Perhaps if you issued a list of people you believe have the right to issue threats, we would know what to think. Unfortunately people speak without asking your permission first.
No individual or organisation can threaten the elected government
That depends on what constitutes a threat in your eyes. Is 'If you carry out policy X you will be sorry' a threat? Is 'I will move my business/not vote for you if you carry out policy Y' a threat? Is 'I know you have a popular mandate for policy X, but it is a big mistake and you need to change tack' a threat?
It’s doing it in public that’s inappropriate
With all due respect, Charles, that’s utter hogwash. They made a public statement, in relatively nuanced terms, as they were rightly concerned the government wasn’t taking their predicament very seriously, and there isn’t much time left.
And why on earth would a multinational organisation ‘get behind the government’ as Hunt’s original tweet suggested ?
Perhaps if you issued a list of people you believe have the right to issue threats, we would know what to think. Unfortunately people speak without asking your permission first.
No individual or organisation can threaten the elected government
Does the same apply to oppositions?
That’s not threatening - they have a prescribed role to play
Perhaps if you issued a list of people you believe have the right to issue threats, we would know what to think. Unfortunately people speak without asking your permission first.
No individual or organisation can threaten the elected government
That depends on what constitutes a threat in your eyes. Is 'If you carry out policy X you will be sorry' a threat? Is 'I will move my business/not vote for you if you carry out policy Y' a threat? Is 'I know you have a popular mandate for policy X, but it is a big mistake and you need to change tack' a threat?
It’s doing it in public that’s inappropriate
Crush the dissidents!
No. I just don’t like the way many MNCs behave to suborn public policy for private gain
Australia learning that total cricket, 50 overs style, takes a bit of learning (as England did a while back). Still, they should be a much improved side come the world cup.
Important as Airbus and BMW stories are, I think the big thing was the "Where's Jeremy Corbyn" chants on the march yesterday. It only needs one of the main parties to come round to rejoining and to win an election on that policy and we are back in. There were obviously plenty of activists on the streets yesterday who will have worked that out.
Neither the Tories nor Corbyn Labour will back rejoining the EU, indeed a majority of both parties MPs have refused to even back staying in the EEA (albeit over a 100 Labour MPs did rebel on the latter).. Unless the LDs win the next general election on a platform of a referendum on the deal or rejoining the EU there is no way we will avoid reversing Brexit
Airbus has really put the cat among the pigeons. The real worry is that there'll be others. Surely the Leavers can't keep regurgitating the same old threats and dismissals on every occasion; that will just make them sound paranoid and trapped. No, Theresa needs to step in here and present some serious, grown-up ideas to assuage business's genuine concerns. Theresa needs to show there's still one pro-business, pro-investment and pro-innovation adult in town.
Perhaps if you issued a list of people you believe have the right to issue threats, we would know what to think. Unfortunately people speak without asking your permission first.
No individual or organisation can threaten the elected government
Does the same apply to oppositions?
That’s not threatening - they have a prescribed role to play
No, I meant should business leaders also not threaten oppositions, by - for example - saying that if certain policies were implemented it would cause capital flight and a run on the pound?
Airbus has really put the cat among the pigeons. The real worry is that there'll be others. Surely the Leavers can't keep regurgitating the same old threats and dismissals on every occasion; that will just make them sound paranoid and trapped. No, Theresa needs to step in here and present some serious, grown-up ideas to assuage business's genuine concerns. Theresa needs to show there's still one pro-business, pro-investment and pro-innovation adult in town.
My God, if we're relying on Theresa for that we're truly f*cked!
Looks like President Trump will largely avoid London on his visit next month, arriving on Thursday July 12th at Stanstead he will fly to the US Embassy at Regent's Park then go for dinner at Blenheim Palace. He will then meet May and Chequers and the Queen at Windsor Castle the next day before playing golf at Turnberry on the final day of his visit before flying home
Perhaps if you issued a list of people you believe have the right to issue threats, we would know what to think. Unfortunately people speak without asking your permission first.
No individual or organisation can threaten the elected government
That depends on what constitutes a threat in your eyes. Is 'If you carry out policy X you will be sorry' a threat? Is 'I will move my business/not vote for you if you carry out policy Y' a threat? Is 'I know you have a popular mandate for policy X, but it is a big mistake and you need to change tack' a threat?
It’s doing it in public that’s inappropriate
Crush the dissidents!
No. I just don’t like the way many MNCs behave to suborn public policy for private gain
You really think they should take no public position when a government is about to make a decision whether to massively change their terms of trade ? And when the future of their business depends on making multi billion investments for the next decade ?
But of course EU trucks would roam freely over British roads!
You think?
No I don't think that. Now think through the consequences of EU trucks not roaming around with supplies of food and goods.
More locally produced produce, I expect.....what happened to all those strawberries rotting in the fields?
"Nick Marston, the BSF chairman, said: “The industry is now threatened by lack of government action with regard to seasonal labour.”
He said more than three-quarters of British berry-growers were already scaling back production and trimming investment plans amid fears that fruit would be left rotting in the fields."
Perhaps if you issued a list of people you believe have the right to issue threats, we would know what to think. Unfortunately people speak without asking your permission first.
No individual or organisation can threaten the elected government
That depends on what constitutes a threat in your eyes. Is 'If you carry out policy X you will be sorry' a threat? Is 'I will move my business/not vote for you if you carry out policy Y' a threat? Is 'I know you have a popular mandate for policy X, but it is a big mistake and you need to change tack' a threat?
It’s doing it in public that’s inappropriate
Crush the dissidents!
No. I just don’t like the way many MNCs behave to suborn public policy for private gain
You really think they should take no public position when a government is about to make a decision whether to massively change their terms of trade ? And when the future of their business depends on making multi billion investments for the next decade ?
Indeed - these business would soon be harangued with "why didn't you warn us?" if they kept quiet.
Important as Airbus and BMW stories are, I think the big thing was the "Where's Jeremy Corbyn" chants on the march yesterday. It only needs one of the main parties to come round to rejoining and to win an election on that policy and we are back in. There were obviously plenty of activists on the streets yesterday who will have worked that out.
Neither the Tories nor Corbyn Labour will back rejoining the EU, indeed a majority of both parties MPs have refused to even back staying in the EEA (albeit over a 100 Labour MPs did rebel on the latter).. Unless the LDs win the next general election on a platform of a referendum on the deal or rejoining the EU there is no way we will avoid reversing Brexit
Well we'll see. Nothing that has happened in politics since 2015 has matched anyone's predictions. But I think it is clear there's a viable cadre of highly motivated pro-EU activists. Okay they have the establishment and the media against them, but that doesn't mean they can't win.
Perhaps if you issued a list of people you believe have the right to issue threats, we would know what to think. Unfortunately people speak without asking your permission first.
No individual or organisation can threaten the elected government
Does the same apply to oppositions?
That’s not threatening - they have a prescribed role to play
No, I meant should business leaders also not threaten oppositions, by - for example - saying that if certain policies were implemented it would cause capital flight and a run on the pound?
I don’t think business should involve themselves in party politics
Perhaps if you issued a list of people you believe have the right to issue threats, we would know what to think. Unfortunately people speak without asking your permission first.
No individual or organisation can threaten the elected government
Does the same apply to oppositions?
That’s not threatening - they have a prescribed role to play
Looks like President Trump will largely avoid London on his visit next month, arriving on Thursday July 12th at Stanstead he will fly to the US Embassy at Regent's Park then go for dinner at Blenheim Palace. He will then meet May and Chequers and the Queen at Windsor Castle the next day before playing golf at Turnberry on the final day of his visit before flying home
Important as Airbus and BMW stories are, I think the big thing was the "Where's Jeremy Corbyn" chants on the march yesterday. It only needs one of the main parties to come round to rejoining and to win an election on that policy and we are back in. There were obviously plenty of activists on the streets yesterday who will have worked that out.
Neither the Tories nor Corbyn Labour will back rejoining the EU, indeed a majority of both parties MPs have refused to even back staying in the EEA (albeit over a 100 Labour MPs did rebel on the latter).. Unless the LDs win the next general election on a platform of a referendum on the deal or rejoining the EU there is no way we will avoid reversing Brexit
Well we'll see. Nothing that has happened in politics since 2015 has matched anyone's predictions. But I think it is clear there's a viable cadre of highly motivated pro-EU activists. Okay they have the establishment and the media against them, but that doesn't mean they can't win.
They can't win unless they get a pro EU or even pro EEA Labour leader and there is no sign of Corbyn going anywhere anytime soon, especially with the Labour membership still firmly behind him.
As for the 'establishment and media' the Evening Standard, the Times, the Guardian, the Mirror, the BBC, the House of Lords, the CBI, the TUC etc are all still Remain leaning to some degree
Looks like President Trump will largely avoid London on his visit next month, arriving on Thursday July 12th at Stanstead he will fly to the US Embassy at Regent's Park then go for dinner at Blenheim Palace. He will then meet May and Chequers and the Queen at Windsor Castle the next day before playing golf at Turnberry on the final day of his visit before flying home
Mr. Recidivist, given precedent, a referendum would have to be held first (unless a party won over 50% of the vote in an election, which seems unlikely).
Mr. Ace, maybe. That's fairly old, but he doesn't seem in ill health or doddery.
F1: still no more markets. It's rather odd.
No referendum is necessary. We joined without a referendum first time. And there has already been an election, 1983, where a party included leaving the EU as part of its programme without any mention of a referendum. Also I can't be the only person who has come to the conclusion that holding any referendum on anything is a bad idea. I think you might find referendums are off the agenda for a generation.
They might well be and legally are not required but politically it might be difficult to rejoin without one. As we all know not everyone who votes for a party agrees with all its proposals, even big ones, and even other rejoining parties might barely get over 50%.
It could be done, but it'd be very bold. I feel like the manifesto woukd need to be clear rejoining would be done without a referendum.
Mr. Recidivist, given precedent, a referendum would have to be held first (unless a party won over 50% of the vote in an election, which seems unlikely).
Mr. Ace, maybe. That's fairly old, but he doesn't seem in ill health or doddery.
F1: still no more markets. It's rather odd.
At the time of Labour's 1983 Manifesto commitment to leave the EEC, we already had the precedents of the 1975 Referendum and the 1979 Devolution Referendums held in Scotland & Wales.
I know you love precedents, but they are simply not binding and surely that's the point of them when new precedents are established over time. I don't see this precedent being ignored, however.
That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
Mr. Recidivist, given precedent, a referendum would have to be held first (unless a party won over 50% of the vote in an election, which seems unlikely).
Mr. Ace, maybe. That's fairly old, but he doesn't seem in ill health or doddery.
F1: still no more markets. It's rather odd.
No referendum is necessary. We joined without a referendum first time. And there has already been an election, 1983, where a party included leaving the EU as part of its programme without any mention of a referendum. Also I can't be the only person who has come to the conclusion that holding any referendum on anything is a bad idea. I think you might find referendums are off the agenda for a generation.
They might well be and legally are not required but politically it might be difficult to rejoin without one. As we all know not everyone who votes for a party agrees with all its proposals, even big ones, and even other rejoining parties might barely get over 50%.
It could be done, but it'd be very bold. I feel like the manifesto woukd need to be clear rejoining would be done without a referendum.
Mr. Recidivist, given precedent, a referendum would have to be held first (unless a party won over 50% of the vote in an election, which seems unlikely).
Mr. Ace, maybe. That's fairly old, but he doesn't seem in ill health or doddery.
F1: still no more markets. It's rather odd.
At the time of Labour's 1983 Manifesto commitment to leave the EEC, we already had the precedents of the 1975 Referendum and the 1979 Devolution Referendums held in Scotland & Wales.
I know you love precedents, but they are simply not binding and surely that's the point of them when new precedents are established over time. I don't see this precedent being ignored, however.
That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
Looks like President Trump will largely avoid London on his visit next month, arriving on Thursday July 12th at Stanstead he will fly to the US Embassy at Regent's Park then go for dinner at Blenheim Palace. He will then meet May and Chequers and the Queen at Windsor Castle the next day before playing golf at Turnberry on the final day of his visit before flying home
How will a man who likes big houses and lots of gilt react to Blenheim I wonder?
If he likes it Tottenham House now,has planning permission to be restored to a family residence for a billionaire complete with its own banqueting house so he could snap that one up.
Got on a Virgin train at Kings Cross this morning (as announced by the driver)
By Newark we were on a London North East Rail train
I don’t think anyone else noticed
Are they going to have to repaint all the trains? Presumably that will cost us the tax payer a fair amount now that its a public company.
The trains aren't painted in Virgin colours - they have vinyls applied. All they will do with the existing fleet is stick new LNER branding in place of the Virgin branding. The new Azuma trains will have a new colour scheme.
That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
Its not binding forever it can be overruled by a subsequent referendum seeking for us to rejoin.
The other 27 nations that need to unanimously approve our membership application would want to know this time we were serious and that would mean a referendum to approve our joining, the Euro, Schengen and everything else that goes with joining.
But of course EU trucks would roam freely over British roads!
You think?
No I don't think that. Now think through the consequences of EU trucks not roaming around with supplies of food and goods.
More locally produced produce, I expect.....what happened to all those strawberries rotting in the fields?
"Nick Marston, the BSF chairman, said: “The industry is now threatened by lack of government action with regard to seasonal labour.”
He said more than three-quarters of British berry-growers were already scaling back production and trimming investment plans amid fears that fruit would be left rotting in the fields."
That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
Its not binding forever it can be overruled by a subsequent referendum seeking for us to rejoin.
The other 27 nations that need to unanimously approve our membership application would want to know this time we were serious and that would mean a referendum to approve our joining, the Euro, Schengen and everything else that goes with joining.
Hmm, Schengen possibly and good luck getting the rebate back, but I don't think anyone's in a hurry to bring more peripheral members into the Eurozone.
Looks like President Trump will largely avoid London on his visit next month, arriving on Thursday July 12th at Stanstead he will fly to the US Embassy at Regent's Park then go for dinner at Blenheim Palace. He will then meet May and Chequers and the Queen at Windsor Castle the next day before playing golf at Turnberry on the final day of his visit before flying home
The embassy is not at Regent's Park. That is where the ambassador lives, as fans of Silent Witness may recall. It looks from that like Trump is avoiding the embassy completely, having complained about it in the past.
That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
Its not binding forever it can be overruled by a subsequent referendum seeking for us to rejoin.
The other 27 nations that need to unanimously approve our membership application would want to know this time we were serious and that would mean a referendum to approve our joining, the Euro, Schengen and everything else that goes with joining.
Hmm, Schengen possibly and good luck getting the rebate back, but I don't think anyone's in a hurry to bring more peripheral members into the Eurozone.
If we seek to rejoin they wouldn't want us to be a peripheral member. By making us join the Euro as a condition of re-entry it would ensure that a hokey-cokey re-Brexit becomes much tougher.
Looks like President Trump will largely avoid London on his visit next month, arriving on Thursday July 12th at Stanstead he will fly to the US Embassy at Regent's Park then go for dinner at Blenheim Palace. He will then meet May and Chequers and the Queen at Windsor Castle the next day before playing golf at Turnberry on the final day of his visit before flying home
That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
Its not binding forever it can be overruled by a subsequent referendum seeking for us to rejoin.
The other 27 nations that need to unanimously approve our membership application would want to know this time we were serious and that would mean a referendum to approve our joining, the Euro, Schengen and everything else that goes with joining.
Hmm, Schengen possibly and good luck getting the rebate back, but I don't think anyone's in a hurry to bring more peripheral members into the Eurozone.
Losing the opt-out wouldn't mean rushing the implementation, but it would cement the long-term vision of a single currency for the whole EU.
That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
Its not binding forever it can be overruled by a subsequent referendum seeking for us to rejoin.
The other 27 nations that need to unanimously approve our membership application would want to know this time we were serious and that would mean a referendum to approve our joining, the Euro, Schengen and everything else that goes with joining.
Looks like President Trump will largely avoid London on his visit next month, arriving on Thursday July 12th at Stanstead he will fly to the US Embassy at Regent's Park then go for dinner at Blenheim Palace. He will then meet May and Chequers and the Queen at Windsor Castle the next day before playing golf at Turnberry on the final day of his visit before flying home
The embassy is not at Regent's Park. That is where the ambassador lives, as fans of Silent Witness may recall. It looks from that like Trump is avoiding the embassy completely, having complained about it in the past.
Yes sorry the new Embassy is in 9 Elms Lane, the Ambassador's residence is in Regents Park
That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
Its not binding forever it can be overruled by a subsequent referendum seeking for us to rejoin.
The other 27 nations that need to unanimously approve our membership application would want to know this time we were serious and that would mean a referendum to approve our joining, the Euro, Schengen and everything else that goes with joining.
Hmm, Schengen possibly and good luck getting the rebate back, but I don't think anyone's in a hurry to bring more peripheral members into the Eurozone.
If we seek to rejoin they wouldn't want us to be a peripheral member. By making us join the Euro as a condition of re-entry it would ensure that a hokey-cokey re-Brexit becomes much tougher.
It's true that joining the Eurozone would make it harder to leave, but the Eurozone is enough of a shit-show as it is, nobody wants to make it more complicated. And in any case if Brexit is disastrous enough that the UK decides to rejoin, it's not going to be a serious concern that the British will suddenly decide to repeat the exercise.
And I know this government has gone through a lot of Cabinet ministers, but can we please save another reshuffle until May is ousted in 4-9 months?
Edit: And really, is it even worth listening to anonymous 'top Tories'?
Though this remark is a bit twattish
said to have told military chiefs: “I can make her and I can break her.”
Why has the anonymous top Tory called the Defence Secretary a weasel? It seems an odd term of abuse. The only association that comes to mind is with weasel words, and the complaint here is just the opposite: that Williamson has been far too blunt.
That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
Its not binding forever it can be overruled by a subsequent referendum seeking for us to rejoin.
The other 27 nations that need to unanimously approve our membership application would want to know this time we were serious and that would mean a referendum to approve our joining, the Euro, Schengen and everything else that goes with joining.
Hmm, Schengen possibly and good luck getting the rebate back, but I don't think anyone's in a hurry to bring more peripheral members into the Eurozone.
Losing the opt-out wouldn't mean rushing the implementation, but it would cement the long-term vision of a single currency for the whole EU.
Which would just affirm the UK and Scandinavia and Switzerland belong in EFTA not the EU
And I know this government has gone through a lot of Cabinet ministers, but can we please save another reshuffle until May is ousted in 4-9 months?
Edit: And really, is it even worth listening to anonymous 'top Tories'?
Though this remark is a bit twattish
said to have told military chiefs: “I can make her and I can break her.”
Why has the anonymous top Tory called the Defence Secretary a weasel? It seems an odd term of abuse. The only association that comes to mind is with weasel words, and the complaint here is just the opposite: that Williamson has been far too blunt.
Perception of them being sneaky? Someone's a fan of Redwall novels perhaps.
But of course EU trucks would roam freely over British roads!
You think?
No I don't think that. Now think through the consequences of EU trucks not roaming around with supplies of food and goods.
More locally produced produce, I expect.....what happened to all those strawberries rotting in the fields?
"Nick Marston, the BSF chairman, said: “The industry is now threatened by lack of government action with regard to seasonal labour.”
He said more than three-quarters of British berry-growers were already scaling back production and trimming investment plans amid fears that fruit would be left rotting in the fields."
Mr Barnier has also said that splitting up the single market and the “four freedoms” — free movement of goods, services, capital and labour — is unacceptable.
In fairness to Mr Barnier, the EU have been pretty unequivocal on this point from the start IIRC. If we wrangled a deal which even looked like they had bent on that point I'd think he'd become persona non grata pretty quick, so surely a no goer?
Quite. Which, given the continuing importance of uncontrolled immigration (see yesterday’s Delta Poll) means the government should have been preparing for a WTO BREXIT from the start.
The British public has few red lines. Uncontrolled Immigration is one of them
Ironically the government has just a few days ago allowed more immigration -- of doctors, nurses, IT workers and pastry chefs -- and no-one has complained. Since everyone in government wants more immigration, there really ought to be a form of words that can be found to content both sides.
That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
Its not binding forever it can be overruled by a subsequent referendum seeking for us to rejoin.
The other 27 nations that need to unanimously approve our membership application would want to know this time we were serious and that would mean a referendum to approve our joining, the Euro, Schengen and everything else that goes with joining.
Hmm, Schengen possibly and good luck getting the rebate back, but I don't think anyone's in a hurry to bring more peripheral members into the Eurozone.
If we seek to rejoin they wouldn't want us to be a peripheral member. By making us join the Euro as a condition of re-entry it would ensure that a hokey-cokey re-Brexit becomes much tougher.
It's true that joining the Eurozone would make it harder to leave, but the Eurozone is enough of a shit-show as it is, nobody wants to make it more complicated. And in any case if Brexit is disastrous enough that the UK decides to rejoin, it's not going to be a serious concern that the British will suddenly decide to repeat the exercise.
It would be a serious concern if rejoining was only happening due to party politics and the other major party was still opposing our membership. That's why a referendum would be needed to settle the matter.
Mr Barnier has also said that splitting up the single market and the “four freedoms” — free movement of goods, services, capital and labour — is unacceptable.
In fairness to Mr Barnier, the EU have been pretty unequivocal on this point from the start IIRC. If we wrangled a deal which even looked like they had bent on that point I'd think he'd become persona non grata pretty quick, so surely a no goer?
Quite. Which, given the continuing importance of uncontrolled immigration (see yesterday’s Delta Poll) means the government should have been preparing for a WTO BREXIT from the start.
The British public has few red lines. Uncontrolled Immigration is one of them
Ironically the government has just a few days ago allowed more immigration -- of doctors, nurses, IT workers and pastry chefs -- and no-one has complained. Since everyone in government wants more immigration, there really ought to be a form of words that can be found to content both sides.
The public is happy to have skilled immigration of doctors, that's never been contentious.
We have for decades been permitting unlimited unskilled migration so long as the person coming over is a [predominantly white] European but capping doctors etc from outside Europe. Are you proposing that continues?
Business doesn’t have the right to issue threats. It’s entirely reasonable to tell them where to go
Business has every right to tell a nominally pro-business government what is needed for business to thrive and what the consequences may be if certain actions are not taken.
The reason the Tories are now attacking business is because they don’t like the message which, bluntly, is that they if they don’t get their shit together and fast, a crash out Brexit next March is likely to have serious consequences.
They may also have an agenda. But that doesn’t mean that they’re wrong when they say that the uncertainty, the generall faffing around, the political game playing and the short time left are not conducive to creating the impression of a competently governed country open for business and in which it makes sense to invest. That is a message the government ought to listen to. The good of the country comes before protecting May’s arse from her own failings.
That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
Its not binding forever it can be overruled by a subsequent referendum seeking for us to rejoin.
The other 27 nations that need to unanimously approve our membership application would want to know this time we were serious and that would mean a referendum to approve our joining, the Euro, Schengen and everything else that goes with joining.
Hmm, Schengen possibly and good luck getting the rebate back, but I don't think anyone's in a hurry to bring more peripheral members into the Eurozone.
If we seek to rejoin they wouldn't want us to be a peripheral member. By making us join the Euro as a condition of re-entry it would ensure that a hokey-cokey re-Brexit becomes much tougher.
It's true that joining the Eurozone would make it harder to leave, but the Eurozone is enough of a shit-show as it is, nobody wants to make it more complicated. And in any case if Brexit is disastrous enough that the UK decides to rejoin, it's not going to be a serious concern that the British will suddenly decide to repeat the exercise.
It would be a serious concern if rejoining was only happening due to party politics and the other major party was still opposing our membership. That's why a referendum would be needed to settle the matter.
I agree, the other member states would be reluctant to let Britain back in without a referendum.
But imposing Eurozone membership on reluctant nations isn't something anyone will be interested in doing in the near future, since they're having enough trouble with the members that joined of their own accord. Unless we're talking like twenty years or thirty down the line, in which case who knows.
That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
Its not binding forever it can be overruled by a subsequent referendum seeking for us to rejoin.
The other 27 nations that need to unanimously approve our membership application would want to know this time we were serious and that would mean a referendum to approve our joining, the Euro, Schengen and everything else that goes with joining.
Hmm, Schengen possibly and good luck getting the rebate back, but I don't think anyone's in a hurry to bring more peripheral members into the Eurozone.
If we seek to rejoin they wouldn't want us to be a peripheral member. By making us join the Euro as a condition of re-entry it would ensure that a hokey-cokey re-Brexit becomes much tougher.
It's true that joining the Eurozone would make it harder to leave, but the Eurozone is enough of a shit-show as it is, nobody wants to make it more complicated. And in any case if Brexit is disastrous enough that the UK decides to rejoin, it's not going to be a serious concern that the British will suddenly decide to repeat the exercise.
It would be a serious concern if rejoining was only happening due to party politics and the other major party was still opposing our membership. That's why a referendum would be needed to settle the matter.
In retrospect I think it should have been obvious that Cameron's plan to settle the matter would always end up in a second referendum, either as one more heave for Leave or in the aftermath of a Leave win. The only way it could have been otherwise would have been a massive win for Remain, which wasn't seriously on the cards.
That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
Its not binding forever it can be overruled by a subsequent referendum seeking for us to rejoin.
The other 27 nations that need to unanimously approve our membership application would want to know this time we were serious and that would mean a referendum to approve our joining, the Euro, Schengen and everything else that goes with joining.
Hmm, Schengen possibly and good luck getting the rebate back, but I don't think anyone's in a hurry to bring more peripheral members into the Eurozone.
If we seek to rejoin they wouldn't want us to be a peripheral member. By making us join the Euro as a condition of re-entry it would ensure that a hokey-cokey re-Brexit becomes much tougher.
It's true that joining the Eurozone would make it harder to leave, but the Eurozone is enough of a shit-show as it is, nobody wants to make it more complicated. And in any case if Brexit is disastrous enough that the UK decides to rejoin, it's not going to be a serious concern that the British will suddenly decide to repeat the exercise.
It would be a serious concern if rejoining was only happening due to party politics and the other major party was still opposing our membership. That's why a referendum would be needed to settle the matter.
I agree, the other member states would be reluctant to let Britain back in without a referendum.
But imposing Eurozone membership on reluctant nations isn't something anyone will be interested in doing in the near future, since they're having enough trouble with the members that joined of their own accord. Unless we're talking like twenty years or thirty down the line, in which case who knows.
The most pressing Eurozone question for the UK regards the currency plan for Scottish independence rather than UK membership.
That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
Its not binding forever it can be overruled by a subsequent referendum seeking for us to rejoin.
The other 27 nations that need to unanimously approve our membership application would want to know this time we were serious and that would mean a referendum to approve our joining, the Euro, Schengen and everything else that goes with joining.
Hmm, Schengen possibly and good luck getting the rebate back, but I don't think anyone's in a hurry to bring more peripheral members into the Eurozone.
If we seek to rejoin they wouldn't want us to be a peripheral member. By making us join the Euro as a condition of re-entry it would ensure that a hokey-cokey re-Brexit becomes much tougher.
It's true that joining the Eurozone would make it harder to leave, but the Eurozone is enough of a shit-show as it is, nobody wants to make it more complicated. And in any case if Brexit is disastrous enough that the UK decides to rejoin, it's not going to be a serious concern that the British will suddenly decide to repeat the exercise.
It would be a serious concern if rejoining was only happening due to party politics and the other major party was still opposing our membership. That's why a referendum would be needed to settle the matter.
I agree, the other member states would be reluctant to let Britain back in without a referendum.
But imposing Eurozone membership on reluctant nations isn't something anyone will be interested in doing in the near future, since they're having enough trouble with the members that joined of their own accord. Unless we're talking like twenty years or thirty down the line, in which case who knows.
Although they've not forced the matter for countries like Sweden, post-Maastricht not one nation has ever been granted an opt-out from the Euro.
I doubt we'd be given one either. If we join again they will be looking for us to commit to membership and not be half-hearted like before. We wouldn't join the Euro on day one (other nations haven't) but we'll sign up to join in the future without an opt-out. The principle will be there.
That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
Its not binding forever it can be overruled by a subsequent referendum seeking for us to rejoin.
The other 27 nations that need to unanimously approve our membership application would want to know this time we were serious and that would mean a referendum to approve our joining, the Euro, Schengen and everything else that goes with joining.
Which would be rejected by a landslide
The big game changer for any next Referendum on rejoining is that the NHS will be in play - against the Rejoiners. May, by playing the "Brexit Bonus" card for the NHS, has signed up the NHS as being a Friend Of Staying Out.
Rejoin would be crucified on a campaign that kept asking "So, which hospital wards are you going to close, to pay for the Membership Fees?" And there would be no answer....
Mr Barnier has also said that splitting up the single market and the “four freedoms” — free movement of goods, services, capital and labour — is unacceptable.
In fairness to Mr Barnier, the EU have been pretty unequivocal on this point from the start IIRC. If we wrangled a deal which even looked like they had bent on that point I'd think he'd become persona non grata pretty quick, so surely a no goer?
Quite. Which, given the continuing importance of uncontrolled immigration (see yesterday’s Delta Poll) means the government should have been preparing for a WTO BREXIT from the start.
The British public has few red lines. Uncontrolled Immigration is one of them
Ironically the government has just a few days ago allowed more immigration -- of doctors, nurses, IT workers and pastry chefs -- and no-one has complained. Since everyone in government wants more immigration, there really ought to be a form of words that can be found to content both sides.
The public is happy to have skilled immigration of doctors, that's never been contentious.
We have for decades been permitting unlimited unskilled migration so long as the person coming over is a [predominantly white] European but capping doctors etc from outside Europe. Are you proposing that continues?
I'm not proposing anything, and note in passing that non-EU immigration also rose under Mrs May's hegemony. What I am suggesting is that some weasel words can be found to make it look like we are preserving freedom of movement at the same time as taking back control. The situation seems to be that Westminster and Brussels want in practice the same thing, even if hidden behind a facade to fool the voters.
That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
Its not binding forever it can be overruled by a subsequent referendum seeking for us to rejoin.
The other 27 nations that need to unanimously approve our membership application would want to know this time we were serious and that would mean a referendum to approve our joining, the Euro, Schengen and everything else that goes with joining.
Hmm, Schengen possibly and good luck getting the rebate back, but I don't think anyone's in a hurry to bring more peripheral members into the Eurozone.
If we seek to rejoin they wouldn't want us to be a peripheral member. By making us join the Euro as a condition of re-entry it would ensure that a hokey-cokey re-Brexit becomes much tougher.
It's true that joining the Eurozone would make it harder to leave, but the Eurozone is enough of a shit-show as it is, nobody wants to make it more complicated. And in any case if Brexit is disastrous enough that the UK decides to rejoin, it's not going to be a serious concern that the British will suddenly decide to repeat the exercise.
It would be a serious concern if rejoining was only happening due to party politics and the other major party was still opposing our membership. That's why a referendum would be needed to settle the matter.
In retrospect I think it should have been obvious that Cameron's plan to settle the matter would always end up in a second referendum, either as one more heave for Leave or in the aftermath of a Leave win. The only way it could have been otherwise would have been a massive win for Remain, which wasn't seriously on the cards.
There's not going to be a second referendum, we're leaving and that's the end of the matter.
If we seek to rejoin in the distant future it will be a first referendum on that. Just like the 2016 referendum isn't referred to as the second referendum following the 1975 one.
That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
Its not binding forever it can be overruled by a subsequent referendum seeking for us to rejoin.
The other 27 nations that need to unanimously approve our membership application would want to know this time we were serious and that would mean a referendum to approve our joining, the Euro, Schengen and everything else that goes with joining.
Which would be rejected by a landslide
The big game changer for any next Referendum on rejoining is that the NHS will be in play - against the Rejoiners. May, by playing the "Brexit Bonus" card for the NHS, has signed up the NHS as being a Friend Of Staying Out.
Rejoin would be crucified on a campaign that kept asking "So, which hospital wards are you going to close, to pay for the Membership Fees?" And there would be no answer....
What will the membership fees be for the latest plan to be in the single market for goods?
Mr Barnier has also said that splitting up the single market and the “four freedoms” — free movement of goods, services, capital and labour — is unacceptable.
In fairness to Mr Barnier, the EU have been pretty unequivocal on this point from the start IIRC. If we wrangled a deal which even looked like they had bent on that point I'd think he'd become persona non grata pretty quick, so surely a no goer?
Quite. Which, given the continuing importance of uncontrolled immigration (see yesterday’s Delta Poll) means the government should have been preparing for a WTO BREXIT from the start.
The British public has few red lines. Uncontrolled Immigration is one of them
Ironically the government has just a few days ago allowed more immigration -- of doctors, nurses, IT workers and pastry chefs -- and no-one has complained. Since everyone in government wants more immigration, there really ought to be a form of words that can be found to content both sides.
The public is happy to have skilled immigration of doctors, that's never been contentious.
We have for decades been permitting unlimited unskilled migration so long as the person coming over is a [predominantly white] European but capping doctors etc from outside Europe. Are you proposing that continues?
I'm not proposing anything, and note in passing that non-EU immigration also rose under Mrs May's hegemony. What I am suggesting is that some weasel words can be found to make it look like we are preserving freedom of movement at the same time as taking back control. The situation seems to be that Westminster and Brussels want in practice the same thing, even if hidden behind a facade to fool the voters.
I see no problem with non-EU immigration rising so long as it is skilled migration that we want. Do you?
Rejoin would be crucified on a campaign that kept asking "So, which hospital wards are you going to close, to pay for the Membership Fees?" And there would be no answer....
To understand this, let us imagine that the Brexit talks were to break down. The UK would crash out of the EU in March next year with no transitional deal in place. British goods entering the EU would be subject to EU tariffs, and vice versa. The EU levies a 10 per cent tax on car imports. The UK could levy reciprocal tariffs.
Now consider the position of German carmakers. According to the German association of the automotive industry, the country last year exported 769,000 cars to the UK, its single largest export market. The US came second with 494,000 cars. German carmakers also export 258,000 German-made vehicles to China, plus those produced in US and Chinese factories.
If the UK were forced into a cliff-edge Brexit in March, the German car industry would face tariffs in its two largest export markets within a few months of each other. Daimler-Benz issued a profit warning last week, and this only in relationship to the expected rise in Chinese tariffs on Mercedes cars made in the US.
Mr Barnier has also said that splitting up the single market and the “four freedoms” — free movement of goods, services, capital and labour — is unacceptable.
In fairness to Mr Barnier, the EU have been pretty unequivocal on this point from the start IIRC. If we wrangled a deal which even looked like they had bent on that point I'd think he'd become persona non grata pretty quick, so surely a no goer?
Quite. Which, given the continuing importance of uncontrolled immigration (see yesterday’s Delta Poll) means the government should have been preparing for a WTO BREXIT from the start.
The British public has few red lines. Uncontrolled Immigration is one of them
Ironically the government has just a few days ago allowed more immigration -- of doctors, nurses, IT workers and pastry chefs -- and no-one has complained. Since everyone in government wants more immigration, there really ought to be a form of words that can be found to content both sides.
The public is happy to have skilled immigration of doctors, that's never been contentious.
We have for decades been permitting unlimited unskilled migration so long as the person coming over is a [predominantly white] European but capping doctors etc from outside Europe. Are you proposing that continues?
I'm not proposing anything, and note in passing that non-EU immigration also rose under Mrs May's hegemony. What I am suggesting is that some weasel words can be found to make it look like we are preserving freedom of movement at the same time as taking back control. The situation seems to be that Westminster and Brussels want in practice the same thing, even if hidden behind a facade to fool the voters.
I see no problem with non-EU immigration rising so long as it is skilled migration that we want. Do you?
You miss the point. If those in power want more immigration, and Brussels wants to preserve freedom of movement, then in practice both sides are not very far apart.
That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
Its not binding forever it can be overruled by a subsequent referendum seeking for us to rejoin.
The other 27 nations that need to unanimously approve our membership application would want to know this time we were serious and that would mean a referendum to approve our joining, the Euro, Schengen and everything else that goes with joining.
Which would be rejected by a landslide
The big game changer for any next Referendum on rejoining is that the NHS will be in play - against the Rejoiners. May, by playing the "Brexit Bonus" card for the NHS, has signed up the NHS as being a Friend Of Staying Out.
Rejoin would be crucified on a campaign that kept asking "So, which hospital wards are you going to close, to pay for the Membership Fees?" And there would be no answer....
What will the membership fees be for the latest plan to be in the single market for goods?
Mr Barnier has also said that splitting up the single market and the “four freedoms” — free movement of goods, services, capital and labour — is unacceptable.
In fairness to Mr Barnier, the EU have been pretty unequivocal on this point from the start IIRC. If we wrangled a deal which even looked like they had bent on that point I'd think he'd become persona non grata pretty quick, so surely a no goer?
Quite. Which, given the continuing importance of uncontrolled immigration (see yesterday’s Delta Poll) means the government should have been preparing for a WTO BREXIT from the start.
The British public has few red lines. Uncontrolled Immigration is one of them
Ironically the government has just a few days ago allowed more immigration -- of doctors, nurses, IT workers and pastry chefs -- and no-one has complained. Since everyone in government wants more immigration, there really ought to be a form of words that can be found to content both sides.
The public is happy to have skilled immigration of doctors, that's never been contentious.
We have for decades been permitting unlimited unskilled migration so long as the person coming over is a [predominantly white] European but capping doctors etc from outside Europe. Are you proposing that continues?
I'm not proposing anything, and note in passing that non-EU immigration also rose under Mrs May's hegemony. What I am suggesting is that some weasel words can be found to make it look like we are preserving freedom of movement at the same time as taking back control. The situation seems to be that Westminster and Brussels want in practice the same thing, even if hidden behind a facade to fool the voters.
Surely we can all agree that immigration of doctors, nurses and tech entrepreneurs is a good thing, and that immigration of Big Issue sellers and car washers accommodated in central London on tax credits and housing benefits is a bad thing for taxpayers?
I have mixed feelings about Bercow going half way through a Parliament.
On the one hand I agree with Mr Meeks that he has shown some foolish traits, not least with regard to his bumper stickers. In addition I don't like his style and the fact he has somehow managed to turn the Speaker's position into a third force and a form of entertainment in the Commons when his job is simply to represent the rights of all MPs.
On the other hand removing him against his will would really be a bad thing and would politicise the position in a way that even he has not managed to do so far. It sets a dangerous precedent. Better that he stays until the end of the Parliament and then steps down.
Like others here I think Hoyle would be the best eventual replacement.
Although they've not forced the matter for countries like Sweden, post-Maastricht not one nation has ever been granted an opt-out from the Euro.
I doubt we'd be given one either. If we join again they will be looking for us to commit to membership and not be half-hearted like before. We wouldn't join the Euro on day one (other nations haven't) but we'll sign up to join in the future without an opt-out. The principle will be there.
Nobody needs an opt-out, Sweden cracked the cheat codes.
To understand this, let us imagine that the Brexit talks were to break down. The UK would crash out of the EU in March next year with no transitional deal in place. British goods entering the EU would be subject to EU tariffs, and vice versa. The EU levies a 10 per cent tax on car imports. The UK could levy reciprocal tariffs.
Now consider the position of German carmakers. According to the German association of the automotive industry, the country last year exported 769,000 cars to the UK, its single largest export market. The US came second with 494,000 cars. German carmakers also export 258,000 German-made vehicles to China, plus those produced in US and Chinese factories.
If the UK were forced into a cliff-edge Brexit in March, the German car industry would face tariffs in its two largest export markets within a few months of each other. Daimler-Benz issued a profit warning last week, and this only in relationship to the expected rise in Chinese tariffs on Mercedes cars made in the US.
If the EU are determined to offer a binary choice whereby either they annex Northern Ireland or there’s no deal, then they’re going to have a lot of their own key businesses rather upset with the situation.
removing him against his will would really be a bad thing
He said he would resign by now.
Yes I know but he has apparently changed his mind. I don't necessarily think that is unreasonable. As Alastair has pointed out it is not exactly an ideal time for yet more disruption and division in Parliament.
And I come back to my original point. If he chooses to resign that is one thing. If he forced out that is quite another and sets a very disturbing precedent.
removing him against his will would really be a bad thing
He said he would resign by now.
While having made such a commitment when being first elected it is not a comment that should simply be disregarded, I do have some sympathy that even politicians should not be bounds to their past pronouncements when events can move so much in the intervening period.
However when taken alongside other factors I think there's perhaps good reason for him to go now, or soon, but as Alistair says it doesn't look like happening.
removing him against his will would really be a bad thing
He said he would resign by now.
Yes I know but he has apparently changed his mind. I don't necessarily think that is unreasonable. As Alastair has pointed out it is not exactly an ideal time for yet more disruption and division in Parliament.
And I come back to my original point. If he chooses to resign that is one thing. If he forced out that is quite another and sets a very disturbing precedent.
Speakers have been forced out before. It doesn't set a precedent, so I don't see how it is disturbing.
That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
Its not binding forever it can be overruled by a subsequent referendum seeking for us to rejoin.
The other 27 nations that need to unanimously approve our membership application would want to know this time we were serious and that would mean a referendum to approve our joining, the Euro, Schengen and everything else that goes with joining.
Which would be rejected by a landslide
The big game changer for any next Referendum on rejoining is that the NHS will be in play - against the Rejoiners. May, by playing the "Brexit Bonus" card for the NHS, has signed up the NHS as being a Friend Of Staying Out.
Rejoin would be crucified on a campaign that kept asking "So, which hospital wards are you going to close, to pay for the Membership Fees?" And there would be no answer....
Absolutely! That was a short-term masterstroke by Theresa. To state that rescinding Britain's EU membership will directly improve public health, indeed survival rates, bought her some precious time. It also did wonders for Hunt's career prospects. I mean, what's not to like?
Someone will say the EU don't need to because they are stronger, but if it is a negotiation it involves give and take, even if one side takes more than the other. If they are to make no concessions then it isn't a negotiation, and if everything is treated as a redline by supporters that is ridiculous. It is silly to rely on the UK simply capitulating. Sure it might happen, but it might also simply be politically impossible for it to do so.
Someone will say the EU don't need to because they are stronger, but if it is a negotiation it involves give and take, even if one side takes more than the other. If they are to make no concessions then it isn't a negotiation, and if everything is treated as a redline by supporters that is ridiculous. It is silly to rely on the UK simply capitulating. Sure it might happen, but it might also simply be politically impossible for it to do so.
And in the age of Trump is it wise to have a hostile resentful “Third Country” as your largest trading partner?
Mr Barnier has also said that splitting up the single market and the “four freedoms” — free movement of goods, services, capital and labour — is unacceptable.
In fairness to Mr Barnier, the EU have been pretty unequivocal on this point from the start IIRC. If we wrangled a deal which even looked like they had bent on that point I'd think he'd become persona non grata pretty quick, so surely a no goer?
Quite. Which, given the continuing importance of uncontrolled immigration (see yesterday’s Delta Poll) means the government should have been preparing for a WTO BREXIT from the start.
The British public has few red lines. Uncontrolled Immigration is one of them
Ironically the government has just a few days ago allowed more immigration -- of doctors, nurses, IT workers and pastry chefs -- and no-one has complained. Since everyone in government wants more immigration, there really ought to be a form of words that can be found to content both sides.
The public is happy to have skilled immigration of doctors, that's never been contentious.
We have for decades been permitting unlimited unskilled migration so long as the person coming over is a [predominantly white] European but capping doctors etc from outside Europe. Are you proposing that continues?
I'm not proposing anything, and note in passing that non-EU immigration also rose under Mrs May's hegemony. What I am suggesting is that some weasel words can be found to make it look like we are preserving freedom of movement at the same time as taking back control. The situation seems to be that Westminster and Brussels want in practice the same thing, even if hidden behind a facade to fool the voters.
Surely we can all agree that immigration of doctors, nurses and tech entrepreneurs is a good thing, and that immigration of Big Issue sellers and car washers accommodated in central London on tax credits and housing benefits is a bad thing for taxpayers?
The latest pinch-point is fruit-pickers but again, this is not really the point, which is that the two sides are close enough for the whole thing to be fudged.
Someone will say the EU don't need to because they are stronger, but if it is a negotiation it involves give and take, even if one side takes more than the other. If they are to make no concessions then it isn't a negotiation, and if everything is treated as a redline by supporters that is ridiculous. It is silly to rely on the UK simply capitulating. Sure it might happen, but it might also simply be politically impossible for it to do so.
And in the age of Trump is it wise to have a hostile resentful “Third Country” as your largest trading partner?
Good point. Better to aim for complete capitulation than let Britain fester in the mediocrity of Brexit.
Someone will say the EU don't need to because they are stronger, but if it is a negotiation it involves give and take, even if one side takes more than the other. If they are to make no concessions then it isn't a negotiation, and if everything is treated as a redline by supporters that is ridiculous. It is silly to rely on the UK simply capitulating. Sure it might happen, but it might also simply be politically impossible for it to do so.
And in the age of Trump is it wise to have a hostile resentful “Third Country” as your largest trading partner?
Good point. Better to aim for complete capitulation than let Britain fester in the mediocrity of Brexit.
In all seriousness even if that were the better option, and no deal is much worse, I don't see how total capitulation is possible. Hence why no deal is looking more plausible than a deal, since capitulation is being demanded in some areas(in fairness since we cannot agree what to ask for, why wouldn't that be the demand).
John Stones for the Golden Boot? You could have named your own price. Tomorrow we'll be trying to work out if it is best to be top or second in the group.
Jesus Christ I have never seen a team defend corners as bad as Panama - they're practically punching players in the back of the the head as they wrestle players while not even looking at the ball. How they get through this game without going down to 8-9 men I do not know.
Someone will say the EU don't need to because they are stronger, but if it is a negotiation it involves give and take, even if one side takes more than the other. If they are to make no concessions then it isn't a negotiation, and if everything is treated as a redline by supporters that is ridiculous. It is silly to rely on the UK simply capitulating. Sure it might happen, but it might also simply be politically impossible for it to do so.
And in the age of Trump is it wise to have a hostile resentful “Third Country” as your largest trading partner?
Good point. Better to aim for complete capitulation than let Britain fester in the mediocrity of Brexit.
In all seriousness even if that were the better option, and no deal is much worse, I don't see how total capitulation is possible. Hence why no deal is looking more plausible than a deal, since capitulation is being demanded in some areas(in fairness since we cannot agree what to ask for, why wouldn't that be the demand).
I think Mr Glenn believes voters will go “Airbus threats or Big Issue sellers” and opt for the Big Issue sellers....despite the polling....
Mr Barnier has also said that splitting up the single market and the “four freedoms” — free movement of goods, services, capital and labour — is unacceptable.
In fairness to Mr Barnier, the EU have been pretty unequivocal on this point from the start IIRC. If we wrangled a deal which even looked like they had bent on that point I'd think he'd become persona non grata pretty quick, so surely a no goer?
Quite. Which, given the continuing importance of uncontrolled immigration (see yesterday’s Delta Poll) means the government should have been preparing for a WTO BREXIT from the start.
The British public has few red lines. Uncontrolled Immigration is one of them
Ironically the government has just a few days ago allowed more immigration -- of doctors, nurses, IT workers and pastry chefs -- and no-one has complained. Since everyone in government wants more immigration, there really ought to be a form of words that can be found to content both sides.
The public is happy to have skilled immigration of doctors, that's never been contentious.
We have for decades been permitting unlimited unskilled migration so long as the person coming over is a [predominantly white] European but capping doctors etc from outside Europe. Are you proposing that continues?
I'm not proposing anything, and note in passing that non-EU immigration also rose under Mrs May's hegemony. What I am suggesting is that some weasel words can be found to make it look like we are preserving freedom of movement at the same time as taking back control. The situation seems to be that Westminster and Brussels want in practice the same thing, even if hidden behind a facade to fool the voters.
Surely we can all agree that immigration of doctors, nurses and tech entrepreneurs is a good thing, and that immigration of Big Issue sellers and car washers accommodated in central London on tax credits and housing benefits is a bad thing for taxpayers?
The latest pinch-point is fruit-pickers but again, this is not really the point, which is that the two sides are close enough for the whole thing to be fudged.
Brexit isn’t going to revolve around fruit pickers. There’s plenty of students and unemployed around, and I’m sure we can reinitiate the old guest worker program if it’s required.
Someone will say the EU don't need to because they are stronger, but if it is a negotiation it involves give and take, even if one side takes more than the other. If they are to make no concessions then it isn't a negotiation, and if everything is treated as a redline by supporters that is ridiculous. It is silly to rely on the UK simply capitulating. Sure it might happen, but it might also simply be politically impossible for it to do so.
And in the age of Trump is it wise to have a hostile resentful “Third Country” as your largest trading partner?
Good point. Better to aim for complete capitulation than let Britain fester in the mediocrity of Brexit.
In all seriousness even if that were the better option, and no deal is much worse, I don't see how total capitulation is possible. Hence why no deal is looking more plausible than a deal, since capitulation is being demanded in some areas(in fairness since we cannot agree what to ask for, why wouldn't that be the demand).
I think Mr Glenn believes voters will go “Airbus threats or Big Issue sellers” and opt for the Big Issue sellers....despite the polling....
Voters will be too busy celebrating our World Cup win to care about abandoning Brexit.
Someone will say the EU don't need to because they are stronger, but if it is a negotiation it involves give and take, even if one side takes more than the other. If they are to make no concessions then it isn't a negotiation, and if everything is treated as a redline by supporters that is ridiculous. It is silly to rely on the UK simply capitulating. Sure it might happen, but it might also simply be politically impossible for it to do so.
And in the age of Trump is it wise to have a hostile resentful “Third Country” as your largest trading partner?
Good point. Better to aim for complete capitulation than let Britain fester in the mediocrity of Brexit.
In all seriousness even if that were the better option, and no deal is much worse, I don't see how total capitulation is possible. Hence why no deal is looking more plausible than a deal, since capitulation is being demanded in some areas(in fairness since we cannot agree what to ask for, why wouldn't that be the demand).
I think Mr Glenn believes voters will go “Airbus threats or Big Issue sellers” and opt for the Big Issue sellers....despite the polling....
A couple of colleagues of mine were having a conversation last week about how emotional Brexit has made them, and they were finally hopeful that a few more Airbuses will finally make enough people see the problems to stop it all. I think that's overly hopeful.
Panama are the worst team I have ever seen. Defenders who seem to have no idea how to even play football. Nothing but fouling and whinging at everything.
Panama are the worst team I have ever seen. Defenders who seem to have no idea how to even play football. Nothing but fouling and whinging at everything.
The best thing about this World Cup is that players who are being wankers are getting nowhere with the refs. Of course, that may be a function of VAR giving a chance to show they are just being wankers. But it is very much to be welcomed.
Someone will say the EU don't need to because they are stronger, but if it is a negotiation it involves give and take, even if one side takes more than the other. If they are to make no concessions then it isn't a negotiation, and if everything is treated as a redline by supporters that is ridiculous. It is silly to rely on the UK simply capitulating. Sure it might happen, but it might also simply be politically impossible for it to do so.
And in the age of Trump is it wise to have a hostile resentful “Third Country” as your largest trading partner?
Good point. Better to aim for complete capitulation than let Britain fester in the mediocrity of Brexit.
In all seriousness even if that were the better option, and no deal is much worse, I don't see how total capitulation is possible. Hence why no deal is looking more plausible than a deal, since capitulation is being demanded in some areas(in fairness since we cannot agree what to ask for, why wouldn't that be the demand).
I think Mr Glenn believes voters will go “Airbus threats or Big Issue sellers” and opt for the Big Issue sellers....despite the polling....
Voters will be too busy celebrating our World Cup win to care about abandoning Brexit.
If England win the EU will issue a press release "EU wins World Cup."
Comments
They made a public statement, in relatively nuanced terms, as they were rightly concerned the government wasn’t taking their predicament very seriously, and there isn’t much time left.
And why on earth would a multinational organisation ‘get behind the government’ as Hunt’s original tweet suggested ?
Still, they should be a much improved side come the world cup.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/09/lack-of-migrant-workers-left-food-rotting-in-uk-fields-last-year-data-reveals
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/trump/details-of-donald-trumps-uk-visit-revealed-us-president-will-tour-country-for-three-days/ar-AAz4Gqg?ocid=spartanntp
He said more than three-quarters of British berry-growers were already scaling back production and trimming investment plans amid fears that fruit would be left rotting in the fields."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/19/british-fruit-growers-short-of-pickers-farming
By Newark we were on a London North East Rail train
I don’t think anyone else noticed
As for the 'establishment and media' the Evening Standard, the Times, the Guardian, the Mirror, the BBC, the House of Lords, the CBI, the TUC etc are all still Remain leaning to some degree
The other 27 nations that need to unanimously approve our membership application would want to know this time we were serious and that would mean a referendum to approve our joining, the Euro, Schengen and everything else that goes with joining.
https://twitter.com/davidleighx/status/1010831386004123648?s=21
We have for decades been permitting unlimited unskilled migration so long as the person coming over is a [predominantly white] European but capping doctors etc from outside Europe. Are you proposing that continues?
The reason the Tories are now attacking business is because they don’t like the message which, bluntly, is that they if they don’t get their shit together and fast, a crash out Brexit next March is likely to have serious consequences.
They may also have an agenda. But that doesn’t mean that they’re wrong when they say that the uncertainty, the generall faffing around, the political game playing and the short time left are not conducive to creating the impression of a competently governed country open for business and in which it makes sense to invest. That is a message the government ought to listen to. The good of the country comes before protecting May’s arse from her own failings.
But imposing Eurozone membership on reluctant nations isn't something anyone will be interested in doing in the near future, since they're having enough trouble with the members that joined of their own accord. Unless we're talking like twenty years or thirty down the line, in which case who knows.
I doubt we'd be given one either. If we join again they will be looking for us to commit to membership and not be half-hearted like before. We wouldn't join the Euro on day one (other nations haven't) but we'll sign up to join in the future without an opt-out. The principle will be there.
Rejoin would be crucified on a campaign that kept asking "So, which hospital wards are you going to close, to pay for the Membership Fees?" And there would be no answer....
If we seek to rejoin in the distant future it will be a first referendum on that. Just like the 2016 referendum isn't referred to as the second referendum following the 1975 one.
Now consider the position of German carmakers. According to the German association of the automotive industry, the country last year exported 769,000 cars to the UK, its single largest export market. The US came second with 494,000 cars. German carmakers also export 258,000 German-made vehicles to China, plus those produced in US and Chinese factories.
If the UK were forced into a cliff-edge Brexit in March, the German car industry would face tariffs in its two largest export markets within a few months of each other. Daimler-Benz issued a profit warning last week, and this only in relationship to the expected rise in Chinese tariffs on Mercedes cars made in the US.
https://www.ft.com/content/c06b1762-761d-11e8-b326-75a27d27ea5f
I have mixed feelings about Bercow going half way through a Parliament.
On the one hand I agree with Mr Meeks that he has shown some foolish traits, not least with regard to his bumper stickers. In addition I don't like his style and the fact he has somehow managed to turn the Speaker's position into a third force and a form of entertainment in the Commons when his job is simply to represent the rights of all MPs.
On the other hand removing him against his will would really be a bad thing and would politicise the position in a way that even he has not managed to do so far. It sets a dangerous precedent. Better that he stays until the end of the Parliament and then steps down.
Like others here I think Hoyle would be the best eventual replacement.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5810433/Audi-calls-tariff-free-trade-deal-UK-urging-EU-strike-deal.html
If the EU are determined to offer a binary choice whereby either they annex Northern Ireland or there’s no deal, then they’re going to have a lot of their own key businesses rather upset with the situation.
And I come back to my original point. If he chooses to resign that is one thing. If he forced out that is quite another and sets a very disturbing precedent.
However when taken alongside other factors I think there's perhaps good reason for him to go now, or soon, but as Alistair says it doesn't look like happening.
It might still be a bad idea, however.
https://twitter.com/frde2059/status/1010070249838907392?s=21
Caveat emptor: I've not seen a better team than this England first half display. A lay might be expensive.
It's not coming home.
We're playing Panama, it is like getting excited about beating Australia in a one dayer.
Now is the optimal time to lay England for the World Cup.