Does anyone else have a feeling that this Norway+ model has a certain air of inevitability about it now? All other options seem to be closing down. I actually think Norway+ is a decent compromise, and I say that as someone who would preference a second referendum.
Given the compromises on freedom of movement that would occur, here is the crucial paragraph from Nick Boles that advocates for Norway need to highlight:
"We would still be bound by freedom of movement. But we would benefit from Article 112 of the EEA which states that “if serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties . . . are arising” unilateral action can be taken on a temporary basis. So if migration from Europe returned to the levels of the mid 2000s, we should be able to pull an emergency brake to limit the numbers."
I doubt May could carry this through with any credibility given the red lines she boxed herself in with, but Hammond or Rudd could probably carry it.
I presume that Norway+ would also be more expensive than the May deal ? FWIW, I'd be quite happy with it (as would some leavers - Smithson Jnr., for example).
Given the atrocious competence of our current political leaders letting the EU make the decisions without our top table input may be a good idea.
A call to 192 directory inquiries used to cost 40p when the service was a monopoly. A 90 second call now sets you nearly £20 quid under deregulation.
This is absolutely shocking... made worse by the fact the only people likely to call 192 are non-IT literate over 80s like my mother and my father-in-law, neither of whom own any device that can access the internet.
I am sure there will be a host of PB free-marketeers along any moment to explain why this is all a 'good thing' though.
It was deregulated during Blair’s second term, as was price controls on all residential telecoms and price controls on residential gas and electricity.
Sure, I wasn't having a pop at the Tories (for once!).
It's a rather pointed example of the neoliberal market-knows-best, competition-is-all, greed-is-good, trickle-down economics bullshit that has held sway for the past 40 years.
On the one hand: the Government is happy to divulge the Treasury's prognostications, which are rightly taken with a pinch of salt.
On the other hand: the Government is anxious to keep the Attorney General's legal opinion under wraps, though it would clarify the implications of May's deal.
They're not convincing the skeptics, for whom the legal position is more important than dodgy economic soothsaying.
"The Labour leadership is determined to reject the idea gaining ground at Westminster of a Norway-plus deal. The Scottish first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, said on Tuesday she hoped a majority could coalesce around the proposal, which is being promoted by the Conservative backbencher Nick Boles. However, senior Labour sources insisted they regarded it as an unacceptable abrogation of sovereignty that would fail to honour the referendum result"
Of course, you would expect Labour to nix the proposal that is actually closest to their stated policy.
Sigh.
Indeed. But let's be honest, Tezza's deal could be pretty close to Labour's stated policy if they worked worked with it instead of against it.
Previously, their line on Theresa May would be more like "Hell awaits this evil traitor."
I don't get it. Maybe I'm being thick, but what does the Mail stand to gain from acting like a sycophantic junior minister to a doomed PM whose remaining time in office is now being measured in hours?
It seems to make neither political nor business sense.
At the outside it's possible they're trying to make a play for the Tory centre ground, but that means trying to court a fickle and non-loyal readership at the probable expense of the readership who have been loyal to it for decades for its, uh, forthright opinions.
It just seems like bad business. It seems like they're taking a huge risk with little real potential upside.
I expect the Mail readership is generally less hardline than Paul Dacre was. Its readers are quite a broad cross-section of Middle England.
A call to 192 directory inquiries used to cost 40p when the service was a monopoly. A 90 second call now sets you nearly £20 quid under deregulation.
This is absolutely shocking... made worse by the fact the only people likely to call 192 are non-IT literate over 80s like my mother and my father-in-law, neither of whom own any device that can access the internet.
I am sure there will be a host of PB free-marketeers along any moment to explain why this is all a 'good thing' though.
It probably cost 5p or so when it was a state-owned monopoly, or the same as any other two-minute call.
Margins on gas and electricity supply to households increased somewhat after privatisation, i.e. because private sector interest rates are higher. The margins roughly doubled again when they were deregulated. Also new costs appeared out of nowhere, e.g. price comparison websites, which consumers have to pay for.
Water is still a regulated monopoly. Coincidentally or not, people in England and Wales pay an average £400/year for water and sewage disposal combined. But they pay £600-700/year for both gas and electricity.
Wasn't the justification for putting 30,000 miners on the dole in 92 driven by the fact that building a shed load of CCGT stations would bring electricity bills down?!
On the one hand: the Government is happy to divulge the Treasury's prognostications, which are rightly taken with a pinch of salt.
On the other hand: the Government is anxious to keep the Attorney General's legal opinion under wraps, though it would clarify the implications of May's deal.
They're not convincing the skeptics, for whom the legal position is more important than dodgy economic soothsaying.
But tbf Geoff, the skeptics will not be convinced by anything... May is aiming to convince the muddled middle.
"The Labour leadership is determined to reject the idea gaining ground at Westminster of a Norway-plus deal. The Scottish first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, said on Tuesday she hoped a majority could coalesce around the proposal, which is being promoted by the Conservative backbencher Nick Boles. However, senior Labour sources insisted they regarded it as an unacceptable abrogation of sovereignty that would fail to honour the referendum result"
Of course, you would expect Labour to nix the proposal that is actually closest to their stated policy.
Sigh.
Indeed. But let's be honest, Tezza's deal could be pretty close to Labour's stated policy if they worked worked with it instead of against it.
If one takes a scepitcal view of our ability to conclude a FTA before the transition period runs out, it is indefinite Customs transition arrangement vs permanent Customs union.
Does anyone else have a feeling that this Norway+ model has a certain air of inevitability about it now? All other options seem to be closing down. I actually think Norway+ is a decent compromise, and I say that as someone who would preference a second referendum.
Given the compromises on freedom of movement that would occur, here is the crucial paragraph from Nick Boles that advocates for Norway need to highlight:
"We would still be bound by freedom of movement. But we would benefit from Article 112 of the EEA which states that “if serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties . . . are arising” unilateral action can be taken on a temporary basis. So if migration from Europe returned to the levels of the mid 2000s, we should be able to pull an emergency brake to limit the numbers."
I doubt May could carry this through with any credibility given the red lines she boxed herself in with, but Hammond or Rudd could probably carry it.
I presume that Norway+ would also be more expensive than the May deal ? FWIW, I'd be quite happy with it (as would some leavers - Smithson Jnr., for example).
Given the atrocious competence of our current political leaders letting the EU make the decisions without our top table input may be a good idea.
The claim that EEA/EFTA members are rule takers is simply untrue.
EEA members negotiate on single market legislation bilaterally with the European Commission via the organs of the EEA, and Switzerland negotiates with the Commission via a set of organs governed in the bilateral treaties.
The only place the UK would be a rule taker under the Norway+ model would be for the customs union. Not ideal, but since it solves the NI border problem and obviates any backstop, it's probably a price worth paying.
Steve Richards has a point. The nutters are going to squeal 'betrayal' whatever happens, so let parliament just cancel Brexit and give the rest of us some peace.
I said that yesterday (or maybe the day before) and got told off for it.
Steve Richards - I know you are reading this so I hope you credited me in your article. Failing that a donation of a few kilos of Colombian coffee beans is acceptable.
On the one hand: the Government is happy to divulge the Treasury's prognostications, which are rightly taken with a pinch of salt.
On the other hand: the Government is anxious to keep the Attorney General's legal opinion under wraps, though it would clarify the implications of May's deal.
They're not convincing the skeptics, for whom the legal position is more important than dodgy economic soothsaying.
But tbf Geoff, the skeptics will not be convinced by anything... May is aiming to convince the muddled middle.
Point taken. But hiding the legal opinion is not a good look even for the "muddled middle".
Previously, their line on Theresa May would be more like "Hell awaits this evil traitor."
I don't get it. Maybe I'm being thick, but what does the Mail stand to gain from acting like a sycophantic junior minister to a doomed PM whose remaining time in office is now being measured in hours?
It seems to make neither political nor business sense.
At the outside it's possible they're trying to make a play for the Tory centre ground, but that means trying to court a fickle and non-loyal readership at the probable expense of the readership who have been loyal to it for decades for its, uh, forthright opinions.
It just seems like bad business. It seems like they're taking a huge risk with little real potential upside.
I can see the logic of Greig retreating from some of the Mail's more frothing-at-the-mouth moments - "Crush The Saboteurs" and so on. Headlines like that are as likely to put off potential readers as attract them.
But going this far in the opposite direction seems foolhardy. Surely the Mail could become less offputting to the centre ground without annoying its long-standing Colonel Blimp readers quite so flagrantly.
Previously, their line on Theresa May would be more like "Hell awaits this evil traitor."
I don't get it. Maybe I'm being thick, but what does the Mail stand to gain from acting like a sycophantic junior minister to a doomed PM whose remaining time in office is now being measured in hours?
It seems to make neither political nor business sense.
At the outside it's possible they're trying to make a play for the Tory centre ground, but that means trying to court a fickle and non-loyal readership at the probable expense of the readership who have been loyal to it for decades for its, uh, forthright opinions.
It just seems like bad business. It seems like they're taking a huge risk with little real potential upside.
I suspect they are reflecting the views of a huge wedge of their readership who quietly admire May.
It's only a couple of months ago a few on here were saying how the owners would quickly slap the new editor down as circulation plummeted etc. Still waiting...
A call to 192 directory inquiries used to cost 40p when the service was a monopoly. A 90 second call now sets you nearly £20 quid under deregulation.
This is absolutely shocking... made worse by the fact the only people likely to call 192 are non-IT literate over 80s like my mother and my father-in-law, neither of whom own any device that can access the internet.
I am sure there will be a host of PB free-marketeers along any moment to explain why this is all a 'good thing' though.
It was deregulated during Blair’s second term, as was price controls on all residential telecoms and price controls on residential gas and electricity.
Sure, I wasn't having a pop at the Tories (for once!).
It's a rather pointed example of the neoliberal market-knows-best, competition-is-all, greed-is-good, trickle-down economics bullshit that has held sway for the past 40 years.
The pendulum is swinging back however.
Accept neoliberal markets have worked...it is now free to get any number. The reason the price has skyrocketed among the traditional telephone services is they are failing as virtually nobody rings them up anymore. Obviously it sucks for the old that don’t trust / find technology too confusing.
Previously, their line on Theresa May would be more like "Hell awaits this evil traitor."
I don't get it. Maybe I'm being thick, but what does the Mail stand to gain from acting like a sycophantic junior minister to a doomed PM whose remaining time in office is now being measured in hours?
It seems to make neither political nor business sense.
At the outside it's possible they're trying to make a play for the Tory centre ground, but that means trying to court a fickle and non-loyal readership at the probable expense of the readership who have been loyal to it for decades for its, uh, forthright opinions.
It just seems like bad business. It seems like they're taking a huge risk with little real potential upside.
I expect the Mail readership is generally less hardline than Paul Dacre was. Its readers are quite a broad cross-section of Middle England.
The Mail gets lots of its revenue from Mail Online. If the denizens below the line there are any indication, Mail Online enthusiasts are not of the middle.
Of course, it's possible to maintain different personalities online and in print though.
Does anyone else have a feeling that this Norway+ model has a certain air of inevitability about it now? All other options seem to be closing down. I actually think Norway+ is a decent compromise, and I say that as someone who would preference a second referendum.
Given the compromises on freedom of movement that would occur, here is the crucial paragraph from Nick Boles that advocates for Norway need to highlight:
"We would still be bound by freedom of movement. But we would benefit from Article 112 of the EEA which states that “if serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties . . . are arising” unilateral action can be taken on a temporary basis. So if migration from Europe returned to the levels of the mid 2000s, we should be able to pull an emergency brake to limit the numbers."
I doubt May could carry this through with any credibility given the red lines she boxed herself in with, but Hammond or Rudd could probably carry it.
On the one hand: the Government is happy to divulge the Treasury's prognostications, which are rightly taken with a pinch of salt.
On the other hand: the Government is anxious to keep the Attorney General's legal opinion under wraps, though it would clarify the implications of May's deal.
They're not convincing the skeptics, for whom the legal position is more important than dodgy economic soothsaying.
But tbf Geoff, the skeptics will not be convinced by anything... May is aiming to convince the muddled middle.
Point taken. But hiding the legal opinion is not a good look even for the "muddled middle".
I agree it's a mistake. One of many. Despite them all through Tezza may still pull it off...
“May is not a good person. May is nasty, incompetent, dishonest xenophobe, devoid of wisdom, charm, personality or wit. She's bloody minded for the sake of being bloody minded. She has ruined everything she's touched, and her entire political career has been focused on being as mean and obnoxious as possible to all immigrants.
She's a vile old hag and all of her suffering is 1000% earned.
Good riddance to bad rubbish tbh, it's just a shame her suffering will soon be over. I'd have liked to see her suffer a great deal more.”
from @grabcocque on the previous thread is a touch OTT.
May is not up to the job of being PM and has not handled the Brexit issue well. Though even Solomon would have struggled, I dare say.
But she achieved the deportation of Abu Qatada, which is more than can be said of previous, possibly nicer, Home Secretaries, she tried to deal with the very real perception by young black men that they were being unfairly targeted by the police, she helped the Hillsborough families behind the scenes and was praised by them for her help and she has pushed through quite a lot of action on the issue of modern slavery. And it was not her who started the attacks on the Windrush generation (though she can be criticised for continuing them in such an unept and hurtful way). She has also done a lot within the Tory party to help women become candidates.
There are plenty of things she can be criticised for. For instance, her reported refusal to countenance giving asylum to Asia Bibi for fear of enraging extremist Muslims here (contrary to the wishes of the current Home and Foreign Secretaries) is utterly shameful.
But to call someone a “vile old hag” and wish suffering on a woman in public life smacks of an unpleasantly bullying and mysogynistic attitude which reflects rather more - and badly IMO - on those saying and supporting such things than on the target.
Well said. I had the benefit of knowing both Theresa & Philip at University and this routine traducing of them by people with no personal knowledge only reinforces my low opinion of the people who post such guff. Of course none of us are perfect, but the one eyed view of those mysogynistic men (and its almost always men) who ignore the bits of her record which contradict their 'xenophobic racist' view says far more about them than Mrs May.
Previously, their line on Theresa May would be more like "Hell awaits this evil traitor."
I don't get it. Maybe I'm being thick, but what does the Mail stand to gain from acting like a sycophantic junior minister to a doomed PM whose remaining time in office is now being measured in hours?
It seems to make neither political nor business sense.
At the outside it's possible they're trying to make a play for the Tory centre ground, but that means trying to court a fickle and non-loyal readership at the probable expense of the readership who have been loyal to it for decades for its, uh, forthright opinions.
It just seems like bad business. It seems like they're taking a huge risk with little real potential upside.
I suspect they are reflecting the views of a huge wedge of their readership who quietly admire May.
It's only a couple of months ago a few on here were saying how the owners would quickly slap the new editor down as circulation plummeted etc. Still waiting...
In a broader sense, of course, it doesn't matter. It's a newspaper, and therefore absolutely doomed whatever it does.
Mail Online, however, thrives on its heady mixture of xenophobia and sideboob. They tangle with that formula at their peril.
"The Labour leadership is determined to reject the idea gaining ground at Westminster of a Norway-plus deal. The Scottish first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, said on Tuesday she hoped a majority could coalesce around the proposal, which is being promoted by the Conservative backbencher Nick Boles. However, senior Labour sources insisted they regarded it as an unacceptable abrogation of sovereignty that would fail to honour the referendum result"
Of course, you would expect Labour to nix the proposal that is actually closest to their stated policy.
Sigh.
Indeed. But let's be honest, Tezza's deal could be pretty close to Labour's stated policy if they worked worked with it instead of against it.
If one takes a scepitcal view of our ability to conclude a FTA before the transition period runs out, it is indefinite Customs transition arrangement vs permanent Customs union.
While the government defies the decision of the Commons that it should publish the legal advice it received, we get this... Next blood will fall from the sky and lions will give birth in the streets!
A call to 192 directory inquiries used to cost 40p when the service was a monopoly. A 90 second call now sets you nearly £20 quid under deregulation.
This is absolutely shocking... made worse by the fact the only people likely to call 192 are non-IT literate over 80s like my mother and my father-in-law, neither of whom own any device that can access the internet.
I am sure there will be a host of PB free-marketeers along any moment to explain why this is all a 'good thing' though.
It was deregulated during Blair’s second term, as was price controls on all residential telecoms and price controls on residential gas and electricity.
Sure, I wasn't having a pop at the Tories (for once!).
It's a rather pointed example of the neoliberal market-knows-best, competition-is-all, greed-is-good, trickle-down economics bullshit that has held sway for the past 40 years.
The pendulum is swinging back however.
Forcing BT to shut down 192 wasn't done by the market.
Had the market been opened up to free choice people could have continued to use 192 if they wanted to do so.
Previously, their line on Theresa May would be more like "Hell awaits this evil traitor."
I don't get it. Maybe I'm being thick, but what does the Mail stand to gain from acting like a sycophantic junior minister to a doomed PM whose remaining time in office is now being measured in hours?
It seems to make neither political nor business sense.
At the outside it's possible they're trying to make a play for the Tory centre ground, but that means trying to court a fickle and non-loyal readership at the probable expense of the readership who have been loyal to it for decades for its, uh, forthright opinions.
It just seems like bad business. It seems like they're taking a huge risk with little real potential upside.
I expect the Mail readership is generally less hardline than Paul Dacre was. Its readers are quite a broad cross-section of Middle England.
The Mail gets lots of its revenue from Mail Online. If the denizens below the line there are any indication, Mail Online enthusiasts are not of the middle.
Of course, it's possible to maintain different personalities online and in print though.
One golden rule re online sites*: the commenters are not your average viewers.
While the government defies the decision of the Commons that it should publish the legal advice it received, we get this... Next blood will fall from the sky and lions will give birth in the streets!
Blimey I hope that photo wasn't created after Bercow's stern warning !
“May is not a good person. May is nasty, incompetent, dishonest xenophobe, devoid of wisdom, charm, personality or wit. She's bloody minded for the sake of being bloody minded. She has ruined everything she's touched, and her entire political career has been focused on being as mean and obnoxious as possible to all immigrants.
She's a vile old hag and all of her suffering is 1000% earned.
Good riddance to bad rubbish tbh, it's just a shame her suffering will soon be over. I'd have liked to see her suffer a great deal more.”
from @grabcocque on the previous thread is a touch OTT.
May is not up to the job of being PM and has not handled the Brexit issue well. Though even Solomon would have struggled, I dare say.
But she achieved the deportation of Abu Qatada, which is more than can be said of previous, possibly nicer, Home Secretaries, she tried to deal with the very real perception by young black men that they were being unfairly targeted by the police, she helped the Hillsborough families behind the scenes and was praised by them for her help and she has pushed through quite a lot of action on the issue of modern slavery. And it was not her who started the attacks on the Windrush generation (though she can be criticised for continuing them in such an unept and hurtful way). She has also done a lot within the Tory party to help women become candidates.
There are plenty of things she can be criticised for. For instance, her reported refusal to countenance giving asylum to Asia Bibi for fear of enraging extremist Muslims here (contrary to the wishes of the current Home and Foreign Secretaries) is utterly shameful.
But to call someone a “vile old hag” and wish suffering on a woman in public life smacks of an unpleasantly bullying and mysogynistic attitude which reflects rather more - and badly IMO - on those saying and supporting such things than on the target.
Well said. I had the benefit of knowing both Theresa & Philip at University and this routine traducing of them by people with no personal knowledge only reinforces my low opinion of the people who post such guff. Of course none of us are perfect, but the one eyed view of those mysogynistic men (and its almost always men) who ignore the bits of her record which contradict their 'xenophobic racist' view says far more about them than Mrs May.
PMQs just started.
Fair points. A lot of people in politics drive me to distraction, but few of them are actively malevolent.
Well, since I don't know May personally, I can only judge May by her actions.
And what I see is a political career steeped in petty and vindictive hatred of immigrants of every shade, and a kind of really determined incompetence.
Nothing about May's public persona suggests she's a good person. Everything suggests she's a xenophobic, dishonest, incompetent personality void. And thus do I judge her.
“May is not a good person. May is nasty, incompetent, dishonest xenophobe, devoid of wisdom, charm, personality or wit. She's bloody minded for the sake of being bloody minded. She has ruined everything she's touched, and her entire political career has been focused on being as mean and obnoxious as possible to all immigrants.
She's a vile old hag and all of her suffering is 1000% earned.
Good riddance to bad rubbish tbh, it's just a shame her suffering will soon be over. I'd have liked to see her suffer a great deal more.”
from @grabcocque on the previous thread is a touch OTT.
May is not up to the job of being PM and has not handled the Brexit issue well. Though even Solomon would have struggled, I dare say.
But she achieved the deportation of Abu Qatada, which is more than can be said of previous, possibly nicer, Home Secretaries, she tried to deal with the very real perception by young black men that they were being unfairly targeted by the police, she helped the Hillsborough families behind the scenes and was praised by them for her help and she has pushed through quite a lot of action on the issue of modern slavery. And it was not her who started the attacks on the Windrush generation (though she can be criticised for continuing them in such an unept and hurtful way). She has also done a lot within the Tory party to help women become candidates.
There are plenty of things she can be criticised for. For instance, her reported refusal to countenance giving asylum to Asia Bibi for fear of enraging extremist Muslims here (contrary to the wishes of the current Home and Foreign Secretaries) is utterly shameful.
But to call someone a “vile old hag” and wish suffering on a woman in public life smacks of an unpleasantly bullying and mysogynistic attitude which reflects rather more - and badly IMO - on those saying and supporting such things than on the target.
Well said. I had the benefit of knowing both Theresa & Philip at University and this routine traducing of them by people with no personal knowledge only reinforces my low opinion of the people who post such guff. Of course none of us are perfect, but the one eyed view of those mysogynistic men (and its almost always men) who ignore the bits of her record which contradict their 'xenophobic racist' view says far more about them than Mrs May.
PMQs just started.
Fair points. A lot of people in politics drive me to distraction, but few of them are actively malevolent.
It's not hard to see May's true nature, though. She has a long, long, long, long, long, long history of petty and malevolent acts of aggression against immigrants of every shade.
It's the one thread that weaves its way through her otherwise undistinguished career.
Its the usual tractor stats - but as Corbyn is going on the economy May has her replies ready and her backbenchers seem to be behind her on this. We'll wait to see what questions her backbenchers ask.....
May is fine when she is attacking Corbyn over generalities. She is hopeless, falling over her words and randomly stopping when talking about Brexit. And she wants to go live on TV to talk about it...?
Only another £90bn over 15 years to leave properly and actually be free? And this could have been mitigated by preparing for no deal properly and probably includes a bit of exaggeration in order to sell the deal.
I think this is the preferred option rather than May's dog's dinner.
So much for the world will end in the case of no deal Brexit.
I am sure all the extra unemployed and lower wages and food shortages from No Deal will be worth it!
Just like the immediate extra unemployed and lower wages and food shortages from a Leave Vote.
We are still in the EU, the single market and customs union not crashing out of all with No Deal
All those things were supposed to happen just from voting for Leave, not from actually doing it.
Does anyone else have a feeling that this Norway+ model has a certain air of inevitability about it now? All other options seem to be closing down. I actually think Norway+ is a decent compromise, and I say that as someone who would preference a second referendum.
Given the compromises on freedom of movement that would occur, here is the crucial paragraph from Nick Boles that advocates for Norway need to highlight:
"We would still be bound by freedom of movement. But we would benefit from Article 112 of the EEA which states that “if serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties . . . are arising” unilateral action can be taken on a temporary basis. So if migration from Europe returned to the levels of the mid 2000s, we should be able to pull an emergency brake to limit the numbers."
I doubt May could carry this through with any credibility given the red lines she boxed herself in with, but Hammond or Rudd could probably carry it.
I commented a couple of days ago that Norway is the likely destination, maybe if TM swivels to it but also from a centrist conservative leader. I believe Gove and Rudd are coalescing the cabinet behind this compromise and, on the loss of the deal, a united cabinet could make it happen
Norway will not happen, May will refuse it as it requires free movement and Corbyn opposes it too in favour of making May's temporary Customs Union permanent
“May is not a good person. May is nasty, incompetent, dishonest xenophobe, devoid of wisdom, charm, personality or wit. She's bloody minded for the sake of being bloody minded. She has ruined everything she's touched, and her entire political career has been focused on being as mean and obnoxious as possible to all immigrants.
She's a vile old hag and all of her suffering is 1000% earned.
Good riddance to bad rubbish tbh, it's just a shame her suffering will soon be over. I'd have liked to see her suffer a great deal more.”
from @grabcocque on the previous thread is a touch OTT.
May is not up to the job of being PM and has not handled the Brexit issue well. Though even Solomon would have struggled, I dare say.
l way). She has also done a lot within the Tory party to help women become candidates.
There are plenty of things she can be criticised for. For instance, her reported refusal to countenance giving asylum to Asia Bibi for fear of enraging extremist Muslims here (contrary to the wishes of the current Home and Foreign Secretaries) is utterly shameful.
But to call someone a “vile old hag” and wish suffering on a woman in public life smacks of an unpleasantly bullying and mysogynistic attitude which reflects rather more - and badly IMO - on those saying and supporting such things than on the target.
Well said. I had the benefit of knowing both Theresa & Philip at University and this routine traducing of them by people with no personal knowledge only reinforces my low opinion of the people who post such guff. Of course none of us are perfect, but the one eyed view of those mysogynistic men (and its almost always men) who ignore the bits of her record which contradict their 'xenophobic racist' view says far more about them than Mrs May.
PMQs just started.
Fair points. A lot of people in politics drive me to distraction, but few of them are actively malevolent.
It's not hard to see May's true nature, though. She has a long, long, long, long, long, long history of petty and malevolent acts of aggression against immigrants of every shade.
It's the one thread that weaves its way through her otherwise undistinguished career.
I view her a pretty typical Home Secretary. Being a libertarian is just not part of the job description.
Does anyone else have a feeling that this Norway+ model has a certain air of inevitability about it now? All other options seem to be closing down. I actually think Norway+ is a decent compromise, and I say that as someone who would preference a second referendum.
Given the compromises on freedom of movement that would occur, here is the crucial paragraph from Nick Boles that advocates for Norway need to highlight:
"We would still be bound by freedom of movement. But we would benefit from Article 112 of the EEA which states that “if serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties . . . are arising” unilateral action can be taken on a temporary basis. So if migration from Europe returned to the levels of the mid 2000s, we should be able to pull an emergency brake to limit the numbers."
I doubt May could carry this through with any credibility given the red lines she boxed herself in with, but Hammond or Rudd could probably carry it.
I commented a couple of days ago that Norway is the likely destination, maybe if TM swivels to it but also from a centrist conservative leader. I believe Gove and Rudd are coalescing the cabinet behind this compromise and, on the loss of the deal, a united cabinet could make it happen
Norway will not happen, May will refuse it as it requires free movement and Corbyn opposes it too in favour of making May's temporary Customs Union permanent
That's Norway+ then, since that contains a permanent customs union.
Steve Richards has a point. The nutters are going to squeal 'betrayal' whatever happens, so let parliament just cancel Brexit and give the rest of us some peace.
A call to 192 directory inquiries used to cost 40p when the service was a monopoly. A 90 second call now sets you nearly £20 quid under deregulation.
This is absolutely shocking... made worse by the fact the only people likely to call 192 are non-IT literate over 80s like my mother and my father-in-law, neither of whom own any device that can access the internet.
I am sure there will be a host of PB free-marketeers along any moment to explain why this is all a 'good thing' though.
It probably cost 5p or so when it was a state-owned monopoly, or the same as any other two-minute call.
Margins on gas and electricity supply to households increased somewhat after privatisation, i.e. because private sector interest rates are higher. The margins roughly doubled again when they were deregulated. Also new costs appeared out of nowhere, e.g. price comparison websites, which consumers have to pay for.
Water is still a regulated monopoly. Coincidentally or not, people in England and Wales pay an average £400/year for water and sewage disposal combined. But they pay £600-700/year for both gas and electricity.
My energy provider sells me gas and electricity for the price they receive it. I pay a membership fee to cover their costs.
“May is not a good person. May is nasty, incompetent, dishonest xenophobe, devoid of wisdom, charm, personality or wit. She's bloody minded for the sake of being bloody minded. She has ruined everything she's touched, and her entire political career has been focused on being as mean and obnoxious as possible to all immigrants.
She's a vile old hag and all of her suffering is 1000% earned.
Good riddance to bad rubbish tbh, it's just a shame her suffering will soon be over. I'd have liked to see her suffer a great deal more.”
from @grabcocque on the previous thread is a touch OTT.
May is not up to the job of being PM and has not handled the Brexit issue well. Though even Solomon would have struggled, I dare say.
l way). She has also done a lot within the Tory party to help women become candidates.
There are plenty of things she can be criticised for. For instance, her reported refusal to countenance giving asylum to Asia Bibi for fear of enraging extremist Muslims here (contrary to the wishes of the current Home and Foreign Secretaries) is utterly shameful.
But to call someone a “vile old hag” and wish suffering on a woman in public life smacks of an unpleasantly bullying and mysogynistic attitude which reflects rather more - and badly IMO - on those saying and supporting such things than on the target.
Well said. I had the benefit of knowing both Theresa & Philip at University and this routine traducing of them by people with no personal knowledge only reinforces my low opinion of the people who post such guff. Of course none of us are perfect, but the one eyed view of those mysogynistic men (and its almost always men) who ignore the bits of her record which contradict their 'xenophobic racist' view says far more about them than Mrs May.
PMQs just started.
Fair points. A lot of people in politics drive me to distraction, but few of them are actively malevolent.
It's not hard to see May's true nature, though. She has a long, long, long, long, long, long history of petty and malevolent acts of aggression against immigrants of every shade.
It's the one thread that weaves its way through her otherwise undistinguished career.
I view her a pretty typical Home Secretary. Being a libertarian is just not part of the job description.
I've often thought there must be a special room that incoming home secretaries get taken into on day one, where they're injected with a special serum that turns previously mild-mannered centrists into immigrant-hating frothers.
I disagree with and disapprove of much of Theresa May's politics. However, she is a transparently sincere woman with a strong sense of duty who seeks to run the country having regard to the mandate that she was given in the EU referendum and the general election as she sees it. There's no need to be personally unpleasant about her.
Does anyone else have a feeling that this Norway+ model has a certain air of inevitability about it now? All other options seem to be closing down. I actually think Norway+ is a decent compromise, and I say that as someone who would preference a second referendum.
Given the compromises on freedom of movement that would occur, here is the crucial paragraph from Nick Boles that advocates for Norway need to highlight:
"We would still be bound by freedom of movement. But we would benefit from Article 112 of the EEA which states that “if serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties . . . are arising” unilateral action can be taken on a temporary basis. So if migration from Europe returned to the levels of the mid 2000s, we should be able to pull an emergency brake to limit the numbers."
I doubt May could carry this through with any credibility given the red lines she boxed herself in with, but Hammond or Rudd could probably carry it.
I commented a couple of days ago that Norway is the likely destination, maybe if TM swivels to it but also from a centrist conservative leader. I believe Gove and Rudd are coalescing the cabinet behind this compromise and, on the loss of the deal, a united cabinet could make it happen
Norway will not happen, May will refuse it as it requires free movement and Corbyn opposes it too in favour of making May's temporary Customs Union permanent
That's Norway+ then, since that contains a permanent customs union.
Are you,assuming the + equals a permanent customs union? The Norway model doesnt involve Cu membership.
Does anyone else have a feeling that this Norway+ model has a certain air of inevitability about it now? All other options seem to be closing down. I actually think Norway+ is a decent compromise, and I say that as someone who would preference a second referendum.
Given the compromises on freedom of movement that would occur, here is the crucial paragraph from Nick Boles that advocates for Norway need to highlight:
"We would still be bound by freedom of movement. But we would benefit from Article 112 of the EEA which states that “if serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties . . . are arising” unilateral action can be taken on a temporary basis. So if migration from Europe returned to the levels of the mid 2000s, we should be able to pull an emergency brake to limit the numbers."
I doubt May could carry this through with any credibility given the red lines she boxed herself in with, but Hammond or Rudd could probably carry it.
I commented a couple of days ago that Norway is the likely destination, maybe if TM swivels to it but also from a centrist conservative leader. I believe Gove and Rudd are coalescing the cabinet behind this compromise and, on the loss of the deal, a united cabinet could make it happen
Norway will not happen, May will refuse it as it requires free movement and Corbyn opposes it too in favour of making May's temporary Customs Union permanent
That's Norway+ then, since that contains a permanent customs union.
Aka BINO. All countries belonging to both the CU and the SM are member states.
Everything suggests she's a xenophobic, dishonest, incompetent personality void. And thus do I judge her.
Why would a xenophobe campaign on modern slavery, or tackle the implicit racism of Police stop & search of young black men?
Admit it, you just don't like powerful women.
You clearly haven't seen my Angela Merkel shrine.
TBH, May's pattern of behaviour is not the behaviour of a powerful woman. Constantly attacking weak targets like immigrants. Failing to engage with her own backbenchers. Walling herself off behind tiny cliques. Capitulating hard, fast and often during negotiations.
These aren't the actions of a powerful person, they're the actions of a timid, frightened person.
I disagree with and disapprove of much of Theresa May's politics. However, she is a transparently sincere woman with a strong sense of duty who seeks to run the country having regard to the mandate that she was given in the EU referendum and the general election as she sees it. There's no need to be personally unpleasant about her.
Does anyone else have a feeling that this Norway+ model has a certain air of inevitability about it now? All other options seem to be closing down. I actually think Norway+ is a decent compromise, and I say that as someone who would preference a second referendum.
Given the compromises on freedom of movement that would occur, here is the crucial paragraph from Nick Boles that advocates for Norway need to highlight:
"We would still be bound by freedom of movement. But we would benefit from Article 112 of the EEA which states that “if serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties . . . are arising” unilateral action can be taken on a temporary basis. So if migration from Europe returned to the levels of the mid 2000s, we should be able to pull an emergency brake to limit the numbers."
I doubt May could carry this through with any credibility given the red lines she boxed herself in with, but Hammond or Rudd could probably carry it.
I commented a couple of days ago that Norway is the likely destination, maybe if TM swivels to it but also from a centrist conservative leader. I believe Gove and Rudd are coalescing the cabinet behind this compromise and, on the loss of the deal, a united cabinet could make it happen
Norway will not happen, May will refuse it as it requires free movement and Corbyn opposes it too in favour of making May's temporary Customs Union permanent
That's Norway+ then, since that contains a permanent customs union.
Aka BINO. All countries belonging to both the CU and the SM are member states.
Indeed we would be in the EU in all but name with free movement and no trade deals done ourselves just with control over fishing and farming as outside the CFP and CAP but with no place at the decision table
Does anyone else have a feeling that this Norway+ model has a certain air of inevitability about it now? All other options seem to be closing down. I actually think Norway+ is a decent compromise, and I say that as someone who would preference a second referendum.
Given the compromises on freedom of movement that would occur, here is the crucial paragraph from Nick Boles that advocates for Norway need to highlight:
"We would still be bound by freedom of movement. But we would benefit from Article 112 of the EEA which states that “if serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties . . . are arising” unilateral action can be taken on a temporary basis. So if migration from Europe returned to the levels of the mid 2000s, we should be able to pull an emergency brake to limit the numbers."
I doubt May could carry this through with any credibility given the red lines she boxed herself in with, but Hammond or Rudd could probably carry it.
I commented a couple of days ago that Norway is the likely destination, maybe if TM swivels to it but also from a centrist conservative leader. I believe Gove and Rudd are coalescing the cabinet behind this compromise and, on the loss of the deal, a united cabinet could make it happen
Norway will not happen, May will refuse it as it requires free movement and Corbyn opposes it too in favour of making May's temporary Customs Union permanent
That's Norway+ then, since that contains a permanent customs union.
Are you,assuming the + equals a permanent customs union? The Norway model doesnt involve Cu membership.
I am. I was under the impression that when people said Norway+ they meant Norway+CU?
I view her a pretty typical Home Secretary. Being a libertarian is just not part of the job description.
I've often thought there must be a special room that incoming home secretaries get taken into on day one, where they're injected with a special serum that turns previously mild-mannered centrists into immigrant-hating frothers.
Actually she was extremely liberal and nice in 2014 when she dedicated most of the Conference speech to attacking 'stop and search' and discrimination against minorities. Regrettably in hindsight the surge of knife crimes mean ending stop and search may have been a mistake that needs reversing but it was done with the best of intentions.
The contrast between that and the "go home" van and the vile 2015 speech is immense. Hard to believe they're from the same person.
Everything suggests she's a xenophobic, dishonest, incompetent personality void. And thus do I judge her.
Why would a xenophobe campaign on modern slavery, or tackle the implicit racism of Police stop & search of young black men?
Admit it, you just don't like powerful women.
You clearly haven't seen my Angela Merkel shrine.
TBH, May's pattern of behaviour is not the behaviour of a powerful woman. Constantly attacking weak targets like immigrants. Failing to engage with her own backbenchers. Walling herself off behind tiny cliques. Capitulating hard, fast and often during negotiations.
These aren't the actions of a powerful person, they're the actions of a timid, frightened person.
I think there are considerable similarities between Merkel and May.
Does anyone else have a feeling that this Norway+ model has a certain air of inevitability about it now? All other options seem to be closing down. I actually think Norway+ is a decent compromise, and I say that as someone who would preference a second referendum.
Given the compromises on freedom of movement that would occur, here is the crucial paragraph from Nick Boles that advocates for Norway need to highlight:
"We would still be bound by freedom of movement. But we would benefit from Article 112 of the EEA which states that “if serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties . . . are arising” unilateral action can be taken on a temporary basis. So if migration from Europe returned to the levels of the mid 2000s, we should be able to pull an emergency brake to limit the numbers."
I doubt May could carry this through with any credibility given the red lines she boxed herself in with, but Hammond or Rudd could probably carry it.
I commented a couple of days ago that Norway is the likely destination, maybe if TM swivels to it but also from a centrist conservative leader. I believe Gove and Rudd are coalescing the cabinet behind this compromise and, on the loss of the deal, a united cabinet could make it happen
Norway will not happen, May will refuse it as it requires free movement and Corbyn opposes it too in favour of making May's temporary Customs Union permanent
That's Norway+ then, since that contains a permanent customs union.
Aka BINO. All countries belonging to both the CU and the SM are member states.
Indeed we would be in the EU in all but name with free movement and no trade deals done ourselves just with control over fishing and farming as outside the CFP and CAP but with no place at the decision table
I had a feeling you'd have no idea how the EEA worked.
"The Labour leadership is determined to reject the idea gaining ground at Westminster of a Norway-plus deal. The Scottish first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, said on Tuesday she hoped a majority could coalesce around the proposal, which is being promoted by the Conservative backbencher Nick Boles. However, senior Labour sources insisted they regarded it as an unacceptable abrogation of sovereignty that would fail to honour the referendum result"
Of course, you would expect Labour to nix the proposal that is actually closest to their stated policy.
Sigh.
So what exactly is this mythical deal which Labour thinks they will be able to achieve ?
The Tories might be a bunch of utter tossers, but so are Labour.
Everything suggests she's a xenophobic, dishonest, incompetent personality void. And thus do I judge her.
Why would a xenophobe campaign on modern slavery, or tackle the implicit racism of Police stop & search of young black men?
Admit it, you just don't like powerful women.
I don't think it is about her being female, but the extremists on both sides are incapable of having someone disagree with them. For some, if someone is delivering Brexit, they are by definition racist and incompetent and evil. For others, if someone agrees anything other than a pure cliff edge, they are traitorous and incompetent and evil. These people are impervious to reason.
It is great to see the British people are being won round over the charlatanry of MPs and the bias of the media. The British public have always had more wisdom than the political class.
Everything suggests she's a xenophobic, dishonest, incompetent personality void. And thus do I judge her.
Why would a xenophobe campaign on modern slavery, or tackle the implicit racism of Police stop & search of young black men?
Admit it, you just don't like powerful women.
You clearly haven't seen my Angela Merkel shrine.
TBH, May's pattern of behaviour is not the behaviour of a powerful woman. Constantly attacking weak targets like immigrants. Failing to engage with her own backbenchers. Walling herself off behind tiny cliques. Capitulating hard, fast and often during negotiations.
These aren't the actions of a powerful person, they're the actions of a timid, frightened person.
I think there are considerable similarities between Merkel and May.
One has loomed over European politics, a towering colossus, for getting on two decades. The other one is Theresa May.
"The Labour leadership is determined to reject the idea gaining ground at Westminster of a Norway-plus deal. The Scottish first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, said on Tuesday she hoped a majority could coalesce around the proposal, which is being promoted by the Conservative backbencher Nick Boles. However, senior Labour sources insisted they regarded it as an unacceptable abrogation of sovereignty that would fail to honour the referendum result"
Of course, you would expect Labour to nix the proposal that is actually closest to their stated policy.
Sigh.
So what exactly is this mythical deal which Labour thinks they will be able to achieve ?
The Tories might be a bunch of utter tossers, but so are Labour.
Haha - Your last sentence just about sums up today's political situation!
I disagree with and disapprove of much of Theresa May's politics. However, she is a transparently sincere woman with a strong sense of duty who seeks to run the country having regard to the mandate that she was given in the EU referendum and the general election as she sees it. There's no need to be personally unpleasant about her.
However she's tin eared and would struggle to sell prosecco on a hen night.
Ken summarised her best: "A bloody difficult woman" - it is both her strength and weakness.
Everything suggests she's a xenophobic, dishonest, incompetent personality void. And thus do I judge her.
Why would a xenophobe campaign on modern slavery, or tackle the implicit racism of Police stop & search of young black men?
Admit it, you just don't like powerful women.
You clearly haven't seen my Angela Merkel shrine.
TBH, May's pattern of behaviour is not the behaviour of a powerful woman. Constantly attacking weak targets like immigrants. Failing to engage with her own backbenchers. Walling herself off behind tiny cliques. Capitulating hard, fast and often during negotiations.
These aren't the actions of a powerful person, they're the actions of a timid, frightened person.
I think there are considerable similarities between Merkel and May.
One has loomed over European politics, a towering colossus, for getting on two decades. The other one is Theresa May.
Like May's, Merkel's first electoral campaign as party leader was disastrous, but she outlasted her critics.
Everything suggests she's a xenophobic, dishonest, incompetent personality void. And thus do I judge her.
Why would a xenophobe campaign on modern slavery, or tackle the implicit racism of Police stop & search of young black men?
Admit it, you just don't like powerful women.
I don't think it is about her being female, but the extremists on both sides are incapable of having someone disagree with them. For some, if someone is delivering Brexit, they are by definition racist and incompetent and evil. For others, if someone agrees anything other than a pure cliff edge, they are traitorous and incompetent and evil. These people are impervious to reason.
It is great to see the British people are being won round over the charlatanry of MPs and the bias of the media. The British public have always had more wisdom than the political class.
I voted for Brexit. I wanted chaos. It has to be said, Mrs May's incompetence has delivered chaos in absolute buckets.
Pound for pound, her affinity for generating political chaos and constitutional crises must be unmatched in the modern era.
Everything suggests she's a xenophobic, dishonest, incompetent personality void. And thus do I judge her.
Why would a xenophobe campaign on modern slavery, or tackle the implicit racism of Police stop & search of young black men?
Admit it, you just don't like powerful women.
I don't think it is about her being female, but the extremists on both sides are incapable of having someone disagree with them. For some, if someone is delivering Brexit, they are by definition racist and incompetent and evil. For others, if someone agrees anything other than a pure cliff edge, they are traitorous and incompetent and evil. These people are impervious to reason.
It is great to see the British people are being won round over the charlatanry of MPs and the bias of the media. The British public have always had more wisdom than the political class.
Everything suggests she's a xenophobic, dishonest, incompetent personality void. And thus do I judge her.
Why would a xenophobe campaign on modern slavery, or tackle the implicit racism of Police stop & search of young black men?
Admit it, you just don't like powerful women.
You clearly haven't seen my Angela Merkel shrine.
TBH, May's pattern of behaviour is not the behaviour of a powerful woman. Constantly attacking weak targets like immigrants. Failing to engage with her own backbenchers. Walling herself off behind tiny cliques. Capitulating hard, fast and often during negotiations.
These aren't the actions of a powerful person, they're the actions of a timid, frightened person.
I think there are considerable similarities between Merkel and May.
One has loomed over European politics, a towering colossus, for getting on two decades. The other one is Theresa May.
Like May's, Merkel's first electoral campaign as party leader was disastrous, but she outlasted her critics.
Everything suggests she's a xenophobic, dishonest, incompetent personality void. And thus do I judge her.
Why would a xenophobe campaign on modern slavery, or tackle the implicit racism of Police stop & search of young black men?
Admit it, you just don't like powerful women.
I don't think it is about her being female, but the extremists on both sides are incapable of having someone disagree with them. For some, if someone is delivering Brexit, they are by definition racist and incompetent and evil. For others, if someone agrees anything other than a pure cliff edge, they are traitorous and incompetent and evil. These people are impervious to reason.
It is great to see the British people are being won round over the charlatanry of MPs and the bias of the media. The British public have always had more wisdom than the political class.
I voted for Brexit. I wanted chaos. It has to be said, Mrs May's incompetence has delivered chaos in absolute buckets.
Pound for pound, her affinity for generating political chaos and constitutional crises must be unmatched in the modern era.
You're going to tell us you live in the Cayman Islands next.
Everything suggests she's a xenophobic, dishonest, incompetent personality void. And thus do I judge her.
Why would a xenophobe campaign on modern slavery, or tackle the implicit racism of Police stop & search of young black men?
Admit it, you just don't like powerful women.
I don't think it is about her being female, but the extremists on both sides are incapable of having someone disagree with them. For some, if someone is delivering Brexit, they are by definition racist and incompetent and evil. For others, if someone agrees anything other than a pure cliff edge, they are traitorous and incompetent and evil. These people are impervious to reason.
It is great to see the British people are being won round over the charlatanry of MPs and the bias of the media. The British public have always had more wisdom than the political class.
Everything suggests she's a xenophobic, dishonest, incompetent personality void. And thus do I judge her.
Why would a xenophobe campaign on modern slavery, or tackle the implicit racism of Police stop & search of young black men?
Admit it, you just don't like powerful women.
I don't think it is about her being female, but the extremists on both sides are incapable of having someone disagree with them. For some, if someone is delivering Brexit, they are by definition racist and incompetent and evil. For others, if someone agrees anything other than a pure cliff edge, they are traitorous and incompetent and evil. These people are impervious to reason.
It is great to see the British people are being won round over the charlatanry of MPs and the bias of the media. The British public have always had more wisdom than the political class.
Everything suggests she's a xenophobic, dishonest, incompetent personality void. And thus do I judge her.
Why would a xenophobe campaign on modern slavery, or tackle the implicit racism of Police stop & search of young black men?
Admit it, you just don't like powerful women.
You clearly haven't seen my Angela Merkel shrine.
TBH, May's pattern of behaviour is not the behaviour of a powerful woman. Constantly attacking weak targets like immigrants. Failing to engage with her own backbenchers. Walling herself off behind tiny cliques. Capitulating hard, fast and often during negotiations.
These aren't the actions of a powerful person, they're the actions of a timid, frightened person.
I think there are considerable similarities between Merkel and May.
One has loomed over European politics, a towering colossus, for getting on two decades. The other one is Theresa May.
Like May's, Merkel's first electoral campaign as party leader was disastrous, but she outlasted her critics.
We're yet to see if she'll outlast her critics. I suspect she'll be gone by January but certainly by the next election.
If she survives to and wins the next election that'd be impressive.
Everything suggests she's a xenophobic, dishonest, incompetent personality void. And thus do I judge her.
Why would a xenophobe campaign on modern slavery, or tackle the implicit racism of Police stop & search of young black men?
Admit it, you just don't like powerful women.
You clearly haven't seen my Angela Merkel shrine.
TBH, May's pattern of behaviour is not the behaviour of a powerful woman. Constantly attacking weak targets like immigrants. Failing to engage with her own backbenchers. Walling herself off behind tiny cliques. Capitulating hard, fast and often during negotiations.
These aren't the actions of a powerful person, they're the actions of a timid, frightened person.
I think there are considerable similarities between Merkel and May.
One has loomed over European politics, a towering colossus, for getting on two decades. The other one is Theresa May.
Like May's, Merkel's first electoral campaign as party leader was disastrous, but she outlasted her critics.
We're yet to see if she'll outlast her critics. I suspect she'll be gone by January but certainly by the next election.
If she survives to and wins the next election that'd be impressive.
She's outlasted her critics by 18 months more than I thought she would. Her strength is they dislike each other even more than they dislike her.
Everything suggests she's a xenophobic, dishonest, incompetent personality void. And thus do I judge her.
Why would a xenophobe campaign on modern slavery, or tackle the implicit racism of Police stop & search of young black men?
Admit it, you just don't like powerful women.
You clearly haven't seen my Angela Merkel shrine.
TBH, May's pattern of behaviour is not the behaviour of a powerful woman. Constantly attacking weak targets like immigrants. Failing to engage with her own backbenchers. Walling herself off behind tiny cliques. Capitulating hard, fast and often during negotiations.
These aren't the actions of a powerful person, they're the actions of a timid, frightened person.
I think there are considerable similarities between Merkel and May.
One has loomed over European politics, a towering colossus, for getting on two decades. The other one is Theresa May.
Like May's, Merkel's first electoral campaign as party leader was disastrous, but she outlasted her critics.
Yes - more and more, I think that, if May can survive this period and get her deal through (or something very close to this deal), she'll become radically more popular and respected - a bit like how Merkel surviving the worst of the Greek debt crisis gave her a "bulletproof" reputation, and she walked on water for quite a few years after that.
However, the "if" in that sentence is doing a heck of a lot of work.
Does anyone else have a feeling that this Norway+ model has a certain air of inevitability about it now? All other options seem to be closing down. I actually think Norway+ is a decent compromise, and I say that as someone who would preference a second referendum.
Given the compromises on freedom of movement that would occur, here is the crucial paragraph from Nick Boles that advocates for Norway need to highlight:
"We would still be bound by freedom of movement. But we would benefit from Article 112 of the EEA which states that “if serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties . . . are arising” unilateral action can be taken on a temporary basis. So if migration from Europe returned to the levels of the mid 2000s, we should be able to pull an emergency brake to limit the numbers."
I doubt May could carry this through with any credibility given the red lines she boxed herself in with, but Hammond or Rudd could probably carry it.
I commented a couple of days ago that Norway is the likely destination, maybe if TM swivels to it but also from a centrist conservative leader. I believe Gove and Rudd are coalescing the cabinet behind this compromise and, on the loss of the deal, a united cabinet could make it happen
Norway will not happen, May will refuse it as it requires free movement and Corbyn opposes it too in favour of making May's temporary Customs Union permanent
That's Norway+ then, since that contains a permanent customs union.
Are you,assuming the + equals a permanent customs union? The Norway model doesnt involve Cu membership.
I am. I was under the impression that when people said Norway+ they meant Norway+CU?
Am I mistaken?
I wasn’t aware of that. I haven’t heard many argue for both Cu and Sm
Does anyone else have a feeling that this Norway+ model has a certain air of inevitability about it now? All other options seem to be closing down. I actually think Norway+ is a decent compromise, and I say that as someone who would preference a second referendum.
Given the compromises on freedom of movement that would occur, here is the crucial paragraph from Nick Boles that advocates for Norway need to highlight:
"We would still be bound by freedom of movement. But we would benefit from Article 112 of the EEA which states that “if serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties . . . are arising” unilateral action can be taken on a temporary basis. So if migration from Europe returned to the levels of the mid 2000s, we should be able to pull an emergency brake to limit the numbers."
I doubt May could carry this through with any credibility given the red lines she boxed herself in with, but Hammond or Rudd could probably carry it.
I commented a couple of days ago that Norway is the likely destination, maybe if TM swivels to it but also from a centrist conservative leader. I believe Gove and Rudd are coalescing the cabinet behind this compromise and, on the loss of the deal, a united cabinet could make it happen
Norway will not happen, May will refuse it as it requires free movement and Corbyn opposes it too in favour of making May's temporary Customs Union permanent
That's Norway+ then, since that contains a permanent customs union.
Are you,assuming the + equals a permanent customs union? The Norway model doesnt involve Cu membership.
I am. I was under the impression that when people said Norway+ they meant Norway+CU?
Everything suggests she's a xenophobic, dishonest, incompetent personality void. And thus do I judge her.
Why would a xenophobe campaign on modern slavery, or tackle the implicit racism of Police stop & search of young black men?
Admit it, you just don't like powerful women.
I don't think it is about her being female, but the extremists on both sides are incapable of having someone disagree with them. For some, if someone is delivering Brexit, they are by definition racist and incompetent and evil. For others, if someone agrees anything other than a pure cliff edge, they are traitorous and incompetent and evil. These people are impervious to reason.
It is great to see the British people are being won round over the charlatanry of MPs and the bias of the media. The British public have always had more wisdom than the political class.
I voted for Brexit. I wanted chaos.
Why?
Because the EU is heading towards a European federal state, and I don't believe the UK body politic is a willing participant in that. Because remainers have been dishonest or in denial about the true nature of the European project for 40 years Because Brexiteers are delusional about the UK's true place in the world Because many, many people believe the lies of David Davis et al. about easiest deals ever, and cake and unicorns.
So many lies, so many delusions, so much pomposity.
I felt that bringing it to a head and allowing the chaos to unfold was the only way that the lies and delusions could finally by exposed, deflated. The true costs of our euro-delusions laid bare. And that the UK could only then finally start one day engaging honestly with the European project.
I disagree with and disapprove of much of Theresa May's politics. However, she is a transparently sincere woman with a strong sense of duty who seeks to run the country having regard to the mandate that she was given in the EU referendum and the general election as she sees it. There's no need to be personally unpleasant about her.
Ken summarised her best: "A bloody difficult woman" - it is both her strength and weakness.
In the process of getting the deal through being 'a bloody difficult woman' may be a strength.
TM highlighting McDonnell wanting a second referendum and to remain at PMQ's is going to cause chaos for labour in the media
No. The media narrative is a PM under pressure. They won't want to pivot yet because the current narrative is stronger for sales. It's not about news these days.
I disagree with and disapprove of much of Theresa May's politics. However, she is a transparently sincere woman with a strong sense of duty who seeks to run the country having regard to the mandate that she was given in the EU referendum and the general election as she sees it. There's no need to be personally unpleasant about her.
Ken summarised her best: "A bloody difficult woman" - it is both her strength and weakness.
In the process of getting the deal through being 'a bloody difficult woman' may be a strength.
I am not a Tory, far from it, but I do have a grudging admiration for May, despite her many shortcomings. I think many share that.
Grabcocque's views represent hardly anyone but himself imo.
Horrendous non-answer by May to Zac Goldsmith's question about Asia Bibi. I know her intention was to find a way not to answer, but in her facial and linguistic contortion she DID answer - that what he alleged is true...
TM highlighting McDonnell wanting a second referendum and to remain at PMQ's is going to cause chaos for labour in the media
A second referendum as a fallback if an election isn't possible has been Labour's policy since conference, though. It's not a new thing that McDonnell has discovered, he's just restating existing policy.
Does anyone else have a feeling that this Norway+ model has a certain air of inevitability about it now? All other options seem to be closing down. I actually think Norway+ is a decent compromise, and I say that as someone who would preference a second referendum.
Given the compromises on freedom of movement that would occur, here is the crucial paragraph from Nick Boles that advocates for Norway need to highlight:
"We would still be bound by freedom of movement. But we would benefit from Article 112 of the EEA which states that “if serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties . . . are arising” unilateral action can be taken on a temporary basis. So if migration from Europe returned to the levels of the mid 2000s, we should be able to pull an emergency brake to limit the numbers."
I doubt May could carry this through with any credibility given the red lines she boxed herself in with, but Hammond or Rudd could probably carry it.
I commented a couple of days ago that Norway is the likely destination, maybe if TM swivels to it but also from a centrist conservative leader. I believe Gove and Rudd are coalescing the cabinet behind this compromise and, on the loss of the deal, a united cabinet could make it happen
Norway will not happen, May will refuse it as it requires free movement and Corbyn opposes it too in favour of making May's temporary Customs Union permanent
That's Norway+ then, since that contains a permanent customs union.
Are you,assuming the + equals a permanent customs union? The Norway model doesnt involve Cu membership.
I am. I was under the impression that when people said Norway+ they meant Norway+CU?
Am I mistaken?
I wasn’t aware of that. I haven’t heard many argue for both Cu and Sm
I believe Labour official policy is for the benefits of both, and the costs of neither.
I disagree with and disapprove of much of Theresa May's politics. However, she is a transparently sincere woman with a strong sense of duty who seeks to run the country having regard to the mandate that she was given in the EU referendum and the general election as she sees it. There's no need to be personally unpleasant about her.
Ken summarised her best: "A bloody difficult woman" - it is both her strength and weakness.
In the process of getting the deal through being 'a bloody difficult woman' may be a strength.
I am not a Tory, far from it, but I do have a grudging admiration for May, despite her many shortcomings. I think many share that.
Grabcocque's views represent hardly anyone but himself imo.
Horrendous non-answer by May to Zac Goldsmith's question about Asia Bibi. I know her intention was to find a way not to answer, but in her facial and linguistic contortion she DID answer - that what he alleged is true...
A bit "don't mention Brexit the war" from most Conservative back benchers.....interesting when Bercow can't troll through the ERG cavalcade of wit & beauty.....
Horrendous non-answer by May to Zac Goldsmith's question about Asia Bibi. I know her intention was to find a way not to answer, but in her facial and linguistic contortion she DID answer - that what he alleged is true...
She really would be a terrible poker player -- all sorts of facial tics come out when she feels uncomfortable, bless her.
Comments
It's a rather pointed example of the neoliberal market-knows-best, competition-is-all, greed-is-good, trickle-down economics bullshit that has held sway for the past 40 years.
The pendulum is swinging back however.
On the other hand: the Government is anxious to keep the Attorney General's legal opinion under wraps, though it would clarify the implications of May's deal.
They're not convincing the skeptics, for whom the legal position is more important than dodgy economic soothsaying.
Indeed. But let's be honest, Tezza's deal could be pretty close to Labour's stated policy if they worked worked with it instead of against it.
People's front of Judea stuff.
EEA members negotiate on single market legislation bilaterally with the European Commission via the organs of the EEA, and Switzerland negotiates with the Commission via a set of organs governed in the bilateral treaties.
The only place the UK would be a rule taker under the Norway+ model would be for the customs union. Not ideal, but since it solves the NI border problem and obviates any backstop, it's probably a price worth paying.
Steve Richards - I know you are reading this so I hope you credited me in your article. Failing that a donation of a few kilos of Colombian coffee beans is acceptable.
But going this far in the opposite direction seems foolhardy. Surely the Mail could become less offputting to the centre ground without annoying its long-standing Colonel Blimp readers quite so flagrantly.
It's only a couple of months ago a few on here were saying how the owners would quickly slap the new editor down as circulation plummeted etc. Still waiting...
Of course, it's possible to maintain different personalities online and in print though.
+1
PMQs just started.
Mail Online, however, thrives on its heady mixture of xenophobia and sideboob. They tangle with that formula at their peril.
Had the market been opened up to free choice people could have continued to use 192 if they wanted to do so.
(PB excepted of course!)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-27/discovery-is-said-to-eye-dutch-option-if-no-deal-brexit-proceeds
Well, since I don't know May personally, I can only judge May by her actions.
And what I see is a political career steeped in petty and vindictive hatred of immigrants of every shade, and a kind of really determined incompetence.
Nothing about May's public persona suggests she's a good person. Everything suggests she's a xenophobic, dishonest, incompetent personality void. And thus do I judge her.
It's the one thread that weaves its way through her otherwise undistinguished career.
they've all got it apathy
Admit it, you just don't like powerful women.
Parliament should take back control.
https://twitter.com/paul_dobson/status/1067753120699158528
TBH, May's pattern of behaviour is not the behaviour of a powerful woman. Constantly attacking weak targets like immigrants. Failing to engage with her own backbenchers. Walling herself off behind tiny cliques. Capitulating hard, fast and often during negotiations.
These aren't the actions of a powerful person, they're the actions of a timid, frightened person.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1067754418391654400
Am I mistaken?
The contrast between that and the "go home" van and the vile 2015 speech is immense. Hard to believe they're from the same person.
The Tories might be a bunch of utter tossers, but so are Labour.
It is great to see the British people are being won round over the charlatanry of MPs and the bias of the media. The British public have always had more wisdom than the political class.
The other one is Theresa May.
Ken summarised her best: "A bloody difficult woman" - it is both her strength and weakness.
Pound for pound, her affinity for generating political chaos and constitutional crises must be unmatched in the modern era.
If she survives to and wins the next election that'd be impressive.
However, the "if" in that sentence is doing a heck of a lot of work.
It might make the 'Make vote conditional on a referendum' amendment more likely to pass.
Because remainers have been dishonest or in denial about the true nature of the European project for 40 years
Because Brexiteers are delusional about the UK's true place in the world
Because many, many people believe the lies of David Davis et al. about easiest deals ever, and cake and unicorns.
So many lies, so many delusions, so much pomposity.
I felt that bringing it to a head and allowing the chaos to unfold was the only way that the lies and delusions could finally by exposed, deflated. The true costs of our euro-delusions laid bare. And that the UK could only then finally start one day engaging honestly with the European project.
If May had been bloody difficult about the backstop she wouldn't be in this mess.
Grabcocque's views represent hardly anyone but himself imo.
https://www.theguardian.com/global/video/2018/nov/28/a-day-with-mr-stop-brexit-crashing-tv-interviews-and-fighting-ukip-video