Given the parliamentary arithmetic the only easy path through woukd be a soft Brexit which labour lend support to, but even had May tried to go that route (and she didn't of course) Labour seem to keep shifting around the place and I cannot see that they woukd ever back the government's final position. If the government switched to labour's position now, Labour would switch to a new one.
As for what those who want a much harder Brexit should do, they should bring down the government. It's unlikely to lead to what they want but trying to get a hard supporting leader who sonehow gains support for a hard position is their only chance. If they think it's the best option for the country I disagree but it's their duty to ignore party politics on it.
Normally Government MPs vote to save the Government and Opposition MPs vote to bring it down, and if it's something second-order like "Should we expand Heathrow?" people will in the end generally vote on party lines. We are in an unusual situation where quite a lot of MPs on both sides think, as you say, that the national interest on this issue overrides the party interest - even though they think the national interest also includes their party being in power. So they have to think through the same what-if scenarios as we do.
The EU are not going to want a deal that can be renegotiated annually. Whatever is put forward will be put forward on a basis that it is a lasting settlement, with provisions designed to ensure that.
That's what every set of politicians have said about every EU treaty for the last 30 years. Its just not true. The relationship between the EU and Switzerland continues to evolve too and will continue to do so.
The EU in 10-15 years time will be a materially different institution from the one we are leaving. There is a very small chance it will break up. There is a much greater probability that it will be far more integrated and a lot further down the path to Nick's one country concept.
It will be obvious that the UK will never fit into that. So politicians will look for the best relationship we can have to fit those circumstances. Its their job.
I question your “obvious” in a week that has shown how dramatically public opinion in a neighbouring country can change in a generation.
And your basic point is still wrong. Even the most demented of Leavers is going to accept that whatever final settlement is reached with the EU, after what might be a dozen or more years negotiating it, is going to have to be left alone for quite a long while.
Remainers will have more of a case for earlier future changes if Leavey aspects of that settlement are seen to be working against Britain’s interests. Leavers, having taken control, are going to have to take ownership of that settlement. If they don’t, Britain will rejoin in the absence of any credible alternative.
As I say change can go either way. But change is inevitable.
If Leavers are going to disown the final settlement, Britain should just stay in the EU now and save everyone the inconvenience, because if so they are already strategically defeated.
The error is the word "final". But we are repeating ourselves.
If there’s any hint it’s not final, the EU will be adding extra armour plating.
I think that no one will want to re-open negotiations quickly (though regime change in the UK is pretty nailed on), but @DavidL is right
Let’s just stop there! My wife wants out for her morning walk.
Mr. Ace, Hannibal led an army through the Alps in winter. Alexander faced armies that massively outnumbered him. I'm not sure leaving the EU is worthy of trembling.
Having been in the South of france for the last several weeks it kept occuring to me that if only the 17 million Brexiteers had seen at first hand the practical advantages of being able to move to or through a smorgasbord of cultures and languages without restriction the vote would almost certainly have been different.
Europe is a very special continent. The most cultured and varied in the world. To be an integral part of it is a great privilege and anything that draws us closer and gives us the simplest access the better. Remain should have set its sigts on the common currency and shengen and not allowed the the Little Englanders to frame the debate around their loathing of foreigners.
the Europe you want could quite happily have emerged if politicians had let it evolve at its own pace. The fissures in the EU edifice are mainly due to federalists pushing an agenda the electorate isn't ready for.
The migration crisis was caused by a federalist agenda?
ah yes Mrs Merkel who is now involved in a scandal whereby the German immigration office was so overloaded that they just handed out permission to stay in Germany and hence Europe without bothering to assess whether a migrant was economic, a genuine refugee or had just walked in to the wrong building.
Mr. Jonathan, it's almost as if voting matters, and those who don't vote don't get to bleat about how things turn out...
Mr. P, cheers for the clarification, I didn't want to get into the decline and fall of the Roman Empire only to discover it was something else.
The (Western) Roman Empire fell for many reasons. Supply lines being cut weren't high on the list. 1) Massive inflation caused by devaluation of the currency egged on by the donative (bonus for soldiers when there's a new emperor), exacerbated by 2) the Crisis of the Third Century, which one could argue the Empire never really recovered from. 3) Perpetual infighting which bled military strength and enabled others to take advantage, leading to both weakness against the Huns and inability to fend off large scale barbarian migration, leading to 4) Gothic warlords like Alaric and Ricimer becoming more powerful than the latter day Roman emperors. 5) Weakness and cowardice and stupidity of many latter day emperors (yes, Honorius, I'm looking at you), to the extent that when one who tried to turn things around came along (Majorian) the state was too weak and corrupted to be rescued.
On that rather concise basis, the problem we face is not leaving the EU. It's internal division.
The EU has serious questions to answer before any return. It’s not the land of milk and honey. The Brexit negotiations have done damage to trust on both sides.
Meanwhile, a damaged post-Brexit Britain is likely to see an increase, not a decline in anti EU rhetoric from the right.
Having been in the South of france for the last several weeks it kept occuring to me that if only the 17 million Brexiteers had seen at first hand the practical advantages of being able to move to or through a smorgasbord of cultures and languages without restriction the vote would almost certainly have been different.
Europe is a very special continent. The most cultured and varied in the world. To be an integral part of it is a great privilege and anything that draws us closer and gives us the simplest access the better. Remain should have set its sigts on the common currency and shengen and not allowed the the Little Englanders to frame the debate around a fear of foreigners.
Ah, so Europe, and by extension Europeans are better than other continents and other peoples?
Mr. P, is that a typo for Roman or a reference I don't get?
Mr. Roger, using pejorative terms about the majority of the electorate is the kind of complacent arrogance that helped secure a shock win for Leave.
My guess is that perhaps 1 in 100 used any sort of analysis to decide where to put their cross. Their decision would have been made with huge brush-strokes.
1. Too many immigrants 2. Weath spread wider is wealth spread thinner 3. Rumanian Big Issue sellers 4. 70 million Turks is frightening 5. We can't throw out foreign criminals
I'm sure I've missed a few but all are NEGATIVE and all are xenophobic. I can't think of any positive ones that the 99 out of a hundred are likely to have considered.
It is certainly very possible that around 100 Tory MP pro Brexit ERG hardliners led by Mogg will vote down the deal as conceding too much on regulatory alignment, not being tough enough on EU immigration and still too big an exit bill etc. In that case whether the bill passes or not is largely in the hands of Labour MPs and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Of course on the Iraq War vote Blair saw slightly over 100 Labour MPs vote against him but was helped in passing the vote and defeating an amendment by rebel Labour backbenchers by most Tory MPs voting for, including the Tory leader IDS.
If Labour MPs mostly vote down the deal then May will have to resign, probably to be replaced by a more convinced Brexiteer like Boris, Gove or even Mogg who would then face Corbyn most likely shortly after in a general election with the prize a chance to be PM of a UK out of the EU with no transition period or FTA in prospect and heading to WTO terms
I've pointed to maths and logic in front of Corbyn cultists, they seem oblivious. I don't see a general election this autumn, but I don't see a way through parliament for anything substantial - I expect a complete stalemate with all sides blaming each other.
Should the government fall (always possible in such chaos) and we get either a minority Corbyn government in this parliament or a minority one after a snap election (which neither party can win outright) then the internal division that matters won't be the Tories it will be Labour - and we are as bitterly divided as the Tories.
I still think a no deal no transition crash Brexit is the most likely scenario. Because avoiding it means facing a reality that too many can't, and a compromise that too many won't. Personally with where we now are I'd rather the Tories have their fingerprints on it rather than us - that way when we run out of food jobs and money very quickly after Wrexit we do have the cover of blaming the Tories for the disaater (hoping people don't spot that Jezbollah was fully on board)
NB Nick Palmer’s analysis assumes that centrist dad Labour MPs will obey a whip to vote down a deal struck. That seems a brave assumption.
It's one of several possible interesting dilemmas. If it appears that the deal is poor and rejecting it will lead to the Government falling, the pressure on them from members to vote no will be immense - I'd think it would be deselection territory if they saved the Tory government.
Conversely the little group of Labour Leave MPs would need to decide if they preferred the bad deal (from a Leave viewpoint) plus retaining May to no deal. In both cases, working out what would happen if an election followed and Labour won would be relevant - the centrists would grab it if they thought it might mean staying in, the Leavers would run a mile. Another tactical reason for studied ambiguity, but that can't be maintained indefinitely.
The question is how many Labour MPs will vote against the deal purely to oppose the government, if doing so means that we leave with no deal?
People seem to view that prospect as remote, rightly or not, so I'd think most of them.
From what’s been seen over the past few days, especially with regard to Northern Ireland, it’s possible that the only deal on offer looks like the EU annexing NI and forcing a customs border in the Irish Sea. Would any MP feel able to vote for that? If that comes to pass then I think we’d be better off banking our £39bn and using it to support industry most affected by leaving with no deal.
As ever, I hope that behind the closed doors of the negotiating room there are bunch of adults talking, and we will end up with a deal that’s acceptable to all. It’ll probably happen in the 59th minute of the 11th hour but I still think a deal will be done.
I know it's a crazy idea, but perhaps those committed Brexiteers could come up with a definitive, commonly-agreed-upon vision of the Brexit they want, with clear positions on immigration, customs unions, borders, NI etc? They hardly seemed to have moved on from..gulp..£350m on the side of a bus and fancy jam.
Having been in the South of france for the last several weeks it kept occuring to me that if only the 17 million Brexiteers had seen at first hand the practical advantages of being able to move to or through a smorgasbord of cultures and languages without restriction the vote would almost certainly have been different.
Europe is a very special continent. The most cultured and varied in the world. To be an integral part of it is a great privilege and anything that draws us closer and gives us the simplest access the better. Remain should have set its sigts on the common currency and shengen and not allowed the the Little Englanders to frame the debate around a fear of foreigners.
Had Remain proposed joining the Euro and Schengen had it won it would have been around 70% Leave 30% Remain, not 52% Leave 48% Remain. I for one would have voted Leave rather than Remain had that been the option.
It is certainly very possible that around 100 Tory MP pro Brexit ERG hardliners led by Mogg will vote down the deal as conceding too much on regulatory alignment, not being tough enough on EU immigration and still too big an exit bill etc. In that case whether the bill passes or not is largely in the hands of Labour MPs and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Of course on the Iraq War vote Blair saw slightly over 100 Labour MPs vote against him but was helped in passing the vote and defeating an amendment by rebel Labour backbenchers by most Tory MPs voting for, including the Tory leader IDS.
If Labour MPs mostly vote down the deal then May will have to resign, probably to be replaced by a more convinced Brexiteer like Boris, Gove or even Mogg who would then face Corbyn most likely shortly after in a general election with the prize a chance to be PM of a UK out of the EU with no transition period or FTA in prospect and heading to WTO terms
I've pointed to maths and logic in front of Corbyn cultists, they seem oblivious. I don't see a general election this autumn, but I don't see a way through parliament for anything substantial - I expect a complete stalemate with all sides blaming each other.
Yes, the chances of that are rising. Hopefully some side or the other will compromise, but as you say at present that is looking difficult.
Mr. Pointer, we voted to leave, not have the EU dictate our trade policy.
If it had been 52% Remain, would you and Grieve and the Lords be arguing that was a mandate for withdrawing from certain aspects of the EU because 48% wanted to Leave?
Of course not.
With our decision not to join the Euro, not to join Schengen and to exercise numerous opt-outs we were already as far "out" as we could be whilst remaining in the EU. We could veto Turkish entry and we are able to resist further moves to integration if we so chose. Eventually I think we will come to realise that we actually threw away a good position - and for what?
Mr. P, is that a typo for Roman or a reference I don't get?
Mr. Roger, using pejorative terms about the majority of the electorate is the kind of complacent arrogance that helped secure a shock win for Leave.
My guess is that perhaps 1 in 100 used any sort of analysis to decide where to put their cross. Their decision would have been made with huge brush-strokes.
1. Too many immigrants 2. Weath spread wider is wealth spread thinner 3. Rumanian Big Issue sellers 4. 70 million Turks is frightening 5. We can't throw out foreign criminals
I'm sure I've missed a few but all are NEGATIVE and all are xenophobic. I can't think of any positive ones that the 99 out of a hundred are likely to have considered.
you somehow miss that the Remain campaign had no positives only fear
The devaluation of the pound versus the dollar is something like from $1.48 to $1.34 right now (give or take). Noticeable, but minuscule compared to the Roman devaluation. I'd have to dig around (probably in Aurelian's biography) to check but I think the percentage of silver in coins fell from 90% to a few percent. It really kicked off with the epic idiot Antoninus Caracalla and continued, exacerbated by near perpetual civil war and barbarian invasion during the Third Century.
There is some political infighting as the political class seeks to thwart the pesky electorate. However, it's not actual continuous warfare. So, bad, but again, not comparable.
As ever, I hope that behind the closed doors of the negotiating room there are bunch of adults talking, and we will end up with a deal that’s acceptable to all. It’ll probably happen in the 59th minute of the 11th hour but I still think a deal will be done.
That's the normal EU tack but this time there is a hard deadline that disfavours the UK more than the EU. If it goes to the 11th hour, etc. May will have to take whatever is offered no matter how shit.
She'd be better off begging for an A50 extension than taking the deal of last resort.
Mr. P, is that a typo for Roman or a reference I don't get?
Mr. Roger, using pejorative terms about the majority of the electorate is the kind of complacent arrogance that helped secure a shock win for Leave.
My guess is that perhaps 1 in 100 used any sort of analysis to decide where to put their cross. Their decision would have been made with huge brush-strokes.
1. Too many immigrants 2. Weath spread wider is wealth spread thinner 3. Rumanian Big Issue sellers 4. 70 million Turks is frightening 5. We can't throw out foreign criminals
I'm sure I've missed a few but all are NEGATIVE and all are xenophobic. I can't think of any positive ones that the 99 out of a hundred are likely to have considered.
you somehow miss that the Remain campaign had no positives only fear
Both campaigns were appallingly bad
We're in 2018 and you still keep banging on about referendum campaigns which are now ancient history. It's absolutely irrelevant to our future choices.
I know it's a crazy idea, but perhaps those committed Brexiteers could come up with a definitive, commonly-agreed-upon vision of the Brexit they want, with clear positions on immigration, customs unions, borders, NI etc? They hardly seemed to have moved on from..gulp..£350m on the side of a bus and fancy jam.
The lesson the Zoomers have drawn from Brexit is that clarity is a killer. Obfuscate, prevaricate, waffle until you get over the line.
Then the answer to any hard question can be "You lost! Get Over It!"
And that's different from the last time?
Absolutely! They’ve changed the comparator countries to benchmark against:
Let's talk first about the 12 countries that have been selected as the list of "benchmark small advanced economies". There doesn't appear to have been an objective criteria applied to arrive at this list, and the extent of its subjectivity is perhaps best illustrated by looking at the list of "small countries used for comparison" when similar analysis was published in the Independence White Paper (page 620) back in 2013..
The Scottish Government analysis in 2013 concluded that the superior GDP per Capita growth rate enjoyed by those countries that had "the bonus of being independent" was just 0.12% greater than Scotland's onshore economic growth over a 30 year period. That's quite a way short of the 0.7% we're now expected to believe we should expect, is it not?
Mr. Roger, imposing transitional controls would've been sensible. Blair loved to swamp the UK with migration and the Conservatives loved to claim they'd cut it. They didn't. You can't blame the electorate for it being an issue when failed leadership and poor decisions made it so.
Nobody forced Cameron to back Turkey's membership.
We're too soft on real criminals (including letting back in ISIS terrorists) and yet incompetent and vicious against some who genuinely deserve to be here (Windrush stands out, obviously, but the case of Mr. Sandpit and his lady wife is also palpably unreasonable). Discontent with that is to be expected. Pointing at people and shouting "Racist!" or "Xenophobe!" is not going to persuade them.
Mr. P, well, it had lots of problems in the run up. I haven't seen The Last Jedi, but recently decided to watch a review. It sounds absolutely ****ing awful. Would you say Solo was worse?
Mr. T, a legitimate perspective but that doesn't address the point I made. If a tight vote had gone the other way, nobody would be arguing we should leave bits of the EU (some would noisily be demanding another vote or to leave, of course, and they'd be wrong). Or do you disagree? If 48% had voted Leave would we see Grieve and the Lords trying to extricate us from parts of the EU, as they're now seeking to keep us in parts that constrain us?
Mr. P, is that a typo for Roman or a reference I don't get?
Mr. Roger, using pejorative terms about the majority of the electorate is the kind of complacent arrogance that helped secure a shock win for Leave.
My guess is that perhaps 1 in 100 used any sort of analysis to decide where to put their cross. Their decision would have been made with huge brush-strokes.
1. Too many immigrants 2. Weath spread wider is wealth spread thinner 3. Rumanian Big Issue sellers 4. 70 million Turks is frightening 5. We can't throw out foreign criminals
I'm sure I've missed a few but all are NEGATIVE and all are xenophobic. I can't think of any positive ones that the 99 out of a hundred are likely to have considered.
you somehow miss that the Remain campaign had no positives only fear
Both campaigns were appallingly bad
We're in 2018 and you still keep banging on about referendum campaigns which are now ancient history. It's absolutely irrelevant to our future choices.
Morris Dancer is recommending ancient history as our post-Brexit vision.
And we thought JRM was crackers for advocating the 18th century perspective.
NB Nick Palmer’s analysis assumes that centrist dad Labour MPs will obey a whip to vote down a deal struck. That seems a brave assumption.
It's one of several possible interesting dilemmas. If it appears that the deal is poor and rejecting it will lead to the Government falling, the pressure on them from members to vote no will be immense - I'd think it would be deselection territory if they saved the Tory government.
Conversely the little group of Labour Leave MPs would need to decide if they preferred the bad deal (from a Leave viewpoint) plus retaining May to no deal. In both cases, working out what would happen if an election followed and Labour won would be relevant - the centrists would grab it if they thought it might mean staying in, the Leavers would run a mile. Another tactical reason for studied ambiguity, but that can't be maintained indefinitely.
The question is how many Labour MPs will vote against the deal purely to oppose the government, if doing so means that we leave with no deal?
People seem to view that prospect as remote, rightly or not, so I'd think most of them.
From what’s been seen over the past few days, especially with regard to Northern Ireland, it’s possible that the only deal on offer looks like the EU annexing NI and forcing a customs border in the Irish Sea. Would any MP feel able to vote for that? If that comes to pass then I think we’d be better off banking our £39bn and using it to support industry most affected by leaving with no deal.
As ever, I hope that behind the closed doors of the negotiating room there are bunch of adults talking, and we will end up with a deal that’s acceptable to all. It’ll probably happen in the 59th minute of the 11th hour but I still think a deal will be done.
wishful thinking big style, shut your eyes and think of England will not cut it I am afraid.
Dr. Foxy, supposing we actually properly leave, it'll be interesting to see how the EU-philes handle things and if they opt for advocacy of the EEA rather than rejoining the EU.
Just as there are varieties of Leaver, there are varieties of Remain. Some will only be happy with rejoining, but the EEA would suit many. The deal May is inching towards is EEA in all but name*. Making it official EEA membership simplifies the legal structures. FoM is the obvious obstacle, but could be tackled by moving to a more contributory form of welfare and tax policy, something that we should probably do so anyway because of non-EU migration. Of course we joined the EEC as we found EFTA arrangements were not working for us...
* For example in the latest round of negotiations we have agreed automatic recognition of EEA/EU professional qualifications. From my perspective this is a massive advantage for departmental recruitment as the main obstacle to recruitment is professional qualifications, and the PLAB. Tier 2 visas is a relatively simple thing to change centrally.
Leaving FOM in place and making welfare more contributory will not get through Parliament as Tory Brexiteer MPs will see it as too soft on immigration and Labour Corbynista MPs will see it as an attack on welfare.
Replacing FOM with work permits and paying out more in welfare if you have paid more in in NI though would be a sensible idea.
Mr. Roger, imposing transitional controls would've been sensible. Blair loved to swamp the UK with migration and the Conservatives loved to claim they'd cut it. They didn't. You can't blame the electorate for it being an issue when failed leadership and poor decisions made it so.
Nobody forced Cameron to back Turkey's membership.
We're too soft on real criminals (including letting back in ISIS terrorists) and yet incompetent and vicious against some who genuinely deserve to be here (Windrush stands out, obviously, but the case of Mr. Sandpit and his lady wife is also palpably unreasonable). Discontent with that is to be expected. Pointing at people and shouting "Racist!" or "Xenophobe!" is not going to persuade them.
Mr. P, well, it had lots of problems in the run up. I haven't seen The Last Jedi, but recently decided to watch a review. It sounds absolutely ****ing awful. Would you say Solo was worse?
Mr. T, a legitimate perspective but that doesn't address the point I made. If a tight vote had gone the other way, nobody would be arguing we should leave bits of the EU (some would noisily be demanding another vote or to leave, of course, and they'd be wrong). Or do you disagree? If 48% had voted Leave would we see Grieve and the Lords trying to extricate us from parts of the EU, as they're now seeking to keep us in parts that constrain us?
I quite enjoyed Last Jedi though Solo has consistently worse reviews than Last Jedi had, so I will watch the new Jurassic World film next month instead
Mr. P, well, it had lots of problems in the run up. I haven't seen The Last Jedi, but recently decided to watch a review. It sounds absolutely ****ing awful. Would you say Solo was worse?
Star Wars by numbers.
Apparently 70% of it was reshot. Not sure it was worth it.
Unlike Rogue One though, at least the trailer made it into the movie
I would recommend staying calm, and being patient.
We still have no idea what the final terms of the A50 deal will be, let alone the new FTA, and are speculating from a lot of noisy conjecture.
I think there will be an acceptable compromise as realists from all sides recognise a deal must be struck that is politically sustainable.
Plan for the worst, hope for the best.
At present we just get the latter. No deal is possible. Serious economic disruption is possible. We need more than blind faith.
It isn’t blind faith. The deal is already 75-80% there, with some loud arguments and political dramas now playing out on both sides in the final stages (both happened on the divorce settlement, and transition deal as well, and also did on Dave’s deal in Feb 2016 as well)
The EU has serious questions to answer before any return. It’s not the land of milk and honey. The Brexit negotiations have done damage to trust on both sides.
Meanwhile, a damaged post-Brexit Britain is likely to see an increase, not a decline in anti EU rhetoric from the right.
I like that you are able to critique both sides from either angle.
Mr. P, is that a typo for Roman or a reference I don't get?
Mr. Roger, using pejorative terms about the majority of the electorate is the kind of complacent arrogance that helped secure a shock win for Leave.
My guess is that perhaps 1 in 100 used any sort of analysis to decide where to put their cross. Their decision w likely to have considered.
you somehow miss that the Remain campaign had no positives only fear
Both campaigns were appallingly bad
We're in 2018 and you still keep banging on about referendum campaigns which are now ancient history. It's absolutely irrelevant to our future choices.
rich coming from you billy boy, for 2 years solid you've been babbling on about an EU which has no real interest in this country, they've all moved on, unlike yourself. Today the real issue in Europe is Italy
Deutsche Zeitungen und Politiker beschimpfen (uns) als italienische Bettler, Nichtstuer, Steuervermeider, Schnorrer und Undankbare“, twitterte Salvini am Samstag. „Und wir sollen einen Wirtschaftsminister auswählen, der ihnen passt? Nein, danke!“
I would recommend staying calm, and being patient.
We still have no idea what the final terms of the A50 deal will be, let alone the new FTA, and are speculating from a lot of noisy conjecture.
I think there will be an acceptable compromise as realists from all sides recognise a deal must be struck that is politically sustainable.
Plan for the worst, hope for the best.
At present we just get the latter. No deal is possible. Serious economic disruption is possible. We need more than blind faith.
It isn’t blind faith. The deal is already 75-80% there, with some loud arguments and political dramas now playing out on both sides in the final stages (both happened on the divorce settlement, and transition deal as well, and also did on Dave’s deal in Feb 2016 as well)
Relax.
We all know how relaxed the Tory party was when Dave came back with his deal...
Dr. Foxy, supposing we actually properly leave, it'll be interesting to see how the EU-philes handle things and if they opt for advocacy of the EEA rather than rejoining the EU.
Just as there are varieties of Leaver, there are varieties of Remain. Some will only be happy with rejoining, but the EEA would suit many. The deal May is inching towards is EEA in all but name*. Making it official EEA membership simplifies the legal structures. FoM is the obvious obstacle, but could be tackled by moving to a more contributory form of welfare and tax policy, something that we should probably do so anyway because of non-EU migration. Of course we joined the EEC as we found EFTA arrangements were not working for us...
* For example in the latest round of negotiations we have agreed automatic recognition of EEA/EU professional qualifications. From my perspective this is a massive advantage for departmental recruitment as the main obstacle to recruitment is professional qualifications, and the PLAB. Tier 2 visas is a relatively simple thing to change centrally.
Leaving FOM in place and making welfare more contributory will not get through Parliament as Tory Brexiteer MPs will see it as too soft on immigration and Labour Corbynista MPs will see it as an attack on welfare.
Replacing FOM with work permits and paying out more in welfare if you have paid more in in NI though would be a sensible idea.
It will pass Parliament easily. There are enough Tory and Labour and SNP, LD,PC , Green who will vote for it. [ EEA ]
Already today I must have seen about a dozen sites that are now blocking the EU as a result of the GDPR. Admittedly I probably read more US news than most people.
As far as I can see the GDPR has lead to three things.
1. Lots of useless emails. 2. Even more obnoxious banners when you first go to a site. 3. Lots of sites now blocking access.
And I suspect that the protection it confers will be effectively bloody useless.
One element that is sometimes forgotten is that the Scottish conservatives were elected on an unionist platform not a Brexit platform. If the two clash then unionism will win. Northern Ireland is as important to the Scots as England.
Though we agree on a lot of things, I don't like the suggestion of doing a Depardieu if things go badly from a personal political view. I'd make the same comment to all those PB Tories who have threatened to flounce off if Corbyn becomes PM. With a few notable exceptions* it is better to stay and argue for what you believe to be right imo.
(*E.g. for German Jews in the 30s of course)
In the event of a WTO terms hard Brexit and Corbyn becoming PM perhaps the only PBers left in the UK will be Sunil and Justin?
Already today I must have seen about a dozen sites that are now blocking the EU as a result of the GDPR. Admittedly I probably read more US news than most people.
As far as I can see the GDPR has lead to three things.
1. Lots of useless emails. 2. Even more obnoxious banners when you first go to a site. 3. Lots of sites now blocking access.
And I suspect that the protection it confers will be effectively bloody useless.
Dr. Foxy, supposing we actually properly leave, it'll be interesting to see how the EU-philes handle things and if they opt for advocacy of the EEA rather than rejoining the EU.
Just as there are varieties of Leaver, there are varieties of Remain. Some will only be happy with rejoining, but the EEA would suit many. The deal May is inching towards is EEA in all but name*. Making it official EEA membership simplifies the legal structures. FoM is the obvious obstacle, but could be tackled by moving to a more contributory form of welfare and tax policy, something that we should probably do so anyway because of non-EU migration. Of course we joined the EEC as we found EFTA arrangements were not working for us...
* For example in the latest round of negotiations we have agreed automatic recognition of EEA/EU professional qualifications. From my perspective this is a massive advantage for departmental recruitment as the main obstacle to recruitment is professional qualifications, and the PLAB. Tier 2 visas is a relatively simple thing to change centrally.
Leaving FOM in place and making welfare more contributory will not get through Parliament as Tory Brexiteer MPs will see it as too soft on immigration and Labour Corbynista MPs will see it as an attack on welfare.
Replacing FOM with work permits and paying out more in welfare if you have paid more in in NI though would be a sensible idea.
It will pass Parliament easily. There are enough Tory and Labour and SNP, LD,PC , Green who will vote for it. [ EEA ]
I would not be so sure, a majority of Tory MPs know that if they vote for EEA that leaves FOM fully in place that would be political suicide with the Tory Leave voting majority and would also risk deselection by Tory members in their constituency, especially if that constituency voted Leave.
Corbyn too remains opposed to the EEA as do most of his most committed supporters on the Labour backbenches and of course Labour Leavers like Hoey, Skinner, Field and Mann
Already today I must have seen about a dozen sites that are now blocking the EU as a result of the GDPR. Admittedly I probably read more US news than most people.
As far as I can see the GDPR has lead to three things.
1. Lots of useless emails. 2. Even more obnoxious banners when you first go to a site. 3. Lots of sites now blocking access.
And I suspect that the protection it confers will be effectively bloody useless.
You can already do that by using scripts like AdBlock but then without sites getting money from ads ("junk") how much of the internet would even exist?
I would recommend staying calm, and being patient.
We still have no idea what the final terms of the A50 deal will be, let alone the new FTA, and are speculating from a lot of noisy conjecture.
I think there will be an acceptable compromise as realists from all sides recognise a deal must be struck that is politically sustainable.
Plan for the worst, hope for the best.
At present we just get the latter. No deal is possible. Serious economic disruption is possible. We need more than blind faith.
It isn’t blind faith. The deal is already 75-80% there, with some loud arguments and political dramas now playing out on both sides in the final stages (both happened on the divorce settlement, and transition deal as well, and also did on Dave’s deal in Feb 2016 as well)
Relax.
We all know how relaxed the Tory party was when Dave came back with his deal...
Because they knew the voters would see through it - and vote for Brexit. Those muttering loudest were Remainers.
Mr. P, well, it had lots of problems in the run up. I haven't seen The Last Jedi, but recently decided to watch a review. It sounds absolutely ****ing awful. Would you say Solo was worse?
Speaking of trying to understand the other side, I genuinely do not understand the thought processes of people who thought The Last Jedi was absolutely awful. It has flaws and I can see why not everyone would love it, but when I see the criticisms some people have of it half of them just make no bloody sense to me, particularly if the same people stated they liked The Force Awakens (I'm thinking particularly of the criticism it had too many comedic elements, which was sprinkled all throughout Force Awakens), and the other half seem either incorrect (the Heel turn being criticised as not set up) or not that big a deal to me (Yeah, that Cantobite stuff was a waste of time). Being completely sincere, I get why people would perhaps not enjoy it, but it is beyond me how it could be hated.
Solo, on the other hand, looked terrible in most of its trailers (the last trailer in particular was disjointed as all hell, which is rarely a good sign), and the people who make trailers made The Snowman look intriguing and they didn't even finish filming that one apparently. And if you cannot make a good trailer out of a star wars movie, with all the space ships and explosions, and with Donald Glover and Emilia Clarke, then odds are you have a very bad movie.
Unless the word is it is good, I'll catch it on DVD at some point.
Already today I must have seen about a dozen sites that are now blocking the EU as a result of the GDPR. Admittedly I probably read more US news than most people.
As far as I can see the GDPR has lead to three things.
1. Lots of useless emails. 2. Even more obnoxious banners when you first go to a site. 3. Lots of sites now blocking access.
And I suspect that the protection it confers will be effectively bloody useless.
I remember a few years ago watching a page on The Verge load slowly, and when I checked it was north of 40 MB. The content I actually went there to read probably took less than 10 kB.
I'm very happy that some sites are cutting the crap down, but at the moment they are outnumbered by sites blocking all access.
Already today I must have seen about a dozen sites that are now blocking the EU as a result of the GDPR. Admittedly I probably read more US news than most people.
As far as I can see the GDPR has lead to three things.
1. Lots of useless emails. 2. Even more obnoxious banners when you first go to a site. 3. Lots of sites now blocking access.
And I suspect that the protection it confers will be effectively bloody useless.
That’s a great exercise, so many websites are full of crap and the problem has been getting steadily much worse over the years. Does anyone not use an adblocker these days?
Mr. P, well, it had lots of problems in the run up. I haven't seen The Last Jedi, but recently decided to watch a review. It sounds absolutely ****ing awful. Would you say Solo was worse?
Star Wars by numbers.
Apparently 70% of it was reshot. Not sure it was worth it.
Unlike Rogue One though, at least the trailer made it into the movie
Leavers or Remainers, Labour or Conservative, the one thing we call all agree on is that Disney have sacrificed the memory of Star Wars on the altar of over-commercialisation.
I would recommend staying calm, and being patient.
We still have no idea what the final terms of the A50 deal will be, let alone the new FTA, and are speculating from a lot of noisy conjecture.
I think there will be an acceptable compromise as realists from all sides recognise a deal must be struck that is politically sustainable.
Plan for the worst, hope for the best.
At present we just get the latter. No deal is possible. Serious economic disruption is possible. We need more than blind faith.
It isn’t blind faith. The deal is already 75-80% there, with some loud arguments and political dramas now playing out on both sides in the final stages (both happened on the divorce settlement, and transition deal as well, and also did on Dave’s deal in Feb 2016 as well)
Relax.
I don't think they did on Cameron's 'renegotiation' because he brought it to an end before the usual pattern had taken place and so got sod all when he could have done better.
Mr. kle4, it does sound like they got rather complacent because of the Star Wars brand.
The way I look at it there is probably a market for a new Star Wars movie every year, and Disney are not in danger of over saturation by making that their plan - despite being compared to one another Star Wars is a far bigger deal, certainly worldwide, than Star Trek in a box office sense, and what little I know of the Star Wars extended universe stuff means Disney have a well of stories they can draw on for inspiration for several dozen more movies if they want. But no matter how good the base stories, or the writers or directors they hire, make that many in a series and some are going to be terrible, and some are going to be very bland.
They have announced a new trilogy outside the Skywalker focused stuff to date, which perhaps shows they know they need to mix things up, otherwise it'll just be samey stuff year on year, which will continue to make money, but less of it as time goes by.
Honestly it feels like they should have the really big 'episode' movies every 2-3 years, and the ones inbetween should be smaller budgeted, more experimental stuff, really try some different genre of star wars tale.
Anyway, the sun has briefly emerged after a thunderstorm, so I'm headed out to get my exercise on while I can.
Mr. P, well, it had lots of problems in the run up. I haven't seen The Last Jedi, but recently decided to watch a review. It sounds absolutely ****ing awful. Would you say Solo was worse?
Speaking of trying to understand the other side, I genuinely do not understand the thought processes of people who thought The Last Jedi was absolutely awful. It has flaws and I can see why not everyone would love it, but when I see the criticisms some people have of it half of them just make no bloody sense to me, particularly if the same people stated they liked The Force Awakens (I'm thinking particularly of the criticism it had too many comedic elements, which was sprinkled all throughout Force Awakens), and the other half seem either incorrect (the Heel turn being criticised as not set up) or not that big a deal to me (Yeah, that Cantobite stuff was a waste of time). Being completely sincere, I get why people would perhaps not enjoy it, but it is beyond me how it could be hated.
Solo, on the other hand, looked terrible in most of its trailers (the last trailer in particular was disjointed as all hell, which is rarely a good sign), and the people who make trailers made The Snowman look intriguing and they didn't even finish filming that one apparently. And if you cannot make a good trailer out of a star wars movie, with all the space ships and explosions, and with Donald Glover and Emilia Clarke, then odds are you have a very bad movie.
Unless the word is it is good, I'll catch it on DVD at some point.
Solo got just 2* with the Times and has easily the worst Rotten Tomatoes rating of the 4 new Star Wars movies, about 20% worse than Force Awakens and Last Jedi and 10% worse than Rogue One
Mr. P, well, it had lots of problems in the run up. I haven't seen The Last Jedi, but recently decided to watch a review. It sounds absolutely ****ing awful. Would you say Solo was worse?
Star Wars by numbers.
Apparently 70% of it was reshot. Not sure it was worth it.
Unlike Rogue One though, at least the trailer made it into the movie
Leavers or Remainers, Labour or Conservative, the one thing we call all agree on is that Disney have sacrificed the memory of Star Wars on the altar of over-commercialisation.
I don't know that I can agree on that. Star Wars has always been over-commercialised (the reasoning being, AIUI, that Lucas was given all the commercial rights, unusually). In terms of the movies now being made by Disney the danger is for one over saturation, but 1 movie a year does not do that so long as they make them sufficiently distinct. So the main danger is creative sterility leading to bland paint by numbers stories and characters, not over commercialisation or over saturation.
Mr. P, is that a typo for Roman or a reference I don't get?
Mr. Roger, using pejorative terms about the majority of the electorate is the kind of complacent arrogance that helped secure a shock win for Leave.
My guess is that perhaps 1 in 100 used any sort of analysis to decide where to put their cross. Their decision would have been made with huge brush-strokes.
1. Too many immigrants 2. Weath spread wider is wealth spread thinner 3. Rumanian Big Issue sellers 4. 70 million Turks is frightening 5. We can't throw out foreign criminals
I'm sure I've missed a few but all are NEGATIVE and all are xenophobic. I can't think of any positive ones that the 99 out of a hundred are likely to have considered.
you somehow miss that the Remain campaign had no positives only fear
Both campaigns were appallingly bad
Don't forget Remain promised that house prices would soar if they won.
Which would be a positive for all those who own multiple properties.
Mr. P, well, it had lots of problems in the run up. I haven't seen The Last Jedi, but recently decided to watch a review. It sounds absolutely ****ing awful. Would you say Solo was worse?
Speaking of trying to understand the other side, I genuinely do not understand the thought processes of people who thought The Last Jedi was absolutely awful. It has flaws and I can see why not everyone would love it, but when I see the criticisms some people have of it half of them just make no bloody sense to me, particularly if the same people stated they liked The Force Awakens (I'm thinking particularly of the criticism it had too many comedic elements, which was sprinkled all throughout Force Awakens), and the other half seem either incorrect (the Heel turn being criticised as not set up) or not that big a deal to me (Yeah, that Cantobite stuff was a waste of time). Being completely sincere, I get why people would perhaps not enjoy it, but it is beyond me how it could be hated.
Solo, on the other hand, looked terrible in most of its trailers (the last trailer in particular was disjointed as all hell, which is rarely a good sign), and the people who make trailers made The Snowman look intriguing and they didn't even finish filming that one apparently. And if you cannot make a good trailer out of a star wars movie, with all the space ships and explosions, and with Donald Glover and Emilia Clarke, then odds are you have a very bad movie.
Unless the word is it is good, I'll catch it on DVD at some point.
Solo got just 2* with the Times and has easily the worst Rotten Tomatoes rating of the 4 new Star Wars movies, about 20% worse than Force Awakens and Last Jedi and 10% worse than Rogue One
A shame. So many talented people coming together to make a big budget mess.
I know it's a crazy idea, but perhaps those committed Brexiteers could come up with a definitive, commonly-agreed-upon vision of the Brexit they want, with clear positions on immigration, customs unions, borders, NI etc? They hardly seemed to have moved on from..gulp..£350m on the side of a bus and fancy jam.
Already today I must have seen about a dozen sites that are now blocking the EU as a result of the GDPR. Admittedly I probably read more US news than most people.
As far as I can see the GDPR has lead to three things.
1. Lots of useless emails. 2. Even more obnoxious banners when you first go to a site. 3. Lots of sites now blocking access.
And I suspect that the protection it confers will be effectively bloody useless.
I remember a few years ago watching a page on The Verge load slowly, and when I checked it was north of 40 MB. The content I actually went there to read probably took less than 10 kB.
I'm very happy that some sites are cutting the crap down, but at the moment they are outnumbered by sites blocking all access.
www.findlotsize.com is a site I note have blocked access.
There is a fundamental problem with the Brexit debate. It is not the Leavers who are stopping 'soft Brexit'. It is the EU.
The Remainers have been whining about 'soft Brexit' like it means something, but none of them can define in any way what it is, other than the subset who openly support EEA membership. Of course, most Remainers can't support EEA because the requirement for FOM means that it is obviously contrary to the referendum result and they don't like being called on that.
So they pretend that there is another 'soft Brexit' option. But the EU is constantly saying that this is not true.
The EU are obsessed with cherry picking. They define that as not having all the 'benefits' of membership without the 'obligations'.
The EU are the ones saying that they DON'T WANT the whole UK to stay in the CU as a backstop. Why? Because unlike the Remainers they are honest enough to say that CU membership requires full alignment with SM regulations. It is SM membership by proxy. And they won't accept it because it is cherry picking - SM membership without the four freedoms.
Can ANY Remainer on here come up with any evidence that the EU would accept a 'soft Brexit' plan that does not involve accepting FOM? I doubt it. They just duck the issue (or, like HYUFD, just aim for a deal which pretends to halt FOM but in fact leaves it in place).
Brexit was always a binary choice. It is not the Leavers that are saying so - ask your beloved EU.
That's not right. What Barnier is saying is effectively that there's no soft Brexit that's *consistent with TMay's current red lines*. This has been obvious since before she drew them. See his graphic here:
Already today I must have seen about a dozen sites that are now blocking the EU as a result of the GDPR. Admittedly I probably read more US news than most people.
As far as I can see the GDPR has lead to three things.
1. Lots of useless emails. 2. Even more obnoxious banners when you first go to a site. 3. Lots of sites now blocking access.
And I suspect that the protection it confers will be effectively bloody useless.
It's good news for translators though! Getting lots of lucrative jobs requiring largely the same text. I was amused to get one yesterday that had 6000 words of closely-written generic verbiage from some anonymous-sounding company like ABG GmbH, when I suddenly came to a line which said,
"From time to time, the site will introduce new features, options, competitions and ladies."
What??
I checked their website - surely some mistake? No, it was an "escort service". I suppose they really DO need to protect everyone's confidentiality...
Anyway, I'm going to bugger off. A reminder that F1 is now an hour (well, an hour and a bit) later in Europe because Liberty are annoying.
Given how my tips have gone so far this year, I'm anticipating Raikkonen finishing 3rd (without Ricciardo) and the placement change from 3 to 2 being applied retroactively.
There is a fundamental problem with the Brexit debate. It is not the Leavers who are stopping 'soft Brexit'. It is the EU.
The Remainers have been whining about 'soft Brexit' like it means something, but none of them can define in any way what it is, other than the subset who openly support EEA membership. Of course, most Remainers can't support EEA because the requirement for FOM means that it is obviously contrary to the referendum result and they don't like being called on that.
So they pretend that there is another 'soft Brexit' option. But the EU is constantly saying that this is not true.
The EU are obsessed with cherry picking. They define that as not having all the 'benefits' of membership without the 'obligations'.
The EU are the ones saying that they DON'T WANT the whole UK to stay in the CU as a backstop. Why? Because unlike the Remainers they are honest enough to say that CU membership requires full alignment with SM regulations. It is SM membership by proxy. And they won't accept it because it is cherry picking - SM membership without the four freedoms.
Can ANY Remainer on here come up with any evidence that the EU would accept a 'soft Brexit' plan that does not involve accepting FOM? I doubt it. They just duck the issue (or, like HYUFD, just aim for a deal which pretends to halt FOM but in fact leaves it in place).
Brexit was always a binary choice. It is not the Leavers that are saying so - ask your beloved EU.
That's not right. What Barnier is saying is effectively that there's no soft Brexit that's *consistent with TMay's current red lines*. This has been obvious since before she drew them. See his graphic here:
Barnier has always said we can have a Canada style FTA but no more if we want to end FOM, that remains consistent with the Phase 1 agreement in December with the EU yes
Rory Stewart on Sunday Politics says abortion in NI should be a matter for Stormont as a devolved body and it would be dangerous for Westminster to impose its will on Stormont.
Westminster is only a caretaker on these issues while Stormont is suspended. He is quite right on this and I think Mourdaunt is wrong
There is a fundamental problem with the Brexit debate. It is not the Leavers who are stopping 'soft Brexit'. It is the EU.
The Remainers have been whining about 'soft Brexit' like it means something, but none of them can define in any way what it is, other than the subset who openly support EEA membership. Of course, most Remainers can't support EEA because the requirement for FOM means that it is obviously contrary to the referendum result and they don't like being called on that.
So they pretend that there is another 'soft Brexit' option. But the EU is constantly saying that this is not true.
The EU are obsessed with cherry picking. They define that as not having all the 'benefits' of membership without the 'obligations'.
The EU are the ones saying that they DON'T WANT the whole UK to stay in the CU as a backstop. Why? Because unlike the Remainers they are honest enough to say that CU membership requires full alignment with SM regulations. It is SM membership by proxy. And they won't accept it because it is cherry picking - SM membership without the four freedoms.
Can ANY Remainer on here come up with any evidence that the EU would accept a 'soft Brexit' plan that does not involve accepting FOM? I doubt it. They just duck the issue (or, like HYUFD, just aim for a deal which pretends to halt FOM but in fact leaves it in place).
Brexit was always a binary choice. It is not the Leavers that are saying so - ask your beloved EU.
That's not right. What Barnier is saying is effectively that there's no soft Brexit that's *consistent with TMay's current red lines*. This has been obvious since before she drew them. See his graphic here:
Looks like Tommy Robinson could be back in prison. May be reporting restrictions.
I'm not sure we know the full story, but if he was arrested for simply filming outside a court, then it a disgrace and I'm not surprised there was a mob outside Downing Street yesterday.
Rory Stewart on Sunday Politics says abortion in NI should be a matter for Stormont as a devolved body and it would be dangerous for Westminster to impose its will on Stormont.
Westminster is only a caretaker on these issues while Stormont is suspended. He is quite right on this and I think Mourdaunt is wrong
It's a bit like the Lords. People who generally don't like the Lords are happy for them to frustrate Brexit. People are happy to ride roughshod over devolution when it suits them.
Leavers or Remainers, Labour or Conservative, the one thing we call all agree on is that Disney have sacrificed the memory of Star Wars on the altar of over-commercialisation.
The way I look at it there is probably a market for a new Star Wars movie every year, and Disney are not in danger of over saturation by making that their plan - despite being compared to one another Star Wars is a far bigger deal, certainly worldwide, than Star Trek in a box office sense, and what little I know of the Star Wars extended universe stuff means Disney have a well of stories they can draw on for inspiration for several dozen more movies if they want. But no matter how good the base stories, or the writers or directors they hire, make that many in a series and some are going to be terrible, and some are going to be very bland.
The big "reveal" in Solo is basically a hook to hang more movies from.
I was trying to think about positive reasons for watching Solo. Emilia Clarke is very easy on the eye. Donald Glover is entertaining. And the other characters are cool. Even when they are doing dumb and predictable stuff.
The big problem is the same one that TV now suffers from. You can come up with a great idea for a drama, that will fill 2 hours of screentime, but for "commercial" reasons you have 20 hours of screentime to fill, so instead of a drama you get a soap opera.
Instead of a griping story, with a beginning, middle and end, you get characters living out their humdrum existence to fill time.
Man in the High Castle suffered from this. Great idea. 18 episodes too long.
Maybe Revenge is the worst example. Young woman wants revenge on the wealthy elite she believes killed her father. Great idea for a movie. They spun that into 4 seasons of her not getting revenge on very many people (and her father not being dead...)
What matters is the story, not the SFX. Take Hamlet for example. I've seen the play. Many times. I will still pay good money to see it again, not because I don't know what is going to happen, but because I know it's a great story that delivers. A compelling narrative that rewards the viewer.
Looks like Tommy Robinson could be back in prison. May be reporting restrictions.
I'm not sure we know the full story, but if he was arrested for simply filming outside a court, then it a disgrace and I'm not surprised there was a mob outside Downing Street yesterday.
He was previously given a suspended sentence for contempt of court after interrupting a trial, so presumably he was arrested for breach of bail or similar. There’s reporting restrictions on his case until the current ongoing trial concludes, so there’s most likely a link between his previous offence and this one which could prejudice the current trial. I guess we’ll find out soon enough.
Looks like Tommy Robinson could be back in prison. May be reporting restrictions.
I'm not sure we know the full story, but if he was arrested for simply filming outside a court, then it a disgrace and I'm not surprised there was a mob outside Downing Street yesterday.
Rory Stewart on Sunday Politics says abortion in NI should be a matter for Stormont as a devolved body and it would be dangerous for Westminster to impose its will on Stormont.
Westminster is only a caretaker on these issues while Stormont is suspended. He is quite right on this and I think Mourdaunt is wrong
It's a bit like the Lords. People who generally don't like the Lords are happy for them to frustrate Brexit. People are happy to ride roughshod over devolution when it suits them.
Yes and they are also happy to have referenda when they are sure they will win them
there’s most likely a link between his previous offence and this one which could prejudice the current trial. I guess we’ll find out soon enough.
I saw a report that the defendants in the current trial have applied to have it dismissed as result of this
Any sensible lawyer would try that one, there’s a fine line between allowing freedom of speech and the right to a fair trial.
Reporting restrictions are generally used where there’s multiple trials involving similar offences and/or defendants, whereby it would be difficult for anyone with knowledge of the first trial to be a juror at the second. I hope that’s the case here, rather than a judge overstretching herself to stop a legitimate protest - although Robinson does have a long record of going too far with his protesting.
Or you can say that it gets you outside the political framework, which is the most important thing and future changes can be made by governments and parliaments in the future
I think the parliamentary arithmetic is rather uncertain for reasons that others have put elsewhere, but the key bit of analysis I question in Nick's piece is this: "But is there really a better alternative that doesn’t make Leave almost completely pointless?"
That "almost" is doing a lot of work. The big thing for a lot of the people you might call "political" or "ideological" or "paleo-sovereigntist" Brexiteers is simply to get outside the structures. In the grand branching of alternative histories, you have hopped Britain onto a different path. They'll think that counts for something. In fact they'll think it counts for a lot. The longer you're in the EU, the more the "ratchet effect" (that integration drives forward but not back) continues to accumulate.
I'm not saying they're going to like what they regard as a poor Brexit deal, particularly a "vassal state" arrangement, but they'd want to be very careful about taking actions that throw all the dice up in the air again, in case they don't land on Brexit happening at all.
You take the deal and work to gradually unwind our links with the EU over time. Simples.
I think there's quite a lot to be said for the "Michael Collins solution" from a Leave perspective. "Over time" doesn't necessarily mean "soon". It's not even inconceivable that in some areas we could end up stepping up cooperation with the EU while in other areas it winds down. Note that even while we've been in the EU, over recent years the trend for the proportion of our trade that is with the EU has been strongly downwards. Outside the EU, it's reasonable to expect this trend to accelerate.
That in turn changes incentives. If the EU bottomed out at only say one third or one quarter of our trade, some aspects of alignment with the EU are likely to become less attractive. And as globalisation continues and the EU and UK both inexorably slide relatively downwards as % of World GDP - an inevitable consequence of developing countries with large populations catching up with the West - it may be that more regulation is agreed at higher international levels anyway. On the flip side, as the EU absorbs more competencies from its member states, some relationships that were previously managed as bilateral arrangements between the UK and those other states will need to be managed at an EU-UK level instead. As @DavidL puts it again:
The illusion behind this apparent dilemma is that the deal we will get with the EU will somehow become fixed in perpetuity. That is as absurd as saying that Maastricht was the final word on European integration.
I thought there was some good stuff in the rest of that post too.
there’s most likely a link between his previous offence and this one which could prejudice the current trial. I guess we’ll find out soon enough.
I saw a report that the defendants in the current trial have applied to have it dismissed as result of this
Any sensible lawyer would try that one, there’s a fine line between allowing freedom of speech and the right to a fair trial.
Reporting restrictions are generally used where there’s multiple trials involving similar offences and/or defendants, whereby it would be difficult for anyone with knowledge of the first trial to be a juror at the second. I hope that’s the case here, rather than a judge overstretching herself to stop a legitimate protest - although Robinson does have a long record of going too far with his protesting.
I see, if that is the case then Robinson is an idiot. Hopefully this gets the attention it deserves in the MSM when the case comes to its conclusion.
EDIT: Although the reports say that Robinson was arrested for breach of the peace rather than breaking reporting limits.
There is a fundamental problem with the Brexit debate. It is not the Leavers who are stopping 'soft Brexit'. It is the EU.
The Remainers have been whining about 'soft Brexit' like it means something, but none of them can define in any way what it is, other than the subset who openly support EEA membership. Of course, most Remainers can't support EEA because the requirement for FOM means that it is obviously contrary to the referendum result and they don't like being called on that.
So they pretend that there is another 'soft Brexit' option. But the EU is constantly saying that this is not true.
The EU are obsessed with cherry picking. They define that as not having all the 'benefits' of membership without the 'obligations'.
The EU are the ones saying that they DON'T WANT the whole UK to stay in the CU as a backstop. Why? Because unlike the Remainers they are honest enough to say that CU membership requires full alignment with SM regulations. It is SM membership by proxy. And they won't accept it because it is cherry picking - SM membership without the four freedoms.
Can ANY Remainer on here come up with any evidence that the EU would accept a 'soft Brexit' plan that does not involve accepting FOM? I doubt it. They just duck the issue (or, like HYUFD, just aim for a deal which pretends to halt FOM but in fact leaves it in place).
Brexit was always a binary choice. It is not the Leavers that are saying so - ask your beloved EU.
That's not right. What Barnier is saying is effectively that there's no soft Brexit that's *consistent with TMay's current red lines*. This has been obvious since before she drew them. See his graphic here:
Barnier has always said we can have a Canada style FTA but no more if we want to end FOM, that remains consistent with the Phase 1 agreement in December with the EU yes
So, does that mean that you are agreeing with me? There is no 'soft Brexit' on offer that does not leave FOM in place? In that case, why are we even talking about 'soft Brexit'?
Leavers or Remainers, Labour or Conservative, the one thing we call all agree on is that Disney have sacrificed the memory of Star Wars on the altar of over-commercialisation.
The way I look at it there is probably a market for a new Star Wars movie every year, and Disney are not in danger of over saturation by making that their plan - despite being compared to one another Star Wars is a far bigger deal, certainly worldwide, than Star Trek in a box office sense, and what little I know of the Star Wars extended universe stuff means Disney have a well of stories they can draw on for inspiration for several dozen more movies if they want. But no matter how good the base stories, or the writers or directors they hire, make that many in a series and some are going to be terrible, and some are going to be very bland.
The big "reveal" in Solo is basically a hook to hang more movies from.
I was trying to think about positive reasons for watching Solo. Emilia Clarke is very easy on the eye. Donald Glover is entertaining. And the other characters are cool. Even when they are doing dumb and predictable stuff.
The big problem is the same one that TV now suffers from. You can come up with a great idea for a drama, that will fill 2 hours of screentime, but for "commercial" reasons you have 20 hours of screentime to fill, so instead of a drama you get a soap opera.
Instead of a griping story, with a beginning, middle and end, you get characters living out their humdrum existence to fill time.
Man in the High Castle suffered from this. Great idea. 18 episodes too long.
Maybe Revenge is the worst example. Young woman wants revenge on the wealthy elite she believes killed her father. Great idea for a movie. They spun that into 4 seasons of her not getting revenge on very many people (and her father not being dead...)
What matters is the story, not the SFX. Take Hamlet for example. I've seen the play. Many times. I will still pay good money to see it again, not because I don't know what is going to happen, but because I know it's a great story that delivers. A compelling narrative that rewards the viewer.
Solo has none of that.
I really liked Revenge, but it started to break down in season 2
Having been in the South of france for the last several weeks it kept occuring to me that if only the 17 million Brexiteers had seen at first hand the practical advantages of being able to move to or through a smorgasbord of cultures and languages without restriction the vote would almost certainly have been different.
Europe is a very special continent. The most cultured and varied in the world. To be an integral part of it is a great privilege and anything that draws us closer and gives us the simplest access the better. Remain should have set its sigts on the common currency and shengen and not allowed the the Little Englanders to frame the debate around a fear of foreigners.
Arguably India is more diverse - more religious and linguistic diversity, certainly. I'd be very wary of claiming that a continent is "more cultured" than another - as the kids would put it, that's a very eurocentric (by which they mean "racist") attitude. On the other hand, they'd approve of you treating diversity as axiomatically "a good thing". Depends on one's Weltanschauung I guess, but I'm wary of uncritical acceptance of any phenomenon or trend as automatically and inherently a good thing, rather than something that comes with various pros and cons attached. Again, looking further from home, could anyone honestly say that India has only benefited from its great diversity? Whatever advantages have been reaped, it has clearly not been costless for them - for example in terms of inter-ethnic, inter-communal and inter-linguistic conflict, or practical and political difficulties for administration and national unity.
In terms of the Brexit vote, no doubt a vision based on euro and Schengen adoption would have been a far more positive and coherent vision than the lukewarm bilge the Remain campaign produced when it wasn't in FUD mode. But if they had gone that way, it would surely have given a couple of percentage points extra margin of victory to Leave. That's precisely why they didn't. I think that kind of argument needs years, even decades, of groundwork to prepare it. And people did try, particularly on the pro-euro front from the 1990s, without ever gaining serious traction with the British public.
Solo was fine. Perfect for Saturday afternoon with my 10yr old.
People take Star Wars far too seriously.
Truer words rarely spoken. My friends who are die hard fans get most worked up over things like ships going to lightspeed too close to a planet etc. It's not meaningless in a Sci if story, depending on the type, but a good narrative and characters is a bigger deal.
And people did try, particularly on the pro-euro front from the 1990s, without ever gaining serious traction with the British public.
Blair did win a landslide in 1997 that was based on a policy of ending semi-detachment. Sadly the promised referendum on the Euro never came.
This was from Blair's first manifesto.
There are only three options for Britain in Europe. The first is to come out. The second is to stay in, but on the sidelines. The third is to stay in, but in a leading role.
An increasing number of Conservatives, overtly or covertly, favour the first. But withdrawal would be disastrous for Britain. It would put millions of jobs at risk. It would dry up inward investment. It would destroy our clout in international trade negotiations. It would relegate Britain from the premier division of nations.
The second is exactly where we are today under the Conservatives. The BSE fiasco symbolises their failures in Europe.
The third is the path a new Labour government will take.
I really liked Revenge, but it started to break down in season 2
Well, exactly.
The premise could have been a great movie.
It could even have been a great TV show if she got revenge on someone each episode.
But no. It became an ever more outlandish soap opera, in which not very much to advance the plot took place, while all manner of other nonsense happened.
Like Sheldon in TBBT, the audience demands closure from a drama. This didn't deliver.
Having been in the South of france for the last several weeks it kept occuring to me that if only the 17 million Brexiteers had seen at first hand the practical advantages of being able to move to or through a smorgasbord of cultures and languages without restriction the vote would almost certainly have been different.
Europe is a very special continent. The most cultured and varied in the world. To be an integral part of it is a great privilege and anything that draws us closer and gives us the simplest access the better. Remain should have set its sigts on the common currency and shengen and not allowed the the Little Englanders to frame the debate around a fear of foreigners.
Arguably India is more diverse - more religious and linguistic diversity, certainly. I'd be very wary of claiming that a continent is "more cultured" than another - as the kids would put it, that's a very eurocentric (by which they mean "racist") attitude. On the other hand, they'd approve of you treating diversity as axiomatically "a good thing". Depends on one's Weltanschauung I guess, but I'm wary of uncritical acceptance of any phenomenon or trend as automatically and inherently a good thing, rather than something that comes with various pros and cons attached. Again, looking further from home, could anyone honestly say that India has only benefited from its great diversity? Whatever advantages have been reaped, it has clearly not been costless for them - for example in terms of inter-ethnic, inter-communal and inter-linguistic conflict, or practical and political difficulties for administration and national unity.
In terms of the Brexit vote, no doubt a vision based on euro and Schengen adoption would have been a far more positive and coherent vision than the lukewarm bilge the Remain campaign produced when it wasn't in FUD mode. But if they had gone that way, it would surely have given a couple of percentage points extra margin of victory to Leave. That's precisely why they didn't. I think that kind of argument needs years, even decades, of groundwork to prepare it. And people did try, particularly on the pro-euro front from the 1990s, without ever gaining serious traction with the British public.
Roger lives a rather 'champagne socialist' lifestyle in the south of France and so doesn't fully benefit from the bigotries and economic difficulties the area suffers from.
Now we all have, to a greater or lesser degree, a tendency to concentrate on our own experiences but I suspect Roger's are rather more niche than the average PBer let alone the average person.
You take the deal and work to gradually unwind our links with the EU over time. Simples.
Or take the deal and gradually drift back in. Even more simples.
Which was what British advocates of joining the single currency emphasised throughout the 1990s.
"The opt-out is purely nominal" "The car factories will shut down and the City will relocate to Frankfurt if we don't join" "Once people see what a great success the Euro is in practice they'll be desperate to join" "Now that people have used Euro notes on their holidays the fear will disappear"
Comments
Mr. P, cheers for the clarification, I didn't want to get into the decline and fall of the Roman Empire only to discover it was something else.
The (Western) Roman Empire fell for many reasons. Supply lines being cut weren't high on the list.
1) Massive inflation caused by devaluation of the currency egged on by the donative (bonus for soldiers when there's a new emperor), exacerbated by
2) the Crisis of the Third Century, which one could argue the Empire never really recovered from.
3) Perpetual infighting which bled military strength and enabled others to take advantage, leading to both weakness against the Huns and inability to fend off large scale barbarian migration, leading to
4) Gothic warlords like Alaric and Ricimer becoming more powerful than the latter day Roman emperors.
5) Weakness and cowardice and stupidity of many latter day emperors (yes, Honorius, I'm looking at you), to the extent that when one who tried to turn things around came along (Majorian) the state was too weak and corrupted to be rescued.
On that rather concise basis, the problem we face is not leaving the EU. It's internal division.
The EU has serious questions to answer before any return. It’s not the land of milk and honey. The Brexit negotiations have done damage to trust on both sides.
Meanwhile, a damaged post-Brexit Britain is likely to see an increase, not a decline in anti EU rhetoric from the right.
1) devaluation of the currency. Check
3) Perpetual infighting. Check
5) Weakness and cowardice and stupidity of many latter day emperors. Check
Can't wait...
1. Too many immigrants
2. Weath spread wider is wealth spread thinner
3. Rumanian Big Issue sellers
4. 70 million Turks is frightening
5. We can't throw out foreign criminals
I'm sure I've missed a few but all are NEGATIVE and all are xenophobic. I can't think of any positive ones that the 99 out of a hundred are likely to have considered.
Should the government fall (always possible in such chaos) and we get either a minority Corbyn government in this parliament or a minority one after a snap election (which neither party can win outright) then the internal division that matters won't be the Tories it will be Labour - and we are as bitterly divided as the Tories.
I still think a no deal no transition crash Brexit is the most likely scenario. Because avoiding it means facing a reality that too many can't, and a compromise that too many won't. Personally with where we now are I'd rather the Tories have their fingerprints on it rather than us - that way when we run out of food jobs and money very quickly after Wrexit we do have the cover of blaming the Tories for the disaater (hoping people don't spot that Jezbollah was fully on board)
As ever, I hope that behind the closed doors of the negotiating room there are bunch of adults talking, and we will end up with a deal that’s acceptable to all. It’ll probably happen in the 59th minute of the 11th hour but I still think a deal will be done.
Oh dear...
Both campaigns were appallingly bad
The devaluation of the pound versus the dollar is something like from $1.48 to $1.34 right now (give or take). Noticeable, but minuscule compared to the Roman devaluation. I'd have to dig around (probably in Aurelian's biography) to check but I think the percentage of silver in coins fell from 90% to a few percent. It really kicked off with the epic idiot Antoninus Caracalla and continued, exacerbated by near perpetual civil war and barbarian invasion during the Third Century.
There is some political infighting as the political class seeks to thwart the pesky electorate. However, it's not actual continuous warfare. So, bad, but again, not comparable.
I concede point 5.
She'd be better off begging for an A50 extension than taking the deal of last resort.
Nobody forced Cameron to back Turkey's membership.
We're too soft on real criminals (including letting back in ISIS terrorists) and yet incompetent and vicious against some who genuinely deserve to be here (Windrush stands out, obviously, but the case of Mr. Sandpit and his lady wife is also palpably unreasonable). Discontent with that is to be expected. Pointing at people and shouting "Racist!" or "Xenophobe!" is not going to persuade them.
Mr. P, well, it had lots of problems in the run up. I haven't seen The Last Jedi, but recently decided to watch a review. It sounds absolutely ****ing awful. Would you say Solo was worse?
Mr. T, a legitimate perspective but that doesn't address the point I made. If a tight vote had gone the other way, nobody would be arguing we should leave bits of the EU (some would noisily be demanding another vote or to leave, of course, and they'd be wrong). Or do you disagree? If 48% had voted Leave would we see Grieve and the Lords trying to extricate us from parts of the EU, as they're now seeking to keep us in parts that constrain us?
And we thought JRM was crackers for advocating the 18th century perspective.
Replacing FOM with work permits and paying out more in welfare if you have paid more in in NI though would be a sensible idea.
Apparently 70% of it was reshot. Not sure it was worth it.
Unlike Rogue One though, at least the trailer made it into the movie
Relax.
Deutsche Zeitungen und Politiker beschimpfen (uns) als italienische Bettler, Nichtstuer, Steuervermeider, Schnorrer und Undankbare“, twitterte Salvini am Samstag. „Und wir sollen einen Wirtschaftsminister auswählen, der ihnen passt? Nein, danke!“
And we are about to get probed. Royally.
As far as I can see the GDPR has lead to three things.
1. Lots of useless emails.
2. Even more obnoxious banners when you first go to a site.
3. Lots of sites now blocking access.
And I suspect that the protection it confers will be effectively bloody useless.
Corbyn too remains opposed to the EEA as do most of his most committed supporters on the Labour backbenches and of course Labour Leavers like Hoey, Skinner, Field and Mann
Mr. Booth, indeed. If Twitter's anything to go by (and it can be misleading) they appear to have made him into a martyr. It's getting much reaction.
Mr. P, fair enough. And yeah, that TIE fighter scene looked good. In the trailer.
Solo, on the other hand, looked terrible in most of its trailers (the last trailer in particular was disjointed as all hell, which is rarely a good sign), and the people who make trailers made The Snowman look intriguing and they didn't even finish filming that one apparently. And if you cannot make a good trailer out of a star wars movie, with all the space ships and explosions, and with Donald Glover and Emilia Clarke, then odds are you have a very bad movie.
Unless the word is it is good, I'll catch it on DVD at some point.
I'm very happy that some sites are cutting the crap down, but at the moment they are outnumbered by sites blocking all access.
Charles's anecdote was revealing.
They have announced a new trilogy outside the Skywalker focused stuff to date, which perhaps shows they know they need to mix things up, otherwise it'll just be samey stuff year on year, which will continue to make money, but less of it as time goes by.
Honestly it feels like they should have the really big 'episode' movies every 2-3 years, and the ones inbetween should be smaller budgeted, more experimental stuff, really try some different genre of star wars tale.
Anyway, the sun has briefly emerged after a thunderstorm, so I'm headed out to get my exercise on while I can.
Which would be a positive for all those who own multiple properties.
As Sean Fear has said before, this is a panicky website. I’m not worried.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-options/stairway-to-brexit-barnier-maps-out-uks-canadian-path-idUKKBN1ED23R
"From time to time, the site will introduce new features, options, competitions and ladies."
What??
I checked their website - surely some mistake? No, it was an "escort service". I suppose they really DO need to protect everyone's confidentiality...
Given how my tips have gone so far this year, I'm anticipating Raikkonen finishing 3rd (without Ricciardo) and the placement change from 3 to 2 being applied retroactively.
https://www.politico.eu/article/italy-5star-league-conte-jobs-to-watch-in-the-italian-government/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Westminster is only a caretaker on these issues while Stormont is suspended. He is quite right on this and I think Mourdaunt is wrong
Isn't it about time that Stuart Broad stopped being an automatic selection ?
I was trying to think about positive reasons for watching Solo. Emilia Clarke is very easy on the eye. Donald Glover is entertaining. And the other characters are cool. Even when they are doing dumb and predictable stuff.
The big problem is the same one that TV now suffers from. You can come up with a great idea for a drama, that will fill 2 hours of screentime, but for "commercial" reasons you have 20 hours of screentime to fill, so instead of a drama you get a soap opera.
Instead of a griping story, with a beginning, middle and end, you get characters living out their humdrum existence to fill time.
Man in the High Castle suffered from this. Great idea. 18 episodes too long.
Maybe Revenge is the worst example. Young woman wants revenge on the wealthy elite she believes killed her father. Great idea for a movie. They spun that into 4 seasons of her not getting revenge on very many people (and her father not being dead...)
What matters is the story, not the SFX. Take Hamlet for example. I've seen the play. Many times. I will still pay good money to see it again, not because I don't know what is going to happen, but because I know it's a great story that delivers. A compelling narrative that rewards the viewer.
Solo has none of that.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tommy-robinson-arrested-leeds-court-child-grooming-trial-edl-founder-latest-a8368821.html
People take Star Wars far too seriously. They're kids films. If you accept that , relax and enjoy it
Reporting restrictions are generally used where there’s multiple trials involving similar offences and/or defendants, whereby it would be difficult for anyone with knowledge of the first trial to be a juror at the second. I hope that’s the case here, rather than a judge overstretching herself to stop a legitimate protest - although Robinson does have a long record of going too far with his protesting.
That "almost" is doing a lot of work. The big thing for a lot of the people you might call "political" or "ideological" or "paleo-sovereigntist" Brexiteers is simply to get outside the structures. In the grand branching of alternative histories, you have hopped Britain onto a different path. They'll think that counts for something. In fact they'll think it counts for a lot. The longer you're in the EU, the more the "ratchet effect" (that integration drives forward but not back) continues to accumulate.
I'm not saying they're going to like what they regard as a poor Brexit deal, particularly a "vassal state" arrangement, but they'd want to be very careful about taking actions that throw all the dice up in the air again, in case they don't land on Brexit happening at all.
The main prize is Out. I think there's quite a lot to be said for the "Michael Collins solution" from a Leave perspective. "Over time" doesn't necessarily mean "soon". It's not even inconceivable that in some areas we could end up stepping up cooperation with the EU while in other areas it winds down. Note that even while we've been in the EU, over recent years the trend for the proportion of our trade that is with the EU has been strongly downwards. Outside the EU, it's reasonable to expect this trend to accelerate.
That in turn changes incentives. If the EU bottomed out at only say one third or one quarter of our trade, some aspects of alignment with the EU are likely to become less attractive. And as globalisation continues and the EU and UK both inexorably slide relatively downwards as % of World GDP - an inevitable consequence of developing countries with large populations catching up with the West - it may be that more regulation is agreed at higher international levels anyway. On the flip side, as the EU absorbs more competencies from its member states, some relationships that were previously managed as bilateral arrangements between the UK and those other states will need to be managed at an EU-UK level instead. As @DavidL puts it again: I thought there was some good stuff in the rest of that post too.
EDIT: Although the reports say that Robinson was arrested for breach of the peace rather than breaking reporting limits.
In terms of the Brexit vote, no doubt a vision based on euro and Schengen adoption would have been a far more positive and coherent vision than the lukewarm bilge the Remain campaign produced when it wasn't in FUD mode. But if they had gone that way, it would surely have given a couple of percentage points extra margin of victory to Leave. That's precisely why they didn't. I think that kind of argument needs years, even decades, of groundwork to prepare it. And people did try, particularly on the pro-euro front from the 1990s, without ever gaining serious traction with the British public.
This was from Blair's first manifesto.
There are only three options for Britain in Europe. The first is to come out. The second is to stay in, but on the sidelines. The third is to stay in, but in a leading role.
An increasing number of Conservatives, overtly or covertly, favour the first. But withdrawal would be disastrous for Britain. It would put millions of jobs at risk. It would dry up inward investment. It would destroy our clout in international trade negotiations. It would relegate Britain from the premier division of nations.
The second is exactly where we are today under the Conservatives. The BSE fiasco symbolises their failures in Europe.
The third is the path a new Labour government will take.
The premise could have been a great movie.
It could even have been a great TV show if she got revenge on someone each episode.
But no. It became an ever more outlandish soap opera, in which not very much to advance the plot took place, while all manner of other nonsense happened.
Like Sheldon in TBBT, the audience demands closure from a drama. This didn't deliver.
Now we all have, to a greater or lesser degree, a tendency to concentrate on our own experiences but I suspect Roger's are rather more niche than the average PBer let alone the average person.
"The opt-out is purely nominal"
"The car factories will shut down and the City will relocate to Frankfurt if we don't join"
"Once people see what a great success the Euro is in practice they'll be desperate to join"
"Now that people have used Euro notes on their holidays the fear will disappear"