Only the deluded, would blame the instransigence of Leavers for the fact that May’s deal hasn’t been agreed. May’s deal hasn’t been agreed because it satisfies no one which is why most of Labour, the LibDems, the SNP, and the Green MP who all substantially support Remain, as well as a fair number of Tory Remainers, all oppose the deal. Anyone with half a brain would realise that.
Brexit is incapable of being resolved by compromise because all sides believe so strongly in their positions they refuse to compromise.
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Wrong, as Yougov showed quite clearly a few weeks ago Remain beats No Deal and the Deal on first preferences but with under 50%, head to head against No Deal or Remain though the Deal wins in 372 Westminster constituencies ie a clear majority.
You're confident EURef2 would be defeated? I think there's a good chance it won't ever be put to a HoC vote but if were I would ecpet it to have >50% chance of passing.
I do not think there will be an EURef2 - I think they will prat about trying to get May's Deal through and by the time they give up the only time left will be for a direct revocation.
Remember that an extension to A50 requires unanimous voting. If they try that first and it fails then we are are left with No Deal or Revoke and no time for an EU Ref. Revoke, OTOH requires a short session in Parliament with a free vote followed by one letter to Brussels. Twenty four hours could do it, but definitely a few days. They could manage it in the last week of March.
Direct revocation without EUref2 would lead us to near Civil War, Leavers would be incandescent with rage
As long as we deny them access to their Zimmerframes we should be OK since they will never escape the nursing home.
(If you are going to indulge in hyperbole I might as well join in...)
That's a pretty impressive set of predictions from last year Alastair - well done!
I went back to re-read the original article just to check you hadn't done some 'selective editing' But no - it was all as you said.
I look forward to your 2019 predictions. (Can you include a view on the global stock markets please? I'd like to know whether, despite recent losses, we might get one more year out of this bull market before an almighty crash!)
I’m afraid I’ve already submitted my predictions and it’s already a lengthy article. I don’t think anyone will complain that I’ve sat on the fence.
That's a pretty impressive set of predictions from last year Alastair - well done!
I went back to re-read the original article just to check you hadn't done some 'selective editing' But no - it was all as you said.
I look forward to your 2019 predictions. (Can you include a view on the global stock markets please? I'd like to know whether, despite recent losses, we might get one more year out of this bull market before an almighty crash!)
I’m afraid I’ve already submitted my predictions and it’s already a lengthy article. I don’t think anyone will complain that I’ve sat on the fence.
Only the deluded, would blame the instransigence of Leavers for the fact that May’s deal hasn’t been agreed. May’s deal hasn’t been agreed because it satisfies no one which is why most of Labour, the LibDems, the SNP, and the Green MP who all substantially support Remain, as well as a fair number of Tory Remainers, all oppose the deal. Anyone with half a brain would realise that.
Brexit is incapable of being resolved by compromise because all sides believe so strongly in their positions they refuse to compromise.
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Wrong, as Yougov showed quite clearly a few weeks ago head to head against No Deal or Remain the Deal wins in 372 Westminster constituencies ie a clear majority
Once Norway+ and EUref2 are defeated in the Commons the Deal has a much better chance of passing as it is the only alternative to No Deal
With no campaign and unrelenting Project Fear against no deal for 2 years, only the extremeky gullible would believe that kind of poll finding would translate into an actual result.
No Deal most likely leads to the break up of the UK, a deep economic recession and most probably the reversal of Brexit sooner or later or at least SM plus CU BINO.
The Deal is the only sustainable Brexit on the table as most voters ultimately realise. A narrow 52% to 48% Leave referendum win was never a mandate for No Deal
52:48 certainly wasn’t a mandate to Remain in any way shape or form. Only a fool would believe Project Fear forecasts they neither know the modelling assumptions to nor understand. The biggest benefit of Brexit was deregulation and making the UK a more attractive investment proposition. Spurning those voluntarily for no certainty or even likelihood of a trade is simply an senseless act of self harm. Giving up fishing which has more capacity to benefit our coastal communities is an act of stupidity that only makes sense to London centric Remainers.
The biggest benefits of Brexit for most Leavers as all the polling shows was to regain sovereignty and reduce immigration.
Those who saw the main benefits as being deregulation were a tiny fraction of very wealthy Leavers at most.
Fishing control can be regained under any form of Brexit
Only the deluded, would blame the instransigence of Leavers for the fact that May’s deal hasn’t been agreed. May’s deal hasn’t been agreed because it satisfies no one which is why most of Labour, the LibDems, the SNP, and the Green MP who all substantially support Remain, as well as a fair number of Tory Remainers, all oppose the deal. Anyone with half a brain would realise that.
Brexit is incapable of being resolved by compromise because all sides believe so strongly in their positions they refuse to compromise.
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Wrong, as Yougov showed quite clearly a few weeks ago Remain beats No Deal and the Deal on first preferences but with under 50%, head to head against No Deal or Remain though the Deal wins in 372 Westminster constituencies ie a clear majority.
You're confident EURef2 would be defeated? I think there's a good chance it won't ever be put to a HoC vote but if were I would ecpet it to have >50% chance of passing.
Might get through one day but not before we leave. TM's deal will get through because:
1) A good number of Tories already plan to do so because it is the only deal in town 2) ERG types will ultimately vote for/not vote against a deal which keeps a lot of their hopes alive - leaving the EU being a necessary but not sufficient part of the plan 3) Some Lab MPs will not vote against it, or even vote for it, because they are quietly against anything which helps their current leader having a chance to run the country following a crisis GE 4) Other Lab MPs and some Tories (Kenneth Clarke) will vote for it because this WA keeps their hopes alive of ending up with remain or something close to it like Norway + 5) A number of socialist Labour MPs will vote to leave or abstain because like Jeremy Corbyn they want to leave even if they can't say so 6) Only the Lib Dems, the SNP and DUP have compelling reasons to vote against.
So in the end, with enough rebels and reluctant abstentions it will prevail.
Only the deluded, would blame the instransigence of Leavers for the fact that May’s deal hasn’t been agreed. May’s deal hasn’t been agreed because it satisfies no one which is why most of Labour, the LibDems, the SNP, and the Green MP who all substantially support Remain, as well as a fair number of Tory Remainers, all oppose the deal. Anyone with half a brain would realise that.
Brexit is incapable of being resolved by compromise because all sides believe so strongly in their positions they refuse to compromise.
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Wrong, as Yougov showed quite clearly a few weeks ago Remain beats No Deal and the Deal on first preferences but with under 50%, head to head against No Deal or Remain though the Deal wins in 372 Westminster constituencies ie a clear majority.
You're confident EURef2 would be defeated? I think there's a good chance it won't ever be put to a HoC vote but if were I would ecpet it to have >50% chance of passing.
I do not think there will be an EURef2 - I think they will prat about trying to get May's Deal through and by the time they give up the only time left will be for a direct revocation.
Remember that an extension to A50 requires unanimous voting. If they try that first and it fails then we are are left with No Deal or Revoke and no time for an EU Ref. Revoke, OTOH requires a short session in Parliament with a free vote followed by one letter to Brussels. Twenty four hours could do it, but definitely a few days. They could manage it in the last week of March.
Direct revocation without EUref2 would lead us to near Civil War, Leavers would be incandescent with rage
As long as we deny them access to their Zimmerframes we should be OK since they will never escape the nursing home.
(If you are going to indulge in hyperbole I might as well join in...)
The average age a voter was more likely to vote Leave than Remain was about 45 not 85 otherwise Leave would not have won, lower in the North and Midlands and revocation without EUref2 would see a surge for UKIP/Tommy Robinson and Farage's new party
(If you are going to indulge in hyperbole I might as well join in...)
The average age a voter was more likely to vote Leave than Remain was about 45 not 85 otherwise Leave would not have won, lower in the North and Midlands and revocation without EUref2 would see a surge for UKIP/Tommy Robinson and Farage's new party
They will be even more annoyed if we "No Deal" and they have to queue for cabbages in Soviet style. When the country's back is to the No Deal Wall, a revocation may be the only option.
If we do "No Deal" I expect the "No Deal" supporting headbangers to be the first to complain.
In a non-tribal society it's important that people don't allows their political positions to take over the rest of their lives, including their relations with other people who don't share the same political opinions as they do. I'm concerned that we may be moving in the opposite direction. (The US is in a far worse state on this than we are of course, with for instance some people being refused a place at restaurants because of their political stance).
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Wrong, as Yougov showed quite clearly a few weeks ago head to head against No Deal or Remain the Deal wins in 372 Westminster constituencies ie a clear majority
Once Norway+ and EUref2 are defeated in the Commons the Deal has a much better chance of passing as it is the only alternative to No Deal
With no campaign and unrelenting Project Fear against no deal for 2 years, only the extremeky gullible would believe that kind of poll finding would translate into an actual result.
No Deal most likely leads to the break up of the UK, a deep economic recession and most probably the reversal of Brexit sooner or later or at least SM plus CU BINO.
The Deal is the only sustainable Brexit on the table as most voters ultimately realise. A narrow 52% to 48% Leave referendum win was never a mandate for No Deal
52:48 certainly wasn’t a mandate to Remain in any way shape or form. Only a fool would believe Project Fear forecasts they neither know the modelling assumptions to nor understand. The biggest benefit of Brexit was deregulation and making the UK a more attractive investment proposition. Spurning those voluntarily for no certainty or even likelihood of a trade is simply an senseless act of self harm. Giving up fishing which has more capacity to benefit our coastal communities is an act of stupidity that only makes sense to London centric Remainers.
The biggest benefits of Brexit for most Leavers as all the polling shows was to regain sovereignty and reduce immigration.
Those who saw the main benefits as being deregulation were a tiny fraction of very wealthy Leavers at most.
Fishing control can be regained under any form of Brexit
Macron has already shown that being out of the CFP will not benefit Britain if the muppets who negotiated the WA actually want a trade deal. Reducing immigration is likely to prove a false hope too as the Remainers sell that out for their EU dictated trade deal.
Sovereignty is pretty illusory gain too given the fact that May has capitulated on diverging from EU regulations.
Every comment you make shows you don’t have any understanding of why individual Leave voters voted as they did.
All in all, your comment doesn’t have a lot going for it.
For once, I agree with my old sparring partner Josias Jessop, who rightly widens the focus of the obesity debate to quality of diet, not just quantity. Conventional wisdom on the subject of food is so wrong headed, even now, that I shudder to think what direction our health would go in if a more strident Government approach was adopted. Which is of course the biggest argument against state power in general - the state, even if well-intentioned, is usually wrong. As an example, the demonisation of saturated fat has in my opinion been a disaster for Western health, and it affects poor people the most, because they're more likely to use a disgusting margerine that has more in common with a plastic than a food, as opposed to butter.
I'd like to see some proper taxation of food in order to get people to consume less, something like a flat 1p tax per 10kcals, plus 1p per gramme of sugar (with fruit, veg, milk, and uncooked chicken/turkey excluded)
On the flip side introduce an additional £850 (all eligible) child benefit, and a shifting of the tax bands so that everyone in work will pay £850 less in tax per year (or instead ideally just a £850/year universal income). For someone who eats (broadly) the correct amount of food (2000 odd kcals per day, 30g of sugar) they'll be more or less unaffected, while those who over indulge will be strongly penalised.
A 200g bar of dairy milk goes from £2 to £4.18, B&Jerry's cookie dough tub from £4.50 to £6.70, a bagel from 32p to 60p.
We need to do something radical to sustain good quality free healthcare, the UK doesn't need a nudge, but a kick up the a*se.
Taxing food to sustain free healthcare makes no sense because we all eat. You might as well charge for healthcare so that those it use most, pay most.
Better to tackle the symptoms than the cause, and those who consume responsibly (averaged over the course of a year) will be basically unaffected (+-£100), while those who consume far too much will be penalised. Co-incidentally those who consume far too much also consume the most healthcare resources, plus this way we don't penalise those with conditions that they had no part in getting (e.g. T1 Diabetes, epilepsy etc).
£850 is the amount of tax 2000kcals, 30g of sugar per day would approximately come out to over the course of a year.
The logic of what you are saying is that those who eat the healthiest are actually the healthiest and will therefore use the health service less. The effect is therefore the same without the danger that Gov will use tax on food for other purposes.
People who eat healthily don’t live longer... it just seems that way
H/t Clement Freud
On the other hand you don't see many obese nonagenerians.
People naturally lose weight as they get older from what I observe. their appetite reduces.. not sure about the gluttons though.
(If you are going to indulge in hyperbole I might as well join in...)
The average age a voter was more likely to vote Leave than Remain was about 45 not 85 otherwise Leave would not have won, lower in the North and Midlands and revocation without EUref2 would see a surge for UKIP/Tommy Robinson and Farage's new party
They will be even more annoyed if we "No Deal" and they have to queue for cabbages in Soviet style. When the country's back is to the No Deal Wall, a revocation may be the only option.
If we do "No Deal" I expect the "No Deal" supporting headbangers to be the first to complain.
Yes well the Deal is neither the No Deal or Remain extremes
Javid and Hunt all but declaring themselves as candidates for the leadership today.
And both talking bollox whilst dog whistling at full throttle. Javid- I'm back in frontline children's social work; child sexual exploitation is rife and the vast majority of it is perpetrated by white men. And Hunt and his crusade for Christianity- I mean FFS. Look at the persecution faced by Muslims in Burma, China and India for instance. Why do we have to suffer these really excruciatingly manipulative and calculating fuckwits who are only interested in serving their own egos?
Talking bollocks again, Tyson. The vast majority of convictions from grooming gangs have been men from Muslim Pakistani backgrounds. The plight of non-Muslims in Muslim countries should be out primary concern when it comes to asylum and refugee intake. Let Muslim countries look after their own.
Couldn't you apply the same logic to say we should be concerned only with asylum-seeking women, not men?
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Wrong, as Yougov showed quite clearly a few weeks ago head to head against No Deal or Remain the Deal wins in 372 Westminster constituencies ie a clear majority
Once Norway+ and EUref2 are defeated in the Commons the Deal has a much better chance of passing as it is the only alternative to No Deal
With no campaign and unrelenting Project Fear against no deal for 2 years, only the extremeky gullible would believe that kind of poll finding would translate into an actual result.
No Deal most likely leads to the break up of the UK, a deep economic recession and most probably the reversal of Brexit sooner or later or at least SM plus CU BINO.
The Deal is the only sustainable Brexit on the table as most voters ultimately realise. A narrow 52% to 48% Leave referendum win was never a mandate for No Deal
52:48 certainly wasn’t a mandate to Remain in tric Remainers.
The biggest benefits of Brexit for most Leavers as all the polling shows was to regain sovereignty and reduce immigration.
Those who saw the main benefits as being deregulation were a tiny fraction of very wealthy Leavers at most.
Fishing control can be regained under any form of Brexit
Macron has already shown that being out of the CFP will not benefit Britain if the muppets who negotiated the WA actually want a trade deal. Reducing immigration is likely to prove a false hope too as the Remainers sell that out for their EU dictated trade deal.
Sovereignty is pretty illusory gain too given the fact that May has capitulated on diverging from EU regulations.
Every comment you make shows you don’t have any understanding of why individual Leave voters voted as they did.
All in all, your comment doesn’t have a lot going for it.
Macron simply wants French access to British waters much as British fleets have access to French waters but of course that is a matter for the final trade agreement until then the Withdrawal Agreement applies and of course by definition the Withdrawal Agreement ends free movement, only staying in the single market or remaining in the EU would see free movement required. In any case fishing is only really the main Brexit concern for fishermen who make up a tiny fraction of the population.
Every comment you make shows you to be prepared to near destroy the economy and break up the UK to get your ideologically pure version of Brexit at all costs, including No Deal. The average voter however is prepared to accept the Deal as a sensible compromise
If you are part of a team you should aim for win-win solutions not try to be the winner.
Dear God. We were being screwed over big time. The rebate meant we were being screwed over a bit less big time. That’s all.
Really? So Edward Heath negotiated a deal that was unacceptable. Harold Wilson renegotiated and still got a deal that was unacceptable. But Thatcher succeeded where they had failed? And you don't think that was all contrived spin?
No, just that the EU were squeezing every penny out of us that they could. Of course the other countries would be reluctant to change the arrangement, they paid a lot less than they should have.
Oh it's all so unfair!
It’s not unfair
They were acting in their own interests (more money from the U.K.). Thatcher protested and got a partial rebate, tilting the balance back towards us even though we were still a substantial net payor
Blair gave some of that rebate back for political advantages which proven ephemeral (although the cash was pocketed).
None of that is unfair and none of that is embarrassing. It’s the way grown up countries do business
Occasionally, some of the Remainers on here reveal true colours that are extraordinary and troubling. Being ashamed of the rebate, and preferring that billions of pounds less money had come back into British coffers, just so the outcome would have spared the EECs blushes, is one such opinion.
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Once Norway+ and EUref2 are defeated in the Commons the Deal has a much better chance of passing as it is the only alternative to No Deal
With no campaign and unrelenting Project Fear against no deal for 2 years, only the extremeky gullible would believe that kind of poll finding would translate into an actual result.
The Deal is the only sustainable Brexit on the table as most voters ultimately realise. A narrow 52% to 48% Leave referendum win was never a mandate for No Deal
52:48 certainly wasn’t a mandate to Remain in tric Remainers.
Fishing control can be regained under any form of Brexit
Macron has already shown that being out of the CFP will not benefit Britain if the muppets who negotiated the WA actually want a trade deal. Reducing immigration is likely to prove a false hope too as the Remainers sell that out for their EU dictated trade deal.
Sovereignty is pretty illusory gain too given the fact that May has capitulated on diverging from EU regulations.
Every comment you make shows you don’t have any understanding of why individual Leave voters voted as they did.
All in all, your comment doesn’t have a lot going for it.
Macron simply wants French access to British waters much as British fleets have access to French waters but of course that is a matter for the final trade agreement until then the Withdrawal Agreement applies and of course by definition the Withdrawal Agreement ends free movement, only staying in the single market or remaining in the EU would see free movement required. In any case fishing is only really the main Brexit concern for fishermen who make up a tiny fraction of the population.
Every comment you make shows you to be prepared to near destroy the economy and break up the UK to get your ideologically pure version of Brexit at all costs, including No Deal. The average voter however is prepared to accept the Deal as a sensible compromise
May has capitulated on every issue thus far. No reason to suppose that will change.
I simply don’t believe the Treasury forecasts are credible. Osborne’s weren’t and Hammond has spent the last 2 years trying to thwart Brexit and is a clueless Chancellor so his won’t be either.
As an example, the demonisation of saturated fat has in my opinion been a disaster for Western health, and it affects poor people the most, because they're more likely to use a disgusting margerine that has more in common with a plastic than a food, as opposed to butter.
Is that the same way that demonisation of alcohol is encouraging people drink water that has more in common with hydrogen peroxide?
If there is a second referendum, will it help the Leave vote if the official government position is to support Leave and to issue every household with a leaflet explaining why Leave is the right course to take?
If there is a second referendum, will it help the Leave vote if the official government position is to support Leave and to issue every household with a leaflet explaining why Leave is the right course to take?
If there is a second referendum, will it help the Leave vote if the official government position is to support Leave and to issue every household with a leaflet explaining why Leave is the right course to take?
Like official Gov position was to support Remain benefitted Remain in the first one ?
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Once Norway+ and EUref2 are defeated in the Commons the Deal has a much better chance of passing as it is the only alternative to No Deal
With no campaign and unrelenting Project Fear against no deal for 2 years, only the extremeky gullible would believe that kind of poll finding would translate into an actual result.
The Deal is the only sustainable Brexit on the table as most voters ultimately realise. A narrow 52% to 48% Leave referendum win was never a mandate for No Deal
52:48 certainly wasn’t a mandate to Remain in tric Remainers.
Fishing control can be regained under any form of Brexit
Macron has already shown that being out of the CFP will not benefit Britain if the muppets who negotiated the WA actually want a trade deal. Reducing immigration is likely to prove a false hope too as the Remainers sell that out for their EU dictated trade deal.
Sovereignty is pretty illusory gain too given the fact that May has capitulated on diverging from EU regulations.
Every comment you make shows you don’t have any understanding of why individual Leave voters voted as they did.
All in all, your comment doesn’t have a lot going for it.
Macron simply wants French access to British waters much as British fleets have access to French waters but of course that is a matter for the final trade agreement until then the Withdrawal Agreement applies and of course by definition the Withdrawal Agreement ends free movement, only staying in the single market or remaining in the EU would see free movement required. In any case fishing is only really the main Brexit concern for fishermen who make up a tiny fraction of the population.
Every comment you make shows you to be prepared to near destroy the economy and break up the UK to get your ideologically pure version of Brexit at all costs, including No Deal. The average voter however is prepared to accept the Deal as a sensible compromise
May has capitulated on every issue thus far. No reason to suppose that will change.
I simply don’t believe the Treasury forecasts are credible. Osborne’s weren’t and Hammond has spent the last 2 years trying to thwart Brexit and is a clueless Chancellor so his won’t be either.
A very nice balanced comment. You can always trust PB not to be one sided!
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Once Norway+ and EUref2 are defeated in the Commons the Deal has a much better chance of passing as it is the only alternative to No Deal
With no campaign and unrelenting Project Fear against no deal for 2 years, only the extremeky gullible would believe that kind of poll finding would translate into an actual result.
The Deal is the only sustainable Brexit on the table as most voters ultimately realise. A narrow 52% to 48% Leave referendum win was never a mandate for No Deal
52:48 certainly wasn’t a mandate to Remain in tric Remainers.
Fishing control can be regained under any form of Brexit
Macron has already shown that being out of the CFP will not benefit Britain if the muppets who negotiated the WA actually want a trade deal. Reducing immigration is likely to prove a false hope too as the Remainers sell that out for their EU dictated trade deal.
Sovereignty is pretty illusory gain too given the fact that May has capitulated on diverging from EU regulations.
Every comment you make shows you don’t have any understanding of why individual Leave voters voted as they did.
All in all, your comment doesn’t have a lot going for it.
Macron simply wants French access to British waters much as British fleets have access to French waters but of course that is a matter for the final trade agreement until then the Withdrawal Agreement applies and of course by definition the Withdrawal Agreement ends free movement, only staying in the single market or remaining in the EU would see free movement required. In any case fishing is only really the main Brexit concern for fishermen who make up a tiny fraction of the population.
Every comment you make shows you to be prepared to near destroy the economy and break up the UK to get your ideologically pure version of Brexit at all costs, including No Deal. The average voter however is prepared to accept the Deal as a sensible compromise
May has capitulated on every issue thus far. No reason to suppose that will change.
I simply don’t believe the Treasury forecasts are credible. Osborne’s weren’t and Hammond has spent the last 2 years trying to thwart Brexit and is a clueless Chancellor so his won’t be either.
A very nice balanced comment. You can always trust PB not to be one sided!
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Once Norway+ and EUref2 are defeated in the Commons the Deal has a much better chance of passing as it is the only alternative to No Deal
With no campaign and unrelenting Project Fear against no deal for 2 years, only the extremeky gullible would believe that kind of poll finding would translate into an actual result.
The Deal is the only sustainable Brexit on the table as most voters ultimately realise. A narrow 52% to 48% Leave referendum win was never a mandate for No Deal
52:48 certainly wasn’t a mandate to Remain in tric Remainers.
Fishing control can be regained under any form of Brexit
Macron has already shown that being out of the CFP will not benefit Britain if the muppets who negotiated the WA actually want a trade deal. Reducing immigration is likely to prove a false hope too as the Remainers sell that out for their EU dictated trade deal.
Sovereignty is pretty illusory gain too given the fact that May has capitulated on diverging from EU regulations.
Every comment you make shows you don’t have any understanding of why individual Leave voters voted as they did.
All in all, your comment doesn’t have a lot going for it.
Macron simply wants French access to British waters much as compromise
May has capitulated on every issue thus far. No reason to suppose that will change.
I simply don’t believe the Treasury forecasts are credible. Osborne’s weren’t and Hammond has spent the last 2 years trying to thwart Brexit and is a clueless Chancellor so his won’t be either.
May has left the EU and ended free movement ie stuck to the 2 key reasons Leave won while also trying to protect the economy by getting a Deal.
So far we are still in the EU, the Single Market and Customs Union even after the Leave vote, leaving the EU, the Single Market and Customs Union with no deal at all with our largest export market at the end of March is a rather different proposition
If there is a second referendum, will it help the Leave vote if the official government position is to support Leave and to issue every household with a leaflet explaining why Leave is the right course to take?
No. Having the government onside is a significant handicap.
I'd like to see some proper taxation of food in order to get people to consume less, something like a flat 1p tax per 10kcals, plus 1p per gramme of sugar (with fruit, veg, milk, and uncooked chicken/turkey excluded)
On the flip side introduce an additional £850 (all eligible) child benefit, and a shifting of the tax bands so that everyone in work will pay £850 less in tax per year (or instead ideally just a £850/year universal income). For someone who eats (broadly) the correct amount of food (2000 odd kcals per day, 30g of sugar) they'll be more or less unaffected, while those who over indulge will be strongly penalised.
A 200g bar of dairy milk goes from £2 to £4.18, B&Jerry's cookie dough tub from £4.50 to £6.70, a bagel from 32p to 60p.
We need to do something radical to sustain good quality free healthcare, the UK doesn't need a nudge, but a kick up the a*se.
Taxing food to sustain free healthcare makes no sense because we all eat. You might as well charge for healthcare so that those it use most, pay most.
Better to tackle the symptoms than the cause, and those who consume responsibly (averaged over the course of a year) will be basically unaffected (+-£100), while those who consume far too much will be penalised. Co-incidentally those who consume far too much also consume the most healthcare resources, plus this way we don't penalise those with conditions that they had no part in getting (e.g. T1 Diabetes, epilepsy etc).
£850 is the amount of tax 2000kcals, 30g of sugar per day would approximately come out to over the course of a year.
The logic of what you are saying is that those who eat the healthiest are actually the healthiest and will therefore use the health service less. The effect is therefore the same without the danger that Gov will use tax on food for other purposes.
People who eat healthily don’t live longer... it just seems that way
H/t Clement Freud
What a load of rot! Eating healthily just means not eating tasteless, fat-laced, over-sugared calorific junk, but I am not going to waste my time talking you out of it. The more junk you eat then it means more fresh, tasty and nutritious stuff for me
I live on chicken, salmon, steamed vegetables...and chocolate cake...
If it weren't for the chocolate that could be one of those premium dog foods...
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Once Norway+ and EUref2 are defeated in the Commons the Deal has a much better chance of passing as it is the only alternative to No Deal
With no campaign and unrelenting Project Fear against no deal for 2 years, only the extremeky gullible would believe that kind of poll finding would translate into an actual result.
The Deal is the only sustainable Brexit on the table as most voters ultimately realise. A narrow 52% to 48% Leave referendum win was never a mandate for No Deal
52:48 certainly wasn’t a mandate to Remain in tric Remainers.
Fishing control can be regained under any form of Brexit
Sovereignty is pretty illusory gain too given the fact that May has capitulated on diverging from EU regulations.
Every comment you make shows you don’t have any understanding of why individual Leave voters voted as they did.
All in all, your comment doesn’t have a lot going for it.
Macron simply wants French access to British waters much as compromise
May has capitulated on every issue thus far. No reason to suppose that will change.
I simply don’t believe the Treasury forecasts are credible. Osborne’s weren’t and Hammond has spent the last 2 years trying to thwart Brexit and is a clueless Chancellor so his won’t be either.
May has left the EU and ended free movement ie stuck to the 2 key reasons Leave won while also trying to protect the economy by getting a Deal.
So far we are still in the EU, the Single Market and Customs Union even after the Leave vote, leaving the EU, the Single Market and Customs Union with no deal at all with our largest export market at the end of March is a rather different proposition
Your sychophancy knows no bounds. Freedom of movement might not end at all by the time the trade deal, if there is one, is negotiated. It certainly won’t end during the transition period which follows if the WA is ever signed.
Leaving the EU means nothing if we are still bound by it’s trade regs, the ECJ and the issue of paying for trade is unresolved, all of which will be the case if the WA comes into effect.
Your second para is pure Project Fear. If it were otherwise, May wouldn’t have abandoned services which you conveniently overlook.
If there is a second referendum, will it help the Leave vote if the official government position is to support Leave and to issue every household with a leaflet explaining why Leave is the right course to take?
I think that unlikely. When May is asked whether she thinks Britain will benefit from Brexit, she always refuses to answer.
Great game of footy at the King Power, those betting on Puel out are not on a winner.
I'd like to see some proper taxation of food in order to get people to consume less, something like a flat 1p tax per 10kcals, plus 1p per gramme of sugar (with fruit, veg, milk, and uncooked chicken/turkey excluded)
On the flip side introduce an additional £850 (all eligible) child benefit, and a shifting of the tax bands so that everyone in work will pay £850 less in tax per year (or instead ideally just a £850/year universal income). For someone who eats (broadly) the correct amount of food (2000 odd kcals per day, 30g of sugar) they'll be more or less unaffected, while those who over indulge will be strongly penalised.
A 200g bar of dairy milk goes from £2 to £4.18, B&Jerry's cookie dough tub from £4.50 to £6.70, a bagel from 32p to 60p.
We need to do something radical to sustain good quality free healthcare, the UK doesn't need a nudge, but a kick up the a*se.
Taxing food to sustain free healthcare makes no sense because we all eat. You might as well charge for healthcare so that those it use most, pay most.
Better to tackle the symptoms than the cause, and those who consume responsibly (averaged over the course of a year) will be basically unaffected (+-£100), while those who consume far too much will be penalised. Co-incidentally those who consume far too much also consume the most healthcare resources, plus this way we don't penalise those with conditions that they had no part in getting (e.g. T1 Diabetes, epilepsy etc).
£850 is the amount of tax 2000kcals, 30g of sugar per day would approximately come out to over the course of a year.
The logic of what you are saying is that those who eat the healthiest are actually the healthiest and will therefore use the health service less. The effect is therefore the same without the danger that Gov will use tax on food for other purposes.
People who eat healthily don’t live longer... it just seems that way
H/t Clement Freud
What a load of rot! Eating healthily just means not eating tasteless, fat-laced, over-sugared calorific junk, but I am not going to waste my time talking you out of it. The more junk you eat then it means more fresh, tasty and nutritious stuff for me
I live on chicken, salmon, steamed vegetables...and chocolate cake...
If it weren't for the chocolate that could be one of those premium dog foods...
In my experience dogs like chocolate cake as much as anything.
Chocolate cake flavoured dog food containing chicken, salmon and steamed vegetables could be a marketing winner.
As an example, the demonisation of saturated fat has in my opinion been a disaster for Western health, and it affects poor people the most, because they're more likely to use a disgusting margerine that has more in common with a plastic than a food, as opposed to butter.
Is that the same way that demonisation of alcohol is encouraging people drink water that has more in common with hydrogen peroxide?
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Once Norway+ and EUref2 are defeated in the Commons the Deal has a much better chance of passing as it is the only alternative to No Deal
With no campaign and unrelenting Project Fear against no deal for 2 years, only the extremeky gullible would believe that kind of poll finding would translate into an actual result.
The Deal is theate for No Deal
52:48 certainly wasn’t a mandate to Remain in tric Remainers.
Fishing control can be regained under any form of Brexit
Sovereignty is pretty illusory gain too given tha lot going for it.
Macron simply wants French access to British waters much as compromise
May has capitulated on every issue thus far. No reason to suppose that will change.
I simply don’t believe the Treasury forecasts are credible. Osborne’s weren’t and Hammond has spent the last 2 years trying to thwart Brexit and is a clueless Chancellor so his won’t be either.
May has left the EU and ended free movement ie stuck to the 2 roposition
Your sychophancy knows no bounds. Freedom of movement might not end at all by the time the trade deal, if there is one, is negotiated. It certainly won’t end ook.
Free movement will end as part of the trade agreement by definition unless we rejoin the single market or remain in the EU there can be no requirement for free movement.
Leaving the EU for most voters is just that and ending free movement, nothing more, for diehards like you of course it means ending all ties and going to No Deal if necessary no matter the economic cost or the risk of Scotland voting for independent and Northern Ireland for a United Ireland.
It is manufacturing and agriculture which most need a Deal with the EU to protect exports and supplies, services will still be protected by regulatory equivalence where required e.g. the adoption of GDPR
Pork has been cheap since Putin stopped importing EU food in the tit for tat sanctions. The EU was left with a lot of supply with no market, the same with milk, the EU has large supplies of powdered milk built up over the same period.
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Once Norway+ and EUref2 are defeated in the Commons the Deal has a much better chance of passing as it is the only alternative to No Deal
With no campaign and unrelenting Project Fear against no deal for 2 years, only the extremeky gullible would believe that kind of poll finding would translate into an actual result.
The Deal is theate for No Deal
52:48 certainly wasn’t a mandate to Remain in tric Remainers.
Fishing control can be regained under any form of Brexit
Sovereignty is pretty illusory gain too given tha lot going for it.
Macron simply wants French access to British waters much as compromise
May has left the EU and ended free movement ie stuck to the 2 roposition
Your sychophancy knows no bounds. Freedom of movement might not end at all by the time the trade deal, if there is one, is negotiated. It certainly won’t end ook.
Free movement will end as part of the trade agreement by definition unless we rejoin the single market or remain in the EU there can be no requirement for free movement.
Leaving the EU for most voters is just that and ending free movement, nothing more, for diehards like you of course it means ending all ties and going to No Deal if necessary no matter the economic cost or the risk of Scotland voting for independent and Northern Ireland for a United Ireland.
It is manufacturing and agriculture which most need a Deal with the EU to protect expprts and supplies, services will still be protected by regulatory equivalence where required e.g. the adoption of GDPR
No requirement doesn’t mean we won’t grant it during the negotiations for some mythical benefit to save May’s face.
Ending FOM was by no means the only reason people voted Leave. That false belief is why Remainers have constructed a draft WA that most Leavers loathe and want nothing to do with.
Regulatory equivalence is a sick joke. All exporters have to comply with the trade reg’s on the country to whom they export. They don’t have to regulate their domestic economies the same way though.
GDPR is a totally meaningless and pointless piece of legislation that is EU bureaucracy at its worst.
I'd like to see some proper taxation of food in order to get people to consume less, something like a flat 1p tax per 10kcals, plus 1p per gramme of sugar (with fruit, veg, milk, and uncooked chicken/turkey excluded)
On the flip side introduce an additional £850 (all eligible) child benefit, and a shifting of the tax bands so that everyone in work will pay £850 less in tax per year (or instead ideally just a £850/year universal income). For someone who eats (broadly) the correct amount of food (2000 odd kcals per day, 30g of sugar) they'll be more or less unaffected, while those who over indulge will be strongly penalised.
A 200g bar of dairy milk goes from £2 to £4.18, B&Jerry's cookie dough tub from £4.50 to £6.70, a bagel from 32p to 60p.
We need to do something radical to sustain good quality free healthcare, the UK doesn't need a nudge, but a kick up the a*se.
Taxing food to sustain free healthcare makes no sense because we all eat. You might as well charge for healthcare so that those it use most, pay most.
Better to tackle the symptoms than the cause, and those who consume responsibly (averaged over ting (e.g. T1 Diabetes, epilepsy etc).
£850 is the amount of tax 2000kcals, 30g of sugar per day would approximately come out to over the course of a year.
The logic of what you are saying is that those who eat the healthiest are actually the healthiest and will therefore use the health service less. The effect is therefore the same without the danger that Gov will use tax on food for other purposes.
People who eat healthily don’t live longer... it just seems that way
H/t Clement Freud
What a load of rot! Eating healthily just means not eating tasteless, fat-laced, over-sugared calorific junk, but I am not going to waste my time talking you out of it. The more junk you eat then it means more fresh, tasty and nutritious stuff for me
I live on chicken, salmon, steamed vegetables...and chocolate cake...
If it weren't for the chocolate that could be one of those premium dog foods...
In my experience dogs like chocolate cake as much as anything.
Chocolate cake flavoured dog food containing chicken, salmon and steamed vegetables could be a marketing winner.
Except that chocolate is not safe for dogs; 85g of dark chocolate eaten by a 10kg dog has a 50:50 chance of leading to death.
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Once Norway+ and EUref2 are defeated in the Commons the Deal has a much better chance of passing as it is the only alternative to No Deal
With no campaign and unrelenting Project Fear against no deal for 2 years, only the extremeky gullible would believe that kind of poll finding would translate into an actual result.
The Deal is theate for No Deal
52:48 certainly wasn’t a mandate to Remain in tric Remainers.
Fishing control can be regained under any form of Brexit
Sovereignty is pretty illusory gain too given tha lot going for it.
Macron simply wants French access to British waters much as compromise
May has left the EU and ended free movement ie stuck to the 2 roposition
Your sychophancy knows no bounds. Freedom of movement might not end at all by the time the trade deal, if there is one, is negotiated. It certainly won’t end ook.
Free movement will end as part of the trad by regulatory equivalence where required e.g. the adoption of GDPR
No requirement doesn’t mean we won’t grant it during the negotiations for some mythical benefit to save May’s face.
Ending FOM was by no means the only reason people voted Leave. That false belief is why Remainers have constructed a draft WA that most Leavers loathe and want nothing to do with.
Regulatory equivalence is a sick joke. All exporters have to comply with the trade reg’s on the country to whom they export. They don’t have to regulate their domestic economies the same way though.
GDPR is a totally meaningless and pointless piece of legislation that is EU bureaucracy at its worst.
Wrong. May has been adamant the one thing she will not compromise on is ending free movement and the EU have also been quite clear free movement is only required if we wish to stay in the single market.
Ending FOM was pivotal to Leave getting out working class Leavers and getting over 50% of the vote, just.
Regulatory equivalence will ease the barriers for services much as May's Deal avoids the threat of heavy barriers and tariffs for UK manufacturing and agricultural exporters unlike a damaging No Deal
I don't see anything wrong with Schengen and the Euro. But I don't think the EU would insist on them.
They've said explicitly that if we cancelled A50 they wouldn't require any changes at all. Whether that would apply if we left and then wanted to rejoin is a slightly different question. I think they would want some signs of long-term commitment (joining the Euro would be a good one) - the idea of having us back but then constantly threatening to leave again would lack appeal.
If you are part of a team you should aim for win-win solutions not try to be the winner.
Dear God. We were being screwed over big time. The rebate meant we were being screwed over a bit less big time. That’s all.
Really? So Edward Heath negotiated a deal that was unacceptable. Harold Wilson renegotiated and still got a deal that was unacceptable. But Thatcher succeeded where they had failed? And you don't think that was all contrived spin?
No, just that the EU were squeezing every penny out of us that they could. Of course the other countries would be reluctant to change the arrangement, they paid a lot less than they should have.
Oh it's all so unfair!
It’s not unfair
They were acting in their own interests (more money from the U.K.). Thatcher protested and got a partial rebate, tilting the balance back towards us even though we were still a substantial net payor
Blair gave some of that rebate back for political advantages which proven ephemeral (although the cash was pocketed).
None of that is unfair and none of that is embarrassing. It’s the way grown up countries do business
Occasionally, some of the Remainers on here reveal true colours that are extraordinary and troubling. Being ashamed of the rebate, and preferring that billions of pounds less money had come back into British coffers, just so the outcome would have spared the EECs blushes, is one such opinion.
There would be more money in British coffers if we had adopted a more positive approach to the EU project than that which was exemplified by the contrived row over the so-called rebate. It was sadly typical of the hamfistedness of the Thatcher regime which made something of a speciality of coffer emptying.
I don't see anything wrong with Schengen and the Euro. But I don't think the EU would insist on them.
They've said explicitly that if we cancelled A50 they wouldn't require any changes at all. Whether that would apply if we left and then wanted to rejoin is a slightly different question. I think they would want some signs of long-term commitment (joining the Euro would be a good one) - the idea of having us back but then constantly threatening to leave again would lack appeal.
If you are part of a team you should aim for win-win solutions not try to be the winner.
Dear God. We were being screwed over big time. The rebate meant we were being screwed over a bit less big time. That’s all.
Really? So Edward Heath negotiated a deal that was unacceptable. Harold Wilson renegotiated and still got a deal that was unacceptable. But Thatcher succeeded where they had failed? And you don't think that was all contrived spin?
No, just that the EU were squeezing every penny out of us that they could. Of course the other countries would be reluctant to change the arrangement, they paid a lot less than they should have.
Oh it's all so unfair!
It’s not unfair
They were acting in their own interests (more money from the U.K.). Thatcher protested and got a partial rebate, tilting the balance back towards us even though we were still a substantial net payor
Blair gave some of that rebate back for political advantages which proven ephemeral (although the cash was pocketed).
None of that is unfair and none of that is embarrassing. It’s the way grown up countries do business
Occasionally, some of the Remainers on here reveal true colours that are extraordinary and troubling. Being ashamed of the rebate, and preferring that billions of pounds less money had come back into British coffers, just so the outcome would have spared the EECs blushes, is one such opinion.
There would be more money in British coffers if we had adopted a more positive approach to the EU project than that which was exemplified by the contrived row over the so-called rebate.
Mr. Ace, alcohol duty has certainly led to the absence of drunkenness in the UK.
You can't regulate a lifestyle into people.
Of course governments can and do. Drink driving used to be common and socially acceptable.
If people are ashamed of their behaviour, then governments can regulate it. Smoking bans in public places can either be very successful (if smokers are ashamed of their behaviour) or completely ineffectual (if they aren't ).
The fox hunting ban is an example of an effort to change behaviour that failed, because hunters feel no shame about hunting.
Most paedophiles probably feel little shame and quite happily carry on with their behaviour- that is until they get caught and low and behold they start feeling very sorry for what they have done, surprise, surprise.
But to the vast majority of the population fox hunting is disgusting.
Lots of people find fox hunting disgusting, but that makes no difference to hunters, because they consider their behaviour morally correct.
There would be more money in British coffers if we had adopted a more positive approach to the EU project than that which was exemplified by the contrived row over the so-called rebate. It was sadly typical of the hamfistedness of the Thatcher regime which made something of a speciality of coffer emptying.
By abandoning the rebate we’d have had more money? Well, it’s a view.
If you are part of a team you should aim for win-win solutions not try to be the winner.
Dear God. We were being screwed over big time. The rebate meant we were being screwed over a bit less big time. That’s all.
Really? So Edward Heath negotiated a deal that was unacceptable. Harold Wilson renegotiated and still got a deal that was unacceptable. But Thatcher succeeded where they had failed? And you don't think that was all contrived spin?
No, just that the EU were squeezing every penny out of us that they could. Of course the other countries would be reluctant to change the arrangement, they paid a lot less than they should have.
Oh it's all so unfair!
It’s not unfair
They were acting in their own interests (more money from the U.K.). Thatcher protested and got a partial rebate, tilting the balance back towards us even though we were still a substantial net payor
Blair gave some of that rebate back for political advantages which proven ephemeral (although the cash was pocketed).
None of that is unfair and none of that is embarrassing. It’s the way grown up countries do business
Occasionally, some of the Remainers on here reveal true colours that are extraordinary and troubling. Being ashamed of the rebate, and preferring that billions of pounds less money had come back into British coffers, just so the outcome would have spared the EECs blushes, is one such opinion.
There would be more money in British coffers if we had adopted a more positive approach to the EU project than that which was exemplified by the contrived row over the so-called rebate.
How so?
Because you always get more out of a relationship by putting work in and building it than you do by hectoring and negativity.
If you are part of a team you should aim for win-win solutions not try to be the winner.
Dear God. We were being screwed over big time. The rebate meant we were being screwed over a bit less big time. That’s all.
Really? So Edward Heath negotiated a deal that was unacceptable. Harold Wilson renegotiated and still got a deal that was unacceptable. But Thatcher succeeded where they had failed? And you don't think that was all contrived spin?
No, just that the EU were squeezing every penny out of us that they could. Of course the other countries would be reluctant to change the arrangement, they paid a lot less than they should have.
Oh it's all so unfair!
It’s not unfair
They were acting in their own interests (more money from the U.K.). Thatcher protested and got a partial rebate, tilting the balance back towards us even though we were still a substantial net payor
Blair gave some of that rebate back for political advantages which proven ephemeral (although the cash was pocketed).
None of that is unfair and none of that is embarrassing. It’s the way grown up countries do business
Occasionally, some of the Remainers on here reveal true colours that are extraordinary and troubling. Being ashamed of the rebate, and preferring that billions of pounds less money had come back into British coffers, just so the outcome would have spared the EECs blushes, is one such opinion.
There would be more money in British coffers if we had adopted a more positive approach to the EU project than that which was exemplified by the contrived row over the so-called rebate.
How so?
Because you always get more out of a relationship by putting work in and building it than you do by hectoring and negativity.
The French would have certainly got more out of it.
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Once Norway+ and EUref2 are defeated in the Commons the Deal has a much better chance of passing as it is the only alternative to No Deal
With no campaign and unrelenting Project Fear against no deal for 2 years, only the extremeky gullible would believe that kind of poll finding would translate into an actual result.
The Deal is theate for No Deal
52:48 certainly wasn’t a mandate to Remain in tric Remainers.
Fishing control can be regained under any form of Brexit
Sovereignty is pretty illusory gain too given tha lot going for it.
Your sychophancy knows no bounds. Freedom of movement might not end at all by the time the trade deal, if there is one, is negotiated. It certainly won’t end ook.
Free movement will end as part of the trad by regulatory equivalence where required e.g. the adoption of GDPR
Regulatory equivalence is a sick joke. All exporters have to comply with the trade reg’s on the country to whom they export. They don’t have to regulate their domestic economies the same way though.
GDPR is a totally meaningless and pointless piece of legislation that is EU bureaucracy at its worst.
Wrong. May has been adamant the one thing she will not compromise on is ending free movement and the EU have also been quite clear free movement is only required if we wish to stay in the single market.
Ending FOM was pivotal to Leave getting out working class Leavers and getting over 50% of the vote, just.
Regulatory equivalence will ease the barriers for services much as May's Deal avoids the threat of heavy barriers and tariffs for UK manufacturing and agricultural exporters unlike a damaging No Deal
LOL. May has been adamant has she ! The same way she adamantly defended her red lines during the WA. It would be hilarious if it weren’t such a sad inditement on the incompetency of our Gov and civil service.
You clearly have a closed mind when it comes to FOM and regulatory equivalence. Repeating the same arguments adds nothing and knocking my head against a brick wall is not something I choose to engage in even you find it worth your while.
There would be more money in British coffers if we had adopted a more positive approach to the EU project than that which was exemplified by the contrived row over the so-called rebate. It was sadly typical of the hamfistedness of the Thatcher regime which made something of a speciality of coffer emptying.
That is just laughable rubbish. At no time were the EU ever willing to change in a way that would have suited the UK and nor did we have any right to ask that of them. As for Thatcher she helped turn a failing industrial wasteland of a country into a dynamic economy that manged to maintain our position in the world in spite of the growth of cheap labour economies of the Far East.
It is only the irredeemable socialist lunatics and Eurofanatics who still think like you.
If you are part of a team you should aim for win-win solutions not try to be the winner.
Dear God. We were being screwed over big time. The rebate meant we were being screwed over a bit less big time. That’s all.
R?
N.
Oh it's all so unfair!
It’s not unfair
They were acting in their own interests (more money from the U.K.). Thatcher protested and got a partial rebate, tilting the balance back towards us even though we were still a substantial net payor
Blair gave some of that rebate back for political advantages which proven ephemeral (although the cash was pocketed).
None of that is unfair and none of that is embarrassing. It’s the way grown up countries do business
Occasionally, some of the Remainers on here reveal true colours that are extraordinary and troubling. Being ashamed of the rebate, and preferring that billions of pounds less money had come back into British coffers, just so the outcome would have spared the EECs blushes, is one such opinion.
There would be more money in British coffers if we had adopted a more positive approach to the EU project than that which was exemplified by the contrived row over the so-called rebate.
How so?
Because you always get more out of a relationship by putting work in and building it than you do by hectoring and negativity.
The French would have certainly got more out of it.
My point is that we'd both have got more out of it. And in fact once you get down below the top tier that is exactly what has happened. There are a lot of cross border co-operations facilitated by the EU that have benefitted partners on both sides. The bulk of the leave vote came from the economically inactive who presumably don't see this kind of thing in practice in the way that those of us who have to earn a living have to.
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Once Norway+ and EUref2 are defeated in the Commons the Deal has a much better chance of passing as it is the only alternative to No Deal
With no campaign and unrelenting Project Fear against no deal for 2 years, only the extremeky gullible would believe that kind of poll finding would translate into an actual result.
The Deal is theate for No Deal
52:48 certainly wasn’t a mandate to Remain in tric Remainers.
Fishing control can be regained under any form of Brexit
Sovereignty is pretty illusory gain too given tha lot going for it.
Macron simply wants French access to British waters much as compromise
May has left the EU and ended free movement ie stuck to the 2 roposition
Your sychophancy knows no bounds. Freedom of movement might not end at all by the time the trade deal, if there is one, is negotiated. It certainly won’t end ook.
Free movement will end as part of the trade agreement by definition unless we rejoin the single market or remain in the EU there can be no requirement for free movement.
Leaving the EU for most voters is just that and ending free movement, nothing more, for diehards like you of course it means ending all ties and going to No Deal if necessary no matter the economic cost or the risk of Scotland voting for independent and Northern Ireland for a United Ireland.
It is manufacturing and agriculture which most need a Deal with the EU to protect expprts and supplies, services will still be protected by regulatory equivalence where required e.g. the adoption of GDPR
GDPR is a totally meaningless and pointless piece of legislation that is EU bureaucracy at its worst.
So, post Brexit, do you anticipate that UK businesses will no longer have to comply with any data protection regulations, or will a home grown alternative being introduced? Or do you think that EU GDPR will remain the UK standard so as to facilitate a UK-EU FTA?
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Once Norway+ and EUref2 are defeated in the Commons the Deal has a much better chance of passing as it is the only alternative to No Deal
With no campaign and unrelenting Project Fear against no deal for 2 years, only the extremeky gullible would believe that kind of poll finding would translate into an actual result.
The Deal is theate for No Deal
52:48 certainly wasn’t a mandate to Remain in tric Remainers.
Fishing control can be regained under any form of Brexit
Sovereignty is pretty illusory gain too given tha lot going for it.
Your sychophancy knows no bounds. Freedom of movement might not end at all by the time the trade deal, if there is one, is negotiated. It certainly won’t end ook.
Free movement will end as part of the trad by regulatory equivalence where required e.g. the adoption of GDPR
Regulato worst.
Wrong. May has been adamant the one thing she will not compromise on is ending free movement and the EU have also been quite clear free movement is only required if we wish to stay in the single market.
Ending FOM was pivotal to Leave getting out working class Leavers and getting over 50% of the vote, just.
Regulatory equivalence will ease the barriers for services much as May's Deal avoids the threat of heavy barriers and tariffs for UK manufacturing and agricultural exporters unlike a damaging No Deal
LOL. May has been adamant has she ! The same way she adamantly defended her red lines during the WA. It would be hilarious if it weren’t such a sad inditement on the incompetency of our Gov and civil service.
You clearly have a closed mind when it comes to FOM and regulatory equivalence. Repeating the same arguments adds nothing and knocking my head against a brick wall is not something I choose to engage in even you find it worth your while.
May has defended her red lines, the WA leaves the EU and single market and ends free movement while enabling a trade deal with the EU.
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Once Norway+ and EUref2 are defeated in the Commons the Deal has a much better chance of passing as it is the only alternative to No Deal
With no campaign and unrelenting Project Fear against no deal for 2 years, only the extremeky gullible would believe that kind of poll finding would translate into an actual result.
The Deal is theate for No Deal
52:48 certainly wasn’t a mandate to Remain in tric Remainers.
Fishing control can be regained under any form of Brexit
Sovereignty is pretty illusory gain too given tha lot going for it.
Macron simply wants French access to British waters much as compromise
May has left the EU and ended free movement ie stuck to the 2 roposition
Your sychophancy knows no bounds. Freedom of movement might not end at all by the time the trade deal, if there is one, is negotiated. It certainly won’t end ook.
Free movement will end as part of the trade agreement by definition unless we rejoin the single market or remain in the EU there can be no requirement for free movement.
Leaving the EU for most voters is just that and ending free movement, nothing more, for diehards like you of course it means ending all ties and going to No Deal if necessary no matter the economic cost or the risk of Scotland voting for independent and Northern Ireland for a United Ireland.
It is manufacturing and agriculture which most need a Deal with the EU to protect expprts and supplies, services will still be protected by regulatory equivalence where required e.g. the adoption of GDPR
GDPR is a totally meaningless and pointless piece of legislation that is EU bureaucracy at its worst.
So, post Brexit, do you anticipate that UK businesses will no longer have to comply with any data protection regulations, or will a home grown alternative being introduced? Or do you think that EU GDPR will remain the UK standard so as to facilitate a UK-EU FTA?
It already is as DPA 2018 says it should be read in conjunction with GDPR
There would be more money in British coffers if we had adopted a more positive approach to the EU project than that which was exemplified by the contrived row over the so-called rebate. It was sadly typical of the hamfistedness of the Thatcher regime which made something of a speciality of coffer emptying.
That is just laughable rubbish. At no time were the EU ever willing to change in a way that would have suited the UK and nor did we have any right to ask that of them. As for Thatcher she helped turn a failing industrial wasteland of a country into a dynamic economy that manged to maintain our position in the world in spite of the growth of cheap labour economies of the Far East.
It is only the irredeemable socialist lunatics and Eurofanatics who still think like you.
The statistics from the Thatcher era tell a very different story from the fantasy peddled by partisan myth-makers. The reality is that she blew the North Sea Oil windfall on mass unemployment and tax cuts.
There would be more money in British coffers if we had adopted a more positive approach to the EU project than that which was exemplified by the contrived row over the so-called rebate. It was sadly typical of the hamfistedness of the Thatcher regime which made something of a speciality of coffer emptying.
That is just laughable rubbish. At no time were the EU ever willing to change in a way that would have suited the UK and nor did we have any right to ask that of them. As for Thatcher she helped turn a failing industrial wasteland of a country into a dynamic economy that manged to maintain our position in the world in spite of the growth of cheap labour economies of the Far East.
It is only the irredeemable socialist lunatics and Eurofanatics who still think like you.
The statistics from the Thatcher era tell a very different story from the fantasy peddled by partisan myth-makers. The reality is that she blew the North Sea Oil windfall on mass unemployment and tax cuts.
By 1990 there was not mass unemployment but a more competitive less nationalised and unionised economy and inflation also was down (albeit most of the latter work came from John Major)
There would be more money in British coffers if we had adopted a more positive approach to the EU project than that which was exemplified by the contrived row over the so-called rebate. It was sadly typical of the hamfistedness of the Thatcher regime which made something of a speciality of coffer emptying.
That is just laughable rubbish. At no time were the EU ever willing to change in a way that would have suited the UK and nor did we have any right to ask that of them. As for Thatcher she helped turn a failing industrial wasteland of a country into a dynamic economy that manged to maintain our position in the world in spite of the growth of cheap labour economies of the Far East.
It is only the irredeemable socialist lunatics and Eurofanatics who still think like you.
The statistics from the Thatcher era tell a very different story from the fantasy peddled by partisan myth-makers. The reality is that she blew the North Sea Oil windfall on mass unemployment and tax cuts.
By 1990 there was not mass unemployment but a more competitive less nationalised and unionised economy and inflation also was down (albeit most of the latter work came from John Major)
My point is that we'd both have got more out of it. And in fact once you get down below the top tier that is exactly what has happened. There are a lot of cross border co-operations facilitated by the EU that have benefitted partners on both sides. The bulk of the leave vote came from the economically inactive who presumably don't see this kind of thing in practice in the way that those of us who have to earn a living have to.
All of this is utter nonsense, designed to distract from the fact that you would prefer that this country had not benefitted from a rebate, all because, though obtained legally and politely, it was seen as a national victory against your precious project.
I'd like to see some proper taxation of food in order to get people to consume less, something like a flat 1p tax per 10kcals, plus 1p per gramme of sugar (with fruit, veg, milk, and uncooked chicken/turkey excludedA 200g bar of dairy milk goes from £2 to £4.18, B&Jerry's cookie dough tub from £4.50 to £6.70, a bagel from 32p to 60p.
We need to do something radical to sustain good quality free healthcare, the UK doesn't need a nudge, but a kick up the a*se.
Taxing food to sustain free healthcare makes no sense because we all eat. You might as well charge for healthcare so that those it use most, pay most.
Better to tackle the symptoms than the cause, and those who consume responsibly (averaged over the course of a year) will be basically unaffected (+-£100), while those who consume far too much will be penalised. Co-incidentally those who consume far too much also consume the most healthcare resources, plus this way we don't penalise those with conditions that they had no part in getting (e.g. T1 Diabetes, epilepsy etc).
£850 is the amount of tax 2000kcals, 30g of sugar per day would approximately come out to over the course of a year.
The logic of what you are saying is that those who eat the healthiest are actually the healthiest and will therefore use the health service less. The effect is therefore the same without the danger that Gov will use tax on food for other purposes.
People who eat healthily don’t live longer... it just seems that way
H/t Clement Freud
What a load of rot! Eating healthily just means not eating tasteless, fat-laced, over-sugared calorific junk, but I am not going to waste my time talking you out of it. The more junk you eat then it means more fresh, tasty and nutritious stuff for me
I live on chicken, salmon, steamed vegetables...and chocolate cake...
You should give up the chocolate cake - it is the sort of tasty, healthy and nutritious food that you can send my way
It’s my great grandmother’s special recipe
A pound of drinking chocolate, a tin of golden syrup and crushed biscuits... mix it up and put a heavy weight on it for 48 hours then ice...
There would be more money in British coffers if we had adopted a more positive approach to the EU project than that which was exemplified by the contrived row over the so-called rebate. It was sadly typical of the hamfistedness of the Thatcher regime which made something of a speciality of coffer emptying.
That is just laughable rubbish. At no time were the EU ever willing to change in a way that would have suited the UK and nor did we have any right to ask that of them. As for Thatcher she helped turn a failing industrial wasteland of a country into a dynamic economy that manged to maintain our position in the world in spite of the growth of cheap labour economies of the Far East.
It is only the irredeemable socialist lunatics and Eurofanatics who still think like you.
The statistics from the Thatcher era tell a very different story from the fantasy peddled by partisan myth-makers. The reality is that she blew the North Sea Oil windfall on mass unemployment and tax cuts.
By 1990 there was not mass unemployment but a more competitive less nationalised and unionised economy and inflation also was down (albeit most of the latter work came from John Major)
To its credit, the Thatcher government did something of a u-turn after the huge demand cut of Geoffrey Howe's disastrous 1981 budget. By that time even economists had realised things were going wrong and were writing letters to newspapers pointing it out.
I'd like to see some proper taxation of food in order to get people to consume less, something like a flat 1p tax per 10kcals, plus 1p per gramme of sugar (with fruit, veg, milk, and uncooked chicken/turkey excluded)
On the flip side introduce an additional £850 (all eligible) child benefit, and a shifting of the tax bands so that everyone in work will pay £850 less in tax per year (or instead ideally just a £850/year universal income). For someone who eats (broadly) the correct amount of food (2000 odd kcals per day, 30g of sugar) they'll be more or less unaffected, while those who over indulge will be strongly penalised.
A 200g bar of dairy milk goes from £2 to £4.18, B&Jerry's cookie dough tub from £4.50 to £6.70, a bagel from 32p to 60p.
We need to do something radical to sustain good quality free healthcare, the UK doesn't need a nudge, but a kick up the a*se.
Taxing food to sustain free healthcare makes no sense because we all eat. You might as well charge for healthcare so that those it use most, pay most.
Better to tackle the symptoms than the cause, and those who consume responsibly (averaged over the course of a year) will be basically unaffected (+-£100), while those who consume far too much will be penalised. Co-incidentally those who consume far too much also consume the most healthcare resources, plus this way we don't penalise those with conditions that they had no part in getting (e.g. T1 Diabetes, epilepsy etc).
£850 is the amount of tax 2000kcals, 30g of sugar per day would approximately come out to over the course of a year.
The logic of what you are saying is that those who eat the healthiest are actually the healthiest and will therefore use the health service less. The effect is therefore the same without the danger that Gov will use tax on food for other purposes.
People who eat healthily don’t live longer... it just seems that way
H/t Clement Freud
What a load of rot! Eating healthily just means not eating tasteless, fat-laced, over-sugared calorific junk, but I am not going to waste my time talking you out of it. The more junk you eat then it means more fresh, tasty and nutritious stuff for me
I live on chicken, salmon, steamed vegetables...and chocolate cake...
If it weren't for the chocolate that could be one of those premium dog foods...
There are higher manufacturing standards for dog food than human food..,
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Once Norway+ and EUref2 are defeated in the Commons the Deal has a much better chance of passing as it is the only alternative to No Deal
With no campaign and unrelenting Project Fear against no deal for 2 years, only the extremeky gullible would believe that kind of poll finding would translate into an actual result.
The Deal is theate for No Deal
52:48 certainly wasn’t a mandate to Remain in tric Remainers.
Fishing control can be regained under any form of Brexit
Sovereignty is pretty illusory gain too given tha lot going for it.
Your sychophancy knows no bounds. Freedom of movement might not end at all by the time the trade deal, if there is one, is negotiated. It certainly won’t end ook.
Free movement will end as part of the trad by regulatory equivalence where required e.g. the adoption of GDPR
Regulato worst.
Wrong. May has been adamant the one thing she will not compromise on is ending free movement and the EU have also been quite clear free movement is only required if we wish to stay in the single market.
Ending FOM was pivotal to Leave getting out working class Leavers and getting over 50% of the vote, just.
Regulatory equivalence will ease the barriers for services much as May's Deal avoids the threat of heavy barriers and tariffs for UK manufacturing and agricultural exporters unlike a damaging No Deal
LOL. May has been adamant has she ! The same way she adamantly defended her red lines during the WA. It would be hilarious if it weren’t such a sad inditement on the incompetency of our Gov and civil service.
You clearly have a closed mind when it comes to FOM and regulatory equivalence. Repeating the same arguments adds nothing and knocking my head against a brick wall is not something I choose to engage in even you find it worth your while.
May has defended her red lines, the WA leaves the EU and single market and ends free movement while enabling a trade deal with the EU.
I'd like to see some proper taxation of food in order to get people to consume less, something like a flat 1p tax per 10kcals, plus 1p per gramme of sugar (with fruit, veg, milk, and uncooked chicken/turkey excluded)
A 200g bar of dairy milk goes from £2 to £4.18, B&Jerry's cookie dough tub from £4.50 to £6.70, a bagel from 32p to 60p.
We need to do something radical to sustain good quality free healthcare, the UK doesn't need a nudge, but a kick up the a*se.
Taxing food to sustain free healthcare makes no sense because we all eat. You might as well charge for healthcare so that those it use most, pay most.
Better to tackle the symptoms than the cause, and those who consume responsibly (averaged over the course of a year) will be basically unaffected (+-£100), while those who consume far too much will be penalised. Co-incidentally those who consume far too much also consume the most healthcare resources, plus this way we don't penalise those with conditions that they had no part in getting (e.g. T1 Diabetes, epilepsy etc).
£850 is the amount of tax 2000kcals, 30g of sugar per day would approximately come out to over the course of a year.
The logic of what you are saying is that those who eat the healthiest are actually the healthiest and will therefore use the health service less. The effect is therefore the same without the danger that Gov will use tax on food for other purposes.
People who eat healthily don’t live longer... it just seems that way
H/t Clement Freud
What a load of rot! Eating healthily just means not eating tasteless, fat-laced, over-sugared calorific junk, but I am not going to waste my time talking you out of it. The more junk you eat then it means more fresh, tasty and nutritious stuff for me
I live on chicken, salmon, steamed vegetables...and chocolate cake...
If it weren't for the chocolate that could be one of those premium dog foods...
In my experience dogs like chocolate cake as much as anything.
Chocolate cake flavoured dog food containing chicken, salmon and steamed vegetables could be a marketing winner.
There would be more money in British coffers if we had adopted a more positive approach to the EU project than that which was exemplified by the contrived row over the so-called rebate. It was sadly typical of the hamfistedness of the Thatcher regime which made something of a speciality of coffer emptying.
That is just laughable rubbish. At no time were the EU ever willing to change in a way that would have suited the UK and nor did we have any right to ask that of them. As for Thatcher she helped turn a failing industrial wasteland of a country into a dynamic economy that manged to maintain our position in the world in spite of the growth of cheap labour economies of the Far East.
It is only the irredeemable socialist lunatics and Eurofanatics who still think like you.
The statistics from the Thatcher era tell a very different story from the fantasy peddled by partisan myth-makers. The reality is that she blew the North Sea Oil windfall on mass unemployment and tax cuts.
By 1990 there was not mass unemployment but a more competitive less nationalised and unionised economy and inflation also was down (albeit most of the latter work came from John Major)
To its credit, the Thatcher government did something of a u-turn after the huge demand cut of Geoffrey Howe's disastrous 1981 budget. By that time even economists had realised things were going wrong and were writing letters to newspapers pointing it out.
Well if you want statistics rather than a peddled fantasy the 1980-1981 recession ended immediately after Geoffrey's Howe's 1981 Budget:
There would be more money in British coffers if we had adopted a more positive approach to the EU project than that which was exemplified by the contrived row over the so-called rebate. It was sadly typical of the hamfistedness of the Thatcher regime which made something of a speciality of coffer emptying.
That is just laughable rubbish. At no time were the EU ever willing to change in a way that would have suited the UK and nor did we have any right to ask that of them. As for Thatcher she helped turn a failing industrial wasteland of a country into a dynamic economy that manged to maintain our position in the world in spite of the growth of cheap labour economies of the Far East.
It is only the irredeemable socialist lunatics and Eurofanatics who still think like you.
The statistics from the Thatcher era tell a very different story from the fantasy peddled by partisan myth-makers. The reality is that she blew the North Sea Oil windfall on mass unemployment and tax cuts.
By 1990 there was not mass unemployment but a more competitive less nationalised and unionised economy and inflation also was down (albeit most of the latter work came from John Major)
To its credit, the Thatcher government did something of a u-turn after the huge demand cut of Geoffrey Howe's disastrous 1981 budget. By that time even economists had realised things were going wrong and were writing letters to newspapers pointing it out.
I seem to recall 364 economists wrote to the Times that there would be a recession as a result of the policies - a recession that never happened.
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Once Norway+ and EUref2 are defeated in the Commons the Deal has a much better chance of passing as it is the only alternative to No Deal
With no campaign and unrelenting Project Fear against no deal for 2 years, only the extremeky gullible would believe that kind of poll finding would translate into an actual result.
The Deal is theate for No Deal
52:48 certainly wasn’t a mandate to Remain in tric Remainers.
Fishing control can be regained under any form of Brexit
Sovereignty is pretty illusory gain too given tha lot going for it.
Macron simply wants French access to British waters much as compromise
May has left the EU and ended free movement ie stuck to the 2 roposition
Your sychophancy knows no bounds. Freedom
Free movement will end as part of the trade agreement by definition unless we rejoin the single market or remain in the EU there can be no requirement for free movement.
Leaving the EU for most voters is just that and ending free movement, nothing more, for diehards like you of course it means ending all ties and going to No Deal if necessary no matter the economic cost or the risk of Scotland voting for independent and Northern Ireland for a United Ireland.
It is manufacturing and agriculture which most need a Deal with the EU to protect expprts and supplies, services will still be protected by regulatory equivalence where required e.g. the adoption of GDPR
GDPR is a totally meaningless and pointless piece of legislation that is EU bureaucracy at its worst.
So, post Brexit, do you anticipate that
It already is as DPA 2018 says it should be read in conjunction with GDPR
But @AmpfieldAndy keeps insisting that the domestic market will be free from EU sourced regulation once we have brexited... even once an FTA has been agreed... I suspect he hasn’t realised yet that any FTA, EU or otherwise, will bring with it demands to vary domestic standards in order to bring about a level playing field for imports from the counter-party...
All of this is utter nonsense, designed to distract from the fact that you would prefer that this country had not benefitted from a rebate, all because, though obtained legally and politely, it was seen as a national victory against your precious project.
It wasn't much of a triumph. 0.25% of GDP at the most generous conceivable evaluation? In fact the UK had a lot of leverage in the EU and could and did use it to pick up much juicier plums than a bit of a discount on the membership fee. I am quite sure that whoever got the EMA located in London did a sight more for GDP than whoever came up with the handbag PR stunt. If you think the rebate is anything to write home about you are poorly informed about where the UK's true interests lie.
There would be more money in British coffers if we had adopted a more positive approach to the EU project than that which was exemplified by the contrived row over the so-called rebate. It was sadly typical of the hamfistedness of the Thatcher regime which made something of a speciality of coffer emptying.
That is just laughable rubbish. At no time were the EU ever willing to change in a way that would have suited the UK and nor did we have any right to ask that of them. As for Thatcher she helped turn a failing industrial wasteland of a country into a dynamic economy that manged to maintain our position in the world in spite of the growth of cheap labour economies of the Far East.
It is only the irredeemable socialist lunatics and Eurofanatics who still think like you.
The statistics from the Thatcher era tell a very different story from the fantasy peddled by partisan myth-makers. The reality is that she blew the North Sea Oil windfall on mass unemployment and tax cuts.
By 1990 there was not mass unemployment but a more competitive less nationalised and unionised economy and inflation also was down (albeit most of the latter work came from John Major)
To its credit, the Thatcher government did something of a u-turn after the huge demand cut of Geoffrey Howe's disastrous 1981 budget. By that time even economists had realised things were going wrong and were writing letters to newspapers pointing it out.
I seem to recall 364 economists wrote to the Times that there would be a recession as a result of the policies - a recession that never happened.
That was different from the early 1980s recession that did happen presumably?
'Company earnings decline 35%. Unemployment rises from 5.3% of the working population in August 1979 to 11.9% in 1984[18] Took thirteen quarters for GDP to recover to its pre-recession peak at the end of 1979.[10] Annual inflation was 18.0% in 1980, 11.9% in 1981, 8.6% in 1982 and 4.6% in 1983.[15] Interest rates generally declined during the recession from a peak of 17.0% at the beginning of 1980 to a low of 9.6% in October 1982.'
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Once Norway+ and EUref2 are defeated in the Commons the Deal has a much better chance of passing as it is the only alternative to No Deal
With no campaign and unrelenting Project Fear against no deal for 2 years, only the extremeky gullible would believe that kind of poll finding would translate into an actual result.
The Deal is theate for No Deal
52:48 certainly wasn’t a mandate to Remain in tric Remainers.
Fishing control can be regained under any form of Brexit
Sovereignty is pretty illusory gain too given tha lot going for it.
Macron simply wants French access to British waters much as compromise
May has left the EU and ended free movement ie stuck to the 2 roposition
Your sychophancy knows no bounds. Freedom
It is manufacturing and agriculture which most need a Deal with the EU to protect expprts and supplies, services will still be protected by regulatory equivalence where required e.g. the adoption of GDPR
GDPR is a totally meaningless and pointless piece of legislation that is EU bureaucracy at its worst.
So, post Brexit, do you anticipate that
It already is as DPA 2018 says it should be read in conjunction with GDPR
But @AmpfieldAndy keeps insisting that the domestic market will be free from EU sourced regulation once we have brexited... even once an FTA has been agreed... I suspect he hasn’t realised yet that any FTA, EU or otherwise, will bring with it demands to vary domestic standards in order to bring about a level playing field for imports from the counter-party...
That why we conform our domestic economy to US and Chinese standards when we trade with them is it.
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Once Norway+ and EUref2 are defeated in the Commons the Deal has a much better chance of passing as it is the only alternative to No Deal
With no campaign and unrelenting Project Fear against no deal for 2 years, only the extremeky gullible would believe that kind of poll finding would translate into an actual result.
The Deal is theate for No Deal
52:48 certainly wasn’t a mandate to Remain in tric Remainers.
Fishing control can be regained under any form of Brexit
Sovereignty is pretty illusory gain too given tha lot going for it.
Macron simply wants French access to British waters much as compromise
May has left the EU and ended free movement ie stuck to the 2 roposition
Your sychophancy knows no bounds. Freedom of movement might not end at all by the time the trade deal, if there is one, is negotiated. It certainly won’t end ook.
Free movement will end as part of the trade agreement by definition unless we rejoin the single market or remain in the EU there can be no requirement for free movement.
Leaving the EU for most voters is just that and ending free movement, nothing more, for diehards like you of course it means ending all ties and going to No Deal if necessary no matter the economic cost or the risk of Scotland voting for independent and Northern Ireland for a United Ireland.
It is manufacturing and agriculture which most need a Deal with the EU to protect expprts and supplies, services will still be protected by regulatory equivalence where required e.g. the adoption of GDPR
GDPR is a totally meaningless and pointless piece of legislation that is EU bureaucracy at its worst.
So, post Brexit, do you anticipate that UK businesses will no longer have to comply with any data protection regulations, or will a home grown alternative being introduced? Or do you think that EU GDPR will remain the UK standard so as to facilitate a UK-EU FTA?
It depends upon whether we are actually insane enough to bind ourselves to EU regs. If not, it will be a matter for our own Gov
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Once Norway+ and EUref2 are defeated in the Commons the Deal has a much better chance of passing as it is the only alternative to No Deal
With no campaign and unrelenting Project Fear against no deal for 2 years, only the extremeky gullible would believe that kind of poll finding would translate into an actual result.
The Deal is theate for No Deal
52:48 certainly wasn’t a mandate to Remain in tric Remainers.
Fishing control can be regained under any form of Brexit
Sovereignty is pretty illusory gain too given tha lot going for it.
Your sychophancy knows no bounds. Freedom of movement might not end at all by the time the trade deal, if there is one, is negotiated. It certainly won’t end ook.
Free movement will end as part of the trad by regulatory equivalence where required e.g. the adoption of GDPR
Regulato worst.
Wrong.exporters unlike a damaging No Deal
LOL. May has been adamant has she ! The same way she adamantly defended her red lines during the WA. It would be hilarious if it weren’t such a sad inditement on the incompetency of our Gov and civil service.
You clearly have a closed mind when it comes to FOM and regulatory equivalence. Repeating the same arguments adds nothing and knocking my head against a brick wall is not something I choose to engage in even you find it worth your while.
May has defended her red lines, the WA leaves the EU and single market and ends free movement while enabling a trade deal with the EU.
Only if they ever allow us out of the Backstop
That affects the Customs Union only for GB and the alternative is Corbyn who wants a permanent Customs Union anyway
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Once Norway+ and EUref2 are defeated in the Commons the Deal has a much better chance of passing as it is the only alternative to No Deal
With no campaign and unrelenting Project Fear against no deal for 2 years, only the extremeky gullible would believe that kind of poll finding would translate into an actual result.
The Deal is theate for No Deal
52:48 certainly wasn’t a mandate to Remain in tric Remainers.
Fishing control can be regained under any form of Brexit
Sovereignty is pretty illusory gain too given tha lot going for it.
Macron simply wants French access to British waters much as compromise
May has left the EU and ended free movement ie stuck to the 2 roposition
Your sychophancy knows no bounds. Freedom
It is manufacturing and agriculture which most need a Deal with the EU to protect expprts and supplies, services will still be protected by regulatory equivalence where required e.g. the adoption of GDPR
GDPR is a totally meaningless and pointless piece of legislation that is EU bureaucracy at its worst.
So, post Brexit, do you anticipate that
It already is as DPA 2018 says it should be read in conjunction with GDPR
But @AmpfieldAndy keeps insisting that the domestic market will be free from EU sourced regulation once we have brexited... even once an FTA has been agreed... I suspect he hasn’t realised yet that any FTA, EU or otherwise, will bring with it demands to vary domestic standards in order to bring about a level playing field for imports from the counter-party...
That why we conform our domestic economy to US and Chinese standards when we trade with them is it.
There would be more money in British coffers if we had adopted a more positive approach to the EU project than that which was exemplified by the contrived row over the so-called rebate. It was sadly typical of the hamfistedness of the Thatcher regime which made something of a speciality of coffer emptying.
That is just laughable rubbish. At no time were the EU ever willing to change in a way that would have suited the UK and nor did we have any right to ask that of them. As for Thatcher she helped turn a failing industrial wasteland of a country into a dynamic economy that manged to maintain our position in the world in spite of the growth of cheap labour economies of the Far East.
It is only the irredeemable socialist lunatics and Eurofanatics who still think like you.
The statistics from the Thatcher era tell a very different story from the fantasy peddled by partisan myth-makers. The reality is that she blew the North Sea Oil windfall on mass unemployment and tax cuts.
By 1990 there was not mass unemployment but a more competitive less nationalised and unionised economy and inflation also was down (albeit most of the latter work came from John Major)
To its credit, the Thatcher government did something of a u-turn after the huge demand cut of Geoffrey Howe's disastrous 1981 budget. By that time even economists had realised things were going wrong and were writing letters to newspapers pointing it out.
I seem to recall 364 economists wrote to the Times that there would be a recession as a result of the policies - a recession that never happened.
That was different from the early 1980s recession that did happen presumably?
'Company earnings decline 35%. Unemployment rises from 5.3% of the working population in August 1979 to 11.9% in 1984[18] Took thirteen quarters for GDP to recover to its pre-recession peak at the end of 1979.[10] Annual inflation was 18.0% in 1980, 11.9% in 1981, 8.6% in 1982 and 4.6% in 1983.[15] Interest rates generally declined during the recession from a peak of 17.0% at the beginning of 1980 to a low of 9.6% in October 1982.'
The recession which had already happened before the 1981 Budget and the letter of the 364 economists ?
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Once Norway+ and EUref2 are defeated in the Commons the Deal has a much better chance of passing as it is the only alternative to No Deal
With no campaign and unrelenting Project Fear against no deal for 2 years, only the extremeky gullible would believe that kind of poll finding would translate into an actual result.
The Deal is theate for No Deal
52:48 certainly wasn’t a mandate to Remain in tric Remainers.
Fishing control can be regained under any form of Brexit
Sovereignty is pretty illusory gain too given tha lot going for it.
Macron simply wants French access to British waters much as compromise
May has left the EU and ended free movement ie stuck to the 2 roposition
Your sychophancy knows no bounds. Freedom
It is manufacturing and agriculture which most need a Deal with the EU to protect expprts and supplies, services will still be protected by regulatory equivalence where required e.g. the adoption of GDPR
GDPR is a totally meaningless and pointless piece of legislation that is EU bureaucracy at its worst.
So, post Brexit, do you anticipate that
It already is as DPA 2018 says it should be read in conjunction with GDPR
But @AmpfieldAndy keeps insisting that the domestic market will be free from EU sourced regulation once we have brexited... even once an FTA has been agreed... I suspect he hasn’t realised yet that any FTA, EU or otherwise, will bring with it demands to vary domestic standards in order to bring about a level playing field for imports from the counter-party...
That why we conform our domestic economy to US and Chinese standards when we trade with them is it.
If we agree an FTA, then yes...
Don’t be daft. It only affects exporters unless we decide otherwise.
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Once Norway+ and EUref2 are defeated in the Commons the Deal has a much better chance of passing as it is the only alternative to No Deal
With no campaign and unrelentingt.
The Deal is theate for No Deal
52:48 certainly wasn’t a mandate to Remain in tric Remainers.
Fishing control can be regained under any form of Brexit
Sovereignty is pretty illusory gain too given tha lot going for it.
Macron simply wants French access to British waters much as compromise
May has left the EU and ended free movement ie stuck to the 2 roposition
Your sychophancy knows no bounds. Freedom of movement might not end at all by the time the trade deal, if there is one, is negotiated. It certainly won’t end ook.
Free movement will end as part of the trade agreement by definition unless we rejoin the single market or remain in the EU there can be no requirement for free movement.
Leaving the EU for most voters is just that and ending free movement, nothing more, for diehards like you of course it means ending all ties and going to No Deal if necessary no matter the economic cost or the risk of Scotland voting for independent and Northern Ireland for a United Ireland.
It is manufacturing and agriculture which most need a Deal with the EU to protect expprts and supplies, services will still be protected by regulatory equivalence where required e.g. the adoption of GDPR
GDPR is a totally meaningless and pointless piece of legislation that is EU bureaucracy at its worst.
So, post Brexit, do you anticipate that UK businesses will no longer have to comply with any data protection regulations, or will a home grown alternative being introduced? Or do you think that EU GDPR will remain the UK standard so as to facilitate a UK-EU FTA?
It depends upon whether we are actually insane enough to bind ourselves to EU regs. If not, it will be a matter for our own Gov
If we shun GDPR, there will be no FTA with the EU and if companies refuse to conform to GDPR there won’t be many exports if we try trading without an FTA...
I'd like to see some proper taxation of food in order to get people to consume less, something like a flat 1p tax per 10kcals, plus 1p per gramme of sugar (with fruit, veg, milk, and uncooked chicken/turkey excluded)
A 200g bar of dairy milk goes from £2 to £4.18, B&Jerry's cookie dough tub from £4.50 to £6.70, a bagel from 32p to 60p.
We need to do something radical to sustain good quality free healthcare, the UK doesn't need a nudge, but a kick up the a*se.
Taxing food to sustain free healthcare makes no sense because we all eat. You might as well charge for healthcare so that those it use most, pay most.
Better to tackle the symptoms than the cause, and those who consume responsibly (averaged over the course of a year) will be basically unaffected (+-£100), while those who consume far too much will be penalised. Co-incidentally those who consume far too much also consume the most healthcare resources, plus this way we don't penalise those with conditions that they had no part in getting (e.g. T1 Diabetes, epilepsy etc).
£850 is the amount of tax 2000kcals, 30g of sugar per day would approximately come out to over the course of a year.
The logic of what you are saying is that those who eat the healthiest are actually the healthiest and will therefore use the health service less. The effect is therefore the same without the danger that Gov will use tax on food for other purposes.
People who eat healthily don’t live longer... it just seems that way
H/t Clement Freud
What a load of rot! Eating healthily just means not eating tasteless, fat-laced, over-sugared calorific junk, but I am not going to waste my time talking you out of it. The more junk you eat then it means more fresh, tasty and nutritious stuff for me
I live on chicken, salmon, steamed vegetables...and chocolate cake...
If it weren't for the chocolate that could be one of those premium dog foods...
In my experience dogs like chocolate cake as much as anything.
Chocolate cake flavoured dog food containing chicken, salmon and steamed vegetables could be a marketing winner.
Chocolate is toxic for dogs
It's toxic for humans as well, it's just that the quantities needed to kill a human are unrealistic whereas for a dog they are not.
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Once Norway+ and EUref2 are defeated in the Commons the Deal has a much better chance of passing as it is the only alternative to No Deal
With no campaign and unrelentingt.
The Deal is theate for No Deal
52:48 certainly wasn’t a mandate to Remain in tric Remainers.
Fishing control can be regained under any form of Brexit
Sovereignty is pretty illusory gain too given tha lot going for it.
Macron simply wants French access to British waters much as compromise
May has left the EU and ended free movement ie stuck to the 2 roposition
Your sychophancy knows no bounds. Freedom of movement might not end at all by the time the trade deal, if there is one, is negotiated. It certainly won’t end ook.
Free movement will end as part of the trade agreement by definition unless we rejoin the single market or remain in the EU there can be no requirement for free movement.
It is manufacturing and agriculture which most need a Deal with the EU to protect expprts and supplies, services will still be protected by regulatory equivalence where required e.g. the adoption of GDPR
GDPR is a totally meaningless and pointless piece of legislation that is EU bureaucracy at its worst.
So, post Brexit, do you anticipate that UK businesses will no longer have to comply with any data protection regulations, or will a home grown alternative being introduced? Or do you think that EU GDPR will remain the UK standard so as to facilitate a UK-EU FTA?
It depends upon whether we are actually insane enough to bind ourselves to EU regs. If not, it will be a matter for our own Gov
If we shun GDPR, there will be no FTA with the EU and if companies refuse to conform to GDPR there won’t be many exports if we try trading without an FTA...
Wrong. As we’ll be a WTO member, the EU can’t discriminate against us in a manner prejudicial to other WTO economies with which they trade - like the US or China.
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Once Norway+ and EUref2 are defeated in the Commons the Deal has a much better chance of passing as it is the only alternative to No Deal
With no campaign and unrelentingt.
The Deal is theate for No Deal
52:48 certainly wasn’t a mandate to Remain in tric Remainers.
Fishing control can be regained under any form of Brexit
Sovereignty is pretty illusory gain too given tha lot going for it.
Macron simply wants French access to British waters much as compromise
May has left the EU and ended free movement ie stuck to the 2 roposition
Your sychophancy knows no bounds. Freedom of movement might not end at all by the time the trade deal, if there is one, is negotiated. It certainly won’t end ook.
Free movement will end as part of the trade agreement by definition unless we rejoin the single market or remain in the EU there can be no requirement for free movement.
It is manufacturing and agriculture which most need a Deal with the EU to protect expprts and supplies, services will still be protected by regulatory equivalence where required e.g. the adoption of GDPR
GDPR is a totally meaningless and pointless piece of legislation that is EU bureaucracy at its worst.
So, post Brexit, do you anticipate
It depends upon whether we are actually insane enough to bind ourselves to EU regs. If not, it will be a matter for our own Gov
If we shun GDPR, there will be no FTA with the EU and if companies refuse to conform to GDPR there won’t be many exports if we try trading without an FTA...
Wrong. As we’ll be a WTO member, the EU can’t discriminate against us in a manner prejudicial to other WTO economies with which they trade - like the US or China.
But, but... just the other day you said: “I’d rather have a FTA myself with complete freedom to regulate our domestic economy as we see fit”... I’m fascinated how that works, taking data protection as an example
Once Norway+ and EUref2 are defeated in the Commons the Deal has a much better chance of passing as it is the only alternative to No Deal
With no campaign and unrelentingt.
The Deal is theate for No Deal
52:48 certainly wasn’t a mandate to Remain in tric Remainers.
Fishing control can be regained under any form of Brexit
Sovereignty is pretty illusory gain too given tha lot going for it.
Macron simply wants French access to British waters much as compromise
May has left the EU and ended free movement ie stuck to the 2 roposition
Your sychophancy knows no bounds. Freedom of movement might not end at all by the time the trade deal, if there is one, is negotiated. It certainly won’t end ook.
It is manufacturing and agriculture which most need a Deal with the EU to protect expprts and supplies, services will still be protected by regulatory equivalence where required e.g. the adoption of GDPR
GDPR is a totally meaningless and pointless piece of legislation that is EU bureaucracy at its worst.
So, post Brexit, do you anticipate
It depends upon whether we are actually insane enough to bind ourselves to EU regs. If not, it will be a matter for our own Gov
If we shun GDPR, there will be no FTA with the EU and if companies refuse to conform to GDPR there won’t be many exports if we try trading without an FTA...
Wrong. As we’ll be a WTO member, the EU can’t discriminate against us in a manner prejudicial to other WTO economies with which they trade - like the US or China.
But, but... just the other day you said: “I’d rather have a FTA myself with complete freedom to regulate our domestic economy as we see fit”... I’m fascinated how that works, taking data protection as an example
Indeed I would. The TPP agreement doesnt regulate its members domestic economies, nor does NAFTA nor does Mercosur. Even the EU’s CETA FTA with Canada doesn’t seek regulate Canada’s domestic economy. Strange you would think otherwise.
I'd like to see some proper taxation of food in order to get people to consume less, something like a flat 1p tax per 10kcals, plus 1p per gramme of sugar (with fruit, veg, milk, and uncooked chicken/turkey excluded)
A 200g bar of dairy milk goes from £2 to £4.18, B&Jerry's cookie dough tub from £4.50 to £6.70, a bagel from 32p to 60p.
We need to do something radical to sustain good quality free healthcare, the UK doesn't need a nudge, but a kick up the a*se.
Taxing food to sustain free healthcare makes no sense because we all eat. You might as well charge for healthcare so that those it use most, pay most.
Better to tackle the symptoms than the cause, and those who consume responsibly (averaged over the course of a year) will be basically unaffected (+-£100), while those who consume far too much will be penalised. Co-incidentally those who consume far too much also consume the most healthcare resources, plus this way we don't penalise those with conditions that they had no part in getting (e.g. T1 Diabetes, epilepsy etc).
£850 is the amount of tax 2000kcals, 30g of sugar per day would approximately come out to over the course of a year.
The logic of what you are saying is that those who eat the healthiest are actually the healthiest and will therefore use the health service less. The effect is therefore the same without the danger that Gov will use tax on food for other purposes.
People who eat healthily don’t live longer... it just seems that way
H/t Clement Freud
What a load of rot! Eating healthily just means not eating tasteless, fat-laced, over-sugared calorific junk, but I am not going to waste my time talking you out of it. The more junk you eat then it means more fresh, tasty and nutritious stuff for me
I live on chicken, salmon, steamed vegetables...and chocolate cake...
If it weren't for the chocolate that could be one of those premium dog foods...
In my experience dogs like chocolate cake as much as anything.
Chocolate cake flavoured dog food containing chicken, salmon and steamed vegetables could be a marketing winner.
Chocolate is toxic for dogs
It's toxic for humans as well, it's just that the quantities needed to kill a human are unrealistic....
*wonders to self if that has now been tested to destruction with this Christmas's chocolate intake....*
There would be more money in British coffers if we had adopted a more positive approach to the EU project than that which was exemplified by the contrived row over the so-called rebate. It was sadly typical of the hamfistedness of the Thatcher regime which made something of a speciality of coffer emptying.
That is just laughable rubbish. At no time were the EU ever willing to change in a way that would have suited the UK and nor did we have any right to ask that of them. As for Thatcher she helped turn a failing industrial wasteland of a country into a dynamic economy that manged to maintain our position in the world in spite of the growth of cheap labour economies of the Far East.
It is only the irredeemable socialist lunatics and Eurofanatics who still think like you.
The statistics from the Thatcher era tell a very different story from the fantasy peddled by partisan myth-makers. The reality is that she blew the North Sea Oil windfall on mass unemployment and tax cuts.
By 1990 there was not mass unemployment but a more competitive less nationalised and unionised economy and inflation also was down (albeit most of the latter work came from John Major)
To its credit, the Thatcher government did something of a u-turn after the huge demand cut of Geoffrey Howe's disastrous 1981 budget. By that time even economists had realised things were going wrong and were writing letters to newspapers pointing it out.
I seem to recall 364 economists wrote to the Times that there would be a recession as a result of the policies - a recession that never happened.
That was different from the early 1980s recession that did happen presumably?
'Company earnings decline 35%. Unemployment rises from 5.3% of the working population in August 1979 to 11.9% in 1984[18] Took thirteen quarters for GDP to recover to its pre-recession peak at the end of 1979.[10] Annual inflation was 18.0% in 1980, 11.9% in 1981, 8.6% in 1982 and 4.6% in 1983.[15] Interest rates generally declined during the recession from a peak of 17.0% at the beginning of 1980 to a low of 9.6% in October 1982.'
The recession which had already happened before the 1981 Budget and the letter of the 364 economists ?
Yep, the letter was written just after the budget at the end of the last quarter of that recession, it predicted a deepening of that recession rather than a new one. Afaicr it also predicted 3m unemployed and damaged social stability. Well off there, weren't they?
As a country we are fucked by Article 50, written by our very own Lord Kerr for the EU Constitution. My present opinion is that we should therefore burn down Lord Kerr's house and set fire to his pets. For starters.
Sean, Sean, as always you go that one step too far.
I'm sure we can all get behind arson of the homes of people who have created legislation we don't like - I mean who hasn't wanted at one time or another to berate in an incendiary way the creator of a particularly silly law or set of regulations - I know I have.
I do draw the line at setting fire to any domesticated animals - first, I suspect it's not as easy as it sounds and second, I may be wrong but I suspect said animals had less involvement in the creation of bad law than you imagine.
Call we a wishy-washy namby-pamby soft old metropolitan liberal (and many have) but can't we just have the animals a stern reprimand and send them on their way?
That is just laughable rubbish. At no time were the EU ever willing to change in a way that would have suited the UK and nor did we have any right to ask that of them. As for Thatcher she helped turn a failing industrial wasteland of a country into a dynamic economy that manged to maintain our position in the world in spite of the growth of cheap labour economies of the Far East.
It is only the irredeemable socialist lunatics and Eurofanatics who still think like you.
The statistics from the Thatcher era tell a very different story from the fantasy peddled by partisan myth-makers. The reality is that she blew the North Sea Oil windfall on mass unemployment and tax cuts.
By 1990 there was not mass unemployment but a more competitive less nationalised and unionised economy and inflation also was down (albeit most of the latter work came from John Major)
To its credit, the Thatcher government did something of a u-turn after the huge demand cut of Geoffrey Howe's disastrous 1981 budget. By that time even economists had realised things were going wrong and were writing letters to newspapers pointing it out.
I seem to recall 364 economists wrote to the Times that there would be a recession as a result of the policies - a recession that never happened.
That was different from the early 1980s recession that did happen presumably?
'Company earnings decline 35%. Unemployment rises from 5.3% of the working population in August 1979 to 11.9% in 1984[18] Took thirteen quarters for GDP to recover to its pre-recession peak at the end of 1979.[10] Annual inflation was 18.0% in 1980, 11.9% in 1981, 8.6% in 1982 and 4.6% in 1983.[15] Interest rates generally declined during the recession from a peak of 17.0% at the beginning of 1980 to a low of 9.6% in October 1982.'
The recession which had already happened before the 1981 Budget and the letter of the 364 economists ?
Yep, the letter was written just after the budget at the end of the last quarter of that recession, it predicted a deepening of that recession rather than a new one. Afaicr it also predicted 3m unemployed and damaged social stability. Well off there, weren't they?
So you're accepting that the 364 economists were wrong about the recession deepening.
The one that surprised me on that list was Kindle. Mind playing tricks on me - I was sure I had used one at a property I left more than 15 years ago. But no - very wrong.
"Amazon released the Kindle, its first e-reader, on November 19, 2007, for US$399. It sold out in five and a half hours. The device remained out of stock for five months until late April 2008......"
One thing for sure, Mr Meeks is right about entrenched positions.
Had Christmas dinner with my daughter's family in Kent: mainly Leavers, some Remainers, sort-of middle class, not rich by any means.
I was not surprised by the age divide - the younger were more Remainery. What surprised me was that the Leavers accepted that Brexit had been botched, and that Crash Brexit could be calamitous, but had they changed their minds? Not a jot. There was a wistfulness about the ending of Free Movement, but in the end the crunch argument was: we don't want to be ruled by people we cannot elect or eject.
And they live in a part of Kent which may be hardest hit by Crash Brexit chaos.
I suspect a 2nd referendum would be very very close, and might easily - probably? - produce another very narrow Leave win.
Which would be the worst of all worlds, for everyone.
As a country we are fucked by Article 50, written by our very own Lord Kerr for the EU Constitution. My present opinion is that we should therefore burn down Lord Kerr's house and set fire to his pets. For starters.
Do the young people think that Nandos will close in April ?
I'd like to see some proper taxation of food in order to get people to consume less, something like a flat 1p tax per 10kcals, plus 1p per gramme of sugar (with fruit, veg, milk, and uncooked chicken/turkey excluded)
A 200g bar of dairy milk goes from £2 to £4.18, B&Jerry's cookie dough tub from £4.50 to £6.70, a bagel from 32p to 60p.
We need to do something radical to sustain good quality free healthcare, the UK doesn't need a nudge, but a kick up the a*se.
Taxing food to sustain free healthcare makes no sense because we all eat. You might as well charge for healthcare so that those it use most, pay most.
Better to tackle the sym
£850 is the amount of tax 2000kcals, 30g of sugar per day would approximately come out to over the course of a year.
The logic of what you are saying is that those who eat the healthiest are actually the healthiest and will therefore use the health service less. The effect is therefore the same without the danger that Gov will use tax on food for other purposes.
People who eat healthily don’t live longer... it just seems that way
H/t Clement Freud
for me
I live on chicken, salmon, steamed vegetables...and chocolate cake...
If it weren't for the chocolate that could be one of those premium dog foods...
In my experience dogs like chocolate cake as much as anything.
Chocolate cake flavoured dog food containing chicken, salmon and steamed vegetables could be a marketing winner.
Chocolate is toxic for dogs
It's toxic for humans as well, it's just that the quantities needed to kill a human are unrealistic whereas for a dog they are not.
On that basis EVERYTHING is "toxic" and the word becomes meaningless. Water is "toxic" if you drink too much, as some poor young people have discovered, when over-frightened about the dangers of "dehydration".
No, because the poison in chocolate (theobromine) is what kills you if you have too much. It's a specific effect, and not the general consequence of excess eating.
Interesting list. Most of these are really down to the iPhone, which was truly revolutionary. There are 5 or 6 on there I have never heard of (Lyft, Waze, Slack, Square, Venmo, Hulu), which probably says more about me than the list.
I was thinking whether there was a corresponding list of things we don't have anymore. A quick thought threw up:
Concorde* Space Shuttle Free University tuition (ok that was >20 years ago) Thriving High Streets A sane POTUS A Government actually governing
As a country we are fucked by Article 50, written by our very own Lord Kerr for the EU Constitution. My present opinion is that we should therefore burn down Lord Kerr's house and set fire to his pets. For starters.
Sean, Sean, as always you go that one step too far.
I'm sure we can all get behind arson of the homes of people who have created legislation we don't like - I mean who hasn't wanted at one time or another to berate in an incendiary way the creator of a particularly silly law or set of regulations - I know I have.
I do draw the line at setting fire to any domesticated animals - first, I suspect it's not as easy as it sounds and second, I may be wrong but I suspect said animals had less involvement in the creation of bad law than you imagine.
Call we a wishy-washy namby-pamby soft old metropolitan liberal (and many have) but can't we just have the animals a stern reprimand and send them on their way?
If you are part of a team you should aim for win-win solutions not try to be the winner.
Dear God. We were being screwed over big time. The rebate meant we were being screwed over a bit less big time. That’s all.
Really? So Edward Heath negotiated a deal that was unacceptable. Harold Wilson renegotiated and still got a deal that was unacceptable. But Thatcher succeeded where they had failed? And you don't think that was all contrived spin?
No, just that the EU were squeezing every penny out of us that they could. Of course the other countries would be reluctant to change the arrangement, they paid a lot less than they should have.
Oh it's all so unfair!
It’s not unfair
They were acting in their own interests (more money from the U.K.). Thatcher protested and got a partial rebate, tilting the balance back towards us even though we were still a substantial net payor
Blair gave some of that rebate back for political advantages which proven ephemeral (although the cash was pocketed).
None of that is unfair and none of that is embarrassing. It’s the way grown up countries do business
Occasionally, some of the Remainers on here reveal true colours that are extraordinary and troubling. Being ashamed of the rebate, and preferring that billions of pounds less money had come back into British coffers, just so the outcome would have spared the EECs blushes, is one such opinion.
There would be more money in British coffers if we had adopted a more positive approach to the EU project than that which was exemplified by the contrived row over the so-called rebate.
How so?
Because you always get more out of a relationship by putting work in and building it than you do by hectoring and negativity.
How would there be "more money in British coffers"?
I'd like to see some proper taxation of food in order to get people to consume less, something like a flat 1p tax per 10kcals, plus 1p per gramme of sugar (with fruit, veg, milk, and uncooked chicken/turkey excluded)
A 200g bar of dairy milk goes from £2 to £4.18, B&Jerry's cookie dough tub from £4.50 to £6.70, a bagel from 32p to 60p.
We need to do something radical to sustain good quality free healthcare, the UK doesn't need a nudge, but a kick up the a*se.
Taxing food to sustain free healthcare makes no sense because we all eat. You might as well charge for healthcare so that those it use most, pay most.
Better to tackle the sym
£850 is the amount of tax 2000kcals, 30g of sugar per day would approximately come out to over the course of a year.
The logic of what you are saying is that those who eat the healthiest are actually the healthiest and will therefore use the health service less. The effect is therefore the same without the danger that Gov will use tax on food for other purposes.
People who eat healthily don’t live longer... it just seems that way
H/t Clement Freud
for me
I live on chicken, salmon, steamed vegetables...and chocolate cake...
If it weren't for the chocolate that could be one of those premium dog foods...
In my experience dogs like chocolate cake as much as anything.
Chocolate cake flavoured dog food containing chicken, salmon and steamed vegetables could be a marketing winner.
Chocolate is toxic for dogs
It's toxic for humans as well, it's just that the quantities needed to kill a human are unrealistic whereas for a dog they are not.
On that basis EVERYTHING is "toxic" and the word becomes meaningless. Water is "toxic" if you drink too much, as some poor young people have discovered, when over-frightened about the dangers of "dehydration".
No, because the poison in chocolate (theobromine) is what kills you if you have too much. It's a specific effect, and not the general consequence of excess eating.
So death by chocolate isn't such a wacky idea, after all?
Good evening, everyone. I hope you all had a good Christmas.
One thing for sure, Mr Meeks is right about entrenched positions.
Had Christmas dinner with my daughter's family in Kent: mainly Leavers, some Remainers, sort-of middle class, not rich by any means.
I was not surprised by the age divide - the younger were more Remainery. What surprised me was that the Leavers accepted that Brexit had been botched, and that Crash Brexit could be calamitous, but had they changed their minds? Not a jot. There was a wistfulness about the ending of Free Movement, but in the end the crunch argument was: we don't want to be ruled by people we cannot elect or eject.
And they live in a part of Kent which may be hardest hit by Crash Brexit chaos.
I suspect a 2nd referendum would be very very close, and might easily - probably? - produce another very narrow Leave win.
Which would be the worst of all worlds, for everyone.
As a country we are fucked by Article 50, written by our very own Lord Kerr for the EU Constitution. My present opinion is that we should therefore burn down Lord Kerr's house and set fire to his pets. For starters.
Please don’t do that - he lives 2 doors down from me!!
Only the deluded, would blame the instransigence of Leavers for the fact that May’s deal hasn’t been agreed. May’s deal hasn’t been agreed because it satisfies no one which is why most of Labour, the LibDems, the SNP, and the Green MP who all substantially support Remain, as well as a fair number of Tory Remainers, all oppose the deal. Anyone with half a brain would realise that.
Brexit is incapable of being resolved by compromise because all sides believe so strongly in their positions they refuse to compromise.
That is why we shall end up with no deal or no Brexit no matter how much May capitulates to the EU.
Wrong, as Yougov showed quite clearly a few weeks ago Remain beats No Deal and the Deal on first preferences but with under 50%, head to head against No Deal or Remain though the Deal wins in 372 Westminster constituencies ie a clear majority.
You're confident EURef2 would be defeated? I think there's a good chance it won't ever be put to a HoC vote but if were I would ecpet it to have >50% chance of passing.
I do not think there will be an EURef2 - I think they will prat about trying to get May's Deal through and by the time they give up the only time left will be for a direct revocation.
Remember that an extension to A50 requires unanimous voting. If they try that first and it fails then we are are left with No Deal or Revoke and no time for an EU Ref. Revoke, OTOH requires a short session in Parliament with a free vote followed by one letter to Brussels. Twenty four hours could do it, but definitely a few days. They could manage it in the last week of March.
Direct revocation without EUref2 would lead us to near Civil War, Leavers would be incandescent with rage
It would break the mould of British politics. Lots of Conservative and Labour MP's would have to defy their own leaders, and the logic of events would require them to team up with other, the Lib Dems, Plaid the SNP and Sinn Fein, as a pro-EU alliance.
One thing for sure, Mr Meeks is right about entrenched positions.
Had Christmas dinner with my daughter's family in Kent: mainly Leavers, some Remainers, sort-of middle class, not rich by any means.
I was not surprised by the age divide - the younger were more Remainery. What surprised me was that the Leavers accepted that Brexit had been botched, and that Crash Brexit could be calamitous, but had they changed their minds? Not a jot. There was a wistfulness about the ending of Free Movement, but in the end the crunch argument was: we don't want to be ruled by people we cannot elect or eject.
And they live in a part of Kent which may be hardest hit by Crash Brexit chaos.
I suspect a 2nd referendum would be very very close, and might easily - probably? - produce another very narrow Leave win.
Which would be the worst of all worlds, for everyone.
As a country we are fucked by Article 50, written by our very own Lord Kerr for the EU Constitution. My present opinion is that we should therefore burn down Lord Kerr's house and set fire to his pets. For starters.
Please don’t do that - he lives 2 doors down from me!!
One thing for sure, Mr Meeks is right about entrenched positions.
Had Christmas dinner with my daughter's family in Kent: mainly Leavers, some Remainers, sort-of middle class, not rich by any means.
I was not surprised by the age divide - the younger were more Remainery. What surprised me was that the Leavers accepted that Brexit had been botched, and that Crash Brexit could be calamitous, but had they changed their minds? Not a jot. There was a wistfulness about the ending of Free Movement, but in the end the crunch argument was: we don't want to be ruled by people we cannot elect or eject.
And they live in a part of Kent which may be hardest hit by Crash Brexit chaos.
I suspect a 2nd referendum would be very very close, and might easily - probably? - produce another very narrow Leave win.
Which would be the worst of all worlds, for everyone.
As a country we are fucked by Article 50, written by our very own Lord Kerr for the EU Constitution. My present opinion is that we should therefore burn down Lord Kerr's house and set fire to his pets. For starters.
Please don’t do that - he lives 2 doors down from me!!
You mean two estates away surely?
The advantage of being a younger son is I don’t have the burden of responsibility that my brother has
One thing for sure, Mr Meeks is right about entrenched positions.
Had Christmas dinner with my daughter's family in Kent: mainly Leavers, some Remainers, sort-of middle class, not rich by any means.
I was not surprised by the age divide - the younger were more Remainery. What surprised me was that the Leavers accepted that Brexit had been botched, and that Crash Brexit could be calamitous, but had they changed their minds? Not a jot. There was a wistfulness about the ending of Free Movement, but in the end the crunch argument was: we don't want to be ruled by people we cannot elect or eject.
And they live in a part of Kent which may be hardest hit by Crash Brexit chaos.
I suspect a 2nd referendum would be very very close, and might easily - probably? - produce another very narrow Leave win.
Which would be the worst of all worlds, for everyone.
As a country we are fucked by Article 50, written by our very own Lord Kerr for the EU Constitution. My present opinion is that we should therefore burn down Lord Kerr's house and set fire to his pets. For starters.
Please don’t do that - he lives 2 doors down from me!!
You mean two estates away surely?
The advantage of being a younger son is I don’t have the burden of responsibility that my brother has
That is just laughable rubbish. At no time were the EU ever willing to change in a way that would have suited the UK and nor did we have any right to ask that of them. As for Thatcher she helped turn a failing industrial wasteland of a country into a dynamic economy that manged to maintain our position in the world in spite of the growth of cheap labour economies of the Far East.
It is only the irredeemable socialist lunatics and Eurofanatics who still think like you.
The statistics from the Thatcher era tell a very different story from the fantasy peddled by partisan myth-makers. The reality is that she blew the North Sea Oil windfall on mass unemployment and tax cuts.
By 1990 there was not mass unemployment but a more competitive less nationalised and unionised economy and inflation also was down (albeit most of the latter work came from John Major)
To its credit, the Thatcher government did something of a u-turn after the huge demand cut of Geoffrey Howe's disastrous 1981 budget. By that time even economists had realised things were going wrong and were writing letters to newspapers pointing it out.
I seem to recall 364 economists wrote to the Times that there would be a recession as a result of the policies - a recession that never happened.
That was different from the early 1980s recession that did happen presumably?
'Company earnings decline 35%. Unemployment rises from 5.3% of the working population in August 1979 to 11.9% in 1984[18] Took thirteen quarters for GDP to recover to its pre-recession peak at the end of 1979.[10] Annual inflation was 18.0% in 1980, 11.9% in 1981, 8.6% in 1982 and 4.6% in 1983.[15] Interest rates generally declined during the recession from a peak of 17.0% at the beginning of 1980 to a low of 9.6% in October 1982.'
The recession which had already happened before the 1981 Budget and the letter of the 364 economists ?
Yep, the letter was written just after the budget at the end of the last quarter of that recession, it predicted a deepening of that recession rather than a new one. Afaicr it also predicted 3m unemployed and damaged social stability. Well off there, weren't they?
So you're accepting that the 364 economists were wrong about the recession deepening.
I've looked and looked but I just can't see where I said 364 economists were right about a recession deepening.
Interesting list. Most of these are really down to the iPhone, which was truly revolutionary. There are 5 or 6 on there I have never heard of (Lyft, Waze, Slack, Square, Venmo, Hulu), which probably says more about me than the list.
I was thinking whether there was a corresponding list of things we don't have anymore. A quick thought threw up:
Concorde* Space Shuttle Free University tuition (ok that was >20 years ago) Thriving High Streets A sane POTUS A Government actually governing
... I bet there are others.
(*Yes ok, 15 years and 2 months ago)
FWIW, the high street of my childhood was a combination of shoe shops, building societies and estate agents. When did high streets thrive, as it wasn’t then. People thought Ronald Reagan was planning to have the USSR nuke Bielefeld (remember Able Archer), genuinely stupid people weren’t going to university, Concorde was only used by Joan Collins and people were perhaps a little divided on the merits of the Thatcher government.
You forgot to mention that the Top 40 had good songs. That’s traditional but, fwiw, most were absolutely shite.
One thing for sure, Mr Meeks is right about entrenched positions.
Had Christmas dinner with my daughter's family in Kent: mainly Leavers, some Remainers, sort-of middle class, not rich by any means.
I was not surprised by the age divide - the younger were more Remainery. What surprised me was that the Leavers accepted that Brexit had been botched, and that Crash Brexit could be calamitous, but had they changed their minds? Not a jot. There was a wistfulness about the ending of Free Movement, but in the end the crunch argument was: we don't want to be ruled by people we cannot elect or eject.
And they live in a part of Kent which may be hardest hit by Crash Brexit chaos.
I suspect a 2nd referendum would be very very close, and might easily - probably? - produce another very narrow Leave win.
Which would be the worst of all worlds, for everyone.
As a country we are fucked by Article 50, written by our very own Lord Kerr for the EU Constitution. My present opinion is that we should therefore burn down Lord Kerr's house and set fire to his pets. For starters.
Please don’t do that - he lives 2 doors down from me!!
You mean two estates away surely?
The advantage of being a younger son is I don’t have the burden of responsibility that my brother has
Lucky escape!
Aye. He gets to retire at 75 though. I get to step down as churchwarden after only 50 years (currently 15 years in)
As one of my cousins wrote in the 20s;
“God has been good to my family: he has given us a task that is lpleasant to perform, does not too much error and is well rewarded”
Interesting list. Most of these are really down to the iPhone, which was truly revolutionary. There are 5 or 6 on there I have never heard of (Lyft, Waze, Slack, Square, Venmo, Hulu), which probably says more about me than the list.
I was thinking whether there was a corresponding list of things we don't have anymore. A quick thought threw up:
Concorde* Space Shuttle Free University tuition (ok that was >20 years ago) Thriving High Streets A sane POTUS A Government actually governing
... I bet there are others.
(*Yes ok, 15 years and 2 months ago)
FWIW, the high street of my childhood was a combination of shoe shops, building societies and estate agents. When did high streets thrive, as it wasn’t then. People thought Ronald Reagan was planning to have the USSR nuke Bielefeld (remember Able Archer), genuinely stupid people weren’t going to university, Concorde was only used by Joan Collins and people were perhaps a little divided on the merits of the Thatcher government.
You forgot to mention that the Top 40 had good songs. That’s traditional but, fwiw, most were absolutely shite.
Nostalgia’s a terrible thing.
In my rose tinted way, I still think the shite songs then were better than the shite ones of today.
Edit: actually on checking, Pipes of Peace can piss off.
Interesting list. Most of these are really down to the iPhone, which was truly revolutionary. There are 5 or 6 on there I have never heard of (Lyft, Waze, Slack, Square, Venmo, Hulu), which probably says more about me than the list.
I was thinking whether there was a corresponding list of things we don't have anymore. A quick thought threw up:
Concorde* Space Shuttle Free University tuition (ok that was >20 years ago) Thriving High Streets A sane POTUS A Government actually governing
... I bet there are others.
(*Yes ok, 15 years and 2 months ago)
FWIW, the high street of my childhood was a combination of shoe shops, building societies and estate agents. When did high streets thrive, as it wasn’t then. People thought Ronald Reagan was planning to have the USSR nuke Bielefeld (remember Able Archer), genuinely stupid people weren’t going to university, Concorde was only used by Joan Collins and people were perhaps a little divided on the merits of the Thatcher government.
You forgot to mention that the Top 40 had good songs. That’s traditional but, fwiw, most were absolutely shite.
Nostalgia’s a terrible thing.
Nostalgia's definitely overrated but I think 15 years ago takes back to 2003 not 1983!
Interesting list. Most of these are really down to the iPhone, which was truly revolutionary. There are 5 or 6 on there I have never heard of (Lyft, Waze, Slack, Square, Venmo, Hulu), which probably says more about me than the list.
I was thinking whether there was a corresponding list of things we don't have anymore. A quick thought threw up:
Concorde* Space Shuttle Free University tuition (ok that was >20 years ago) Thriving High Streets A sane POTUS A Government actually governing
... I bet there are others.
(*Yes ok, 15 years and 2 months ago)
FWIW, the high street of my childhood was a combination of shoe shops, building societies and estate agents. When did high streets thrive, as it wasn’t then. People thought Ronald Reagan was planning to have the USSR nuke Bielefeld (remember Able Archer), genuinely stupid people weren’t going to university, Concorde was only used by Joan Collins and people were perhaps a little divided on the merits of the Thatcher government.
You forgot to mention that the Top 40 had good songs. That’s traditional but, fwiw, most were absolutely shite.
Nostalgia’s a terrible thing.
I forgot to mention the space shuttle. Reusable for values of reusable, Challenger led to the bad taste joke of my childhood, “Why do astronauts drink Pepsi? Because they can’t get 7-Up.” Still, I suppose they could have been working at Chernobyl.
Interesting list. Most of these are really down to the iPhone, which was truly revolutionary. There are 5 or 6 on there I have never heard of (Lyft, Waze, Slack, Square, Venmo, Hulu), which probably says more about me than the list.
I was thinking whether there was a corresponding list of things we don't have anymore. A quick thought threw up:
Concorde* Space Shuttle Free University tuition (ok that was >20 years ago) Thriving High Streets A sane POTUS A Government actually governing
... I bet there are others.
(*Yes ok, 15 years and 2 months ago)
FWIW, the high street of my childhood was a combination of shoe shops, building societies and estate agents. When did high streets thrive, as it wasn’t then. People thought Ronald Reagan was planning to have the USSR nuke Bielefeld (remember Able Archer), genuinely stupid people weren’t going to university, Concorde was only used by Joan Collins and people were perhaps a little divided on the merits of the Thatcher government.
You forgot to mention that the Top 40 had good songs. That’s traditional but, fwiw, most were absolutely shite.
Nostalgia’s a terrible thing.
Nostalgia's definitely overrated but I think 15 years ago takes back to 2003 not 1983!
People thought Bush the 2nd was the reincarnation of Washington....
Boeing was close to green lighting the Sonic Cruiser in 2001 the WTC, that would have been the new Concorde. The space shuttle was a hangover from the Cold War.
If there’s a real point, it’s an atrophying of ambition. Just as the media measures distances in London buses so, in this country anything ambitious and involving Goverment spending is measured in terms of how the money could be spent on the NHS. Better speak to the 24 hour media.
To its credit, the Thatcher government did something of a u-turn after the huge demand cut of Geoffrey Howe's disastrous 1981 budget. By that time even economists had realised things were going wrong and were writing letters to newspapers pointing it out.
I seem to recall 364 economists wrote to the Times that there would be a recession as a result of the policies - a recession that never happened.
That was different from the early 1980s recession that did happen presumably?
'Company earnings decline 35%. Unemployment rises from 5.3% of the working population in August 1979 to 11.9% in 1984[18] Took thirteen quarters for GDP to recover to its pre-recession peak at the end of 1979.[10] Annual inflation was 18.0% in 1980, 11.9% in 1981, 8.6% in 1982 and 4.6% in 1983.[15] Interest rates generally declined during the recession from a peak of 17.0% at the beginning of 1980 to a low of 9.6% in October 1982.'
The recession which had already happened before the 1981 Budget and the letter of the 364 economists ?
Yep, the letter was written just after the budget at the end of the last quarter of that recession, it predicted a deepening of that recession rather than a new one. Afaicr it also predicted 3m unemployed and damaged social stability. Well off there, weren't they?
So you're accepting that the 364 economists were wrong about the recession deepening.
I've looked and looked but I just can't see where I said 364 economists were right about a recession deepening.
That was different from the early 1980s recession that did happen presumably?
'Company earnings decline 35%. Unemployment rises from 5.3% of the working population in August 1979 to 11.9% in 1984[18] Took thirteen quarters for GDP to recover to its pre-recession peak at the end of 1979.[10] Annual inflation was 18.0% in 1980, 11.9% in 1981, 8.6% in 1982 and 4.6% in 1983.[15] Interest rates generally declined during the recession from a peak of 17.0% at the beginning of 1980 to a low of 9.6% in October 1982.'
Now perhaps we can summarise the situation:
1) There was a Budget in March 1981
2) Some economists wrote a letter saying it would deepen the recession
Comments
(If you are going to indulge in hyperbole I might as well join in...)
Those who saw the main benefits as being deregulation were a tiny fraction of very wealthy Leavers at most.
Fishing control can be regained under any form of Brexit
Might get through one day but not before we leave. TM's deal will get through because:
1) A good number of Tories already plan to do so because it is the only deal in town
2) ERG types will ultimately vote for/not vote against a deal which keeps a lot of their hopes alive - leaving the EU being a necessary but not sufficient part of the plan
3) Some Lab MPs will not vote against it, or even vote for it, because they are quietly against anything which helps their current leader having a chance to run the country following a crisis GE
4) Other Lab MPs and some Tories (Kenneth Clarke) will vote for it because this WA keeps their hopes alive of ending up with remain or something close to it like Norway +
5) A number of socialist Labour MPs will vote to leave or abstain because like Jeremy Corbyn they want to leave even if they can't say so
6) Only the Lib Dems, the SNP and DUP have compelling reasons to vote against.
So in the end, with enough rebels and reluctant abstentions it will prevail.
If we do "No Deal" I expect the "No Deal" supporting headbangers to be the first to complain.
Sovereignty is pretty illusory gain too given the fact that May has capitulated on diverging from EU regulations.
Every comment you make shows you don’t have any understanding of why individual Leave voters voted as they did.
All in all, your comment doesn’t have a lot going for it.
Every comment you make shows you to be prepared to near destroy the economy and break up the UK to get your ideologically pure version of Brexit at all costs, including No Deal. The average voter however is prepared to accept the Deal as a sensible compromise
I simply don’t believe the Treasury forecasts are credible. Osborne’s weren’t and Hammond has spent the last 2 years trying to thwart Brexit and is a clueless Chancellor so his won’t be either.
So far we are still in the EU, the Single Market and Customs Union even after the Leave vote, leaving the EU, the Single Market and Customs Union with no deal at all with our largest export market at the end of March is a rather different proposition
Leaving the EU means nothing if we are still bound by it’s trade regs, the ECJ and the issue of paying for trade is unresolved, all of which will be the case if the WA comes into effect.
Your second para is pure Project Fear. If it were otherwise, May wouldn’t have abandoned services which you conveniently overlook.
Great game of footy at the King Power, those betting on Puel out are not on a winner.
https://groceries.asda.com/product/pork-chops-steaks/asda-butchers-selection-pork-whole-fillet-typically-500g/23976800
https://groceries.asda.com/product/beef-steaks-sauces/asda-butchers-selection-beef-fillet-steak-typically-200g/910001025333
Chocolate cake flavoured dog food containing chicken, salmon and steamed vegetables could be a marketing winner.
Leaving the EU for most voters is just that and ending free movement, nothing more, for diehards like you of course it means ending all ties and going to No Deal if necessary no matter the economic cost or the risk of Scotland voting for independent and Northern Ireland for a United Ireland.
It is manufacturing and agriculture which most need a Deal with the EU to protect exports and supplies, services will still be protected by regulatory equivalence where required e.g. the adoption of GDPR
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46687275
Ending FOM was by no means the only reason people voted Leave. That false belief is why Remainers have constructed a draft WA that most Leavers loathe and want nothing to do with.
Regulatory equivalence is a sick joke. All exporters have to comply with the trade reg’s on the country to whom they export. They don’t have to regulate their domestic economies the same way though.
GDPR is a totally meaningless and pointless piece of legislation that is EU bureaucracy at its worst.
Ending FOM was pivotal to Leave getting out working class Leavers and getting over 50% of the vote, just.
Regulatory equivalence will ease the barriers for services much as May's Deal avoids the threat of heavy barriers and tariffs for UK manufacturing and agricultural exporters unlike a damaging No Deal
You clearly have a closed mind when it comes to FOM and regulatory equivalence. Repeating the same arguments adds nothing and knocking my head against a brick wall is not something I choose to engage in even you find it worth your while.
It is only the irredeemable socialist lunatics and Eurofanatics who still think like you.
A pound of drinking chocolate, a tin of golden syrup and crushed biscuits... mix it up and put a heavy weight on it for 48 hours then ice...
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyq/qna
'Company earnings decline 35%.
Unemployment rises from 5.3% of the working population in August 1979 to 11.9% in 1984[18]
Took thirteen quarters for GDP to recover to its pre-recession peak at the end of 1979.[10]
Annual inflation was 18.0% in 1980, 11.9% in 1981, 8.6% in 1982 and 4.6% in 1983.[15]
Interest rates generally declined during the recession from a peak of 17.0% at the beginning of 1980 to a low of 9.6% in October 1982.'
And then got worse when oil revenue collapsed.
I'm sure we can all get behind arson of the homes of people who have created legislation we don't like - I mean who hasn't wanted at one time or another to berate in an incendiary way the creator of a particularly silly law or set of regulations - I know I have.
I do draw the line at setting fire to any domesticated animals - first, I suspect it's not as easy as it sounds and second, I may be wrong but I suspect said animals had less involvement in the creation of bad law than you imagine.
Call we a wishy-washy namby-pamby soft old metropolitan liberal (and many have) but can't we just have the animals a stern reprimand and send them on their way?
"Amazon released the Kindle, its first e-reader, on November 19, 2007, for US$399. It sold out in five and a half hours. The device remained out of stock for five months until late April 2008......"
And you had to buy two tv magazines to find out what was on them.
And if you tell that to the young people of today they wont believe you ...
I was thinking whether there was a corresponding list of things we don't have anymore. A quick thought threw up:
Concorde*
Space Shuttle
Free University tuition (ok that was >20 years ago)
Thriving High Streets
A sane POTUS
A Government actually governing
... I bet there are others.
(*Yes ok, 15 years and 2 months ago)
Good evening, everyone. I hope you all had a good Christmas.
Hope you all had a nice Boxing Day.
You forgot to mention that the Top 40 had good songs. That’s traditional but, fwiw, most were absolutely shite.
Nostalgia’s a terrible thing.
As one of my cousins wrote in the 20s;
“God has been good to my family: he has given us a task that is lpleasant to perform, does not too much error and is well rewarded”
Edit: actually on checking, Pipes of Peace can piss off.
Boeing was close to green lighting the Sonic Cruiser in 2001 the WTC, that would have been the new Concorde. The space shuttle was a hangover from the Cold War.
If there’s a real point, it’s an atrophying of ambition. Just as the media measures distances in London buses so, in this country anything ambitious and involving Goverment spending is measured in terms of how the money could be spent on the NHS. Better speak to the 24 hour media.
1) There was a Budget in March 1981
2) Some economists wrote a letter saying it would deepen the recession
3) The recession did not deepen instead it ended