The momemtum for a referendum on the deal is a lot like the charge of the Rohirrim at Pelennor Fields.
Brace yourselves, you can either be an Orc or you can be part of the charge.
Quite simply if there’s no referendum and Brexit is sub optimal the voters will vote for a party pledging to take us back in.
I think the pressure will be heavy on the Labour Party conference to back a #PeoplesVote
I note that it is in Liverpool this year, and the Tory one the following week in Brum. Looks like big protests planned for both from what I see on Twitter.
Mrs Foxy has wound up with a paycut. A tiny payrise, unfunded centrally, has been outweighed by a down-banding exercise so she moves from band 6 to 5. Dr Foxy gets a nominal 0.75%, so a real terms pay cut for the tenth consecutive year of about 2%. On the positive side the recruitment difficulties mean that there is no limit to the amount of extra shifts to be covered at whatever the market will bear.
Hammond's Autumn budget is going to be interesting, to see whether the promised increased funding is just smoke and mirrors.
I wish you luck on your “pay journey”, a circumlocution I had not encountered before...
"We hope that this issue between the RCN and its membership can be resolved quickly, and we would direct colleagues towards the information on our website, which makes clear the pay journeys for different staff over the next three years."
I thought the unions foolish to agree a three year deal in the current uncertain climate, but it was in the detail a number of tinkerings within the increments on the AFC banding spine, with the lower bands (HCAs) getting the better deal.
I am counting the days now before voting with my feet.
What’s the issue, is it the details of what was agreed between the union and the employers that’s been misinterpreted by the employers, or is that that the agreeement has been miscommunicated by the unions to the employees?
Mr. Jonathan, there's something wryly perverse about certain persons crying out that the 'will of the people' does count because it's not what Scotland or London wanted (see tweet below) whilst also demanding a 'people's vote'.
I respect democracy. You are a populist. He panders to the so-called will of the people.
The London point is fascinating. The very fact that the rest of England voted the other way doesn't seem to matter, and the lack of concern Lammy and certain others have for that may well go a long way to explaining why they voted the other way.
The idea that Brexiteers are arguing that staying in the SM and CU are not Brexit now, whilst arguing for staying in during the campaign is another absurdity.
Turkey is in the EU if we are talking about trade, but if we're talking about immigration it's not a member yet, OK?
Out means never associating ourselves with anything that has an E in its acronym again. FREEDOM! BLUE PASSPORTS!
I suspect it is a trend of Remainers who said, the decision was made and let's get on with it, who are now saying, sod that. If Brexit is the cluster fuck we always knew it was going to be, let's put an end to it.
Stopping Brexit requires Leave voters to change their minds. I don't know a single prominent Leaver who has done so and precious few non prominent ones. The undeniable problems somehow don't have anything to do with the Brexit proposition. It's all down to EU wilfulness, Remainer sabotage and May's incompetence.
I think your first paragraph is accurate.
However, on the second, far too manny Remainers refuse to see any flaws at all in the intransigence of the EU negotiating position, and some even goad them on to use the hardest and most brutal tactics possible. That doesn’t create much goodwill for a rethink.
It doesn't necessarily require a change of heart. On the assumption that quite a large proportion of those who didn't vote (28% of the eligible population) were probably Remainers (turnout being lowest in Scotland, Northern Ireland and London where support for the EU is strongest) differential turnout might in theory be enough.
I just can't help but feel relying on non-voters to (a) vote and (b) vote the way you want them to is a courageous strategy.
In my experience the epic shambles negotiations have become has if anything hardened attitudes towards the EU among Leave voters. A second vote would probably confirm them in their views that the EU really doesn't care about democracy or ordinary people (which is of course true, but would be ironic if it was our government trying to hold it and the EU snarling impatiently hat we haven't time).
It is courageous and one heck of an assumption.
It mostly relies on confirmation bias as Remainers really really want there to be a clear majority out there that allows them to overtake the Leave block.
Many remainers are pretty confident that there is a clear plurality out there for remain versus any achievable leave option. It’s dishonest talking about a “leave bloc(k)” because it’s a coalition of incompatible views.
Being the least small minority’s not great for national unity but on the upside it’s better than implementing the wishes of an even smaller minority.
It would be the 'least small minority' for something which doesn't exist as there was never a Remain position but rather it was EverCloserUnion.
If we wanted to Remain then we needed to end EverCloserUnion some time during the Major and Blair premierships.
The momemtum for a referendum on the deal is a lot like the charge of the Rohirrim at Pelennor Fields.
Brace yourselves, you can either be an Orc or you can be part of the charge.
Quite simply if there’s no referendum and Brexit is sub optimal the voters will vote for a party pledging to take us back in.
I think the pressure will be heavy on the Labour Party conference to back a #PeoplesVote
I note that it is in Liverpool this year, and the Tory one the following week in Brum. Looks like big protests planned for both from what I see on Twitter.
Mr. Jonathan, there's something wryly perverse about certain persons crying out that the 'will of the people' does count because it's not what Scotland or London wanted (see tweet below) whilst also demanding a 'people's vote'.
I respect democracy. You are a populist. He panders to the so-called will of the people.
The London point is fascinating. The very fact that the rest of England voted the other way doesn't seem to matter, and the lack of concern Lammy and certain others have for that may well go a long way to explaining why they voted the other way.
The idea that Brexiteers are arguing that staying in the SM and CU are not Brexit now, whilst arguing for staying in during the campaign is another absurdity.
Ignoring that 86.6% of the votes at the subsequent general election were for parties pledging to enact Brexit by leavig the SM and CU is yet another level of absurdity.
Mr. Freggles, that's a caricature. The vast majority of people have no problem with co-operation on things like science or aviation, or intelligence/counter-terrorism.
The customs union means the EU dictating our trade agreements without any need of taking account of our economic interests, and the single market means imposing regulations (without any British say) on all British businesses, even the ones that operate on a purely domestic basis.
Mr. Jonathan, there's something wryly perverse about certain persons crying out that the 'will of the people' does count because it's not what Scotland or London wanted (see tweet below) whilst also demanding a 'people's vote'.
I respect democracy. You are a populist. He panders to the so-called will of the people.
The London point is fascinating. The very fact that the rest of England voted the other way doesn't seem to matter, and the lack of concern Lammy and certain others have for that may well go a long way to explaining why they voted the other way.
The idea that Brexiteers are arguing that staying in the SM and CU are not Brexit now, whilst arguing for staying in during the campaign is another absurdity.
Who was arguing to leave the EU but stay in the CU during the campaign?
I’ll accept that some of the libertarian free trade types like Dan Hannan wanted to stay in the SM before the campaign started, but during the campaign itself Michael Gove and David Cameron were both very clear that to leave the EU means leaving the SM.
The momemtum for a referendum on the deal is a lot like the charge of the Rohirrim at Pelennor Fields.
Brace yourselves, you can either be an Orc or you can be part of the charge.
Quite simply if there’s no referendum and Brexit is sub optimal the voters will vote for a party pledging to take us back in.
I think the pressure will be heavy on the Labour Party conference to back a #PeoplesVote
I note that it is in Liverpool this year, and the Tory one the following week in Brum. Looks like big protests planned for both from what I see on Twitter.
Mr. Jonathan, there's something wryly perverse about certain persons crying out that the 'will of the people' does count because it's not what Scotland or London wanted (see tweet below) whilst also demanding a 'people's vote'.
I respect democracy. You are a populist. He panders to the so-called will of the people.
The London point is fascinating. The very fact that the rest of England voted the other way doesn't seem to matter, and the lack of concern Lammy and certain others have for that may well go a long way to explaining why they voted the other way.
The idea that Brexiteers are arguing that staying in the SM and CU are not Brexit now, whilst arguing for staying in during the campaign is another absurdity.
Ignoring that 86.6% of the votes at the subsequent general election were for parties pledging to enact Brexit by leavig the SM and CU is yet another level of absurdity.
Neither of those parties got a majority, saying the positions are equivalent is a selective and unusual way of looking at Corbyn and May
Mrs Foxy has wound up with a paycut. A tiny payrise, unfunded centrally, has been outweighed by a down-banding exercise so she moves from band 6 to 5. Dr Foxy gets a nominal 0.75%, so a real terms pay cut for the tenth consecutive year of about 2%. On the positive side the recruitment difficulties mean that there is no limit to the amount of extra shifts to be covered at whatever the market will bear.
Hammond's Autumn budget is going to be interesting, to see whether the promised increased funding is just smoke and mirrors.
I wish you luck on your “pay journey”, a circumlocution I had not encountered before...
"We hope that this issue between the RCN and its membership can be resolved quickly, and we would direct colleagues towards the information on our website, which makes clear the pay journeys for different staff over the next three years."
I thought the unions foolish to agree a three year deal in the current uncertain climate, but it was in the detail a number of tinkerings within the increments on the AFC banding spine, with the lower bands (HCAs) getting the better deal.
I am counting the days now before voting with my feet.
What’s the issue, is it the details of what was agreed between the union and the employers that’s been misinterpreted by the employers, or is that that the agreeement has been miscommunicated by the unions to the employees?
The latter. It was all in the deal briefing. The subtleties of changes to bandings were lost on many.
The lower bandings (unqualified staff) do reasonably well, it is the higher banding specialist nurses that get the trivial rises. A more astute NHS would have noticed that the retention problem is at the top end.
Giving bigger payrises to the lower paid bands also works well for the treasury, as more is clawed back in reduced in work benefits.
On the thread header and the replies below, I'm really quite surprised people think a further vote and/or a general erection would resolve matters. Quite apart from the fact the former would almost certainly lead to a vote for No Deal (leaving aside the curious fantasies of a Certain Person) the polls strongly suggest an election would return a Commons where nobody at all could form a government. That would mean more chaos and indecision, not less.
More chaos and indecision, not less, looks set to be Britain's fate for decades. Best get used to it early.
When was the last time nobody could form any sort of government on the basis of an election result? February 1974 would surely be the nearest in the twentieth century, but given both main parties were not ridiculously far from the threshold, not a very near parallel.
At the moment, if these polls are accurate (!) it would need at least three parties to form a majority of any sort. I don't believe that's happened since before 1832.
Strictly speaking that isn't true on current polls. Two would suffice.
Mathematically, perhaps. The odds of the Tories and SNP working together are approximately the same as Lord Adonis coming out for Leave. So I was working with real world calculations.
There's another mathematical possibility, one which has occurred nore than once in the last 100 years.
Please sir, is it that the party with the highest vote share doesn't win the most seats?
The momemtum for a referendum on the deal is a lot like the charge of the Rohirrim at Pelennor Fields.
Brace yourselves, you can either be an Orc or you can be part of the charge.
Quite simply if there’s no referendum and Brexit is sub optimal the voters will vote for a party pledging to take us back in.
I think the pressure will be heavy on the Labour Party conference to back a #PeoplesVote
I note that it is in Liverpool this year, and the Tory one the following week in Brum. Looks like big protests planned for both from what I see on Twitter.
The momemtum for a referendum on the deal is a lot like the charge of the Rohirrim at Pelennor Fields.
Brace yourselves, you can either be an Orc or you can be part of the charge.
Quite simply if there’s no referendum and Brexit is sub optimal the voters will vote for a party pledging to take us back in.
Assuming planes don't drop out of the sky next April it will take five years for anyone to notice.
There definitely won’t be planes dropping out of the sky. The EU are a powerful body but they can’t repeal the laws of physics that the planes operate to.
Mrs Foxy has wound up with a paycut. A tiny payrise, unfunded centrally, has been outweighed by a down-banding exercise so she moves from band 6 to 5. Dr Foxy gets a nominal 0.75%, so a real terms pay cut for the tenth consecutive year of about 2%. On the positive side the recruitment difficulties mean that there is no limit to the amount of extra shifts to be covered at whatever the market will bear.
Hammond's Autumn budget is going to be interesting, to see whether the promised increased funding is just smoke and mirrors.
I wish you luck on your “pay journey”, a circumlocution I had not encountered before...
"We hope that this issue between the RCN and its membership can be resolved quickly, and we would direct colleagues towards the information on our website, which makes clear the pay journeys for different staff over the next three years."
I thought the unions foolish to agree a three year deal in the current uncertain climate, but it was in the detail a number of tinkerings within the increments on the AFC banding spine, with the lower bands (HCAs) getting the better deal.
I am counting the days now before voting with my feet.
I've been surprised at the passivity of the public sector unions.
Perhaps they agree with Stuart Rose that pay rises are not necessarily a good thing.
The Unions are not what they were, even in the public sector. The BMA has been particularly spineless and supine, so I am no longer a member.
No one expects any improvement in the public services, either in terms of pay and coditions or in service delivery to the great British public. We are already engaged in our winter crisis planning in my Trust, which is doing unusually well (treading water rather than drowning) financially.
In modern Britain we have grown used to a diminished future and cut our expectations accordingly.
Sure, but that shouldn't stop at least some people trying to grab a bigger share of the cake.
But there seems to be a general passivity on wages and tolerance at fatcats troughing at their expense.
Even Labour don't make an issue of it but then again they're closely linked to public sector fatcats.
Mrs Foxy has wound up with a paycut. A tiny payrise, unfunded centrally, has been outweighed by a down-banding exercise so she moves from band 6 to 5. Dr Foxy gets a nominal 0.75%, so a real terms pay cut for the tenth consecutive year of about 2%. On the positive side the recruitment difficulties mean that there is no limit to the amount of extra shifts to be covered at whatever the market will bear.
Hammond's Autumn budget is going to be interesting, to see whether the promised increased funding is just smoke and mirrors.
I wish you luck on your “pay journey”, a circumlocution I had not encountered before...
"We hope that this issue between the RCN and its membership can be resolved quickly, and we would direct colleagues towards the information on our website, which makes clear the pay journeys for different staff over the next three years."
I thought the unions foolish to agree a three year deal in the current uncertain climate, but it was in the detail a number of tinkerings within the increments on the AFC banding spine, with the lower bands (HCAs) getting the better deal.
I am counting the days now before voting with my feet.
What’s the issue, is it the details of what was agreed between the union and the employers that’s been misinterpreted by the employers, or is that that the agreeement has been miscommunicated by the unions to the employees?
The latter. It was all in the deal briefing. The subtleties of changes to bandings were lost on many.
The lower bandings (unqualified staff) do reasonably well, it is the higher banding specialist nurses that get the trivial rises. A more astute NHS would have noticed that the retention problem is at the top end.
Giving bigger payrises to the lower paid bands also works well for the treasury, as more is clawed back in reduced in work benefits.
The momemtum for a referendum on the deal is a lot like the charge of the Rohirrim at Pelennor Fields.
Brace yourselves, you can either be an Orc or you can be part of the charge.
Quite simply if there’s no referendum and Brexit is sub optimal the voters will vote for a party pledging to take us back in.
I think the pressure will be heavy on the Labour Party conference to back a #PeoplesVote
I note that it is in Liverpool this year, and the Tory one the following week in Brum. Looks like big protests planned for both from what I see on Twitter.
The momemtum for a referendum on the deal is a lot like the charge of the Rohirrim at Pelennor Fields.
Brace yourselves, you can either be an Orc or you can be part of the charge.
Quite simply if there’s no referendum and Brexit is sub optimal the voters will vote for a party pledging to take us back in.
I think the pressure will be heavy on the Labour Party conference to back a #PeoplesVote
I note that it is in Liverpool this year, and the Tory one the following week in Brum. Looks like big protests planned for both from what I see on Twitter.
It's on Bennetts Hill \ Colmore Row area so beside the town hall and 5 mins walk to ICC
It doesn't do food ( but you can bring your own as they provide plates and cutlery ! ). Theres a food pub next door ( Old Joint Stock ) and another round the corner owned by Purity Brewery
The momemtum for a referendum on the deal is a lot like the charge of the Rohirrim at Pelennor Fields.
Brace yourselves, you can either be an Orc or you can be part of the charge.
Quite simply if there’s no referendum and Brexit is sub optimal the voters will vote for a party pledging to take us back in.
I think the pressure will be heavy on the Labour Party conference to back a #PeoplesVote
I note that it is in Liverpool this year, and the Tory one the following week in Brum. Looks like big protests planned for both from what I see on Twitter.
Any plans for a PB meet up at the Bham one?
I'll be at both, would be nice to meet up with PBers.
The momemtum for a referendum on the deal is a lot like the charge of the Rohirrim at Pelennor Fields.
Brace yourselves, you can either be an Orc or you can be part of the charge.
Quite simply if there’s no referendum and Brexit is sub optimal the voters will vote for a party pledging to take us back in.
I think the pressure will be heavy on the Labour Party conference to back a #PeoplesVote
I note that it is in Liverpool this year, and the Tory one the following week in Brum. Looks like big protests planned for both from what I see on Twitter.
It's on Bennetts Hill \ Colmore Row area so beside the town hall and 5 mins walk to ICC
It doesn't do food ( but you can bring your own as they provide plates and cutlery ! ). Theres a food pub next door ( Old Joint Stock ) and another round the corner owned by Purity Brewery
It's not a bad series, though the first book is the best. A bit like a lowbrow version of Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead - looks at great events from the viewpoint of the poor bloody infantry.
The momemtum for a referendum on the deal is a lot like the charge of the Rohirrim at Pelennor Fields.
Brace yourselves, you can either be an Orc or you can be part of the charge.
Quite simply if there’s no referendum and Brexit is sub optimal the voters will vote for a party pledging to take us back in.
I do not remember how closely the film followed the book, but in the former this momentum faltered on the counter from the Haradrim, requiring Aragorn to lead his oathbreakers to save the day.
If you are suggesting that Osborne is fated to lead an army of Brexit turncoats to resolve this once and for all then I can only respond that I look forward to seeing him in action, but feel that he might be going about it in a strange way.
Mr. Freggles, that's a caricature. The vast majority of people have no problem with co-operation on things like science or aviation, or intelligence/counter-terrorism.
The customs union means the EU dictating our trade agreements without any need of taking account of our economic interests, and the single market means imposing regulations (without any British say) on all British businesses, even the ones that operate on a purely domestic basis.
We do have a say: these things go through the parliament. We can help craft them to our advantage as well.
But let's take the alternative route we're heading towards. Those towering intellectual colossi Davis, Fox, Johnson etc achieved nothing in two years of gazing up their own backsides. We'll be a relatively small country going against massive ones such as China and the US, who will be covetously rubbing their hands at the thought of the advantages they can gain from deals.
The old saying 'divide and conquer' is very true. We've divided from a larger group, and we're rich pickings.
Given the sheer ineptitude of the Brexiteer clowns in government, I have no doubt that we're in for some significant issues.
Mr. Freggles, that's a caricature. The vast majority of people have no problem with co-operation on things like science or aviation, or intelligence/counter-terrorism.
The customs union means the EU dictating our trade agreements without any need of taking account of our economic interests, and the single market means imposing regulations (without any British say) on all British businesses, even the ones that operate on a purely domestic basis.
We do have a say: these things go through the parliament. We can help craft them to our advantage as well.
But let's take the alternative route we're heading towards. Those towering intellectual colossi Davis, Fox, Johnson etc achieved nothing in two years of gazing up their own backsides. We'll be a relatively small country going against massive ones such as China and the US, who will be covetously rubbing their hands at the thought of the advantages they can gain from deals.
The old saying 'divide and conquer' is very true. We've divided from a larger group, and we're rich pickings.
Given the sheer ineptitude of the Brexiteer clowns in government, I have no doubt that we're in for some significant issues.
That looks true. After the Junckers-Trump love in this week, we look very much like having worse terms of trade with the USA post Brexit, to add to the other failures.
Mr. Jonathan, there's something wryly perverse about certain persons crying out that the 'will of the people' does count because it's not what Scotland or London wanted (see tweet below) whilst also demanding a 'people's vote'.
I respect democracy. You are a populist. He panders to the so-called will of the people.
The London point is fascinating. The very fact that the rest of England voted the other way doesn't seem to matter, and the lack of concern Lammy and certain others have for that may well go a long way to explaining why they voted the other way.
The idea that Brexiteers are arguing that staying in the SM and CU are not Brexit now, whilst arguing for staying in during the campaign is another absurdity.
Ignoring that 86.6% of the votes at the subsequent general election were for parties pledging to enact Brexit by leavig the SM and CU is yet another level of absurdity.
Yes, I'm certain that was the deciding factor for the votes of everyone. Not stuff like fox hunting, nationalisation, dementia tax, or the like.
The momemtum for a referendum on the deal is a lot like the charge of the Rohirrim at Pelennor Fields.
Brace yourselves, you can either be an Orc or you can be part of the charge.
Quite simply if there’s no referendum and Brexit is sub optimal the voters will vote for a party pledging to take us back in.
I think the pressure will be heavy on the Labour Party conference to back a #PeoplesVote
I note that it is in Liverpool this year, and the Tory one the following week in Brum. Looks like big protests planned for both from what I see on Twitter.
It's on Bennetts Hill \ Colmore Row area so beside the town hall and 5 mins walk to ICC
It doesn't do food ( but you can bring your own as they provide plates and cutlery ! ). Theres a food pub next door ( Old Joint Stock ) and another round the corner owned by Purity Brewery
The momemtum for a referendum on the deal is a lot like the charge of the Rohirrim at Pelennor Fields.
Brace yourselves, you can either be an Orc or you can be part of the charge.
Quite simply if there’s no referendum and Brexit is sub optimal the voters will vote for a party pledging to take us back in.
I do not remember how closely the film followed the book, but in the former this momentum faltered on the counter from the Haradrim, requiring Aragorn to lead his oathbreakers to save the day.
If you are suggesting that Osborne is fated to lead an army of Brexit turncoats to resolve this once and for all then I can only respond that I look forward to seeing him in action, but feel that he might be going about it in a strange way.
To my immense regret the time of Osborne and Cameron is over.
Mr. Jonathan, there's something wryly perverse about certain persons crying out that the 'will of the people' does count because it's not what Scotland or London wanted (see tweet below) whilst also demanding a 'people's vote'.
I respect democracy. You are a populist. He panders to the so-called will of the people.
The London point is fascinating. The very fact that the rest of England voted the other way doesn't seem to matter, and the lack of concern Lammy and certain others have for that may well go a long way to explaining why they voted the other way.
The idea that Brexiteers are arguing that staying in the SM and CU are not Brexit now, whilst arguing for staying in during the campaign is another absurdity.
Who was arguing to leave the EU but stay in the CU during the campaign?
I’ll accept that some of the libertarian free trade types like Dan Hannan wanted to stay in the SM before the campaign started, but during the campaign itself Michael Gove and David Cameron were both very clear that to leave the EU means leaving the SM.
Who was arguing in favour of the practical consequences of leaving the SM or CU, particularly the need for new border infrastructure and checks?
Mr. Jonathan, there's something wryly perverse about certain persons crying out that the 'will of the people' does count because it's not what Scotland or London wanted (see tweet below) whilst also demanding a 'people's vote'.
I respect democracy. You are a populist. He panders to the so-called will of the people.
The London point is fascinating. The very fact that the rest of England voted the other way doesn't seem to matter, and the lack of concern Lammy and certain others have for that may well go a long way to explaining why they voted the other way.
The idea that Brexiteers are arguing that staying in the SM and CU are not Brexit now, whilst arguing for staying in during the campaign is another absurdity.
Ignoring that 86.6% of the votes at the subsequent general election were for parties pledging to enact Brexit by leavig the SM and CU is yet another level of absurdity.
Neither of those parties got a majority, saying the positions are equivalent is a selective and unusual way of looking at Corbyn and May
It's not a bad series, though the first book is the best. A bit like a lowbrow version of Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead - looks at great events from the viewpoint of the poor bloody infantry.
Nick hi do you think Corbyn is right or wrong about this whole Jew problem?
The momemtum for a referendum on the deal is a lot like the charge of the Rohirrim at Pelennor Fields.
Brace yourselves, you can either be an Orc or you can be part of the charge.
Quite simply if there’s no referendum and Brexit is sub optimal the voters will vote for a party pledging to take us back in.
I think the pressure will be heavy on the Labour Party conference to back a #PeoplesVote
I note that it is in Liverpool this year, and the Tory one the following week in Brum. Looks like big protests planned for both from what I see on Twitter.
It's on Bennetts Hill \ Colmore Row area so beside the town hall and 5 mins walk to ICC
It doesn't do food ( but you can bring your own as they provide plates and cutlery ! ). Theres a food pub next door ( Old Joint Stock ) and another round the corner owned by Purity Brewery
It's not a bad series, though the first book is the best. A bit like a lowbrow version of Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead - looks at great events from the viewpoint of the poor bloody infantry.
Nick hi do you think Corbyn is right or wrong about this whole Jew problem?
The NEC is treating it as an intellectual challenge to come up with more precise examples of exactly what is and isn't acceptable in terms of discussing Israel (everyone agrees about domestic anti-semitism). In principle I agree that the guidelines could benefit from further thought about examples and that the borderlines of what actually leads to expulsion shoulkd be broad. Nonetheless I think they're being idiots politically. They should accept the usual examples (without retrospective effect so we don't get into what X said in 1974 or whatever) and if there are members who have a problem with them, they should shut up or leave to pursue their special interest, like Ken. It's not as though Middle Eastern affairs were crucial to Britain's current issues.
I also think the newspapers saying it's all an existential challenge to Jewish people is unhelpfully OTT, though, and the people who talk about the party being anti-semitic often have an unsubtle different agenda, precisely like people who say all Tories are racists. The existence of the Jewish community is not dependent on whether a political party has exactly the right guidelines for membership.
The pressure for a second referendum is coming from exactly the same people who for years have been telling us that referendums are bad ideas and that it's best to let politicians decide.
Anyway, I don't get what the choice would be - presumably either whatever half-baked deal Theresa manages to cook up, or WTO?
I can't see any outcome from this that doesn't leave the Tory party screwed.
Mr. Jonathan, there's something wryly perverse about certain persons crying out that the 'will of the people' does count because it's not what Scotland or London wanted (see tweet below) whilst also demanding a 'people's vote'.
I respect democracy. You are a populist. He panders to the so-called will of the people.
The London point is fascinating. The very fact that the rest of England voted the other way doesn't seem to matter, and the lack of concern Lammy and certain others have for that may well go a long way to explaining why they voted the other way.
The idea that Brexiteers are arguing that staying in the SM and CU are not Brexit now, whilst arguing for staying in during the campaign is another absurdity.
Ignoring that 86.6% of the votes at the subsequent general election were for parties pledging to enact Brexit by leavig the SM and CU is yet another level of absurdity.
Neither of those parties got a majority, saying the positions are equivalent is a selective and unusual way of looking at Corbyn and May
So we'll go with the views of the 13.6% then?
You must have LibDem DNA.....
Na. Let’s just not make sweeping claims and oversimplifications about this or that mandate. The reality today is country is split, the govt has confused the hell out of many of us and we do not control events. Finding a practical way forward that has consent is hard, but necessary
The NEC is treating it as an intellectual challenge to come up with more precise examples of exactly what is and isn't acceptable in terms of discussing Israel (everyone agrees about domestic anti-semitism). In principle I agree that the guidelines could benefit from further thought about examples and that the borderlines of what actually leads to expulsion shoulkd be broad. Nonetheless I think they're being idiots politically. They should accept the usual examples (without retrospective effect so we don't get into what X said in 1974 or whatever) and if there are members who have a problem with them, they should shut up or leave to pursue their special interest, like Ken. It's not as though Middle Eastern affairs were crucial to Britain's current issues.
I also think the newspapers saying it's all an existential challenge to Jewish people is unhelpfully OTT, though, and the people who talk about the party being anti-semitic often have an unsubtle different agenda, precisely like people who say all Tories are racists. The existence of the Jewish community is not dependent on whether a political party has exactly the right guidelines for membership.
Existential does not have to mean loading people up into wagons and transporting them to camps, it can mean ending the freedoms they currently have to live the lives they have chosen to lead. So what would a Corbyn Labour government's views be on kosher meat, for example, or on travel to and from Israel, or on diplomatic and trading relationships with Israel, and other ties? If you are a Jew these things go to the very essence of what and who you are. And all the signs are that a Corbyn Labour government would be hostile in a way that no previous British government has ever been.
That said, I expect the NEC to backtrack come September and to fully incorporate the IHRA definition. I also think that the furore has ensured that those accused of anti-Semitism inside Labour are going to find it tougher to stay than otherwise might have been the case. In short, the McDonnell approach will end up prevailing over the Corbyn one.
Mr. Freggles, that's a caricature. The vast majority of people have no problem with co-operation on things like science or aviation, or intelligence/counter-terrorism.
The customs union means the EU dictating our trade agreements without any need of taking account of our economic interests, and the single market means imposing regulations (without any British say) on all British businesses, even the ones that operate on a purely domestic basis.
We do have a say: these things go through the parliament. We can help craft them to our advantage as well.
But let's take the alternative route we're heading towards. Those towering intellectual colossi Davis, Fox, Johnson etc achieved nothing in two years of gazing up their own backsides. We'll be a relatively small country going against massive ones such as China and the US, who will be covetously rubbing their hands at the thought of the advantages they can gain from deals.
The old saying 'divide and conquer' is very true. We've divided from a larger group, and we're rich pickings.
Given the sheer ineptitude of the Brexiteer clowns in government, I have no doubt that we're in for some significant issues.
We're already divided from the Eurozone even if we Remain by not being members and the Eurozone has a QMV majority to unilaterally change laws.
As for a relatively small country, we're the 5th largest economy in the world. If that isn't even a medium country I wonder what description you'd use for the approximately 195 economies smaller than ours. We are in the top 3 percentile as far size of the economies is concerned.
As I might be PB's longest standing opponent of debt fuelled consumer spending on imported tat its not crowing.
But rather a comparison between the UK and French economies.
We know that even with a steady increase in UK consumer spending there have been a series of retail and restaurant chain failings leading to many town centres looking rather run down.
So what's the economic effect in France (and Germany where a similar pattern is happening) when consumer spending isn't growing ?
Not to mention the political effect - people consuming more tends to make them happier and so more supportive of governments. But if they're not consuming more ...
Mr. Jonathan, there's something wryly perverse about certain persons crying out that the 'will of the people' does count because it's not what Scotland or London wanted (see tweet below) whilst also demanding a 'people's vote'.
I respect democracy. You are a populist. He panders to the so-called will of the people.
The London point is fascinating. The very fact that the rest of England voted the other way doesn't seem to matter, and the lack of concern Lammy and certain others have for that may well go a long way to explaining why they voted the other way.
The idea that Brexiteers are arguing that staying in the SM and CU are not Brexit now, whilst arguing for staying in during the campaign is another absurdity.
Ignoring that 86.6% of the votes at the subsequent general election were for parties pledging to enact Brexit by leavig the SM and CU is yet another level of absurdity.
Making that point in the first place is fairly absurd. We all know that it doesn't work that way. We also know that Labour's positioning was tactical and a lot of the voters who rejected the Tories and switched to Labour were clearly opposed to the government's approach to Brexit.
The pressure for a second referendum is coming from exactly the same people who for years have been telling us that referendums are bad ideas and that it's best to let politicians decide.
Anyway, I don't get what the choice would be - presumably either whatever half-baked deal Theresa manages to cook up, or WTO?
I can't see any outcome from this that doesn't leave the Tory party screwed.
Oh Cookie, dear old thing, the choice would be between Theresa's Frankendeal and Remaining. Hence TSE, william et al getting all excited.
As I might be PB's longest standing opponent of debt fuelled consumer spending on imported tat its not crowing.
But rather a comparison between the UK and French economies.
We know that even with a steady increase in UK consumer spending there have been a series of retail and restaurant chain failings leading to many town centres looking rather run down.
So what's the economic effect in France (and Germany where a similar pattern is happening) when consumer spending isn't growing ?
Not to mention the political effect - people consuming more tends to make them happier and so more supportive of governments. But if they're not consuming more ...<
/blockquote>
The French and Germans export more than we do, so consumer spending is not so important to their economies overall (though, of course, it is still very important).
Mr. Jonathan, there's something wryly perverse about certain persons crying out that the 'will of the people' does count because it's not what Scotland or London wanted (see tweet below) whilst also demanding a 'people's vote'.
I respect democracy. You are a populist. He panders to the so-called will of the people.
The London point is fascinating. The very fact that the rest of England voted the other way doesn't seem to matter, and the lack of concern Lammy and certain others have for that may well go a long way to explaining why they voted the other way.
The idea that Brexiteers are arguing that staying in the SM and CU are not Brexit now, whilst arguing for staying in during the campaign is another absurdity.
Who was arguing to leave the EU but stay in the CU during the campaign?
I’ll accept that some of the libertarian free trade types like Dan Hannan wanted to stay in the SM before the campaign started, but during the campaign itself Michael Gove and David Cameron were both very clear that to leave the EU means leaving the SM.
Boris advocated staying in the single market.
The simple fact is there was only one question on the ballot and it did not mention SM, CU, CETA+, EEA, EFTA, Canada, Switzerland or Norway. Blame David Cameron, who should have insisted on a particular sort of Brexit being designed and then put to the people in the referendum. Blame Theresa May who triggered Article 50 with no particular destination being agreed.
But if you want to read the entrails, then Boris and Gove disagreed on so basic a point as whether Britain will leave the single market and the bus was silent on the matter.
The pressure for a second referendum is coming from exactly the same people who for years have been telling us that referendums are bad ideas and that it's best to let politicians decide.
Anyway, I don't get what the choice would be - presumably either whatever half-baked deal Theresa manages to cook up, or WTO?
I can't see any outcome from this that doesn't leave the Tory party screwed.
Oh Cookie, dear old thing, the choice would be between Theresa's Frankendeal and Remaining. Hence TSE, william et al getting all excited.
But how? Presumably the EU aren't going to offer to pretend the last two years didn't happen?
ANyway, as Barnier seems to be rejecting absolutely every proposal put to them, the question is academic - it's WTO or WTO.
Yes, but it's hard to draw any inferences from that. That will include Remainers horrified by the idea of Brexit, Leavers concerned they are being sold out, and pragmatists concerned that it won't be done very well.
The pressure for a second referendum is coming from exactly the same people who for years have been telling us that referendums are bad ideas and that it's best to let politicians decide.
Anyway, I don't get what the choice would be - presumably either whatever half-baked deal Theresa manages to cook up, or WTO?
I can't see any outcome from this that doesn't leave the Tory party screwed.
Oh Cookie, dear old thing, the choice would be between Theresa's Frankendeal and Remaining. Hence TSE, william et al getting all excited.
I’m not excited.
We’re leaving.
But if the reality of Brexit is very bad then there’ll be overwhelming support to Rejoin.
Far too many Leavers are complacent that the decision won’t be overturned in the future.
If there was a referendum with a Remsin option before we Leave I’d probably abstain.
The NEC is treating it as an intellectual challenge to come up with more precise examples of exactly what is and isn't acceptable in terms of discussing Israel (everyone agrees about domestic anti-semitism). In principle I agree that the guidelines could benefit from further thought about examples and that the borderlines of what actually leads to expulsion shoulkd be broad. Nonetheless I think they're being idiots politically. They should accept the usual examples (without retrospective effect so we don't get into what X said in 1974 or whatever) and if there are members who have a problem with them, they should shut up or leave to pursue their special interest, like Ken. It's not as though Middle Eastern affairs were crucial to Britain's current issues.
I also think the newspapers saying it's all an existential challenge to Jewish people is unhelpfully OTT, though, and the people who talk about the party being anti-semitic often have an unsubtle different agenda, precisely like people who say all Tories are racists. The existence of the Jewish community is not dependent on whether a political party has exactly the right guidelines for membership.
Thanks Nick. I have to say your first paragraph makes a lot of sense. Your second is extraordinary.
You are the one to determine that a concern for any particular community is OTT, is that right? The Labour Party is legitimising discrimination which surely acts to push the barriers of what is and what is not acceptable behaviour. If it's OK for the Labour Party, it's OK for "us". Certainly the existence of the Jewish community is not dependent on whether a political party has exactly the right guidelines for membership, but if that political party is one of the two main parties in the country, and it tacks towards discrimination against that community, or rather, fails to uphold the seemingly objectively highest standards of non-discrimination, then that has a significant effect.
And as for an unsubtle different agenda? You mean all the Jews who hitherto voted Labour and were Labour Party supporters? Those people? What agenda do they have?
Mr. Jonathan, there's something wryly perverse about certain persons crying out that the 'will of the people' does count because it's not what Scotland or London wanted (see tweet below) whilst also demanding a 'people's vote'.
I respect democracy. You are a populist. He panders to the so-called will of the people.
The London point is fascinating. The very fact that the rest of England voted the other way doesn't seem to matter, and the lack of concern Lammy and certain others have for that may well go a long way to explaining why they voted the other way.
The idea that Brexiteers are arguing that staying in the SM and CU are not Brexit now, whilst arguing for staying in during the campaign is another absurdity.
Who was arguing to leave the EU but stay in the CU during the campaign?
I’ll accept that some of the libertarian free trade types like Dan Hannan wanted to stay in the SM before the campaign started, but during the campaign itself Michael Gove and David Cameron were both very clear that to leave the EU means leaving the SM.
Boris advocated staying in the single market.
The simple fact is there was only one question on the ballot and it did not mention SM, CU, CETA+, EEA, EFTA, Canada, Switzerland or Norway. Blame David Cameron, who should have insisted on a particular sort of Brexit being designed and then put to the people in the referendum. Blame Theresa May who triggered Article 50 with no particular destination being agreed.
But if you want to read the entrails, then Boris and Gove disagreed on so basic a point as whether Britain will leave the single market and the bus was silent on the matter.
How could Cameron have 'insisted' on a particular sort of Brexit, when he was not a Brexiteer and was not advocating Brexit? The only reaction to that would have been howls of anguish and claims of a stitch-up from the Brexiteers.
And fair play to them, as it would have helped them win.
The pressure for a second referendum is coming from exactly the same people who for years have been telling us that referendums are bad ideas and that it's best to let politicians decide.
Anyway, I don't get what the choice would be - presumably either whatever half-baked deal Theresa manages to cook up, or WTO?
I can't see any outcome from this that doesn't leave the Tory party screwed.
Oh Cookie, dear old thing, the choice would be between Theresa's Frankendeal and Remaining. Hence TSE, william et al getting all excited.
But how? Presumably the EU aren't going to offer to pretend the last two years didn't happen?
ANyway, as Barnier seems to be rejecting absolutely every proposal put to them, the question is academic - it's WTO or WTO.
Some EU politicians (e.g. the French European minister yesterday) have dangled the prospect that we can do a Dallas and pretend it's all been a terrible dream. We'd probably have to commit to never having a referendum on the topic ever again and whatnot.
Personally, I'm not sure that it's in the EU's interests to have the UK as a member. Without us, the non-EZ countries can't muster a blocking minority under QMV, which I'm sure will not have escaped their attention.
Barnier wants the UK as Turkey (the country rather than the bird).
Mr. Freggles, that's a caricature. The vast majority of people have no problem with co-operation on things like science or aviation, or intelligence/counter-terrorism.
The customs union means the EU dictating our trade agreements without any need of taking account of our economic interests, and the single market means imposing regulations (without any British say) on all British businesses, even the ones that operate on a purely domestic basis.
We do have a say: these things go through the parliament. We can help craft them to our advantage as well.
But let's take the alternative route we're heading towards. Those towering intellectual colossi Davis, Fox, Johnson etc achieved nothing in two years of gazing up their own backsides. We'll be a relatively small country going against massive ones such as China and the US, who will be covetously rubbing their hands at the thought of the advantages they can gain from deals.
The old saying 'divide and conquer' is very true. We've divided from a larger group, and we're rich pickings.
Given the sheer ineptitude of the Brexiteer clowns in government, I have no doubt that we're in for some significant issues.
We're already divided from the Eurozone even if we Remain by not being members and the Eurozone has a QMV majority to unilaterally change laws.
As for a relatively small country, we're the 5th largest economy in the world. If that isn't even a medium country I wonder what description you'd use for the approximately 195 economies smaller than ours. We are in the top 3 percentile as far size of the economies is concerned.
We punch above our weight for our size. But if you're a large up-and-coming country (say, India), eyeing markets, then you'd much rather do a deal with other larger countries, or groups thereof, than smaller ones, for you get more bang for your buck.
Mr. Jonathan, there's something wryly perverse about certain persons crying out that the 'will of the people' does count because it's not what Scotland or London wanted (see tweet below) whilst also demanding a 'people's vote'.
I respect democracy. You are a populist. He panders to the so-called will of the people.
The London point is fascinating. The very fact that the rest of England voted the other way doesn't seem to matter, and the lack of concern Lammy and certain others have for that may well go a long way to explaining why they voted the other way.
The idea that Brexiteers are arguing that staying in the SM and CU are not Brexit now, whilst arguing for staying in during the campaign is another absurdity.
Who was arguing to leave the EU but stay in the CU during the campaign?
I’ll accept that some of the libertarian free trade types like Dan Hannan wanted to stay in the SM before the campaign started, but during the campaign itself Michael Gove and David Cameron were both very clear that to leave the EU means leaving the SM.
Boris advocated staying in the single market.
The simple fact is there was only one question on the ballot and it did not mention SM, CU, CETA+, EEA, EFTA, Canada, Switzerland or Norway. Blame David Cameron, who should have insisted on a particular sort of Brexit being designed and then put to the people in the referendum. Blame Theresa May who triggered Article 50 with no particular destination being agreed.
But if you want to read the entrails, then Boris and Gove disagreed on so basic a point as whether Britain will leave the single market and the bus was silent on the matter.
Gove 2016: "After we vote to leave we will remain in the [free trade] zone. The suggestion that .. Britain would be on the outside is as credible as John-Claude Junker joining UKiP"
It's not a bad series, though the first book is the best. A bit like a lowbrow version of Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead - looks at great events from the viewpoint of the poor bloody infantry.
Nick hi do you think Corbyn is right or wrong about this whole Jew problem?
The NEC is treating it as an intellectual challenge to come up with more precise examples of exactly what is and isn't acceptable in terms of discussing Israel (everyone agrees about domestic anti-semitism). In principle I agree that the guidelines could benefit from further thought about examples and that the borderlines of what actually leads to expulsion shoulkd be broad. Nonetheless I think they're being idiots politically. They should accept the usual examples (without retrospective effect so we don't get into what X said in 1974 or whatever) and if there are members who have a problem with them, they should shut up or leave to pursue their special interest, like Ken. It's not as though Middle Eastern affairs were crucial to Britain's current issues.
I also think the newspapers saying it's all an existential challenge to Jewish people is unhelpfully OTT, though, and the people who talk about the party being anti-semitic often have an unsubtle different agenda, precisely like people who say all Tories are racists. The existence of the Jewish community is not dependent on whether a political party has exactly the right guidelines for membership.
It's worse than that. There are a set of preexisting guidelines that are accepted by a vast number of organisations. The simplest, easiest and least controversial route would have been for Labour to accept them verbatim.
Yet Labour didn't; it changed them - they claim in minor ways; others disagree. Why change them? Why is the Labour Party so different to all those other organisations? Why does it think it knows better?
If, as some people claim, the changes are irrelevant and unimportant, why have the changes?
There has to be a rationale behind the reason for the changes. And that's what has people concerned given recent events within Labour.
As for a relatively small country, we're the 5th largest economy in the world. If that isn't even a medium country I wonder what description you'd use for the approximately 195 economies smaller than ours. We are in the top 3 percentile as far size of the economies is concerned.
It's extremely misleading to look at sequential rankings like that. The UK is less than 4% of the global economy and that number will inevitably fall as larger countries continue to develop.
Mr. Jonathan, there's something wryly perverse about certain persons crying out that the 'will of the people' does count because it's not what Scotland or London wanted (see tweet below) whilst also demanding a 'people's vote'.
I respect democracy. You are a populist. He panders to the so-called will of the people.
The London point is fascinating. The very fact that the rest of England voted the other way doesn't seem to matter, and the lack of concern Lammy and certain others have for that may well go a long way to explaining why they voted the other way.
The idea that Brexiteers are arguing that staying in the SM and CU are not Brexit now, whilst arguing for staying in during the campaign is another absurdity.
Who was arguing to leave the EU but stay in the CU during the campaign?
I’ll accept that some of the libertarian free trade types like Dan Hannan wanted to stay in the SM before the campaign started, but during the campaign itself Michael Gove and David Cameron were both very clear that to leave the EU means leaving the SM.
Boris advocated staying in the single market.
The simple fact is there was only one question on the ballot and it did not mention SM, CU, CETA+, EEA, EFTA, Canada, Switzerland or Norway. Blame David Cameron, who should have insisted on a particular sort of Brexit being designed and then put to the people in the referendum. Blame Theresa May who triggered Article 50 with no particular destination being agreed.
But if you want to read the entrails, then Boris and Gove disagreed on so basic a point as whether Britain will leave the single market and the bus was silent on the matter.
How could Cameron have 'insisted' on a particular sort of Brexit, when he was not a Brexiteer and was not advocating Brexit? The only reaction to that would have been howls of anguish and claims of a stitch-up from the Brexiteers.
And fair play to them, as it would have helped them win.
David Cameron should have established a Royal Commission of Prominent Brexiteers to establish their preferred Brexit and the version that would be voted upon. Australia did something similar before its referendum on becoming a republic so it is not as if the prime minister or anyone in government would have been unaware of the device.
Mr. Jonathan, there's something wryly perverse about certain persons crying out that the 'will of the people' does count because it's not what Scotland or London wanted (see tweet below) whilst also demanding a 'people's vote'.
I respect democracy. You are a populist. He panders to the so-called will of the people.
The London point is fascinating. The very fact that the rest of England voted the other way doesn't seem to matter, and the lack of concern Lammy and certain others have for that may well go a long way to explaining why they voted the other way.
The idea that Brexiteers are arguing that staying in the SM and CU are not Brexit now, whilst arguing for staying in during the campaign is another absurdity.
Who was arguing to leave the EU but stay in the CU during the campaign?
I’ll accept that some of the libertarian free trade types like Dan Hannan wanted to stay in the SM before the campaign started, but during the campaign itself Michael Gove and David Cameron were both very clear that to leave the EU means leaving the SM.
Boris advocated staying in the single market.
The simple fact is there was only one question on the ballot and it did not mention SM, CU, CETA+, EEA, EFTA, Canada, Switzerland or Norway. Blame David Cameron, who should have insisted on a particular sort of Brexit being designed and then put to the people in the referendum. Blame Theresa May who triggered Article 50 with no particular destination being agreed.
But if you want to read the entrails, then Boris and Gove disagreed on so basic a point as whether Britain will leave the single market and the bus was silent on the matter.
Gove 2016: "After we vote to leave we will remain in the [free trade] zone. The suggestion that .. Britain would be on the outside is as credible as John-Claude Junker joining UKiP"
Even after the referendum Gove was suggesting there was no need for a trade negotiation because we could just carry on as we are unless the Europeans decided to "seek to complicate matters".
Mr. Jonathan, there's something wryly perverse about certain persons crying out that the 'will of the people' does count because it's not what Scotland or London wanted (see tweet below) whilst also demanding a 'people's vote'.
I respect democracy. You are a populist. He panders to the so-called will of the people.
The London point is fascinating. The very fact that the rest of England voted the other way doesn't seem to matter, and the lack of concern Lammy and certain others have for that may well go a long way to explaining why they voted the other way.
The idea that Brexiteers are arguing that staying in the SM and CU are not Brexit now, whilst arguing for staying in during the campaign is another absurdity.
Who was arguing to leave the EU but stay in the CU during the campaign?
I’ll accept that some of the libertarian free trade types like Dan Hannan wanted to stay in the SM before the campaign started, but during the campaign itself Michael Gove and David Cameron were both very clear that to leave the EU means leaving the SM.
Boris advocated staying in the single market.
The simple fact is there was only one question on the ballot and it did not mention SM, CU, CETA+, EEA, EFTA, Canada, Switzerland or Norway. Blame David Cameron, who should have insisted on a particular sort of Brexit being designed and then put to the people in the referendum. Blame Theresa May who triggered Article 50 with no particular destination being agreed.
But if you want to read the entrails, then Boris and Gove disagreed on so basic a point as whether Britain will leave the single market and the bus was silent on the matter.
How could Cameron have 'insisted' on a particular sort of Brexit, when he was not a Brexiteer and was not advocating Brexit? The only reaction to that would have been howls of anguish and claims of a stitch-up from the Brexiteers.
And fair play to them, as it would have helped them win.
David Cameron should have established a Royal Commission of Prominent Brexiteers to establish their preferred Brexit and the version that would be voted upon. Australia did something similar before its referendum on becoming a republic so it is not as if the prime minister or anyone in government would have been unaware of the device.
As I might be PB's longest standing opponent of debt fuelled consumer spending on imported tat its not crowing.
But rather a comparison between the UK and French economies.
We know that even with a steady increase in UK consumer spending there have been a series of retail and restaurant chain failings leading to many town centres looking rather run down.
So what's the economic effect in France (and Germany where a similar pattern is happening) when consumer spending isn't growing ?
Not to mention the political effect - people consuming more tends to make them happier and so more supportive of governments. But if they're not consuming more ...<
The French and Germans export more than we do, so consumer spending is not so important to their economies overall (though, of course, it is still very important).
The UK had a trade surplus in 1997 and then we had twenty years of Osbrowne economics.
With the problems manifesting themselves from 2003 onwards regarding disposable income.
On the thread header and the replies below, I'm really quite surprised people think a further vote and/or a general erection would resolve matters. Quite apart from the fact the former would almost certainly lead to a vote for No Deal (leaving aside the curious fantasies of a Certain Person) the polls strongly suggest an election would return a Commons where nobody at all could form a government. That would mean more chaos and indecision, not less.
It won’t. But they hope they can pip Leave to the post this time.
Very few Remainers seem to have notice or commented on the fact they only have a 3% lead (on the same polling) for winning a 2nd referendum, and could easily lose it again given the day of poll numbers last time had similar numbers, up to a 10% Remain lead.
Perhaps they don’t care, but all the vessels in the world wouldn’t be able to absorb the tears if it went ‘wrong’ a second time, and they would very probably be just as likely to refuse to accept the result as they are now.
Would you accept the result if you lost? And if no, what would you do?
I don’t have a problem with democracy.
Your posts suggesting that you’d emigrate to Canada if Labour were elected suggests otherwise.
No, it doesn’t. That’s not me refusing to accept the legitimacy of the vote. That would be me protecting me and my family, and our quality of life.
Catalyse wanton chaos and run away. You really are living the true Brexit lifestyle.
David Cameron should have established a Royal Commission of Prominent Brexiteers to establish their preferred Brexit and the version that would be voted upon. Australia did something similar before its referendum on becoming a republic so it is not as if the prime minister or anyone in government would have been unaware of the device.
Yes that worked very well in Australia. John Howard was a monarchist but by making the republicans agree what version of a republic they'd have first it then led to the referendum being a referendum on the specific republic proposed rather than a referendum on the idea of a republic in general.
And if Boris said one thing at one time and something else at another, then such is politics in the Trumpian era. It might have been better if Marr had not cued up Boris by reminding him what Gove had said.
There is a fundamental shift happening in the world economy. The internet has allowed massive disintermediation. It often was the case that goods we produced for say 10 pounds were sold in the pharmacy for 40 pounds with most of the value and profit taken by the pharmacy. We have just launched a massive campaign on |EBay and Amazon to sell 1.5 million surplus syringes we have in stock. We are able to crash the market and cut out the pharmacies and distributors in a way that we could never do before. The mark up via Amazon is less than 10% versus a previous 300%.
The consumer benefits but huge chunks are being lost by the distribution / retail chain and by the Government which gets much less money out of the transaction. Amazon announced its sales growth this quarter was 40% with annual sales now at 200bn. It is 20 times bigger than Marks and Spencers.
At the same time production is getting hyper efficient. As an example the Whitelee wind farm which generates electricity for 250,000 households in Scotland runs at night time with 2 staff plus back up. My factory runs most nights with 1 staff plus technical back up. Our unplanned downtime in the last 10 years has gone from 20 days a year to 2.
So where are the jobs? Good customer service, R&D and technical engineers involved in set ups are all at a premium. These people are often highly mobile and work long hours. A country that attracts them will do well, one that loses them is heading downhill fast.
The UK economy has been one of the best in Europe at attracting the right types of people. the largest risk with Brexit is that this is no longer the case. France has many attractions but suffers from a rigid job and business market which attracts few high quality foreigners and bleeds talented locals. To change this is Macron's challenge.
Mr. Jonathan, there's something wryly perverse about certain persons crying out that the 'will of the people' does count because it's not what Scotland or London wanted (see tweet below) whilst also demanding a 'people's vote'.
I respect democracy. You are a populist. He panders to the so-called will of the people.
The London point is fascinating. The very fact that the rest of England voted the other way doesn't seem to matter, and the lack of concern Lammy and certain others have for that may well go a long way to explaining why they voted the other way.
The idea that Brexiteers are arguing that staying in the SM and CU are not Brexit now, whilst arguing for staying in during the campaign is another absurdity.
Who was arguing to leave the EU but stay in the CU during the campaign?
I’ll accept that some of the libertarian free trade types like Dan Hannan wanted to stay in the SM before the campaign started, but during the campaign itself Michael Gove and David Cameron were both very clear that to leave the EU means leaving the SM.
Boris advocated staying in the single market.
The simple fact is there was only one question on the ballot and it did not mention SM, CU, CETA+, EEA, EFTA, Canada, Switzerland or Norway. Blame David Cameron, who should have insisted on a particular sort of Brexit being designed and then put to the people in the referendum. Blame Theresa May who triggered Article 50 with no particular destination being agreed.
But if you want to read the entrails, then Boris and Gove disagreed on so basic a point as whether Britain will leave the single market and the bus was silent on the matter.
Gove 2016: "After we vote to leave we will remain in the [free trade] zone. The suggestion that .. Britain would be on the outside is as credible as John-Claude Junker joining UKiP"
Yes because we would agree a free trade deal. But from outside the Single Market. He couldn't have been clearer.
Personally, in an alternative timeline where Remain had won, if it turned out that Remain had either been dishonest about what it was delivering or merely incapable of delivering it (ie the Cameron renegotiation), I'd not have had any issues about Leave calling for another referendum. Or getting it, for that matter.
Seems fair enough to me. Accountability doesn't stop when the votes are counted, after all. And anyone disingenuous enough to say "Fine, we can have accountability, but only after it's either irrevocable or at least far harder to go back" isn't impressive.
Then again, it could always be my bias. I was moderately in favour of Leave through most of my adult life; it's only right at the end I swung to a begrudging Remain vote (mainly as a response to the campaigns: I found the Remain campaign repulsive, but the Leave campaign so repulsive it not only overrode my disdain for the Remain campaign but shifted me from one to the other)
And if Boris said one thing at one time and something else at another, then such is politics in the Trumpian era. It might have been better if Marr had not cued up Boris by reminding him what Gove had said.
Access to the Single Market from outside is not staying in it. Canada has access to the Single Market yet isn't in it.
He was asked in a simple yes/no format should Britain be leave the Single Market and he answered it quite clearly. What part of that are you struggling with?
As I might be PB's longest standing opponent of debt fuelled consumer spending on imported tat its not crowing.
But rather a comparison between the UK and French economies.
We know that even with a steady increase in UK consumer spending there have been a series of retail and restaurant chain failings leading to many town centres looking rather run down.
So what's the economic effect in France (and Germany where a similar pattern is happening) when consumer spending isn't growing ?
Not to mention the political effect - people consuming more tends to make them happier and so more supportive of governments. But if they're not consuming more ...<
/blockquote>
The French and Germans export more than we do, so consumer spending is not so important to their economies overall (though, of course, it is still very important).
the French and german economies are very different
France tops the leagure for government spending so La Republique takes the cash before it gets to the consumer. France also runs a BoP deficit
Germany runs a huge trade surplus one which causes imbalances across the globe. The German Finance ministry has also so much cash flowing in it doesn't know how to spend it. And germaan consumers save whereas brits dont
And if Boris said one thing at one time and something else at another, then such is politics in the Trumpian era. It might have been better if Marr had not cued up Boris by reminding him what Gove had said.
Access to the Single Market from outside is not staying in it. Canada has access to the Single Market yet isn't in it.
He was asked in a simple yes/no format should Britain be leave the Single Market and he answered it quite clearly. What part of that are you struggling with?
And if Boris said one thing at one time and something else at another, then such is politics in the Trumpian era. It might have been better if Marr had not cued up Boris by reminding him what Gove had said.
My problem with politicians and their terminological inexactitude in a nutshell. There is no 'access' to the Single Market. You can sell to the EU, or more precisely, to member countries, but that is not the same thing. I don't (off the top of my head) know of any country that is banned from selling their widgets/services to (say) Belgium.
Personally, in an alternative timeline where Remain had won, if it turned out that Remain had either been dishonest about what it was delivering or merely incapable of delivering it (ie the Cameron renegotiation), I'd not have had any issues about Leave calling for another referendum. Or getting it, for that matter.
Seems fair enough to me. Accountability doesn't stop when the votes are counted, after all. And anyone disingenuous enough to say "Fine, we can have accountability, but only after it's either irrevocable or at least far harder to go back" isn't impressive.
Then again, it could always be my bias. I was moderately in favour of Leave through most of my adult life; it's only right at the end I swung to a begrudging Remain vote (mainly as a response to the campaigns: I found the Remain campaign repulsive, but the Leave campaign so repulsive it not only overrode my disdain for the Remain campaign but shifted me from one to the other)
I'm a mirror image of yourself, I was always in favour of Remaining throughout my entire adult life until the campaign. I found parts of the Leave campaign optimistic and positive (Boris and Gove mainly) while Remain had nothing positive to say.
I have no problems with another referendum if a party seeking to get it wins a general election after the prior one has been implemented, ie after we've left. The problem with those seeking a second vote now is that they're not doing so because of some dramatic change or dishonesty from Leave they're doing so just because they're not happy they lost first time. That's not enough.
If there was a groundswell of 2016-Leavers calling for a second vote now saying we've made a terrible mistake that could be extraordinary enough to not wait until after the last votes been implemented or a General Election. But I'm not seeing that.
There is a fundamental shift happening in the world economy. The internet has allowed massive disintermediation. It often was the case that goods we produced for say 10 pounds were sold in the pharmacy for 40 pounds with most of the value and profit taken by the pharmacy. We have just launched a massive campaign on |EBay and Amazon to sell 1.5 million surplus syringes we have in stock. We are able to crash the market and cut out the pharmacies and distributors in a way that we could never do before. The mark up via Amazon is less than 10% versus a previous 300%.
The consumer benefits but huge chunks are being lost by the distribution / retail chain and by the Government which gets much less money out of the transaction. Amazon announced its sales growth this quarter was 40% with annual sales now at 200bn. It is 20 times bigger than Marks and Spencers.
At the same time production is getting hyper efficient. As an example the Whitelee wind farm which generates electricity for 250,000 households in Scotland runs at night time with 2 staff plus back up. My factory runs most nights with 1 staff plus technical back up. Our unplanned downtime in the last 10 years has gone from 20 days a year to 2.
So where are the jobs? Good customer service, R&D and technical engineers involved in set ups are all at a premium. These people are often highly mobile and work long hours. A country that attracts them will do well, one that loses them is heading downhill fast.
The UK economy has been one of the best in Europe at attracting the right types of people. the largest risk with Brexit is that this is no longer the case. France has many attractions but suffers from a rigid job and business market which attracts few high quality foreigners and bleeds talented locals. To change this is Macron's challenge.
why do we need to attract them ? shouldn't we be training them ?
The pressure for a second referendum is coming from exactly the same people who for years have been telling us that referendums are bad ideas and that it's best to let politicians decide.
Anyway, I don't get what the choice would be - presumably either whatever half-baked deal Theresa manages to cook up, or WTO?
I can't see any outcome from this that doesn't leave the Tory party screwed.
Oh Cookie, dear old thing, the choice would be between Theresa's Frankendeal and Remaining. Hence TSE, william et al getting all excited.
The pressure for a second referendum is coming from exactly the same people who for years have been telling us that referendums are bad ideas and that it's best to let politicians decide.
Anyway, I don't get what the choice would be - presumably either whatever half-baked deal Theresa manages to cook up, or WTO?
I can't see any outcome from this that doesn't leave the Tory party screwed.
Oh Cookie, dear old thing, the choice would be between Theresa's Frankendeal and Remaining. Hence TSE, william et al getting all excited.
Using a poll which appears to suggest support for a referendum on the deal vs no deal with no option to remain?
We come back to the same problem - what question or questions and options will be asked. What does remain even mean now as presumably the EU will want it's pound of flesh - such as ending the rebate. Do we need remain only if on current terms or remain on whatever terms the EU offers us?
Mr. Jonathan, there's something wryly perverse about certain persons crying out that the 'will of the people' does count because it's not what Scotland or London wanted (see tweet below) whilst also demanding a 'people's vote'. .
The whole thing is perverse. Haven’t you noticed?
The idea that Brexiteers are arguing that staying in the SM and CU are not Brexit now, whilst arguing for staying in during the campaign is another absurdity.
Who was arguing to leave the EU but stay in the CU during the campaign?
I’ll accept that some of the libertarian free trade types like Dan Hannan wanted to stay in the SM before the campaign started, but during the campaign itself Michael Gove and David Cameron were both very clear that to leave the EU means leaving the SM.
Boris advocated staying in the single market.
The simple fact is there was only one question on the ballot and it did not mention SM, CU, CETA+, EEA, EFTA, Canada, Switzerland or Norway. Blame David Cameron, who should have insisted on a particular sort of Brexit being designed and then put to the people in the referendum. Blame Theresa May who triggered Article 50 with no particular destination being agreed.
But if you want to read the entrails, then Boris and Gove disagreed on so basic a point as whether Britain will leave the single market and the bus was silent on the matter.
How could Cameron have 'insisted' on a particular sort of Brexit, when he was not a Brexiteer and was not advocating Brexit? The only reaction to that would have been howls of anguish and claims of a stitch-up from the Brexiteers.
And fair play to them, as it would have helped them win.
David Cameron should have established a Royal Commission of Prominent Brexiteers to establish their preferred Brexit and the version that would be voted upon. Australia did something similar before its referendum on becoming a republic so it is not as if the prime minister or anyone in government would have been unaware of the device.
Agreed. It was a mistake to have the referendum with general rather than specific options available, compounded by the government being in favour of the status quo.
Im not sure we’ll see another referendum, unless the government is unanimously in favour of a specific change.
David Cameron should have established a Royal Commission of Prominent Brexiteers to establish their preferred Brexit and the version that would be voted upon. Australia did something similar before its referendum on becoming a republic so it is not as if the prime minister or anyone in government would have been unaware of the device.
The most prominent Brexiteer would have been Farage, and why would he have joined in? Much better to argue against the 'hideous betrayal' the commission would have come up with.
It'd also be good toknow whether any prominent Brexiteer asked for such a commission *before* the referendum; I cannot recall any. They just wanted a referendum.
The pressure for a second referendum is coming from exactly the same people who for years have been telling us that referendums are bad ideas and that it's best to let politicians decide.
Anyway, I don't get what the choice would be - presumably either whatever half-baked deal Theresa manages to cook up, or WTO?
I can't see any outcome from this that doesn't leave the Tory party screwed.
Oh Cookie, dear old thing, the choice would be between Theresa's Frankendeal and Remaining. Hence TSE, william et al getting all excited.
The pressure for a second referendum is coming from exactly the same people who for years have been telling us that referendums are bad ideas and that it's best to let politicians decide.
Anyway, I don't get what the choice would be - presumably either whatever half-baked deal Theresa manages to cook up, or WTO?
I can't see any outcome from this that doesn't leave the Tory party screwed.
Oh Cookie, dear old thing, the choice would be between Theresa's Frankendeal and Remaining. Hence TSE, william et al getting all excited.
Using a poll which appears to suggest support for a referendum on the deal vs no deal with no option to remain?
We come back to the same problem - what question or questions and options will be asked. What does remain even mean now as presumably the EU will want it's pound of flesh - such as ending the rebate. Do we need remain only if on current terms or remain on whatever terms the EU offers us?
I can't answer your specific question, but it does highlight another interesting aspect of our Brexit debate; we completely ignore our counterparty. Who knows what 'the EU' (a critter with many heads) would be prepared to accept? We'd need to have a reliable position from them before we had our 'People's Vote'.
And if Boris said one thing at one time and something else at another, then such is politics in the Trumpian era. It might have been better if Marr had not cued up Boris by reminding him what Gove had said.
Access to the Single Market from outside is not staying in it. Canada has access to the Single Market yet isn't in it.
He was asked in a simple yes/no format should Britain be leave the Single Market and he answered it quite clearly. What part of that are you struggling with?
He was asked if he agreed with Michael Gove.
He was asked if he agreed with Michael Gove that we should leave the Single Market and he said yes. He expanded on it too. Here's a transcript, the relevant section is pages 5 to 7: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/05061602.pdf
It is either ignorance or duplicitous in the extreme to pretend that Boris was proposing we stay in the single market, he explicitly ruled that out.
Where is this extra money coming from for retail sales that people don't have ?
Loans, credit cards, overdrafts, pension and equity releases?
Praises Allah that I can save most of my salary.
That would show up in one of many BoE borrowing and consumer credit reports. So far there isn't much evidence for a huge increase in debt that would require an average overspend of £900 per household.
While it is a worrying statistic, it isn't backed up by the debt data from the Bank so I remain sceptical over just how accurate the headline figure is.
Comments
I note that it is in Liverpool this year, and the Tory one the following week in Brum. Looks like big protests planned for both from what I see on Twitter.
Any plans for a PB meet up at the Bham one?
The problem with remaining in the single market now is that it would (probably correctly) be perceived as a means to help get us back in.
Mr. Eagles, cavalry charges were very powerful in the Albigensian Crusade. Less so at Agincourt.
Out means never associating ourselves with anything that has an E in its acronym again. FREEDOM! BLUE PASSPORTS!
/s
If we wanted to Remain then we needed to end EverCloserUnion some time during the Major and Blair premierships.
I’ve got an idea for a venue.
https://www.reflex-bars.co.uk/birmingham
They only play 80s music.
The customs union means the EU dictating our trade agreements without any need of taking account of our economic interests, and the single market means imposing regulations (without any British say) on all British businesses, even the ones that operate on a purely domestic basis.
I’ll accept that some of the libertarian free trade types like Dan Hannan wanted to stay in the SM before the campaign started, but during the campaign itself Michael Gove and David Cameron were both very clear that to leave the EU means leaving the SM.
the Wellie, best beer in town
http://www.thewellingtonrealale.co.uk/
The charge in Vienna was epic.
I’m quite happy with armoured cavalry charges as well.
My first war* involved a lot of armoured cavalry charges.
*The first war I was old enough to understand. #ArmchairFieldMarshall.
The lower bandings (unqualified staff) do reasonably well, it is the higher banding specialist nurses that get the trivial rises. A more astute NHS would have noticed that the retention problem is at the top end.
Giving bigger payrises to the lower paid bands also works well for the treasury, as more is clawed back in reduced in work benefits.
But there seems to be a general passivity on wages and tolerance at fatcats troughing at their expense.
Even Labour don't make an issue of it but then again they're closely linked to public sector fatcats.
It doesn't do food ( but you can bring your own as they provide plates and cutlery ! ). Theres a food pub next door ( Old Joint Stock ) and another round the corner owned by Purity Brewery
https://www.purecraftbars.com/
youre not on the nightclub end of brum as this is more the business district but its close to all the stations
And I'm in no rush to see Liam Fox sign trade agreements.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Complete-Orcs-Stan-Nicholls-ebook/dp/B00DCVYLZY/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1532676861&sr=8-3&keywords=orcs+bad+blood
It's not a bad series, though the first book is the best. A bit like a lowbrow version of Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead - looks at great events from the viewpoint of the poor bloody infantry.
If you are suggesting that Osborne is fated to lead an army of Brexit turncoats to resolve this once and for all then I can only respond that I look forward to seeing him in action, but feel that he might be going about it in a strange way.
But let's take the alternative route we're heading towards. Those towering intellectual colossi Davis, Fox, Johnson etc achieved nothing in two years of gazing up their own backsides. We'll be a relatively small country going against massive ones such as China and the US, who will be covetously rubbing their hands at the thought of the advantages they can gain from deals.
The old saying 'divide and conquer' is very true. We've divided from a larger group, and we're rich pickings.
Given the sheer ineptitude of the Brexiteer clowns in government, I have no doubt that we're in for some significant issues.
You must have LibDem DNA.....
With Macron's first year in office seeing a rise in retail spending of 0.3% - the UK's has increased by 2.9% over the same period.
We fire Liam Fox into the heart of the sun from some sort of giant artillery gun, and leave the customs union. Everybody's happy.
Now in negative territory.
I wouldn't be crowing about UK retail figures; they are unsustainable.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/jul/26/household-debt-in-uk-worse-than-at-any-time-on-record
I also think the newspapers saying it's all an existential challenge to Jewish people is unhelpfully OTT, though, and the people who talk about the party being anti-semitic often have an unsubtle different agenda, precisely like people who say all Tories are racists. The existence of the Jewish community is not dependent on whether a political party has exactly the right guidelines for membership.
Anyway, I don't get what the choice would be - presumably either whatever half-baked deal Theresa manages to cook up, or WTO?
I can't see any outcome from this that doesn't leave the Tory party screwed.
"We can't trust the result of a referendum, therefore we must have another!"
That said, I expect the NEC to backtrack come September and to fully incorporate the IHRA definition. I also think that the furore has ensured that those accused of anti-Semitism inside Labour are going to find it tougher to stay than otherwise might have been the case. In short, the McDonnell approach will end up prevailing over the Corbyn one.
As for a relatively small country, we're the 5th largest economy in the world. If that isn't even a medium country I wonder what description you'd use for the approximately 195 economies smaller than ours. We are in the top 3 percentile as far size of the economies is concerned.
But rather a comparison between the UK and French economies.
We know that even with a steady increase in UK consumer spending there have been a series of retail and restaurant chain failings leading to many town centres looking rather run down.
So what's the economic effect in France (and Germany where a similar pattern is happening) when consumer spending isn't growing ?
Not to mention the political effect - people consuming more tends to make them happier and so more supportive of governments. But if they're not consuming more ...
https://twitter.com/mwclemence/status/1022468636731158529?s=21
This data, release yesterday, is very sobering (and worrying):
https://twitter.com/ONS/status/1022384133157347328
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/corbyn-hasn-t-come-up-with-one-radical-idea-2gfh29l0c?shareToken=900f979c5005223b0e97d3602c85474e
The simple fact is there was only one question on the ballot and it did not mention SM, CU, CETA+, EEA, EFTA, Canada, Switzerland or Norway. Blame David Cameron, who should have insisted on a particular sort of Brexit being designed and then put to the people in the referendum. Blame Theresa May who triggered Article 50 with no particular destination being agreed.
But if you want to read the entrails, then Boris and Gove disagreed on so basic a point as whether Britain will leave the single market and the bus was silent on the matter.
ANyway, as Barnier seems to be rejecting absolutely every proposal put to them, the question is academic - it's WTO or WTO.
We’re leaving.
But if the reality of Brexit is very bad then there’ll be overwhelming support to Rejoin.
Far too many Leavers are complacent that the decision won’t be overturned in the future.
If there was a referendum with a Remsin option before we Leave I’d probably abstain.
I’m not keen on perpetual plebiscites.
You are the one to determine that a concern for any particular community is OTT, is that right? The Labour Party is legitimising discrimination which surely acts to push the barriers of what is and what is not acceptable behaviour. If it's OK for the Labour Party, it's OK for "us". Certainly the existence of the Jewish community is not dependent on whether a political party has exactly the right guidelines for membership, but if that political party is one of the two main parties in the country, and it tacks towards discrimination against that community, or rather, fails to uphold the seemingly objectively highest standards of non-discrimination, then that has a significant effect.
And as for an unsubtle different agenda? You mean all the Jews who hitherto voted Labour and were Labour Party supporters? Those people? What agenda do they have?
And fair play to them, as it would have helped them win.
"We can't trust the result of a referendum, therefore we must have another!"
It was the wrong kind of result.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIs91w7atjg
Personally, I'm not sure that it's in the EU's interests to have the UK as a member. Without us, the non-EZ countries can't muster a blocking minority under QMV, which I'm sure will not have escaped their attention.
Barnier wants the UK as Turkey (the country rather than the bird).
We punch above our weight for our size. But if you're a large up-and-coming country (say, India), eyeing markets, then you'd much rather do a deal with other larger countries, or groups thereof, than smaller ones, for you get more bang for your buck.
Praises Allah that I can save most of my salary.
Yet Labour didn't; it changed them - they claim in minor ways; others disagree. Why change them? Why is the Labour Party so different to all those other organisations? Why does it think it knows better?
If, as some people claim, the changes are irrelevant and unimportant, why have the changes?
There has to be a rationale behind the reason for the changes. And that's what has people concerned given recent events within Labour.
I wonder though if the pension reforms which now no longer mean you have to buy an annuity have boosted spending by the over 55s.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1022764133102628865
With the problems manifesting themselves from 2003 onwards regarding disposable income.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44926447
The same could have been done with Brexit.
there will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2016/06/26/i-cannot-stress-too-much-that-britain-is-part-of-europe--and-alw/
And if Boris said one thing at one time and something else at another, then such is politics in the Trumpian era. It might have been better if Marr had not cued up Boris by reminding him what Gove had said.
There is a fundamental shift happening in the world economy. The internet has allowed massive disintermediation. It often was the case that goods we produced for say 10 pounds were sold in the pharmacy for 40 pounds with most of the value and profit taken by the pharmacy. We have just launched a massive campaign on |EBay and Amazon to sell 1.5 million surplus syringes we have in stock. We are able to crash the market and cut out the pharmacies and distributors in a way that we could never do before. The mark up via Amazon is less than 10% versus a previous 300%.
The consumer benefits but huge chunks are being lost by the distribution / retail chain and by the Government which gets much less money out of the transaction. Amazon announced its sales growth this quarter was 40% with annual sales now at 200bn. It is 20 times bigger than Marks and Spencers.
At the same time production is getting hyper efficient. As an example the Whitelee wind farm which generates electricity for 250,000 households in Scotland runs at night time with 2 staff plus back up. My factory runs most nights with 1 staff plus technical back up. Our unplanned downtime in the last 10 years has gone from 20 days a year to 2.
So where are the jobs? Good customer service, R&D and technical engineers involved in set ups are all at a premium. These people are often highly mobile and work long hours. A country that attracts them will do well, one that loses them is heading downhill fast.
The UK economy has been one of the best in Europe at attracting the right types of people. the largest risk with Brexit is that this is no longer the case. France has many attractions but suffers from a rigid job and business market which attracts few high quality foreigners and bleeds talented locals. To change this is Macron's challenge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIs91w7atjg
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/jul/27/thank-you-for-the-music-abba-superfans-on-why-they-are-the-best-band-ever
Want to reply to JJ and Southam but having trouble with replies on the site at the moment.
Seems fair enough to me. Accountability doesn't stop when the votes are counted, after all. And anyone disingenuous enough to say "Fine, we can have accountability, but only after it's either irrevocable or at least far harder to go back" isn't impressive.
Then again, it could always be my bias. I was moderately in favour of Leave through most of my adult life; it's only right at the end I swung to a begrudging Remain vote (mainly as a response to the campaigns: I found the Remain campaign repulsive, but the Leave campaign so repulsive it not only overrode my disdain for the Remain campaign but shifted me from one to the other)
He was asked in a simple yes/no format should Britain be leave the Single Market and he answered it quite clearly. What part of that are you struggling with?
I have no problems with another referendum if a party seeking to get it wins a general election after the prior one has been implemented, ie after we've left. The problem with those seeking a second vote now is that they're not doing so because of some dramatic change or dishonesty from Leave they're doing so just because they're not happy they lost first time. That's not enough.
If there was a groundswell of 2016-Leavers calling for a second vote now saying we've made a terrible mistake that could be extraordinary enough to not wait until after the last votes been implemented or a General Election. But I'm not seeing that.
We come back to the same problem - what question or questions and options will be asked. What does remain even mean now as presumably the EU will want it's pound of flesh - such as ending the rebate. Do we need remain only if on current terms or remain on whatever terms the EU offers us?
Im not sure we’ll see another referendum, unless the government is unanimously in favour of a specific change.
It'd also be good toknow whether any prominent Brexiteer asked for such a commission *before* the referendum; I cannot recall any. They just wanted a referendum.
What's not to love about extending Article 50?
It is either ignorance or duplicitous in the extreme to pretend that Boris was proposing we stay in the single market, he explicitly ruled that out.
While it is a worrying statistic, it isn't backed up by the debt data from the Bank so I remain sceptical over just how accurate the headline figure is.