"A failure to deliver Brexit would be "a catastrophic and unforgivable breach of trust in our democracy", Prime Minister Theresa May has warned." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46853689
Does that mean she prefers No Deal to Remain if her deal is rejected on Tuesday?
I think it means that she’s finally realised that her last faint hope for her deal is to persuade Remainers to back her.
I've strained two close friendships of mine (both ERG MPs) to back the deal. I've told them the Remainers are using the obstinacy and dogma of their group as cover to rescind Brexit. I've suggested they could use the very obvious moves of the Parliamentary Remainers during the last week or two as cover to change their minds.
Longer term, the euro needs to be rebalanced some how into a V2.0 where the south isn't locked into a competitive disadvantage.
In normal currency areas (e.g. ours) there's a common Government, treasury and debt, and the weaker areas are at least partially compensated for having to share a currency with the stronger ones through fiscal transfers. Through UK Government spending and grant allocations, a substantial net transfer of tax revenues is effected between the different parts of the country.
None of this exists within the Eurozone: yes, less well-off states benefit from some investment through the CAP and structural funds, but this is tiny in proportion to their overall budgets, and any large injections of cash come in the form of bailout loans rather than gifts. That might not be a problem if the Eurozone consisted only of Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Luxembourg but, given that it in fact contains such a widely varying collection of economies, I don't see how this state of affairs can persist forever.
That is why I think people in this country who dismiss talk of some kind of United States of Europe *might* be wrong. There is strong political resistance in the creditor states for effectively signing their taxpayers up to fund public spending in the debtor states, but there's also immense political investment in the Euro as a project. Eventually, something must give: either the Eurozone will have to adopt at least some of the characteristics of a nation state to survive in one piece, or those economies that can't live in a currency union with Germany will have to peel off. It's just a matter of which outcome wins out.
It’s almost as if you’re suggesting that the Eurozone isn’t an optimal currency area
Many outside the SE of England will tell you that the Sterling zone isn't either.
Interesting. I am in SE England and moan a lot about interest rates being kept on the floor. But you could argue that the BoE has done that for the benefit of the rest of the UK outside of London and the South East.
That's why I think all the commentary around no majority for any of the other options is off the mark. True, there isn't at the moment, but when her deal is voted down, the loyalists will be looking at the other options that are not 'no deal'. So we'll end up with either second referendum (deal or remain), or deferral to allow Norway style deal. I'd say it's about 70/30 in favour of second ref.
John Mann on Sophy Ridge this morning declared he will vote for TM deal. He also said he would vote for a GE but the idea labour will hold a referendum is not going to happen. Rebecca Long Bailey on the same programme declared that following a GE labour would campaign for a better Brexit so that will be labours position post a GE
JM went rogue a long time ago.
RLB is just parroting Labour’s policy which at this stage is to call a VONC which, if won, will lead to a GE.
However there is no difference here to what May is doing, which is advocate a policy which looks impossible to get through Parliament.
Some time next week, when May has lost the vote and Corbyn has lost his - that’s when the reality-based conversation can begin.
There are only two non-chaotic responses to that, and neither are perfect. One is to try to share out the flow of migrants, as the EU is (so far ineffectively) trying to do, while helping creates jobs in the developing world and trying to move domestic markets here upstream. The second, addressing at least the second issue of jobs migrating, is protectionism, cf. Trump.
I would contend that the correct answer is to encourage further economic development in the source countries (including through lowering trade barriers insofar as is practicable,) AND to fortify the borders to prevent uncontrolled mass migration. Most people in Europe do not subscribe to the let-everyone-in tendency, and there is no point in antagonising them by forcing the policy down their throats. Besides anything else, democracy dictates that if the problem gets acute enough, voters will dump the let-everyone-in parties in favour of the keep-everyone-out parties, and that doesn't help. We need to build consensus for a compromise that the greatest number of voters possible can live with.
The argument that holding the borders will cause jobs to shift abroad doesn't wash, either. Firstly, to a very great extent it doesn't matter to the resident population if those jobs are lost if they were only going to be filled by migrants in the first place; secondly, the jobs filled by irregular migrants are liable to consist primarily of low skill, low value employment to begin with. Not only do we not particularly want to see a lot of British people employed in, say, (non-luxury) garment manufacturing, but we should positively welcome those jobs going to people in African countries. These kinds of industries are an important step in the developing nations' journeys up the value chain.
There are two further considerations. Firstly, mass immigration across the Mediterranean route (and the English Channel, for that matter) is arguably evidence, in and of itself, that prosperity in the developing world is already on the rise. How else could all those migrants afford to pay a small fortune to the people traffickers otherwise? Secondly, how do we help developing countries by taking in a large slice of their fittest and most motivated people? Sure, they can send remittances home, but doing low wage jobs in an expensive-to-live-in Northern European country isn't going to leave them with very much surplus income to do that.
To the extent that we do take in migrants from the developing world, we should be concentrating our efforts on inviting people with skills necessary to the economy, and students - i.e. the same approach that we would surely take with EU migrants were we not bound by freedom of movement. Irregular migration should be discouraged.
I don't disagree with some of your points but I was trying to bring it back to basics (as that Remainer PM once said).
Populism is an insult banded around for popular policies certain people dislike. A lovely subjective view by those who think their views are always right. We could mimic the policies and views of the EU if we wanted to, but that's no good for true Europhiles because it involve unreliable British voters. Ooh, populism, hiss, boo.
Indeed. Oh, someone will now define why populism is different, perhaps even fairly, but ultimately it's to allow a ready made reason to reject the people while pretending not to. I always do what the people want, but not this populist stuff. It's ok to privately admit we the people get it wrong.
We need a word to describe Trump, Brexit and Five Star. That word is not fascism, nor even “alt-right”.
That word is populism.
Well it certainly cannot be fascism or alt right when left wing populism is also a thing. It still just seems to mean 'popular but that's not ok in this case' and easily confused with parties who might also advocate popular things.
Populism = giving the people what they want and what they believe is best for themselves, as opposed to what the bien pensant political class believes to be in their best interest.
The people: "What we want and what is best for us is very low taxes and the very best public services and don't you bien pensant political class tell us it's not possible, that choices have to be made". Populism is at root, infantilism, which is why strong father figures are popular.
No, that's free owls.
Populism is things like going hmm, well, there's a housing crisis and I can't get to see the doctor for another two weeks. 50% of children in my daughter's class only speak English as a second language but when I call this out people say I'm a bit thick and racist. But I'm thinking maybe control of our borders and a little less immigration might not be a bad thing.
It is, in short, common sense to most people who see the results of policy implemented on a macro scale at an individual, personal level. Ordinary people who don't think that the marginal boost in GDP is worth the cost (and who are miffed that this is a good thing, when they haven't seen a pay rise in years).
It is about understanding that people are not numbers, that you cannot ram multiculturalism down people's throats, that ordinary voices should be listened to instead of overruled by bean counters and political project makers. That is why five star and la lega make surprisingly comfortable bedfellows. Their common ground is common sense.
That's why I think all the commentary around no majority for any of the other options is off the mark. True, there isn't at the moment, but when her deal is voted down, the loyalists will be looking at the other options that are not 'no deal'. So we'll end up with either second referendum (deal or remain), or deferral to allow Norway style deal. I'd say it's about 70/30 in favour of second ref.
John Mann on Sophy Ridge this morning declared he will vote for TM deal. He also said he would vote for a GE but the idea labour will hold a referendum is not going to happen. Rebecca Long Bailey on the same programme declared that following a GE labour would campaign for a better Brexit so that will be labours position post a GE
JM went rogue a long time ago.
RLB is just parroting Labour’s policy which at this stage is to call a VONC which, if won, will lead to a GE.
However there is no difference here to what May is doing, which is advocate a policy which looks impossible to get through Parliament.
Some time next week, when May has lost the vote and Corbyn has lost his - that’s when the reality-based conversation can begin.
RLB went further and said labour would seek a better Brexit post a GE
Nicola Sturgeon is getting herself into big trouble shielding unionist civil servants who tried to stitch up Alex Salmond. She seems to have lost the plot for feminism support. Why the two unionist turkeys have not been sacked is crazy. She may be job hunting if she does not watch.
Any sign of party rumblings of discontent at her?
Not openly for sure except for usual suspects like Sillars, but press etc bigging it up and Salmond will turn over every stone. Hard to see why she has supported these two chancers, given the women were pushed into getting ready to complain and then they changed the rules to fit the complaints before getting them to submit complaints. Bungling amateurs.
This may end up playing significantly in future elections.
Unfortunately, David doesn't seem to realise we'll never ever get to negotiating it unless the WA passes.
It is one of those situations where one has to question do they really not realise or do they simply not care?
The former, mainly.
What was quite interesting is the news article I read last week (I forget where) that said it took many of MPs in the ERG nearly 10 months to work out what the divorce settlement agreed in December 2017 both said and meant. And some still haven't got there. The pressure (and peer pressure) to respond instantly led them to repeat soundbites, innuendo and rumour from those they assumed had, without doing the hard work for themselves.
I fully expect in about a year or two's time this will happen again over the WA, once it's far too late and Brexit has been revoked, and then the individual's concerned will blame someone else.
Maybe. Many who oppose the WA do have good reasons of course. However, when we have no Brexit I would not be surprised if there are still plenty of people regretting contributing to its downfall.
I'm not sure many do have good reasons, actually.
I just don't think they understand it and are blinkered by unbending ideology.
That's why I think all the commentary around no majority for any of the other options is off the mark. True, there isn't at the moment, but when her deal is voted down, the loyalists will be looking at the other options that are not 'no deal'. So we'll end up with either second referendum (deal or remain), or deferral to allow Norway style deal. I'd say it's about 70/30 in favour of second ref.
John Mann on Sophy Ridge this morning declared he will vote for TM deal. He also said he would vote for a GE but the idea labour will hold a referendum is not going to happen. Rebecca Long Bailey on the same programme declared that following a GE labour would campaign for a better Brexit so that will be labours position post a GE
JM went rogue a long time ago.
RLB is just parroting Labour’s policy which at this stage is to call a VONC which, if won, will lead to a GE.
However there is no difference here to what May is doing, which is advocate a policy which looks impossible to get through Parliament.
Some time next week, when May has lost the vote and Corbyn has lost his - that’s when the reality-based conversation can begin.
We can hope so.
In other matters, I'm still not sure even half the Cabinet back the deal really, you don't see much of them!
This may end up playing significantly in future elections.
Unfortunately, David doesn't seem to realise we'll never ever get to negotiating it unless the WA passes.
It is one of those situations where one has to question do they really not realise or do they simply not care?
The former, mainly.
What was quite interesting is the news article I read last week (I forget where) that said it took many of MPs in the ERG nearly 10 months to work out what the divorce settlement agreed in December 2017 both said and meant. And some still haven't got there. The pressure (and peer pressure) to respond instantly led them to repeat soundbites, innuendo and rumour from those they assumed had, without doing the hard work for themselves.
I fully expect in about a year or two's time this will happen again over the WA, once it's far too late and Brexit has been revoked, and then the individual's concerned will blame someone else.
Maybe. Many who oppose the WA do have good reasons of course. However, when we have no Brexit I would not be surprised if there are still plenty of people regretting contributing to its downfall.
I'm not sure many do have good reasons, actually.
I just don't think they understand it and are blinkered by unbending ideology.
The USA shows that there is no easy solution to the migrant issue. In states like Alabama or Maine, the foreign-born population is still low, whereas in California or New York it is enormous. For Europe, the long-term migrant issue is most serious for Germany, Austria, the Low Countries and Scandinavia.
The U.K. is theoretically blessed, thanks to being an island. In reality, there is almost no political will to really reduce numbers. That is abundantly clear from the immigration White Paper. We also give our citizenship away. Here’s, it’s 5 years for a passport. In Germany it’s 7 or 8 years, Spain 10, and in Brazil 15.
No wonder we’re the destination of choice...
I think it's more that, if you make it to our shores, you're almost certainly home and dry.
Nicola Sturgeon is getting herself into big trouble shielding unionist civil servants who tried to stitch up Alex Salmond. She seems to have lost the plot for feminism support. Why the two unionist turkeys have not been sacked is crazy. She may be job hunting if she does not watch.
Any sign of party rumblings of discontent at her?
Not openly for sure except for usual suspects like Sillars, but press etc bigging it up and Salmond will turn over every stone. Hard to see why she has supported these two chancers, given the women were pushed into getting ready to complain and then they changed the rules to fit the complaints before getting them to submit complaints. Bungling amateurs.
Morning Malc - where do you think all this controversy is going for Nicola Sturgeon and will she survive
The USA shows that there is no easy solution to the migrant issue. In states like Alabama or Maine, the foreign-born population is still low, whereas in California or New York it is enormous. For Europe, the long-term migrant issue is most serious for Germany, Austria, the Low Countries and Scandinavia.
The U.K. is theoretically blessed, thanks to being an island. In reality, there is almost no political will to really reduce numbers. That is abundantly clear from the immigration White Paper. We also give our citizenship away. Here’s, it’s 5 years for a passport. In Germany it’s 7 or 8 years, Spain 10, and in Brazil 15.
No wonder we’re the destination of choice...
Of course there is a solution - at least to the illegal part of it that is preoccupying the USA - as per Robert's video, Switzerland's approach of making it illegal to employ illegal immigrants provides a very large part of it. Trouble is, both here and in the US, that would reveal the extent to which we need and benefit from it.
Anyone listening to Corbyn's unicorns on Marr must just despair.
It is remarkable that he is doing so well by perpetually dodging the biggest question of our age. Although slowly but surely the cracks are starting to appear.
I'm not sure I do, either. Something I could never say in a professional environment in London, or I be dismissed.
We should be celebrating what unites and binds us in our local, regional and national communities, not emphasising and worshipping the differences, which invariably always boils down to the race/gender/sexuality kind - with personality, preference, politics, or family background, barely getting a look in - and simply encourages identity politics.
Identity politics matter because once you have been discriminated against for merely existing, then you tend to get worked up about it.
Suppose someone told you that you could not take out a mortgage because you were a man - get your wife to come down and sign the papers, or your mother, or your sister or some other female relative. You would explode with anger. Yet within living memory, many women had the mirror image of that experience.
Identity is all people have. It defines us. Everything else can be taken away from you. Our bodies and personalities are the only guaranteed possessions we have an ever changing world. They should not used to discriminate against us.
Anyone listening to Corbyn's unicorns on Marr must just despair.
It is remarkable that he is doing so well by perpetually dodging the biggest question of our age. Although slowly but surely the cracks are starting to appear.
This may end up playing significantly in future elections.
Unfortunately, David doesn't seem to realise we'll never ever get to negotiating it unless the WA passes.
It has a max time-limit of 45 months - less than most care hire-purchase agreements - but the ERG morons can't see past it.
Theres a time limit on the backstop? I wasnt aware of that. Are you 100% sure?
Or do you mean any "benefits" we get from the agreement are time limited while the backstop is in perpetuity?
You see, when you use words like "benefits" that totally misses the point. The WA is supposed to maintain BAU, whilst allowing our formal exit, so we have the time and space to negotiate a permanent settlement with the EU, replicate all other linked trade deals, and make new ones. We had a 7-year transition from Commonwealth preference to the EEC post 1973. I'm totalled relaxed about a < 4-year one, and don't understand why others are not.
The backstop is a massive red herring. Both the UK and the EU know they've f*cked this up, and it's in neither's interests for it to continue.
I fully expected it to be superseded by a new FTA in 2021 or 2022 that will include our formal exit from the customs union, with a level of special rules for NI, and close customs cooperation between the UK and EU thereafter.
"A failure to deliver Brexit would be "a catastrophic and unforgivable breach of trust in our democracy", Prime Minister Theresa May has warned." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46853689
Does that mean she prefers No Deal to Remain if her deal is rejected on Tuesday?
I think it means that she’s finally realised that her last faint hope for her deal is to persuade Remainers to back her.
I've strained two close friendships of mine (both ERG MPs) to back the deal. I've told them the Remainers are using the obstinacy and dogma of their group as cover to rescind Brexit. I've suggested they could use the very obvious moves of the Parliamentary Remainers during the last week or two as cover to change their minds.
I don't expect anything to come of it.
Well done for trying. That’s all we poor bloody infantry can do.
Anyone listening to Corbyn's unicorns on Marr must just despair.
It is remarkable that he is doing so well by perpetually dodging the biggest question of our age. Although slowly but surely the cracks are starting to appear.
I'm not sure I do, either. Something I could never say in a professional environment in London, or I be dismissed.
We should be celebrating what unites and binds us in our local, regional and national communities, not emphasising and worshipping the differences, which invariably always boils down to the race/gender/sexuality kind - with personality, preference, politics, or family background, barely getting a look in - and simply encourages identity politics.
Identity politics matter because once you have been discriminated against for merely existing, then you tend to get worked up about it.
Suppose someone told you that you could not take out a mortgage because you were a man - get your wife to come down and sign the papers, or your mother, or your sister or some other female relative. You would explode with anger. Yet within living memory, many women had the mirror image of that experience.
Identity is all people have. It defines us. Everything else can be taken away from you. Our bodies and personalities are the only guaranteed possessions we have an ever changing world. They should not used to discriminate against us.
Fine, but the answer is to create a society in which everyone can prosper regardless of such characteristics, rather than lump people into a set of interest groups and then tell them what interests they should have.
Nicola Sturgeon is getting herself into big trouble shielding unionist civil servants who tried to stitch up Alex Salmond. She seems to have lost the plot for feminism support. Why the two unionist turkeys have not been sacked is crazy. She may be job hunting if she does not watch.
She is in big trouble for having a series of meetings and calls with Salmond as First Minister with civil servants present but not disclosing them for several months. Not the civil servants fault but her own. Did we not previously establish that the principal civil servant here was married on a leading SNP activist? Pretty sure we did.
Does not mean she is not a unionist or have a personal grudge to settle though David. She is obviously unsuited for her position, coaching people on complaints and then rewriting the process to fit catching someone seems a bit stupid. Think a clear out of the byre is needed.
On the populism thing, there are a couple of different senses of the word that @CD13 is confusing upthread.
A. A policy designed to appeal to people, but not based on it actually working. If we're using this definition, if I say a policy is populism, and you want to defend it, you respond that no, it's not populism, here's the evidence that it actually works.
B. A style and cluster of policies that claim to represent "the people", as opposed to 1) A vaguely-defined but nefarious "elite" 2) Some but not all of the other people - in the most classic formulation it's Jews, but other minorities work too. In the US, it represents "Real Americans", and there are a bunch of people who are technically Americans but aren't *real* Americans.
(B) doesn't necessarily actually have to be *popular* - we know this because you can have a *rise* of populism, followed by a fall of populism. A lot of policies promoted by populists are unpopular at any given time; For example, Trump's wall is currently unpopular. If you're using this definition and I say a policy is populist, you say sure, and it's a great policy, and you're only opposing it because you're a (((neoliberal))) (((globalist))) who doesn't care about working people.
The people: "What we want and what is best for us is very low taxes and the very best public services and don't you bien pensant political class tell us it's not possible, that choices have to be made". Populism is at root, infantilism, which is why strong father figures are popular.
No, that's free owls.
Populism is things like going hmm, well, there's a housing crisis and I can't get to see the doctor for another two weeks. 50% of children in my daughter's class only speak English as a second language but when I call this out people say I'm a bit thick and racist. But I'm thinking maybe control of our borders and a little less immigration might not be a bad thing.
It is, in short, common sense to most people who see the results of policy implemented on a macro scale at an individual, personal level. Ordinary people who don't think that the marginal boost in GDP is worth the cost (and who are miffed that this is a good thing, when they haven't seen a pay rise in years).
It is about understanding that people are not numbers, that you cannot ram multiculturalism down people's throats, that ordinary voices should be listened to instead of overruled by bean counters and political project makers. That is why five star and la lega make surprisingly comfortable bedfellows. Their common ground is common sense.
Exactly. Polarisation only occurs when two political forces, neither of which will brook any compromise, are left to feed off one another.
A liberal migration policy, allied to investment in the requisite infrastructure, is sellable. Open borders is not. Thus, if people are sick of open borders but nobody in power offers a compromise alternative, eventually they have no choice but to go over to the outsider movement that says "we will get rid of open borders."
The UK was undergoing population growth equivalent to more than the entire population of Edinburgh every year, the primary driver of which was net international migration. A lot of people were concerned about how we were meant to cope with this, and they were entitled to be so. Their concerns were answered, effectively, with "these are the rules, we're not budging" from the EU, and "shut up you racist fruitcakes" from the major political parties. The pro-EU consensus alienated these voters with their fundamentalism; they were left with no choice but to embrace an opposing radicalism - smashing up the EU itself - in response.
[Our] constitution is stuck together from parliamentary conventions, precedents, international agreements, unwritten understandings, judicial rulings and legislative sticky notes. This seemed serviceable enough – until this spatchcocked structure collided with something as colossal as Brexit. We are partly paying the price for making such a massive decision by simple plebiscite, without having properly settled rules about referendums and how they can be reconciled with representative democracy.
It is very hard work to amend the constitution of the United States and a change can only be made if there is a wide and deep consensus. Britain is heading out of the EU, the most consequential act in decades, on the basis of one ballot held nearly three years ago in which just one vote could have decided the outcome. The closeness of the result and the lack of agreement about what it meant spelled trouble from the start. It also led to the inevitable convulsions that were going to follow when a parliament largely against Brexit was tasked with implementing a result most MPs thought a mistake, a challenge without precedent. This conundrum might have been eased had Mrs May responded to her task with a non-partisan, cross-party approach, but she made things harder when she started out by seeking to please one faction of her party alone.
This may end up playing significantly in future elections.
Unfortunately, David doesn't seem to realise we'll never ever get to negotiating it unless the WA passes.
It has a max time-limit of 45 months - less than most care hire-purchase agreements - but the ERG morons can't see past it.
Theres a time limit on the backstop? I wasnt aware of that. Are you 100% sure?
Or do you mean any "benefits" we get from the agreement are time limited while the backstop is in perpetuity?
You see, when you use words like "benefits" that totally misses the point. The WA is supposed to maintain BAU, whilst allowing our formal exit, so we have the time and space to negotiate a permanent settlement with the EU, replicate all other linked trade deals, and make new ones. We had a 7-year transition from Commonwealth preference to the EEC post 1973. I'm totalled relaxed about a < 4-year one, and don't understand why others are not.
The backstop is a massive red herring. Both the UK and the EU know they've f*cked this up, and it's in neither's interests for it to continue.
I fully expected it to be superseded by a new FTA in 2021 or 2022 that will include our formal exit from the customs union, with a level of special rules for NI, and close customs cooperation between the UK and EU thereafter.
You are the one totally missing the point. If we were all confident the FTA would be in effect then there would be no problem. Nobody is objecting that strenuously to a transition. It is the permanent backstop that is the problem and there is no time limit on that.
You and Mr Nabavi claim the EU don't want the backstop to be permanent but given the upset it is causing here they could resolve that by not making it permanent. They haven't. Judge by deeds not words and the deeds are that they have moved heaven and earth to screw out of us a permanent backstop from which there is no time limit and no unilateral escape.
I would contend that the correct answer is to encourage further economic development in the source countries (including through lowering trade barriers insofar as is practicable,) AND to fortify the borders to prevent uncontrolled mass migration. Most people in Europe do not subscribe to the let-everyone-in tendency, and there is no point in antagonising them by forcing the policy down their throats. Besides anything else, democracy dictates that if the problem gets acute enough, voters will dump the let-everyone-in parties in favour of the keep-everyone-out parties, and that doesn't help. We need to build consensus for a compromise that the greatest number of voters possible can live with.
The argument that holding the borders will cause jobs to shift abroad doesn't wash, either. Firstly, to a very great extent it doesn't matter to the resident population if those jobs are lost if they were only going to be filled by migrants in the first place; secondly, the jobs filled by irregular migrants are liable to consist primarily of low skill, low value employment to begin with. Not only do we not particularly want to see a lot of British people employed in, say, (non-luxury) garment manufacturing, but we should positively welcome those jobs going to people in African countries. These kinds of industries are an important step in the developing nations' journeys up the value chain.
There are two further considerations. Firstly, mass immigration across the Mediterranean route (and the English Channel, for that matter) is arguably evidence, in and of itself, that prosperity in the developing world is already on the rise. How else could all those migrants afford to pay a small fortune to the people traffickers otherwise? Secondly, how do we help developing countries by taking in a large slice of their fittest and most motivated people? Sure, they can send remittances home, but doing low wage jobs in an expensive-to-live-in Northern European country isn't going to leave them with very much surplus income to do that.
To the extent that we do take in migrants from the developing world, we should be concentrating our efforts on inviting people with skills necessary to the economy, and students - i.e. the same approach that we would surely take with EU migrants were we not bound by freedom of movement. Irregular migration should be discouraged.
I don't disagree with most of what you say. Economic migrants are making pretty rational choices, and if staying at home is more fruitful and migration is harder, that changes the equation (refugees are a different matter - if staying put will probably mean death, you flee, regardless, and I think we should remain helpful then). My point was really that to some exent it will happen anyway and we have to manage it rather than just hope it will stop.
"A failure to deliver Brexit would be "a catastrophic and unforgivable breach of trust in our democracy", Prime Minister Theresa May has warned." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46853689
Does that mean she prefers No Deal to Remain if her deal is rejected on Tuesday?
I think it means that she’s finally realised that her last faint hope for her deal is to persuade Remainers to back her.
I've strained two close friendships of mine (both ERG MPs) to back the deal. I've told them the Remainers are using the obstinacy and dogma of their group as cover to rescind Brexit. I've suggested they could use the very obvious moves of the Parliamentary Remainers during the last week or two as cover to change their minds.
I don't expect anything to come of it.
Well done for trying. That’s all we poor bloody infantry can do.
Not much point in me trying to lean on Dr. Sarah Wollaston.....
The ERG should take the May Deal - but with their support contingent on her stating she will be stepping down on 1st June, allowing time for a new leader to be installed in the meantime. A new leader who can undertake negotiating the trade deal. And - if the members so choose - one who has said they will walk away from the Withdrawal Agreement, if needs be. But that would at least be after a period of planning for such walk away.
The reputational hit internationally in doing so might be real, but probably far less painful than suffering a No Deal Brexit that has been inadequately planned for.
Which means if it fails this week, we're out with no deal.
I do hope the Remainers in Parliament finally come to understand this.
Baring a better deal, obviously
So, no deal, then?
That's the naked truth...
By all means bookmark this post and tell me I was wrong on April 1st. Believe me I shall be very happy if I am!
But you'll have some compensations. Like pointing out how Dominic Grieve's little games ensured it happened.....
You might have that compensation. You're a Leaver. Knowing my fellow Remainers are the ones who screwed up so imposingly will make matters worse, not better.
Fine, but the answer is to create a society in which everyone can prosper regardless of such characteristics, rather than lump people into a set of interest groups and then tell them what interests they should have.
See my other post further down (reply to Nick Palmer) where i say that things need improving. Nor am i advocating special interest groups. I am saying that you cannot expect people's identity NOT to creep into their politics, but that we should stop using facets of people's identity so we can separate "them" from "us" and them demonize them
This may end up playing significantly in future elections.
Unfortunately, David doesn't seem to realise we'll never ever get to negotiating it unless the WA passes.
It has a max time-limit of 45 months - less than most care hire-purchase agreements - but the ERG morons can't see past it.
Theres a time limit on the backstop? I wasnt aware of that. Are you 100% sure?
Or do you mean any "benefits" we get from the agreement are time limited while the backstop is in perpetuity?
You see, when you use words like "benefits" that totally misses the point. The WA is supposed to maintain BAU, whilst allowing our formal exit, so we have the time and space to negotiate a permanent settlement with the EU, replicate all other linked trade deals, and make new ones. We had a 7-year transition from Commonwealth preference to the EEC post 1973. I'm totalled relaxed about a < 4-year one, and don't understand why others are not.
The backstop is a massive red herring. Both the UK and the EU know they've f*cked this up, and it's in neither's interests for it to continue.
I fully expected it to be superseded by a new FTA in 2021 or 2022 that will include our formal exit from the customs union, with a level of special rules for NI, and close customs cooperation between the UK and EU thereafter.
Not sure about the timeline - I suspect the deal will take a lot longer to do, once the talking actually starts - but in the end I agree that we are going to have a very close relationship with the EU, and will to all intents and purposes be a part of its sphere of influence.
I'm not sure I do, either. Something I could never say in a professional environment in London, or I be dismissed.
We should be celebrating what unites and binds us in our local, regional and national communities, not emphasising and worshipping the differences, which invariably always boils down to the race/gender/sexuality kind - with personality, preference, politics, or family background, barely getting a look in - and simply encourages identity politics.
Identity politics matter because once you have been discriminated against for merely existing, then you tend to get worked up about it.
Suppose someone told you that you could not take out a mortgage because you were a man - get your wife to come down and sign the papers, or your mother, or your sister or some other female relative. You would explode with anger. Yet within living memory, many women had the mirror image of that experience.
Identity is all people have. It defines us. Everything else can be taken away from you. Our bodies and personalities are the only guaranteed possessions we have an ever changing world. They should not used to discriminate against us.
Straw man. That's ancient history.
The Married Women’s Property Act 1870 gave married women the same property and financial rights as unmarried women in 1893, and the Law of Property Act 1922 gave both women and men to inherit property equally. The last vestiges of discrimination on mortgages, loans and credit were removed in 1975 and 1980, respectively.
If there is active discrimination in the legal system against those of a different sex or race, then I agree it should be removed. And it has been.
That's quite different from using "identity" as a pernicious social and political tool, with strong traits of narcissism, which is quick to rank identities in value based upon perceived historical advantage, and very quick to act on perceived present-day slights - with overwhelming force - as evidence for them.
It is sowing a wind, which will reap a whirlwind, as it forces people back into identifying with what they feel they need to do in order provide themselves some measure of social and political defence. And unfairness can work both ways.
I think that's entirely unhealthy, and anyone half-intelligent should be able to see the difference.
Populism is at root, infantilism, which is why strong father figures are popular.
A close to perfect definition.
But to take the edge of, I would add a PS that if you are getting next to nothing from the status quo it is not necessarily irrational or childish to look at ways to destroy it.
As regards the developed world I regard economic populism (whether of the protectionist or the money printing variety) as less malign than identity populism.
The latter is an appeal to, and has appeal to, the worst aspects of human nature. Rather than fighting ignorance, xenophobia, racism, it encourages people to wallow in it. This has no saving grace. It is wholly bad.
This may end up playing significantly in future elections.
Unfortunately, David doesn't seem to realise we'll never ever get to negotiating it unless the WA passes.
It has a max time-limit of 45 months - less than most care hire-purchase agreements - but the ERG morons can't see past it.
Theres a time limit on the backstop? I wasnt aware of that. Are you 100% sure?
Or do you mean any "benefits" we get from the agreement are time limited while the backstop is in perpetuity?
It would take a gamble that the Irish/EU will be less concerned by a hard border in two years time than they are now or that the UK will be better prepared for No Deal in two years time then it is now. Both highly unlikely, so no guarantee.
However, and this is important, if people BELIEVE there's a guaranteed time limit, they will discover too late that there isn't one. We'll be out by then.
Nicola Sturgeon is getting herself into big trouble shielding unionist civil servants who tried to stitch up Alex Salmond. She seems to have lost the plot for feminism support. Why the two unionist turkeys have not been sacked is crazy. She may be job hunting if she does not watch.
Any sign of party rumblings of discontent at her?
Not openly for sure except for usual suspects like Sillars, but press etc bigging it up and Salmond will turn over every stone. Hard to see why she has supported these two chancers, given the women were pushed into getting ready to complain and then they changed the rules to fit the complaints before getting them to submit complaints. Bungling amateurs.
Morning Malc - where do you think all this controversy is going for Nicola Sturgeon and will she survive
Morning G, I have to say I have my doubts about her , too timid, too left wing and too feminist. I personally don't see her as being a patch on Alex S. Think Mike Russel or Angus Robertson would be much better. However I cannot see there ever being any evidence/charges against Salmond so will just be a case of whether she can stick it out whilst Police Scotland take a year or two to finish a 5 minute investigation. She certainly seems to be error prone in her judgment.
Mr. G, Halifax being part of HBOS, which was registered in Scotland.
On the pound: a transition would be desirable for Scotland, claiming a right to a currency union with a nation you just left, for an indeterminate period, remains an unhealthy blend of blind optimism and arrogant complacency.
But isn't it nice to discuss this rather than leaving the EU? See how much more civilised it is
To be fair the BOS the problems were in Halifax
And to be fair to NatWest the problems were with ABN and RBS.
The argument that holding the borders will cause jobs to shift abroad doesn't wash, either. Firstly, to a very great extent it doesn't matter to the resident population if those jobs are lost if they were only going to be filled by migrants in the first place; secondly, the jobs filled by irregular migrants are liable to consist primarily of low skill, low value employment to begin with. Not only do we not particularly want to see a lot of British people employed in, say, (non-luxury) garment manufacturing, but we should positively welcome those jobs going to people in African countries. These kinds of industries are an important step in the developing nations' journeys up the value chain.
There are two further considerations. Firstly, mass immigration across the Mediterranean route (and the English Channel, for that matter) is arguably evidence, in and of itself, that prosperity in the developing world is already on the rise. How else could all those migrants afford to pay a small fortune to the people traffickers otherwise? Secondly, how do we help developing countries by taking in a large slice of their fittest and most motivated people? Sure, they can send remittances home, but doing low wage jobs in an expensive-to-live-in Northern European country isn't going to leave them with very much surplus income to do that.
To the extent that we do take in migrants from the developing world, we should be concentrating our efforts on inviting people with skills necessary to the economy, and students - i.e. the same approach that we would surely take with EU migrants were we not bound by freedom of movement. Irregular migration should be discouraged.
I don't disagree with most of what you say. Economic migrants are making pretty rational choices, and if staying at home is more fruitful and migration is harder, that changes the equation (refugees are a different matter - if staying put will probably mean death, you flee, regardless, and I think we should remain helpful then). My point was really that to some exent it will happen anyway and we have to manage it rather than just hope it will stop.
Time we got Trump's blueprints for his wall design.
This may end up playing significantly in future elections.
Unfortunately, David doesn't seem to realise we'll never ever get to negotiating it unless the WA passes.
It has a max time-limit of 45 months - less than most care hire-purchase agreements - but the ERG morons can't see past it.
Theres a time limit on the backstop? I wasnt aware of that. Are you 100% sure?
Or do you mean any "benefits" we get from the agreement are time limited while the backstop is in perpetuity?
You see, when you use words like "benefits" that totally misses the point. The WA is supposed to maintain BAU, whilst allowing our formal exit, so we have the time and space to negotiate a permanent settlement with the EU, replicate all other linked trade deals, and make new ones. We had a 7-year transition from Commonwealth preference to the EEC post 1973. I'm totalled relaxed about a < 4-year one, and don't understand why others are not.
The backstop is a massive red herring. Both the UK and the EU know they've f*cked this up, and it's in neither's interests for it to continue.
I fully expected it to be superseded by a new FTA in 2021 or 2022 that will include our formal exit from the customs union, with a level of special rules for NI, and close customs cooperation between the UK and EU thereafter.
Not sure about the timeline - I suspect the deal will take a lot longer to do, once the talking actually starts - but in the end I agree that we are going to have a very close relationship with the EU, and will to all intents and purposes be a part of its sphere of influence.
That's because you always take the most negative or cynical interpretation of any possible event or set of events.
I expect we will move to an associate member status, with greater freedom of action in some areas, and continued close-cooperation in others, where our influence will based on the realpolitik, and not exclusively on formal or informal institutional memberships.
Nicola Sturgeon is getting herself into big trouble shielding unionist civil servants who tried to stitch up Alex Salmond. She seems to have lost the plot for feminism support. Why the two unionist turkeys have not been sacked is crazy. She may be job hunting if she does not watch.
Any sign of party rumblings of discontent at her?
Not openly for sure except for usual suspects like Sillars, but press etc bigging it up and Salmond will turn over every stone. Hard to see why she has supported these two chancers, given the women were pushed into getting ready to complain and then they changed the rules to fit the complaints before getting them to submit complaints. Bungling amateurs.
Morning Malc - where do you think all this controversy is going for Nicola Sturgeon and will she survive
Morning G, I have to say I have my doubts about her , too timid, too left wing and too feminist. I personally don't see her as being a patch on Alex S. Think Mike Russel or Angus Robertson would be much better. However I cannot see there ever being any evidence/charges against Salmond so will just be a case of whether she can stick it out whilst Police Scotland take a year or two to finish a 5 minute investigation. She certainly seems to be error prone in her judgment.
Thanks for that Malc.
I do have interest in Scots politics and do think Nicola has been compromised somewhat
This may end up playing significantly in future elections.
Unfortunately, David doesn't seem to realise we'll never ever get to negotiating it unless the WA passes.
It has a max time-limit of 45 months - less than most care hire-purchase agreements - but the ERG morons can't see past it.
Theres a time limit on the backstop? I wasnt aware of that. Are you 100% sure?
Or do you mean any "benefits" we get from the agreement are time limited while the backstop is in perpetuity?
You see, when you use words like "benefits" that totally misses the point. The WA is supposed to maintain BAU, whilst allowing our formal exit, so we have the time and space to negotiate a permanent settlement with the EU, replicate all other linked trade deals, and make new ones. We had a 7-year transition from Commonwealth preference to the EEC post 1973. I'm totalled relaxed about a < 4-year one, and don't understand why others are not.
The backstop is a massive red herring. Both the UK and the EU know they've f*cked this up, and it's in neither's interests for it to continue.
I fully expected it to be superseded by a new FTA in 2021 or 2022 that will include our formal exit from the customs union, with a level of special rules for NI, and close customs cooperation between the UK and EU thereafter.
Not sure about the timeline - I suspect the deal will take a lot longer to do, once the talking actually starts - but in the end I agree that we are going to have a very close relationship with the EU, and will to all intents and purposes be a part of its sphere of influence.
This may end up playing significantly in future elections.
Unfortunately, David doesn't seem to realise we'll never ever get to negotiating it unless the WA passes.
It has a max time-limit of 45 months - less than most care hire-purchase agreements - but the ERG morons can't see past it.
Theres a time limit on the backstop? I wasnt aware of that. Are you 100% sure?
Or do you mean any "benefits" we get from the agreement are time limited while the backstop is in perpetuity?
You see, when you use words like "benefits" that totally misses the point. The WA is supposed to maintain BAU, whilst allowing our formal exit, so we have the time and space to negotiate a permanent settlement with the EU, replicate all other linked trade deals, and make new ones. We had a 7-year transition from Commonwealth preference to the EEC post 1973. I'm totalled relaxed about a < 4-year one, and don't understand why others are not.
The backstop is a massive red herring. Both the UK and the EU know they've f*cked this up, and it's in neither's interests for it to continue.
I fully expected it to be superseded by a new FTA in 2021 or 2022 that will include our formal exit from the customs union, with a level of special rules for NI, and close customs cooperation between the UK and EU thereafter.
You are the one totally missing the point. If we were all confident the FTA would be in effect then there would be no problem. Nobody is objecting that strenuously to a transition. It is the permanent backstop that is the problem and there is no time limit on that.
You and Mr Nabavi claim the EU don't want the backstop to be permanent but given the upset it is causing here they could resolve that by not making it permanent. They haven't. Judge by deeds not words and the deeds are that they have moved heaven and earth to screw out of us a permanent backstop from which there is no time limit and no unilateral escape.
You do know the EU didn't want the backstop to apply to the whole of the UK, don't you? And that they view this as "cherrypicking" because we get full customs alignment totally for free, and with no free movement on people on top?
Anyone listening to Corbyn's unicorns on Marr must just despair.
It is remarkable that he is doing so well by perpetually dodging the biggest question of our age. Although slowly but surely the cracks are starting to appear.
His answers to Marr lacked any creditability
And he was given much more opportunity to provide answers than was Stephen Barclay, who was interrupted by Marr every time he opened his mouth.
This may end up playing significantly in future elections.
Unfortunately, David doesn't seem to realise we'll never ever get to negotiating it unless the WA passes.
It has a max time-limit of 45 months - less than most care hire-purchase agreements - but the ERG morons can't see past it.
Theres a time limit on the backstop? I wasnt aware of that. Are you 100% sure?
Or do you mean any "benefits" we get from the agreement are time limited while the backstop is in perpetuity?
You see, when you use words like "benefits" that totally misses the point. The WA is supposed to maintain BAU, whilst allowing our formal exit, so we have the time and space to negotiate a permanent settlement with the EU, replicate all other linked trade deals, and make new ones. We had a 7-year transition from Commonwealth preference to the EEC post 1973. I'm totalled relaxed about a < 4-year one, and don't understand why others are not.
The backstop is a massive red herring. Both the UK and the EU know they've f*cked this up, and it's in neither's interests for it to continue.
I fully expected it to be superseded by a new FTA in 2021 or 2022 that will include our formal exit from the customs union, with a level of special rules for NI, and close customs cooperation between the UK and EU thereafter.
Not sure about the timeline - I suspect the deal will take a lot longer to do, once the talking actually starts - but in the end I agree that we are going to have a very close relationship with the EU, and will to all intents and purposes be a part of its sphere of influence.
EU Lapdog is what you are grasping for SO.
And, this is what is ultimately going to do for Brexit. There are too few rational and pragmatic Brexiteers.
The ideologues will cry betrayal, whatever deal we have a realistic change of striking and say we'll be a lapdog, and better off staying than this or a full no-deal. So will the Remainers, who'll always say we'll be a lapdog argue we'd be better off staying with the votes and influence.
So the easiest path is for Brexit to be rescinded, and the former to make a career out of betrayal and the latter to be hated and lauded in equal measure.
I don't disagree with some of your points but I was trying to bring it back to basics (as that Remainer PM once said).
Populism is an insult banded around for popular policies certain people dislike. A lovely subjective view by those who think their views are always right. We could mimic the policies and views of the EU if we wanted to, but that's no good for true Europhiles because it involve unreliable British voters. Ooh, populism, hiss, boo.
Indeed. Oh, someone will now define why populism is different, perhaps even fairly, but ultimately it's to allow a ready made reason to reject the people while pretending not to. I always do what the people want, but not this populist stuff. It's ok to privately admit we the people get it wrong.
We need a word to describe Trump, Brexit and Five Star. That word is not fascism, nor even “alt-right”.
That word is populism.
Well it certainly cannot be fascism or alt right when left wing populism is also a thing. It still just seems to mean 'popular but that's not ok in this case' and easily confused with parties who might also advocate popular things.
There’s also a connotation of “simplistic” in populism I think
The poor dears don’t know any better but to fall for some populist rubbish
Nicola Sturgeon is getting herself into big trouble shielding unionist civil servants who tried to stitch up Alex Salmond. She seems to have lost the plot for feminism support. Why the two unionist turkeys have not been sacked is crazy. She may be job hunting if she does not watch.
Any sign of party rumblings of discontent at her?
Not openly for sure except for usual suspects like Sillars, but press etc bigging it up and Salmond will turn over every stone. Hard to see why she has supported these two chancers, given the women were pushed into getting ready to complain and then they changed the rules to fit the complaints before getting them to submit complaints. Bungling amateurs.
Morning Malc - where do you think all this controversy is going for Nicola Sturgeon and will she survive
Morning G, I have to say I have my doubts about her , too timid, too left wing and too feminist. I personally don't see her as being a patch on Alex S. Think Mike Russel or Angus Robertson would be much better. However I cannot see there ever being any evidence/charges against Salmond so will just be a case of whether she can stick it out whilst Police Scotland take a year or two to finish a 5 minute investigation. She certainly seems to be error prone in her judgment.
Thanks for that Malc.
I do have interest in Scots politics and do think Nicola has been compromised somewhat
Very odd she has not sacked the two incompetents by now or at least publicly castigated them. Salmond will be wanting full vindication. ICO already investigating offence under GDPR, so they can go and commandeer any documents they want, it is far from over.
I'm not sure I do, either. Something I could never say in a professional environment in London, or I'd be dismissed.
We should be celebrating what unites and binds us in our local, regional and national communities, not emphasising and worshipping the differences, which invariably always boils down to the race/gender/sexuality kind - with personality, preference, politics, or family background, barely getting a look in - and simply encourages identity politics.
To an extent I agree with both you and Beverley - like her I think identity is extremely important to people, and like you I think we should celebrate what unites us. But I'd like to cast the "unite" net as far as it can reasonably go. For that reason I think we shouldn't be trying to draw a largely artificial distinction between Britain and the Continent. Sure, we probably don't have much in common with tribes in rural Papua New Guinea even though we wish them well, but we have a huge amount in common with, say, the Dutch. In fact, differences within Britain are much greater than differences between people of similar education (whether high or low) in different European countries.
My starting point is having lived half my life abroad, including quite a lot of developing world visits: I think that by and large we have much more in common than we think, and we waste a lot of time and emotional energy trying to draw distinctions. I wouldn't favour union with, say, Libya, any time soon as I do think the differences would be too great to accommodate. But with Germany or Denmark or Slovenia? Sure.
I'm not sure I do, either. Something I could never say in a professional environment in London, or I be dismissed.
We should be celebrating what unites and binds us in our local, regional and national communities, not emphasising and worshipping the differences, which invariably always boils down to the race/gender/sexuality kind - with personality, preference, politics, or family background, barely getting a look in - and simply encourages identity politics.
Identity politics matter because once you have been discriminated against for merely existing, then you tend to get worked up about it.
Suppose someone told you that you could not take out a mortgage because you were a man - get your wife to come down and sign the papers, or your mother, or your sister or some other female relative. You would explode with anger. Yet within living memory, many women had the mirror image of that experience.
Identity is all people have. It defines us. Everything else can be taken away from you. Our bodies and personalities are the only guaranteed possessions we have an ever changing world. They should not used to discriminate against us.
Holding onto past injustice forever is not a route to peace in the present. You say we only have our identity, but then you mention our bodies and personalities, which are quite different things.
Identity politics doesn’t lead anywhere. It is a war of all against all, forever.
Interesting article. It oversimplifies a bit to describe 5 Star as being on the left - they have been all over the place and in the EP are allied to the right. And, as usual, the dominant party is getting all the fruits of coalition - the Lega is soaring at 5 Star expense. But the underlying theme is right: Italians are fed up with immigration (which completely dwarfs what people whinge about in Britain, for geographical reasons) and austerity: the establishment is largely horrified by the government but they are a thin layer of society without real blocking power.
As you say, the immigration issue bears no comparison. We have predominantly Eastern Europeans (and a fair few young Italians, for reasons spelled out in the lead), almost all working and plugging vital gaps in our labour market.
Italy has almost every public space disfigured by large numbers of Africans camping out, surviving mostly by scavenging, begging and petty crime.
The problem is you have not identified the responsibility of your gorgeous darling, the EU, in causing this.
Europhile politicians from Greece, Italy and Spain signed up to this without realising the consequences.
Migrants are not goods. You can’t expect somebody who has struggled to cross the Sahara to be content to stay in a small town in Eastern Poland, earning less than £500 a month in a place with few of his countrymen. Taking advantage of Schengen, they would probably migrate to Germany, the Low Countries or Scandinavia and work illegally there.
I doubt they would feel very welcome in most Eastern states, where views on different nationalities/races can make Brexiteers sound like hippies.
Indeed. People are not goods. And yet the whole premise of FoM is that people are just like goods and services and capital. And they are not. People have wishes and dreams and hopes and aspirations: both those who are already here and those who want to come here. Too much immigration policy is based on the idea that people are as fungible as money. The political and social changes we have seen over the last decade in any number of European countries are a result of that mistaken idea.
Pretty obvious when you stop to think of it, for like, more than two seconds, isn't it?
It's what happens when politicians who worship a simplistic ideology let leading economists do all the thinking and sculpting of all the intergovernmental rules.
They are no doubt all very intelligent but, like all economists, they reduce everything to a number and a model.
This may end up playing significantly in future elections.
Unfortunately, David doesn't seem to realise we'll never ever get to negotiating it unless the WA passes.
It has a max time-limit of 45 months - less than most care hire-purchase agreements - but the ERG morons can't see past it.
Theres a time limit on the backstop? I wasnt aware of that. Are you 100% sure?
Or do you mean any "benefits" we get from the agreement are time limited while the backstop is in perpetuity?
I fully expected it to be superseded by a new FTA in 2021 or 2022 that will include our formal exit from the customs union, with a level of special rules for NI, and close customs cooperation between the UK and EU thereafter.
You are the one totally missing the point. If we were all confident the FTA would be in effect then there would be no problem. Nobody is objecting that strenuously to a transition. It is the permanent backstop that is the problem and there is no time limit on that.
You and Mr Nabavi claim the EU don't want the backstop to be permanent but given the upset it is causing here they could resolve that by not making it permanent. They haven't. Judge by deeds not words and the deeds are that they have moved heaven and earth to screw out of us a permanent backstop from which there is no time limit and no unilateral escape.
You do know the EU didn't want the backstop to apply to the whole of the UK, don't you? And that they view this as "cherrypicking" because we get full customs alignment totally for free, and with no free movement on people on top?
Rare I agree with Philip T, but no.
The customs union is of overwhelming benefit to the EU given our massive deficit in goods. Freedom of movement is tied to the single market, not the customs union.
This idea that the EU loathes the backstop is rubbish. It seems to have emanated from the Tory HQ PR department.
Longer term, the euro needs to be rebalanced some how into a V2.0 where the south isn't locked into a competitive disadvantage.
In normal currency areas (e.g. ours) there's a common Government, treasury and debt, and the weaker areas are at least partially compensated for having to share a currency with the stronger ones through fiscal transfers. Through UK Government spending and grant allocations, a substantial net transfer of tax revenues is effected between the different parts of the country.
None of this exists within the Eurozone: yes, less well-off states benefit from some investment through the CAP and structural funds, but this is tiny in proportion to their overall budgets, and any large injections of cash come in the form of bailout loans rather than gifts. That might not be a problem if the Eurozone consisted only of Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Luxembourg but, given that it in fact contains such a widely varying collection of economies, I don't see how this state of affairs can persist forever.
That is why I think people in this country who dismiss talk of some kind of United States of Europe *might* be wrong. There is strong political resistance in the creditor states for effectively signing their taxpayers up to fund public spending in the debtor states, but there's also immense political investment in the Euro as a project. Eventually, something must give: either the Eurozone will have to adopt at least some of the characteristics of a nation state to survive in one piece, or those economies that can't live in a currency union with Germany will have to peel off. It's just a matter of which outcome wins out.
It’s almost as if you’re suggesting that the Eurozone isn’t an optimal currency area
Many outside the SE of England will tell you that the Sterling zone isn't either.
It isn’t, but it can survive because people in London and the SE (with the exception of @AlastairMeeks ) are comfortable with fiscal transfers to support other parties of the country
Not much point in me trying to lean on Dr. Sarah Wollaston.....
The ERG should take the May Deal - but with their support contingent on her stating she will be stepping down on 1st June, allowing time for a new leader to be installed in the meantime. A new leader who can undertake negotiating the trade deal. And - if the members so choose - one who has said they will walk away from the Withdrawal Agreement, if needs be. But that would at least be after a period of planning for such walk away.
The reputational hit internationally in doing so might be real, but probably far less painful than suffering a No Deal Brexit that has been inadequately planned for.
Even with most of the ERG on board the May Deal will not pass the HoC. It's a lost cause ... The End.
Apologies for the small gripe but I do wish someone would proof read these headers for typos (mainly missing spaces in this instance). None of the messages of this header are lost but I for one find it distracting. Sorry, call me Victor Meldrew. (I'd be happy to offer my services if proof readers are needed - though I am sure others could do a better job.)
Nicola Sturgeon is getting herself into big trouble shielding unionist civil servants who tried to stitch up Alex Salmond. She seems to have lost the plot for feminism support. Why the two unionist turkeys have not been sacked is crazy. She may be job hunting if she does not watch.
Any sign of party rumblings of discontent at her?
Not openly for sure except for usual suspects like Sillars, but press etc bigging it up and Salmond will turn over every stone. Hard to see why she has supported these two chancers, given the women were pushed into getting ready to complain and then they changed the rules to fit the complaints before getting them to submit complaints. Bungling amateurs.
Morning Malc - where do you think all this controversy is going for Nicola Sturgeon and will she survive
Morning G, I have to say I have my doubts about her , too timid, too left wing and too feminist. I personally don't see her as being a patch on Alex S. Think Mike Russel or Angus Robertson would be much better. However I cannot see there ever being any evidence/charges against Salmond so will just be a case of whether she can stick it out whilst Police Scotland take a year or two to finish a 5 minute investigation. She certainly seems to be error prone in her judgment.
Thanks for that Malc.
I do have interest in Scots politics and do think Nicola has been compromised somewhat
Very odd she has not sacked the two incompetents by now or at least publicly castigated them. Salmond will be wanting full vindication. ICO already investigating offence under GDPR, so they can go and commandeer any documents they want, it is far from over.
"A failure to deliver Brexit would be "a catastrophic and unforgivable breach of trust in our democracy", Prime Minister Theresa May has warned." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46853689
Does that mean she prefers No Deal to Remain if her deal is rejected on Tuesday?
Yes.
Tin-earred Tess will drive us over the cliff because just over 1/3rd of us gave her a "mandate" for it
That is the will of nation, apparently
A saner outcome apparently depends on parliament taking back control from May and the headbangers
A Brexit UK could look very similar to a Remain UK if the democratically-elected government of the time wanted it to.
They could agree no-tariff deals, they could introduce FOM, they could introduce minimum standards identical or even higher than the EU. So why are Remainers so incensed?
But have little or no control over any of them: No MEPs, no representation on the Council of Ministers, the loss of the veto on new member states joining, etc etc. I think this is actually the most likely outcome of Brexit, and in practice you're right that it wouldn't be too disastrous, but it's such a ridiculous state of affairs that I can't believe anybody actually wants it to happen, least of all the people who voted for a campaign with the slogan "take back control".
So before doing something that's going to end up at this universally undesirable destination, we generally think it's a good idea to make sure it's what the voters really want. We can't quite do that because we only have *part* of the information about the future relationship, but even the modest compromises that TMay has already made seem to be enough to make a decent chunk of voters decide they'd rather not do the thing at all, so we generally think it would be dumb not to check with them while it's still possible for them to back out.
At least those are the practical considerations. The emotional part, particularly for younger people, is seeing these mainly elderly, inward-looking people deliberately trying to take away opportunities from ourselves and our friends. "Take back control" means that they want control over us, and we're finding them and their worldview increasingly repulsive. We would be narked off about them trying to do this even if we knew they would fail.
I think it is extremely unlikely that we unilaterally reintroduce FOM
Remember that’s to do with welfare not immigration
Tax credits, more specifically. A very small proportion of pension and unemployment benefits go to EU migrants. But I don't believe that is the driver for the concern.
I think that it’s part of the reason (along with language, pre-existing communities and a broadly tolerant host country) why the U.K. gets a relatively high proportion of EU immigrants
Not much point in me trying to lean on Dr. Sarah Wollaston.....
The ERG should take the May Deal - but with their support contingent on her stating she will be stepping down on 1st June, allowing time for a new leader to be installed in the meantime. A new leader who can undertake negotiating the trade deal. And - if the members so choose - one who has said they will walk away from the Withdrawal Agreement, if needs be. But that would at least be after a period of planning for such walk away.
The reputational hit internationally in doing so might be real, but probably far less painful than suffering a No Deal Brexit that has been inadequately planned for.
Even with most of the ERG on board the May Deal will not pass the HoC. It's a lost cause ... The End.
Mrs C, some feminists don't want equality, they want privilege.
The term itself is daft, like a racial equality movement called whiteism. Many feminists are entirely reasonable, some think anti-male discrimination is ok, and a few are stark raving made. It's not a helpful term, and supporting equality and being a feminist are not necessarily the same things.
This may end up playing significantly in future elections.
Unfortunately, David doesn't seem to realise we'll never ever get to negotiating it unless the WA passes.
It has a max time-limit of 45 months - less than most care hire-purchase agreements - but the ERG morons can't see past it.
Theres a time limit on the backstop? I wasnt aware of that. Are you 100% sure?
Or do you mean any "benefits" we get from the agreement are time limited while the backstop is in perpetuity?
You see, when you use words like "benefits" that totally misses the point. The WA is supposed to maintain BAU, whilst allowing our formal exit, so we have the time and space to negotiate a permanent settlement with the EU, replicate all other linked trade deals, and make new ones. We had a 7-year transition from Commonwealth preference to the EEC post 1973. I'm totalled relaxed about a < 4-year one, and don't understand why others are not.
The backstop is a massive red herring. Both the UK and the EU know they've f*cked this up, and it's in neither's interests for it to continue.
I fully expected it to be superseded by a new FTA in 2021 or 2022 that will include our formal exit from the customs union, with a level of special rules for NI, and close customs cooperation between the UK and EU thereafter.
Not sure about the timeline - I suspect the deal will take a lot longer to do, once the talking actually starts - but in the end I agree that we are going to have a very close relationship with the EU, and will to all intents and purposes be a part of its sphere of influence.
EU Lapdog is what you are grasping for SO.
But one that is able to go off and do a pee in the corner every now and again ;-)
This may end up playing significantly in future elections.
Unfortunately, David doesn't seem to realise we'll never ever get to negotiating it unless the WA passes.
It has a max time-limit of 45 months - less than most care hire-purchase agreements - but the ERG morons can't see past it.
Theres a time limit on the backstop? I wasnt aware of that. Are you 100% sure?
Or do you mean any "benefits" we get from the agreement are time limited while the backstop is in perpetuity?
You see, when you use words like "benefits" that totally misses the point. The WA is supposed to maintain BAU, whilst allowing our formal exit, so we have the time and space to negotiate a permanent settlement with the EU, replicate all other linked trade deals, and make new ones. We had a 7-year transition from Commonwealth preference to the EEC post 1973. I'm totalled relaxed about a < 4-year one, and don't understand why others are not.
The backstop is a massive red herring. Both the UK and the EU know they've f*cked this up, and it's in neither's interests for it to continue.
I fully expected it to be superseded by a new FTA in 2021 or 2022 that will include our formal exit from the customs union, with a level of special rules for NI, and close customs cooperation between the UK and EU thereafter.
Not sure about the timeline - I suspect the deal will take a lot longer to do, once the talking actually starts - but in the end I agree that we are going to have a very close relationship with the EU, and will to all intents and purposes be a part of its sphere of influence.
EU Lapdog is what you are grasping for SO.
I don't think SO is grasping for EU lapdog status. It's the compromise of being formally out of the EU while maintaining a close but necessary relationship with it. So we lose our say but keep a good chunk of our benefits. It's where we will probably end up.
This may end up playing significantly in future elections.
Unfortunately, David doesn't seem to realise we'll never ever get to negotiating it unless the WA passes.
It has a max time-limit of 45 months - less than most care hire-purchase agreements - but the ERG morons can't see past it.
Theres a time limit on the backstop? I wasnt aware of that. Are you 100% sure?
Or do you mean any "benefits" we get from the agreement are time limited while the backstop is in perpetuity?
You see, when you use words like "benefits" that totally misses the point. The WA is supposed to maintain BAU, whilst allowing our formal exit, so we have the time and space to negotiate a permanent settlement with the EU, replicate all other linked trade deals, and make new ones. We had a 7-year transition from Commonwealth preference to the EEC post 1973. I'm totalled relaxed about a < 4-year one, and don't understand why others are not.
The backstop is a massive red herring. Both the UK and the EU know they've f*cked this up, and it's in neither's interests for it to continue.
I fully expected it to be superseded by a new FTA in 2021 or 2022 that will include our formal exit from the customs union, with a level of special rules for NI, and close customs cooperation between the UK and EU thereafter.
Not sure about the timeline - I suspect the deal will take a lot longer to do, once the talking actually starts - but in the end I agree that we are going to have a very close relationship with the EU, and will to all intents and purposes be a part of its sphere of influence.
That's because you always take the most negative or cynical interpretation of any possible event or set of events.
I expect we will move to an associate member status, with greater freedom of action in some areas, and continued close-cooperation in others, where our influence will based on the realpolitik, and not exclusively on formal or informal institutional memberships.
I'd be very comfortable with that.
I agree. I don't think it is negative. We need to be as closely aligned to the EU as our politics will allow. God save us from the delusions of the Bumbling Buccaneers.
And, this is what is ultimately going to do for Brexit. There are too few rational and pragmatic Brexiteers.
The ideologues will cry betrayal, whatever deal we have a realistic change of striking and say we'll be a lapdog, and better off staying than this or a full no-deal. So will the Remainers, who'll always say we'll be a lapdog argue we'd be better off staying with the votes and influence.
So the easiest path is for Brexit to be rescinded, and the former to make a career out of betrayal and the latter to be hated and lauded in equal measure.
Great.
Better than being a colony of the EU subject in perpetuity to its laws but not getting a say.
I voted Leave to take back control not give it away. The backstop is 100% incompatible with that pledge. The only solution is to drop the backstop or pretend it doesn't exist. You may be prepared to do the latter but I'm not.
Not much point in me trying to lean on Dr. Sarah Wollaston.....
The ERG should take the May Deal - but with their support contingent on her stating she will be stepping down on 1st June, allowing time for a new leader to be installed in the meantime. A new leader who can undertake negotiating the trade deal. And - if the members so choose - one who has said they will walk away from the Withdrawal Agreement, if needs be. But that would at least be after a period of planning for such walk away.
The reputational hit internationally in doing so might be real, but probably far less painful than suffering a No Deal Brexit that has been inadequately planned for.
Even with most of the ERG on board the May Deal will not pass the HoC. It's a lost cause ... The End.
I think it is far from the end
You think the May Deal has legs after Tuesday. In what form?
All true. But I'm not sure that the truly gross inequalities of opportunity in a globalised world would survive any system at all, short of frontiesr manned by soldiers with machine guns. If you're a young bloke (and initially it's mostly young blokes) with a bit of initiative who happens to be born in, say, Libya, it is simply bonkers to imagine that you'll spend your life selling tins of fruit from a makeshift shop rather than try your damnedest to get to a developed country and earn 20 or 50 times as much. How many lives do you have to waste? And if the system is really hermetically sealed, the jobs will migrate to the developing world, cf. China et al. The refugee crisis arising from wars like Syria is a separate phenomenon on top of that. FOM at least gives a chance that the countries on the EU's border don't end up shouldering nearly all the costs.
There are only two non-chaotic responses to that, and neither are perfect. One is to try to share out the flow of migrants, as the EU is (so far ineffectively) trying to do, while helping creates jobs in the developing world and trying to move domestic markets here upstream. The second, addressing at least the second issue of jobs migrating, is protectionism, cf. Trump.
I do not often agree with you Nick, but this post sums up the problem. The imbalances in lifestyle and life expectancy have become more imbalanced in tbe last 100 or so years, but it is only now that technology allows people to see what they are missing and offer possible solutions.
To reduce immigration, improve people's lives where they live. Better healthcare, reliable food supply, hygiene, housing and education because that is what many people lack.
[ If I was Super-powerful-magician for a day, i would wipe out religion which has been the cause of more wars and suppression of women than just about anything else in history ]
Countries that attempt to wipe out religion are pretty horrible to live in (for women, especially£
This may end up playing significantly in future elections.
Unfortunately, David doesn't seem to realise we'll never ever get to negotiating it unless the WA passes.
It has a max time-limit of 45 months - less than most care hire-purchase agreements - but the ERG morons can't see past it.
Theres a time limit on the backstop? I wasnt aware of that. Are you 100% sure?
Or do you mean any "benefits" we get from the agreement are time limited while the backstop is in perpetuity?
You see, when you use words like "benefits" that totally misses the point. The WA is supposed to maintain BAU, whilst allowing our formal exit, so we have the time and space to negotiate a permanent settlement with the EU, replicate all other linked trade deals, and make new ones. We had a 7-year transition from Commonwealth preference to the EEC post 1973. I'm totalled relaxed about a < 4-year one, and don't understand why others are not.
The backstop is a massive red herring. Both the UK and the EU know they've f*cked this up, and it's in neither's interests for it to continue.
I fully expected it to be superseded by a new FTA in 2021 or 2022 that will include our formal exit from the customs union, with a level of special rules for NI, and close customs cooperation between the UK and EU thereafter.
You are the one totally missing the point. If we were all confident the FTA would be in effect then there would be no problem. Nobody is objecting that strenuously to a transition. It is the permanent backstop that is the problem and there is no time limit on that.
You and Mr Nabavi claim the EU don't want the backstop to be permanent but given the upset it is causing here they could resolve that by not making it permanent. They haven't. Judge by deeds not words and the deeds are that they have moved heaven and earth to screw out of us a permanent backstop from which there is no time limit and no unilateral escape.
You do know the EU didn't want the backstop to apply to the whole of the UK, don't you? And that they view this as "cherrypicking" because we get full customs alignment totally for free, and with no free movement on people on top?
Customs alignment isn't tied to free movement. Turkey has customs alignment but no free movement.
I voted to end customs alignment. Even EFTA would achieve that but the backstop doesn't.
This may end up playing significantly in future elections.
Unfortunately, David doesn't seem to realise we'll never ever get to negotiating it unless the WA passes.
It has a max time-limit of 45 months - less than most care hire-purchase agreements - but the ERG morons can't see past it.
Theres a time limit on the backstop? I wasnt aware of that. Are you 100% sure?
Or do you mean any "benefits" we get from the agreement are time limited while the backstop is in perpetuity?
You see, when you use words like "benefits" that totally misses the point. The WA is supposed to maintain BAU, whilst allowing our formal exit, so we have the time and space to negotiate a permanent settlement with the EU, replicate all other linked trade deals, and make new ones. We had a 7-year transition from Commonwealth preference to the EEC post 1973. I'm totalled relaxed about a < 4-year one, and don't understand why others are not.
The backstop is a massive red herring. Both the UK and the EU know they've f*cked this up, and it's in neither's interests for it to continue.
I fully expected it to be superseded by a new FTA in 2021 or 2022 that will include our formal exit from the customs union, with a level of special rules for NI, and close customs cooperation between the UK and EU thereafter.
Not sure about the timeline - I suspect the deal will take a lot longer to do, once the talking actually starts - but in the end I agree that we are going to have a very close relationship with the EU, and will to all intents and purposes be a part of its sphere of influence.
EU Lapdog is what you are grasping for SO.
I don't think SO is grasping for EU lapdog status. It's the compromise of being formally out of the EU while maintaining a close but necessary relationship with it. So we lose our say but keep a good chunk of our benefits. It's where we will probably end up.
Yep - we need to be as closely aligned as possible. The closer, the better. But for some it will certainly look and feel like lapdog status. For me, seeing a country in that way is a bit silly.
Not much point in me trying to lean on Dr. Sarah Wollaston.....
The ERG should take the May Deal - but with their support contingent on her stating she will be stepping down on 1st June, allowing time for a new leader to be installed in the meantime. A new leader who can undertake negotiating the trade deal. And - if the members so choose - one who has said they will walk away from the Withdrawal Agreement, if needs be. But that would at least be after a period of planning for such walk away.
The reputational hit internationally in doing so might be real, but probably far less painful than suffering a No Deal Brexit that has been inadequately planned for.
Even with most of the ERG on board the May Deal will not pass the HoC. It's a lost cause ... The End.
I think it is far from the end
You think the May Deal has legs after Tuesday. In what form?
Some variation is needed as no deal is unacceptable. In the same way no brexit would be seen as betrayal by so many it is right that we brexit and then those who want to re-join can properly campaign for it
On topic: things in Italy will get really interesting when the next recession hits the Eurozone, and indeed there are some suggestions that this is already on the way.
. Before the Euro Italy avoided the consequences of deficits by moderate inflation and depreciation which meant the burden of old debts faded away. We did something similar, just not to the same degree. The Euro under German domination has always been focused on low inflation and being a hard currency. The correct response to this would have been for Italy to run surpluses to reduce debt but that would also have caused an even deeper recession and been politically unpopular.
The problem is that there is no easy answer to the debt. Italy should never have joined the Euro with it.
The Italians have also stopped reproducing. Their birthrate has not been above 1.5 since the early 80s. An inverted population pyramid will lead to fairly dire financial consequences, as the Chinese will discover in the 2020s.
Indeed although ironically their immigration should help with that if they can integrate the immigrants and make them productive.
They cannot find jobs for their own educated young, never mind a load of immigrants they don’t want.
And they don’t particularly buy into the whole diversity shtick, either.
I'm not sure I do, either. Something I could never say in a professional environment in London, or I'd be dismissed.
We should be celebrating what unites and binds us in our local, regional and national communities, not emphasising and worshipping the differences, which invariably always boils down to the race/gender/sexuality kind - with personality, preference, politics, or family background, barely getting a look in - and simply encourages identity politics.
That is a very interesting post and goes some way to explaining the mystery that is the psyche of a Leaver. What is it that against the certainty that our society will deteriorate both socially and economically makes them want to leave? It's that it is a visceral fear and only visible to those who feel it.
You do know the EU didn't want the backstop to apply to the whole of the UK, don't you? And that they view this as "cherrypicking" because we get full customs alignment totally for free, and with no free movement on people on top?
Rare I agree with Philip T, but no.
The customs union is of overwhelming benefit to the EU given our massive deficit in goods. Freedom of movement is tied to the single market, not the customs union.
This idea that the EU loathes the backstop is rubbish. It seems to have emanated from the Tory HQ PR department.
The EU doesn't loathe the Irish Backstop. It is one of their fundamental requirements. It didn't want to to do a Customs Union that makes the Irish border moot because that complicates the future state negotiations, to take place after withdrawal. But the EU and members are on board with it. They reckon they still have plenty leverage for those future state negotiations.
No-one should believe the CU will be temporary. That raises a possible out for May. If she accepts reality (not something she has done willingly so far) she could meet a key Labour demand for approval of the Withdrawal Agreement.
This may end up playing significantly in future elections.
Unfortunately, David doesn't seem to realise we'll never ever get to negotiating it unless the WA passes.
It has a max time-limit of 45 months - less than most care hire-purchase agreements - but the ERG morons can't see past it.
Theres a time limit on the backstop? I wasnt aware of that. Are you 100% sure?
Or do you mean any "benefits" we get from the agreement are time limited while the backstop is in perpetuity?
The backstop is a massive red herring. Both the UK and the EU know they've f*cked this up, and it's in neither's interests for it to continue.
I fully expected it to be superseded by a new FTA in 2021 or 2022 that will include our formal exit from the customs union, with a level of special rules for NI, and close customs cooperation between the UK and EU thereafter.
You are the one totally missing the point. If we were all confident the FTA would be in effect then there would be no problem. Nobody is objecting that strenuously to a transition. It is the permanent backstop that is the problem and there is no time limit on that.
You and Mr Nabavi claim the EU don't want the backstop to be permanent but given the upset it is causing here they could resolve that by not making it permanent. They haven't. Judge by deeds not words and the deeds are that they have moved heaven and earth to screw out of us a permanent backstop from which there is no time limit and no unilateral escape.
You do know the EU didn't want the backstop to apply to the whole of the UK, don't you? And that they view this as "cherrypicking" because we get full customs alignment totally for free, and with no free movement on people on top?
Customs alignment isn't tied to free movement. Turkey has customs alignment but no free movement.
I voted to end customs alignment. Even EFTA would achieve that but the backstop doesn't.
And, that will come, once we've negotiated a final FTA.
It's very obvious it's a red line for this Conservative Government.
Not much point in me trying to lean on Dr. Sarah Wollaston.....
The ERG should take the May Deal - but with their support contingent on her stating she will be stepping down on 1st June, allowing time for a new leader to be installed in the meantime. A new leader who can undertake negotiating the trade deal. And - if the members so choose - one who has said they will walk away from the Withdrawal Agreement, if needs be. But that would at least be after a period of planning for such walk away.
The reputational hit internationally in doing so might be real, but probably far less painful than suffering a No Deal Brexit that has been inadequately planned for.
Even with most of the ERG on board the May Deal will not pass the HoC. It's a lost cause ... The End.
I think it is far from the end
You think the May Deal has legs after Tuesday. In what form?
Some variation is needed as no deal is unacceptable. In the same way no brexit would be seen as betrayal by so many it is right that we brexit and then those who want to re-join can properly campaign for it
Not much point in me trying to lean on Dr. Sarah Wollaston.....
The ERG should take the May Deal - but with their support contingent on her stating she will be stepping down on 1st June, allowing time for a new leader to be installed in the meantime. A new leader who can undertake negotiating the trade deal. And - if the members so choose - one who has said they will walk away from the Withdrawal Agreement, if needs be. But that would at least be after a period of planning for such walk away.
The reputational hit internationally in doing so might be real, but probably far less painful than suffering a No Deal Brexit that has been inadequately planned for.
Even with most of the ERG on board the May Deal will not pass the HoC. It's a lost cause ... The End.
I think it is far from the end
You think the May Deal has legs after Tuesday. In what form?
Some variation is needed as no deal is unacceptable. In the same way no brexit would be seen as betrayal by so many it is right that we brexit and then those who want to re-join can properly campaign for it
And, this is what is ultimately going to do for Brexit. There are too few rational and pragmatic Brexiteers.
The ideologues will cry betrayal, whatever deal we have a realistic change of striking and say we'll be a lapdog, and better off staying than this or a full no-deal. So will the Remainers, who'll always say we'll be a lapdog argue we'd be better off staying with the votes and influence.
So the easiest path is for Brexit to be rescinded, and the former to make a career out of betrayal and the latter to be hated and lauded in equal measure.
Great.
Better than being a colony of the EU subject in perpetuity to its laws but not getting a say.
I voted Leave to take back control not give it away. The backstop is 100% incompatible with that pledge. The only solution is to drop the backstop or pretend it doesn't exist. You may be prepared to do the latter but I'm not.
I think you (like many Leavers) hugely overstate the importance of the backstop and have become blinkered by it. We will in sense at all be a 'colony', and reducing arguments to such emotive rhetoric is as inaccurate as it is unhelpful.
The future political agreement gets us out of 80% of the single market, guarantees our right to do our trade deals, ends free movement, ends jurisdiction of the ECJ, ends major budgetary contributions, and repatriates fisheries, agriculture and regional policy, whilst also allowing for close defence and security cooperation on a bilateral basis with Europe in future.
Had that been on the table three years ago, I'd have bitten your hand off.
This may end up playing significantly in future elections.
Unfortunately, David doesn't seem to realise we'll never ever get to negotiating it unless the WA passes.
It has a max time-limit of 45 months - less than most care hire-purchase agreements - but the ERG morons can't see past it.
Theres a time limit on the backstop? I wasnt aware of that. Are you 100% sure?
Or do you mean any "benefits" we get from the agreement are time limited while the backstop is in perpetuity?
The backstop is a massive red herring. Both the UK and the EU know they've f*cked this up, and it's in neither's interests for it to continue.
I fully expected it to be superseded by a new FTA in 2021 or 2022 that will include our formal exit from the customs union, with a level of special rules for NI, and close customs cooperation between the UK and EU thereafter.
You are the one totally missing the point. If we were all confident the FTA would be in effect then there would be no problem. Nobody is objecting that strenuously to a transition. It is the permanent backstop that is the problem and there is no time limit on that.
You and Mr Nabavi claim the EU don't want the backstop to be permanent but given the upset it is causing here they could resolve that by not making it permanent. They haven't. Judge by deeds not words and the deeds are that they have moved heaven and earth to screw out of us a permanent backstop from which there is no time limit and no unilateral escape.
You do know the EU didn't want the backstop to apply to the whole of the UK, don't you? And that they view this as "cherrypicking" because we get full customs alignment totally for free, and with no free movement on people on top?
Customs alignment isn't tied to free movement. Turkey has customs alignment but no free movement.
I voted to end customs alignment. Even EFTA would achieve that but the backstop doesn't.
And, that will come, once we've negotiated a final FTA.
It's very obvious it's a red line for this Conservative Government.
You mean once EU have dictated the total capitulation trade deal with a take it or have permanent limbo clause.
This may end up playing significantly in future elections.
Unfortunately, David doesn't seem to realise we'll never ever get to negotiating it unless the WA passes.
It has a max time-limit of 45 months - less than most care hire-purchase agreements - but the ERG morons can't see past it.
Theres a time limit on the backstop? I wasnt aware of that. Are you 100% sure?
Or do you mean any "benefits" we get from the agreement are time limited while the backstop is in perpetuity?
The backstop is a massive red herring. Both the UK and the EU know they've f*cked this up, and it's in neither's interests for it to continue.
I fully expected it to be superseded by a new FTA in 2021 or 2022 that will include our formal exit from the customs union, with a level of special rules for NI, and close customs cooperation between the UK and EU thereafter.
Not sure about the timeline - I suspect the deal will take a lot longer to do, once the talking actually starts - but in the end I agree that we are going to have a very close relationship with the EU, and will to all intents and purposes be a part of its sphere of influence.
That's because you always take the most negative or cynical interpretation of any possible event or set of events.
I expect we will move to an associate member status, with greater freedom of action in some areas, and continued close-cooperation in others, where our influence will based on the realpolitik, and not exclusively on formal or informal institutional memberships.
I'd be very comfortable with that.
I agree. I don't think it is negative. We need to be as closely aligned to the EU as our politics will allow. God save us from the delusions of the Bumbling Buccaneers.
You say closely-aligned (partly to troll me and other Leavers) and what you mean is cloning our laws to maintain close alignment, with no say.
I disagree. I expect close alignment by choice in goods and probably agriculture, with an agreed minimum floor of social/employment and state aid laws, but divergence in services, digital and finance, and greater latitude to interpret the boundaries of the former laws as well.
Not much point in me trying to lean on Dr. Sarah Wollaston.....
The ERG should take the May Deal - but with their support contingent on her stating she will be stepping down on 1st June, allowing time for a new leader to be installed in the meantime. A new leader who can undertake negotiating the trade deal. And - if the members so choose - one who has said they will walk away from the Withdrawal Agreement, if needs be. But that would at least be after a period of planning for such walk away.
The reputational hit internationally in doing so might be real, but probably far less painful than suffering a No Deal Brexit that has been inadequately planned for.
Even with most of the ERG on board the May Deal will not pass the HoC. It's a lost cause ... The End.
I think it is far from the end
You think the May Deal has legs after Tuesday. In what form?
Some variation is needed as no deal is unacceptable. In the same way no brexit would be seen as betrayal by so many it is right that we brexit and then those who want to re-join can properly campaign for it
"Some variation" is suitably opaque as to offend all. MP's want specifics for the ed game, the trouble being specifics equals a vast swathe of opposition from a majority of MP's.
Not much point in me trying to lean on Dr. Sarah Wollaston.....
The ERG should take the May Deal - but with their support contingent on her stating she will be stepping down on 1st June, allowing time for a new leader to be installed in the meantime. A new leader who can undertake negotiating the trade deal. And - if the members so choose - one who has said they will walk away from the Withdrawal Agreement, if needs be. But that would at least be after a period of planning for such walk away.
The reputational hit internationally in doing so might be real, but probably far less painful than suffering a No Deal Brexit that has been inadequately planned for.
Even with most of the ERG on board the May Deal will not pass the HoC. It's a lost cause ... The End.
You said that about the Leave vote in the referendum two weeks out.
The political declaration has no legal force, and every one of the 27 member states have a veto over the future trade deal. In the meantime, we're subject to and unable to escape (without EU permission) the backstop, which imposes a customs barrier within UK territory and endorses the regulatory annexation of Northern Ireland. Not only that, we're subject to EU rules which we have no way of avoiding or of influencing.
There will be significant ructions if we leave with no deal at all, and it's legitimate to favour one side or the other regarding what's less bad in the short term. But the deal is far from a good one.
"The Tories are on the brink of a historic split, senior Conservatives have warned, as Brexiteers and Remainers both threatened to torpedo the Government if they did not get their way on Brexit."
The last time the Tories had an informal split that led to multiple candidates standing in the same seat was in 1906.
The last time they actually split into separate parties was in 1846.
Even if we add in Labour, we're still back to 1931.
It is very unusual for political parties to formally divide, even under extreme pressure. I will believe it when I see it.
In the Tory split of 1846, the other issue was that the Whig leader, Russell, was popular and widely respected. His equivalent at this moment is Corbyn. Whatever the hysteria, no way will the likes of Grieve and Clarke actively enable a government led by Corbyn.
Nor do they need to.
These are very unusual circumstances. In particular, people are still underestimating just how deeply Brexit has bitten into people’s souls. Political wonks are so used to caring about all kinds of abstract stuff passionately that the one occasion that everyone else is doing that too, they don’t notice.
A split looks quite likely to me. The form may well depend in large part on Theresa May’s ultimate choices.
I agree a split is underestimated, and possibly imminent.
Grieve and Boles are both being threatened by their constituency associations. Soubry is not far behind. There may be more.
Three independent Conservatives is at least a caucus, and that’s not far from a party. It may only be a matter of weeks, though that’s probably unlikely.
Speaking as a disinterested observer, it is hardly surprising that Boles is in trouble with his local party members. More or less threatening to leave the party if it does things he doesn't like pretty much negates the whole point of having a political party. This is something that is presumably important to paid up activists. Grieve on the other hand is simply opposing the governments procedural manouevres with his own. There isn't any doubt that he is a Tory and has that party's interests at heart. Deselecting him for that wouldn't look good.
I'm not sure I do, either. Something I could never say in a professional environment in London, or I be dismissed.
We should be celebrating what unites and binds us in our local, regional and national communities, not emphasising and worshipping the differences, which invariably always boils down to the race/gender/sexuality kind - with personality, preference, politics, or family background, barely getting a look in - and simply encourages identity politics.
Identity politics matter because once you have been discriminated against for merely existing, then you tend to get worked up about it.
Suppose someone told you that you could not take out a mortgage because you were a man - get your wife to come down and sign the papers, or your mother, or your sister or some other female relative. You would explode with anger. Yet within living memory, many women had the mirror image of that experience.
Identity is all people have. It defines us. Everything else can be taken away from you. Our bodies and personalities are the only guaranteed possessions we have an ever changing world. They should not used to discriminate against us.
Holding onto past injustice forever is not a route to peace in the present. You say we only have our identity, but then you mention our bodies and personalities, which are quite different things.
Identity politics doesn’t lead anywhere. It is a war of all against all, forever.
No thanks.
It works both ways too.
We voted Leave in large part because a number of us (myself included) felt our British identity was under threat if we stayed.
The only real conclusion you can draw is let people be, and be careful not to take steps or actions that could make people feel their identity is threatened.
I hope someone is going to provide a clear explanation, once Bercow has announced the amendments to the meaningful vote, as to how they are sequenced and an explanation of their effect on the deal
You do know the EU didn't want the backstop to apply to the whole of the UK, don't you? And that they view this as "cherrypicking" because we get full customs alignment totally for free, and with no free movement on people on top?
Rare I agree with Philip T, but no.
The customs union is of overwhelming benefit to the EU given our massive deficit in goods. Freedom of movement is tied to the single market, not the customs union.
This idea that the EU loathes the backstop is rubbish. It seems to have emanated from the Tory HQ PR department.
The EU doesn't loathe the Irish Backstop. It is one of their fundamental requirements. It didn't want to to do a Customs Union that makes the Irish border moot because that complicates the future state negotiations, to take place after withdrawal. But the EU and members are on board with it. They reckon they still have plenty leverage for those future state negotiations.
No-one should believe the CU will be temporary. That raises a possible out for May. If she accepts reality (not something she has done willingly so far) she could meet a key Labour demand for approval of the Withdrawal Agreement.
The EU as a body didn't want us to leave. It would appear that many, at many levels, in the EU, think we are bordering on the insane to do so.
I'm going to be one of the unfortunate people who, having experienced real austerity and proscription in my youth, am going to see my grandchildren subjected to them in my old age.
Not much point in me trying to lean on Dr. Sarah Wollaston.....
The ERG should take the May Deal - but with their support contingent on her stating she will be stepping down on 1st June, allowing time for a new leader to be installed in the meantime. A new leader who can undertake negotiating the trade deal. And - if the members so choose - one who has said they will walk away from the Withdrawal Agreement, if needs be. But that would at least be after a period of planning for such walk away.
The reputational hit internationally in doing so might be real, but probably far less painful than suffering a No Deal Brexit that has been inadequately planned for.
Even with most of the ERG on board the May Deal will not pass the HoC. It's a lost cause ... The End.
You said that about the Leave vote in the referendum two weeks out.
And you said it repeatedly about Trump.
JackW is a clever man. But -- & it pains me to say it -- Trump was a cleverer man. He saw a way.
This may end up playing significantly in future elections.
Unfortunately, David doesn't seem to realise we'll never ever get to negotiating it unless the WA passes.
It has a max time-limit of 45 months - less than most care hire-purchase agreements - but the ERG morons can't see past it.
Theres a time limit on the backstop? I wasnt aware of that. Are you 100% sure?
Or do you mean any "benefits" we get from the agreement are time limited while the backstop is in perpetuity?
The backstop is a massive red herring. Both the UK and the EU know they've f*cked this up, and it's in neither's interests for it to continue.
I fully expected it to be superseded by a new FTA in 2021 or 2022 that will include our formal exit from the customs union, with a level of special rules for NI, and close customs cooperation between the UK and EU thereafter.
Not sure about the timeline - I suspect the deal will take a lot longer to do, once the talking actually starts - but in the end I agree that we are going to have a very close relationship with the EU, and will to all intents and purposes be a part of its sphere of influence.
That's because you always take the most negative or cynical interpretation of any possible event or set of events.
I memberships.
I'd be very comfortable with that.
I agree. I don't think it is negative. We need to be as closely aligned to the EU as our politics will allow. God save us from the delusions of the Bumbling Buccaneers.
You say closely-aligned (partly to troll me and other Leavers) and what you mean is cloning our laws to maintain close alignment, with no say.
I disagree. I expect close alignment by choice in goods and probably agriculture, with an agreed minimum floor of social/employment and state aid laws, but divergence in services, digital and finance, and greater latitude to interpret the boundaries of the former laws as well.
Our country. Our choice.
Yep, our choice will be to be as closely aligned to the EU as is politically possible because in reality we will have no other choice - especially in areas such as digital, finance and services which so easily cross national boundaries.
You say closely-aligned (partly to troll me and other Leavers) and what you mean is cloning our laws to maintain close alignment, with no say.
I disagree. I expect close alignment by choice in goods and probably agriculture, with an agreed minimum floor of social/employment and state aid laws, but divergence in services, digital and finance, and greater latitude to interpret the boundaries of the former laws as well.
Our country. Our choice.
I don't expect that to happen. The EU runs a multilateral system. It isn't interested in offering a third party a say over that system. It won't change anything it does to accommodate the interests of that third party. Bilateralism is out. Now we can shadow the system on a unilateral basis but that doesn't get any commitment from the other party for stuff that we want and need. We only get that if the EU decides we are compliant. Which means following their rules.
The political declaration has no legal force, and every one of the 27 member states have a veto over the future trade deal. In the meantime, we're subject to and unable to escape (without EU permission) the backstop, which imposes a customs barrier within UK territory and endorses the regulatory annexation of Northern Ireland. Not only that, we're subject to EU rules which we have no way of avoiding or of influencing.
There will be significant ructions if we leave with no deal at all, and it's legitimate to favour one side or the other regarding what's less bad in the short term. But the deal is far from a good one.
Experience to date in Brexit has shown that both the UK and EU honour their political declarations, arguably too tightly.
I draw your attention to the clauses on Customs, in particular clause 27:
"26. The Parties will put in place ambitious customs arrangements, in pursuit of their overall objectives. In doing so, the Parties envisage making use of all available facilitative arrangements and technologies, in full respect of their legal orders and ensuring that customs authorities are able to protect the Parties’ respective financial interests and enforce public policies. To this end, they intend to consider mutual recognition of trusted traders’ programmes, administrative cooperation in customs matters and mutual assistance, including for the recovery of claims related to taxes and duties, and through the exchange of information to combat customs fraud and other illegal activity.
27. Such facilitative arrangements and technologies will also be considered in developing any alternative arrangements for ensuring the absence of a hard border on the island of Ireland on a permanent footing."
As far as I can tell, that's a comitment to agree to find a solution to the customs problem that's exactly what Breixteers have been asking for.
Not much point in me trying to lean on Dr. Sarah Wollaston.....
The ERG should take the May Deal - but with their support contingent on her stating she will be stepping down on 1st June, allowing time for a new leader to be installed in the meantime. A new leader who can undertake negotiating the trade deal. And - if the members so choose - one who has said they will walk away from the Withdrawal Agreement, if needs be. But that would at least be after a period of planning for such walk away.
The reputational hit internationally in doing so might be real, but probably far less painful than suffering a No Deal Brexit that has been inadequately planned for.
Even with most of the ERG on board the May Deal will not pass the HoC. It's a lost cause ... The End.
You said that about the Leave vote in the referendum two weeks out.
Twas a month but what's a few weeks between parliamentary votes these days and I make no prognostication post Tuesday save May's Deal is dead.
You say closely-aligned (partly to troll me and other Leavers) and what you mean is cloning our laws to maintain close alignment, with no say.
I disagree. I expect close alignment by choice in goods and probably agriculture, with an agreed minimum floor of social/employment and state aid laws, but divergence in services, digital and finance, and greater latitude to interpret the boundaries of the former laws as well.
Our country. Our choice.
I don't expect that to happen. The EU runs a multilateral system. It isn't interested in offering a third party a say over that system. It won't change anything it does to accommodate the interests of that third party. Bilateralism is out. Now we can shadow the system on a unilateral basis but that doesn't get any commitment from the other party for stuff that we want and need. We only get that if the EU decides we are compliant. Which means following their rules.
Yes, and you're another EU ideologue who always take the most europhile interpretation of any possible situation and future development. You did so over the citizens agreement, WA, future political agreement, and are now doing so over the long-term relationship.
Your objective is always the same: to render any argument for Brexit pointless, so we Remain, which is your agenda.
This may end up playing significantly in future elections.
Unfortunately, David doesn't seem to realise we'll never ever get to negotiating it unless the WA passes.
It has a max time-limit of 45 months - less than most care hire-purchase agreements - but the ERG morons can't see past it.
Theres a time limit on the backstop? I wasnt aware of that. Are you 100% sure?
Or do you mean any "benefits" we get from the agreement are time limited while the backstop is in perpetuity?
The backstop is a massive red herring. Both the UK and the EU know they've f*cked this up, and it's in neither's interests for it to continue.
I fully expected it to be superseded by a new FTA in 2021 or 2022 that will include our formal exit from the customs union, with a level of special rules for NI, and close customs cooperation between the UK and EU thereafter.
Not sure about the timeline - I suspect the deal will take a lot longer to do, once the talking actually starts - but in the end I agree that we are going to have a very close relationship with the EU, and will to all intents and purposes be a part of its sphere of influence.
That's because you always take the most negative or cynical interpretation of any possible event or set of events.
I memberships.
I'd be very comfortable with that.
I agree. I don't think it is negative. We need to be as closely aligned to the EU as our politics will allow. God save us from the delusions of the Bumbling Buccaneers.
You say closely-aligned (partly to troll me and other Leavers) and what you mean is cloning our laws to maintain close alignment, with no say.
I disagree. I expect close alignment by choice in goods and probably agriculture, with an agreed minimum floor of social/employment and state aid laws, but divergence in services, digital and finance, and greater latitude to interpret the boundaries of the former laws as well.
Our country. Our choice.
Yep, our choice will be to be as closely aligned to the EU as is politically possible because in reality we will have no other choice - especially in areas such as digital, finance and services which so easily cross national boundaries.
Mr. Royale, the guidance to Article 50 included looking to the future trade agreement. That was hardly the EU priority, preferring to give us a second cliff-edge or permanent caging in the backstop. Similarly, EU promises over not using EU institutions for the eurozone or reforming CAP if only we sacrificed half our rebate proved less than kept.
Comments
I don't expect anything to come of it.
RLB is just parroting Labour’s policy which at this stage is to call a VONC which, if won, will lead to a GE.
However there is no difference here to what May is doing, which is advocate a policy which looks impossible to get through Parliament.
Some time next week, when May has lost the vote and Corbyn has lost his - that’s when the reality-based conversation can begin.
The argument that holding the borders will cause jobs to shift abroad doesn't wash, either. Firstly, to a very great extent it doesn't matter to the resident population if those jobs are lost if they were only going to be filled by migrants in the first place; secondly, the jobs filled by irregular migrants are liable to consist primarily of low skill, low value employment to begin with. Not only do we not particularly want to see a lot of British people employed in, say, (non-luxury) garment manufacturing, but we should positively welcome those jobs going to people in African countries. These kinds of industries are an important step in the developing nations' journeys up the value chain.
There are two further considerations. Firstly, mass immigration across the Mediterranean route (and the English Channel, for that matter) is arguably evidence, in and of itself, that prosperity in the developing world is already on the rise. How else could all those migrants afford to pay a small fortune to the people traffickers otherwise? Secondly, how do we help developing countries by taking in a large slice of their fittest and most motivated people? Sure, they can send remittances home, but doing low wage jobs in an expensive-to-live-in Northern European country isn't going to leave them with very much surplus income to do that.
To the extent that we do take in migrants from the developing world, we should be concentrating our efforts on inviting people with skills necessary to the economy, and students - i.e. the same approach that we would surely take with EU migrants were we not bound by freedom of movement. Irregular migration should be discouraged.
Populism is things like going hmm, well, there's a housing crisis and I can't get to see the doctor for another two weeks. 50% of children in my daughter's class only speak English as a second language but when I call this out people say I'm a bit thick and racist. But I'm thinking maybe control of our borders and a little less immigration might not be a bad thing.
It is, in short, common sense to most people who see the results of policy implemented on a macro scale at an individual, personal level. Ordinary people who don't think that the marginal boost in GDP is worth the cost (and who are miffed that this is a good thing, when they haven't seen a pay rise in years).
It is about understanding that people are not numbers, that you cannot ram multiculturalism down people's throats, that ordinary voices should be listened to instead of overruled by bean counters and political project makers. That is why five star and la lega make surprisingly comfortable bedfellows. Their common ground is common sense.
Or do you mean any "benefits" we get from the agreement are time limited while the backstop is in perpetuity?
I just don't think they understand it and are blinkered by unbending ideology.
In other matters, I'm still not sure even half the Cabinet back the deal really, you don't see much of them!
Suppose someone told you that you could not take out a mortgage because you were a man - get your wife to come down and sign the papers, or your mother, or your sister or some other female relative. You would explode with anger. Yet within living memory, many women had the mirror image of that experience.
Identity is all people have. It defines us. Everything else can be taken away from you. Our bodies and personalities are the only guaranteed possessions we have an ever changing world. They should not used to discriminate against us.
The backstop is a massive red herring. Both the UK and the EU know they've f*cked this up, and it's in neither's interests for it to continue.
I fully expected it to be superseded by a new FTA in 2021 or 2022 that will include our formal exit from the customs union, with a level of special rules for NI, and close customs cooperation between the UK and EU thereafter.
A. A policy designed to appeal to people, but not based on it actually working. If we're using this definition, if I say a policy is populism, and you want to defend it, you respond that no, it's not populism, here's the evidence that it actually works.
B. A style and cluster of policies that claim to represent "the people", as opposed to
1) A vaguely-defined but nefarious "elite"
2) Some but not all of the other people - in the most classic formulation it's Jews, but other minorities work too. In the US, it represents "Real Americans", and there are a bunch of people who are technically Americans but aren't *real* Americans.
(B) doesn't necessarily actually have to be *popular* - we know this because you can have a *rise* of populism, followed by a fall of populism. A lot of policies promoted by populists are unpopular at any given time; For example, Trump's wall is currently unpopular. If you're using this definition and I say a policy is populist, you say sure, and it's a great policy, and you're only opposing it because you're a (((neoliberal))) (((globalist))) who doesn't care about working people.
A liberal migration policy, allied to investment in the requisite infrastructure, is sellable. Open borders is not. Thus, if people are sick of open borders but nobody in power offers a compromise alternative, eventually they have no choice but to go over to the outsider movement that says "we will get rid of open borders."
The UK was undergoing population growth equivalent to more than the entire population of Edinburgh every year, the primary driver of which was net international migration. A lot of people were concerned about how we were meant to cope with this, and they were entitled to be so. Their concerns were answered, effectively, with "these are the rules, we're not budging" from the EU, and "shut up you racist fruitcakes" from the major political parties. The pro-EU consensus alienated these voters with their fundamentalism; they were left with no choice but to embrace an opposing radicalism - smashing up the EU itself - in response.
It is very hard work to amend the constitution of the United States and a change can only be made if there is a wide and deep consensus. Britain is heading out of the EU, the most consequential act in decades, on the basis of one ballot held nearly three years ago in which just one vote could have decided the outcome. The closeness of the result and the lack of agreement about what it meant spelled trouble from the start. It also led to the inevitable convulsions that were going to follow when a parliament largely against Brexit was tasked with implementing a result most MPs thought a mistake, a challenge without precedent. This conundrum might have been eased had Mrs May responded to her task with a non-partisan, cross-party approach, but she made things harder when she started out by seeking to please one faction of her party alone.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/13/out-of-brexit-nightmare-must-emerge-a-more-robust-democracy
You and Mr Nabavi claim the EU don't want the backstop to be permanent but given the upset it is causing here they could resolve that by not making it permanent. They haven't. Judge by deeds not words and the deeds are that they have moved heaven and earth to screw out of us a permanent backstop from which there is no time limit and no unilateral escape.
The ERG should take the May Deal - but with their support contingent on her stating she will be stepping down on 1st June, allowing time for a new leader to be installed in the meantime. A new leader who can undertake negotiating the trade deal. And - if the members so choose - one who has said they will walk away from the Withdrawal Agreement, if needs be. But that would at least be after a period of planning for such walk away.
The reputational hit internationally in doing so might be real, but probably far less painful than suffering a No Deal Brexit that has been inadequately planned for.
The Married Women’s Property Act 1870 gave married women the same property and financial rights as unmarried women in 1893, and the Law of Property Act 1922 gave both women and men to inherit property equally. The last vestiges of discrimination on mortgages, loans and credit were removed in 1975 and 1980, respectively.
If there is active discrimination in the legal system against those of a different sex or race, then I agree it should be removed. And it has been.
That's quite different from using "identity" as a pernicious social and political tool, with strong traits of narcissism, which is quick to rank identities in value based upon perceived historical advantage, and very quick to act on perceived present-day slights - with overwhelming force - as evidence for them.
It is sowing a wind, which will reap a whirlwind, as it forces people back into identifying with what they feel they need to do in order provide themselves some measure of social and political defence. And unfairness can work both ways.
I think that's entirely unhealthy, and anyone half-intelligent should be able to see the difference.
But to take the edge of, I would add a PS that if you are getting next to nothing from the status quo it is not necessarily irrational or childish to look at ways to destroy it.
As regards the developed world I regard economic populism (whether of the protectionist or the money printing variety) as less malign than identity populism.
The latter is an appeal to, and has appeal to, the worst aspects of human nature. Rather than fighting ignorance, xenophobia, racism, it encourages people to wallow in it. This has no saving grace. It is wholly bad.
However, and this is important, if people BELIEVE there's a guaranteed time limit, they will discover too late that there isn't one. We'll be out by then.
However I cannot see there ever being any evidence/charges against Salmond so will just be a case of whether she can stick it out whilst Police Scotland take a year or two to finish a 5 minute investigation.
She certainly seems to be error prone in her judgment.
And to be fair to NatWest the problems were with ABN and RBS.
I expect we will move to an associate member status, with greater freedom of action in some areas, and continued close-cooperation in others, where our influence will based on the realpolitik, and not exclusively on formal or informal institutional memberships.
I'd be very comfortable with that.
I do have interest in Scots politics and do think Nicola has been compromised somewhat
The ideologues will cry betrayal, whatever deal we have a realistic change of striking and say we'll be a lapdog, and better off staying than this or a full no-deal. So will the Remainers, who'll always say we'll be a lapdog argue we'd be better off staying with the votes and influence.
So the easiest path is for Brexit to be rescinded, and the former to make a career out of betrayal and the latter to be hated and lauded in equal measure.
Great.
The poor dears don’t know any better but to fall for some populist rubbish
My starting point is having lived half my life abroad, including quite a lot of developing world visits: I think that by and large we have much more in common than we think, and we waste a lot of time and emotional energy trying to draw distinctions. I wouldn't favour union with, say, Libya, any time soon as I do think the differences would be too great to accommodate. But with Germany or Denmark or Slovenia? Sure.
Identity politics doesn’t lead anywhere. It is a war of all against all, forever.
No thanks.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_economics
The customs union is of overwhelming benefit to the EU given our massive deficit in goods. Freedom of movement is tied to the single market, not the customs union.
This idea that the EU loathes the backstop is rubbish. It seems to have emanated from the Tory HQ PR department.
Apologies for the small gripe but I do wish someone would proof read these headers for typos (mainly missing spaces in this instance). None of the messages of this header are lost but I for one find it distracting. Sorry, call me Victor Meldrew. (I'd be happy to offer my services if proof readers are needed - though I am sure others could do a better job.)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/revealed-commons-plot-to-seize-control-from-theresa-may-ahead-of-brexit-vote-6zp62hh57?shareToken=b8cfb2ce7c60fc6213e5e35aa471533c
The term itself is daft, like a racial equality movement called whiteism. Many feminists are entirely reasonable, some think anti-male discrimination is ok, and a few are stark raving made. It's not a helpful term, and supporting equality and being a feminist are not necessarily the same things.
Nice one!
I voted Leave to take back control not give it away. The backstop is 100% incompatible with that pledge. The only solution is to drop the backstop or pretend it doesn't exist. You may be prepared to do the latter but I'm not.
I voted to end customs alignment. Even EFTA would achieve that but the backstop doesn't.
That lines a keeper. 🙃
No-one should believe the CU will be temporary. That raises a possible out for May. If she accepts reality (not something she has done willingly so far) she could meet a key Labour demand for approval of the Withdrawal Agreement.
It's very obvious it's a red line for this Conservative Government.
The future political agreement gets us out of 80% of the single market, guarantees our right to do our trade deals, ends free movement, ends jurisdiction of the ECJ, ends major budgetary contributions, and repatriates fisheries, agriculture and regional policy, whilst also allowing for close defence and security cooperation on a bilateral basis with Europe in future.
Had that been on the table three years ago, I'd have bitten your hand off.
I disagree. I expect close alignment by choice in goods and probably agriculture, with an agreed minimum floor of social/employment and state aid laws, but divergence in services, digital and finance, and greater latitude to interpret the boundaries of the former laws as well.
Our country. Our choice.
The political declaration has no legal force, and every one of the 27 member states have a veto over the future trade deal. In the meantime, we're subject to and unable to escape (without EU permission) the backstop, which imposes a customs barrier within UK territory and endorses the regulatory annexation of Northern Ireland. Not only that, we're subject to EU rules which we have no way of avoiding or of influencing.
There will be significant ructions if we leave with no deal at all, and it's legitimate to favour one side or the other regarding what's less bad in the short term. But the deal is far from a good one.
Speaking as a disinterested observer, it is hardly surprising that Boles is in trouble with his local party members. More or less threatening to leave the party if it does things he doesn't like pretty much negates the whole point of having a political party. This is something that is presumably important to paid up activists. Grieve on the other hand is simply opposing the governments procedural manouevres with his own. There isn't any doubt that he is a Tory and has that party's interests at heart. Deselecting him for that wouldn't look good.
We voted Leave in large part because a number of us (myself included) felt our British identity was under threat if we stayed.
The only real conclusion you can draw is let people be, and be careful not to take steps or actions that could make people feel their identity is threatened.
And Welcome ..
Not sure I can trust the broadcasters
I'm going to be one of the unfortunate people who, having experienced real austerity and proscription in my youth, am going to see my grandchildren subjected to them in my old age.
JackW is a clever man. But -- & it pains me to say it -- Trump was a cleverer man. He saw a way.
Who knows, maybe TMay is cleverer?
Much of that is just noise, I'm afraid. The future declaration is much looser than Chequers in a number of areas: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/759021/25_November_Political_Declaration_setting_out_the_framework_for_the_future_relationship_between_the_European_Union_and_the_United_Kingdom__.pdf
I draw your attention to the clauses on Customs, in particular clause 27:
"26. The Parties will put in place ambitious customs arrangements, in pursuit of their overall objectives. In doing so, the Parties envisage making use of all available facilitative arrangements and technologies, in full respect of their legal orders and ensuring that customs authorities are able to protect the Parties’ respective financial interests and enforce public policies. To this end, they intend to consider mutual recognition of trusted traders’ programmes, administrative cooperation in customs matters and mutual assistance, including for the recovery of claims related to taxes and duties, and through the exchange of information to combat customs fraud and other illegal activity.
27. Such facilitative arrangements and technologies will also be considered in developing any alternative arrangements for ensuring the absence of a hard border on the island of Ireland on a permanent footing."
As far as I can tell, that's a comitment to agree to find a solution to the customs problem that's exactly what Breixteers have been asking for.
🙄
Your objective is always the same: to render any argument for Brexit pointless, so we Remain, which is your agenda.
And you are always wrong.
I don't trust the EU.