One of my swim team a young teacher just announced last night that she has quit her job and is going to Spain to work at a private school for less money. She mentioned Brexit and the general sxxt culture as the reason. The political discussion that followed showed a general gloom. The Scots think the English are talking to themselves as usual, ignoring everyone else and up their own a**e. In this environment only strong Scots will be supported.
The Ruth Davidson factor is still an important part of the final Brexit outcome. Without her support the Scottish Tory mps will not vote for the deal. People vote conservative here for Ruth and the union not for Brexit.
On the other hand Davidson did get the Unionist voters who were amongst the 30% of Scots for Brexit.
I share the gloom of your young teacher friend. The future of Britain looks grim, negative and unappealing. If I were a recent graduate I too would emigrate.
So little faith in your countryfolk
As one of the many PB Leavers who have left, I am surprised that you are surprised.
I left Zone 1... not the U.K.!
Wanted to get out of the bubble
Zone 1 is basically a mini United Nations of the world's super rich anyway
It’s been fascinating to watch Argyll Road over the last 40 years
Originally doctors and architects Then lawyers The bankers Then hedgies Now only oligarchs can afford it
And Arabs, even to rent you need to work in the City or be a celebrity
Haha, very good. However, I do think we should tax all food calories - to help pay for the cost of obesity on health services. Not just sugar, all calories. It would be easy to implement since pretty much all food has to display its calories now.
Highly regressive tax.
Food is a larger part of poorer people’s budgets and they (in general) eat less healthily as well
Perhaps a lobster, truffle, caviar and champagne tax then?
Haha, very good. However, I do think we should tax all food calories - to help pay for the cost of obesity on health services. Not just sugar, all calories. It would be easy to implement since pretty much all food has to display its calories now.
Highly regressive tax.
Food is a larger part of poorer people’s budgets and they (in general) eat less healthily as well
Perhaps a lobster, truffle, caviar and champagne tax then?
Avocado tax.
That too and add guacomale as well, after all only the likes of Mandelson could confuse it with mushy peas
Very representative of his constituency, Hartlepool
J. Forsyth: The disconnect between the mood at Westminster, where nearly all Tories--regardless of where they stand on Brexit--are very worried, and the polls is really quite striking
Whisper it - the pundits have not got a clue.
Whisper it - but a bit more loudly - the Tories don`t have a clue either.
You keep saying it and the poll numbers keep rising. Keep up the good work.
Haha, very good. However, I do think we should tax all food calories - to help pay for the cost of obesity on health services. Not just sugar, all calories. It would be easy to implement since pretty much all food has to display its calories now.
Highly regressive tax.
Food is a larger part of poorer people’s budgets and they (in general) eat less healthily as well
Perhaps a lobster, truffle, caviar and champagne tax then?
Avocado tax.
Quinoa tax first.
As long as the proceeds are repatriated to Bolivia.
J. Forsyth: The disconnect between the mood at Westminster, where nearly all Tories--regardless of where they stand on Brexit--are very worried, and the polls is really quite striking
Whisper it - the pundits have not got a clue.
Whisper it - but a bit more loudly - the Tories don`t have a clue either.
You keep saying it and the poll numbers keep rising. Keep up the good work.
The last time Tory poll numbers rose like this, Theresa May called a snap election. What could go wrong?
One of my swim team a young teacher just announced last night that she has quit her job and is going to Spain to work at a private school for less money. She mentioned Brexit and the general sxxt culture as the reason. The political discussion that followed showed a general gloom. The Scots think the English are talking to themselves as usual, ignoring everyone else and up their own a**e. In this environment only strong Scots will be supported.
The Ruth Davidson factor is still an important part of the final Brexit outcome. Without her support the Scottish Tory mps will not vote for the deal. People vote conservative here for Ruth and the union not for Brexit.
On the other hand Davidson did get the Unionist voters who were amongst the 30% of Scots for Brexit.
I share the gloom of your young teacher friend. The future of Britain looks grim, negative and unappealing. If I were a recent graduate I too would emigrate.
So little faith in your countryfolk
As one of the many PB Leavers who have left, I am surprised that you are surprised.
I left Zone 1... not the U.K.!
Wanted to get out of the bubble
Zone 1 is basically a mini United Nations of the world's super rich anyway
It’s been fascinating to watch Argyll Road over the last 40 years
Originally doctors and architects Then lawyers The bankers Then hedgies Now only oligarchs can afford it
And Arabs, even to rent you need to work in the City or be a celebrity
(snip) (Nor, when jungle-like settlements built up north of the Tweed, would they be able to demand successfully that England open its borders.) Many Scottish nationalists are so infantile and drunk on sunshine that they don't realise EU membership brings responsibilities.
You can almost hear a few very well-connected people in both NI and Scotland salivating at the thought of benefiting from the opportunities that Armageddon will bring.
Lol, 'jungle-like settlements built up north of the Tweed'!
Only 102 posts in and already well versed in the dumbass memes practiced 100s of times on PB - fast work.
You're rubbish at sarcasm, you prefer to use US English vocabulary ("dumbass") as well as spelling ("practiced"), and you accuse me of copythought.
Let me help. Consider the following. Say you're a 20-year-old out of work Romanian. You've got an elderly mum. A few of your friends have whizzed off to London or Manchester, found work at low wages by British standards but high by home standards and they're able to send a fair bit of money back to Timisoara or wherever. There's only one big English-speaking country in Europe, now called "England and Wales", and it's outside the EU and the EEA so your EU passport doesn't let you in as it used to. Two bits of what used to be Britain before it broke up are still inside, called Scotland and part of Ireland, but as far as you know they're not where David Beckham comes from or where Big Ben is located. There's only one territory you can enter freely which has a land border with where you want to go. It's called Scotland and nobody can stop you going there because you're an EU citizen. What are you going to do?
It doesn't have to be everyone coming from eastern Europe to Scotland who tries to make their way south. Nor does it have to be everyone who would have come to England if Britain were still in one part and inside the EU who tries the Scottish route. It only has to be some. Doubtless others will find work cleaning hotels in Edinburgh, or they will go to Hamburg. For many people from disadvantaged countries who want to come to Britain it's all about coming to London or to one of a very few other big cities.
In the scenario of an independent Scotland inside the EU while the rump of Britain languishes outside of course there will be many immigrants who try to make their way south to England. Tell Mr Sarcasm to button it and you may realise.
A two-liner sarcastic response (typed on your mobile phone?) in which you suggest that I don't think before I write doesn't cut it in rebuttal.
(snip) (Nor, when jungle-like settlements built up north of the Tweed, would they be able to demand successfully that England open its borders.) Many Scottish nationalists are so infantile and drunk on sunshine that they don't realise EU membership brings responsibilities.
You can almost hear a few very well-connected people in both NI and Scotland salivating at the thought of benefiting from the opportunities that Armageddon will bring.
Lol, 'jungle-like settlements built up north of the Tweed'!
Only 102 posts in and already well versed in the dumbass memes practiced 100s of times on PB - fast work.
You're rubbish at sarcasm, you prefer to use US English vocabulary ("dumbass") as well as spelling ("practiced"), and you accuse me of copythought.
Let me help. Consider the following. Say you're a 20-year-old out of work Romanian. You've got an elderly mum. A few of your friends have whizzed off to London or Manchester, found work at low wages by British standards but high by home standards and they're able to send a fair bit of money back to Timisoara or wherever. There's only one big English-speaking country in Europe, now called "England and Wales", and it's outside the EU and the EEA so your EU passport doesn't let you in as it used to. Two bits of what used to be Britain before it broke up are still inside, called Scotland and part of Ireland, but as far as you know they're not where David Beckham comes from or where Big Ben is located. There's only one territory you can enter freely which has a land border with where you want to go. It's called Scotland and nobody can stop you going there because you're an EU citizen. What are you going to do?
It doesn't have to be everyone coming from eastern Europe to Scotland who tries to make their way south. Nor does it have to be everyone who would have come to England if Britain were still in one part and inside the EU who tries the Scottish route. It only has to be some. Doubtless others will find work cleaning hotels in Edinburgh, or they will go to Hamburg. For many people from disadvantaged countries who want to come to Britain it's all about coming to London or to one of a very few other big cities.
In the scenario of an independent Scotland inside the EU while the rump of Britain languishes outside of course there will be many immigrants who try to make their way south to England. Tell Mr Sarcasm to button it and you may realise.
A two-liner sarcastic response (typed on your mobile phone?) in which you suggest that I don't think before I write doesn't cut it in rebuttal.
What gave you the idea that you need to be rebutted?
Does the latest Boris Johnson leak help him or damage him? I think it helps him, although perhaps only to the extent of keeping his job under a new leader rather than becoming the new leader. It makes him look good to his former (until only very recently) compatriots in Team Trump too.
Does the latest Boris Johnson leak help him or damage him? I think it helps him, although perhaps only to the extent of keeping his job under a new leader rather than becoming the new leader. It makes him look good to his former (until only very recently) compatriots in Team Trump too.
A Davis tape. A Johnson tape. Who's next?
The more you think about it, the more it boggles the mind that May hasn't sacked him. A senior Cabinet Minister effectively saying the PM is no good. Extraordinary.
Seems that Barnier/the EU don't want to negotiate over transition so much as make a judicial/legal annexation of Northern Ireland, preferring to create a customs barrier between constituent parts of the United Kingdom and pretending that's a reasonable request.
Perhaps we should suggest that the Republic of Ireland be part of a common customs area with the UK.
(snip) (Nor, when jungle-like settlements built up north of the Tweed, would they be able to demand successfully that England open its borders.) Many Scottish nationalists are so infantile and drunk on sunshine that they don't realise EU membership brings responsibilities.
You can almost hear a few very well-connected people in both NI and Scotland salivating at the thought of benefiting from the opportunities that Armageddon will bring.
Lol, 'jungle-like settlements built up north of the Tweed'!
Only 102 posts in and already well versed in the dumbass memes practiced 100s of times on PB - fast work.
You're rubbish at sarcasm, you prefer to use US English vocabulary ("dumbass") as well as spelling ("practiced"), and you accuse me of copythought.
Let me help. Consider the following. Say you're a 20-year-old out of work Romanian. You've got an elderly mum. A few of your friends have whizzed off to London or Manchester, found work at low wages by British standards but high by home standards and they're able to send a fair bit of money back to Timisoara or wherever. There's only one big English-speaking country in Europe, now called "England and Wales", and it's outside the EU and the EEA so your EU passport doesn't let you in as it used to. Two bits of what used to be Britain before it broke up are still inside, called Scotland and part of Ireland, but as far as you know they're not where David Beckham comes from or where Big Ben is located. There's only one territory you can enter freely which has a land border with where you want to go. It's called Scotland and nobody can stop you going there because you're an EU citizen. What are you going to do?
It doesn't have to be everyone coming from eastern Europe to Scotland who tries to make their way south. Nor does it have to be everyone who would have come to England if Britain were still in one part and inside the EU who tries the Scottish route. It only has to be some. Doubtless others will find work cleaning hotels in Edinburgh, or they will go to Hamburg. For many people from disadvantaged countries who want to come to Britain it's all about coming to London or to one of a very few other big cities.
In the scenario of an independent Scotland inside the EU while the rump of Britain languishes outside of course there will be many immigrants who try to make their way south to England. Tell Mr Sarcasm to button it and you may realise.
A two-liner sarcastic response (typed on your mobile phone?) in which you suggest that I don't think before I write doesn't cut it in rebuttal.
But they'll just walk south. The border between England and Scotland is miles of windswept hills. There is no Hadrian's wall to block them
Perhaps a sugar tax is unfair because it targets those with a sweet tooth as opposed to other gastronomic weaknesses. But the government is never going to be entirely fair in what it puts sin taxes on. I don't really see it as nanny statism. These taxes have been bringing in less money in recent years.
I don't get why nanny state taxes are worse than employment taxes, which everyone accepts. Better to tax bad things than good things.
There is a confusion as to the purpose of taxation: if it is to raise revenue then you tax that which raises most revenue. Whether what you are taxing is “bad” or not is irrelevant.
If you are taxing in order to stop or reduce the activity then you have to accept that it won’t raise much revenue. And there may be better ways of stopping the activity than by taxing it. But those who talk about taxing bad things tend to think that they can do both, which is nonsense.
He doesn't want a deal that undermines the core principles of the EU, no.
In what way would the whole of the UK being part of the CU and, if necessary, the SM in order not to have a hard border and maintain regulatory alignment in NI undermine those core principles?
Putting those two together, Barnier seems to be saying there's no solution to the problem. Of course he's right, if you start from the demented premise that it is a universal law of nature that the absence of regulatory alignment forces the EU and Ireland to put up a hard border. On the other hand, if you don't start from that premise, then the whole debate is a waste of time, and the whole EU position is a logical nonsense.
In plain English, the EU's position is bonkers. It's also completely back to front, given that as we've said many times, it would make far more sense to start with the long-term relationship and then consider the implications for the border.
So what does the EU actually want? If all options are impossible, there will be no deal,. If there's no deal, there's no backstop and no payments to the EU budget and, by their own logic, an inevitable hard border, which is also completely unacceptable to them. They seem to have a big problem, therefore.
Michel Barnier says "Our backstop cannot be applied to the whole of the UK".
This is it. The Irish question is back, big time. The "screw Ireland" kite (sent up by Rees-Mogg and now being waved by the ill-mannered Trump fan Johnson) may stay up. At the moment, Britain hasn't got a workable Irish policy. There's a vacuum.
If next time YouGov include an option of an independent NI inside the EU, they may find it gets a fair bit of support.
Putting those two together, Barnier seems to be saying there's no solution to the problem. Of course he's right, if you start from the demented premise that it is a universal law of nature that the absence of regulatory alignment forces the EU and Ireland to put up a hard border. On the other hand, if you don't start from that premise, then the whole debate is a waste of time, and the whole EU position is a logical nonsense.
In plain English, the EU's position is bonkers. It's also completely back to front, given that as we've said many times, it would make far more sense to start with the long-term relationship and then consider the implications for the border.
So what does the EU actually want? If all options are impossible, there will be no deal,. If there's no deal, there's no backstop and no payments to the EU budget and, by their own logic, and inevitable hard border, which is also completely unacceptable to them.
I do not pretend to know or understand what is going on.
But it feels to me as if the chances of a “no deal” departure have increased in the last few weeks.
The real frustrating thing about the Governments position is that Barnier is and has been really clear, what is on offer to discuss and negotiate around. He is re-iterating it now. No economic status quo i.e no member benefits of the single market without being a member. You can have an economic agreement based on an FTA, you can have a security agreement based only on internal security (ie not on Foreign Policy), we do all the bilaterals i.e Aviation ,etc.
But our govt keep asking for all the member benefits of the single market without being a member.
I am starting to think the EU is being reasonable and we have a bunch of idiots in No 10 advising May.
There is only one solution (short of a 2nd referendum): TMay has to resign, and the Tories choose a better leader with an explicit plan for Brexit: EEA, Remain, or Hard Brexit, and they accept the clear consequences of each.
Why not? It is the whole of the UK which is leaving after all.
The whole of the negotiation from Barnier gives the appearance of wanting to stop a deal by making a mountain out of every molehill he can find. This might because:
a) He hates that the UK is leaving the EU, and wants to force a re-think;
Mr. Malph, or those advising May (as well as many in the political class) want a cliff-edge. They then raise the prospect of woe and doom, unless we have a second referendum, to try and reverse the result of the previous one.
I did suggest that such a thing was a very real possibility some time ago.
I also suggested that it was one way (not the whole story, but the beginning) the far right could rise in the UK political system.
Inb4 people say "less managers, cut the waste" we are not talking about cutting corners type money here, we're talking massively ageing population and thousands upon thousands of people needing expensive long term chronic care in their twilight years.
What is Barnier smoking ? The backstop HAS to be extended to the whole of the UK to avoid a border in the Irish sea. As the EU has previously said (I think..) what we do internally in the UK is a matter internal to the UK. The EU insists that the island of Ireland can have no hard borders so to speak. Therefore simply put there can be no hard border to the whole of the UK - this is interference within a sovereign country (The logical conclusion of Barnier's position is that there must be a hard border between Belfast and Liverpool) and completely unacceptable. The backstop customs arrangement if the EU wishes to treat the island of Ireland as a single body HAS to extend to the UK. May seems to have ceeded that, and is now being told it is unacceptable ?!
Putting those two together, Barnier seems to be saying there's no solution to the problem. Of course he's right, if you start from the demented premise that it is a universal law of nature that the absence of regulatory alignment forces the EU and Ireland to put up a hard border. On the other hand, if you don't start from that premise, then the whole debate is a waste of time, and the whole EU position is a logical nonsense.
In plain English, the EU's position is bonkers. It's also completely back to front, given that as we've said many times, it would make far more sense to start with the long-term relationship and then consider the implications for the border.
So what does the EU actually want? If all options are impossible, there will be no deal,. If there's no deal, there's no backstop and no payments to the EU budget and, by their own logic, an inevitable hard border, which is also completely unacceptable to them. They seem to have a big problem, therefore.
My interpretation is that they think Brexit is close to collapse, and the UK government is hideously weakened by its necessary coalition with the DUP (and they are right on both counts).
They are therefore confident that if they push hard enough, and are brutally unreasonable, the UK will yield and accept EEA status, or reverse Brexit altogether. Alternatively the UK government will fall, and a new Coalition will face the same stark choice: which again means Brexit In Name Only.
It's not logic, it's realpolitik.
Possibly. That would explain it. However, it would be a misjudgement, given that collapse of the government wouldn't square the circle.
Putting those two together, Barnier seems to be saying there's no solution to the problem. Of course he's right, if you start from the demented premise that it is a universal law of nature that the absence of regulatory alignment forces the EU and Ireland to put up a hard border. On the other hand, if you don't start from that premise, then the whole debate is a waste of time, and the whole EU position is a logical nonsense.
In plain English, the EU's position is bonkers. It's also completely back to front, given that as we've said many times, it would make far more sense to start with the long-term relationship and then consider the implications for the border.
So what does the EU actually want? If all options are impossible, there will be no deal,. If there's no deal, there's no backstop and no payments to the EU budget and, by their own logic, and inevitable hard border, which is also completely unacceptable to them.
I do not pretend to know or understand what is going on.
But it feels to me as if the chances of a “no deal” departure have increased in the last few weeks.
There can't be a no deal departure. Ceteris Paribus, a no deal departure would mean a hard border in NI, put up by the EU because the UK would then be a Third Country. But as @Richard_Nabavi has pointed out, that is crazy because the EU is committed to no hard border so can't then decree that there has to be a hard border. Which leaves two alternatives:
1. The UK remains in the CU/SM in order to align the two regions (EU/UK) and avoid a border either on the Buncrana Road or in the Irish Sea. But has the EU just said that this is not possible?
2. There is a wholly electronic, registration system of a "border" of the like that exists nowhere else either with the EU (eg. Switzerland, etc), or, say, the US/Canada.
Or, there is 3. As @SeanT has said, they think that the mere thought of them pushing for a hard border (eg. no deal), despite the fact that they don't want one because an EU Member State (RoI) is set against it, will force the UK to backtrack completely and sign up wholly on the EU's terms to whatever flavour of agreement they put forward.
Comments
https://theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/16/vegans-stomach-unpalatable-truth-quinoa
Let me help. Consider the following. Say you're a 20-year-old out of work Romanian. You've got an elderly mum. A few of your friends have whizzed off to London or Manchester, found work at low wages by British standards but high by home standards and they're able to send a fair bit of money back to Timisoara or wherever. There's only one big English-speaking country in Europe, now called "England and Wales", and it's outside the EU and the EEA so your EU passport doesn't let you in as it used to. Two bits of what used to be Britain before it broke up are still inside, called Scotland and part of Ireland, but as far as you know they're not where David Beckham comes from or where Big Ben is located. There's only one territory you can enter freely which has a land border with where you want to go. It's called Scotland and nobody can stop you going there because you're an EU citizen. What are you going to do?
It doesn't have to be everyone coming from eastern Europe to Scotland who tries to make their way south. Nor does it have to be everyone who would have come to England if Britain were still in one part and inside the EU who tries the Scottish route. It only has to be some. Doubtless others will find work cleaning hotels in Edinburgh, or they will go to Hamburg. For many people from disadvantaged countries who want to come to Britain it's all about coming to London or to one of a very few other big cities.
In the scenario of an independent Scotland inside the EU while the rump of Britain languishes outside of course there will be many immigrants who try to make their way south to England. Tell Mr Sarcasm to button it and you may realise.
A two-liner sarcastic response (typed on your mobile phone?) in which you suggest that I don't think before I write doesn't cut it in rebuttal.
I think Boris is right.
https://twitter.com/DavidCoburnUKip/status/1005063900524576769
A Davis tape. A Johnson tape. Who's next?
There's your answer
Perhaps we should suggest that the Republic of Ireland be part of a common customs area with the UK.
If you are taxing in order to stop or reduce the activity then you have to accept that it won’t raise much revenue. And there may be better ways of stopping the activity than by taxing it. But those who talk about taxing bad things tend to think that they can do both, which is nonsense.
In plain English, the EU's position is bonkers. It's also completely back to front, given that as we've said many times, it would make far more sense to start with the long-term relationship and then consider the implications for the border.
So what does the EU actually want? If all options are impossible, there will be no deal,. If there's no deal, there's no backstop and no payments to the EU budget and, by their own logic, an inevitable hard border, which is also completely unacceptable to them. They seem to have a big problem, therefore.
This is it. The Irish question is back, big time. The "screw Ireland" kite (sent up by Rees-Mogg and now being waved by the ill-mannered Trump fan Johnson) may stay up. At the moment, Britain hasn't got a workable Irish policy. There's a vacuum.
If next time YouGov include an option of an independent NI inside the EU, they may find it gets a fair bit of support.
But it feels to me as if the chances of a “no deal” departure have increased in the last few weeks.
You can have an economic agreement based on an FTA, you can have a security agreement based only on internal security (ie not on Foreign Policy), we do all the bilaterals i.e Aviation ,etc.
But our govt keep asking for all the member benefits of the single market without being a member.
I am starting to think the EU is being reasonable and we have a bunch of idiots in No 10 advising May.
The whole of the negotiation from Barnier gives the appearance of wanting to stop a deal by making a mountain out of every molehill he can find. This might because:
a) He hates that the UK is leaving the EU, and wants to force a re-think;
b) He wants to punish the UK for leaving the EU;
c) He's French.
I did suggest that such a thing was a very real possibility some time ago.
I also suggested that it was one way (not the whole story, but the beginning) the far right could rise in the UK political system.
https://explore.ifs.org.uk/tools/nhs_funding/tool
Inb4 people say "less managers, cut the waste" we are not talking about cutting corners type money here, we're talking massively ageing population and thousands upon thousands of people needing expensive long term chronic care in their twilight years.
NEW THREAD
The backstop HAS to be extended to the whole of the UK to avoid a border in the Irish sea. As the EU has previously said (I think..) what we do internally in the UK is a matter internal to the UK.
The EU insists that the island of Ireland can have no hard borders so to speak. Therefore simply put there can be no hard border to the whole of the UK - this is interference within a sovereign country (The logical conclusion of Barnier's position is that there must be a hard border between Belfast and Liverpool) and completely unacceptable.
The backstop customs arrangement if the EU wishes to treat the island of Ireland as a single body HAS to extend to the UK. May seems to have ceeded that, and is now being told it is unacceptable ?!
And in September we’ll have the political conference season, with opportunity for the far wherever of the parties lunatic fringes to have their say.
It’s too late for me but if my children and grandchildren emigrate somewhere I won’t be at all surprised.
http://progressive-policy.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Report_Diagnosis-Critical-1.pdf
"Today there are 0.5 million more aged over 75 than there were in 2010, and there will be 2 million more in ten years' time"
1. The UK remains in the CU/SM in order to align the two regions (EU/UK) and avoid a border either on the Buncrana Road or in the Irish Sea. But has the EU just said that this is not possible?
2. There is a wholly electronic, registration system of a "border" of the like that exists nowhere else either with the EU (eg. Switzerland, etc), or, say, the US/Canada.
Or, there is 3. As @SeanT has said, they think that the mere thought of them pushing for a hard border (eg. no deal), despite the fact that they don't want one because an EU Member State (RoI) is set against it, will force the UK to backtrack completely and sign up wholly on the EU's terms to whatever flavour of agreement they put forward.