The government is in the happy position of knowing that whatever it does, however badly it is split, however disastrously Brexit turns out, Jeremy Corbyn guarantees that the Tories will win the next general election. That is wonderful news for individual ministers and their ambitions, of course, but it means that there is absolutely no incentive for them as a collective to knuckle down, carve out a realistic negotiating stance and stick to it. What we are currently witnessing is a lot of people who want to succeed Theresa May establishing their credentials for the leadership election they expect before the next general election. That is much more important to all of them than ensuring the UK leaves the EU in the least harmful way possible. On that basis, it could just be that the very hardest of Brexits suits everyone: the fundamentalists get what they want, the soft Leavers get a disaster and the chance to say I told you so. It's for that reason that I am veering towards a No Deal departure: it suits so many personal agendas.
Just on your first point, that is surely a very dangerous place for the Tories to position themselves. Relying on an unelectable (in their eyes) opposition leader staying in place for the next 3 1/2 years, especially with all the changes that have to come in the political landscape in the intervening period, seems a fantastically short sighted position to adopt.
My view is that even with a good Brexit, any change of leadership at the top of the Labour Party must result in the Tories falling. To place all their money on Corbyn still being there in 2022 seems outrageously foolhardy.
The Labour membership as is quite clear after re electing him twice with big majorities even before GE17 will ensure Corbyn is still there at GE 2022
My legendary modesty prevents me from saying I called this a few months ago.
I don#t understand that. The Withdrawal agreement is much closer to agreement that the long term relationship that would replace it. So it's the period of transition that needs any extension.
Alastair's right to the extent that this is a negotiation, not a war. There does not have to be winners and losers. Both sides can win. How is that possible and what will "winning" look like?
Well, both sides want, with different conditions, things to change as little as possible, whatever they say. The conditionality is what is important.
We want a FTA, simple rules of origin, minimal disruption at the borders, the ability to have our own trade agreements with other countries and controls on freedom of movement from the EU.
They want to protect the integrity of the single market (which requires both rules of origin and alignment of UK standards to EU standards so that they can be sure what is produced here is compatible), some money and the ability to ensure that we do not abuse a FTA by state aid, unfair tax rules, lower employment standard etc.
So we need a deal which:
Will involve us using the same MaxFac that EU members (including ourselves) have already signed up to. Ensures that there is some form of regulatory alignment and some controls if either side (but in practice particularly the EU) thinks that the other is not playing fair. Protects the citizens of each side who have exercised their FOM. Gives EU citizens some sort of preferential rights to access to the UK (because not having that will severely aggravate the already appalling youth unemployment in several EU countries) for work and business. Requires the UK to pay to play for certain EU projects/facilities that we still want to use.
This really shouldn't be this hard. It involves us respecting and addressing their concerns and them doing the same. Only fanatics on either side can derail this. It is important, in my view, that the more pragmatic remainers who may still regret the fact that we are leaving give May their full support to achieve this. Oh, and cheap abuse of those who hold a different view from either side is unhelpful too.
Why on earth should Remainers give full support to a woman who labelled them citizens of nowhere? Stockholm syndrome is not a satisfactory answer.
The single market, given it requires free movement and the customs union, given it prevents the UK doing its own trade deals are clearly not an option for the UK in the short term given the Leave vote and the Commons indeed rejected them last month.
However the outline of a deal was done in December, namely citizens' rights, which thanks to Javid the UK has now made more progress on than the EU with plans for a simple registration scheme well under way and the extent of the exit bill agreed at around 40 billion euros. The key issue is Ireland and whether only a Customs Union for Ireland alone will be acceptable or a sufficient degree of regulatory alignment. If the former then that will not be acceptable to the DUP or the UK government and there will be no transition period and no FTA and a Brexiteer will likely succeed May by the end of next year as we head to WTO terms. If the latter then a transition period will take us until the end of 2021 with FTA negotiations ongoing in the meantime
Do you really think Javid's registration scheme is of any value at all ? Unless it's going to be enforced it's just gimmickry from a Home Secretary trying to promote himself as a future Prime Minister.
Many will ignore it - others will lie and claim they have no criminal record or claim they have a job when they don't. Javid is one of these numbskulls who thinks the Internet and "doing it all online" sounds quick, easy and above all cheap. No need to hire any enforcement officers of get anyone to do any serious checking and everyone will be happy.
While Javid, Gove and Hunt are the frontrunners, three female Brexiteers are also determined to stand, with Penny Mordaunt, the international development secretary, ascendant. Priti Patel, her predecessor, told colleagues she “will be ready” for a contest, while Andrea Leadsom, runner-up to May in 2016, has told friends that she will run if the contest is before the end of 2020.
About 20 Tories fancy a tilt at the top. Among those who might run to boost their chances of a big job are: Brandon Lewis, the party chairman; James Cleverly, his deputy; Dominic Raab, the housing minister; Tobias Ellwood, a defence minister; Rory Stewart, the prisons minister; and Sam Gyimah, the universities minister. Philip Lee, who resigned from the government last month over Brexit, is also keen to try while Tom Tugendhat, chairman of the foreign affairs committee, and Johnny Mercer, both former soldiers, could throw their hats into the ring. In practice, one veteran pointed out: “Once the starting gun is fired, quite quickly it will become about three or four contenders.”
Alastair's right to the extent that this is a negotiation, not a war. There does not have to be winners and losers. Both sides can win. How is that possible and what will "winning" look like?
Well, both sides want, with different conditions, things to change as little as possible, whatever they say. The conditionality is what is important.
We want a FTA, simple rules of origin, minimal disruption at the borders, the ability to have our own trade agreements with other countries and controls on freedom of movement from the EU.
They want to protect the integrity of the single market (which requires both rules of origin and alignment of UK standards to EU standards so that they can be sure what is produced here is compatible), some money and the ability to ensure that we do not abuse a FTA by state aid, unfair tax rules, lower employment standard etc.
So we need a deal which:
Will involve us using the same MaxFac that EU members (including ourselves) have already signed up to. Ensures that there is some form of regulatory alignment and some controls if either side (but in practice particularly the EU) thinks that the other is not playing fair. Protects the citizens of each side who have exercised their FOM. Gives EU citizens some sort of preferential rights to access to the UK (because not having that will severely aggravate the already appalling youth unemployment in several EU countries) for work and business. Requires the UK to pay to play for certain EU projects/facilities that we still want to use.
This really shouldn't be this hard. It involves us respecting and addressing their concerns and them doing the same. Only fanatics on either side can derail this. It is important, in my view, that the more pragmatic remainers who may still regret the fact that we are leaving give May their full support to achieve this. Oh, and cheap abuse of those who hold a different view from either side is unhelpful too.
Why on earth should Remainers give full support to a woman who labelled them citizens of nowhere? Stockholm syndrome is not a satisfactory answer.
One would hope there are enough remainers who aren’t myopic narcissistic sore losers who can look forward and make the best of the reality and not eternally backwards to a time where their minority lost the arguments.
Alastair's right to the extent that this is a negotiation, not a war. There does not have to be winners and losers. Both sides can win. How is that possible and what will "winning" look like?
Well, both sides want, with different conditions, things to change as little as possible, whatever they say. The conditionality is what is important.
We want a FTA, simple rules of origin, minimal disruption at the borders, the ability to have our own trade agreements with other countries and controls on freedom of movement from the EU.
They want to protect the integrity of the single market (which requires both rules of origin and alignment of UK standards to EU standards so that they can be sure what is produced here is compatible), some money and the ability to ensure that we do not abuse a FTA by state aid, unfair tax rules, lower employment standard etc.
So we need a deal which:
Will involve us using the same MaxFac that EU members (including ourselves) have already signed up to. Ensures that there is some form of regulatory alignment and some controls if either side (but in practice particularly the EU) thinks that the other is not playing fair. Protects the citizens of each side who have exercised their FOM. Gives EU citizens some sort of preferential rights to access to the UK (because not having that will severely aggravate the already appalling youth unemployment in several EU countries) for work and business. Requires the UK to pay to play for certain EU projects/facilities that we still want to use.
This really shouldn't be this hard. It involves us respecting and addressing their concerns and them doing the same. Only fanatics on either side can derail this. It is important, in my view, that the more pragmatic remainers who may still regret the fact that we are leaving give May their full support to achieve this. Oh, and cheap abuse of those who hold a different view from either side is unhelpful too.
Why on earth should Remainers give full support to a woman who labelled them citizens of nowhere? Stockholm syndrome is not a satisfactory answer.
The woman who was a Remainer ?
Now we can debate how many people are indeed citizens of nowhere but that phrase would have had support from many, many people who voted Remain.
And its a phrase which applies to some Leavers as well.
The government is in the happy position of knowing that whatever it does, however badly it is split, however disastrously Brexit turns out, Jeremy Corbyn guarantees that the Tories will win the next general election. That is wonderful news for individual ministers and their ambitions, of course, but it means that there is absolutely no incentive for them as a collective to knuckle down, carve out a realistic negotiating stance and stick to it. What we are currently witnessing is a lot of people who want to succeed Theresa May establishing their credentials for the leadership election they expect before the next general election. That is much more important to all of them than ensuring the UK leaves the EU in the least harmful way possible. On that basis, it could just be that the very hardest of Brexits suits everyone: the fundamentalists get what they want, the soft Leavers get a disaster and the chance to say I told you so. It's for that reason that I am veering towards a No Deal departure: it suits so many personal agendas.
Just on your first point, that is surely a very dangerous place for the Tories to position themselves. Relying on an unelectable (in their eyes) opposition leader staying in place for the next 3 1/2 years, especially with all the changes that have to come in the political landscape in the intervening period, seems a fantastically short sighted position to adopt.
My view is that even with a good Brexit, any change of leadership at the top of the Labour Party must result in the Tories falling. To place all their money on Corbyn still being there in 2022 seems outrageously foolhardy.
I expect Corbyn to be Labour leader well into his 70s and certainly way beyond the next general election, however heavily Labour is defeated. He appeals to the membership in ways that no other figure on the far left currently does. Until an obvious successor from that wing of the party emerges - and there is no sign of one yet - Corbyn will stay on. Were he to stand down during this Parliament, his successor would be from the softer, pro-EU left and the Marxist far left would be back out on the fringes. It’s important to remember that permanent defeat of the moderate left is far more important to the far left than defeating the Tories.
Alastair's right to the extent that this is a negotiation, not a war. There does not have to be winners and losers. Both sides can win. How is that possible and what will "winning" look like?
Well, both sides want, with different conditions, things to change as little as possible, whatever they say. The conditionality is what is important.
We want a FTA, simple rules of origin, minimal disruption at the borders, the ability to have our own trade agreements with other countries and controls on freedom of movement from the EU.
They want to protect the integrity of the single market (which requires both rules of origin and alignment of UK standards to EU standards so that they can be sure what is produced here is compatible), some money and the ability to ensure that we do not abuse a FTA by state aid, unfair tax rules, lower employment standard etc.
So we need a deal which:
Will involve us using the same MaxFac that EU members (including ourselves) have already signed up to. Ensures that there is some form of regulatory alignment and some controls if either side (but in practice particularly the EU) thinks that the other is not playing fair. Protects the citizens of each side who have exercised their FOM. Gives EU citizens some sort of preferential rights to access to the UK (because not having that will severely aggravate the already appalling youth unemployment in several EU countries) for work and business. Requires the UK to pay to play for certain EU projects/facilities that we still want to use.
This really shouldn't be this hard. It involves us respecting and addressing their concerns and them doing the same. Only fanatics on either side can derail this. It is important, in my view, that the more pragmatic remainers who may still regret the fact that we are leaving give May their full support to achieve this. Oh, and cheap abuse of those who hold a different view from either side is unhelpful too.
Why on earth should Remainers give full support to a woman who labelled them citizens of nowhere? Stockholm syndrome is not a satisfactory answer.
Because it is in the national interest to do so and that is more important than a stupid piece of psychobabble that May clearly only half understood more than a year ago.
Alastair's right to the extent that this is a negotiation, not a war. There does not have to be winners and losers. Both sides can win. How is that possible and what will "winning" look like?
Well, both sides want, with different conditions, things to change as little as possible, whatever they say. The conditionality is what is important.
We want a FTA, simple rules of origin, minimal disruption at the borders, the ability to have our own trade agreements with other countries and controls on freedom of movement from the EU.
They want to protect the integrity of the single market (which requires both rules of origin and alignment of UK standards to EU standards so that they can be sure what is produced here is compatible), some money and the ability to ensure that we do not abuse a FTA by state aid, unfair tax rules, lower employment standard etc.
So we need a deal which:
Will involve us using the same MaxFac that EU members (including ourselves) have already signed up to. Ensures that there is some form of regulatory alignment and some controls if either side (but in practice particularly the EU) thinks that the other is not playing fair. Protects the citizens of each side who have exercised their FOM. Gives EU citizens some sort of preferential rights to access to the UK (because not having that will severely aggravate the already appalling youth unemployment in several EU countries) for work and business. Requires the UK to pay to play for certain EU projects/facilities that we still want to use.
This really shouldn't be this hard. It involves us respecting and addressing their concerns and them doing the same. Only fanatics on either side can derail this. It is important, in my view, that the more pragmatic remainers who may still regret the fact that we are leaving give May their full support to achieve this. Oh, and cheap abuse of those who hold a different view from either side is unhelpful too.
Why on earth should Remainers give full support to a woman who labelled them citizens of nowhere? Stockholm syndrome is not a satisfactory answer.
Because it is in the national interest to do so and that is more important than a stupid piece of psychobabble that May clearly only half understood more than a year ago.
So, Stockholm syndrome. Enabling the policy desires of those who chose to promote xenophobic lies in order to secure their main objective is not in the national interest, even when done in order to secure the position of a woman who felt it a good idea to insult those whose support she now apparently needs.
Trouble is, Danny Dyer is right -- the current Brexit mess is largely David Cameron's fault; he has scuttled off; he is a twat. Dan Hodges is wrong. Blaming the voters who were given what looked like a binary choice but turns out to have been a lot more complex, is a cop-out. Voters could not express a preference for EAA vs Norway Plus because neither was on the ballot and even if they had been, the government and official campaigns made not the slightest effort to enlighten the electorate. Danny Dyer is truly the Macaulay, the Bagehot de nos jours.
The single market, given it requires free movement and the customs union, given it prevents the UK doing its own trade deals are clearly not an option for the UK in the short term given the Leave vote and the Commons indeed rejected them last month.
However the outline of a deal was done in December, namely citizens' rights, which thanks to Javid the UK has now made more progress on than the EU with plans for a simple registration scheme well under way and the extent of the exit bill agreed at around 40 billion euros. The key issue is Ireland and whether only a Customs Union for Ireland alone will be acceptable or a sufficient degree of regulatory alignment. If the former then that will not be acceptable to the DUP or the UK government and there will be no transition period and no FTA and a Brexiteer will likely succeed May by the end of next year as we head to WTO terms. If the latter then a transition period will take us until the end of 2021 with FTA negotiations ongoing in the meantime
Do you really think Javid's registration scheme is of any value at all ? Unless it's going to be enforced it's just gimmickry from a Home Secretary trying to promote himself as a future Prime Minister.
Many will ignore it - others will lie and claim they have no criminal record or claim they have a job when they don't. Javid is one of these numbskulls who thinks the Internet and "doing it all online" sounds quick, easy and above all cheap. No need to hire any enforcement officers of get anyone to do any serious checking and everyone will be happy.
In terms of protecting the rights of EU citizens in the UK though it clearly does have value. If they are already here all is needed is a simple registration scheme it is tighter controls on who comes in of those yet to come here that is more the issue
Alastair's right to the extent that this is a negotiation, not a war. There does not have to be winners and losers. Both sides can win. How is that possible and what will "winning" look like?
Well, both sides want, with different conditions, things to change as little as possible, whatever they say. The conditionality is what is important.
We want a FTA, simple rules of origin, minimal disruption at the borders, the ability to have our own trade agreements with other countries and controls on freedom of movement from the EU.
They want to protect the integrity of the single market (which requires both rules of origin and alignment of UK standards to EU standards so that they can be sure what is produced here is compatible), some money and the ability to ensure that we do not abuse a FTA by state aid, unfair tax rules, lower employment standard etc.
So we need a deal which:
Will involve us using the same MaxFac that EU members (including ourselves) have already signed up to. Ensures that there is some form of regulatory alignment and some controls if either side (but in practice particularly the EU) thinks that the other is not playing fair. Protects the citizens of each side who have exercised their FOM. Gives EU citizens some sort of preferential rights to access to the UK (because not having that will severely aggravate the already appalling youth unemployment in several EU countries) for work and business. Requires the UK to pay to play for certain EU projects/facilities that we still want to use.
This really shouldn't be this hard. It involves us respecting and addressing their concerns and them doing the same. Only fanatics on either side can derail this. It is important, in my view, that the more pragmatic remainers who may still regret the fact that we are leaving give May their full support to achieve this. Oh, and cheap abuse of those who hold a different view from either side is unhelpful too.
Why on earth should Remainers give full support to a woman who labelled them citizens of nowhere? Stockholm syndrome is not a satisfactory answer.
Because it is in the national interest to do so and that is more important than a stupid piece of psychobabble that May clearly only half understood more than a year ago.
So, Stockholm syndrome. Enabling the policy desires of those who chose to promote xenophobic lies in order to secure their main objective is not in the national interest, even when done in order to secure the position of a woman who felt it a good idea to insult those whose support she now apparently needs.
We are leaving Alastair. All that is up for discussion is the terms. And they can be good or bad. And May didn't tell any xenophobic lies. She was on your side, remember?
For the zillionth time, it isn't about razor wire, it is about having the right to live, work and claim benefits in the UK.
Because the Hostile Environment policy makes every British citizen simultaneously a border guard working for Her Majesty's Government and an illegal alien if there is a minor irregularity with their papers.
What a sorry state of affairs.
EDIT: Also, because the EU will not split the four freedoms, then free movement of people is required to have the free movement of goods that avoids the hard border.
For the zillionth time, it isn't about razor wire, it is about having the right to live, work and claim benefits in the UK.
Because the Hostile Environment policy makes every British citizen simultaneously a border guard working for Her Majesty's Government and an illegal alien if there is a minor irregularity with their papers.
What a sorry state of affairs.
Welcome to the 21st century. Some of us have been here a while but it's good to have you on board.
The government is in the happy position of knowing that whatever it does, however badly it is split, however disastrously Brexit turns out, Jeremy Corbyn guarantees that the Tories will win the next general election. That is wonderful news for individual ministers and their ambitions, of course, but it means that there is absolutely no incentive for them as a collective to knuckle down, carve out a realistic negotiating stance and stick to it. What we are currently witnessing is a lot of people who want to succeed Theresa May establishing their credentials for the leadership election they expect before the next general election. That is much more important to all of them than ensuring the UK leaves the EU in the least harmful way possible. On that basis, it could just be that the very hardest of Brexits suits everyone: the fundamentalists get what they want, the soft Leavers get a disaster and the chance to say I told you so. It's for that reason that I am veering towards a No Deal departure: it suits so many personal agendas.
Just on your first point, that is surely a very dangerous place for the Tories to position themselves. Relying on an unelectable (in their eyes) opposition leader staying in place for the next 3 1/2 years, especially with all the changes that have to come in the political landscape in the intervening period, seems a fantastically short sighted position to adopt.
My view is that even with a good Brexit, any change of leadership at the top of the Labour Party must result in the Tories falling. To place all their money on Corbyn still being there in 2022 seems outrageously foolhardy.
I expect Corbyn to be Labour leader well into his 70s and certainly way beyond the next general election, however heavily Labour is defeated. He appeals to the membership in ways that no other figure on the far left currently does. Until an obvious successor from that wing of the party emerges - and there is no sign of one yet - Corbyn will stay on. Were he to stand down during this Parliament, his successor would be from the softer, pro-EU left and the Marxist far left would be back out on the fringes. It’s important to remember that permanent defeat of the moderate left is far more important to the far left than defeating the Tories.
Corbyn will not stand down before the next general election, he will say he has 'his mandate' from the membership and intends to see it out.
After the next general election though if he loses to the Tories a more moderate, pro EEA candidate like Umunna will certainly challenge whether he stands down or not and there is a significant prospect of a new En Marche style party being started led by Umunna or someone like him if Corbynism remains in control of Labour even after a general election defeat
Why on earth should Remainers give full support to a woman who labelled them citizens of nowhere? Stockholm syndrome is not a satisfactory answer.
Because it is in the national interest to do so and that is more important than a stupid piece of psychobabble that May clearly only half understood more than a year ago.
So, Stockholm syndrome. Enabling the policy desires of those who chose to promote xenophobic lies in order to secure their main objective is not in the national interest, even when done in order to secure the position of a woman who felt it a good idea to insult those whose support she now apparently needs.
We are leaving Alastair. All that is up for discussion is the terms. And they can be good or bad. And May didn't tell any xenophobic lies. She was on your side, remember?
Candidly I’m not very interested in the terms of Brexit. They’ll be available if the UK chooses to take them, but with few parameters that are interestingly negotiable. I’m not going to invest any energy in supporting a government that is acting in a manner that is utterly damaging to the country’s interests. I’d rather move onto the next stage of the spiral down, which is coming soon enough.
For the zillionth time, it isn't about razor wire, it is about having the right to live, work and claim benefits in the UK.
Because the Hostile Environment policy makes every British citizen simultaneously a border guard working for Her Majesty's Government and an illegal alien if there is a minor irregularity with their papers.
What a sorry state of affairs.
Welcome to the 21st century. Some of us have been here a while but it's good to have you on board.
While Javid, Gove and Hunt are the frontrunners, three female Brexiteers are also determined to stand, with Penny Mordaunt, the international development secretary, ascendant. Priti Patel, her predecessor, told colleagues she “will be ready” for a contest, while Andrea Leadsom, runner-up to May in 2016, has told friends that she will run if the contest is before the end of 2020.
About 20 Tories fancy a tilt at the top. Among those who might run to boost their chances of a big job are: Brandon Lewis, the party chairman; James Cleverly, his deputy; Dominic Raab, the housing minister; Tobias Ellwood, a defence minister; Rory Stewart, the prisons minister; and Sam Gyimah, the universities minister. Philip Lee, who resigned from the government last month over Brexit, is also keen to try while Tom Tugendhat, chairman of the foreign affairs committee, and Johnny Mercer, both former soldiers, could throw their hats into the ring. In practice, one veteran pointed out: “Once the starting gun is fired, quite quickly it will become about three or four contenders.”
In terms of protecting the rights of EU citizens in the UK though it clearly does have value. If they are already here all is needed is a simple registration scheme it is tighter controls on who comes in of those yet to come here that is more the issue
No, completely and utterly wrong. The concern is the ones who are already here and participating in organised crime or simply living off the black economy. Those who have come "looking for work" while having criminal records back home or links to criminal gangs.
I would argue many of those who voted LEAVE because of concerns over immigration would want those already here to be verified in terms of allowing them to stay as well as ensuring future immigration controls are sufficient.
I thought by this stage in Brexit I'd be embarrassed by the UK's Machiavellian divide and rule tactics and appalled by the choice of what we were trying to get out of the negotiations. I never dreamed for a moment we wouldn't have decided what we want yet.
For the zillionth time, it isn't about razor wire, it is about having the right to live, work and claim benefits in the UK.
Because the Hostile Environment policy makes every British citizen simultaneously a border guard working for Her Majesty's Government and an illegal alien if there is a minor irregularity with their papers.
What a sorry state of affairs.
Welcome to the 21st century. Some of us have been here a while but it's good to have you on board.
You acknowledge it's a sorry state of affairs?
I thought Labour supporters were in favour of the bureaucratic state ?
If Labour had won in 2010 we'd now be obliged to carry ID cards and be required to produce them on request.
While Javid, Gove and Hunt are the frontrunners, three female Brexiteers are also determined to stand, with Penny Mordaunt, the international development secretary, ascendant. Priti Patel, her predecessor, told colleagues she “will be ready” for a contest, while Andrea Leadsom, runner-up to May in 2016, has told friends that she will run if the contest is before the end of 2020.
About 20 Tories fancy a tilt at the top. Among those who might run to boost their chances of a big job are: Brandon Lewis, the party chairman; James Cleverly, his deputy; Dominic Raab, the housing minister; Tobias Ellwood, a defence minister; Rory Stewart, the prisons minister; and Sam Gyimah, the universities minister. Philip Lee, who resigned from the government last month over Brexit, is also keen to try while Tom Tugendhat, chairman of the foreign affairs committee, and Johnny Mercer, both former soldiers, could throw their hats into the ring. In practice, one veteran pointed out: “Once the starting gun is fired, quite quickly it will become about three or four contenders.”
For the zillionth time, it isn't about razor wire, it is about having the right to live, work and claim benefits in the UK.
Because the Hostile Environment policy makes every British citizen simultaneously a border guard working for Her Majesty's Government and an illegal alien if there is a minor irregularity with their papers.
What a sorry state of affairs.
Welcome to the 21st century. Some of us have been here a while but it's good to have you on board.
You acknowledge it's a sorry state of affairs?
Yes. But it is an inevitable consequence of high economic migration, the ease of modern travel, the fact that significant parts of the world are shitholes and everyone has aspirations for a better life. As @SandyRentool points out borders and rights of residence have very little to do with razor wire and everything to do with the enforcement of laws within the boundaries.
My concern is that such rules put significant numbers of people off grid in a way that makes them exceptionally vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. I just don't see an alternative.
I thought by this stage in Brexit I'd be embarrassed by the UK's Machiavellian divide and rule tactics and appalled by the choice of what we were trying to get out of the negotiations. I never dreamed for a moment we wouldn't have decided what we want yet.
You have seriously underestimated the rank ineptitude of senior Tory politicians; easily done, given their capacity to go 'above and beyond' in the ineptitude stakes.
In terms of protecting the rights of EU citizens in the UK though it clearly does have value. If they are already here all is needed is a simple registration scheme it is tighter controls on who comes in of those yet to come here that is more the issue
No, completely and utterly wrong. The concern is the ones who are already here and participating in organised crime or simply living off the black economy. Those who have come "looking for work" while having criminal records back home or links to criminal gangs.
I would argue many of those who voted LEAVE because of concerns over immigration would want those already here to be verified in terms of allowing them to stay as well as ensuring future immigration controls are sufficient.
No you are wrong. The Leave vote was not a vote to send the secret police along to EU citizens already resident in the UK at 6am and deport them, a simple registration scheme will do.
The Leave vote in terms of immigration was a vote to end free movement from the EU and gain proper control over it based on those whose skills we actually need.
For the zillionth time, it isn't about razor wire, it is about having the right to live, work and claim benefits in the UK.
Because the Hostile Environment policy makes every British citizen simultaneously a border guard working for Her Majesty's Government and an illegal alien if there is a minor irregularity with their papers.
What a sorry state of affairs.
Welcome to the 21st century. Some of us have been here a while but it's good to have you on board.
You acknowledge it's a sorry state of affairs?
I thought Labour supporters were in favour of the bureaucratic state ?
If Labour had won in 2010 we'd now be obliged to carry ID cards and be required to produce them on request.
Sounds like a plan to me. But I voted LibDem in 2010!!
Why on earth should Remainers give full support to a woman who labelled them citizens of nowhere? Stockholm syndrome is not a satisfactory answer.
Because it is in the national interest to do so and that is more important than a stupid piece of psychobabble that May clearly only half understood more than a year ago.
So, Stockholm syndrome. Enabling the policy desires of those who chose to promote xenophobic lies in order to secure their main objective is not in the national interest, even when done in order to secure the position of a woman who felt it a good idea to insult those whose support she now apparently needs.
We are leaving Alastair. All that is up for discussion is the terms. And they can be good or bad. And May didn't tell any xenophobic lies. She was on your side, remember?
Candidly I’m not very interested in the terms of Brexit. They’ll be available if the UK chooses to take them, but with few parameters that are interestingly negotiable. I’m not going to invest any energy in supporting a government that is acting in a manner that is utterly damaging to the country’s interests. I’d rather move onto the next stage of the spiral down, which is coming soon enough.
Candidly, I don't see the terms of Brexit making that much of a difference. But how it leaves both our relations with the EU and with each other in this country is much more important. I want a deal that brings us together and leaves us with good relations with the EU. A bad deal will be divisive at both ends.
For the zillionth time, it isn't about razor wire, it is about having the right to live, work and claim benefits in the UK.
Because the Hostile Environment policy makes every British citizen simultaneously a border guard working for Her Majesty's Government and an illegal alien if there is a minor irregularity with their papers.
What a sorry state of affairs.
Welcome to the 21st century. Some of us have been here a while but it's good to have you on board.
You acknowledge it's a sorry state of affairs?
Yes. But it is an inevitable consequence of high economic migration, the ease of modern travel, the fact that significant parts of the world are shitholes and everyone has aspirations for a better life. As @SandyRentool points out borders and rights of residence have very little to do with razor wire and everything to do with the enforcement of laws within the boundaries.
My concern is that such rules put significant numbers of people off grid in a way that makes them exceptionally vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. I just don't see an alternative.
F1: still not many markets but if you backed Bottas at 10.5 for the win, that can be hedged on the Ladbrokes Exchange (easier for me to use that than Betfair) at 2.62 now, which isn't bad. Done that so I'm green either way.
Much as I dislike the idea of another referendum on the terms, on the grounds of social cohesion,if it's a choice between that and "no deal",then another bloody referendum it is.
Fanatic is a loaded term, but what you set it out here won't happen and probably can't happen. The EU is a multilateral policy and legal framework that you either sign up to (and qualify for) or you don't. If you don't, you become a third country. Not necessarily a stupid choice, but one that will see a big cut in our relationships and prospects. You have to really hate the EU (be a fanatic?) for it to be worth it.
That is not necessary. The structure does not exist as an end in itself (except for the fanatics) but as a means to protect legitimate aims. There is more than 1 way of achieving that, particularly in a country that already meets all of their standards and has them embedded in its law.
That misunderstands the nature of the European Union. It's a painfully arrived at multilateral agreement where parties have had to make compromises over the years to get a common policy and where the glue holding it together is its legal order and system of rules. The structure doesn't exist as an end in its self but it is the necessary underpinning to those policies. There are good reasons why the EU and its member states insist on full adherence to the rules and policies of its system.
It's reasonable to say you don't want to be part of that, in which case a Canada style FTA should be possible. The consequences are the probable loss of Nissan, Airbus, London as the European financial centre and much more. The UK will compete against other territories that have easier access to European and world markets. As I say, you have to hate the EU a fair bit to want that.
Why on earth should Remainers give full support to a woman who labelled them citizens of nowhere? Stockholm syndrome is not a satisfactory answer.
Because it is in the national interest to do so and that is more important than a stupid piece of psychobabble that May clearly only half understood more than a year ago.
So, Stockholm syndrome. Enabling the policy desires of those who chose to promote xenophobic lies in order to secure their main objective is not in the national interest, even when done in order to secure the position of a woman who felt it a good idea to insult those whose support she now apparently needs.
We are leaving Alastair. All that is up for discussion is the terms. And they can be good or bad. And May didn't tell any xenophobic lies. She was on your side, remember?
Candidly I’m not very interested in the terms of Brexit. They’ll be available if the UK chooses to take them, but with few parameters that are interestingly negotiable. I’m not going to invest any energy in supporting a government that is acting in a manner that is utterly damaging to the country’s interests. I’d rather move onto the next stage of the spiral down, which is coming soon enough.
Candidly, I don't see the terms of Brexit making that much of a difference. But how it leaves both our relations with the EU and with each other in this country is much more important. I want a deal that brings us together and leaves us with good relations with the EU. A bad deal will be divisive at both ends.
There is going to be either what you consider in those terms a bad deal or no deal, as per my article. This is all an inevitable consequence of how the referendum was won.
For the zillionth time, it isn't about razor wire, it is about having the right to live, work and claim benefits in the UK.
Because the Hostile Environment policy makes every British citizen simultaneously a border guard working for Her Majesty's Government and an illegal alien if there is a minor irregularity with their papers.
What a sorry state of affairs.
Welcome to the 21st century. Some of us have been here a while but it's good to have you on board.
You acknowledge it's a sorry state of affairs?
I thought Labour supporters were in favour of the bureaucratic state ?
If Labour had won in 2010 we'd now be obliged to carry ID cards and be required to produce them on request.
Well you were wrong. Corbyn has such strong support because he represents a decisive break with all that New Labour bullshit.
For the zillionth time, it isn't about razor wire, it is about having the right to live, work and claim benefits in the UK.
Because the Hostile Environment policy makes every British citizen simultaneously a border guard working for Her Majesty's Government and an illegal alien if there is a minor irregularity with their papers.
What a sorry state of affairs.
Welcome to the 21st century. Some of us have been here a while but it's good to have you on board.
You acknowledge it's a sorry state of affairs?
Yes. But it is an inevitable consequence of high economic migration, the ease of modern travel, the fact that significant parts of the world are shitholes and everyone has aspirations for a better life. As @SandyRentool points out borders and rights of residence have very little to do with razor wire and everything to do with the enforcement of laws within the boundaries.
My concern is that such rules put significant numbers of people off grid in a way that makes them exceptionally vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. I just don't see an alternative.
ID cards
How does that help? it just makes them hide even deeper and makes escape from abuse harder.
Completely OT. Just came across this article in The Nation from December 2016 looking at Hunter S Thompson's predictions about the rise of Trumpism. Well worth a read as an insight into the possible mindset of Trump supporters.
While Javid, Gove and Hunt are the frontrunners, three female Brexiteers are also determined to stand, with Penny Mordaunt, the international development secretary, ascendant. Priti Patel, her predecessor, told colleagues she “will be ready” for a contest, while Andrea Leadsom, runner-up to May in 2016, has told friends that she will run if the contest is before the end of 2020.
About 20 Tories fancy a tilt at the top. Among those who might run to boost their chances of a big job are: Brandon Lewis, the party chairman; James Cleverly, his deputy; Dominic Raab, the housing minister; Tobias Ellwood, a defence minister; Rory Stewart, the prisons minister; and Sam Gyimah, the universities minister. Philip Lee, who resigned from the government last month over Brexit, is also keen to try while Tom Tugendhat, chairman of the foreign affairs committee, and Johnny Mercer, both former soldiers, could throw their hats into the ring. In practice, one veteran pointed out: “Once the starting gun is fired, quite quickly it will become about three or four contenders.”
So no mention of Esther McVey? Surely she's up for it.
Liz Truss has had some puff-pieces in the Telegraph so she is a Cabinet minister (sort-of, Chief Secretary to the Treasury) with a Tory paper in her corner, who seems to be pitching for the daughter-of-Thatcher vote. Now, I've not backed her and she still comes over as a bit light-weight but she seems a lot more viable than many of the junior ministers named upthread.
" ... for this drivel apparently aimed at voters with the attention span of a doughnut,"
Oi! I'm a voter and my attention span is much greater than that of a ...
Hang on, what time's the F1 on?
Lol. Many a true word, though. I should like voters to be intensely engaged and prepared to be sulphurous, but in reality most people don't care that much either way. Asked for an opinion, they gave one, but that didn't mean they were all LibDems or UKIP on the subject. They can see it's difficult, can't be bothered to follow the details, and will take a final view about the Government's competence when they see how it works out.
The EU will offer a fudge which is essentially pretty close to "little change for now, potential for change in the future, subject to further discussions in a few years' time". If May settles for that and gets it past her party, most voters will think that's not too bad, now let's talk about the economy, the NHS, etc.
Totally agree with that. Brexit is not a very salient issue for most people.
For the zillionth time, it isn't about razor wire, it is about having the right to live, work and claim benefits in the UK.
Because the Hostile Environment policy makes every British citizen simultaneously a border guard working for Her Majesty's Government and an illegal alien if there is a minor irregularity with their papers.
What a sorry state of affairs.
Welcome to the 21st century. Some of us have been here a while but it's good to have you on board.
You acknowledge it's a sorry state of affairs?
I thought Labour supporters were in favour of the bureaucratic state ?
If Labour had won in 2010 we'd now be obliged to carry ID cards and be required to produce them on request.
Well you were wrong. Corbyn has such strong support because he represents a decisive break with all that New Labour bullshit.
Not many Corbyn supporters on this site.
And I assume you're accepting that if Labour had won in 2010 we'd now be obliged to carry ID cards and be required to produce them on request.
Much as I dislike the idea of another referendum on the terms, on the grounds of social cohesion,if it's a choice between that and "no deal",then another bloody referendum it is.
But how do you get there, when would you get there, how would it be worded, how long to go through both Houses of Parliament and in the event of remain, how are you going to get a statement from the EU Commission on the terms for our membership.
So you see, with respect, it is not just another referendum it is, it is very complicated
See the government is considering destroying the parasitic buy to let industry by making shortest tenancies 3 years (with a sensible exception for students).
For the zillionth time, it isn't about razor wire, it is about having the right to live, work and claim benefits in the UK.
Because the Hostile Environment policy makes every British citizen simultaneously a border guard working for Her Majesty's Government and an illegal alien if there is a minor irregularity with their papers.
What a sorry state of affairs.
Welcome to the 21st century. Some of us have been here a while but it's good to have you on board.
You acknowledge it's a sorry state of affairs?
I thought Labour supporters were in favour of the bureaucratic state ?
If Labour had won in 2010 we'd now be obliged to carry ID cards and be required to produce them on request.
Well you were wrong. Corbyn has such strong support because he represents a decisive break with all that New Labour bullshit.
Not many Corbyn supporters on this site.
And I assume you're accepting that if Labour had won in 2010 we'd now be obliged to carry ID cards and be required to produce them on request.
I would have hoped that if the government had tried to go ahead with ID cards that it would have backed down in the face of intense opposition. I'd pledged never to carry one and if it were to take a poll tax style revolt to see them off then so be it.
For the zillionth time, it isn't about razor wire, it is about having the right to live, work and claim benefits in the UK.
Because the Hostile Environment policy makes every British citizen simultaneously a border guard working for Her Majesty's Government and an illegal alien if there is a minor irregularity with their papers.
What a sorry state of affairs.
Welcome to the 21st century. Some of us have been here a while but it's good to have you on board.
You acknowledge it's a sorry state of affairs?
I thought Labour supporters were in favour of the bureaucratic state ?
If Labour had won in 2010 we'd now be obliged to carry ID cards and be required to produce them on request.
Sounds good to me , plus DNA taken at birth, would help in many areas.
No you are wrong. The Leave vote was not a vote to send the secret police along to EU citizens already resident in the UK at 6am and deport them, a simple registration scheme will do.
The Leave vote in terms of immigration was a vote to end free movement from the EU and gain proper control over it based on those whose skills we actually need.
It's your blissful naivety that gets me. There are migrants here who don't exist as far as the authorities are concerned and others who are here with criminal records indulging in criminality who are here legally under the pretense of "looking for work".
No one is talking about a "secret police" - that's an old Conservative dog whistle that didn't work in 1945 and won't work now.
I agree the law-abiding and legitimate will have no problem with a registration scheme but what about those who won't complete it in or can't complete it tin or are told not to complete it ?
For the zillionth time, it isn't about razor wire, it is about having the right to live, work and claim benefits in the UK.
Because the Hostile Environment policy makes every British citizen simultaneously a border guard working for Her Majesty's Government and an illegal alien if there is a minor irregularity with their papers.
What a sorry state of affairs.
Welcome to the 21st century. Some of us have been here a while but it's good to have you on board.
You acknowledge it's a sorry state of affairs?
I thought Labour supporters were in favour of the bureaucratic state ?
If Labour had won in 2010 we'd now be obliged to carry ID cards and be required to produce them on request.
Sounds good to me , plus DNA taken at birth, would help in many areas.
We could cover London in CCTV cameras and completely eliminate crime.
Doesn't anyone on the Brexit side despair at how ridiculous these ministers look to our infinitely more urbane EU partners or to the rest of the world who now know what partnership with us will be letting themselves in for?
Arron Banks is a minister? I must have missed that appointment. What office does he hold?
He's responsible for resettling the 70 million Turks who are keeping you awake at night.
Could anyone explain why it should be the 29 March 2019 date, and not 31 December 2020, that needs extending?
Because 29th March is the date we officially leave the EU as it stands. If there is no agreement by that date and no extension then we leave without agreement. 31st December then becomes irrelevant as there would be no transition period.
Why on earth should Remainers give full support to a woman who labelled them citizens of nowhere? Stockholm syndrome is not a satisfactory answer.
Because it is in the national interest to do so and that is more important than a stupid piece of psychobabble that May clearly only half understood more than a year ago.
So, Stockholm syndrome. Enabling the policy desires of those who chose to promote xenophobic lies in order to secure their main objective is not in the national interest, even when done in order to secure the position of a woman who felt it a good idea to insult those whose support she now apparently needs.
We are leaving Alastair. All that is up for discussion is the terms. And they can be good or bad. And May didn't tell any xenophobic lies. She was on your side, remember?
Candidly I’m not very interested in the terms of Brexit. They’ll be available if the UK chooses to take them, but with few parameters that are interestingly negotiable. I’m not going to invest any energy in supporting a government that is acting in a manner that is utterly damaging to the country’s interests. I’d rather move onto the next stage of the spiral down, which is coming soon enough.
Candidly, I don't see the terms of Brexit making that much of a difference. But how it leaves both our relations with the EU and with each other in this country is much more important. I want a deal that brings us together and leaves us with good relations with the EU. A bad deal will be divisive at both ends.
If you define a "good deal" in the sense of a balanced outcome that respects the referendum such as the current proposal of single market for goods but not services with restrictions on free movement, that will not be perceived as a good deal by the country.
" ... for this drivel apparently aimed at voters with the attention span of a doughnut,"
Oi! I'm a voter and my attention span is much greater than that of a ...
Hang on, what time's the F1 on?
Lol. Many a true word, though. I should like voters to be intensely engaged and prepared to be sulphurous, but in reality most people don't care that much either way. Asked for an opinion, they gave one, but that didn't mean they were all LibDems or UKIP on the subject. They can see it's difficult, can't be bothered to follow the details, and will take a final view about the Government's competence when they see how it works out.
The EU will offer a fudge which is essentially pretty close to "little change for now, potential for change in the future, subject to further discussions in a few years' time". If May settles for that and gets it past her party, most voters will think that's not too bad, now let's talk about the economy, the NHS, etc.
Totally agree with that. Brexit is not a very salient issue for most people.
Yet the EU referendum had a higher turnout at 72% than any UK general election since 1992
See the government is considering destroying the parasitic buy to let industry by making shortest tenancies 3 years (with a sensible exception for students).
Gets my vote.
And mine. Long overdue and with slashing of fees letting agents can charge we may well see many fewer letting agents
For the zillionth time, it isn't about razor wire, it is about having the right to live, work and claim benefits in the UK.
Because the Hostile Environment policy makes every British citizen simultaneously a border guard working for Her Majesty's Government and an illegal alien if there is a minor irregularity with their papers.
What a sorry state of affairs.
Welcome to the 21st century. Some of us have been here a while but it's good to have you on board.
You acknowledge it's a sorry state of affairs?
I thought Labour supporters were in favour of the bureaucratic state ?
If Labour had won in 2010 we'd now be obliged to carry ID cards and be required to produce them on request.
Well you were wrong. Corbyn has such strong support because he represents a decisive break with all that New Labour bullshit.
Not many Corbyn supporters on this site.
And I assume you're accepting that if Labour had won in 2010 we'd now be obliged to carry ID cards and be required to produce them on request.
I can't see any practical way of reducing illegal immigration that doesn't need ID cards to enforce it.
The government is in the happy position of knowing that whatever it does, however badly it is split, however disastrously Brexit turns out, Jeremy Corbyn guarantees that the Tories will win the next general election.
I believe you said that in 2017 too. It wasn't true then so why should it be different next time? Nobody won the last election - remaining in office via support of the DUP does not constitute 'winning'.More likely to be a 'time for a change' feeling at the next election too.
For the zillionth time, it isn't about razor wire, it is about having the right to live, work and claim benefits in the UK.
Because the Hostile Environment policy makes every British citizen simultaneously a border guard working for Her Majesty's Government and an illegal alien if there is a minor irregularity with their papers.
What a sorry state of affairs.
Welcome to the 21st century. Some of us have been here a while but it's good to have you on board.
You acknowledge it's a sorry state of affairs?
Yes. But it is an inevitable consequence of high economic migration, the ease of modern travel, the fact that significant parts of the world are shitholes and everyone has aspirations for a better life. As @SandyRentool points out borders and rights of residence have very little to do with razor wire and everything to do with the enforcement of laws within the boundaries.
My concern is that such rules put significant numbers of people off grid in a way that makes them exceptionally vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. I just don't see an alternative.
ID cards
How does that help? it just makes them hide even deeper and makes escape from abuse harder.
The way I see it is:
Either
A) Have a clear regulation where everyone with a legal right to live in this country has an easily checkable, unambiguous ID card; if you have one you are ok to live here, work, use the public services and receive benefits as appropriate.
Or
B ) Create an insidious 'hostile environment' which is not written in law and which makes life uncomfortable/impossible for those who may not have the right to live here - in the process causing many who are entitled to be here, to be treated apallingly (e.g. Windrush); in effect they become some underclass.
Could anyone explain why it should be the 29 March 2019 date, and not 31 December 2020, that needs extending?
Because 29th March is the date we officially leave the EU as it stands. If there is no agreement by that date and no extension then we leave without agreement. 31st December then becomes irrelevant as there would be no transition period.
The Withdrawal agreement is in pretty good shape though, and May is hugely incentivised to ensure that mythical day where we leave the EU comes quickly.
No you are wrong. The Leave vote was not a vote to send the secret police along to EU citizens already resident in the UK at 6am and deport them, a simple registration scheme will do.
The Leave vote in terms of immigration was a vote to end free movement from the EU and gain proper control over it based on those whose skills we actually need.
It's your blissful naivety that gets me. There are migrants here who don't exist as far as the authorities are concerned and others who are here with criminal records indulging in criminality who are here legally under the pretense of "looking for work".
No one is talking about a "secret police" - that's an old Conservative dog whistle that didn't work in 1945 and won't work now.
I agree the law-abiding and legitimate will have no problem with a registration scheme but what about those who won't complete it in or can't complete it tin or are told not to complete it ?
Dealing with exploitation of cheap migrant labour and criminal migrants is an issue with exploitation of migrants wherever they come from in the world, whether the EU or beyond and will go hand in hand with tighter border controls for those coming here.
The number of EU citizens in the UK who are criminals is a tiny fraction, it was legal migration the Leave voters wanted greater control over
For the zillionth time, it isn't about razor wire, it is about having the right to live, work and claim benefits in the UK.
Because the Hostile Environment policy makes every British citizen simultaneously a border guard working for Her Majesty's Government and an illegal alien if there is a minor irregularity with their papers.
What a sorry state of affairs.
Welcome to the 21st century. Some of us have been here a while but it's good to have you on board.
You acknowledge it's a sorry state of affairs?
Yes. But it is an inevitable consequence of high economic migration, the ease of modern travel, the fact that significant parts of the world are shitholes and everyone has aspirations for a better life. As @SandyRentool points out borders and rights of residence have very little to do with razor wire and everything to do with the enforcement of laws within the boundaries.
My concern is that such rules put significant numbers of people off grid in a way that makes them exceptionally vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. I just don't see an alternative.
ID cards
How does that help? it just makes them hide even deeper and makes escape from abuse harder.
The way I see it is:
Either
A) Have a clear regulation where everyone with a legal right to live in this country has an easily checkable, unambiguous ID card; if you have one you are ok to live here, work, use the public services and receive benefits as appropriate.
Or
B ) Create an insidious 'hostile environment' which is not written in law and which makes life uncomfortable/impossible for those who may not have the right to live here - in the process causing many who are entitled to be here, to be treated apallingly (e.g. Windrush); in effect they become some underclass.
Why on earth should Remainers give full support to a woman who labelled them citizens of nowhere? Stockholm syndrome is not a satisfactory answer.
Because it is in the national interest to do so and that is more important than a stupid piece of psychobabble that May clearly only half understood more than a year ago.
So, Stockholm syndrome. Enabling the policy desires of those who chose to promote xenophobic lies in order to secure their main objective is not in the national interest, even when done in order to secure the position of a woman who felt it a good idea to insult those whose support she now apparently needs.
We are leaving Alastair. All that is up for discussion is the terms. And they can be good or bad. And May didn't tell any xenophobic lies. She was on your side, remember?
Candidly I’m not very interested in the terms of Brexit. They’ll be available if the UK chooses to take them, but with few parameters that are interestingly negotiable. I’m not going to invest any energy in supporting a government that is acting in a manner that is utterly damaging to the country’s interests. I’d rather move onto the next stage of the spiral down, which is coming soon enough.
Candidly, I don't see the terms of Brexit making that much of a difference. But how it leaves both our relations with the EU and with each other in this country is much more important. I want a deal that brings us together and leaves us with good relations with the EU. A bad deal will be divisive at both ends.
There is going to be either what you consider in those terms a bad deal or no deal, as per my article. This is all an inevitable consequence of how the referendum was won.
You have said in the past that the 2 posters (the Turkey one and Farage’s 1930’s one) are the xenophobic lies which have in your view tainted the Leave campaign. I hope I have accurately reflected your view.
If that is correct, would you be less concerned at a Leave win based on immigration control but without those posters/claims? And what difference do you think such a win would have made?
Any Leave win requiring some control over FOM would still limit the options available to Britain, regardless of what lies were told about Turkey. But perhaps I have misunderstood?
The government is in the happy position of knowing that whatever it does, however badly it is split, however disastrously Brexit turns out, Jeremy Corbyn guarantees that the Tories will win the next general election.
I believe you said that in 2017 too. It wasn't true then so why should it be different next time? Nobody won the last election - remaining in office via support of the DUP does not constitute 'winning'.More likely to be a 'time for a change' feeling at the next election too.
Listening to Corbyn rambling on on Sophy Ridge this morning with references to the great labour movement post war he is virtually unique as sounding like a long lost 'dinosaur' and a 'time for a change' back to the dinosaurs is hardly inspirational
See the government is considering destroying the parasitic buy to let industry by making shortest tenancies 3 years (with a sensible exception for students).
Gets my vote.
And mine. Long overdue and with slashing of fees letting agents can charge we may well see many fewer letting agents
Mine too but I'm not holding my breath. Once the Tories realise they will lose a few votes over this they'll quetly drop it. (Worker representatives on boards, self-employed NI changes, Social care reforms, etc.)
The government is in the happy position of knowing that whatever it does, however badly it is split, however disastrously Brexit turns out, Jeremy Corbyn guarantees that the Tories will win the next general election.
I believe you said that in 2017 too. It wasn't true then so why should it be different next time? Nobody won the last election - remaining in office via support of the DUP does not constitute 'winning'.More likely to be a 'time for a change' feeling at the next election too.
Since when did Jeremy Corbyn win the 2017 general election? The Tories still won over 50 more seats than Labour did and provided they roughly hold their 42% voteshare against Corbyn will win again next time too as Major won in 1992 after 13 years in power by winning 41.9%, losing only 0.3% of the 42.2% Thatcher got in 1987
For the zillionth time, it isn't about razor wire, it is about having the right to live, work and claim benefits in the UK.
Because the Hostile Environment policy makes every British citizen simultaneously a border guard working for Her Majesty's Government and an illegal alien if there is a minor irregularity with their papers.
What a sorry state of affairs.
Welcome to the 21st century. Some of us have been here a while but it's good to have you on board.
You acknowledge it's a sorry state of affairs?
I thought Labour supporters were in favour of the bureaucratic state ?
If Labour had won in 2010 we'd now be obliged to carry ID cards and be required to produce them on request.
Sounds good to me , plus DNA taken at birth, would help in many areas.
We could cover London in CCTV cameras and completely eliminate crime.
CCTV and DNA has helped solved crime.
I would have no problem carrying an ID card and giving a DNA sample.
David Cameron ought to have set up a royal commission to explore the options before placing one of them on the referendum ballot.
When the preferred option of any decent Brexit-supporting patriot is "threaten the EU with destruction until they meet our terms", such an exercise would be futile.
Could anyone explain why it should be the 29 March 2019 date, and not 31 December 2020, that needs extending?
Because 29th March is the date we officially leave the EU as it stands. If there is no agreement by that date and no extension then we leave without agreement. 31st December then becomes irrelevant as there would be no transition period.
The Withdrawal agreement is in pretty good shape though, and May is hugely incentivised to ensure that mythical day where we leave the EU comes quickly.
I am not debating whether or not it will happen, just explaining that if an extension is necessary it has to be on the March 29th date or the later date ceases to be relevant.
" ... for this drivel apparently aimed at voters with the attention span of a doughnut,"
Oi! I'm a voter and my attention span is much greater than that of a ...
Hang on, what time's the F1 on?
Lol. Many a true word, though. I should like voters to be intensely engaged and prepared to be sulphurous, but in reality most people don't care that much either way. Asked for an opinion, they gave one, but that didn't mean they were all LibDems or UKIP on the subject. They can see it's difficult, can't be bothered to follow the details, and will take a final view about the Government's competence when they see how it works out.
The EU will offer a fudge which is essentially pretty close to "little change for now, potential for change in the future, subject to further discussions in a few years' time". If May settles for that and gets it past her party, most voters will think that's not too bad, now let's talk about the economy, the NHS, etc.
Indeed. Leavers should embrace the vassal state: a crappier than before deal, accept the rules and almost no influence over things that matter to us, but otherwise carries on much as before. Leaving the EU doesn't have to be good - every potential Brexit arrangement is a downgrade - but it does have to be tolerable. Then Brexit will be seen as a success.
See the government is considering destroying the parasitic buy to let industry by making shortest tenancies 3 years (with a sensible exception for students).
Gets my vote.
And mine. Long overdue and with slashing of fees letting agents can charge we may well see many fewer letting agents
Mine too but I'm not holding my breath. Once the Tories realise they will lose a few votes over this they'll quetly drop it. (Worker representatives on boards, self-employed NI changes, Social care reforms, etc.)
My landlord has hundreds of properties on the books, still told me that they did not need to follow the Housing Act when it came to rent increases, i.e. in their eyes the right to stay is illusory. (Corbyn talks about rent - but the power to keep increases vaguely in line with market is already there.)
" ... for this drivel apparently aimed at voters with the attention span of a doughnut,"
Oi! I'm a voter and my attention span is much greater than that of a ...
Hang on, what time's the F1 on?
Lol. Many a true word, though. I should like voters to be intensely engaged and prepared to be sulphurous, but in reality most people don't care that much either way. Asked for an opinion, they gave one, but that didn't mean they were all LibDems or UKIP on the subject. They can see it's difficult, can't be bothered to follow the details, and will take a final view about the Government's competence when they see how it works out.
The EU will offer a fudge which is essentially pretty close to "little change for now, potential for change in the future, subject to further discussions in a few years' time". If May settles for that and gets it past her party, most voters will think that's not too bad, now let's talk about the economy, the NHS, etc.
Totally agree with that. Brexit is not a very salient issue for most people.
Yet the EU referendum had a higher turnout at 72% than any UK general election since 1992
That does not contradict my point at all. The electorate had had the EU issue rammed down their throats for months prior to the Referendum - in a much more intense way than occurred in 1975.Not particularly surprising that most voters were sufficiently engaged to cast a vote - though turnout was still well below the level we saw in Scotland in 2014 for the Independence Referendum. Moreover , only a minority of those who voted are likely to have had strong views one way or the other - for many it was a 55/45 or 60/40 decision at most.
See the government is considering destroying the parasitic buy to let industry by making shortest tenancies 3 years (with a sensible exception for students).
Gets my vote.
And mine. Long overdue and with slashing of fees letting agents can charge we may well see many fewer letting agents
Mine too but I'm not holding my breath. Once the Tories realise they will lose a few votes over this they'll quetly drop it. (Worker representatives on boards, self-employed NI changes, Social care reforms, etc.)
This will not be dropped - the reduction in fees has already been announced and this was included in a package announced on Marr today
IDS confirms he met 'his old friend John Bolton' who he has known for 26 years last week regarding the prospect of a post Brexit trade deal with the USA on the Sunday Politics
The government is in the happy position of knowing that whatever it does, however badly it is split, however disastrously Brexit turns out, Jeremy Corbyn guarantees that the Tories will win the next general election.
I believe you said that in 2017 too. It wasn't true then so why should it be different next time? Nobody won the last election - remaining in office via support of the DUP does not constitute 'winning'.More likely to be a 'time for a change' feeling at the next election too.
Since when did Jeremy Corbyn win the 2017 general election? The Tories still won over 50 more seats than Labour did and provided they roughly hold their 42% voteshare against Corbyn will win again next time too as Major won in 1992 after 13 years in power by winning 41.9%, losing only 0.3% of the 42.2% Thatcher got in 1987
Since when did @Justin124 say Corbyn won the 2017 election? ("Nobody won the last election ")
I’m glad to see my Versailles Brexit analogy getting an outing.
The fantasising of the British Cabinet gets more embarrassing with each day that passes. We haven’t prepared for independence, so we have no choice but to go for continued CU and SM membership for now. The only major worthwhile outcome will be the end of the EU citizenship and the rights of EU nationals to non-contributory access to our welfare state.
It will be humiliating, but what choice do we have?
The government is in the happy position of knowing that whatever it does, however badly it is split, however disastrously Brexit turns out, Jeremy Corbyn guarantees that the Tories will win the next general election.
I believe you said that in 2017 too. It wasn't true then so why should it be different next time? Nobody won the last election - remaining in office via support of the DUP does not constitute 'winning'.More likely to be a 'time for a change' feeling at the next election too.
Since when did Jeremy Corbyn win the 2017 general election? The Tories still won over 50 more seats than Labour did and provided they roughly hold their 42% voteshare against Corbyn will win again next time too as Major won in 1992 after 13 years in power by winning 41.9%, losing only 0.3% of the 42.2% Thatcher got in 1987
I have never suggested that he did! Nobody won the 2017 election - as is apparent from the need to secure the support of another party in order to remain in office.
" ... for this drivel apparently aimed at voters with the attention span of a doughnut,"
Oi! I'm a voter and my attention span is much greater than that of a ...
Hang on, what time's the F1 on?
Lol. Many a true word, though. I should like voters to be intensely engaged and prepared to be sulphurous, but in reality most people don't care that much either way. Asked for an opinion, they gave one, but that didn't mean they were all LibDems or UKIP on the subject. They can see it's difficult, can't be bothered to follow the details, and will take a final view about the Government's competence when they see how it works out.
The EU will offer a fudge which is essentially pretty close to "little change for now, potential for change in the future, subject to further discussions in a few years' time". If May settles for that and gets it past her party, most voters will think that's not too bad, now let's talk about the economy, the NHS, etc.
Totally agree with that. Brexit is not a very salient issue for most people.
Yet the EU referendum had a higher turnout at 72% than any UK general election since 1992
That does not contradict my point at all. The electorate had had the EU issue rammed down their throats for months prior to the Referendum - in a much more intense way than occurred in 1975.Not particularly surprising that most voters were sufficiently engaged to cast a vote - though turnout was still well below the level we saw in Scotland in 2014 for the Independence Referendum. Moreover , only a minority of those who voted are likely to have had strong views one way or the other - for many it was a 55/45 or 60/40 decision at most.
Many voted in the EU referendum who never normally vote in general elections because issues of sovereignty and immigration were so important to them, just as in Scotland many normally non voters turned out because the issue of whether their country should be independent or remain part of the UK was so important to them
While Javid, Gove and Hunt are the frontrunners, three female Brexiteers are also determined to stand, with Penny Mordaunt, the international development secretary, ascendant. Priti Patel, her predecessor, told colleagues she “will be ready” for a contest, while Andrea Leadsom, runner-up to May in 2016, has told friends that she will run if the contest is before the end of 2020.
About 20 Tories fancy a tilt at the top. Among those who might run to boost their chances of a big job are: Brandon Lewis, the party chairman; James Cleverly, his deputy; Dominic Raab, the housing minister; Tobias Ellwood, a defence minister; Rory Stewart, the prisons minister; and Sam Gyimah, the universities minister. Philip Lee, who resigned from the government last month over Brexit, is also keen to try while Tom Tugendhat, chairman of the foreign affairs committee, and Johnny Mercer, both former soldiers, could throw their hats into the ring. In practice, one veteran pointed out: “Once the starting gun is fired, quite quickly it will become about three or four contenders.”
See the government is considering destroying the parasitic buy to let industry by making shortest tenancies 3 years (with a sensible exception for students).
Gets my vote.
And mine. Long overdue and with slashing of fees letting agents can charge we may well see many fewer letting agents
Mine too but I'm not holding my breath. Once the Tories realise they will lose a few votes over this they'll quetly drop it. (Worker representatives on boards, self-employed NI changes, Social care reforms, etc.)
This will not be dropped - the reduction in fees has already been announced and this was included in a package announced on Marr today
The fees are a done deal and the best Labour can say about security of tenure is "it's not enough"
" ... for this drivel apparently aimed at voters with the attention span of a doughnut,"
Oi! I'm a voter and my attention span is much greater than that of a ...
Hang on, what time's the F1 on?
Lol. Many a true word, though. I should like voters to be intensely engaged and prepared to be sulphurous, but in reality most people don't care that much either way. Asked for an opinion, they gave one, but that didn't mean they were all LibDems or UKIP on the subject. They can see it's difficult, can't be bothered to follow the details, and will take a final view about the Government's competence when they see how it works out.
The EU will offer a fudge which is essentially pretty close to "little change for now, potential for change in the future, subject to further discussions in a few years' time". If May settles for that and gets it past her party, most voters will think that's not too bad, now let's talk about the economy, the NHS, etc.
Totally agree with that. Brexit is not a very salient issue for most people.
Yet the EU referendum had a higher turnout at 72% than any UK general election since 1992
That does not contradict my point at all. The electorate had had the EU issue rammed down their throats for months prior to the Referendum - in a much more intense way than occurred in 1975.Not particularly surprising that most voters were sufficiently engaged to cast a vote - though turnout was still well below the level we saw in Scotland in 2014 for the Independence Referendum. Moreover , only a minority of those who voted are likely to have had strong views one way or the other - for many it was a 55/45 or 60/40 decision at most.
Many voted in the EU referendum who never normally vote in general elections because issues of sovereignty and immigration were so important to them, just as in Scotland many normally non voters turned out because the issue of whether their country should be independent or remain part of the UK was so important to them
Very unlikely in my view - most people found it a highly technical issue and were keen to get rid of it after many months of noise and intensive campaigning.
Mrs May is quite unsuited to be Prime Minister, of course. The problem isn`t really Brexit and the stance of the EU. It is the fact that the Conservative Party is an unholy gang of chancers and schemers, held together only because they loath Mr Corbyn and his Labour Party even more than they loath one another.
Do they have anybody who could hold them together and provide some leadership for the nation? Certainly not Rees-Mogg, Gove, Hunt, Javid and all the other names that the PB Tories like to play with. The sooner the Conservative Party splits up and different factions go their separate way, the better for the county.
Introducing STV would help this process, of course. It would also help Labour to split up and provide more coherent alternatives.
The government is in the happy position of knowing that whatever it does, however badly it is split, however disastrously Brexit turns out, Jeremy Corbyn guarantees that the Tories will win the next general election.
I believe you said that in 2017 too. It wasn't true then so why should it be different next time? Nobody won the last election - remaining in office via support of the DUP does not constitute 'winning'.More likely to be a 'time for a change' feeling at the next election too.
The change will be a new Tory leader. Labour will offer the same bloke as last time. The one who spent 40 years backing any cause or regime no matter how violent or murderous just so long as it was anti-West. This is Labour's problem. Corbyn makes members feel good about themselves; but he makes millions of voters feel very bad about Labour.
For the zillionth time, it isn't about razor wire, it is about having the right to live, work and claim benefits in the UK.
Because the Hostile Environment policy makes every British citizen simultaneously a border guard working for Her Majesty's Government and an illegal alien if there is a minor irregularity with their papers.
What a sorry state of affairs.
Welcome to the 21st century. Some of us have been here a while but it's good to have you on board.
You acknowledge it's a sorry state of affairs?
I thought Labour supporters were in favour of the bureaucratic state ?
If Labour had won in 2010 we'd now be obliged to carry ID cards and be required to produce them on request.
Sounds good to me , plus DNA taken at birth, would help in many areas.
We could cover London in CCTV cameras and completely eliminate crime.
CCTV and DNA has helped solved crime.
I would have no problem carrying an ID card and giving a DNA sample.
Yes they have -- cctv and DNA have solved crimes -- but they do not seem to have prevented crime. This is counter-intuitive, perhaps, but here we are.
Comments
For the zillionth time, it isn't about razor wire, it is about having the right to live, work and claim benefits in the UK.
Treasury officials are urging May to seek a six-month extension to article 50, delaying Brexit to negotiate a better deal.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/oust-me-if-you-dare-theresa-may-warns-brexit-bullies-5q7g5vn8m
My legendary modesty prevents me from saying I called this a few months ago.
Many will ignore it - others will lie and claim they have no criminal record or claim they have a job when they don't. Javid is one of these numbskulls who thinks the Internet and "doing it all online" sounds quick, easy and above all cheap. No need to hire any enforcement officers of get anyone to do any serious checking and everyone will be happy.
While Javid, Gove and Hunt are the frontrunners, three female Brexiteers are also determined to stand, with Penny Mordaunt, the international development secretary, ascendant. Priti Patel, her predecessor, told colleagues she “will be ready” for a contest, while Andrea Leadsom, runner-up to May in 2016, has told friends that she will run if the contest is before the end of 2020.
About 20 Tories fancy a tilt at the top. Among those who might run to boost their chances of a big job are: Brandon Lewis, the party chairman; James Cleverly, his deputy; Dominic Raab, the housing minister; Tobias Ellwood, a defence minister; Rory Stewart, the prisons minister; and Sam Gyimah, the universities minister. Philip Lee, who resigned from the government last month over Brexit, is also keen to try while Tom Tugendhat, chairman of the foreign affairs committee, and Johnny Mercer, both former soldiers, could throw their hats into the ring. In practice, one veteran pointed out: “Once the starting gun is fired, quite quickly it will become about three or four contenders.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/we-wish-you-werent-here-rivals-lay-ground-to-topple-theresa-may-fzxgvl9t0
Now we can debate how many people are indeed citizens of nowhere but that phrase would have had support from many, many people who voted Remain.
And its a phrase which applies to some Leavers as well.
What a sorry state of affairs.
EDIT: Also, because the EU will not split the four freedoms, then free movement of people is required to have the free movement of goods that avoids the hard border.
After the next general election though if he loses to the Tories a more moderate, pro EEA candidate like Umunna will certainly challenge whether he stands down or not and there is a significant prospect of a new En Marche style party being started led by Umunna or someone like him if Corbynism remains in control of Labour even after a general election defeat
Not me guv: "...it's the voters who voted Leave"!
Interesting on Mordaunt. Think she's in a good position. Leadsom is a failed candidate from last time, Patel isn't a minister any more.
I would argue many of those who voted LEAVE because of concerns over immigration would want those already here to be verified in terms of allowing them to stay as well as ensuring future immigration controls are sufficient.
If Labour had won in 2010 we'd now be obliged to carry ID cards and be required to produce them on request.
Sorry Esther.
My concern is that such rules put significant numbers of people off grid in a way that makes them exceptionally vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. I just don't see an alternative.
The Leave vote in terms of immigration was a vote to end free movement from the EU and gain proper control over it based on those whose skills we actually need.
It's reasonable to say you don't want to be part of that, in which case a Canada style FTA should be possible. The consequences are the probable loss of Nissan, Airbus, London as the European financial centre and much more. The UK will compete against other territories that have easier access to European and world markets. As I say, you have to hate the EU a fair bit to want that.
https://www.thenation.com/article/this-political-theorist-predicted-the-rise-of-trumpism-his-name-was-hunter-s-thompson/
And I assume you're accepting that if Labour had won in 2010 we'd now be obliged to carry ID cards and be required to produce them on request.
So you see, with respect, it is not just another referendum it is, it is very complicated
Gets my vote.
No one is talking about a "secret police" - that's an old Conservative dog whistle that didn't work in 1945 and won't work now.
I agree the law-abiding and legitimate will have no problem with a registration scheme but what about those who won't complete it in or can't complete it tin or are told not to complete it ?
https://twitter.com/APHClarkson/status/1013193394330447873
Either
A) Have a clear regulation where everyone with a legal right to live in this country has an easily checkable, unambiguous ID card; if you have one you are ok to live here, work, use the public services and receive benefits as appropriate.
Or
B ) Create an insidious 'hostile environment' which is not written in law and which makes life uncomfortable/impossible for those who may not have the right to live here - in the process causing many who are entitled to be here, to be treated apallingly (e.g. Windrush); in effect they become some underclass.
I prefer a clear unabiguous rule of law approach.
The number of EU citizens in the UK who are criminals is a tiny fraction, it was legal migration the Leave voters wanted greater control over
If that is correct, would you be less concerned at a Leave win based on immigration control but without those posters/claims? And what difference do you think such a win would have made?
Any Leave win requiring some control over FOM would still limit the options available to Britain, regardless of what lies were told about Turkey. But perhaps I have misunderstood?
I would have no problem carrying an ID card and giving a DNA sample.
The fantasising of the British Cabinet gets more embarrassing with each day that passes. We haven’t prepared for independence, so we have no choice but to go for continued CU and SM membership for now. The only major worthwhile outcome will be the end of the EU citizenship and the rights of EU nationals to non-contributory access to our welfare state.
It will be humiliating, but what choice do we have?
Do they have anybody who could hold them together and provide some leadership for the nation? Certainly not Rees-Mogg, Gove, Hunt, Javid and all the other names that the PB Tories like to play with. The sooner the Conservative Party splits up and different factions go their separate way, the better for the county.
Introducing STV would help this process, of course. It would also help Labour to split up and provide more coherent alternatives.