The polls weren't particularly wrong at the last election AFAIK. They got the Tory share almost spot on for example. The underestimated Labour slightly but not by a huge amount.
I agree. Its a pretty poor excuse for cost cutting.
They like a certain type of Brit: the respectful, polite and well-mannered kind.
They don’t like the lager louts and stag dos so much, even if occasionally they can find some of them (in moderation) amusing.
Another way of putting that is that you get on best if you are respectful, polite and well-mannered. That certainly does work with Europeans, but it goes down well with other Brits as well. You might even draw the conclusion that those guys over the channel are pretty much like us for most intents and purposes and we'll all do better working together.
Exactly. Boris was particularly bad at the FS job because he was neither well-mannered nor respectful (in the sense of bothering to do homework on who he was talking to). Hunt is OK in that respect, and Thornberry would be too, even though they've both made the occasional slip.
To be fair to Boris he never got half our European Ambassadors writing tweets complaining about him as Hunt did after his 'EU prison' Tory conference speech. Nor has he insulted those who fly the England flag like Thornberry
He'd insulted pretty much everyone already by the time he got the job.
Ive spent years listening to how great our "influence" in the EU, was, ae you saying it was all bollocks ?
I think .
They like a certain type of Brit: the respectful, polite and well-mannered kind.
They don’t like the lager louts and stag dos so much, even if occasionally they can find some of them (in moderation) amusing.
Another way of putting that is that you get on best if you are respectful, polite and well-mannered. That certainly does work with Europeans, but it goes down well with other Brits as well. You might even draw the conclusion that those guys over the channel are pretty much like us for most intents and purposes and we'll all do better working together.
Respect and good manners are internationally appreciated (and key in diplomacy) but I do think Europeans like the apologetic, reserved and gracious “classic” British gentlemen. The type they see in period dramas and romcom films.
That goes down very well in more macho cultures, or in those where the men don’t make quite as much effort, or behave with a bit more arrogant.
In Poland, the women are virtually all jaw-droppingly beautiful. You can basically clean up.
My experience is that Europeans like many different kinds of Brit, as exemplified by the wide variety of us that do very well across the Channel - in all kinds of fields. They don’t like drunken, loud yobs or ignorant fools, but who does?
You are missing the point (hopefully not wilfully).
There are aspects of British culture they like, and find endearing. There are others they find repellent.
That is a different point to basic good manners and behaviour, which is respected and appreciated worldwide.
Another aspect is to remind us all that when it comes to Europe, Conservative politicians just haven't been very good at politics. From the beginning, and especially since Cameron's bizarre decision to leave the main conservative group in the European Parliament, they have behaved like the nutter on the bus. If you want to get the most out of Europe you need to study it, understand it and frame your approach and strategy on the basis of what it is actually like.
We all know negative people who spend all their time moaning and blaming everyone and everything else for their problems. That's the image we have projected in Europe. It's little wonder that we don't have any friends there.
really ?
Ive spent years listening to how great our "influence" in the EU, was, ae you saying it was all bollocks ?
I think there's always been a good deal of goodwill towards us - Europeans simply like the Brits, by and large. But Recidivist is right that we've never used that very effectively - not so much the nutter on the bus as the loveable but irritating brother who means well but has no real idea of it being a family.
They like a certain type of Brit: the respectful, polite and well-mannered kind.
They don’t like the lager louts and stag dos so much, even if occasionally they can find some of them (in moderation) amusing.
Another way of putting that is that you get on best if you are respectful, polite and well-mannered. That certainly does work with Europeans, but it goes down well with other Brits as well. You might even draw the conclusion that those guys over the channel are pretty much like us for most intents and purposes and we'll all do better working together.
Respect and good manners are internationally appreciated (and key in diplomacy) but I do think Europeans like the apologetic, reserved and gracious “classic” British gentlemen. The type they see in period dramas and romcom films.
That goes down very well in more macho cultures, or in those where the men don’t make quite as much effort, or behave with a bit more arrogant.
In Poland, the women are virtually all jaw-droppingly beautiful. You can basically clean up.
*books flight to Poland*
I got told off by my wife following my last trip to Poland.
Another aspect is to remind us all that when it comes to Europe, Conservative politicians just haven't been very good at politics. From the beginning, and especially since Cameron's bizarre decision to leave the main conservative group in the European Parliament, they have behaved like the nutter on the bus. If you want to get the most out of Europe you need to study it, understand it and frame your approach and strategy on the basis of what it is actually like.
We all know negative people who spend all their time moaning and blaming everyone and everything else for their problems. That's the image we have projected in Europe. It's little wonder that we don't have any friends there.
really ?
Ive spent years listening to how great our "influence" in the EU, was, ae you saying it was all bollocks ?
I think there's always been a good deal of goodwill towards us - Europeans simply like the Brits, by and large. But Recidivist is right that we've never used that very effectively - not so much the nutter on the bus as the loveable but irritating brother who means well but has no real idea of it being a family.
They like a certain type of Brit: the respectful, polite and well-mannered kind.
They don’t like the lager louts and stag dos so much, even if occasionally they can find some of them (in moderation) amusing.
There's nothing worse than British yobs who go on holiday to Greece or the Spanish islands and behave like savages. They're an embarrassment to the country.
And those that go on stag outings to Poland, Prague and the Baltic in search of Casino's women...
I would say that's normal for any complex bit of military kit. How many of its 450 Challenger IIs do you think the British Army has available for ops right now? Hint: it's nowhere near 150.
I'm sure that's right. I remember we had to strip every tank in Germany to make sure that those we sent to the Gulf could actually move. Spare parts seem to be the first saving made which is of course utterly bizarre.
How many of our fighters are typically operational?
It's said that in WW2 the Germans handicapped their armour by constantly trying to improve it and having numerous different models, sophisticated for their time, with incompatible spare parts which kept breaking down. The Soviets had a small number of not very distinguished types which they produced in huge numbers, and in battlefield conditions that worked better than having the latest gizmos.
Not very distinguished?!! The T-34 was years ahead of anything the Germans had until they brought out the Tiger 1, and still more than a match for the Germans until the Tiger II emerged on 1944.
Admittedly the 'huge numbers' is correct - eighty thousand, I believe, of which 55% were destroyed in combat largely due to woeful generalship - but it was not inferior.
It has been suggested one of the reasons Hitler invaded the USSR in August 1941 is because he was concerned about the pace of Soviet technical development and thought if Germany did not attack then, they would be unable to do so.
So the EU acknowledges it was a mistake which could blow up the deal (and which the U.K. was wrong to accept). But they are not going to walk back from it
Stubborn refusal to face the facts is a dangerous thing. See, also, Brexit.
If the “facts” are that we can’t in practice leave then we are no longer independent
So you want to leave all other bodies like NATO which undermine our independence?
No, he doesn’t. And it doesn’t.
Virtually no Brexiteers do. It’s hilarious how many Remainers persist with this line of “argument”.
It shows the inconsistency in the Brexiteers argument. But Brexiteers can't answer it so they try to airily brush it away.
It really doesn’t
There is a vast difference between an alliance where we have made certain commitments and a set up where we can be outvoted and required to implement rules into domestic law
Of course any international agreement involved constraints on freedom of action - the question is how far reaching those are
Thinking the EU is too great a constraint doesn’t mean you want no agreements.
Someone's probably already said this but that first ICM poll from 1989 is almost identical to the most recent survey that was released a couple of days ago IIRC.
Mr. Observer, what would you say to those who suggest any lack of leverage is because it was consistently signed away by governing parties (even when a referendum had been promised, and subsequently not held)?
What is it about the Lisbon settlement that has reduced the UK's influence in the EU?
We lost a whole bunch of vetoes that we had previously, especially in financial services where we are the most important member but can now be outvoted by the Eurozone members when it comes to QMV. We became a rule taker on the day Brown shamefully went there in the dead of night to sign the country's future away to Brussels.
But other countries lost vetoes as well. So if we had something we wanted to push the barriers to getting it through would be lower. So it's swings and roundabouts.
So the EU acknowledges it was a mistake which could blow up the deal (and which the U.K. was wrong to accept). But they are not going to walk back from it
Stubborn refusal to face the facts is a dangerous thing. See, also, Brexit.
If the “facts” are that we can’t in practice leave then we are no longer independent
So you want to leave all other bodies like NATO which undermine our independence?
No, he doesn’t. And it doesn’t.
Virtually no Brexiteers do. It’s hilarious how many Remainers persist with this line of “argument”.
It shows the inconsistency in the Brexiteers argument. But Brexiteers can't answer it so they try to airily brush it away.
It really doesn’t
There is a vast difference between an alliance where we have made certain commitments and a set up where we can be outvoted and required to implement rules into domestic law
Of course any international agreement involved constraints on freedom of action - the question is how far reaching those are
Thinking the EU is too great a constraint doesn’t mean you want no agreements.
Indeed. It suits some Remainers to pursue reducto ad absurdism rather than engage with a much more complex and difficult argument.
Someone's probably already said this but that first ICM poll from 1989 is almost identical to the most recent survey that was released a couple of days ago IIRC.
Another aspect is to remind us all that when it comes to Europe, Conservative politicians just haven't been very good at politics. From the beginning, and especially since Cameron's bizarre decision to leave the main conservative group in the European Parliament, they have behaved like the nutter on the bus. If you want to get the most out of Europe you need to study it, understand it and frame your approach and strategy on the basis of what it is actually like.
We all know negative people who spend all their time moaning and blaming everyone and everything else for their problems. That's the image we have projected in Europe. It's little wonder that we don't have any friends there.
really ?
Ive spent years listening to how great our "influence" in the EU, was, ae you saying it was all bollocks ?
I think there's always been a good deal of goodwill towards us - Europeans simply like the Brits, by and large. But Recidivist is right that we've never used that very effectively - not so much the nutter on the bus as the loveable but irritating brother who means well but has no real idea of it being a family.
They like a certain type of Brit: the respectful, polite and well-mannered kind.
They don’t like the lager louts and stag dos so much, even if occasionally they can find some of them (in moderation) amusing.
There's nothing worse than British yobs who go on holiday to Greece or the Spanish islands and behave like savages. They're an embarrassment to the country.
And those that go on stag outings to Poland, Prague and the Baltic in search of Casino's women...
Funnily enough they don’t tend to be that successful.
I would say that's normal for any complex bit of military kit. How many of its 450 Challenger IIs do you think the British Army has available for ops right now? Hint: it's nowhere near 150.
I'm sure that's right. I remember we had to strip every tank in Germany to make sure that those we sent to the Gulf could actually move. Spare parts seem to be the first saving made which is of course utterly bizarre.
How many of our fighters are typically operational?
It's said that in WW2 the Germans handicapped their armour by constantly trying to improve it and having numerous different models, sophisticated for their time, with incompatible spare parts which kept breaking down. The Soviets had a small number of not very distinguished types which they produced in huge numbers, and in battlefield conditions that worked better than having the latest gizmos.
Not very distinguished?!! The T-34 was years ahead of anything the Germans had until they brought out the Tiger 1, and still more than a match for the Germans until the Tiger II emerged on 1944.
Admittedly the 'huge numbers' is correct - eighty thousand, I believe, of which 55% were destroyed in combat largely due to woeful generalship - but it was not inferior.
It has been suggested one of the reasons Hitler invaded the USSR in August 1941 is because he was concerned about the pace of Soviet technical development and thought if Germany did not attack then, they would be unable to do so.
No, he needed to do so before the Americans got involved and while the plates of the German economy were still spinning. Tooze's book on the Nazi economy is a must read. Hitler had to hurry because his financial/economic model was unsustainable.
I would say that's normal for any complex bit of military kit. How many of its 450 Challenger IIs do you think the British Army has available for ops right now? Hint: it's nowhere near 150.
I'm sure that's right. I remember we had to strip every tank in Germany to make sure that those we sent to the Gulf could actually move. Spare parts seem to be the first saving made which is of course utterly bizarre.
How many of our fighters are typically operational?
It's said that in WW2 the Germans handicapped their armour by constantly trying to improve it and having numerous different models, sophisticated for their time, with incompatible spare parts which kept breaking down. The Soviets had a small number of not very distinguished types which they produced in huge numbers, and in battlefield conditions that worked better than having the latest gizmos.
Not very distinguished?!! The T-34 was years ahead of anything the Germans had until they brought out the Tiger 1, and still more than a match for the Germans until the Tiger II emerged on 1944.
Admittedly the 'huge numbers' is correct - eighty thousand, I believe, of which 55% were destroyed in combat largely due to woeful generalship - but it was not inferior.
It has been suggested one of the reasons Hitler invaded the USSR in August 1941 is because he was concerned about the pace of Soviet technical development and thought if Germany did not attack then, they would be unable to do so.
No, he needed to do so before the Americans got involved and while the plates of the German economy were still spinning. Tooze's book on the Nazi economy is a must read. Hitler had to hurry because his financial/economic model was unsustainable.
Yes, that's also been suggested.
Personally I think both suggestions are wrong, or at least, secondary. I think he invaded the Soviet Union because he wanted to.
Perhaps we should also remember though that actually the German economy didn't really kick into overdrive until 1941, and the key driver of economic growth before that was plunder from the occupied countries - i seem to remember a figure of five billion marks' worth of goods stolen from France alone.
So the EU acknowledges it was a mistake which could blow up the deal (and which the U.K. was wrong to accept). But they are not going to walk back from it
Stubborn refusal to face the facts is a dangerous thing. See, also, Brexit.
If the “facts” are that we can’t in practice leave then we are no longer independent
So you want to leave all other bodies like NATO which undermine our independence?
No, he doesn’t. And it doesn’t.
Virtually no Brexiteers do. It’s hilarious how many Remainers persist with this line of “argument”.
It shows the inconsistency in the Brexiteers argument. But Brexiteers can't answer it so they try to airily brush it away.
It really doesn’t
There is a vast difference between an alliance where we have made certain commitments and a set up where we can be outvoted and required to implement rules into domestic law
Of course any international agreement involved constraints on freedom of action - the question is how far reaching those are
Thinking the EU is too great a constraint doesn’t mean you want no agreements.
The greatest constraint on English sovereignty is the UK.
Ive spent years listening to how great our "influence" in the EU, was, ae you saying it was all bollocks ?
I think .
They like a certain type of Brit: the respectful, polite and well-mannered kind.
They don’t like the lager louts and stag dos so much, even if occasionally they can find some of them (in moderation) amusing.
Another way of putting that is that you get on best if you are respectful, polite and well-mannered. That certainly does work with Europeans, but it goes down well with other Brits as well. You might even draw the conclusion that those guys over the channel are pretty much like us for most intents and purposes and we'll all do better working together.
Respect and good manners are internationally appreciated (and key in diplomacy) but I do think Europeans like the apologetic, reserved and gracious “classic” British gentlemen. The type they see in period dramas and romcom films.
That goes down very well in more macho cultures, or in those where the men don’t make quite as much effort, or behave with a bit more arrogant.
In Poland, the women are virtually all jaw-droppingly beautiful. You can basically clean up.
My experience is that Europeans like many different kinds of Brit, as exemplified by the wide variety of us that do very well across the Channel - in all kinds of fields. They don’t like drunken, loud yobs or ignorant fools, but who does?
You are missing the point (hopefully not wilfully).
There are aspects of British culture they like, and find endearing. There are others they find repellent.
That is a different point to basic good manners and behaviour, which is respected and appreciated worldwide.
I guess I don’t see them as a humogenous “they”. Different people in different countries like different things about the British and our cultures. As do we.
A series of unlucky events and poor decisions once left me with a broken Hawk and a student pilot at a Polish Naval Aviation base in Gdynia. The Polish Navy looked after us very well. My young RAF student pilot , being RAF, thought a hard on was for pissing over a high wall so our hosts took him to a "sauna" near the docks. When we got in there I thought the madam had a dead Yorkshire Terrier on her lap. Unfortunately I was wrong. After the Brylcreem Boy had broken his duck one of the Polish officers took us back to his fucking awful Soviet apartment and woke his wife up at 2am to cook us a fucking awful 3 course Polish meal. Poland is great.
Mr. B2, I would've accepted retention of only the British veto
Also, again, we never had a say over expansion. Machiavelli warned against confederations getting excessively large, because they inherently ended up dragging power away from the members and towards the centre.
Another aspect is to remind us all that when it comes to oaning and blaming everyone and everything else for their problems. That's the image we have projected in Europe. It's little wonder that we don't have any friends there.
really ?
Ive spent years listening to how great our "influence" in the EU, was, ae you saying it was all bollocks ?
I think there's always been a good deal of goodwill towards us - Europeans simply like the Brits, by and large. But Recidivist is right that we've never used that very effectively - not so much the nutter on the bus as the loveable but irritating brother who means well but has no real idea of it being a family.
They like a certain type of Brit: the respectful, polite and well-mannered kind.
They don’t like the lager louts and stag dos so much, even if occasionally they can find some of them (in moderation) amusing.
Another way of those guys over the channel are pretty much like us for most intents and purposes and we'll all do better working together.
Respect and good manners are internationally appreciated (and key in diplomacy) but I do think Europeans like the apologetic, reserved and gracious “classic” British gentlemen. The type they see in period dramas and romcom films.
That goes down very well in more macho cultures, or in those where the men don’t make quite as much effort, or behave with a bit more arrogant.
In Poland, the women are virtually all jaw-droppingly beautiful. You can basically clean up.
My experience is that Europeans like many different kinds of Brit, as exemplified by the wide variety of us that do very well across the Channel - in all kinds of fields. They don’t like drunken, loud yobs or ignorant fools, but who does?
Mind you anyone who has been to Oktoberfest or a football match on the continent knows they are not completely immune from drunken, loud yobs either and I expect European elites consider Front National, AfD, Lega Nord voters who 'ignorant fools' as well
When my Spanish friends used to complain about pissed up Brits getting lairy and violent, I agreed but pointed out that their countrymen were much more likely to get pissed up, then get in their cars and kill people. We all have our faults!
Mr. B2, I would've accepted retention of only the British veto
Also, again, we never had a say over expansion. Machiavelli warned against confederations getting excessively large, because they inherently ended up dragging power away from the members and towards the centre.
Yes we did.
We were the strongest advocates of EU expansion, both parties from Thatcher onwards.
Mr. Eagles, there was a consensus amongst the political class, but that is not the same thing as common ground between the electorate and the politicians.
Mr. Recidivist, if the EU decided it wanted a dictator and that every EU member state had to obey his every word then no member state would see their influence reduced relative to other players. Would you really argue that would mean no loss of national influence?
I would say that's normal for any complex bit of military kit. How many of its 450 Challenger IIs do you think the British Army has available for ops right now? Hint: it's nowhere near 150.
I'm sure that's right. I remember we had to strip every tank in Germany to make sure that those we sent to the Gulf could actually move. Spare parts seem to be the first saving made which is of course utterly bizarre.
How many of our fighters are typically operational?
It's said that in WW2 the Germans handicapped their armour by constantly trying to improve it and having numerous different models, sophisticated for their time, with incompatible spare parts which kept breaking down. The Soviets had a small number of not very distinguished types which they produced in huge numbers, and in battlefield conditions that worked better than having the latest gizmos.
Not very distinguished?!! The T-34 was years ahead of anything the Germans had until they brought out the Tiger 1, and still more than a match for the Germans until the Tiger II emerged on 1944.
Admittedly the 'huge numbers' is correct - eighty thousand, I believe, of which 55% were destroyed in combat largely due to woeful generalship - but it was not inferior.
It has been suggested one of the reasons Hitler invaded the USSR in August 1941 is because he was concerned about the pace of Soviet technical development and thought if Germany did not attack then, they would be unable to do so.
No, he needed to do so before the Americans got involved and while the plates of the German economy were still spinning. Tooze's book on the Nazi economy is a must read. Hitler had to hurry because his financial/economic model was unsustainable.
Yes, that's also been suggested.
Personally I think both suggestions are wrong, or at least, secondary. I think he invaded the Soviet Union because he wanted to.
Perhaps we should also remember though that actually the German economy didn't really kick into overdrive until 1941, and the key driver of economic growth before that was plunder from the occupied countries - i seem to remember a figure of five billion marks' worth of goods stolen from France alone.
I agree that was always his objective and aspiration. My point (Tooze's, really), is that he didn't have much time, and not because of Soviet advances as the OP suggested.
Edit/ Overy and (I think) Tooze both see the occupied territories as at least as much of a drain as an asset, exacerbated by the way they managed them
I miss George Osborne. He is clever, witty, more than slightly cynical and with a good understanding of how government worked. May would be a vastly better PM (as was Cameron) with someone like that organising her government for her and ensuring that everyone is on the same page. Mandelson did a very similar job for Brown when he was brought back and praise doesn't come much higher than that.
Of course he made mistakes, who doesn't, but politics in this country is the poorer for his absence and indeed the absence of Balls.
*ducks*
He was also the Shadow Chancellor who failed to predict the biggest recession in generations - thus showing an incredible inability to think outside his comfort zone.
Did the Queen once ask why nobody had predicted it?
Allegedly yes and it was an astute question. I personally think that the answer lies in computer modelling of the economy. These have so many data points that there is an inbuilt assumption that most things remain the same giving a stability to the model we do not find in the real world. Just like the model that the OBR gave to the Chancellor on Monday.
I don't think Economic modelling is much like fluid dynamics models, which can have many data points and not be at all stable.
In weather forecasting you can achieve reasonably good forecasts by simply forecasting climatology and sometimes a model will have been tuned to revert to climatology too quickly. Fortunately a variety of different skill scores have been developed by statisticians that will penalise such models and reward those that make a decent stab at forecasting the changes in the weather - as it is the changes that are most consequential to forecast correctly.
Weather forecasts are now impressively good at forecasting changes in the weather well in advance. Economic forecasting seems to be stuck in a rut of forecasting the economic climatology and doesn't seem to have made a start on working out how to forecast changes in the economic weather - but then it is a lot harder because the causes of each economic crash seem to be different every time.
Mr. Eagles, there was a consensus amongst the political class, but that is not the same thing as common ground between the electorate and the politicians.
Mr. Recidivist, if the EU decided it wanted a dictator and that every EU member state had to obey his every word then no member state would see their influence reduced relative to other players. Would you really argue that would mean no loss of national influence?
I’m fairly certain it was in the manifesto of both parties, repeatedly.
So the EU acknowledges it was a mistake which could blow up the deal (and which the U.K. was wrong to accept). But they are not going to walk back from it
Stubborn refusal to face the facts is a dangerous thing. See, also, Brexit.
If the “facts” are that we can’t in practice leave then we are no longer independent
So you want to leave all other bodies like NATO which undermine our independence?
No, he doesn’t. And it doesn’t.
Virtually no Brexiteers do. It’s hilarious how many Remainers persist with this line of “argument”.
It shows the inconsistency in the Brexiteers argument. But Brexiteers can't answer it so they try to airily brush it away.
It really doesn’t
There is a vast difference between an alliance where we have made certain commitments and a set up where we can be outvoted and required to implement rules into domestic law
Of course any international agreement involved constraints on freedom of action - the question is how far reaching those are
Thinking the EU is too great a constraint doesn’t mean you want no agreements.
Indeed. It suits some Remainers to pursue reducto ad absurdism rather than engage with a much more complex and difficult argument.
Perhaps it’s too hard for them to handle.
I don't think you can say that the NATO alliance that requires us to have foreign military forces installed in our country is less of a constraint on our sovereignty than the EU. NATO can get us into a war in a way that the EU cannot. You may disagree, but it's hardly reducto ad absurdum.
47% of Tory members back a Canada style FTA with EU, 21% want No Deal, 10% back Norway to Canada, 8% back Chequers and 6% Remain and 4% permanent EEA according to Conservative Home's new poll
Mr. B2, I would've accepted retention of only the British veto
Also, again, we never had a say over expansion. Machiavelli warned against confederations getting excessively large, because they inherently ended up dragging power away from the members and towards the centre.
Yes we did.
We were the strongest advocates of EU expansion, both parties from Thatcher onwards.
The strategy was to get a 'Broader Europe' rather than a 'Deeper Europe'.
We ended up with a Europe which was both broader and deeper.
47% of Tory members back a Canada style FTA with EU, 21% want No Deal, 10% back Norway to Canada, 8% back Chequers and 6% Remain and 4% permanent EEA according to Conservative Home's new poll
47% of Tory members back a Canada style FTA with EU, 21% want No Deal, 10% back Norway to Canada, 8% back Chequers and 6% Remain and 4% permanent EEA according to Conservative Home's new poll
47% of Tory members back a Canada style FTA with EU, 21% want No Deal, 10% back Norway to Canada, 8% back Chequers and 6% Remain and 4% permanent EEA according to Conservative Home's new poll
Mr. Eagles, you're aware that General Elections are about many issues?
If we'd had a referendum and agreed to expansion, that'd be one thing. But people vote for X and Y party based on various reasons. It's not a 100% endorsement of everything those parties propose and if the two main parties agree to the same policy (foreign aid spending, for example) then it's difficult for the electorate to have a say against that.
I think we should reduce foreign aid spending. But if Corbyn's there, would I risk voting for any party other than Conservative? No. Because having the far left in power would be far worse than having aid spending too high. That doesn't mean I'd approve of every line in the Conservative manifesto.
Changes to the voting system and reducing the power we entrust to Parliament by them frittering it away to the EU ought to be subject to a public vote.
I don't think you can say that the NATO alliance that requires us to have foreign military forces installed in our country is less of a constraint on our sovereignty than the EU. NATO can get us into a war in a way that the EU cannot. You may disagree, but it's hardly reducto ad absurdum.
I think we are reaching the end game for NATO anyway. I predict withdrawal from NATO will be one of Trump's more popular 2nd term policies.
I've noticed that a few programs that used to have the NATO brand are being artfully renamed as "Euro-US".
Mr. Eagles, you're aware that General Elections are about many issues?
If we'd had a referendum and agreed to expansion, that'd be one thing. But people vote for X and Y party based on various reasons. It's not a 100% endorsement of everything those parties propose and if the two main parties agree to the same policy (foreign aid spending, for example) then it's difficult for the electorate to have a say against that.
I think we should reduce foreign aid spending. But if Corbyn's there, would I risk voting for any party other than Conservative? No. Because having the far left in power would be far worse than having aid spending too high. That doesn't mean I'd approve of every line in the Conservative manifesto.
Changes to the voting system and reducing the power we entrust to Parliament by them frittering it away to the EU ought to be subject to a public vote.
So I’ll cite that when Leavers say the manifestos of both Labour and the Tories in 2017 proposed leaving the single market and customs union.
I miss George Osborne. He is clever, witty, more than slightly cynical and with a good understanding of how government worked. May would be a vastly better PM (as was Cameron) with someone like that organising her government for her and ensuring that everyone is on the same page. Mandelson did a very similar job for Brown when he was brought back and praise doesn't come much higher than that.
Of course he made mistakes, who doesn't, but politics in this country is the poorer for his absence and indeed the absence of Balls.
*ducks*
He was also the Shadow Chancellor who failed to predict the biggest recession in generations - thus showing an incredible inability to think outside his comfort zone.
Did the Queen once ask why nobody had predicted it?
Allegedly yes and it was an astute question. I personally think that the answer lies in computer modelling of the economy. These have so many data points that there is an inbuilt assumption that most things remain the same giving a stability to the model we do not find in the real world. Just like the model that the OBR gave to the Chancellor on Monday.
I don't think Economic modelling is much like fluid dynamics models, which can have many data points and not be at all stable.
In weather forecasting you can achieve reasonably good forecasts by simply forecasting climatology and sometimes a model will have been tuned to revert to climatology too quickly. Fortunately a variety of different skill scores have been developed by statisticians that will penalise such models and reward those that make a decent stab at forecasting the changes in the weather - as it is the changes that are most consequential to forecast correctly.
Weather forecasts are now impressively good at forecasting changes in the weather well in advance. Economic forecasting seems to be stuck in a rut of forecasting the economic climatology and doesn't seem to have made a start on working out how to forecast changes in the economic weather - but then it is a lot harder because the causes of each economic crash seem to be different every time.
The weather doesn’t read the papers to find out what it’s supposed to do and then try to take advantage of it either: a fully accurate model of the economy would only be possible if it were kept secret and not acted on or if it were so sophisticated that it could take into account everyone’s reaction to it. At which point we are into Oedipus territory.
Mr. Eagles, there was a consensus amongst the political class, but that is not the same thing as common ground between the electorate and the politicians.
Mr. Recidivist, if the EU decided it wanted a dictator and that every EU member state had to obey his every word then no member state would see their influence reduced relative to other players. Would you really argue that would mean no loss of national influence?
I’m fairly certain it was in the manifesto of both parties, repeatedly.
If it’s in the manifesto of both main parties how do you stop it? That’s the sort of thing that makes me think proportional representation isn’t that bad.
Mr. Observer, what would you say to those who suggest any lack of leverage is because it was consistently signed away by governing parties (even when a referendum had been promised, and subsequently not held)?
What is it about the Lisbon settlement that has reduced the UK's influence in the EU?
We lost a whole bunch of vetoes that we had previously, especially in financial services where we are the most important member but can now be outvoted by the Eurozone members when it comes to QMV. We became a rule taker on the day Brown shamefully went there in the dead of night to sign the country's future away to Brussels.
But other countries lost vetoes as well. So if we had something we wanted to push the barriers to getting it through would be lower. So it's swings and roundabouts.
True, but financial services is the UK's primary industry and we can be outvoted be the EMU. It's a big problem that Dave tried to solve in his terrible negotiation. We should never have given up the veto.
Mr. Eagles, you're aware that General Elections are about many issues?
If we'd had a referendum and agreed to expansion, that'd be one thing. But people vote for X and Y party based on various reasons. It's not a 100% endorsement of everything those parties propose and if the two main parties agree to the same policy (foreign aid spending, for example) then it's difficult for the electorate to have a say against that.
I think we should reduce foreign aid spending. But if Corbyn's there, would I risk voting for any party other than Conservative? No. Because having the far left in power would be far worse than having aid spending too high. That doesn't mean I'd approve of every line in the Conservative manifesto.
Changes to the voting system and reducing the power we entrust to Parliament by them frittering it away to the EU ought to be subject to a public vote.
So I’ll cite that when Leavers say the manifestos of both Labour and the Tories in 2017 proposed leaving the single market and customs union.
Mr. B2, I would've accepted retention of only the British veto
Also, again, we never had a say over expansion. Machiavelli warned against confederations getting excessively large, because they inherently ended up dragging power away from the members and towards the centre.
Yes we did.
We were the strongest advocates of EU expansion, both parties from Thatcher onwards.
The strategy was to get a 'Broader Europe' rather than a 'Deeper Europe'.
We ended up with a Europe which was both broader and deeper.
It is causing the EU a lot of problems tbh. Especially now that Poland has become a proper power broker for the whole Eastern bloc.
I miss George Osborne. He is clever, witty, more than slightly cynical and with a good understanding of how government worked. May would be a vastly better PM (as was Cameron) with someone like that organising her government for her and ensuring that everyone is on the same page. Mandelson did a very similar job for Brown when he was brought back and praise doesn't come much higher than that.
Of course he made mistakes, who doesn't, but politics in this country is the poorer for his absence and indeed the absence of Balls.
*ducks*
.
Did the Queen once ask why nobody had predicted it?
Allegedly yes and it was an astute question. I personally think that the answer lies in computer modelling of the economy. These have so many data points that there is an inbuilt assumption that most things remain the same giving a stability to the model we do not find in the real world. Just like the model that the OBR gave to the Chancellor on Monday.
I don't think Economic modelling is much like fluid dynamics models, which can have many data points and not be at all stable.
In weather forecasting you can achieve reasonably good forecasts by simply forecasting climatology and sometimes a model will have been tuned to revert to climatology too quickly. Fortunately a variety of different skill scores have been developed by statisticians that will penalise such models and reward those that make a decent stab at forecasting the changes in the weather - as it is the changes that are most consequential to forecast correctly.
Weather forecasts are now impressively good at forecasting changes in the weather well in advance. Economic forecasting seems to be stuck in a rut of forecasting the economic climatology and doesn't seem to have made a start on working out how to forecast changes in the economic weather - but then it is a lot harder because the causes of each economic crash seem to be different every time.
The weather doesn’t read the papers to find out what it’s supposed to do and then try to take advantage of it either: a fully accurate model of the economy would only be possible if it were kept secret and not acted on or if it were so sophisticated that it could take into account everyone’s reaction to it. At which point we are into Oedipus territory.
A climate model would not account for the future eruption of a volcano in it's forecast although once the eruption has taken place it would be able to account for it. In the same way a economic growth model isn't designed to a account for credit crunches before they happen.
47% of Tory members back a Canada style FTA with EU, 21% want No Deal, 10% back Norway to Canada, 8% back Chequers and 6% Remain and 4% permanent EEA according to Conservative Home's new poll
Mr. Observer, what would you say to those who suggest any lack of leverage is because it was consistently signed away by governing parties (even when a referendum had been promised, and subsequently not held)?
What is it about the Lisbon settlement that has reduced the UK's influence in the EU?
We lost a whole bunch of vetoes that we had previously, especially in financial services where we are the most important member but can now be outvoted by the Eurozone members when it comes to QMV. We became a rule taker on the day Brown shamefully went there in the dead of night to sign the country's future away to Brussels.
But other countries lost vetoes as well. So if we had something we wanted to push the barriers to getting it through would be lower. So it's swings and roundabouts.
True, but financial services is the UK's primary industry and we can be outvoted be the EMU. It's a big problem that Dave tried to solve in his terrible negotiation. We should never have given up the veto.
The financial services is important, but so is pharmaceuticals and creatives. And the financial sectors interests don't always align with other sectors. A veto is also a pretty blunt weapon. I am afraid I don't know the details well enough to be sure, but it seems to me that are at the very least no worse off with Lisbon. We may well be a lot better off.
October Kirknewton to Uddingston via Shotts Kilwinning to Largs Ardrossan South Beach to Harbour Troon to Kilmarnock Port Glasgow to Gourock Glasgow Central to Neilston Glasgow Central to Paisley Canal Pollokshaws West to East Kilbride Glasgow Central to Cambuslang (via Argyle Street) Cambuslang to Larkhall Polmont to Glasgow Queen St via Cumbernauld Greenfaulds to Hamilton Central via Whifflet Drem to North Berwick Carstairs East junction to Carstairs Mount Florida to Kings Park Bellshill to Motherwell Shieldmuir to Carluke via Wishaw Carluke to Lanark Rutherglen to Whifflet via Carmyle Glasgow Central to Newton via Maxwell Park Holytown to Wishaw Westerton to Milngavie Dalreoch to Helensburgh Central Glasgow Queen Street to Anniesland via Maryhill Bellgrove to Springburn Linlithgow to Dalmeny Llangennech to Briton Ferry Up Fast Loop Junction (Swansea District Line)
Somebody needs to stay in more...
Well the clocks have gone back, meaning I will probably have to finish off Scotland in the spring and summer
Comments
There are aspects of British culture they like, and find endearing. There are others they find repellent.
That is a different point to basic good manners and behaviour, which is respected and appreciated worldwide.
Admittedly the 'huge numbers' is correct - eighty thousand, I believe, of which 55% were destroyed in combat largely due to woeful generalship - but it was not inferior.
It has been suggested one of the reasons Hitler invaded the USSR in August 1941 is because he was concerned about the pace of Soviet technical development and thought if Germany did not attack then, they would be unable to do so.
There is a vast difference between an alliance where we have made certain commitments and a set up where we can be outvoted and required to implement rules into domestic law
Of course any international agreement involved constraints on freedom of action - the question is how far reaching those are
Thinking the EU is too great a constraint doesn’t mean you want no agreements.
Perhaps it’s too hard for them to handle.
Personally I think both suggestions are wrong, or at least, secondary. I think he invaded the Soviet Union because he wanted to.
Perhaps we should also remember though that actually the German economy didn't really kick into overdrive until 1941, and the key driver of economic growth before that was plunder from the occupied countries - i seem to remember a figure of five billion marks' worth of goods stolen from France alone.
Also, again, we never had a say over expansion. Machiavelli warned against confederations getting excessively large, because they inherently ended up dragging power away from the members and towards the centre.
We were the strongest advocates of EU expansion, both parties from Thatcher onwards.
Mr. Recidivist, if the EU decided it wanted a dictator and that every EU member state had to obey his every word then no member state would see their influence reduced relative to other players. Would you really argue that would mean no loss of national influence?
Edit/ Overy and (I think) Tooze both see the occupied territories as at least as much of a drain as an asset, exacerbated by the way they managed them
In weather forecasting you can achieve reasonably good forecasts by simply forecasting climatology and sometimes a model will have been tuned to revert to climatology too quickly. Fortunately a variety of different skill scores have been developed by statisticians that will penalise such models and reward those that make a decent stab at forecasting the changes in the weather - as it is the changes that are most consequential to forecast correctly.
Weather forecasts are now impressively good at forecasting changes in the weather well in advance. Economic forecasting seems to be stuck in a rut of forecasting the economic climatology and doesn't seem to have made a start on working out how to forecast changes in the economic weather - but then it is a lot harder because the causes of each economic crash seem to be different every time.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/10/our-survey-one-in-ten-respondents-go-for-norway-to-canada-almost-half-want-canada-plus-plus-plus.html
We ended up with a Europe which was both broader and deeper.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/10/our-survey-one-in-ten-respondents-go-for-norway-to-canada-almost-half-want-canada-plus-plus-plus.html
If the desired end goal is lower consumer borrowing why.not target that directly, rather than indirectly with a lower exchange rate?
If we'd had a referendum and agreed to expansion, that'd be one thing. But people vote for X and Y party based on various reasons. It's not a 100% endorsement of everything those parties propose and if the two main parties agree to the same policy (foreign aid spending, for example) then it's difficult for the electorate to have a say against that.
I think we should reduce foreign aid spending. But if Corbyn's there, would I risk voting for any party other than Conservative? No. Because having the far left in power would be far worse than having aid spending too high. That doesn't mean I'd approve of every line in the Conservative manifesto.
Changes to the voting system and reducing the power we entrust to Parliament by them frittering it away to the EU ought to be subject to a public vote.
I've noticed that a few programs that used to have the NATO brand are being artfully renamed as "Euro-US".
Seems fair.
NEW THREAD
And, even less helpful the fact it's a ConHome poll, which makes me suspect it's voodoo to start with.