This chart nicely illustrates my point from my thread yesterday morning. Few are changing their minds and the movement is being driven primarily by non-voters at the referendum.
If no one changes their mind, Leave have a big problem: their support is a lot older and will be replaced sooner rather than later. Demography isn't destiny but nor is it irrelevant.
Mr. Royale, a while ago, I read that banking union was the next (at the time, since been done, I think) phase for the EU, and that this would be followed by closer fiscal integration. Common EU taxation rates, or taxes paid directly to Brussels, will be a key stage for believers in The Project.
Anthony Hesketh is a senior lecturer at Lancaster University Management School
The article should serve as a warning against attending Lancaster University Management School, if that is the level of understanding by the lecturers. To see why, look at the comments, especially the one by 'northarbour'.
Perhaps it’s time to invest the £60bn fund with a wider group of asset managers who are more willing to take on risk.
I'll have to ask the pensions chap next time about which fund I need to switch to get guaranteed 2/3 of final salary.
Perhaps @rcs1000 or one of his friends is willing to take on the risk...
Mr. Royale, a while ago, I read that banking union was the next (at the time, since been done, I think) phase for the EU, and that this would be followed by closer fiscal integration. Common EU taxation rates, or taxes paid directly to Brussels, will be a key stage for believers in The Project.
It's inevitable, as monetary union without fiscal union is basically barmy.
Mr. L, it's probably difficult for children to take on board their parents' perspective sometimes, because they move from assuming you know everything, to realising you don't, and then (if they're irksome as teenagers) thinking you know nothing. Rowing back to realising parents have useful experience and may even be somewhat intelligent takes a little while
The stance you outline is also moving the EU and its member states further from democratic nation-states towards bureaucratic conformity.
I look forward to the Nirvana of the last happy state.
You may require Lithium....
Nevermind.
I need those puns like a hole in the head. [yes, bad taste]
Anthony Hesketh is a senior lecturer at Lancaster University Management School
The article should serve as a warning against attending Lancaster University Management School, if that is the level of understanding by the lecturers. To see why, look at the comments, especially the one by 'northarbour'.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing indeed. No pension fund that is not (a) closed and (b) completely in payment should contemplate having their assets tied up in AA assets alone. I can't believe for a minute that is the case with this fund. Most of the money will be in equities, much in the UK where the liabilities are, some abroad, in property, in BB commercial bonds and other broader ranges of assets. If it were not it would not come close to meeting the return that is assumed on those assets to meet the future liabilities.
To suggest that the current contributions to the fund are sufficient to pay the current liabilities is the logic of a Ponzi scheme. It is indeed frightening that someone who purports to be able to teach management is quite so ignorant about how the liabilities of the fund are calculated and met.
Anthony Hesketh is a senior lecturer at Lancaster University Management School
The article should serve as a warning against attending Lancaster University Management School, if that is the level of understanding by the lecturers. To see why, look at the comments, especially the one by 'northarbour'.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing indeed. No pension fund that is not (a) closed and (b) completely in payment should contemplate having their assets tied up in AA assets alone. I can't believe for a minute that is the case with this fund. Most of the money will be in equities, much in the UK where the liabilities are, some abroad, in property, in BB commercial bonds and other broader ranges of assets. If it were not it would not come close to meeting the return that is assumed on those assets to meet the future liabilities.
To suggest that the current contributions to the fund are sufficient to pay the current liabilities is the logic of a Ponzi scheme. It is indeed frightening that someone who purports to be able to teach management is quite so ignorant about how the liabilities of the fund are calculated and met.
He's going to be searching a while for those asset managers...
Anthony Hesketh is a senior lecturer at Lancaster University Management School
The article should serve as a warning against attending Lancaster University Management School, if that is the level of understanding by the lecturers. To see why, look at the comments, especially the one by 'northarbour'.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing indeed. No pension fund that is not (a) closed and (b) completely in payment should contemplate having their assets tied up in AA assets alone. I can't believe for a minute that is the case with this fund. Most of the money will be in equities, much in the UK where the liabilities are, some abroad, in property, in BB commercial bonds and other broader ranges of assets. If it were not it would not come close to meeting the return that is assumed on those assets to meet the future liabilities.
To suggest that the current contributions to the fund are sufficient to pay the current liabilities is the logic of a Ponzi scheme. It is indeed frightening that someone who purports to be able to teach management is quite so ignorant about how the liabilities of the fund are calculated and met.
He's going to be searching a while for those asset managers...
Oh I don't know. If their benchmarks for performance are to be set against the return on AA assets I think fund managers will be falling over themselves to apply with a bonus scheme. In reality, of course, they are not.
Mr. Royale, a while ago, I read that banking union was the next (at the time, since been done, I think) phase for the EU, and that this would be followed by closer fiscal integration. Common EU taxation rates, or taxes paid directly to Brussels, will be a key stage for believers in The Project.
Mr Dancer,
Moscovici (Commissioner for Economic & Financial Affairs) has already put Ireland on notice on both digital taxation and corporate tax harmonisation.
Mr. Royale, a while ago, I read that banking union was the next (at the time, since been done, I think) phase for the EU, and that this would be followed by closer fiscal integration. Common EU taxation rates, or taxes paid directly to Brussels, will be a key stage for believers in The Project.
It explains why so many Brits felt they had no choice but to pay the economic price of the Leave option.
This "three buckets" managed divergence idea doesn't make sense, and not just because the EU has rejected it. The aim is to get the other party to treat your goods and services the same as they do their own goods and services and therefore to accept your regulation as if it were theirs. You are either compliant with their requirements or you are not. If you don't want your goods and services to get national treatment from the other party or the other party doesn't offer it to you, you are free to have whatever regulation you want. You might choose for your own reasons to apply the same regulation as the other party but it won't be compliant with the other party's regulation.
Now the UK is leaving, they can crack on. The tiddlers will have to fall into line.
One question that occured to me recently is that after we have left the EU which country will be the new "Britain"? The country that is always trying to apply the brake and stop further integration.
My daughter voted remain and is currently doing a year in Groningen on an Erasmus scheme. A course she is doing this term is on the integration of European law. It involves a lot of politics. What she has been taught is that most of the Parliaments, at least in the western EU, are increasingly reluctant to act on their own. If they think the law should be changed in a particular area they will first check what all their neighbours are doing and what they think about it. They may run it past the Commission who can assist them in giving a wider European context and check with the European Parliament. Where possible they will seek to make the change in coordination with others.
All of this makes sense in the context of a EZ with a single currency, single interest rate and a single market. There is pressure to standardise and integrate their laws, even in areas where the EU is not currently active. My daughter, however, indicated that for the first time it made her understand where Leave were coming from (I obviously failed miserably). It all seemed incredibly remote, not particularly democratic and not something that the UK was ever going to want to adopt.
This is where the EU is going. It really has to if the Euro is going to remain stable and its membership secure. The EU we voted to leave was already on that road. Without us it is likely to travel down the integration road even faster. We will never be able to rejoin the EU that Cameron tried to sell to us in 2016. It simply will not exist.
I read that, and until I got to the last paragraph I was expecting a 'and this was the light bulb moment that made me realise the EU is a perfectly normal development and nothing to be worried about'.
What exactly is wrong with neighbours co-ordinating their systems so they work well together? Why is this a process you would want to oppose? Isn't it just straight forward common sense of the kind we used to think we were good at in the UK? And if that is what everyone else is doing isn't it even more important that we get involved ourselves?
This chart nicely illustrates my point from my thread yesterday morning. Few are changing their minds and the movement is being driven primarily by non-voters at the referendum.
If no one changes their mind, Leave have a big problem: their support is a lot older and will be replaced sooner rather than later. Demography isn't destiny but nor is it irrelevant.
But a referendum to Rejoin - whatever it will be rejoining, whenever that is - will be fighting against the status quo. Rejoins prospects are going, ahem, down down, deeper and down.....
Until it is known what we would be asked to join, and the costs associated with rejoining, looking to the "demographics" is absurd.
Now the UK is leaving, they can crack on. The tiddlers will have to fall into line.
One question that occured to me recently is that after we have left the EU which country will be the new "Britain"? The country that is always trying to apply the brake and stop further integration.
Hungary will likely be an ongoing thorn in the side, but I would suggest Poland might inherit our mantle.
Now the UK is leaving, they can crack on. The tiddlers will have to fall into line.
One question that occured to me recently is that after we have left the EU which country will be the new "Britain"? The country that is always trying to apply the brake and stop further integration.
No grouping is able to amass the votes for a blocking minority against the existing EZ countries. That said, the EZ isn't monolithic. I think there'll basically be Club Med vs the Northern League.
Now the UK is leaving, they can crack on. The tiddlers will have to fall into line.
One question that occured to me recently is that after we have left the EU which country will be the new "Britain"? The country that is always trying to apply the brake and stop further integration.
Hungary will likely be an ongoing thorn in the side, but I would suggest Poland might inherit our mantle.
They've both been having a bit of bother with the EU recently.
Mr. Royale, a while ago, I read that banking union was the next (at the time, since been done, I think) phase for the EU, and that this would be followed by closer fiscal integration. Common EU taxation rates, or taxes paid directly to Brussels, will be a key stage for believers in The Project.
Have you a rough estimate for when the non Eurozone members, specifically Sweden and Denmark, will be joining the great banking & fiscal conformity?
My daughter voted remain and is currently doing a year in Groningen on an Erasmus scheme. A course she is doing this term is on the integration of European law. It involves a lot of politics. What she has been taught is that most of the Parliaments, at least in the western EU, are increasingly reluctant to act on their own. If they think the law should be changed in a particular area they will first check what all their neighbours are doing and what they think about it. They may run it past the Commission who can assist them in giving a wider European context and check with the European Parliament. Where possible they will seek to make the change in coordination with others.
All of this makes sense in the context of a EZ with a single currency, single interest rate and a single market. There is pressure to standardise and integrate their laws, even in areas where the EU is not currently active. My daughter, however, indicated that for the first time it made her understand where Leave were coming from (I obviously failed miserably). It all seemed incredibly remote, not particularly democratic and not something that the UK was ever going to want to adopt.
This is where the EU is going. It really has to if the Euro is going to remain stable and its membership secure. The EU we voted to leave was already on that road. Without us it is likely to travel down the integration road even faster. We will never be able to rejoin the EU that Cameron tried to sell to us in 2016. It simply will not exist.
I read that, and until I got to the last paragraph I was expecting a 'and this was the light bulb moment that made me realise the EU is a perfectly normal development and nothing to be worried about'.
What exactly is wrong with neighbours co-ordinating their systems so they work well together? Why is this a process you would want to oppose? Isn't it just straight forward common sense of the kind we used to think we were good at in the UK? And if that is what everyone else is doing isn't it even more important that we get involved ourselves?
Our systems (as we have more than one) are not integrated into the legal systems of European countries (largely based on Napoleonic codes) to anything like the same degree. We are not members of the Euro. It would not be acceptable, in my view, to have our budget pre-approved in Brussels as is now being contemplated for EZ members. It would be regarded, in my view, as undemocratic because decisions would be being made by people we did not vote for and could not throw out of office.
Many of the political class on the Continent feel differently. Good luck to them. We are better being apart and friends than constantly arguing about subsidiarity, what is an EU competence and whether what is being done is using EU institutions for EZ purposes.
Mr. Divvie, it'll be interesting to see how the non-eurozone (as in neither member not on the path to becoming one) countries are approached regarding common taxation and greater fiscal integration.
Chef Gary Usher owns four bistros in the north-west of England, including his flagship Sticky Walnut in Chester, which pride themselves on “proper” cooking. He scoffs at the large chains blaming external factors – which are punishing for independents, too – for their woes. Yes, last year’s business rates reassessment hit hard (according to analysis by Colliers International, the Jamie Oliver Restaurant Group’s rates went up 28%, or £1.6m), but there could be a far simpler reason why they are struggling. “Strada being in trouble doesn’t surprise me one bit: it’s fucking awful,” he says. “Why do they deserve to stay open? Strada, Côte – I despise Côte – Carluccio’s, Jamie’s, they should be fucking closing. I ate in the Liverpool Jamie’s two months ago and it was possibly the worst meal I’ve ever had. It was appalling. I ordered what was supposed to be sausage ragout. It looked like boiled tomatoes with overcooked pasta, and it tasted the same.”
This chart nicely illustrates my point from my thread yesterday morning. Few are changing their minds and the movement is being driven primarily by non-voters at the referendum.
If no one changes their mind, Leave have a big problem: their support is a lot older and will be replaced sooner rather than later. Demography isn't destiny but nor is it irrelevant.
But a referendum to Rejoin - whatever it will be rejoining, whenever that is - will be fighting against the status quo. Rejoins prospects are going, ahem, down down, deeper and down.....
Until it is known what we would be asked to join, and the costs associated with rejoining, looking to the "demographics" is absurd.
Remain supporters look at the appalling waxworks who embody Leave and run from that. What they would run to is far less relevant.
Mr. Royale, a while ago, I read that banking union was the next (at the time, since been done, I think) phase for the EU, and that this would be followed by closer fiscal integration. Common EU taxation rates, or taxes paid directly to Brussels, will be a key stage for believers in The Project.
Have you a rough estimate for when the non Eurozone members, specifically Sweden and Denmark, will be joining the great banking & fiscal conformity?
Denmark has a treaty-based opt out. The target date is 2025, though the current plan is to achieve EMU without coercion. Moscovici is yer man if you want to find out more.
If a party was elected at a general election on a platform of another in-out referendum, and they held that referendum, and it was won by remain, then that is just as democratic as the referendum we have just had.
But that isn't going to happen.
If MPs voted to hold another referendum without a general election where they said there would be such a vote, and the people voted to remain, then that would also be democratic, as our processes are being followed. MPs decide to hold one, and the people decide.
I wouldn't personally be happy with such a referendum, which would probably be designed solely to overturn the previous referendum result. But I wouldn't call it undemocratic, in the same way May's 2017 GE wasn't undemocratic because she didn't have to hold one, and because she thought (ha!) that it was to her advantage.
Asking the people in a free and fair election or referendum is democracy, whatever the reasons it is being held.
Chef Gary Usher owns four bistros in the north-west of England, including his flagship Sticky Walnut in Chester, which pride themselves on “proper” cooking. He scoffs at the large chains blaming external factors – which are punishing for independents, too – for their woes. Yes, last year’s business rates reassessment hit hard (according to analysis by Colliers International, the Jamie Oliver Restaurant Group’s rates went up 28%, or £1.6m), but there could be a far simpler reason why they are struggling. “Strada being in trouble doesn’t surprise me one bit: it’s fucking awful,” he says. “Why do they deserve to stay open? Strada, Côte – I despise Côte – Carluccio’s, Jamie’s, they should be fucking closing. I ate in the Liverpool Jamie’s two months ago and it was possibly the worst meal I’ve ever had. It was appalling. I ordered what was supposed to be sausage ragout. It looked like boiled tomatoes with overcooked pasta, and it tasted the same.”
Mr. Divvie, it'll be interesting to see how the non-eurozone (as in neither member not on the path to becoming one) countries are approached regarding common taxation and greater fiscal integration.
tsk. Mr Dancer, all countries bar the UK and Denmark are under a treaty obligation to join the Euro, per Maastricht.
There's just been a dollop of euro-fudge applied, mostly due to the financial crisis - members have been allowed to dilly-dally prior to joining ERM II. ERM II is one of the necessary precursors for euro adoption.
I should add that Denmark, despite not being obliged to join the Euro is a member of the ERM II and could pretty much join whenever it wishes.
Chef Gary Usher owns four bistros in the north-west of England, including his flagship Sticky Walnut in Chester, which pride themselves on “proper” cooking. He scoffs at the large chains blaming external factors – which are punishing for independents, too – for their woes. Yes, last year’s business rates reassessment hit hard (according to analysis by Colliers International, the Jamie Oliver Restaurant Group’s rates went up 28%, or £1.6m), but there could be a far simpler reason why they are struggling. “Strada being in trouble doesn’t surprise me one bit: it’s fucking awful,” he says. “Why do they deserve to stay open? Strada, Côte – I despise Côte – Carluccio’s, Jamie’s, they should be fucking closing. I ate in the Liverpool Jamie’s two months ago and it was possibly the worst meal I’ve ever had. It was appalling. I ordered what was supposed to be sausage ragout. It looked like boiled tomatoes with overcooked pasta, and it tasted the same.”
This chart nicely illustrates my point from my thread yesterday morning. Few are changing their minds and the movement is being driven primarily by non-voters at the referendum.
If no one changes their mind, Leave have a big problem: their support is a lot older and will be replaced sooner rather than later. Demography isn't destiny but nor is it irrelevant.
But a referendum to Rejoin - whatever it will be rejoining, whenever that is - will be fighting against the status quo. Rejoins prospects are going, ahem, down down, deeper and down.....
Until it is known what we would be asked to join, and the costs associated with rejoining, looking to the "demographics" is absurd.
Remain supporters look at the appalling waxworks who embody Leave and run from that. What they would run to is far less relevant.
We only got the the current EU status by the water temperature being turned up very slowly.
Rejoin would be asking the country to jump into boiling water and pay £20Bn a year for the privilege.
My daughter voted remain and is currently doing a year in Groningen on an Erasmus scheme. A course she is doing this term is on the integration of European law. It involves a lot of politics. What she has been taught is that most of the Parliaments, at least in the western EU, are increasingly reluctant to act on their own. If they think the law should be changed in a particular area they will first check what all their neighbours are doing and what they think about it. They may run it past the Commission who can assist them in giving a wider European context and check with the European Parliament. Where possible they will seek to make the change in coordination with others.
All of this makes sense in the context of a EZ with a single currency, single interest rate and a single market. There is pressure to standardise and integrate their laws, even in areas where the EU is not currently active. My daughter, however, indicated that for the first time it made her understand where Leave were coming from (I obviously failed miserably). It all seemed incredibly remote, not particularly democratic and not something that the UK was ever going to want to adopt.
This is where the EU is going. It really has to if the Euro is going to remain stable and its membership secure. The EU we voted to leave was already on that road. Without us it is likely to travel down the integration road even faster. We will never be able to rejoin the EU that Cameron tried to sell to us in 2016. It simply will not exist.
I read that, and until I got to the last paragraph I was expecting a 'and this was the light bulb moment that made me realise the EU is a perfectly normal development and nothing to be worried about'.
What exactly is wrong with neighbours co-ordinating their systems so they work well together? Why is this a process you would want to oppose? Isn't it just straight forward common sense of the kind we used to think we were good at in the UK? And if that is what everyone else is doing isn't it even more important that we get involved ourselves?
Because they implement the changes via EU directives which mean the government aren't held accountable and the levers of power are yet another stage removed from the people. Leaving is ultimately the way to get power back into the hands of the people. The alternative is to just give up deal with the idea of living in a technocracy.
Now the UK is leaving, they can crack on. The tiddlers will have to fall into line.
One question that occured to me recently is that after we have left the EU which country will be the new "Britain"? The country that is always trying to apply the brake and stop further integration.
Now the UK is leaving, they can crack on. The tiddlers will have to fall into line.
One question that occured to me recently is that after we have left the EU which country will be the new "Britain"? The country that is always trying to apply the brake and stop further integration.
Remainers are guilty of confirmation bias.
They are taking one factor they assume will work in their favour over time (demographics) and assuming all others will stay exactly the same, and that this will gradually turn the argument in their favour.
It very probably won't, because we are currently in a holding pattern of opinion as ambiguous negotiations and reporting has put the whole debate in a form of extended stasis. As a new status quo is established, everyone adjusts to it, and it becomes the new normal, the historic result of the Brexit vote will start to lose its salience.
And that's just one factor. The UK and EU will also start to develop in different directions which will also amplify the divide. Over enough time, it actually risks flipping the entire argument on its head as re-joining the EU could mean the UK has to lose a lot of its distinct services & agriculture regs and trade relations for what the EU would then have and potentially put itself at a distinct disadvantage by doing so.
It only becomes true if Brexit is a very obvious economic disaster for the UK in comparison to continental Europe, which I think is unlikely and, in which case, it won't be the demographics that would be decisive.
The Ultras do know this - and aren't guilty of confirmation bias - which is why they are fighting like cornered lions right now, whilst there is still time.
Mr. Royale, a while ago, I read that banking union was the next (at the time, since been done, I think) phase for the EU, and that this would be followed by closer fiscal integration. Common EU taxation rates, or taxes paid directly to Brussels, will be a key stage for believers in The Project.
Have you a rough estimate for when the non Eurozone members, specifically Sweden and Denmark, will be joining the great banking & fiscal conformity?
Denmark has a treaty-based opt out. The target date is 2025, though the current plan is to achieve EMU without coercion. Moscovici is yer man if you want to find out more.
I'd be happy to take a bet (obviously long term) on both Denmark & Sweden not adopting the Euro by 2025.
Brexiters seem to alternatively terrify or titillate themselves with the ghastly Borg superstate that we're either about to be subsumed into or escape from by the skin of our teeth. The reality seems a lot more inconsistent & frayed round the edges, as exemplified by e.g. Denmark & Sweden's relationships with the Euro.
Now the UK is leaving, they can crack on. The tiddlers will have to fall into line.
One question that occured to me recently is that after we have left the EU which country will be the new "Britain"? The country that is always trying to apply the brake and stop further integration.
And that's just one factor. The UK and EU will also start to develop in different directions which will also amplify the divide.
I don't think I'm being pedantic to say that if the EU and UK develop in different directions, the divide will literally be within the UK. Northern Ireland's long term future cannot be as part of a diverged UK.
Of all 12 English football league clubs currently in their division's relegation zone, there's only one (Barnet) from an area that didn't vote leave in the EU referendum.
This chart nicely illustrates my point from my thread yesterday morning. Few are changing their minds and the movement is being driven primarily by non-voters at the referendum.
If no one changes their mind, Leave have a big problem: their support is a lot older and will be replaced sooner rather than later. Demography isn't destiny but nor is it irrelevant.
But a referendum to Rejoin - whatever it will be rejoining, whenever that is - will be fighting against the status quo. Rejoins prospects are going, ahem, down down, deeper and down.....
Until it is known what we would be asked to join, and the costs associated with rejoining, looking to the "demographics" is absurd.
Remain supporters look at the appalling waxworks who embody Leave and run from that. What they would run to is far less relevant.
In your posting, I find replacing "Remain supporters" with "Alistair Meeks" throughout better conveys the sense of what you are saying.
And that's just one factor. The UK and EU will also start to develop in different directions which will also amplify the divide.
I don't think I'm being pedantic to say that if the EU and UK develop in different directions, the divide will literally be within the UK. Northern Ireland's long term future cannot be as part of a diverged UK.
Scotland already has diverged and has much higher income and property taxes than England - whilst we are still in the EU.
The latest employment and growth figures show the outcome of that.
Of all 12 English football league clubs currently in their division's relegation zone, there's only one (Barnet) from an area that didn't vote leave in the EU referendum.
Mr. Royale, a while ago, I read that banking union was the next (at the time, since been done, I think) phase for the EU, and that this would be followed by closer fiscal integration. Common EU taxation rates, or taxes paid directly to Brussels, will be a key stage for believers in The Project.
It's inevitable, as monetary union without fiscal union is basically barmy.
Yes, because the US, Australia, Canada etc all have a monolithic fiscal system with no autonomy for the states/provinces to set their own taxes and spending.
A blast from the past - an article looking at the splits on Europe in the Tory party in October 1990 and predicting that in the post-Thatcher era it would return to the path laid out by Macmillan and Heath. Apart from the conclusion being wrong it makes some perceptive points.
It only becomes true if Brexit is a very obvious economic disaster for the UK in comparison to continental Europe, which I think is unlikely and, in which case, it won't be the demographics that would be decisive.
And leaves open the question - if we are such a basket case after Brexit, why would they even want us back?
It only becomes true if Brexit is a very obvious economic disaster for the UK in comparison to continental Europe, which I think is unlikely and, in which case, it won't be the demographics that would be decisive.
And leaves open the question - if we are such a basket case after Brexit, why would they even want us back?
If the project fear economic Mad Max style doom comes along perhaps we would be a net recipient of EU funds - we can all vote to rejoin for free motorways and airports !
It only becomes true if Brexit is a very obvious economic disaster for the UK in comparison to continental Europe, which I think is unlikely and, in which case, it won't be the demographics that would be decisive.
And leaves open the question - if we are such a basket case after Brexit, why would they even want us back?
It only becomes true if Brexit is a very obvious economic disaster for the UK in comparison to continental Europe, which I think is unlikely and, in which case, it won't be the demographics that would be decisive.
And leaves open the question - if we are such a basket case after Brexit, why would they even want us back?
The nuclear weapons, the UN seat and to weaken the American international power block.
It only becomes true if Brexit is a very obvious economic disaster for the UK in comparison to continental Europe, which I think is unlikely and, in which case, it won't be the demographics that would be decisive.
And leaves open the question - if we are such a basket case after Brexit, why would they even want us back?
We would be a net recipient rather than a net contributor. Result!
This chart nicely illustrates my point from my thread yesterday morning. Few are changing their minds and the movement is being driven primarily by non-voters at the referendum.
If no one changes their mind, Leave have a big problem: their support is a lot older and will be replaced sooner rather than later. Demography isn't destiny but nor is it irrelevant.
But a referendum to Rejoin - whatever it will be rejoining, whenever that is - will be fighting against the status quo. Rejoins prospects are going, ahem, down down, deeper and down.....
Until it is known what we would be asked to join, and the costs associated with rejoining, looking to the "demographics" is absurd.
Remain supporters look at the appalling waxworks who embody Leave and run from that. What they would run to is far less relevant.
In your posting, I find replacing "Remain supporters" with "Alistair Meeks" throughout better conveys the sense of what you are saying.
Yeah, it's definitely only AM who has a problem with Johnston, Fox, Davis, Rees Mogg, Hannan, Farage et al. The rest of us are overjoyed to be heading to the wide open sea with these buccaneers at the helm.
And that's just one factor. The UK and EU will also start to develop in different directions which will also amplify the divide.
I don't think I'm being pedantic to say that if the EU and UK develop in different directions, the divide will literally be within the UK. Northern Ireland's long term future cannot be as part of a diverged UK.
Northern Ireland is a special case that's already a mixed polity from a constitutional point of view, and will be addressed accordingly in the negotiations.
But, Belfast is already quite different from Dublin and that will, in my view, continue to be the case.
It only becomes true if Brexit is a very obvious economic disaster for the UK in comparison to continental Europe, which I think is unlikely and, in which case, it won't be the demographics that would be decisive.
And leaves open the question - if we are such a basket case after Brexit, why would they even want us back?
We were a basket case last time we joined
We became an economic power house thanks in part to the EC/EU.
Mrs Thatcher shaped the single market.
No wonder Corbyn is keen to leave it and its restrictions on state aid.
It only becomes true if Brexit is a very obvious economic disaster for the UK in comparison to continental Europe, which I think is unlikely and, in which case, it won't be the demographics that would be decisive.
And leaves open the question - if we are such a basket case after Brexit, why would they even want us back?
We would be a net recipient rather than a net contributor. Result!
They might just see through our cunning plan though....
A blast from the past - an article looking at the splits on Europe in the Tory party in October 1990 and predicting that in the post-Thatcher era it would return to the path laid out by Macmillan and Heath. Apart from the conclusion being wrong it makes some perceptive points.
It only becomes true if Brexit is a very obvious economic disaster for the UK in comparison to continental Europe, which I think is unlikely and, in which case, it won't be the demographics that would be decisive.
And leaves open the question - if we are such a basket case after Brexit, why would they even want us back?
If the project fear economic Mad Max style doom comes along perhaps we would be a net recipient of EU funds - we can all vote to rejoin for free motorways and airports !
After we have left, there aren't going to be many net recipients of EU funds anyway.....
This chart nicely illustrates my point from my thread yesterday morning. Few are changing their minds and the movement is being driven primarily by non-voters at the referendum.
If no one changes their mind, Leave have a big problem: their support is a lot older and will be replaced sooner rather than later. Demography isn't destiny but nor is it irrelevant.
But a referendum to Rejoin - whatever it will be rejoining, whenever that is - will be fighting against the status quo. Rejoins prospects are going, ahem, down down, deeper and down.....
Until it is known what we would be asked to join, and the costs associated with rejoining, looking to the "demographics" is absurd.
Remain supporters look at the appalling waxworks who embody Leave and run from that. What they would run to is far less relevant.
In your posting, I find replacing "Remain supporters" with "Alistair Meeks" throughout better conveys the sense of what you are saying.
In all your posting, I find a lot of wishful thinking. Your ability to disregard the pretty constant message from the YouGov polling that on balance the public thinks that Leave was a mistake, a message that Leave are completely failing to combat, is in its own way impressive.
It only becomes true if Brexit is a very obvious economic disaster for the UK in comparison to continental Europe, which I think is unlikely and, in which case, it won't be the demographics that would be decisive.
And leaves open the question - if we are such a basket case after Brexit, why would they even want us back?
If the project fear economic Mad Max style doom comes along perhaps we would be a net recipient of EU funds - we can all vote to rejoin for free motorways and airports !
After we have left, there aren't going to be many net recipients of EU funds anyway.....
"The European Commission wants to use a new "plastic tax", moving income from the emission trading scheme from national to EU level, plus extra money from member states, to help plug the hole in the EU budget left by Brexit and to finance migration and security tasks."
Mr. Royale, a while ago, I read that banking union was the next (at the time, since been done, I think) phase for the EU, and that this would be followed by closer fiscal integration. Common EU taxation rates, or taxes paid directly to Brussels, will be a key stage for believers in The Project.
Have you a rough estimate for when the non Eurozone members, specifically Sweden and Denmark, will be joining the great banking & fiscal conformity?
Denmark has a treaty-based opt out. The target date is 2025, though the current plan is to achieve EMU without coercion. Moscovici is yer man if you want to find out more.
I'd be happy to take a bet (obviously long term) on both Denmark & Sweden not adopting the Euro by 2025.
Brexiters seem to alternatively terrify or titillate themselves with the ghastly Borg superstate that we're either about to be subsumed into or escape from by the skin of our teeth. The reality seems a lot more inconsistent & frayed round the edges, as exemplified by e.g. Denmark & Sweden's relationships with the Euro.
I'm afraid I'm not a betting critter.
I share part of your view; the EU is not the evil Borg-like entity as portrayed by the (say) Express.
However, it's very clear about its intentions - I've provided a wealth of links on this site about things like the Five President's report, the working papers on EMU and so forth.
Of course, they may founder on the rocky reefs between the parliament, commission and council, but the road map is there, in plain sight - it's not something plucked from my fevered Brexiteerin' fundament.
The original plans were thoroughly derailed during the Eurozone crisis, but now, with the European economies recovering strongly and a new funding round beginning, I'd say the proponents of EMU have the fairest winds at their back since the early noughties.
Mr. Royale, a while ago, I read that banking union was the next (at the time, since been done, I think) phase for the EU, and that this would be followed by closer fiscal integration. Common EU taxation rates, or taxes paid directly to Brussels, will be a key stage for believers in The Project.
Have you a rough estimate for when the non Eurozone members, specifically Sweden and Denmark, will be joining the great banking & fiscal conformity?
To take your question at face value, Sweden is bound by treaty to join the EZ. When it gets to the point that they are a barrier to the necessary convergence, they will be forced to honour their treaty obligations. Denmark on the other hand is not bound but I believe their position outside but remaining within the EU will be made untenable and they will have to choose between joining the EZ or leaving the EU.
It only becomes true if Brexit is a very obvious economic disaster for the UK in comparison to continental Europe, which I think is unlikely and, in which case, it won't be the demographics that would be decisive.
And leaves open the question - if we are such a basket case after Brexit, why would they even want us back?
We were a basket case last time we joined
We became an economic power house thanks in part to the EC/EU.
Mrs Thatcher shaped the single market.
No wonder Corbyn is keen to leave it and its restrictions on state aid.
Simply rubbish. We became an economic powerhouse because of the painful but necessary reforms to our own economy in the 80s and in spite of the EU/EC not because of it.
This chart nicely illustrates my point from my thread yesterday morning. Few are changing their minds and the movement is being driven primarily by non-voters at the referendum.
If no one changes their mind, Leave have a big problem: their support is a lot older and will be replaced sooner rather than later. Demography isn't destiny but nor is it irrelevant.
But a referendum to Rejoin - whatever it will be rejoining, whenever that is - will be fighting against the status quo. Rejoins prospects are going, ahem, down down, deeper and down.....
Until it is known what we would be asked to join, and the costs associated with rejoining, looking to the "demographics" is absurd.
Remain supporters look at the appalling waxworks who embody Leave and run from that. What they would run to is far less relevant.
In your posting, I find replacing "Remain supporters" with "Alistair Meeks" throughout better conveys the sense of what you are saying.
In all your posting, I find a lot of wishful thinking. Your ability to disregard the pretty constant message from the YouGov polling that on balance the public thinks that Leave was a mistake, a message that Leave are completely failing to combat, is in its own way impressive.
Because it doesn't matter. You need to learn a lesson from Humpty Dumpty. Once the egg is cracked we move on.
Mr. Royale, a while ago, I read that banking union was the next (at the time, since been done, I think) phase for the EU, and that this would be followed by closer fiscal integration. Common EU taxation rates, or taxes paid directly to Brussels, will be a key stage for believers in The Project.
It's inevitable, as monetary union without fiscal union is basically barmy.
Yes, because the US, Australia, Canada etc all have a monolithic fiscal system with no autonomy for the states/provinces to set their own taxes and spending.
So you are one of those who wants a single country called Europe then.
That was pretty inevitable. You shouldn't send those sorts of texts and emails to any junior colleague (*), and certainly not if you're near the top of an organisation. It's utterly unprofessional.
(*) In fact, you probaby should not send them to anyone you don't know *really* well.
This chart nicely illustrates my point from my thread yesterday morning. Few are changing their minds and the movement is being driven primarily by non-voters at the referendum.
If no one changes their mind, Leave have a big problem: their support is a lot older and will be replaced sooner rather than later. Demography isn't destiny but nor is it irrelevant.
But a referendum to Rejoin - whatever it will be rejoining, whenever that is - will be fighting against the status quo. Rejoins prospects are going, ahem, down down, deeper and down.....
Until it is known what we would be asked to join, and the costs associated with rejoining, looking to the "demographics" is absurd.
Remain supporters look at the appalling waxworks who embody Leave and run from that. What they would run to is far less relevant.
In your posting, I find replacing "Remain supporters" with "Alistair Meeks" throughout better conveys the sense of what you are saying.
In all your posting, I find a lot of wishful thinking. Your ability to disregard the pretty constant message from the YouGov polling that on balance the public thinks that Leave was a mistake, a message that Leave are completely failing to combat, is in its own way impressive.
Because it doesn't matter. You need to learn a lesson from Humpty Dumpty. Once the egg is cracked we move on.
Of all 12 English football league clubs currently in their division's relegation zone, there's only one (Barnet) from an area that didn't vote leave in the EU referendum.
Aren't most lower league clubs from more leave-inclined areas?
As the Remain areas in England are basically the big cities (London, Liverpool, Manchester etc) - which therefore make up the Premier League leaders clubs whereas the rest of the nation inclined to Leave and make up the lower in the league clubs.
My daughter voted remain and is currently doing a year ... snipped to make room ....
This is where the EU is going. It really has to if the Euro is going to remain stable and its membership secure. The EU we voted to leave was already on that road. Without us it is likely to travel down the integration road even faster. We will never be able to rejoin the EU that Cameron tried to sell to us in 2016. It simply will not exist.
I read that, and until I got to the last paragraph I was expecting a 'and this was the light bulb moment that made me realise the EU is a perfectly normal development and nothing to be worried about'.
What exactly is wrong with neighbours co-ordinating their systems so they work well together? Why is this a process you would want to oppose? Isn't it just straight forward common sense of the kind we used to think we were good at in the UK? And if that is what everyone else is doing isn't it even more important that we get involved ourselves?
Our systems (as we have more than one) are not integrated into the legal systems of European countries (largely based on Napoleonic codes) to anything like the same degree. We are not members of the Euro. It would not be acceptable, in my view, to have our budget pre-approved in Brussels as is now being contemplated for EZ members. It would be regarded, in my view, as undemocratic because decisions would be being made by people we did not vote for and could not throw out of office.
Many of the political class on the Continent feel differently. Good luck to them. We are better being apart and friends than constantly arguing about subsidiarity, what is an EU competence and whether what is being done is using EU institutions for EZ purposes.
Our legal systems have continually changed and adapted over the centuries and can continue to do so. We don't have to join the Euro if we don't want to. Pre-approval of budgets in Brussels is a bit of a stretch as a description. Some countries have joined the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP), which is a voluntary agreement to co-ordinate their policies. The pact isn't working very well in practice, which might have been predicted from the self contradiction in the name. But a group of countries coming together to pursue stability and growth would seem to me to be something that is very much an example of countries working together. It is absolutely not Brussels imposing policies on them.
This chart nicely illustrates my point from my thread yesterday morning. Few are changing their minds and the movement is being driven primarily by non-voters at the referendum.
If no one changes their mind, Leave have a big problem: their support is a lot older and will be replaced sooner rather than later. Demography isn't destiny but nor is it irrelevant.
But a referendum to Rejoin - whatever it will be rejoining, whenever that is - will be fighting against the status quo. Rejoins prospects are going, ahem, down down, deeper and down.....
Until it is known what we would be asked to join, and the costs associated with rejoining, looking to the "demographics" is absurd.
Remain supporters look at the appalling waxworks who embody Leave and run from that. What they would run to is far less relevant.
In your posting, I find replacing "Remain supporters" with "Alistair Meeks" throughout better conveys the sense of what you are saying.
In all your posting, I find a lot of wishful thinking. Your ability to disregard the pretty constant message from the YouGov polling that on balance the public thinks that Leave was a mistake, a message that Leave are completely failing to combat, is in its own way impressive.
Because it doesn't matter. You need to learn a lesson from Humpty Dumpty. Once the egg is cracked we move on.
+100.
Leavers back in "suck it up losers" mode. The idea that Brexit will be embedded if the public continue to believe it to be the wrong decision in hindsight is for the birds.
Leavers really need to start giving some thought as to how they're going to start winning new converts. Because the diehards are going to die off.
Mr. Eagles, that kind of thing always sounds odd to me. Would sending unknown powder to a (soon-to-be) member of the royal family be less serious if it had a politically correct note enclosed, explaining that the individual was being targeted for reasons unrelated to demography?
This chart nicely illustrates my point from my thread yesterday morning. Few are changing their minds and the movement is being driven primarily by non-voters at the referendum.
If no one changes their mind, Leave have a big problem: their support is a lot older and will be replaced sooner rather than later. Demography isn't destiny but nor is it irrelevant.
But a referendum to Rejoin - whatever it will be rejoining, whenever that is - will be fighting against the status quo. Rejoins prospects are going, ahem, down down, deeper and down.....
Until it is known what we would be asked to join, and the costs associated with rejoining, looking to the "demographics" is absurd.
Remain supporters look at the appalling waxworks who embody Leave and run from that. What they would run to is far less relevant.
In your posting, I find replacing "Remain supporters" with "Alistair Meeks" throughout better conveys the sense of what you are saying.
In all your posting, I find a lot of wishful thinking. Your ability to disregard the pretty constant message from the YouGov polling that on balance the public thinks that Leave was a mistake, a message that Leave are completely failing to combat, is in its own way impressive.
Because it doesn't matter. You need to learn a lesson from Humpty Dumpty. Once the egg is cracked we move on.
+100.
Leavers back in "suck it up losers" mode. The idea that Brexit will be embedded if the public continue to believe it to be the wrong decision in hindsight is for the birds.
Leavers really need to start giving some thought as to how they're going to start winning new converts. Because the diehards are going to die off.
"Those that want to keep the pound really need to start giving some thought as to how they're going to start winning new converts. Because the diehards are going to die off"
Mr. Eagles, that kind of thing always sounds odd to me. Would sending unknown powder to a (soon-to-be) member of the royal family be less serious if it had a politically correct note enclosed, explaining that the individual was being targeted for reasons unrelated to demography?
I made that point a while back.
If someone kicks my head because they don’t like the colour of my skin or kicks my head in to steal my mobile phone it’s still going to hurt me the same.
Of all 12 English football league clubs currently in their division's relegation zone, there's only one (Barnet) from an area that didn't vote leave in the EU referendum.
Aren't most lower league clubs from more leave-inclined areas?
As the Remain areas in England are basically the big cities (London, Liverpool, Manchester etc) - which therefore make up the Premier League leaders clubs whereas the rest of the nation inclined to Leave and make up the lower in the league clubs.
3 of the 4 division leaders in the football league are in leave areas. Manchester City being the obvious exception.
Any chance of an article on the University strike and the real story is behind the pension row? And what impact will the strike have on student voting intentions, I wonder?
This chart nicely illustrates my point from my thread yesterday morning. Few are changing their minds and the movement is being driven primarily by non-voters at the referendum.
If no one changes their mind, Leave have a big problem: their support is a lot older and will be replaced sooner rather than later. Demography isn't destiny but nor is it irrelevant.
But a referendum to Rejoin - whatever it will be rejoining, whenever that is - will be fighting against the status quo. Rejoins prospects are going, ahem, down down, deeper and down.....
Until it is known what we would be asked to join, and the costs associated with rejoining, looking to the "demographics" is absurd.
Remain supporters look at the appalling waxworks who embody Leave and run from that. What they would run to is far less relevant.
In your posting, I find replacing "Remain supporters" with "Alistair Meeks" throughout better conveys the sense of what you are saying.
In all your posting, I find a lot of wishful thinking. Your ability to disregard the pretty constant message from the YouGov polling that on balance the public thinks that Leave was a mistake, a message that Leave are completely failing to combat, is in its own way impressive.
Because it doesn't matter. You need to learn a lesson from Humpty Dumpty. Once the egg is cracked we move on.
+100.
Leavers back in "suck it up losers" mode. The idea that Brexit will be embedded if the public continue to believe it to be the wrong decision in hindsight is for the birds.
Leavers really need to start giving some thought as to how they're going to start winning new converts. Because the diehards are going to die off.
"Those that want to keep the pound really need to start giving some thought as to how they're going to start winning new converts. Because the diehards are going to die off"
Meeks Jr in 1999.
In 2000 the BBC found the public was 4:1 against the Euro. I'm unaware that there has been a single opinion poll showing the British public in favour of joining the Euro. (Indeed, I think that the current levels of support (at 33% in a recent poll) are at their all time high.) So your non-point is, as usual for you, quite absurd.
Any chance of an article on the University strike and the real story is behind the pension row? And what impact will the strike have on student voting intentions, I wonder?
This chart nicely illustrates my point from my thread yesterday morning. Few are changing their minds and the movement is being driven primarily by non-voters at the referendum.
If no one changes their mind, Leave have a big problem: their support is a lot older and will be replaced sooner rather than later. Demography isn't destiny but nor is it irrelevant.
But a referendum to Rejoin - whatever it will be rejoining, whenever that is - will be fighting against the status quo. Rejoins prospects are going, ahem, down down, deeper and down.....
Until it is known what we would be asked to join, and the costs associated with rejoining, looking to the "demographics" is absurd.
Remain supporters look at the appalling waxworks who embody Leave and run from that. What they would run to is far less relevant.
In your posting, I find replacing "Remain supporters" with "Alistair Meeks" throughout better conveys the sense of what you are saying.
In all your posting, I find a lot of wishful thinking. Your ability to disregard the pretty constant message from the YouGov polling that on balance the public thinks that Leave was a mistake, a message that Leave are completely failing to combat, is in its own way impressive.
Because it doesn't matter. You need to learn a lesson from Humpty Dumpty. Once the egg is cracked we move on.
+100.
Leavers back in "suck it up losers" mode. The idea that Brexit will be embedded if the public continue to believe it to be the wrong decision in hindsight is for the birds.
Leavers really need to start giving some thought as to how they're going to start winning new converts. Because the diehards are going to die off.
They don't need new converts as it will have happened. Fighting against a proposed change and simply naysaying is one thing and has the backing of inertia. That dies the day that we leave. From the second we leave inertia then becomes a force for staying out against joining in.
Leave v Remain become history the moment we actually leave. After that point joining again is a very different prospect that has to be positively rather than negatively argued for. It is very easy to say "I am against what the Tory government is doing". Arguing that a future government should do something else (join anew) is another matter.
That's why so many contentious decisions made never get reversed.
This chart nicely illustrates my point from my thread yesterday morning. Few are changing their minds and the movement is being driven primarily by non-voters at the referendum.
If no one changes their mind, Leave have a big problem: their support is a lot older and will be replaced sooner rather than later. Demography isn't destiny but nor is it irrelevant.
But a referendum to Rejoin - whatever it will be rejoining, whenever that is - will be fighting against the status quo. Rejoins prospects are going, ahem, down down, deeper and down.....
Until it is known what we would be asked to join, and the costs associated with rejoining, looking to the "demographics" is absurd.
Remain supporters look at the appalling waxworks who embody Leave and run from that. What they would run to is far less relevant.
In your posting, I find replacing "Remain supporters" with "Alistair Meeks" throughout better conveys the sense of what you are saying.
Because it doesn't matter. You need to learn a lesson from Humpty Dumpty. Once the egg is cracked we move on.
+100.
Leavers back in "suck it up losers" mode. The idea that Brexit will be embedded if the public continue to believe it to be the wrong decision in hindsight is for the birds.
Leavers really need to start giving some thought as to how they're going to start winning new converts. Because the diehards are going to die off.
"Those that want to keep the pound really need to start giving some thought as to how they're going to start winning new converts. Because the diehards are going to die off"
Meeks Jr in 1999.
In 2000 the BBC found the public was 4:1 against the Euro. I'm unaware that there has been a single opinion poll showing the British public in favour of joining the Euro. (Indeed, I think that the current levels of support (at 33% in a recent poll) are at their all time high.) So your non-point is, as usual for you, quite absurd.
I'd say it is very relevant. Voters appear very resistant to change - unless the situation is so bad that lancing the boil is required - like Brexit.
Once we have left, the resistance to rejoining will be high - particularly as it will involve a lot of rule taking and cash giving.
Mr. Eagles, that kind of thing always sounds odd to me. Would sending unknown powder to a (soon-to-be) member of the royal family be less serious if it had a politically correct note enclosed, explaining that the individual was being targeted for reasons unrelated to demography?
I made that point a while back.
If someone kicks my head because they don’t like the colour of my skin or kicks my head in to steal my mobile phone it’s still going to hurt me the same.
The argument, which on the whole I agree with, is that in the former case it sends a message to be frightened to everyone with a non-white skin, many of whom will already have experienced some degree of unpleasantness. In the latter case, it really doesn't send a message to everyone with a mobile phone.
When minorities are completely accepted and never encounter systematic victimisation, it becomes time to drop such special rules - for instance, nobody persecutes people from Derbyshire, so there's no need to give them extra protection. But we're not there yet with non-white people.
This chart nicely illustrates my point from my thread yesterday morning. Few are changing their minds and the movement is being driven primarily by non-voters at the referendum.
If no one changes their mind, Leave have a big problem: their support is a lot older and will be replaced sooner rather than later. Demography isn't destiny but nor is it irrelevant.
But a referendum to Rejoin - whatever it will be rejoining, whenever that is - will be fighting against the status quo. Rejoins prospects are going, ahem, down down, deeper and down.....
Until it is known what we would be asked to join, and the costs associated with rejoining, looking to the "demographics" is absurd.
Remain supporters look at the appalling waxworks who embody Leave and run from that. What they would run to is far less relevant.
In your posting, I find replacing "Remain supporters" with "Alistair Meeks" throughout better conveys the sense of what you are saying.
In all your posting, I find a lot of wishful thinking. Your ability to disregard the pretty constant message from the YouGov polling that on balance the public thinks that Leave was a mistake, a message that Leave are completely failing to combat, is in its own way impressive.
Because it doesn't matter. You need to learn a lesson from Humpty Dumpty. Once the egg is cracked we move on.
+100.
Leavers back in "suck it up losers" mode. The idea that Brexit will be embedded if the public continue to believe it to be the wrong decision in hindsight is for the birds.
Leavers really need to start giving some thought as to how they're going to start winning new converts. Because the diehards are going to die off.
IMHO you need to differentiate between (a) those who think Brexit was the wrong decision and hate it and (b) those who think it was the wrong decision and can live with it. The latter are not going to campaign to rejoin, short of catastrophe, especially if the EU moves towards further integration. Brexiteers should certainly reach out to group (b) but they'd be wasting their breath with group (a).
This chart nicely illustrates my point from my thread yesterday morning. Few are changing their minds and the movement is being driven primarily by non-voters at the referendum.
If no one changes their mind, Leave have a big problem: their support is a lot older and will be replaced sooner rather than later. Demography isn't destiny but nor is it irrelevant.
But a referendum to Rejoin - whatever it will be rejoining, whenever that is - will be fighting against the status quo. Rejoins prospects are going, ahem, down down, deeper and down.....
Until it is known what we would be asked to join, and the costs associated with rejoining, looking to the "demographics" is absurd.
Remain supporters look at the appalling waxworks who embody Leave and run from that. What they would run to is far less relevant.
In your posting, I find replacing "Remain supporters" with "Alistair Meeks" throughout better conveys the sense of what you are saying.
In all your posting, I find a lot of wishful thinking. Your ability to disregard the pretty constant message from the YouGov polling that on balance the public thinks that Leave was a mistake, a message that Leave are completely failing to combat, is in its own way impressive.
Because it doesn't matter. You need to learn a lesson from Humpty Dumpty. Once the egg is cracked we move on.
+100.
Leavers back in "suck it up losers" mode. The idea that Brexit will be embedded if the public continue to believe it to be the wrong decision in hindsight is for the birds.
Leavers really need to start giving some thought as to how they're going to start winning new converts. Because the diehards are going to die off.
IMHO you need to differentiate between (a) those who think Brexit was the wrong decision and hate it and (b) those who think it was the wrong decision and can live with it. The latter are not going to campaign to rejoin, short of catastrophe, especially if the EU moves towards further integration. Brexiteers should certainly reach out to group (b) but they'd be wasting their breath with group (a).
Leavers are abjectly failing to make any headway with either group at present - the reverse, if anything. The lack of curiosity on Leavers' part about this never ceases to surprise me.
This chart nicely illustrates my point from my thread yesterday morning. Few are changing their minds and the movement is being driven primarily by non-voters at the referendum.
If no one changes their mind, Leave have a big problem: their support is a lot older and will be replaced sooner rather than later. Demography isn't destiny but nor is it irrelevant.
But a referendum to Rejoin - whatever it will be rejoining, whenever that is - will be fighting against the status quo. Rejoins prospects are going, ahem, down down, deeper and down.....
Until it is known what we would be asked to join, and the costs associated with rejoining, looking to the "demographics" is absurd.
Remain supporters look at the appalling waxworks who embody Leave and run from that. What they would run to is far less relevant.
In your posting, I find replacing "Remain supporters" with "Alistair Meeks" throughout better conveys the sense of what you are saying.
In all your posting, I find a lot of wishful thinking. Your ability to disregard the pretty constant message from the YouGov polling that on balance the public thinks that Leave was a mistake, a message that Leave are completely failing to combat, is in its own way impressive.
Because it doesn't matter. You need to learn a lesson from Humpty Dumpty. Once the egg is cracked we move on.
+100.
Leavers back in "suck it up losers" mode. The idea that Brexit will be embedded if the public continue to believe it to be the wrong decision in hindsight is for the birds.
Leavers really need to start giving some thought as to how they're going to start winning new converts. Because the diehards are going to die off.
IMHO you need to differentiate between (a) those who think Brexit was the wrong decision and hate it and (b) those who think it was the wrong decision and can live with it. The latter are not going to campaign to rejoin, short of catastrophe, especially if the EU moves towards further integration. Brexiteers should certainly reach out to group (b) but they'd be wasting their breath with group (a).
Leavers are abjectly failing to make any headway with either group at present - the reverse, if anything. The lack of curiosity on Leavers' part about this never ceases to surprise me.
Says the poster who is relying on his opponents dying of old age..
Oxfam, Save The Children, Labour Party advisor, complaints which were hushed up in order to get a job with yet another charity...seems to be a bit of a pattern.
Comments
If no one changes their mind, Leave have a big problem: their support is a lot older and will be replaced sooner rather than later. Demography isn't destiny but nor is it irrelevant.
I'll have to ask the pensions chap next time about which fund I need to switch to get guaranteed 2/3 of final salary.
Perhaps @rcs1000 or one of his friends is willing to take on the risk...
I believe "The current EU consensus of political thinking" is the more PC term
To suggest that the current contributions to the fund are sufficient to pay the current liabilities is the logic of a Ponzi scheme. It is indeed frightening that someone who purports to be able to teach management is quite so ignorant about how the liabilities of the fund are calculated and met.
Moscovici (Commissioner for Economic & Financial Affairs) has already put Ireland on notice on both digital taxation and corporate tax harmonisation.
http://bit.ly/2CccYq1
The broader Commission have published the roadmap for completing EMU. The rubric is quite interesting, even though the substance is a bit dry.
http://bit.ly/2CE8rrZ
Now the UK is leaving, they can crack on. The tiddlers will have to fall into line.
What exactly is wrong with neighbours co-ordinating their systems so they work well together? Why is this a process you would want to oppose? Isn't it just straight forward common sense of the kind we used to think we were good at in the UK? And if that is what everyone else is doing isn't it even more important that we get involved ourselves?
Until it is known what we would be asked to join, and the costs associated with rejoining, looking to the "demographics" is absurd.
This woman shouldn't be anyway near political power.
"Please lets have another 12 months of discussion the minutiae of regulatory alignment...."
Many of the political class on the Continent feel differently. Good luck to them. We are better being apart and friends than constantly arguing about subsidiarity, what is an EU competence and whether what is being done is using EU institutions for EZ purposes.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5640837/moment-huge-pub-brawl-explodes-as-20-men-punch-and-hurl-chairs-at-each-other/
Chef Gary Usher owns four bistros in the north-west of England, including his flagship Sticky Walnut in Chester, which pride themselves on “proper” cooking. He scoffs at the large chains blaming external factors – which are punishing for independents, too – for their woes. Yes, last year’s business rates reassessment hit hard (according to analysis by Colliers International, the Jamie Oliver Restaurant Group’s rates went up 28%, or £1.6m), but there could be a far simpler reason why they are struggling. “Strada being in trouble doesn’t surprise me one bit: it’s fucking awful,” he says. “Why do they deserve to stay open? Strada, Côte – I despise Côte – Carluccio’s, Jamie’s, they should be fucking closing. I ate in the Liverpool Jamie’s two months ago and it was possibly the worst meal I’ve ever had. It was appalling. I ordered what was supposed to be sausage ragout. It looked like boiled tomatoes with overcooked pasta, and it tasted the same.”
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/feb/22/casual-dining-crunch-jamies-italian-strada-byron-struggling
But that isn't going to happen.
If MPs voted to hold another referendum without a general election where they said there would be such a vote, and the people voted to remain, then that would also be democratic, as our processes are being followed. MPs decide to hold one, and the people decide.
I wouldn't personally be happy with such a referendum, which would probably be designed solely to overturn the previous referendum result. But I wouldn't call it undemocratic, in the same way May's 2017 GE wasn't undemocratic because she didn't have to hold one, and because she thought (ha!) that it was to her advantage.
Asking the people in a free and fair election or referendum is democracy, whatever the reasons it is being held.
https://www.express.co.uk/celebrity-news/889069/Jamie-Oliver-blames-Brexit-restaurant-closures-reignites-Gordon-Ramsay-feud
There's just been a dollop of euro-fudge applied, mostly due to the financial crisis - members have been allowed to dilly-dally prior to joining ERM II. ERM II is one of the necessary precursors for euro adoption.
I should add that Denmark, despite not being obliged to join the Euro is a member of the ERM II and could pretty much join whenever it wishes.
They are however great as a magnet for noisy work and hen do's and generally keeping the riff raff out of discovering better establishments.
Rejoin would be asking the country to jump into boiling water and pay £20Bn a year for the privilege.
Good luck with that.
They are taking one factor they assume will work in their favour over time (demographics) and
assuming all others will stay exactly the same, and that this will gradually turn the argument in their favour.
It very probably won't, because we are currently in a holding pattern of opinion as ambiguous negotiations and reporting has put the whole debate in a form of extended stasis. As a new status quo is established, everyone adjusts to it, and it becomes the new normal, the historic result of the Brexit vote will start to lose its salience.
And that's just one factor. The UK and EU will also start to develop in different directions which will also amplify the divide. Over enough time, it actually risks flipping the entire argument on its head as re-joining the EU could mean the UK has to lose a lot of its distinct services & agriculture regs and trade relations for what the EU would then have and
potentially put itself at a distinct disadvantage by doing so.
It only becomes true if Brexit is a very obvious economic disaster for the UK in comparison to continental Europe, which I think is unlikely and, in which case, it won't be the demographics that would be decisive.
The Ultras do know this - and aren't guilty of confirmation bias - which is why they are fighting like cornered lions right now, whilst there is still time.
Brexiters seem to alternatively terrify or titillate themselves with the ghastly Borg superstate that we're either about to be subsumed into or escape from by the skin of our teeth. The reality seems a lot more inconsistent & frayed round the edges, as exemplified by e.g. Denmark & Sweden's relationships with the Euro.
Visegrad group - perhaps Austria will join them and make 5.
Of all 12 English football league clubs currently in their division's relegation zone, there's only one (Barnet) from an area that didn't vote leave in the EU referendum.
The latest employment and growth figures show the outcome of that.
http://banmarchive.org.uk/collections/mt/pdf/90_10_34.pdf
But, Belfast is already quite different from Dublin and that will, in my view, continue to be the case.
Mrs Thatcher shaped the single market.
No wonder Corbyn is keen to leave it and its restrictions on state aid.
https://euobserver.com/economic/140499
"The European Commission wants to use a new "plastic tax", moving income from the emission trading scheme from national to EU level, plus extra money from member states, to help plug the hole in the EU budget left by Brexit and to finance migration and security tasks."
I share part of your view; the EU is not the evil Borg-like entity as portrayed by the (say) Express.
However, it's very clear about its intentions - I've provided a wealth of links on this site about things like the Five President's report, the working papers on EMU and so forth.
Of course, they may founder on the rocky reefs between the parliament, commission and council, but the road map is there, in plain sight - it's not something plucked from my fevered Brexiteerin' fundament.
The original plans were thoroughly derailed during the Eurozone crisis, but now, with the European economies recovering strongly and a new funding round beginning, I'd say the proponents of EMU have the fairest winds at their back since the early noughties.
Oh, you meant age. That as well.
Edit: and as I mixed up 'their' and 'there', I guess I should join them...
No thanks.
(*) In fact, you probaby should not send them to anyone you don't know *really* well.
As the Remain areas in England are basically the big cities (London, Liverpool, Manchester etc) - which therefore make up the Premier League leaders clubs whereas the rest of the nation inclined to Leave and make up the lower in the league clubs.
Police say they are treating as a racist hate crime a letter containing white powder sent to Meghan Markle, which sparked an anthrax scare.
The letter was received this month at St James’s Palace in central London. The powder inside was found to be harmless after being examined by experts.
It is understood the package contained a racist note and was received on 12 February.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/22/white-powder-letter-prince-harry-meghan-markle-anthrax-scare?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Leavers really need to start giving some thought as to how they're going to start winning new converts. Because the diehards are going to die off.
Meeks Jr in 1999.
If someone kicks my head because they don’t like the colour of my skin or kicks my head in to steal my mobile phone it’s still going to hurt me the same.
They are better than us.
Remember Her Majesty thinks God personally chose her to be Queen.
What a silly mentality.
Any chance of an article on the University strike and the real story is behind the pension row? And what impact will the strike have on student voting intentions, I wonder?
Plus it's not about Brexit!!
Mr. Eagles (2), Sir Edric noted (in a forthcoming book, Sir Edric and the Plague) that republicanism is an infantile disease.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/21/bernie-sanders-trump-russia-interference-420528?lo=ap_c1
Leave v Remain become history the moment we actually leave. After that point joining again is a very different prospect that has to be positively rather than negatively argued for. It is very easy to say "I am against what the Tory government is doing". Arguing that a future government should do something else (join anew) is another matter.
That's why so many contentious decisions made never get reversed.
The actual story's headline is "NRA head: Gun control advocates 'exploiting' Florida tragedy"
Missing the word 'control' rather changes the meaning.
Once we have left, the resistance to rejoining will be high - particularly as it will involve a lot of rule taking and cash giving.
When minorities are completely accepted and never encounter systematic victimisation, it becomes time to drop such special rules - for instance, nobody persecutes people from Derbyshire, so there's no need to give them extra protection. But we're not there yet with non-white people.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/justin-forsyth