sure how the identity of the Brexit minister affects that (apart from a very steep learning curve for the new incumbent.)
Why did anyone in the Uk group agree to the bizarre demand from the ROI not to show the draft to the DUP ?
https://www.ft.com/content/18221a1e-da83-11e7-a039-c64b1c09b482 On Tuesday morning, Theresa May’s Brexit strategy was in crisis as she struggled to reconcile the rival demands of the Dublin government and the Democratic Unionist party over the Irish border. Then David Davis stood up in the Commons — and made the PM’s plight a great deal worse.
The reason defining scenario C is contentious for Brexiteers is that it implies that scenario A is to stay in the single market and customs union.
No, I think scenario A was for a FTA.
Yes but an FTA which facilitates an open border doesn't exist. It would have to be Norway plus.
As far as I can see the deal which collapsed on Monday would not have guaranteed an open border. Only common tarrifs (CU) and common regulation and product standards (SM) would do that. Someone kindly correct me if that is wrong.
The second scenario certainly didn't guarantee an open border (rather it prevented a hard border with checkpoints), yet all parties seemed to be happy with it.
From the EU's perspective the second scenario is only there so they can continue to make fun of the UK for thinking drones and zeppelins could help. That's why the fall back position needs to be a cast-iron guarantee of regulatory and customs alignment.
The reason defining scenario C is contentious for Brexiteers is that it implies that scenario A is to stay in the single market and customs union.
No, I think scenario A was for a FTA.
Yes but an FTA which facilitates an open border doesn't exist. It would have to be Norway plus.
As far as I can see the deal which collapsed on Monday would not have guaranteed an open border. Only common tarrifs (CU) and common regulation and product standards (SM) would do that. Someone kindly correct me if that is wrong.
The second scenario certainly didn't guarantee an open border (rather it prevented a hard border with checkpoints), yet all parties seemed to be happy with it.
From the EU's perspective the second scenario is only there so they can continue to make fun of the UK for thinking drones and zeppelins could help. That's why the fall back position needs to be a cast-iron guarantee of regulatory and customs alignment.
Yeah, I'm sure that's the only reason it's in there.
Labour equally has an Umunna+Starmer v Hoey, Skinner and Field problem
Hard Brexiteers are a tiny minority in the Labour Party - Hoey and Field are frankly embarrassing to most Labour members - they have no influence and are not a consideration in the policy-making process. Labour members do not see Brexit as a talismanic issue in the way that many Tories do.
Many Labour voters do though.
.
I disagree - in general Labour voters do not see the EU as a major concern - the ones who voted leave did so out of a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government. I know it is hard for Tories who have spent their entire political lives obsessing about the EU to believe that there are people out there who don't care much about it either way and whose vote is determined by other factors. But there are. And in fact these people are a majority both amongst Labour Party members and the electorate at large.
As someone who, when asked the question "Is the Pope Catholic?" answered "I don't know. Is he?" (Wearing my atheist credentials proudly) - What is the current issue with the US moving their embassy to Jerusalem? I'm vaguely aware it's a very religious city.... but.... don't understand what the problem is (seriously)?
The Palestinians claim East Jerusalem as their capital too
Labour equally has an Umunna+Starmer v Hoey, Skinner and Field problem
Hard Brexiteers are a tiny minority in the Labour Party - Hoey and Field are frankly embarrassing to most Labour members - they have no influence and are not a consideration in the policy-making process. Labour members do not see Brexit as a talismanic issue in the way that many Tories do.
Many Labour voters do though.
.
I disagree - in general Labour voters do not see the EU as a major concern - the ones who voted leave did so out of a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government. I know it is hard for Tories who have spent their entire political lives obsessing about the EU to believe that there are people out there who don't care much about it either way and whose vote is determined by other factors. But there are. And in fact these people are a majority both amongst Labour Party members and the electorate at large.
No. The Labour voters who voted Leave and UKIP voters who voted Leave then voted for Corbyn did so because of concerns over immigration even if they were less concerned by widget directives from Brussels and as they were assured by Corbyn he would end FOM. That concern was exacerbated by Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004.
I know it is hard for metropolitan left liberal EUphiles to believe that there are people who care about immigration controls but in much of provincial and industrial town England and Wales that was the key reason they voted Leave and if FOM is left in place they will not be happy
Based on May's answers here, the chance of moving on to phase two in December looks slim.
May has put herself and the country in an impossible place. The only way to get a deal done is for the UK to make significant concessions. But every option involves her dumping on a constituency whose support she needs to continue. I thought she might have a chance of winning a stuff the EU red, while and blue election on the back of a walkout. After the shambles of this week, I am not sure that is the case now. It could just be that the UK is going to be ungovernable for the foreseeable future. The first of the big parties to tack back to the centre will win a huge majority. But there is little sign that either is willing to.
There is no way an election could be won on the basis of a walkout - the consequences, not least for Ireland, do not bear thinking about.
However, I am beginning to think that an election could be won on the basis of freezing, or even reversing, Brexit. The events of this week make that more likely, since it is now clear that the UK government is not capable of delivering any form of Brexit apart from a cliff edge.
And who is going to put forward this platform? Corbyn? The Conservatives?
Hezza has already said that he'd vote Labour to stop Brexit, suggesting that he sees that as the more likely route.
It's only 43 years since another Tory said 'vote Labour to get a referendum on continuing EU membership'.
Hezza is a bitter, poisonous scumbag and a disgrace to Parliament. His despair when we finally leave will be particularly sweet.
Heseltine has served this country well. The massive regeneration of London's Docklands alone means that he has had more positive effect on the country than the vast majority of politicians. And it would be hard to find another Conservative politician that would be made a Freeman of that well-known Conservative city, Liverpool.
You may disagree with his stance on the EU, but that doesn't alter the good he has done.
Based on May's answers here, the chance of moving on to phase two in December looks slim.
May has put herself and the country in an impossible place. The only way to get a deal done is for the UK to make significant concessions. But every option involves her dumping on a constituency whose support she needs to continue. I thought she might have a chance of winning a stuff the EU red, while and blue election on the back of a walkout. After the shambles of this week, I am not sure that is the case now. It could just be that the UK is going to be ungovernable for the foreseeable future. The first of the big parties to tack back to the centre will win a huge majority. But there is little sign that either is willing to.
There is no way an election could be won on the basis of a walkout - the consequences, not least for Ireland, do not bear thinking about.
However, I am beginning to think that an election could be won on the basis of freezing, or even reversing, Brexit. The events of this week make that more likely, since it is now clear that the UK government is not capable of delivering any form of Brexit apart from a cliff edge.
And who is going to put forward this platform? Corbyn? The Conservatives?
Hezza has already said that he'd vote Labour to stop Brexit, suggesting that he sees that as the more likely route.
It's only 43 years since another Tory said 'vote Labour to get a referendum on continuing EU membership'.
Hezza is a bitter, poisonous scumbag and a disgrace to Parliament. His despair when we finally leave will be particularly sweet.
Heseltine has served this country well. The massive regeneration of London's Docklands alone means that he has had more positive effect on the country than the vast majority of politicians. And it would be hard to find another Conservative politician that would be made a Freeman of that well-known Conservative city, Liverpool.
You may disagree with his stance on the EU, but that doesn't alter the good he has done.
Don't worry, Tyndall is just suffering from Post-Victory Shrill Bitterness Syndrome. Remainers were cowards this morning even Navy types who didn't stick to port.
Impact assessments were introduced by the Tories in the mid-nineties (as Regulatory Impact Assessments) to slow up what they saw as red-tape. They are next to useless but seem to have acquired magical powers recently.
They are guesswork. If they had error-bars, they'd be from zero to infinity.
As I told my boss, these aren't jobs for scientists. they're not even jobs for grown-ups.
But Cameron (or Mr Eagles' bestie) blocking them showed they were never serious about Leave
I think it was Tusk who said right after the referendum that the UK had two choices - hard Brexit or no Brexit.
Until recently I thought there was a good chance of hard Brexit, but now I think the odds have shifted to no Brexit.
Out of interest, what makes you rule out EFTA/EEA?
It requires abiding by the ECJ (Ie having other nations write our laws) and it requires Freedom of Movement.
The issue that won the vote for Leave was "control" and there is no control in the EFTA/EEA.
Specifically the twin issues that mattered most for voting to leave were either taking back control of our laws for the more 'liberal' leavers like myself (which rules out ECJ etc) or controlling immigration for the more kippery leavers. EFTA/EEA achieves neither.
Perhaps T May should just appoint a member of the DUP as Brexit Secretary to see what solution they would negotiate!
+1
But seriously - I think a lot of people are looking at the latest developments right now and imagining pretty much anyone could make a better job of this.
Remainers are going to hate the Conservatives for dragging us out of the EU. Leavers are going to hate the Conservatives for doing it on the worst possible terms. And if the government should fall over this and we see a GE in 2018, the one thing that drives people to the Conservatives - a reputation for competence - will be in tatters.
Brexit isn't the thing that will let Corbyn in. Incompetence in handling Brexit is.
Perhaps T May should just appoint a member of the DUP as Brexit Secretary to see what solution they would negotiate!
+1
But seriously - I think a lot of people are looking at the latest developments right now and imagining pretty much anyone could make a better job of this.
Remainers are going to hate the Conservatives for dragging us out of the EU. Leavers are going to hate the Conservatives for doing it on the worst possible terms. And if the government should fall over this and we see a GE in 2018, the one thing that drives people to the Conservatives - a reputation for competence - will be in tatters.
Brexit isn't the thing that will let Corbyn in. Incompetence in handling Brexit is.
Except that is not true. The FTA that ends free movement deal the government is aiming for is the only way to bridge the Remainer and Leaver divide
Labour equally has an Umunna+Starmer v Hoey, Skinner and Field problem
Hard Brexiteers are a tiny minority in the Labour Party - Hoey and Field are frankly embarrassing to most Labour members - they have no influence and are not a consideration in the policy-making process. Labour members do not see Brexit as a talismanic issue in the way that many Tories do.
Many Labour voters do though.
.
I disagree - in general Labour voters do not see the EU as a major concern - the ones who voted leave did so out of a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government. I know it is hard for Tories who have spent their entire political lives obsessing about the EU to believe that there are people out there who don't care much about it either way and whose vote is determined by other factors. But there are. And in fact these people are a majority both amongst Labour Party members and the electorate at large.
No. The Labour voters who voted Leave and UKIP voters who voted Leave then voted for Corbyn did so because of concerns over immigration even if they were less concerned by widget directives from Brussels and as they were assured by Corbyn he would end FOM. That concern was exacerbated by Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004.
I know it is hard for metropolitan left liberal EUphiles to believe that there are people who care about immigration controls but in much of provincial and industrial town England and Wales that was the key reason they voted Leave and if FOM is left in place they will not be happy
We will have to disagree on this. But since I have canvassed for the Labour Party since the 1970s and grew up in what was then a Nottinghamshire mining village I hope I am not being immodest if I claim a thorough knowledge of Labour voters of all types!
As someone who, when asked the question "Is the Pope Catholic?" answered "I don't know. Is he?" (Wearing my atheist credentials proudly) - What is the current issue with the US moving their embassy to Jerusalem? I'm vaguely aware it's a very religious city.... but.... don't understand what the problem is (seriously)?
Symbollism. The Palestinians want their capital to be East Jerusalem. If Israel move their capital there, then that implies an exclusive claim on the whole city.
I did wonder whether it would be (1) possible and (2) acceptable for a city to simultaneously be both a free city and capital of two countries (taking Palestine as a country, which it isn't necessarily universally recognised as such).
Labour equally has an Umunna+Starmer v Hoey, Skinner and Field problem
Hard Brexiteers are a tiny minority in the Labour Party - Hoey and Field are frankly embarrassing to most Labour members - they have no influence and are not a consideration in the policy-making process. Labour members do not see Brexit as a talismanic issue in the way that many Tories do.
Many Labour voters do though.
.
I disagree - in general Labour voters do not see the EU as a major concern - the ones who voted leave did so out of a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government. I know it is hard for Tories who have spent their entire political lives obsessing about the EU to believe that there are people out there who don't care much about it either way and whose vote is determined by other factors. But there are. And in fact these people are a majority both amongst Labour Party members and the electorate at large.
No. The Labour voters who voted Leave and UKIP voters who voted Leave then voted for Corbyn did so because of concerns over immigration even if they were less concerned by widget directives from Brussels and as they were assured by Corbyn he would end FOM. That concern was exacerbated by Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004.
I know it is hard for metropolitan left liberal EUphiles to believe that there are people who care about immigration controls but in much of provincial and industrial town England and Wales that was the key reason they voted Leave and if FOM is left in place they will not be happy
We will have to disagree on this. But since I have canvassed for the Labour Party since the 1970s and grew up in what was then a Nottinghamshire mining village I hope I am not being immodest if I claim a thorough knowledge of Labour voters of all types!
But you said the only reason Labour voters voted to leave was out of "a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government". None of them wanted to end free movement? I find that hard to believe.
Labour equally has an Umunna+Starmer v Hoey, Skinner and Field problem
Hard Brexiteers are a tiny minority in the Labour Party - Hoey and Field are frankly embarrassing to most Labour members - they have no influence and are not a consideration in the policy-making process. Labour members do not see Brexit as a talismanic issue in the way that many Tories do.
Many Labour voters do though.
.
I disagree - in general Labour voters do not see the EU as a major concern - the ones who voted leave did so out of a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government. I know it is hard for Tories who have spent their entire political lives obsessing about the EU to believe that there are people out there who don't care much about it either way and whose vote is determined by other factors. But there are. And in fact these people are a majority both amongst Labour Party members and the electorate at large.
No. The Labour voters who voted Leave and UKIP voters who voted Leave then voted for Corbyn did so because of concerns over immigration even if they were less concerned by widget directives from Brussels and as they were assured by Corbyn he would end FOM. That concern was exacerbated by Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004.
I know it is hard for metropolitan left liberal EUphiles to believe that there are people who care about immigration controls but in much of provincial and industrial town England and Wales that was the key reason they voted Leave and if FOM is left in place they will not be happy
We will have to disagree on this. But since I have canvassed for the Labour Party since the 1970s and grew up in what was then a Nottinghamshire mining village I hope I am not being immodest if I claim a thorough knowledge of Labour voters of all types!
Well obviously not well enough. The gains the Tories made in Labour Leave seats like Mansfield and Stoke South, Copeland and Middlesborough South and Cleveland and Walsall North were only contained by Corbyn as he promised to end free movement, if he promised to leave free movement in place they are all in play
@SamCoatesTimes: Philip Hammond hints that UK may still pay exit bill even if there is no trade deal. “I find it inconceivable that we would walk away from obligations that we recognise as an obligation”
@SamCoatesTimes: Philip Hammond hints that UK may still pay exit bill even if there is no trade deal. “I find it inconceivable that we would walk away from obligations that we recognise as an obligation”
Hints? Surely that's the default position, that what is owed is paid?
@SamCoatesTimes: Philip Hammond hints that UK may still pay exit bill even if there is no trade deal. “I find it inconceivable that we would walk away from obligations that we recognise as an obligation”
Apart from pensions for Mandleson and the Kinnocks, there are no obligations. If there were, they’d be written in the Treaties.
But you said the only reason Labour voters voted to leave was out of "a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government". None of them wanted to end free movement? I find that hard to believe.
Well I didn't say that - of course immigration is an issue. But in reality what the social conservatives amongst Labour voters - and there are many - want is to stop immigration. Full stop. But this is not realistic, and leaving the EU will certainly not deliver it. Getting rid of FOM and replacing it with something that just reduces immigration by a few tens of thousands will make no difference to them. They will not notice any change.
But you said the only reason Labour voters voted to leave was out of "a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government". None of them wanted to end free movement? I find that hard to believe.
Well I didn't say that - of course immigration is an issue. But in reality what the social conservatives amongst Labour voters - and there are many - want is to stop immigration. Full stop. But this is not realistic, and leaving the EU will certainly not deliver it. Getting rid of FOM and replacing it with something that just reduces immigration by a few tens of thousands will make no difference to them. They will not notice any change.
To quote you exactly "the ones who voted leave did so out of a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government.". I'd suggest a lot of them didn't vote leave for that reason.
But you said the only reason Labour voters voted to leave was out of "a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government". None of them wanted to end free movement? I find that hard to believe.
Well I didn't say that - of course immigration is an issue. But in reality what the social conservatives amongst Labour voters - and there are many - want is to stop immigration. Full stop. But this is not realistic, and leaving the EU will certainly not deliver it. Getting rid of FOM and replacing it with something that just reduces immigration by a few tens of thousands will make no difference to them. They will not notice any change.
If the tens of thousands come from unskilled workers they will.
I think it was Tusk who said right after the referendum that the UK had two choices - hard Brexit or no Brexit.
Until recently I thought there was a good chance of hard Brexit, but now I think the odds have shifted to no Brexit.
Out of interest, what makes you rule out EFTA/EEA?
It requires abiding by the ECJ (Ie having other nations write our laws) and it requires Freedom of Movement.
The issue that won the vote for Leave was "control" and there is no control in the EFTA/EEA.
Specifically the twin issues that mattered most for voting to leave were either taking back control of our laws for the more 'liberal' leavers like myself (which rules out ECJ etc) or controlling immigration for the more kippery leavers. EFTA/EEA achieves neither.
Neither EFTA nor the EEA require abiding by the ECJ.
EEA membership does require acceptance of FoM. EFTA membership does not.
Based on May's answers here, the chance of moving on to phase two in December looks slim.
May has put herself and the country in an impossible place. The only way to get a deal done is for the UK to make significant concessions. But every option involves her dumping on a constituency whose support she needs to continue. I thought she might have a chance of winning a stuff the EU red, while and blue election on the back of a walkout. After the shambles of this week, I am not sure that is the case now. It could just be that the UK is going to be ungovernable for the foreseeable future. The first of the big parties to tack back to the centre will win a huge majority. But there is little sign that either is willing to.
There is no way an election could be won on the basis of a walkout - the consequences, not least for Ireland, do not bear thinking about.
However, I am beginning to think that an election could be won on the basis of freezing, or even reversing, Brexit. The events of this week make that more likely, since it is now clear that the UK government is not capable of delivering any form of Brexit apart from a cliff edge.
And who is going to put forward this platform? Corbyn? The Conservatives?
Hezza has already said that he'd vote Labour to stop Brexit, suggesting that he sees that as the more likely route.
It's only 43 years since another Tory said 'vote Labour to get a referendum on continuing EU membership'.
Hezza is a bitter, poisonous scumbag and a disgrace to Parliament. His despair when we finally leave will be particularly sweet.
Heseltine has served this country well. The massive regeneration of London's Docklands alone means that he has had more positive effect on the country than the vast majority of politicians. And it would be hard to find another Conservative politician that would be made a Freeman of that well-known Conservative city, Liverpool.
You may disagree with his stance on the EU, but that doesn't alter the good he has done.
I agree. A One Nation Tory in the era of Thatcher and Sons.
He also deserves an award for services to horticulture, having planted about one tree every day since 1976. Or rather, his gardeners have.
But you said the only reason Labour voters voted to leave was out of "a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government". None of them wanted to end free movement? I find that hard to believe.
Well I didn't say that - of course immigration is an issue. But in reality what the social conservatives amongst Labour voters - and there are many - want is to stop immigration. Full stop. But this is not realistic, and leaving the EU will certainly not deliver it. Getting rid of FOM and replacing it with something that just reduces immigration by a few tens of thousands will make no difference to them. They will not notice any change.
To quote you exactly "the ones who voted leave did so out of a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government.". I'd suggest a lot of them didn't vote leave for that reason.
I grant you that some of the might have been expecting more money for the NHS and fewer foreign doctors (that's something that comes upon the doorstep from time to time....).
I think it was Tusk who said right after the referendum that the UK had two choices - hard Brexit or no Brexit.
Until recently I thought there was a good chance of hard Brexit, but now I think the odds have shifted to no Brexit.
Out of interest, what makes you rule out EFTA/EEA?
It requires abiding by the ECJ (Ie having other nations write our laws) and it requires Freedom of Movement.
The issue that won the vote for Leave was "control" and there is no control in the EFTA/EEA.
Specifically the twin issues that mattered most for voting to leave were either taking back control of our laws for the more 'liberal' leavers like myself (which rules out ECJ etc) or controlling immigration for the more kippery leavers. EFTA/EEA achieves neither.
Neither EFTA nor the EEA require abiding by the ECJ.
EEA membership does require acceptance of FoM. EFTA membership does not.
But you said the only reason Labour voters voted to leave was out of "a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government". None of them wanted to end free movement? I find that hard to believe.
Well I didn't say that - of course immigration is an issue. But in reality what the social conservatives amongst Labour voters - and there are many - want is to stop immigration. Full stop. But this is not realistic, and leaving the EU will certainly not deliver it. Getting rid of FOM and replacing it with something that just reduces immigration by a few tens of thousands will make no difference to them. They will not notice any change.
If the tens of thousands come from unskilled workers they will.
Exactly right. I think people in much of the UK don't realise how much some working class communities have changed, and I say this as a second generation immigrant myself. It scares people in other working class communities that they will have the same thing happen to their estates. This cultural fear, combined with big changes to the labour market, put many lower income people in a state of perpetual worry, which causes them to be pessimistic and cynical about life and politics as a whole. That causes a lot of instability in politics and the inability to have reasoned debate. I genuinely think immigration is the reason sensible social democratic politics has collapsed in Europe, as many of our supporters have gone to the right or far left.
I think it was Tusk who said right after the referendum that the UK had two choices - hard Brexit or no Brexit.
Until recently I thought there was a good chance of hard Brexit, but now I think the odds have shifted to no Brexit.
Out of interest, what makes you rule out EFTA/EEA?
It requires abiding by the ECJ (Ie having other nations write our laws) and it requires Freedom of Movement.
The issue that won the vote for Leave was "control" and there is no control in the EFTA/EEA.
Specifically the twin issues that mattered most for voting to leave were either taking back control of our laws for the more 'liberal' leavers like myself (which rules out ECJ etc) or controlling immigration for the more kippery leavers. EFTA/EEA achieves neither.
Neither EFTA nor the EEA require abiding by the ECJ.
EEA membership does require acceptance of FoM. EFTA membership does not.
But you said the only reason Labour voters voted to leave was out of "a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government". None of them wanted to end free movement? I find that hard to believe.
Well I didn't say that - of course immigration is an issue. But in reality what the social conservatives amongst Labour voters - and there are many - want is to stop immigration. Full stop. But this is not realistic, and leaving the EU will certainly not deliver it. Getting rid of FOM and replacing it with something that just reduces immigration by a few tens of thousands will make no difference to them. They will not notice any change.
If the tens of thousands come from unskilled workers they will.
Exactly right. I think people in much of the UK don't realise how much some working class communities have changed, and I say this as a second generation immigrant myself. It scares people in other working class communities that they will have the same thing happen to their estates. This cultural fear, combined with big changes to the labour market, put many lower income people in a state of perpetual worry, which causes them to be pessimistic and cynical about life and politics as a whole. That causes a lot of instability in politics and the inability to have reasoned debate. I genuinely think immigration is the reason sensible social democratic politics has collapsed in Europe, as many of our supporters have gone to the right or far left.
That, my friend, is life in the 21st Century. As the developing world catches up, as people around the globe aspire to a better standard of living, then there will be migration of peoples.
We are the lucky ones, the lottery of life winners, and looked upon on a global scale, much as perhaps Jezza looks upon it on a local, national scale, then there is an argument for accepting that there will be a rebalance with those best off (ie us) losing out.
But you said the only reason Labour voters voted to leave was out of "a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government". None of them wanted to end free movement? I find that hard to believe.
Well I didn't say that - of course immigration is an issue. But in reality what the social conservatives amongst Labour voters - and there are many - want is to stop immigration. Full stop. But this is not realistic, and leaving the EU will certainly not deliver it. Getting rid of FOM and replacing it with something that just reduces immigration by a few tens of thousands will make no difference to them. They will not notice any change.
If the tens of thousands come from unskilled workers they will.
Exactly right. I think people in much of the UK don't realise how much some working class communities have changed, and I say this as a second generation immigrant myself. It scares people in other working class communities that they will have the same thing happen to their estates. This cultural fear, combined with big changes to the labour market, put many lower income people in a state of perpetual worry, which causes them to be pessimistic and cynical about life and politics as a whole. That causes a lot of instability in politics and the inability to have reasoned debate. I genuinely think immigration is the reason sensible social democratic politics has collapsed in Europe, as many of our supporters have gone to the right or far left.
That, my friend, is life in the 21st Century. As the developing world catches up, as people around the globe aspire to a better standard of living, then there will be migration of peoples.
We are the lucky ones, the lottery of life winners, and looked upon on a global scale, much as perhaps Jezza looks upon it on a local, national scale, then there is an argument for accepting that there will be a rebalance with those best off (ie us) losing out.
Sounds awfully inevitable... after all, other non-EU countries have survived after restricting low-skilled migration.
I think it was Tusk who said right after the referendum that the UK had two choices - hard Brexit or no Brexit.
Until recently I thought there was a good chance of hard Brexit, but now I think the odds have shifted to no Brexit.
Out of interest, what makes you rule out EFTA/EEA?
It requires abiding by the ECJ (Ie having other nations write our laws) and it requires Freedom of Movement.
The issue that won the vote for Leave was "control" and there is no control in the EFTA/EEA.
Specifically the twin issues that mattered most for voting to leave were either taking back control of our laws for the more 'liberal' leavers like myself (which rules out ECJ etc) or controlling immigration for the more kippery leavers. EFTA/EEA achieves neither.
Neither EFTA nor the EEA require abiding by the ECJ.
EEA membership does require acceptance of FoM. EFTA membership does not.
I think it was Tusk who said right after the referendum that the UK had two choices - hard Brexit or no Brexit.
Until recently I thought there was a good chance of hard Brexit, but now I think the odds have shifted to no Brexit.
Out of interest, what makes you rule out EFTA/EEA?
It requires abiding by the ECJ (Ie having other nations write our laws) and it requires Freedom of Movement.
The issue that won the vote for Leave was "control" and there is no control in the EFTA/EEA.
Specifically the twin issues that mattered most for voting to leave were either taking back control of our laws for the more 'liberal' leavers like myself (which rules out ECJ etc) or controlling immigration for the more kippery leavers. EFTA/EEA achieves neither.
Neither EFTA nor the EEA require abiding by the ECJ.
EEA membership does require acceptance of FoM. EFTA membership does not.
While technically the ECJ doesn't have direct jurisdiction over the EEA, it does indirectly. The EFTA court by design follows a "homogeneity goal" to make sure that the court pays "due account to the principles laid down by the European Court of Justice's relevant case law". As Wiki says about the ECJ, EFTA and the General Court (EGC): "All three EEA courts (ECJ, EGC, EFTA Court) have not only emphasized the need for a uniform interpretation of EU and EEA law, but have actively seen to it that homogeneity is preserved."
So yes the ECJ would retain control over our laws even if the relevant court that stamps that is labelled the EFTA Court and is simply interpreting the law by following the ECJ's case law.
Your distinction is moot and falls under a rose by any other name ...
Don't worry, Tyndall is just suffering from Post-Victory Shrill Bitterness Syndrome. Remainers were cowards this morning even Navy types who didn't stick to port.
Nope. This is nothing to do with Brexit. I detest Heseltine as a treacherous self serving scumbag who helped to bring down Thatcher, betrayed the Nottinghamshire miners and put his own ambition ahead of any loyalty to leader, party or country.
Contrast with someone like Ken Clark who may be a terrible Remoaner but has always done his damndest to stay loyal to party and country.
But you said the only reason Labour voters voted to leave was out of "a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government". None of them wanted to end free movement? I find that hard to believe.
Well I didn't say that - of course immigration is an issue. But in reality what the social conservatives amongst Labour voters - and there are many - want is to stop immigration. Full stop. But this is not realistic, and leaving the EU will certainly not deliver it. Getting rid of FOM and replacing it with something that just reduces immigration by a few tens of thousands will make no difference to them. They will not notice any change.
If the tens of thousands come from unskilled workers they will.
Exactly right. I think people in much of the UK don't realise how much some working class communities have changed, and I say this as a second generation immigrant myself. It scares people in other working class communities that they will have the same thing happen to their estates. This cultural fear, combined with big changes to the labour market, put many lower income people in a state of perpetual worry, which causes them to be pessimistic and cynical about life and politics as a whole. That causes a lot of instability in politics and the inability to have reasoned debate. I genuinely think immigration is the reason sensible social democratic politics has collapsed in Europe, as many of our supporters have gone to the right or far left.
That, my friend, is life in the 21st Century. As the developing world catches up, as people around the globe aspire to a better standard of living, then there will be migration of peoples.
We are the lucky ones, the lottery of life winners, and looked upon on a global scale, much as perhaps Jezza looks upon it on a local, national scale, then there is an argument for accepting that there will be a rebalance with those best off (ie us) losing out.
Do you not think there is a link between the UK's awful productivity and the ability of companies to just throw unskilled labour at any problem?
I think it was Tusk who said right after the referendum that the UK had two choices - hard Brexit or no Brexit.
Until recently I thought there was a good chance of hard Brexit, but now I think the odds have shifted to no Brexit.
Out of interest, what makes you rule out EFTA/EEA?
It requires abiding by the ECJ (Ie having other nations write our laws) and it requires Freedom of Movement.
The issue that won the vote for Leave was "control" and there is no control in the EFTA/EEA.
Specifically the twin issues that mattered most for voting to leave were either taking back control of our laws for the more 'liberal' leavers like myself (which rules out ECJ etc) or controlling immigration for the more kippery leavers. EFTA/EEA achieves neither.
Neither EFTA nor the EEA require abiding by the ECJ.
EEA membership does require acceptance of FoM. EFTA membership does not.
Hm, I wonder if they'd let the UK do that? I'd naively assume that Liechtenstein have a far more compelling argument as to why freedom of movement has to be suspended.
@bbclaurak: Bernard Jenkin third Brexiteer to push PM on whether she’s giving away too much in negotiations
@SamCoatesTimes: Co-ordinated pressure from Brexiteers in this PMQ demanding that there isn’t partial or sectoral post Brexit alignment with the EU, after hints of such on Monday.
i.e. Brexit can't be delivered.
No, that is the nub of it.
I think it was Tusk who said right after the referendum that the UK had two choices - hard Brexit or no Brexit.
Until recently I thought there was a good chance of hard Brexit, but now I think the odds have shifted to no Brexit.
If the EU were really clever they might be able to seal the deal on that (much to my lifelong chagrin) if they put Dave's deal back on the table, but offered a one-off seven year emergency brake, or an agreement to talk if net EU migration to the UK exceeded 150k net per year for 4 consecutive years (or 5 out of a 7 year EU budgetary period) in future, in exchange, perhaps, for a little more of our rebate.
But, they're more interested in bringing Britain to heel as an example to others.
But you said the only reason Labour voters voted to leave was out of "a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government". None of them wanted to end free movement? I find that hard to believe.
Well I didn't say that - of course immigration is an issue. But in reality what the social conservatives amongst Labour voters - and there are many - want is to stop immigration. Full stop. But this is not realistic, and leaving the EU will certainly not deliver it. Getting rid of FOM and replacing it with something that just reduces immigration by a few tens of thousands will make no difference to them. They will not notice any change.
If the tens of thousands come from unskilled workers they will.
Exactly right. I think people in much of the UK don't realise how much some working class communities have changed, and I say this as a second generation immigrant myself. It scares people in other working class communities that they will have the same thing happen to their estates. This cultural fear, combined with big changes to the labour market, put many lower income people in a state of perpetual worry, which causes them to be pessimistic and cynical about life and politics as a whole. That causes a lot of instability in politics and the inability to have reasoned debate. I genuinely think immigration is the reason sensible social democratic politics has collapsed in Europe, as many of our supporters have gone to the right or far left.
That, my friend, is life in the 21st Century. As the developing world catches up, as people around the globe aspire to a better standard of living, then there will be migration of peoples.
We are the lucky ones, the lottery of life winners, and looked upon on a global scale, much as perhaps Jezza looks upon it on a local, national scale, then there is an argument for accepting that there will be a rebalance with those best off (ie us) losing out.
Sounds awfully inevitable... after all, other non-EU countries have survived after restricting low-skilled migration.
And other countries have thrived on the back of low skill migrantion.
When you can find enough people to do all the jobs that migrants do with some left over then you might be on a position to start making an argument for restriction - although even then I would argue it is a false route to follow. But as long as we have a core of people who would rather claim benefits than do manual labour your arguments are not valid.
I think it was Tusk who said right after the referendum that the UK had two choices - hard Brexit or no Brexit.
Until recently I thought there was a good chance of hard Brexit, but now I think the odds have shifted to no Brexit.
Out of interest, what makes you rule out EFTA/EEA?
It requires abiding by the ECJ (Ie having other nations write our laws) and it requires Freedom of Movement.
The issue that won the vote for Leave was "control" and there is no control in the EFTA/EEA.
Specifically the twin issues that mattered most for voting to leave were either taking back control of our laws for the more 'liberal' leavers like myself (which rules out ECJ etc) or controlling immigration for the more kippery leavers. EFTA/EEA achieves neither.
Neither EFTA nor the EEA require abiding by the ECJ.
EEA membership does require acceptance of FoM. EFTA membership does not.
Hm, I wonder if they'd let the UK do that? I'd naively assume that Liechtenstein have a far more compelling argument as to why freedom of movement has to be suspended.
I'm not sure why Liechtenstein's worried about FoM... Vaduz is an absolute dump and there's not much else.
More seriously - who knows? Maybe yes, maybe no. It's in the EEA Agreement so by definition any EEA country has a right to use it. At the very least it's an option that we could have explored had May not impetuously ruled out EEA membership.
But you said the only reason Labour voters voted to leave was out of "a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government". None of them wanted to end free movement? I find that hard to believe.
Well I didn't say that - of course immigration is an issue. But in reality what the social conservatives amongst Labour voters - and there are many - want is to stop immigration. Full stop. But this is not realistic, and leaving the EU will certainly not deliver it. Getting rid of FOM and replacing it with something that just reduces immigration by a few tens of thousands will make no difference to them. They will not notice any change.
If the tens of thousands come from unskilled workers they will.
Exactly right. I think people in much of the UK don't realise how much some working class communities have changed, and I say this as a second generation immigrant myself. It scares people in other working class communities that they will have the same thing happen to their estates. This cultural fear, combined with big changes to the labour market, put many lower income people in a state of perpetual worry, which causes them to be pessimistic and cynical about life and politics as a whole. That causes a lot of instability in politics and the inability to have reasoned debate. I genuinely think immigration is the reason sensible social democratic politics has collapsed in Europe, as many of our supporters have gone to the right or far left.
That, my friend, is life in the 21st Century. As the developing world catches up, as people around the globe aspire to a better standard of living, then there will be migration of peoples.
We are the lucky ones, the lottery of life winners, and looked upon on a global scale, much as perhaps Jezza looks upon it on a local, national scale, then there is an argument for accepting that there will be a rebalance with those best off (ie us) losing out.
The interest Europe has is in stabilising Africa and the Middle East, not in deciding what to do with the migrants that arrive on its shores.
All sorts of things could change (not least AI and tech replacing low-skilled jobs) but wealthier stable nations do not generate as many people, or migrants, and there isn't a mass exodus from China or India.
But you said the only reason Labour voters voted to leave was out of "a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government". None of them wanted to end free movement? I find that hard to believe.
Well I didn't say that - of course immigration is an issue. But in reality what the social conservatives amongst Labour voters - and there are many - want is to stop immigration. Full stop. But this is not realistic, and leaving the EU will certainly not deliver it. Getting rid of FOM and replacing it with something that just reduces immigration by a few tens of thousands will make no difference to them. They will not notice any change.
If the tens of thousands come from unskilled workers they will.
Exactly right. I think people in much of the UK don't realise how much some working class communities have changed, and I say this as a second generation immigrant myself. It scares people in other working class communities that they will have the same thing happen to their estates. This cultural fear, combined with big changes to the labour market, put many lower income people in a state of perpetual worry, which causes them to be pessimistic and cynical about life and politics as a whole. That causes a lot of instability in politics and the inability to have reasoned debate. I genuinely think immigration is the reason sensible social democratic politics has collapsed in Europe, as many of our supporters have gone to the right or far left.
That, my friend, is life in the 21st Century. As the developing world catches up, as people around the globe aspire to a better standard of living, then there will be migration of peoples.
We are the lucky ones, the lottery of life winners, and looked upon on a global scale, much as perhaps Jezza looks upon it on a local, national scale, then there is an argument for accepting that there will be a rebalance with those best off (ie us) losing out.
@SamCoatesTimes: Philip Hammond hints that UK may still pay exit bill even if there is no trade deal. “I find it inconceivable that we would walk away from obligations that we recognise as an obligation”
He's right. In the event of No Deal I'd expect the UK to honour what it legally owed, and perhaps fulfil the EU budget to 2020 as a gesture of goodwill, c.£18bn, plus put in places its own rights and protections for long-term EU residents here, plus do whatever is necessary to avoid hardening the Irish border.
But, we would be morally obliged to do no more than that, and would be free to recast our regulatory and tariff web strictly in our own interest as we saw fit.
But you said the only reason Labour voters voted to leave was out of "a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government". None of them wanted to end free movement? I find that hard to believe.
Well I didn't say that - of course immigration is an issue. But in reality what the social conservatives amongst Labour voters - and there are many - want is to stop immigration. Full stop. But this is not realistic, and leaving the EU will certainly not deliver it. Getting rid of FOM and replacing it with something that just reduces immigration by a few tens of thousands will make no difference to them. They will not notice any change.
If the tens of thousands come from unskilled workers they will.
Exactly right. I think people in much of the UK don't realise how much some working class communities have changed, and I say this as a second generation immigrant myself. It scares people in other working class communities that they will have the same thing happen to their estates. This cultural fear, combined with big changes to the labour market, put many lower income people in a state of perpetual worry, which causes them to be pessimistic and cynical about life and politics as a whole. That causes a lot of instability in politics and the inability to have reasoned debate. I genuinely think immigration is the reason sensible social democratic politics has collapsed in Europe, as many of our supporters have gone to the right or far left.
That, my friend, is life in the 21st Century. As the developing world catches up, as people around the globe aspire to a better standard of living, then there will be migration of peoples.
We are the lucky ones, the lottery of life winners, and looked upon on a global scale, much as perhaps Jezza looks upon it on a local, national scale, then there is an argument for accepting that there will be a rebalance with those best off (ie us) losing out.
Here we have it; wisdom from on high, generously bestowed upon us by one of our betters. We should graciously accept becoming a minority in our own neighbourhood, city and eventually country, because the people who don't bear the brunt of it get to feel self-righteous. Rich countries that have not opened their borders to culturally alien migrants (Japan, South Korea) are clearly disaster zones.
But you said the only reason Labour voters voted to leave was out of "a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government". None of them wanted to end free movement? I find that hard to believe.
Well I didn't say that - of course immigration is an issue. But in reality what the social conservatives amongst Labour voters - and there are many - want is to stop immigration. Full stop. But this is not realistic, and leaving the EU will certainly not deliver it. Getting rid of FOM and replacing it with something that just reduces immigration by a few tens of thousands will make no difference to them. They will not notice any change.
If the tens of thousands come from unskilled workers they will.
Exactly right. I think people in much of the UK don't realise how much some working class communities have changed, and I say this as a second generation immigrant myself. It scares people in other working class communities that they will have the same thing happen to their estates. This cultural fear, combined with big changes to the labour market, put many lower income people in a state of perpetual worry, which causes them to be pessimistic and cynical about life and politics as a whole. That causes a lot of instability in politics and the inability to have reasoned debate. I genuinely think immigration is the reason sensible social democratic politics has collapsed in Europe, as many of our supporters have gone to the right or far left.
They absolutely don't get it. Nor do they care.
I went round a housing association estate at the weekend, to drop off keys with my gas engineer. This is in a town in rural Hampshire.
I saw several Polish cars with Polish numberplates. And the twain do not mix.
It is a recipe for tension. The only solution they need is that the Government is listening and takes them seriously, and that the overall rate is controlled.
But you said the only reason Labour voters voted to leave was out of "a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government". None of them wanted to end free movement? I find that hard to believe.
Well I didn't say that - of course immigration is an issue. But in reality what the social conservatives amongst Labour voters - and there are many - want is to stop immigration. Full stop. But this is not realistic, and leaving the EU will certainly not deliver it. Getting rid of FOM and replacing it with something that just reduces immigration by a few tens of thousands will make no difference to them. They will not notice any change.
If the tens of thousands come from unskilled workers they will.
Exactly right. I think people in much of the UK don't realise how much some working class communities have changed, and I say this as a second generation immigrant myself. It scares people in other working class communities that they will have the same thing happen to their estates. This cultural fear, combined with big changes to the labour market, put many lower income people in a state of perpetual worry, which causes them to be pessimistic and cynical about life and politics as a whole. That causes a lot of instability in politics and the inability to have reasoned debate. I genuinely think immigration is the reason sensible social democratic politics has collapsed in Europe, as many of our supporters have gone to the right or far left.
That, my friend, is life in the 21st Century. As the developing world catches up, as people around the globe aspire to a better standard of living, then there will be migration of peoples.
We are the lucky ones, the lottery of life winners, and looked upon on a global scale, much as perhaps Jezza looks upon it on a local, national scale, then there is an argument for accepting that there will be a rebalance with those best off (ie us) losing out.
Sounds awfully inevitable... after all, other non-EU countries have survived after restricting low-skilled migration.
And other countries have thrived on the back of low skill migrantion.
When you can find enough people to do all the jobs that migrants do with some left over then you might be on a position to start making an argument for restriction - although even then I would argue it is a false route to follow. But as long as we have a core of people who would rather claim benefits than do manual labour your arguments are not valid.
And yet there are examples of countries managing while restricting it.
@SamCoatesTimes: Philip Hammond hints that UK may still pay exit bill even if there is no trade deal. “I find it inconceivable that we would walk away from obligations that we recognise as an obligation”
He's right. In the event of No Deal I'd expect the UK to honour what it legally owed, and perhaps fulfil the EU budget to 2020 as a gesture of goodwill, c.£18bn, plus put in places its own rights and protections for long-term EU residents here, plus do whatever is necessary to avoid hardening the Irish border.
But, we would be morally obliged to do no more than that, and would be free to recast our regulatory and tariff web strictly in our own interest as we saw fit.
I quite agree - for me it would absolutely be the responsible thing to do (I think there is some wiggle room on budget contributions to 2020 perhaps).
But it will be resolutely opposed by the likes of JRM who have consistently tried to link the divorce bill to a future trade deal and think we should pay nothing if we are not given a trade deal.
But you said the only reason Labour voters voted to leave was out of "a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government". None of them wanted to end free movement? I find that hard to believe.
Well I didn't say that - of course immigration is an issue. But in reality what the social conservatives amongst Labour voters - and there are many - want is to stop immigration. Full stop. But this is not realistic, and leaving the EU will certainly not deliver it. Getting rid of FOM and replacing it with something that just reduces immigration by a few tens of thousands will make no difference to them. They will not notice any change.
If the tens of thousands come from unskilled workers they will.
Exactly right. I think people in much of the UK don't realise how much some working class communities have changed, and I say this as a second generation immigrant myself. It scares people in other working class communities that they will have the same thing happen to their estates. This cultural fear, combined with big changes to the labour market, put many lower income people in a state of perpetual worry, which causes them to be pessimistic and cynical about life and politics as a whole. That causes a lot of instability in politics and the inability to have reasoned debate. I genuinely think immigration is the reason sensible social democratic politics has collapsed in Europe, as many of our supporters have gone to the right or far left.
That, my friend, is life in the 21st Century. As the developing world catches up, as people around the globe aspire to a better standard of living, then there will be migration of peoples.
We are the lucky ones, the lottery of life winners, and looked upon on a global scale, much as perhaps Jezza looks upon it on a local, national scale, then there is an argument for accepting that there will be a rebalance with those best off (ie us) losing out.
I doubt if you are a loser.
The losers see things differently.
Not if Topping is serious about the "ideal lunch" he planned.
Comments
http://time.com/5045719/time-person-of-the-year-2017-shortlist/
I think it was Tusk who said right after the referendum that the UK had two choices - hard Brexit or no Brexit.
Until recently I thought there was a good chance of hard Brexit, but now I think the odds have shifted to no Brexit.
SolutionSetttlement" should be?https://twitter.com/EPinUK/status/935513355598561280
Now we just need a heavy from within the EU to explain the facts of life to the Taoiseach.
@davidallengreen: The @DExEUgov September FoI response to @SeemaMalhotra1 confirmed that analyses did exist.
"I can confirm that the Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU) holds the information you have requested."
If they did not, FoI non-disclosure letter could not have said this.
I've always said Brexit wont happen, I didnt think it would be the NI who stopped it though, but that is how it is looking today. What a mess of dangerous proportions.
37% of 2015 Labour voters voted Leave and 20% of 2015 UKIP voters voted for Corbyn.
Corbyn cannot become PM without their votes.
Has #MeToo paid out as a winner, then?
"Irish PM" should be compulsory.
As someone who, when asked the question "Is the Pope Catholic?" answered "I don't know. Is he?" (Wearing my atheist credentials proudly) - What is the current issue with the US moving their embassy to Jerusalem? I'm vaguely aware it's a very religious city.... but.... don't understand what the problem is (seriously)?
No wonder they are cheesed off.
On Tuesday morning, Theresa May’s Brexit strategy was in crisis as she struggled to reconcile the rival demands of the Dublin government and the Democratic Unionist party over the Irish border. Then David Davis stood up in the Commons — and made the PM’s plight a great deal worse.
Surprised Nicola hasn't got a teuchter term for First Minister..
Leo, meet Arlene. Arlene, Leo. I'll come back when you've an agreed proposal to present to me.
I know it is hard for metropolitan left liberal EUphiles to believe that there are people who care about immigration controls but in much of provincial and industrial town England and Wales that was the key reason they voted Leave and if FOM is left in place they will not be happy
Could a Taoiseach chuck
If a Taoiseach could chuck tea ?
You may disagree with his stance on the EU, but that doesn't alter the good he has done.
They are guesswork. If they had error-bars, they'd be from zero to infinity.
As I told my boss, these aren't jobs for scientists. they're not even jobs for grown-ups.
But Cameron (or Mr Eagles' bestie) blocking them showed they were never serious about Leave
The issue that won the vote for Leave was "control" and there is no control in the EFTA/EEA.
Specifically the twin issues that mattered most for voting to leave were either taking back control of our laws for the more 'liberal' leavers like myself (which rules out ECJ etc) or controlling immigration for the more kippery leavers. EFTA/EEA achieves neither.
But seriously - I think a lot of people are looking at the latest developments right now and imagining pretty much anyone could make a better job of this.
Remainers are going to hate the Conservatives for dragging us out of the EU. Leavers are going to hate the Conservatives for doing it on the worst possible terms. And if the government should fall over this and we see a GE in 2018, the one thing that drives people to the Conservatives - a reputation for competence - will be in tatters.
Brexit isn't the thing that will let Corbyn in. Incompetence in handling Brexit is.
I did wonder whether it would be (1) possible and (2) acceptable for a city to simultaneously be both a free city and capital of two countries (taking Palestine as a country, which it isn't necessarily universally recognised as such).
I believe the main issue is that half of Jerusalem was illegally annexed by Israel and is still internationally recognised as Palestinian land.
Wasn't there something on here about that c. 10 days ago???
Otherwise it's yet another straw in the wind.
EEA membership does require acceptance of FoM. EFTA membership does not.
He also deserves an award for services to horticulture, having planted about one tree every day since 1976. Or rather, his gardeners have.
No chance. Don't know why he's bothering.
https://twitter.com/iaindale/status/938313183017799681
We are the lucky ones, the lottery of life winners, and looked upon on a global scale, much as perhaps Jezza looks upon it on a local, national scale, then there is an argument for accepting that there will be a rebalance with those best off (ie us) losing out.
So yes the ECJ would retain control over our laws even if the relevant court that stamps that is labelled the EFTA Court and is simply interpreting the law by following the ECJ's case law.
Your distinction is moot and falls under a rose by any other name ...
Contrast with someone like Ken Clark who may be a terrible Remoaner but has always done his damndest to stay loyal to party and country.
But, they're more interested in bringing Britain to heel as an example to others.
When you can find enough people to do all the jobs that migrants do with some left over then you might be on a position to start making an argument for restriction - although even then I would argue it is a false route to follow. But as long as we have a core of people who would rather claim benefits than do manual labour your arguments are not valid.
More seriously - who knows? Maybe yes, maybe no. It's in the EEA Agreement so by definition any EEA country has a right to use it. At the very least it's an option that we could have explored had May not impetuously ruled out EEA membership.
All sorts of things could change (not least AI and tech replacing low-skilled jobs) but wealthier stable nations do not generate as many people, or migrants, and there isn't a mass exodus from China or India.
The losers see things differently.
But, we would be morally obliged to do no more than that, and would be free to recast our regulatory and tariff web strictly in our own interest as we saw fit.
I went round a housing association estate at the weekend, to drop off keys with my gas engineer. This is in a town in rural Hampshire.
I saw several Polish cars with Polish numberplates. And the twain do not mix.
It is a recipe for tension. The only solution they need is that the Government is listening and takes them seriously, and that the overall rate is controlled.
But it will be resolutely opposed by the likes of JRM who have consistently tried to link the divorce bill to a future trade deal and think we should pay nothing if we are not given a trade deal.
I don't know anyone who could afford that.