I think people are looking at this the wrong way, demographics can indeed bring doom, but it is to ideas/policies rather than parties.
If we take gay equality as an example, it is demographic change to a large extent that killed off its opposition. If young people in the 50's adopted the views of older people from then as they aged and so on into today's generation that wouldn't have happened.
But the parties that enforced anti gay policies were fine, because they moved with the population and left the idea behind. Demographic change killed the ideas/policy.
Just to clarify the example is just an easy one that came to mind I'm not equating brexit and homophobic policies in terms of morality.
Brexit is an idea/policy rather than a party, it can adjust itself in some ways to suit changes in demographics but there is no inevitability about the new generation of older people being as Brexit supporting as the ones they are replacing.
These are the issues that face the Beth Din, and Islamic Sharia courts will have more given the generally lower levels of integration in the community.
The issues with the Beth Din have been talked about for years, and the leaders have shown a certain contempt for the complaints. Given this, we should be tightening down on them, not opening up the concept, because it is simply not working.
Having two separate legal systems like this will always lead to abuses.
Yes, here in NYC there have been cases of Orthodox Jews being convicted of assaulting other such men to force them to grant their wives religious divorces.
But what can be done? The women are perfectly free to get civil divorces and remarry in a civil ceremony. The religious law appears (I am not Jewish myself) to be clear though that they can't get a religious divorce and remarry religiously without their ex-husbands' consent. What is the state supposed to do? Intervene and overrule a religious doctrine? I think most people would be uncomfortable with that, even if they disagree with the doctrine.
Ultimately the people involved chose to be bound by their religious law and its courts. They could chose not to be but don't because their faith is more important to them.
The State intervenes to overrule religious doctrine all the time. And quite right too.
Examples? I can't think of any where the people involved are of age and sound mind.
What a charming piece. Don't worry young remainers - just wait for your grandparents to die so we can vote to rejoin the EU.
Of course if voters had the same opinions at 20 as they do at 65 we wouldn't have had Tory governments for the majority of the last century. Most of the over 65s probably voted to stay in the Common market in 1975.
A counter argument would of course be that most commentators attribute the overwhelming yes votes in the Irish Same-sex marriage and abortion referendums to the replacement of older voters with younger ones over the last decade.
You might be right that young remain voters might become pro Brexit in ten years time but I think I would bet on the opposite. I guess it will come down to whether the under 30's grow up blaming Brexit for all their problems in the same way as some people blamed all their problems on the EU. I'd be happy to place a sizeable bet on the UK having decided to rejoin the EU within 10 years but I'm not sure if such long-term bets exist!
In 1972, US voters aged 18-29 supported McGovern by a margin of 2%, when everyone else voted for Nixon by a huge margin. 44 years later, the same cohort supported Trump by a huge margin.
In 1974, the Conservatives finished 3rd among voters aged 18-34. 43 years on, 60% of that cohort voted Conservative.
In 1975, 61% of 18-29 year olds supported Remain. 41years later, the same cohort voted heavily Leave.
In 1997, Labour led by 21% among voters aged 18-34. Last year, the two parties were level -pegging among the same cohort.
It's lazy thinking to assume that your opponents will just die off.
they were outwitted by a bus, why argue ?
Indeed. Why isn't the bus in charge of Brexit? £350 million a week extra for the NHS and nothing else changes. What's not to like? Deliver it please.
What a charming piece. Don't worry young remainers - just wait for your grandparents to die so we can vote to rejoin the EU.
Of course if voters had the same opinions at 20 as they do at 65 we wouldn't have had Tory governments for the majority of the last century. Most of the over 65s probably voted to stay in the Common market in 1975.
A counter argument would of course be that most commentators attribute the overwhelming yes votes in the Irish Same-sex marriage and abortion referendums to the replacement of older voters with younger ones over the last decade.
You might be right that young remain voters might become pro Brexit in ten years time but I think I would bet on the opposite. I guess it will come down to whether the under 30's grow up blaming Brexit for all their problems in the same way as some people blamed all their problems on the EU. I'd be happy to place a sizeable bet on the UK having decided to rejoin the EU within 10 years but I'm not sure if such long-term bets exist!
In 1972, US voters aged 18-29 supported McGovern by a margin of 2%, when everyone else voted for Nixon by a huge margin. 44 years later, the same cohort supported Trump by a huge margin.
In 1974, the Conservatives finished 3rd among voters aged 18-34. 43 years on, 60% of that cohort voted Conservative.
In 1975, 61% of 18-29 year olds supported Remain. 41years later, the same cohort voted heavily Leave.
In 1997, Labour led by 21% among voters aged 18-34. Last year, the two parties were level -pegging among the same cohort.
It's lazy thinking to assume that your opponents will just die off.
they were outwitted by a bus, why argue ?
Indeed. Why isn't the bus in charge of Brexit? £350 million a week extra for the NHS and nothing else changes. What's not to like? Deliver it please.
the bus is off to a cracking start, the economy hasn't collapsed, unemployment isn't rising but wages are.
And he's not even opposed to what's happened as a point of principle:
'Had Mattarella refused Salvini the post of interior minister, outraged by his promise to expel 500,000 migrants from Italy, I would be compelled to support him...Beyond his moral failure to oppose the League’s industrial-scale misanthropy, the president has made a major tactical blunder: he fell right into Salvini’s trap. The formation of another “technical” government, under a former IMF apparatchik, is a fantastic gift to Salvini’s party.'
What a charming piece. Don't worry young remainers - just wait for your grandparents to die so we can vote to rejoin the EU.
Of course if voters had the same opinions at 20 as they do at 65 we wouldn't have had Tory governments for the majority of the last century. Most of the over 65s probably voted to stay in the Common market in 1975.
A counter argument would of course be that most commentators attribute the overwhelming yes votes in the Irish Same-sex marriage and abortion referendums to the replacement of older voters with younger ones over the last decade.
You might be right that young remain voters might become pro Brexit in ten years time but I think I would bet on the opposite. I guess it will come down to whether the under 30's grow up blaming Brexit for all their problems in the same way as some people blamed all their problems on the EU. I'd be happy to place a sizeable bet on the UK having decided to rejoin the EU within 10 years but I'm not sure if such long-term bets exist!
In 1972, US voters aged 18-29 supported McGovern by a margin of 2%, when everyone else voted for Nixon by a huge margin. 44 years later, the same cohort supported Trump by a huge margin.
In 1974, the Conservatives finished 3rd among voters aged 18-34. 43 years on, 60% of that cohort voted Conservative.
In 1975, 61% of 18-29 year olds supported Remain. 41years later, the same cohort voted heavily Leave.
In 1997, Labour led by 21% among voters aged 18-34. Last year, the two parties were level -pegging among the same cohort.
It's lazy thinking to assume that your opponents will just die off.
they were outwitted by a bus, why argue ?
Indeed. Why isn't the bus in charge of Brexit? £350 million a week extra for the NHS and nothing else changes. What's not to like? Deliver it please.
the bus is off to a cracking start, the economy hasn't collapsed, unemployment isn't rising but wages are.
What a charming piece. Don't worry young remainers - just wait for your grandparents to die so we can vote to rejoin the EU.
Of course if voters had the same opinions at 20 as they do at 65 we wouldn't have had Tory governments for the majority of the last century. Most of the over 65s probably voted to stay in the Common market in 1975.
A counter argument would of course be that most commentators attribute the overwhelming yes votes in the Irish Same-sex marriage and abortion referendums to the replacement of older voters with younger ones over the last decade.
You might be right that young remain voters might become pro Brexit in ten years time but I think I would bet on the opposite. I guess it will come down to whether the under 30's grow up blaming Brexit for all their problems in the same way as some people blamed all their problems on the EU. I'd be happy to place a sizeable bet on the UK having decided to rejoin the EU within 10 years but I'm not sure if such long-term bets exist!
In 1972, US voters aged 18-29 supported McGovern by a margin of 2%, when everyone else voted for Nixon by a huge margin. 44 years later, the same cohort supported Trump by a huge margin.
In 1974, the Conservatives finished 3rd among voters aged 18-34. 43 years on, 60% of that cohort voted Conservative.
In 1975, 61% of 18-29 year olds supported Remain. 41years later, the same cohort voted heavily Leave.
In 1997, Labour led by 21% among voters aged 18-34. Last year, the two parties were level -pegging among the same cohort.
It's lazy thinking to assume that your opponents will just die off.
they were outwitted by a bus, why argue ?
Indeed. Why isn't the bus in charge of Brexit? £350 million a week extra for the NHS and nothing else changes. What's not to like? Deliver it please.
the bus is off to a cracking start, the economy hasn't collapsed, unemployment isn't rising but wages are.
And all happening while we're a member of the EU
yes
imagine how much more money we'll have when we leave
These are the issues that face the Beth Din, and Islamic Sharia courts will have more given the generally lower levels of integration in the community.
The issues with the Beth Din have been talked about for years, and the leaders have shown a certain contempt for the complaints. Given this, we should be tightening down on them, not opening up the concept, because it is simply not working.
Having two separate legal systems like this will always lead to abuses.
Yes, here in NYC there have been cases of Orthodox Jews being convicted of assaulting other such men to force them to grant their wives religious divorces.
But what can be done? The women are perfectly free to get civil divorces and remarry in a civil ceremony. The religious law appears (I am not Jewish myself) to be clear though that they can't get a religious divorce and remarry religiously without their ex-husbands' consent. What is the state supposed to do? Intervene and overrule a religious doctrine? I think most people would be uncomfortable with that, even if they disagree with the doctrine.
Ultimately the people involved chose to be bound by their religious law and its courts. They could chose not to be but don't because their faith is more important to them.
The State intervenes to overrule religious doctrine all the time. And quite right too.
Examples? I can't think of any where the people involved are of age and sound mind.
Polygamy, use of marijuana, sky burial off the top of my head.
It really is the political story of the moment but betting angles have so far been pretty limited.
Fingers well and truly scorched on this one after getting greedy on what I thought was a cert for Conte. Avoid the market would be my newly found wisdom.
Can I just thank everyone for the comments on my video.
Summarising the feedback:
- try and get the camera up, so it's in my eyeline - avoid having the autocue (iPad) above the camera - minimise my hand movements - keep in natural
Did I miss anything?
For those who haven't seen my piece on the causes of trade deficits, it's here.
And remember all, please hit the 'Subscribe' button
Hand movements are great for speaking to a live, especially large, audience. Distracting on video. I am more disturbed by the fact you look exactly like me 15 years ago. But with glasses!
Kellner is just hopeless. Quite how a pollster fails to understand that people might change their views escapes me. Young lefties get the vote, old Tories die, but there's a drift amongst the existing voters. He does of course know this, and he's just trying to justify a political view of his own. Stupid, stupid man.
One of the questions I ask people who screech about railway renationalisation on here is what they would do about Open Access.
And I have not had a single answer. Most probably don't even know what OA is, and the rest probably just see it as evil private enterprise. Yet as the article says:
"There are lessons for here for Britain. We also have open access players in the shape of Grand Central and Hull Trains, operating out of London King’s Cross. Yet neither has the scale of NTV in Italy, and the government is lukewarm at best about operators who exist outside the contractual headlock of a franchise. For advocates of renationalisation however, there is a major quandary: Hull Trains and Grand Central regularly top passenger satisfaction tables, which suggests that more entrepreneurial zeal, not less, could lead to better services, at least in the long-distance segment."
Like railfreight, renationalisation zealots put their fingers in their ears about OA and ROSCOs. They complicate what is, for them, an unrealistically easy 'solution' to a problem they have poorly defined.
So a private outfit is cherry-picking some of the lucrative routes (50 services per day) while the publicly owned national operator provides an integrated service for everyone.
And NTV only entice passengers away from airlines thanks to the publicly owned express passenger lines they operate on.
So I think Italy operates a rail system much closer to Labour's vision than to the current fragmented shambles so loved by the Conservatives.
P.S. Good to hear you had a good holiday!
LOL. Open Access is not about 'cherry picking': it is about running services that the nationalised operator and infrastructure managers can't be @rsed to (*).
From the NVT wiki:
"In March 2011, NTV complained that the Italian infrastructure manager, RFI, was obstructing its plans to run trains by making last-minute changes to network statements. RFI is controlled by the same government group that controls Trenitalia, the incumbent provider of passenger train services in Italy."
What a charming piece. Don't worry young remainers - just wait for your grandparents to die so we can vote to rejoin the EU.
Of course if voters had the same opinions at 20 as they do at 65 we wouldn't have had Tory governments for the majority of the last century. Most of the over 65s probably voted to stay in the Common market in 1975.
A counter argument would of course be that most commentators attribute the overwhelming yes votes in the Irish Same-sex marriage and abortion referendums to the replacement of older voters with younger ones over the last decade.
You might be right that young remain voters might become pro Brexit in ten years time but I think I would bet on the opposite. I guess it will come down to whether the under 30's grow up blaming Brexit for all their problems in the same way as some people blamed all their problems on the EU. I'd be happy to place a sizeable bet on the UK having decided to rejoin the EU within 10 years but I'm not sure if such long-term bets exist!
In 1972, US voters aged 18-29 supported McGovern by a margin of 2%, when everyone else voted for Nixon by a huge margin. 44 years later, the same cohort supported Trump by a huge margin.
In 1974, the Conservatives finished 3rd among voters aged 18-34. 43 years on, 60% of that cohort voted Conservative.
In 1975, 61% of 18-29 year olds supported Remain. 41years later, the same cohort voted heavily Leave.
In 1997, Labour led by 21% among voters aged 18-34. Last year, the two parties were level -pegging among the same cohort.
It's lazy thinking to assume that your opponents will just die off.
These are the issues that face the Beth Din, and Islamic Sharia courts will have more given the generally lower levels of integration in the community.
The issues with the Beth Din have been talked about for years, and the leaders have shown a certain contempt for the complaints. Given this, we should be tightening down on them, not opening up the concept, because it is simply not working.
Having two separate legal systems like this will always lead to abuses.
Yes, here in NYC there have been cases of Orthodox Jews being convicted of assaulting other such men to force them to grant their wives religious divorces.
But what can be done? The women are perfectly free to get civil divorces and remarry in a civil ceremony. The religious law appears (I am not Jewish myself) to be clear though that they can't get a religious divorce and remarry religiously without their ex-husbands' consent. What is the state supposed to do? Intervene and overrule a religious doctrine? I think most people would be uncomfortable with that, even if they disagree with the doctrine.
Ultimately the people involved chose to be bound by their religious law and its courts. They could chose not to be but don't because their faith is more important to them.
The State intervenes to overrule religious doctrine all the time. And quite right too.
Examples? I can't think of any where the people involved are of age and sound mind.
In the UK, we have a lot of bloody idiot bishops intervening such that religious doctrine overrules the state. Hence, if I want to buy my tea on a Sunday evening, I can only do so at a shop of less than a certain square metreage, because of their God's furious and arbitrary rules. (I always thought this a ridiculous rule, but the more Old Testament I've come across, the more a rule that supermarkets can only trade for a maximum of six hours on a supermarket (unless they are small) is exactly the sort of thing one might expect of Him.)
Afternoon all. I'm just back from Italy where I walked from Bologna to Florence, and ate too much pasta. The Italians seem to be getting on remarkably well for a country which can't work out how to form a government.
Sort-of on topic, I was sent a link to this blog by Sir Ivan Rogers. I think it is, by a country mile, the best explanation of the Brexit background, and the best analysis of the negotiation issues, that I have seen:
I agree with Ivan Rodgers' analysis, although I am much less eurosceptic than he is. Like him, I reckon CU+ full regulatory conformance + ECJ oversight + payments (client state) in exchange for limited restrictions on FOM is as good as Brexit is likely to get.
Afternoon all. I'm just back from Italy where I walked from Bologna to Florence, and ate too much pasta. The Italians seem to be getting on remarkably well for a country which can't work out how to form a government.
Sort-of on topic, I was sent a link to this blog by Sir Ivan Rogers. I think it is, by a country mile, the best explanation of the Brexit background, and the best analysis of the negotiation issues, that I have seen:
I agree with Ivan Rodgers' analysis, although I am much less eurosceptic than he is. Like him, I reckon CU+ full regulatory conformance + ECJ oversight + payments (client state) in exchange for limited restrictions on FOM is as good as Brexit is likely to get.
Your first sentence explains 90%+ of your posts.
I enjoyed the piece. I thought, however, that Rodgers' point was slightly lost. Halfway through, he says to the effect that there can be no "out but many opt ins". What his examples go on to show, however, is that there *is* such a model - but it isn't easy, or a panacea. His conclusion fits with the "easy/panacea" point so I think it is badly introduced.
On some level, Blair/Heseltine/Clarke were right: the UK staying outside the Euro did lead to a diminution of British influence at the core of the EU. The Euro and eurozone is a bigger and more significant economic bloc and we’d got to the point by 2015 where, sometimes, the US and China would pick up the phone to Merkel over Cameron first, and Cameron couldn’t assemble much of an alliance to block Jean-Claude Juncker. By the time the UK got involved it found most of the choices had already been made.
Do most British people see this as a problem? Not really. They weren’t too interested in European political intrigue, or who picked up the phone to whom first. They valued the pound as an expression of national sovereignty and saw life carrying on pretty much the same as before with no noticeable negative effects, particularly in the aftermath of the 2008 crash when the pound acted - beneficially- as an automatic stabiliser. And we have very low unemployment today, unlike much of the eurozone.
Choosing whether to integrate politically - or not - is a choice, and not black or white either way. Each choice offers a different mixture of pros and cons.
Afternoon all. I'm just back from Italy where I walked from Bologna to Florence, and ate too much pasta. The Italians seem to be getting on remarkably well for a country which can't work out how to form a government.
Sort-of on topic, I was sent a link to this blog by Sir Ivan Rogers. I think it is, by a country mile, the best explanation of the Brexit background, and the best analysis of the negotiation issues, that I have seen:
I agree with Ivan Rodgers' analysis, although I am much less eurosceptic than he is. Like him, I reckon CU+ full regulatory conformance + ECJ oversight + payments (client state) in exchange for limited restrictions on FOM is as good as Brexit is likely to get.
Your first sentence explains 90%+ of your posts.
I enjoyed the piece. I thought, however, that Rodgers' point was slightly lost. Halfway through, he says to the effect that there can be no "out but many opt ins". What his examples go on to show, however, is that there *is* such a model - but it isn't easy, or a panacea. His conclusion fits with the "easy/panacea" point so I think it is badly introduced.
I think Rodgers - quite naturally - wants to defend his record and the deal he secured in 2016 as the best that could be obtained.
Another thought: I think Cameron may well have won the 2016 referendum 55-45 had he actually campaigned (overtly patriotically) for selling his deal as part of a new permanent settlement for the UK in Europe.
That would have required him to treat the voters with a bit of respect and explain and sell the deal to them, rather than just ‘park it’ from day one, as it was too complex to explain. It would have required him to put clear blue water between himself and the likes of Ashdown and Kinnock and make it all about British exceptionalism and leadership to win over centre-right voters.
Instead, he listened to the likes of Andrew Cooper, fell back on Project Fear, and ran a very Guardianista flecked campaign from start to finish.
So a private outfit is cherry-picking some of the lucrative routes (50 services per day) while the publicly owned national operator provides an integrated service for everyone.
And NTV only entice passengers away from airlines thanks to the publicly owned express passenger lines they operate on.
So I think Italy operates a rail system much closer to Labour's vision than to the current fragmented shambles so loved by the Conservatives.
P.S. Good to hear you had a good holiday!
LOL. Open Access is not about 'cherry picking': it is about running services that the nationalised operator and infrastructure managers can't be @rsed to (*).
From the NVT wiki:
"In March 2011, NTV complained that the Italian infrastructure manager, RFI, was obstructing its plans to run trains by making last-minute changes to network statements. RFI is controlled by the same government group that controls Trenitalia, the incumbent provider of passenger train services in Italy."
On some level, Blair/Heseltine/Clarke were right: the UK staying outside the Euro did lead to a diminution of British influence at the core of the EU. The Euro and eurozone is a bigger and more significant economic bloc and we’d got to the point by 2015 where, sometimes, the US and China would pick up the phone to Merkel over Cameron first, and Cameron couldn’t assemble much of an alliance to block Jean-Claude Juncker. By the time the UK got involved it found most of the choices had already been made.
Do most British people see this as a problem? Not really. They weren’t too interested in European political intrigue, or who picked up the phone to whom first. They valued the pound as an expression of national sovereignty and saw life carrying on pretty much the same as before with no noticeable negative effects, particularly in the aftermath of the 2008 crash when the pound acted - beneficially- as an automatic stabiliser. And we have very low unemployment today, unlike much of the eurozone.
Choosing whether to integrate politically - or not - is a choice, and not black or white either way. Each choice offers a different mixture of pros and cons.
I expect Brexit to be similar.
The Eurozone is also key to the views of the electorate. Thr currency is not up to dealing with recessions. We are in an interim period where the human cost of the last crisis has been out of the news headlines and the next one has not struck yet. But with unemployment still at twice UK levels,the next recession will be a nasty one. The current troubles in Italy are just the latest case of trying to sweep the political ramifications of this under the carpet. When it strikes, I can imagine the attraction of being in the EU dropping substantially - certainly by enough to give Leave the advantage again.
I think people are looking at this the wrong way, demographics can indeed bring doom, but it is to ideas/policies rather than parties.
If we take gay equality as an example, it is demographic change to a large extent that killed off its opposition. If young people in the 50's adopted the views of older people from then as they aged and so on into today's generation that wouldn't have happened.
But the parties that enforced anti gay policies were fine, because they moved with the population and left the idea behind. Demographic change killed the ideas/policy.
Just to clarify the example is just an easy one that came to mind I'm not equating brexit and homophobic policies in terms of morality.
Brexit is an idea/policy rather than a party, it can adjust itself in some ways to suit changes in demographics but there is no inevitability about the new generation of older people being as Brexit supporting as the ones they are replacing.
Changes in gay marriage support have happened far faster than demographic change could account for. It went from hardly any support to a huge majority in about 15 years.
I think people are looking at this the wrong way, demographics can indeed bring doom, but it is to ideas/policies rather than parties.
If we take gay equality as an example, it is demographic change to a large extent that killed off its opposition. If young people in the 50's adopted the views of older people from then as they aged and so on into today's generation that wouldn't have happened.
But the parties that enforced anti gay policies were fine, because they moved with the population and left the idea behind. Demographic change killed the ideas/policy.
Just to clarify the example is just an easy one that came to mind I'm not equating brexit and homophobic policies in terms of morality.
Brexit is an idea/policy rather than a party, it can adjust itself in some ways to suit changes in demographics but there is no inevitability about the new generation of older people being as Brexit supporting as the ones they are replacing.
Or the next generation of young people being as Remain as the ones they are replacing.
Afternoon all. I'm just back from Italy where I walked from Bologna to Florence, and ate too much pasta. The Italians seem to be getting on remarkably well for a country which can't work out how to form a government.
Sort-of on topic, I was sent a link to this blog by Sir Ivan Rogers. I think it is, by a country mile, the best explanation of the Brexit background, and the best analysis of the negotiation issues, that I have seen:
I agree with Ivan Rodgers' analysis, although I am much less eurosceptic than he is. Like him, I reckon CU+ full regulatory conformance + ECJ oversight + payments (client state) in exchange for limited restrictions on FOM is as good as Brexit is likely to get.
That would be a deal that would destroy the Conservatives. Oversight by an EU court over a deal between the UK and the EU would be so obviously one sided it is easy to explain to the voting public. It would be a gift from heaven for UKIP or a Tory splinter party. So would being an explicit rule taker from the EU or anything less than full control over unskilled workers.
Afternoon all. I'm just back from Italy where I walked from Bologna to Florence, and ate too much pasta. The Italians seem to be getting on remarkably well for a country which can't work out how to form a government.
Sort-of on topic, I was sent a link to this blog by Sir Ivan Rogers. I think it is, by a country mile, the best explanation of the Brexit background, and the best analysis of the negotiation issues, that I have seen:
I agree with Ivan Rodgers' analysis, although I am much less eurosceptic than he is. Like him, I reckon CU+ full regulatory conformance + ECJ oversight + payments (client state) in exchange for limited restrictions on FOM is as good as Brexit is likely to get.
That would be a deal that would destroy the Conservatives. Oversight by an EU court over a deal between the UK and the EU would be so obviously one sided it is easy to explain to the voting public. It would be a gift from heaven for UKIP or a Tory splinter party. So would being an explicit rule taker from the EU or anything less than full control over unskilled workers.
I don’t expect such a deal. As you say, it would lead to the fall of May and a Corbyn Government, or worse from the EU’s perspective.
The EU still need the UK as a long-term partner, even if they do want to make sure Brexit isn’t seen to be attractive.
On some level, Blair/Heseltine/Clarke were right: the UK staying outside the Euro did lead to a diminution of British influence at the core of the EU. The Euro and eurozone is a bigger and more significant economic bloc and we’d got to the point by 2015 where, sometimes, the US and China would pick up the phone to Merkel over Cameron first, and Cameron couldn’t assemble much of an alliance to block Jean-Claude Juncker. By the time the UK got involved it found most of the choices had already been made.
Do most British people see this as a problem? Not really. They weren’t too interested in European political intrigue, or who picked up the phone to whom first. They valued the pound as an expression of national sovereignty and saw life carrying on pretty much the same as before with no noticeable negative effects, particularly in the aftermath of the 2008 crash when the pound acted - beneficially- as an automatic stabiliser. And we have very low unemployment today, unlike much of the eurozone.
Choosing whether to integrate politically - or not - is a choice, and not black or white either way. Each choice offers a different mixture of pros and cons.
I expect Brexit to be similar.
The Eurozone is also key to the views of the electorate. Thr currency is not up to dealing with recessions. We are in an interim period where the human cost of the last crisis has been out of the news headlines and the next one has not struck yet. But with unemployment still at twice UK levels,the next recession will be a nasty one. The current troubles in Italy are just the latest case of trying to sweep the political ramifications of this under the carpet. When it strikes, I can imagine the attraction of being in the EU dropping substantially - certainly by enough to give Leave the advantage again.
For me, membership of the eurozone, or not, is a very easy choice to make.
So a private outfit is cherry-picking some of the lucrative routes (50 services per day) while the publicly owned national operator provides an integrated service for everyone.
And NTV only entice passengers away from airlines thanks to the publicly owned express passenger lines they operate on.
So I think Italy operates a rail system much closer to Labour's vision than to the current fragmented shambles so loved by the Conservatives.
P.S. Good to hear you had a good holiday!
LOL. Open Access is not about 'cherry picking': it is about running services that the nationalised operator and infrastructure managers can't be @rsed to (*).
From the NVT wiki:
"In March 2011, NTV complained that the Italian infrastructure manager, RFI, was obstructing its plans to run trains by making last-minute changes to network statements. RFI is controlled by the same government group that controls Trenitalia, the incumbent provider of passenger train services in Italy."
Expect exactly the same, and worse, with OA operators in the UK under a renationalised system.
(*) Though it is more complex than that in the UK, mainly due to the DfT.
Grand Central only serve the Durham Coast as a means to cherry pick passengers from York. That’s what Open Access is all about.
No, it really is not. As an example, I would suggest that Hull and Beverley would not have their direct services to London without Hull Trains. If anything, it is a scheme we should be extending where possible rather than smashing, as renationalisation would.
Afternoon all. I'm just back from Italy where I walked from Bologna to Florence, and ate too much pasta. The Italians seem to be getting on remarkably well for a country which can't work out how to form a government.
Sort-of on topic, I was sent a link to this blog by Sir Ivan Rogers. I think it is, by a country mile, the best explanation of the Brexit background, and the best analysis of the negotiation issues, that I have seen:
I agree with Ivan Rodgers' analysis, although I am much less eurosceptic than he is. Like him, I reckon CU+ full regulatory conformance + ECJ oversight + payments (client state) in exchange for limited restrictions on FOM is as good as Brexit is likely to get.
That would be a deal that would destroy the Conservatives. Oversight by an EU court over a deal between the UK and the EU would be so obviously one sided it is easy to explain to the voting public. It would be a gift from heaven for UKIP or a Tory splinter party. So would being an explicit rule taker from the EU or anything less than full control over unskilled workers.
Possibly. We are where we are. The alternatives are to ignore a democratic vote or dismantle our entire system of relationships, and not just with EU member countries. There are no good options but we will end up with at least one of them.
Choosing whether to integrate politically - or not - is a choice, and not black or white either way. Each choice offers a different mixture of pros and cons.
I expect Brexit to be similar.
Brexit means we as a country have less influence at the European level. That is the starting point, where we end up in terms of deals with regards to trade is a different matter. But it looks like we will have less or no power at all when it comes to selling into our largest market.
I feel really sorry for the people who will lose their job because of Brexit as some undoubtedly will and maybe as a consequence will suffer failed marriages, loss of houses or other assets. I listen to people like you who are mad keen about Brexit but it is unlikely to affect your standard of living so that is alright in your eyes. It is likely the EU and the Eurozone will still be in existence in many years time and people like you will be agitating about its power and specifically German hegemony. Please remember it is people like you who have completely misread the UK's political and economic destiny and consigned us to an inferior relationship with the EU.
I suppose you like Jacob Rees Mogg, who in my opinion is the unacceptable face of Brexit. A multimillionaire hedge fund manager who invests next to nothing in Brexit Britain. He is like a fifty pence piece, two faced and seven sided. Team Brexit (Johnson, Davis, Fox and Mogg) is like Trotters independent traders on speed and cocaine, resulting in a complete lack of clarity and sincerity.
The central point of Brexit was supposed to be about getting a better deal for the UK, what transpires is it is a worse deal and as a nation we will be paying in and receiving very little in return. The people who i speak to who voted for Brexit do not understand why Immigration will continue and instead of European Immigrants it will be Asian, African or South Americans who will settle here in the future. Much is said about the democratic mandate for Leave and how if it is not enacted voters will be outraged but i suspect some who voted Leave on Immigration issues will be livid. Indeed, it seems to by pass many WWC people that groups of people from the Muslim faith wanted Brexit because it will mean more people like them will migrant to Britain rather than people from Europe.
Brexit is a big mistake and I cannot see any upside from the decision to Leave.
I think people are looking at this the wrong way, demographics can indeed bring doom, but it is to ideas/policies rather than parties.
If we take gay equality as an example, it is demographic change to a large extent that killed off its opposition. If young people in the 50's adopted the views of older people from then as they aged and so on into today's generation that wouldn't have happened.
But the parties that enforced anti gay policies were fine, because they moved with the population and left the idea behind. Demographic change killed the ideas/policy.
Just to clarify the example is just an easy one that came to mind I'm not equating brexit and homophobic policies in terms of morality.
Brexit is an idea/policy rather than a party, it can adjust itself in some ways to suit changes in demographics but there is no inevitability about the new generation of older people being as Brexit supporting as the ones they are replacing.
Changes in gay marriage support have happened far faster than demographic change could account for. It went from hardly any support to a huge majority in about 15 years.
The swings in polling over staying in the EU over the last 44 yearsalso show that people fairly often change their mind over membership.
I suspect that the Remainers revenge will be served cold, as they blame the older gereration even more over generational inequality.
I think people are looking at this the wrong way, demographics can indeed bring doom, but it is to ideas/policies rather than parties.
If we take gay equality as an example, it is demographic change to a large extent that killed off its opposition. If young people in the 50's adopted the views of older people from then as they aged and so on into today's generation that wouldn't have happened.
But the parties that enforced anti gay policies were fine, because they moved with the population and left the idea behind. Demographic change killed the ideas/policy.
Just to clarify the example is just an easy one that came to mind I'm not equating brexit and homophobic policies in terms of morality.
Brexit is an idea/policy rather than a party, it can adjust itself in some ways to suit changes in demographics but there is no inevitability about the new generation of older people being as Brexit supporting as the ones they are replacing.
Changes in gay marriage support have happened far faster than demographic change could account for. It went from hardly any support to a huge majority in about 15 years.
The swings in polling over staying in the EU over the last 44 yearsalso show that people fairly often change their mind over membership.
I suspect that the Remainers revenge will be served cold, as they blame the older gereration even more over generational inequality.
Whatever will they do if it turns out to have been a good decision? No good deed goes unpunished, they say.
Choosing whether to integrate politically - or not - is a choice, and not black or white either way. Each choice offers a different mixture of pros and cons.
I expect Brexit to be similar.
Brexit means we as a country have less influence at the European level. That is the starting point, where we end up in terms of deals with regards to trade is a different matter. But it looks like we will have less or no power at all when it comes to selling into our largest market.
I feel really sorry for the people who will lose their job because of Brexit as some undoubtedly will and maybe as a consequence will suffer failed marriages, loss of houses or other assets. I listen to people like you who are mad keen about Brexit but it is unlikely to affect your standard of living so that is alright in your eyes. It is likely the EU and the Eurozone will still be in existence in many years time and people like you will be agitating about its power and specifically German hegemony. Please remember it is people like you who have completely misread the UK's political and economic destiny and consigned us to an inferior relationship with the EU.
I suppose you like Jacob Rees Mogg, who in my opinion is the unacceptable face of Brexit. A multimillionaire hedge fund manager who invests next to nothing in Brexit Britain. He is like a fifty pence piece, two faced and seven sided. Team Brexit (Johnson, Davis, Fox and Mogg) is like Trotters independent traders on speed and cocaine, resulting in a complete lack of clarity and sincerity.
The central point of Brexit was supposed to be about getting a better deal for the UK, what transpires is it is a worse deal and as a nation we will be paying in and receiving very little in return. The people who i speak to who voted for Brexit do not understand why Immigration will continue and instead of European Immigrants it will be Asian, African or South Americans who will settle here in the future. Much is said about the democratic mandate for Leave and how if it is not enacted voters will be outraged but i suspect some who voted Leave on Immigration issues will be livid. Indeed, it seems to by pass many WWC people that groups of people from the Muslim faith wanted Brexit because it will mean more people like them will migrant to Britain rather than people from Europe.
Brexit is a big mistake and I cannot see any upside from the decision to Leave.
So a private outfit is cherry-picking some of the lucrative routes (50 services per day) while the publicly owned national operator provides an integrated service for everyone.
And NTV only entice passengers away from airlines thanks to the publicly owned express passenger lines they operate on.
So I think Italy operates a rail system much closer to Labour's vision than to the current fragmented shambles so loved by the Conservatives.
P.S. Good to hear you had a good holiday!
LOL. Open Access is not about 'cherry picking': it is about running services that the nationalised operator and infrastructure managers can't be @rsed to (*).
From the NVT wiki:
"In March 2011, NTV complained that the Italian infrastructure manager, RFI, was obstructing its plans to run trains by making last-minute changes to network statements. RFI is controlled by the same government group that controls Trenitalia, the incumbent provider of passenger train services in Italy."
Expect exactly the same, and worse, with OA operators in the UK under a renationalised system.
(*) Though it is more complex than that in the UK, mainly due to the DfT.
Grand Central only serve the Durham Coast as a means to cherry pick passengers from York. That’s what Open Access is all about.
No, it really is not. As an example, I would suggest that Hull and Beverley would not have their direct services to London without Hull Trains. If anything, it is a scheme we should be extending where possible rather than smashing, as renationalisation would.
We're not going to agree on the merits of Open Access. But perhaps we can agree that they will only operate where they see an opportunity to make a profit.
Choosing whether to integrate politically - or not - is a choice, and not black or white either way. Each choice offers a different mixture of pros and cons.
I expect Brexit to be similar.
Brexit means we as a country have less influence at the European level. That is the starting point, where we end up in terms of deals with regards to trade is a different matter. But it looks like we will have less or no power at all when it comes to selling into our largest market.
I feel really sorry for the people who will lose their job because of Brexit as some undoubtedly will and maybe as a consequence will suffer failed marriages, loss of houses or other assets. I listen to people like you who are mad keen about Brexit but it is unlikely to affect your standard of living so that is alright in your eyes. It is likely the EU and the Eurozone will still be in existence in many years time and people like you will be agitating about its power and specifically German hegemony. Please remember it is people like you who have completely misread the UK's political and economic destiny and consigned us to an inferior relationship with the EU.
I suppose you like Jacob Rees Mogg, who in my opinion is the unacceptable face of Brexit. A multimillionaire hedge fund manager who invests next to nothing in Brexit Britain. He is like a fifty pence piece, two faced and seven sided. Team Brexit (Johnson, Davis, Fox and Mogg) is like Trotters independent traders on speed and cocaine, resulting in a complete lack of clarity and sincerity.
The central point of Brexit was supposed to be about getting a better deal for the UK, what transpires is it is a worse deal and as a nation we will be paying in and receiving very little in return. The people who i speak to who voted for Brexit do not understand why Immigration will continue and instead of European Immigrants it will be Asian, African or South Americans who will settle here in the future. Much is said about the democratic mandate for Leave and how if it is not enacted voters will be outraged but i suspect some who voted Leave on Immigration issues will be livid. Indeed, it seems to by pass many WWC people that groups of people from the Muslim faith wanted Brexit because it will mean more people like them will migrant to Britain rather than people from Europe.
Brexit is a big mistake and I cannot see any upside from the decision to Leave.
I think people are looking at this the wrong way, demographics can indeed bring doom, but it is to ideas/policies rather than parties.
If we take gay equality as an example, it is demographic change to a large extent that killed off its opposition. If young people in the 50's adopted the views of older people from then as they aged and so on into today's generation that wouldn't have happened.
But the parties that enforced anti gay policies were fine, because they moved with the population and left the idea behind. Demographic change killed the ideas/policy.
Just to clarify the example is just an easy one that came to mind I'm not equating brexit and homophobic policies in terms of morality.
Brexit is an idea/policy rather than a party, it can adjust itself in some ways to suit changes in demographics but there is no inevitability about the new generation of older people being as Brexit supporting as the ones they are replacing.
Changes in gay marriage support have happened far faster than demographic change could account for. It went from hardly any support to a huge majority in about 15 years.
The swings in polling over staying in the EU over the last 44 yearsalso show that people fairly often change their mind over membership.
I suspect that the Remainers revenge will be served cold, as they blame the older gereration even more over generational inequality.
Generational inequality is overwhelmingly due to house prices and affordability. Curbing immigration is one of the best ways to reduce the current trend. Though not enough on its own of course.
Choosing whether to integrate politically - or not - is a choice, and not black or white either way. Each choice offers a different mixture of pros and cons.
I expect Brexit to be similar.
Brexit means we as a country have less influence at the European level. That is the starting point, where we end up in terms of deals with regards to trade is a different matter. But it looks like we will have less or no power at all when it comes to selling into our largest market.
I feel really sorry for the people who will lose their job because of Brexit as some undoubtedly will and maybe as a consequence will suffer failed marriages, loss of houses or other assets. I listen to people like you who are mad keen about Brexit but it is unlikely to affect your standard of living so that is alright in your eyes. It is likely the EU and the Eurozone will still be in existence in many years time and people like you will be agitating about its power and specifically German hegemony. Please remember it is people like you who have completely misread the UK's political and economic destiny and consigned us to an inferior relationship with the EU.
I suppose you like Jacob Rees Mogg, who in my opinion is the unacceptable face of Brexit. A multimillionaire hedge fund manager who invests next to nothing in Brexit Britain. He is like a fifty pence piece, two faced and seven sided. Team Brexit (Johnson, Davis, Fox and Mogg) is like Trotters independent traders on speed and cocaine, resulting in a complete lack of clarity and sincerity.
The central point of Brexit was supposed to be about getting a better deal for the UK, what transpires is it is a worse deal and as a nation we will be paying in and receiving very little in return. The people who i speak to who voted for Brexit do not understand why Immigration will continue and instead of European Immigrants it will be Asian, African or South Americans who will settle here in the future. Much is said about the democratic mandate for Leave and how if it is not enacted voters will be outraged but i suspect some who voted Leave on Immigration issues will be livid. Indeed, it seems to by pass many WWC people that groups of people from the Muslim faith wanted Brexit because it will mean more people like them will migrant to Britain rather than people from Europe.
Brexit is a big mistake and I cannot see any upside from the decision to Leave.
We're not going to agree on the merits of Open Access. But perhaps we can agree that they will only operate where they see an opportunity to make a profit.
They see a profit because there is a market (i.e. traffic flow) that the massive wisdom of the DfT has not seen. It would be easy for the DfT and the franchises to negotiate new traffic flows - and they do. Yet it seems this process has left some rather useful (and as you say profitable) flows.
Now, someone could claim that a renationalised railway could develop these flows. And it could. But why would they bother? BR rarely did so as they somewhat successfully managed a shrinking network. Sometimes it requires outsiders to fight for something, and the OA system is perfect for that.
The Merlin engine used to cut out when a Spitfire flew inverted (carburettors vs fuel injection). You can actually hear it in the 1967 movie Battle of Britain. Miss Shilling's orifice was a simple device fitted to the engine to prevent same. A small change to achieve great effect without great disruption. Oh that our present politics would take a similar course...
We're not going to agree on the merits of Open Access. But perhaps we can agree that they will only operate where they see an opportunity to make a profit.
They see a profit because there is a market (i.e. traffic flow) that the massive wisdom of the DfT has not seen. It would be easy for the DfT and the franchises to negotiate new traffic flows - and they do. Yet it seems this process has left some rather useful (and as you say profitable) flows.
Now, someone could claim that a renationalised railway could develop these flows. And it could. But why would they bother? BR rarely did so as they somewhat successfully managed a shrinking network. Sometimes it requires outsiders to fight for something, and the OA system is perfect for that.
The profit comes from the cherry picking. Providing a service from the likes of Eaglescliffe or Pontefract is the loss making inconvenience that they have to run in order to operate.
I think people are looking at this the wrong way, demographics can indeed bring doom, but it is to ideas/policies rather than parties.
But the parties that enforced anti gay policies were fine, because they moved with the population and left the idea behind. Demographic change killed the ideas/policy.
Just to clarify the example is just an easy one that came to mind I'm not equating brexit and homophobic policies in terms of morality.
Brexit is an idea/policy rather than a party, it can adjust itself in some ways to suit changes in demographics but there is no inevitability about the new generation of older people being as Brexit supporting as the ones they are replacing.
Changes in gay marriage support have happened far faster than demographic change could account for. It went from hardly any support to a huge majority in about 15 years.
Yes it seemed to really accelerate as gay legislation went through but the much more gay friendly environment which allowed that change to take place would not have happened if younger generations had simply changed their view to become just like the older people of their generation as seems to be suggested in regards to Brexit. It was demographic change that killed off opposition to gay equality laws as the replacement older people were less against it as were the replacement younger people. If you use a starting point in the 90's somewhere then you might have been able to get where we are today without any deaths or newcomers into the electorate but if you think back to the 50's or even later than that then demographic change was a huge part of it, even if people did become less gay friendly as they got older the change in generations replaced people who felt strongly against gay equality with people who didn't.
Although I should take this opportunity to point out I don't think demographic change will necessarily stop Brexit just the idea that leave voters dying off will automatically be replaced by other voters getting older so suddenly becoming Brexiters seems flawed.
Edit: I should also point out that I am also talking about the more perhaps natural evolution, the event of Brexit itself throws it all out of sync, how Brexit goes is probably more important.
Also I am discussing them being remain or leave voters, I am a remain voter who believes we should probably leave in some format, I am not saying there will be a majority to say we should abandon Brexit altogether.
They could be any number of things although all indications are like those at the other end of the age range they match those around them pretty similarly.
Choosing whether to integrate politically - or not - is a choice, and not black or white either way. Each choice offers a different mixture of pros and cons.
I expect Brexit to be similar.
Brexit means we as a country have less influence at the European level. That is the starting point, where we end up in terms of deals with regards to trade is a different matter. But it looks like we will have less or no power at all when it comes to selling into our largest market.
I feel really sorry for the people who will lose their job because of Brexit as some undoubtedly will and maybe as a consequence will suffer failed marriages, loss of houses or other assets. I listen to people like you who are mad keen about Brexit but it is unlikely to affect your standard of living so that is alright in your eyes. It is likely the EU and the Eurozone will still be in existence in many years time and people like you will be agitating about its power and specifically German hegemony. Please remember it is people like you who have completely misread the UK's political and economic destiny and consigned us to an inferior relationship with the EU.
I suppose you like Jacob Rees Mogg, who in my opinion is the unacceptable face of Brexit. A multimillionaire hedge fund manager who invests next to nothing in Brexit Britain. He is like a fifty pence piece, two faced and seven sided. Team Brexit (Johnson, Davis, Fox and Mogg) is like Trotters independent traders on speed and cocaine, resulting in a complete lack of clarity and sincerity.
The central point of Brexit was supposed to be about getting a better deal for the UK, what transpires is it is a worse deal and as a nation we will be paying in and receiving very little in return. The people who i speak to who voted for Brexit do not understand why Immigration will continue and instead of European Immigrants it will be Asian, African or South Americans who will settle here in the future. Much is said about the democratic mandate for Leave and how if it is not enacted voters will be outraged but i suspect some who voted Leave on Immigration issues will be livid. Indeed, it seems to by pass many WWC people that groups of people from the Muslim faith wanted Brexit because it will mean more people like them will migrant to Britain rather than people from Europe.
Brexit is a big mistake and I cannot see any upside from the decision to Leave.
I doubt if you do feel sorry for the people you claim to feel sorry for.
I really cannot understand how a worse deal is a better outcome for the UK as people like you advocate. The Brexiteers (Johnson, Fox & Davis) have so far managed to negotiate an inferior deal to the one we have at the moment. You might think second best is acceptable, most rational people do not.
You are one of the fanatics on this board.
I worry for your health as you seem to spend all day and night on here accusing everybody else of being deluded, fanatical or you become abusive. How do you hold down a job as a geologist or is that all a load of bullshit? You seem to spend way too much time on here.
We're not going to agree on the merits of Open Access. But perhaps we can agree that they will only operate where they see an opportunity to make a profit.
They see a profit because there is a market (i.e. traffic flow) that the massive wisdom of the DfT has not seen. It would be easy for the DfT and the franchises to negotiate new traffic flows - and they do. Yet it seems this process has left some rather useful (and as you say profitable) flows.
Now, someone could claim that a renationalised railway could develop these flows. And it could. But why would they bother? BR rarely did so as they somewhat successfully managed a shrinking network. Sometimes it requires outsiders to fight for something, and the OA system is perfect for that.
The profit comes from the cherry picking. Providing a service from the likes of Eaglescliffe or Pontefract is the loss making inconvenience that they have to run in order to operate.
It's not cherry picking if they're the routes that the DfT does not offer to franchises. If anything it's the opposite: they're scratching through the dregs left over to find some gems.
Your argument is fairly odd as it also applies to franchises - I bet GWR's services from Penzance to Plymouth are not profitable in ticket terms (and certainly not as profitable), and that they make most of their money on the London to Bristol/Bath routes, not the extension into Cornwall. Yet they need to run those services.
The simple fact is that if it were not for OA, those OA services would not be running. And perhaps the fact that a couple of OA operators are at the top of customer satisfaction tables indicates that their underdog status means they have to do things 'better' for the passenger?
(Note: my understanding of the franchising system might be borken. But I don't think it is, at least at this level.)
Afternoon all. I'm just back from Italy where I walked from Bologna to Florence, and ate too much pasta. The Italians seem to be getting on remarkably well for a country which can't work out how to form a government.
Sort-of on topic, I was sent a link to this blog by Sir Ivan Rogers. I think it is, by a country mile, the best explanation of the Brexit background, and the best analysis of the negotiation issues, that I have seen:
I like the way 'profit' is being spoken of as a bad, dirty thing. I can understand 'excess' profit being bad in many cases (all?), but the idea that profit of two or three percent is in some way bad seems silly (except for the owners, who would probably want more).
I like the way 'profit' is being spoken of as a bad, dirty thing. I can understand 'excess' profit being bad in many cases (all?), but the idea that profit of two or three percent is in some way bad seems silly (except for the owners, who would probably want more).
So is 'profit' bad, and if so, why?
Depends. I think most people would agree there are some public services that should not be for profit (e.g. the armed forces, police?). Many would also add in health and education. Personally I would also say major public utilities such as electicity, gas and water, as well as major transport link which are by nature monopolistic (rail, tube) should also be not for profit.
On topic, some attitide changes seem to stick while others shift as you get older, I guess this would be a mixture of the two, so there's a benefit to the Remain side but it's not as big as you'd think from Kellner's numbers.
What would be more important would be enthusiasm: Younger voter seem quite riled up, and you can see how the Leave side would be depressed by a deal that will inevitably fail to meet their expectations. Leave would try to rile up their voters by getting them offended at the fact that they were having the re-referendum. Someone on the Remain side would presumably hire some false-flag social media agitators to try to push that over the line into an outright boycott.
Choosing whether to integrate politically - or not - is a choice, and not black or white either way. Each choice offers a different mixture of pros and cons.
I expect Brexit to be similar.
Brexit means we as a country have less influence at the European level. That is the starting point, where we end up in terms of deals with regards to trade is a different matter. But it looks like we will have less or no power at all when it comes to selling into our largest market.
I feel really sorry for the people who will lose their job because of Brexit as some undoubtedly will and maybe as a consequence will suffer failed marriages, loss of houses or other assets. I listen to people like you who are mad keen about Brexit but it is unlikely to affect your standard of living so that is alright in your eyes. It is likely the EU and the Eurozone will still be in existence in many years time and people like you will be agitating about its power and specifically German hegemony. Please remember it is people like you who have completely misread the UK's political and economic destiny and consigned us to an inferior relationship with the EU.
I suppose you like Jacob Rees Mogg, who in my opinion is the unacceptable face of Brexit. A multimillionaire hedge fund manager who invests next to nothing in Brexit Britain. He is like a fifty pence piece, two faced and seven sided. Team Brexit (Johnson, Davis, Fox and Mogg) is like Trotters independent traders on speed and cocaine, resulting in a complete lack of clarity and sincerity.
I doubt if you do feel sorry for the people you claim to feel sorry for.
I have compassion for those who will lose out. If you have ever lost your job, your home or suffered relationship breakdown as a consequence of financial pressures as I have in the past, you will see that ideological purity is meaningless in the wider context.
Jacob Rees Mogg on the otherhand I have nothing but contempt for as he is the unacceptable face of Brexit. He wants Brexit but Invest s very little in a country he pupports to love. JRM is an odd ball and his apologists need to wonder who on earth outside a narrow band in the Conservative Party he appeals beyond. If he becomes Tory leader the Tories will get obliterated.
Afternoon all. I'm just back from Italy where I walked from Bologna to Florence, and ate too much pasta. The Italians seem to be getting on remarkably well for a country which can't work out how to form a government.
Sort-of on topic, I was sent a link to this blog by Sir Ivan Rogers. I think it is, by a country mile, the best explanation of the Brexit background, and the best analysis of the negotiation issues, that I have seen:
Thanks for the link Richard, it's quite a read but well worth the effort. I hope the Cabinet have read it (though sadly, I very much doubt it).
I'd really love to hear from any Leaver who's reviewed it, what they think is wrong with Rogers' analysis.
A very interesting read. I'm sure Olly Robbins will have read it and will use its insights when briefing May and the Cabinet.
Rogers comes across as an experienced negotiator who accepts the folly of Brexit and is searching for the least worst pragmatic option.
His key paragraph: If the option now exists of the UK aligning itself more permanently regulatorily on goods, and staying in both a Customs Union and having quasi Single Market membership, paying something for it, living under ECJ jurisprudence and jurisdiction in goods, but disapplying the fourth fundamental freedom, free movement of people, the EU faces the decision as to whether this is an unacceptable option sundering indivisible freedoms and offering something too close to membership advantages to a non member. Or whether it’s rather a good deal for the EU with a major strategic partner. With the added advantage of providing far more continuity in the sectors in which you have a surplus with the UK than those in which you have a deficit – notably key services sectors.
The one benefit I can see in Brexit is exiting the CAP which would be to the advantage of consumers but the disadvantage of large landowners. What will we do with all the unwanted land?
I like the way 'profit' is being spoken of as a bad, dirty thing. I can understand 'excess' profit being bad in many cases (all?), but the idea that profit of two or three percent is in some way bad seems silly (except for the owners, who would probably want more).
So is 'profit' bad, and if so, why?
The idea that profit is 'bad' reflects a moralistic attitude to something that is amoral. Profit - the difference between revenue and costs - is a neutral quantity. It is a useful signal for a firm to expand. Any rational business or person would seek to increase profit if possible. Competition naturally erodes profit, so keeps entrepreneurs striving. Excess profit is a different thing because it refers to profit that cannot be eroded by competition and arises often in natural monopolies or protected businesses. That's where regulation comes in.
Afternoon all. I'm just back from Italy where I walked from Bologna to Florence, and ate too much pasta. The Italians seem to be getting on remarkably well for a country which can't work out how to form a government.
Sort-of on topic, I was sent a link to this blog by Sir Ivan Rogers. I think it is, by a country mile, the best explanation of the Brexit background, and the best analysis of the negotiation issues, that I have seen:
Thanks for the link Richard, it's quite a read but well worth the effort. I hope the Cabinet have read it (though sadly, I very much doubt it).
I'd really love to hear from any Leaver who's reviewed it, what they think is wrong with Rogers' analysis.
A very interesting read. I'm sure Olly Robbins will have read it and will use its insights when briefing May and the Cabinet.
Rogers comes across as an experienced negotiator who accepts the folly of Brexit and is searching for the least worst pragmatic option.
His key paragraph: If the option now exists of the UK aligning itself more permanently regulatorily on goods, and staying in both a Customs Union and having quasi Single Market membership, paying something for it, living under ECJ jurisprudence and jurisdiction in goods, but disapplying the fourth fundamental freedom, free movement of people, the EU faces the decision as to whether this is an unacceptable option sundering indivisible freedoms and offering something too close to membership advantages to a non member. Or whether it’s rather a good deal for the EU with a major strategic partner. With the added advantage of providing far more continuity in the sectors in which you have a surplus with the UK than those in which you have a deficit – notably key services sectors.
The one benefit I can see in Brexit is exiting the CAP which would be to the advantage of consumers but the disadvantage of large landowners. What will we do with all the unwanted land?
If the UK is allowed to have a quasi Customs arrangement with the EU and a quasi Single Market access minus FoM, why shouldn't other countries, including Ireland follow suit. Maybe even the Netherlands, Sweden etc.
That is why I cannot see how this will be accepted. I think the balance of trade surplus for the EU is exaggerated. As a percentage of their GDP it is very small and, in any case, the UK will still have to buy those goods. They will surely buy it from the most competitive supplier - most likely that will be in the EU.
Afternoon all. I'm just back from Italy where I walked from Bologna to Florence, and ate too much pasta. The Italians seem to be getting on remarkably well for a country which can't work out how to form a government.
Sort-of on topic, I was sent a link to this blog by Sir Ivan Rogers. I think it is, by a country mile, the best explanation of the Brexit background, and the best analysis of the negotiation issues, that I have seen:
Thanks for the link Richard, it's quite a read but well worth the effort. I hope the Cabinet have read it (though sadly, I very much doubt it).
I'd really love to hear from any Leaver who's reviewed it, what they think is wrong with Rogers' analysis.
A very interesting read. I'm sure Olly Robbins will have read it and will use its insights when briefing May and the Cabinet.
Rogers comes across as an experienced negotiator who accepts the folly of Brexit and is searching for the least worst pragmatic option.
His key paragraph: If the option now exists of the UK aligning itself more permanently regulatorily on goods, and staying in both a Customs Union and having quasi Single Market membership, paying something for it, living under ECJ jurisprudence and jurisdiction in goods, but disapplying the fourth fundamental freedom, free movement of people, the EU faces the decision as to whether this is an unacceptable option sundering indivisible freedoms and offering something too close to membership advantages to a non member. Or whether it’s rather a good deal for the EU with a major strategic partner. With the added advantage of providing far more continuity in the sectors in which you have a surplus with the UK than those in which you have a deficit – notably key services sectors.
The one benefit I can see in Brexit is exiting the CAP which would be to the advantage of consumers but the disadvantage of large landowners. What will we do with all the unwanted land?
I expect the UK to retain most of the Common agricultural policy. It's necessary at least in Northern Ireland for a frictionless border. Also very costly outside CAP for mainland farmers because their exports would be outside the EU quotas and would be subject to expensive one hour veterinary checks.
OT (ironically) I'm a bit thrown by the Off Topic and Spam flags. I appear to have put an 'Off Topic' flag against IanB2 twice recently (sorry). That is news to me, so presumably I have done it accidentally. I have 2 Off Topic flags against me, the 2nd of which is clearly very 'On Topic'. When I look at others that are flagged as spam or off topic in nearly all cases it clearly isn't correct. Is this just dodgy fingers or is there some custom or rule I am missing?
"emigrates into", "immigrates from", but not "immigrates into"...
How can he be more acceptable in Israel than he is in the UK ? Surely the same questions will be asked in Israel too. Where is Cyclefree when you need her ?
Choosing whether to integrate politically - or not - is a choice, and not black or white either way. Each choice offers a different mixture of pros and cons.
I expect Brexit to be similar.
Brexit means we as a country have less influence at the European level. That is the starting point, where we end up in terms of deals with regards to trade is a different matter. But it looks like we will have less or no power at all when it comes to selling into our largest market.
I feel really sorry for the people who will lose their job because of Brexit as some undoubtedly will and maybe as a consequence will suffer failed marriages, loss of houses or other assets. I listen to people like you who are mad keen about Brexit but it is unlikely to affect your standard of living so that is alright in your eyes. It is likely the EU and the Eurozone will still be in existence in many years time and people like you will be agitating about its power and specifically German hegemony. Please remember it is people like you who have completely misread the UK's political and economic destiny and consigned us to an inferior relationship with the EU.
I suppose you like Jacob Rees Mogg, who in my opinion is the unacceptable face of Brexit. A multimillionaire hedge fund manager who invests next to nothing in Brexit Britain. He is like a fifty pence piece, two faced and seven sided. Team Brexit (Johnson, Davis, Fox and Mogg) is like Trotters independent traders on speed and cocaine, resulting in a complete lack of clarity and sincerity.
The central point of Brexit was supposed to be about getting a better deal for the UK, what transpires is it is a worse deal and as a nation we will be paying in and receiving very little in return. The people who i speak to who voted for Brexit do not understand why Immigration will continue and instead of European Immigrants it will be Asian, African or South Americans who will settle here in the future. Much is said about the democratic mandate for Leave and how if it is not enacted voters will be outraged but i suspect some who voted Leave on Immigration issues will be livid. Indeed, it seems to by pass many WWC people that groups of people from the Muslim faith wanted Brexit because it will mean more people like them will migrant to Britain rather than people from Europe.
Brexit is a big mistake and I cannot see any upside from the decision to Leave.
And there speaks a fanatic.
The opposite of fanatic surely? A fanatic is someone with excessive zeal for the cause. Excessive weariness with the whole mess would seem a better description of our friend Taxman.
"emigrates into", "immigrates from", but not "immigrates into"...
No, they're right and you're wrong. You emigrate from, and immigrate to. Hence why people born outside this country living in London are immigrants and people born in this country who live in Australia are emigrants.
"emigrates into", "immigrates from", but not "immigrates into"...
How can he be more acceptable in Israel than he is in the UK ? Surely the same questions will be asked in Israel too. Where is Cyclefree when you need her ?
Isn't Israel getting closer to Russia these days? Given the rise of ISIS and the fact that the only people kicking ISIS arse in the region is Russia (correct me if I'm wrong), it makes sense.
Choosing whether to integrate politically - or not - is a choice, and not black or white either way. Each choice offers a different mixture of pros and cons.
I expect Brexit to be similar.
Brexit means we as a country have less influence at the European level. That is the starting point, where we end up in terms of deals with regards to trade is a different matter. But it looks like we will have less or no power at all when it comes to selling into our largest market.
I feel really sorry for the people who will lose their job because of Brexit as some undoubtedly will and maybe as a consequence will suffer failed marriages, loss of houses or other assets. I listen to people like you who are mad keen about Brexit but it is unlikely to affect your standard of living so that is alright in your eyes. It is likely the EU and the Eurozone will still be in existence in many years time and people like you will be agitating about its power and specifically German hegemony. Please remember it is people like you who have completely misread the UK's political and economic destiny and consigned us to an inferior relationship with the EU.
I suppose you like Jacob Rees Mogg, who in my opinion is the unacceptable face of Brexit. A multimillionaire hedge fund manager who invests next to nothing in Brexit Britain. He is like a fifty pence piece, two faced and seven sided. Team Brexit (Johnson, Davis, Fox and Mogg) is like Trotters independent traders on speed and cocaine, resulting in a complete lack of clarity and sincerity.
The central point of Brexit was supposed to be about getting a better deal for the UK, what transpires is it is a worse deal and as a nation we will be paying in and receiving very little in return. The people who i speak to who voted for Brexit do not understand why Immigration will continue and instead of European Immigrants it will be Asian, African or South Americans who will settle here in the future. Much is said about the democratic mandate for Leave and how if it is not enacted voters will be outraged but i suspect some who voted Leave on Immigration issues will be livid. Indeed, it seems to by pass many WWC people that groups of people from the Muslim faith wanted Brexit because it will mean more people like them will migrant to Britain rather than people from Europe.
Brexit is a big mistake and I cannot see any upside from the decision to Leave.
Sovereignty is a massive upside IMO
How do you feel about what Rees-Mogg only slightly inaccurately called vassal state? In other words contracting to apply current and future EU regulation more or less across the board and subject to EU legal oversight, with very little input into the decision-making.
OT (ironically) I'm a bit thrown by the Off Topic and Spam flags. I appear to have put an 'Off Topic' flag against IanB2 twice recently (sorry). That is news to me, so presumably I have done it accidentally. I have 2 Off Topic flags against me, the 2nd of which is clearly very 'On Topic'. When I look at others that are flagged as spam or off topic in nearly all cases it clearly isn't correct. Is this just dodgy fingers or is there some custom or rule I am missing?
My small investigation into the matter previously indicates that you are supposed to use them against people you disagree with politically. I've been saving mine up to use when somebody says something nice about Blair.
Afternoon all. I'm just back from Italy where I walked from Bologna to Florence, and ate too much pasta. The Italians seem to be getting on remarkably well for a country which can't work out how to form a government.
Sort-of on topic, I was sent a link to this blog by Sir Ivan Rogers. I think it is, by a country mile, the best explanation of the Brexit background, and the best analysis of the negotiation issues, that I have seen:
Here's a question: are we actually fucked? Not in the "ooohh-look-immigrants" way, but "going to adopt a hard-Brexit without the preparation necessary to make that work and everything goes whee-splat". I'm beginning to get worried that that's actually going to happen. Everybody's going "oh don't worry, there'll be a deal, handwavy handwavy silly viewcode" but all the UK pols are talking to UK pols about what they'd like to have, instead of talking to the EU about what we can have, and Brexit day is getting awfully close...
Afternoon all. I'm just back from Italy where I walked from Bologna to Florence, and ate too much pasta. The Italians seem to be getting on remarkably well for a country which can't work out how to form a government.
Sort-of on topic, I was sent a link to this blog by Sir Ivan Rogers. I think it is, by a country mile, the best explanation of the Brexit background, and the best analysis of the negotiation issues, that I have seen:
Thanks for the link Richard, it's quite a read but well worth the effort. I hope the Cabinet have read it (though sadly, I very much doubt it).
I'd really love to hear from any Leaver who's reviewed it, what they think is wrong with Rogers' analysis.
A very interesting read. I'm sure Olly Robbins will have read it and will use its insights when briefing May and the Cabinet.
Rogers comes across as an experienced negotiator who accepts the folly of Brexit and is searching for the least worst pragmatic option.
The one benefit I can see in Brexit is exiting the CAP which would be to the advantage of consumers but the disadvantage of large landowners. What will we do with all the unwanted land?
If the UK is allowed to have a quasi Customs arrangement with the EU and a quasi Single Market access minus FoM, why shouldn't other countries, including Ireland follow suit. Maybe even the Netherlands, Sweden etc.
That is why I cannot see how this will be accepted. I think the balance of trade surplus for the EU is exaggerated. As a percentage of their GDP it is very small and, in any case, the UK will still have to buy those goods. They will surely buy it from the most competitive supplier - most likely that will be in the EU.
The UK will have most of the obligations of membership with fewer of the benefits and almost no say. It isn't a particularly good deal for the UK. But better than the Brexit alternatives, which is why we will probably end up there.
OT (ironically) I'm a bit thrown by the Off Topic and Spam flags. I appear to have put an 'Off Topic' flag against IanB2 twice recently (sorry). That is news to me, so presumably I have done it accidentally. I have 2 Off Topic flags against me, the 2nd of which is clearly very 'On Topic'. When I look at others that are flagged as spam or off topic in nearly all cases it clearly isn't correct. Is this just dodgy fingers or is there some custom or rule I am missing?
My small investigation into the matter previously indicates that you are supposed to use them against people you disagree with politically. I've been saving mine up to use when somebody says something nice about Blair.
I think they are 86% used in error. No one in any case takes any notice of them. I think you can reverse them also.
As for Tyndall he is either stark raving bonkers or an ingenious hoaxster.
"emigrates into", "immigrates from", but not "immigrates into"...
If the movement is relative to the destination country, possibly because the speaker or his interlocutors are in that country, "immigrate to" is correct.
Choosing whether to integrate politically - or not - is a choice, and not black or white either way. Each choice offers a different mixture of pros and cons.
I expect Brexit to be similar.
Brexit means we as a country have less influence at the European level. That is the starting point, where we end up in terms of deals with regards to trade is a different matter. But it looks like we will have less or no power at all when it comes to selling into our largest market.
I feel really sorry for the people who will lose their job because of Brexit as some undoubtedly will and maybe as a consequence will suffer failed marriages, loss of houses or other assets. I listen to people like you who are mad keen about Brexit but it is unlikely to affect your standard of living so that is alright in your eyes. It is likely the EU and the Eurozone will still be in existence in many years time and people like you will be agitating about its power and specifically German hegemony. Please remember it is people like you who have completely misread the UK's political and economic destiny and consigned us to an inferior relationship with the EU.
I suppose you like Jacob Rees Mogg, who in my opinion is the unacceptable face of Brexit. A multimillionaire hedge fund manager who invests next to nothing in Brexit Britain. He is like a fifty pence piece, two faced and seven sided. Team Brexit (Johnson, Davis, Fox and Mogg) is like Trotters independent traders on speed and cocaine, resulting in a complete lack of clarity and sincerity.
The central point of Brexit was supposed to be about getting a better deal for the UK, what transpires is it is a worse deal and as a nation we will be paying in and receiving very little in return. The people who i speak to who voted for Brexit do not understand why Immigration will continue and instead of European Immigrants it will be Asian, African or South Americans who will settle here in the future. Much is said about the democratic mandate for Leave and how if it is not enacted voters will be outraged but i suspect some who voted Leave on Immigration issues will be livid. Indeed, it seems to by pass many WWC people that groups of people from the Muslim faith wanted Brexit because it will mean more people like them will migrant to Britain rather than people from Europe.
Brexit is a big mistake and I cannot see any upside from the decision to Leave.
Sovereignty is a massive upside IMO
As the White Paper said, we were always sovereign, it just didn’t feel like it.
I've been saving mine up to use when somebody says something nice about Blair.
He is a fine fellow with a pleasant singing voice and appropriate shoes...
...and a useful knack of winning elections!
Yes, but Labour people don't think that's necessarily a good thing. It's too trade, it's too common. One should focus on more abstract things. Principles are far more important than day-to-day realities. It should follow the example of Foot, Kinnock and Brexit. After all it's worked out so well...
"emigrates into", "immigrates from", but not "immigrates into"...
How can he be more acceptable in Israel than he is in the UK ? Surely the same questions will be asked in Israel too. Where is Cyclefree when you need her ?
His family is Jewish so he has an effective automatic right to become an Israeli citizen through aliyah.
So I doubt many questions will be asked by the Israelis - as long as he makes the appropriate charitable donations to good causes.
Afternoon all. I'm just back from Italy where I walked from Bologna to Florence, and ate too much pasta. The Italians seem to be getting on remarkably well for a country which can't work out how to form a government.
Sort-of on topic, I was sent a link to this blog by Sir Ivan Rogers. I think it is, by a country mile, the best explanation of the Brexit background, and the best analysis of the negotiation issues, that I have seen:
Here's a question: are we actually fucked? Not in the "ooohh-look-immigrants" way, but "going to adopt a hard-Brexit without the preparation necessary to make that work and everything goes whee-splat". I'm beginning to get worried that that's actually going to happen. Everybody's going "oh don't worry, there'll be a deal, handwavy handwavy silly viewcode" but all the UK pols are talking to UK pols about what they'd like to have, instead of talking to the EU about what we can have, and Brexit day is getting awfully close...
A full blown crisis - A run on the pound, empty supermarket shelves etc - focuses minds. Agreement is quite simple, actually: just agree to every EU demand. Not a great way to negotiate and it could be uncomfortable.
"emigrates into", "immigrates from", but not "immigrates into"...
How can he be more acceptable in Israel than he is in the UK ? Surely the same questions will be asked in Israel too. Where is Cyclefree when you need her ?
His family is Jewish so he has an effective automatic right to become an Israeli citizen through aliyah.
So I doubt many questions will be asked by the Israelis - as long as he makes the appropriate charitable donations to good causes.
Afternoon all. I'm just back from Italy where I walked from Bologna to Florence, and ate too much pasta. The Italians seem to be getting on remarkably well for a country which can't work out how to form a government.
Sort-of on topic, I was sent a link to this blog by Sir Ivan Rogers. I think it is, by a country mile, the best explanation of the Brexit background, and the best analysis of the negotiation issues, that I have seen:
Thanks for the link Richard, it's quite a read but well worth the effort. I hope the Cabinet have read it (though sadly, I very much doubt it).
I'd really love to hear from any Leaver who's reviewed it, what they think is wrong with Rogers' analysis.
A very interesting read. I'm sure Olly Robbins will have read it and will use its insights when briefing May and the Cabinet.
Rogers comes across as an experienced negotiator who accepts the folly of Brexit and is searching for the least worst pragmatic option.
The one benefit I can see in Brexit is exiting the CAP which would be to the advantage of consumers but the disadvantage of large landowners. What will we do with all the unwanted land?
If the UK is allowed to have a quasi Customs arrangement with the EU and a quasi Single Market access minus FoM, why shouldn't other countries, including Ireland follow suit. Maybe even the Netherlands, Sweden etc.
That is why I cannot see how this will be accepted. I think the balance of trade surplus for the EU is exaggerated. As a percentage of their GDP it is very small and, in any case, the UK will still have to buy those goods. They will surely buy it from the most competitive supplier - most likely that will be in the EU.
The UK will have most of the obligations of membership with fewer of the benefits and almost no say. It isn't a particularly good deal for the UK. But better than the Brexit alternatives, which is why we will probably end up there.
I think many Leavers would actually accept it. Many had no problem with the EU apart from FoM. If we have SM and CU [ or close enough ] but no FoM , the UK will have successfully cherry picked.
"emigrates into", "immigrates from", but not "immigrates into"...
How can he be more acceptable in Israel than he is in the UK ? Surely the same questions will be asked in Israel too. Where is Cyclefree when you need her ?
His family is Jewish so he has an effective automatic right to become an Israeli citizen through aliyah.
So I doubt many questions will be asked by the Israelis - as long as he makes the appropriate charitable donations to good causes.
Nicely put. So are you saying any dodgy bas***d will be acceptable in Israel as long as he is Jewish ? Wait a minute, Robert Maxwell.....
"emigrates into", "immigrates from", but not "immigrates into"...
How can he be more acceptable in Israel than he is in the UK ? Surely the same questions will be asked in Israel too. Where is Cyclefree when you need her ?
His family is Jewish so he has an effective automatic right to become an Israeli citizen through aliyah.
So I doubt many questions will be asked by the Israelis - as long as he makes the appropriate charitable donations to good causes.
Nicely put. So are you saying any dodgy bas***d will be acceptable in Israel as long as he is Jewish ? Wait a minute, Robert Maxwell.....
Abramovich is Jewish so under the law of return he has every right to permanent residency and citizenship. I am not aware the Israelis restrict that right except for bad people - Say you joined Hamas or ISIS at some stage or had openly conspired against the Israeli state. That does not apply to Mr A. They can also deny it to people convicted of serious Crimes like murder.
On topic, some attitide changes seem to stick while others shift as you get older, I guess this would be a mixture of the two, so there's a benefit to the Remain side but it's not as big as you'd think from Kellner's numbers.
What would be more important would be enthusiasm: Younger voter seem quite riled up, and you can see how the Leave side would be depressed by a deal that will inevitably fail to meet their expectations. Leave would try to rile up their voters by getting them offended at the fact that they were having the re-referendum. Someone on the Remain side would presumably hire some false-flag social media agitators to try to push that over the line into an outright boycott.
In a referendum between a deal seen as a sellout and Remain, which way would true believers vote? Arguably their best bet is Remain and then hope to play on a Dolchstosslegende, rather than drift into interminable subservience where the EU will always have the upper hand.
"emigrates into", "immigrates from", but not "immigrates into"...
How can he be more acceptable in Israel than he is in the UK ? Surely the same questions will be asked in Israel too. Where is Cyclefree when you need her ?
His family is Jewish so he has an effective automatic right to become an Israeli citizen through aliyah.
So I doubt many questions will be asked by the Israelis - as long as he makes the appropriate charitable donations to good causes.
Nicely put. So are you saying any dodgy bas***d will be acceptable in Israel as long as he is Jewish ? Wait a minute, Robert Maxwell.....
Don’t panic most dodgy bastards end up supported by or in the UK.
Brexit is a trap. By the time we're properly out, Remainers will be the majority. So the country will adopt a Norway-type arrangement and most people will wonder why we we've been so masochistic.
Looking at Italy - why would anybody sane want to remain in EU?
Why ? Are they leaving ? Remember neither the League nor Five Star explicitly said in their manifestos that they wanted to exit the Euro. If they had, the reaction would have been no different than that in Greece.
I would really like to know what will be the reaction of those people with a mortgage [ in Euro ].
Ivan Rodgers leaves a sentence dangling towards the end of his piece which suggests where he may think this is heading.
To be clear, in my view, that was a genuine attempt to treat this issue as a special case. It was not about the Berlaymont seeking to annex Northern Ireland, before it rolled on to Scotland and broke up the UK…
The opposite of fanatic surely? A fanatic is someone with excessive zeal for the cause. Excessive weariness with the whole mess would seem a better description of our friend Taxman.
No. Taxman is so wedded to the whole concept of the EU that, in his own words, he cannot see any upside from the decision to Leave. That is clearly the sign of a fanatic.
Afternoon all. I'm just back from Italy where I walked from Bologna to Florence, and ate too much pasta. The Italians seem to be getting on remarkably well for a country which can't work out how to form a government.
Sort-of on topic, I was sent a link to this blog by Sir Ivan Rogers. I think it is, by a country mile, the best explanation of the Brexit background, and the best analysis of the negotiation issues, that I have seen:
Thanks for the link Richard, it's quite a read but well worth the effort. I hope the Cabinet have read it (though sadly, I very much doubt it).
I'd really love to hear from any Leaver who's reviewed it, what they think is wrong with Rogers' analysis.
A very interesting read. I'm sure Olly Robbins will have read it and will use its insights when briefing May and the Cabinet.
Rogewe do with all the unwanted land?
If the UK is allowed to have a quasi Customs arrangement with the EU and a quasi Single Market access minus FoM, why shouldn't other countries, including Ireland follow suit. Maybe even the Netherlands, Sweden etc.
That is why I cannot see how this will be accepted. I think the balance of trade surplus for the EU is exaggerated. As a percentage of their GDP it is very small and, in any case, the UK will still have to buy those goods. They will surely buy it from the most competitive supplier - most likely that will be in the EU.
The UK will have most of the obligations of membership with fewer of the benefits and almost no say. It isn't a particularly good deal for the UK. But better than the Brexit alternatives, which is why we will probably end up there.
I think many Leavers would actually accept it. Many had no problem with the EU apart from FoM. If we have SM and CU [ or close enough ] but no FoM , the UK will have successfully cherry picked.
My hypothesis is that you are right because, counterintuitively, most Leavers don't care about.sovereignty. Precisely, they care about symbols of sovereignty but not the application of it. That's a Remainer concern. Remainers will go along with pseudo sovereignty as long as we stay close to the EU, which is what they want anyway. If this hypothesis is correct, we may have the basis of acceptance. If it isn't we have a real problem I think.
The opposite of fanatic surely? A fanatic is someone with excessive zeal for the cause. Excessive weariness with the whole mess would seem a better description of our friend Taxman.
No. Taxman is so wedded to the whole concept of the EU that, in his own words, he cannot see any upside from the decision to Leave. That is clearly the sign of a fanatic.
I really cannot understand how a worse deal is a better outcome for the UK as people like you advocate. The Brexiteers (Johnson, Fox & Davis) have so far managed to negotiate an inferior deal to the one we have at the moment. You might think second best is acceptable, most rational people do not.
You are one of the fanatics on this board.
I worry for your health as you seem to spend all day and night on here accusing everybody else of being deluded, fanatical or you become abusive. How do you hold down a job as a geologist or is that all a load of bullshit? You seem to spend way too much time on here.
Actually I spend very little time on here. Probably less than half an hour a day, most of which is spent reading through comments and dipping in with my own when I see particularly deluded ones like yours.
I can't spend more time on here than that because I am one of those who actually runs a business and earns money for this country, paying very large amounts of tax along the way - which given your alias I would assume you would approve of.
As for who I am, I post under my own name and half a dozen people on here know me from other sources and can vouch for what I say. For all we know you have never done a days work in your life. Of course we can't tell because you hide behind an alias.
I think many Leavers would actually accept it. Many had no problem with the EU apart from FoM. If we have SM and CU [ or close enough ] but no FoM , the UK will have successfully cherry picked.
My hypothesis is that you are right because, counterintuitively, most Leavers don't care about.sovereignty. Precisely, they care about symbols of sovereignty but not the application of it. That's a Remainer concern. Remainers will go along with pseudo sovereignty as long as we stay close to the EU, which is what they want anyway. If this hypothesis is correct, we may have the basis of acceptance. If it isn't we have a real problem I think.
There's evidence that once you strip away the symbols, leavers actually do care about specific things that are best delivered by EU membership.
Take the example: "I didn't want the EU to have any role in UK lawmaking". If you unpick that, it's clearly worse to be outside the EU and having to adopt laws you have no say in, than inside the EU making those laws. The problem is that Brexit turns the EU into the foreign power of the Brexiteer myths. As we get close to a deal, this reality will start to dawn.
No. Taxman is so wedded to the whole concept of the EU that, in his own words, he cannot see any upside from the decision to Leave. That is clearly the sign of a fanatic.
You sound like Jim Jones. "This is not a self destructive suicide!"
No. Taxman is so wedded to the whole concept of the EU that, in his own words, he cannot see any upside from the decision to Leave. That is clearly the sign of a fanatic.
You sound like Jim Jones. "This is not a self destructive suicide!"
Comments
If we take gay equality as an example, it is demographic change to a large extent that killed off its opposition. If young people in the 50's adopted the views of older people from then as they aged and so on into today's generation that wouldn't have happened.
But the parties that enforced anti gay policies were fine, because they moved with the population and left the idea behind. Demographic change killed the ideas/policy.
Just to clarify the example is just an easy one that came to mind I'm not equating brexit and homophobic policies in terms of morality.
Brexit is an idea/policy rather than a party, it can adjust itself in some ways to suit changes in demographics but there is no inevitability about the new generation of older people being as Brexit supporting as the ones they are replacing.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/28/italy-eurosceptic-far-right-technocrat-matarella-racist-populist
And he's not even opposed to what's happened as a point of principle:
'Had Mattarella refused Salvini the post of interior minister, outraged by his promise to expel 500,000 migrants from Italy, I would be compelled to support him...Beyond his moral failure to oppose the League’s industrial-scale misanthropy, the president has made a major tactical blunder: he fell right into Salvini’s trap. The formation of another “technical” government, under a former IMF apparatchik, is a fantastic gift to Salvini’s party.'
imagine how much more money we'll have when we leave
£350 million looks a bit light to me
I am more disturbed by the fact you look exactly like me 15 years ago. But with glasses!
And I have not had a single answer. Most probably don't even know what OA is, and the rest probably just see it as evil private enterprise. Yet as the article says:
"There are lessons for here for Britain. We also have open access players in the shape of Grand Central and Hull Trains, operating out of London King’s Cross. Yet neither has the scale of NTV in Italy, and the government is lukewarm at best about operators who exist outside the contractual headlock of a franchise. For advocates of renationalisation however, there is a major quandary: Hull Trains and Grand Central regularly top passenger satisfaction tables, which suggests that more entrepreneurial zeal, not less, could lead to better services, at least in the long-distance segment."
Like railfreight, renationalisation zealots put their fingers in their ears about OA and ROSCOs. They complicate what is, for them, an unrealistically easy 'solution' to a problem they have poorly defined.
Can't get Edit button to work.
From the NVT wiki:
"In March 2011, NTV complained that the Italian infrastructure manager, RFI, was obstructing its plans to run trains by making last-minute changes to network statements. RFI is controlled by the same government group that controls Trenitalia, the incumbent provider of passenger train services in Italy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuovo_Trasporto_Viaggiatori
Expect exactly the same, and worse, with OA operators in the UK under a renationalised system.
(*) Though it is more complex than that in the UK, mainly due to the DfT.
On some level, Blair/Heseltine/Clarke were right: the UK staying outside the Euro did lead to a diminution of British influence at the core of the EU. The Euro and eurozone is a bigger and more significant economic bloc and we’d got to the point by 2015 where, sometimes, the US and China would pick up the phone to Merkel over Cameron first, and Cameron couldn’t assemble much of an alliance to block Jean-Claude Juncker. By the time the UK got involved it found most of the choices had already been made.
Do most British people see this as a problem? Not really. They weren’t too interested in European political intrigue, or who picked up the phone to whom first. They valued the pound as an expression of national sovereignty and saw life carrying on pretty much the same as before with no noticeable negative effects, particularly in the aftermath of the 2008 crash when the pound acted - beneficially- as an automatic stabiliser. And we have very low unemployment today, unlike much of the eurozone.
Choosing whether to integrate politically - or not - is a choice, and not black or white either way. Each choice offers a different mixture of pros and cons.
I expect Brexit to be similar.
That would have required him to treat the voters with a bit of respect and explain and sell the deal to them, rather than just ‘park it’ from day one, as it was too complex to explain. It would have required him to put clear blue water between himself and the likes of Ashdown and Kinnock and make it all about British exceptionalism and leadership to win over centre-right voters.
Instead, he listened to the likes of Andrew Cooper, fell back on Project Fear, and ran a very Guardianista flecked campaign from start to finish.
The EU still need the UK as a long-term partner, even if they do want to make sure Brexit isn’t seen to be attractive.
I feel really sorry for the people who will lose their job because of Brexit as some undoubtedly will and maybe as a consequence will suffer failed marriages, loss of houses or other assets. I listen to people like you who are mad keen about Brexit but it is unlikely to affect your standard of living so that is alright in your eyes. It is likely the EU and the Eurozone will still be in existence in many years time and people like you will be agitating about its power and specifically German hegemony. Please remember it is people like you who have completely misread the UK's political and economic destiny and consigned us to an inferior relationship with the EU.
I suppose you like Jacob Rees Mogg, who in my opinion is the unacceptable face of Brexit. A multimillionaire hedge fund manager who invests next to nothing in Brexit Britain. He is like a fifty pence piece, two faced and seven sided. Team Brexit (Johnson, Davis, Fox and Mogg) is like Trotters independent traders on speed and cocaine, resulting in a complete lack of clarity and sincerity.
The central point of Brexit was supposed to be about getting a better deal for the UK, what transpires is it is a worse deal and as a nation we will be paying in and receiving very little in return. The people who i speak to who voted for Brexit do not understand why Immigration will continue and instead of European Immigrants it will be Asian, African or South Americans who will settle here in the future. Much is said about the democratic mandate for Leave and how if it is not enacted voters will be outraged but i suspect some who voted Leave on Immigration issues will be livid. Indeed, it seems to by pass many WWC people that groups of people from the Muslim faith wanted Brexit because it will mean more people like them will migrant to Britain rather than people from Europe.
Brexit is a big mistake and I cannot see any upside from the decision to Leave.
I suspect that the Remainers revenge will be served cold, as they blame the older gereration even more over generational inequality.
Good evening, everybody.
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1001149099029151744
subtle it ain't
Now, someone could claim that a renationalised railway could develop these flows. And it could. But why would they bother? BR rarely did so as they somewhat successfully managed a shrinking network. Sometimes it requires outsiders to fight for something, and the OA system is perfect for that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Shilling's_orifice
The Merlin engine used to cut out when a Spitfire flew inverted (carburettors vs fuel injection). You can actually hear it in the 1967 movie Battle of Britain. Miss Shilling's orifice was a simple device fitted to the engine to prevent same. A small change to achieve great effect without great disruption. Oh that our present politics would take a similar course...
Anger as Syria heads global disarmament body
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-44279149
Although I should take this opportunity to point out I don't think demographic change will necessarily stop Brexit just the idea that leave voters dying off will automatically be replaced by other voters getting older so suddenly becoming Brexiters seems flawed.
Edit: I should also point out that I am also talking about the more perhaps natural evolution, the event of Brexit itself throws it all out of sync, how Brexit goes is probably more important.
Also I am discussing them being remain or leave voters, I am a remain voter who believes we should probably leave in some format, I am not saying there will be a majority to say we should abandon Brexit altogether.
@another_richard
They could be any number of things although all indications are like those at the other end of the age range they match those around them pretty similarly.
https://twitter.com/TimesofIsrael/status/1001128045229391872?s=19
I am a realist.
I really cannot understand how a worse deal is a better outcome for the UK as people like you advocate. The Brexiteers (Johnson, Fox & Davis) have so far managed to negotiate an inferior deal to the one we have at the moment. You might think second best is acceptable, most rational people do not.
You are one of the fanatics on this board.
I worry for your health as you seem to spend all day and night on here accusing everybody else of being deluded, fanatical or you become abusive. How do you hold down a job as a geologist or is that all a load of bullshit? You seem to spend way too much time on here.
Your argument is fairly odd as it also applies to franchises - I bet GWR's services from Penzance to Plymouth are not profitable in ticket terms (and certainly not as profitable), and that they make most of their money on the London to Bristol/Bath routes, not the extension into Cornwall. Yet they need to run those services.
The simple fact is that if it were not for OA, those OA services would not be running. And perhaps the fact that a couple of OA operators are at the top of customer satisfaction tables indicates that their underdog status means they have to do things 'better' for the passenger?
(Note: my understanding of the franchising system might be borken. But I don't think it is, at least at this level.)
I'd really love to hear from any Leaver who's reviewed it, what they think is wrong with Rogers' analysis.
So is 'profit' bad, and if so, why?
What would be more important would be enthusiasm: Younger voter seem quite riled up, and you can see how the Leave side would be depressed by a deal that will inevitably fail to meet their expectations. Leave would try to rile up their voters by getting them offended at the fact that they were having the re-referendum. Someone on the Remain side would presumably hire some false-flag social media agitators to try to push that over the line into an outright boycott.
Jacob Rees Mogg on the otherhand I have nothing but contempt for as he is the unacceptable face of Brexit. He wants Brexit but Invest s very little in a country he pupports to love. JRM is an odd ball and his apologists need to wonder who on earth outside a narrow band in the Conservative Party he appeals beyond. If he becomes Tory leader the Tories will get obliterated.
Rogers comes across as an experienced negotiator who accepts the folly of Brexit and is searching for the least worst pragmatic option.
His key paragraph:
If the option now exists of the UK aligning itself more permanently regulatorily on goods, and staying in both a Customs Union and having quasi Single Market membership, paying something for it, living under ECJ jurisprudence and jurisdiction in goods, but disapplying the fourth fundamental freedom, free movement of people, the EU faces the decision as to whether this is an unacceptable option sundering indivisible freedoms and offering something too close to membership advantages to a non member. Or whether it’s rather a good deal for the EU with a major strategic partner. With the added advantage of providing far more continuity in the sectors in which you have a surplus with the UK than those in which you have a deficit – notably key services sectors.
The one benefit I can see in Brexit is exiting the CAP which would be to the advantage of consumers but the disadvantage of large landowners. What will we do with all the unwanted land?
That is why I cannot see how this will be accepted. I think the balance of trade surplus for the EU is exaggerated. As a percentage of their GDP it is very small and, in any case, the UK will still have to buy those goods. They will surely buy it from the most competitive supplier - most likely that will be in the EU.
As for Tyndall he is either stark raving bonkers or an ingenious hoaxster.
So I doubt many questions will be asked by the Israelis - as long as he makes the appropriate charitable donations to good causes.
I would really like to know what will be the reaction of those people with a mortgage [ in Euro ].
To be clear, in my view, that was a genuine attempt to treat this issue as a special case. It was not about the Berlaymont seeking to annex Northern Ireland, before it rolled on to Scotland and broke up the UK…
And there speaks a fanatic.
The opposite of fanatic surely? A fanatic is someone with excessive zeal for the cause. Excessive weariness with the whole mess would seem a better description of our friend Taxman.
No. Taxman is so wedded to the whole concept of the EU that, in his own words, he cannot see any upside from the decision to Leave. That is clearly the sign of a fanatic.
No. Taxman is so wedded to the whole concept of the EU that, in his own words, he cannot see any upside from the decision to Leave. That is clearly the sign of a fanatic.
What are the upsides then?
I can't spend more time on here than that because I am one of those who actually runs a business and earns money for this country, paying very large amounts of tax along the way - which given your alias I would assume you would approve of.
As for who I am, I post under my own name and half a dozen people on here know me from other sources and can vouch for what I say. For all we know you have never done a days work in your life. Of course we can't tell because you hide behind an alias.
Take the example: "I didn't want the EU to have any role in UK lawmaking". If you unpick that, it's clearly worse to be outside the EU and having to adopt laws you have no say in, than inside the EU making those laws. The problem is that Brexit turns the EU into the foreign power of the Brexiteer myths. As we get close to a deal, this reality will start to dawn.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/999927254321913856