Many thanks for a genuinely thought provoking thread header.
My thoughts over lunch is that when we look at the issues that need to be addressed many of them seem to be issues for the left rather than the right. So:
We need to take advantage of our very strong jobs market to build in additional protections for those in work, guaranteeing them better security, more fixed hours, less abuse of "off the clock" time such as travelling time and less of the "self employed" nonsense.
We need to build a lot more public sector housing. A mobile population with a high element of migration will not find their housing problems solved by new build for sale.
We need to sort out the student loan mess before it simply becomes too big to deal with. As part of that we need to cut back on the mickey mouse courses missold to impressionable 18 year olds which result in decades of a lower standard of living.
We need to get seriously aggressive with the parasites who make so much money from our society but pay so little tax.
We need to develop alternatives to tertiary education with a massive expansion of apprenticeships with guaranteed minimum standards.
We need to invest seriously in our infrastructure, particularly internet infrastructure, to help British workers stay competitive.
A sane Labour party under a competent leader could probably offer much more of that than the Tories currently do. Unfortunately that is not an option we currently have. The current Tory leadership is average on a good day. That put's them in the lead. It's regrettable.
The current system we were locked in is great for the wealthy and the poor in eastern europe.
It's not good for the lower skilled members of our community. We have an obligation to look to their interests.
Brexit will allow our politicians the ability to address these deep seated problems. I doubt they will take it, but they should. And if they don't we can sack them and replace them with others who will.
That’s one of the best arguments for and explanations of Brexit I have ever read. In just a few pithy sentences. Bravo.
Except that if you sat down to analyse the problem (without the assistance of alcohol) you would quickly realise that not only is Brexit superfluous to any of the actions needed but that it is likely to be a handicap.
I’ve had one gin martini, here on soi 8, under the tropic moon.
Brexit returns power to the British voter to elect and eject those who rule over them. No more diktats from Brussels, no more unelected commissioners conjuring laws, no more no more no more.
In the long term this is clearly the best thing for the country. It will hurt in the short term. J R Mogg was logically right to talk of “fifty years”, even though the comment was foolishly unguarded, politically.
Yet the "diktats" from Brussels have little to do with why so many people are on the wrong end of the currently injust economic settlement. The US has the same issues, in spades.
Will he be rolling up in the back of a police van?
If so they are all going to be disappointed because the police vans bring people in around the back. I suspect he will be on an undertaking to appear and will be sneaked in the back way. If his lawyer has anything to do with it those microphones are highly optimistic.
Brexit returns power to the British voter to elect and eject those who rule over them. No more diktats from Brussels, no more unelected commissioners conjuring laws, no more no more no more.
In the long term this is clearly the best thing for the country. It will hurt in the short term. J R Mogg was logically right to talk of “fifty years”, even though the comment was foolishly unguarded, politically.
No.
That's not how the World works anymore. Long gone are the days when the UK elite could make diktats that changed how things work in Global markets.
We need to do deals with other people. We can be in the room (as we are now), or we can look on while our future is decided by other people.
Brexit reduces the ability of our elected representatives to control our destiny.
Man who voted for Remain explains why others voted for Leave. Hmm … now why is that not convincing?
That's the problem in a nutshell. Remainers, who are wise beyond the comprehension of Leavers, deign to lower themselves to impart wisdom. Act surprised when it is rebuffed.
I've always thought that Remain could have won the referendum easily but lacked the restraint to do it civilly. You can moan about the Leave attitude too, but they won.
Will he be rolling up in the back of a police van?
If so they are all going to be disappointed because the police vans bring people in around the back. I suspect he will be on an undertaking to appear and will be sneaked in the back way. If his lawyer has anything to do with it those microphones are highly optimistic.
I read that Russia Today (so obvious caveats apply) said that he hadn't been held by police, and had spent the night in a hotel in Edinburgh.
Will he be rolling up in the back of a police van?
If so they are all going to be disappointed because the police vans bring people in around the back. I suspect he will be on an undertaking to appear and will be sneaked in the back way. If his lawyer has anything to do with it those microphones are highly optimistic.
I read that Russia Today (so obvious caveats apply) said that he hadn't been held by police, and had spent the night in a hotel in Edinburgh.
The current system we were locked in is great for the wealthy and the poor in eastern europe.
It's not good for the lower skilled members of our community. We have an obligation to look to their interests.
Brexit will allow our politicians the ability to address these deep seated problems. I doubt they will take it, but they should. And if they don't we can sack them and replace them with others who will.
That’s one of the best arguments for and explanations of Brexit I have ever read. In just a few pithy sentences. Bravo.
Except that if you sat down to analyse the problem (without the assistance of alcohol) you would quickly realise that not only is Brexit superfluous to any of the actions needed but that it is likely to be a handicap.
I’ve had one gin martini, here on soi 8, under the tropic moon.
Brexit returns power to the British voter to elect and eject those who rule over them. No more diktats from Brussels, no more unelected commissioners conjuring laws, no more no more no more.
In the long term this is clearly the best thing for the country. It will hurt in the short term. J R Mogg was logically right to talk of “fifty years”, even though the comment was foolishly unguarded, politically.
Yet the "diktats" from Brussels have little to do with why so many people are on the wrong end of the currently injust economic settlement. The US has the same issues, in spades.
Indeed. I heartily recommend reading this brilliant essay on Trump, from 2016, which has much to say, tangentially, on Brexit. Some of it is spookily relevant, e.g. -
“To the surprise of no one who understands human nature, many whites didn’t appreciate being told that they had to die off for “progress” to be achieved“
The Labour position has (at times) been to have all the benefits of the Single Market without actually being a member of it. Which is impossible. You can't be in the club and out of the club at the same time.
And there is zero evidence that this would be acceptable to the 27 - and even if it were, we don't know the cost of that would be.
Of course their 'exactly the same benefits' talk is nonsense. Totally agree. Do they take us for fools?
But the 'jobs first' brexit? Yes, I'm fine with that as a description for an end state that has the UK in a customs union and closely aligned to the single market - which is Labour's actual brexit position once you blow off the suds.
The Labour position has (at times) been to have all the benefits of the Single Market without actually being a member of it. Which is impossible. You can't be in the club and out of the club at the same time.
And there is zero evidence that this would be acceptable to the 27 - and even if it were, we don't know the cost of that would be.
Of course their 'exactly the same benefits' talk is nonsense. Totally agree. Do they take us for fools?
But the 'jobs first' brexit? Yes, I'm fine with that as a description for an end state that has the UK in a customs union and closely aligned to the single market - which is Labour's actual brexit position once you blow off the suds.
But if half of what they are promising is nonsense, what confidence can anyone have in their ability to negotiate the other part?
To my mind, none.
Of course talking of a 'jobs first' deal is attractive. But when you look at those claiming to be able to deliver it, you see that it is not something they could possibly achieve.
The current system we were locked in is great for the wealthy and the poor in eastern europe.
It's not good for the lower skilled members of our community. We have an obligation to look to their interests.
Brexit will allow our politicians the ability to address these deep seated problems. I doubt they will take it, but they should. And if they don't we can sack them and replace them with others who will.
That’s one of the best arguments for and explanations of Brexit I have ever read. In just a few pithy sentences. Bravo.
Except that if you sat down to analyse the problem (without the assistance of alcohol) you would quickly realise that not only is Brexit superfluous to any of the actions needed but that it is likely to be a handicap.
I’ve had one gin martini, here on soi 8, under the tropic moon.
Brexit returns power to the British voter to elect and eject those who rule over them. No more diktats from Brussels, no more unelected commissioners conjuring laws, no more no more no more.
In the long term this is clearly the best thing for the country. It will hurt in the short term. J R Mogg was logically right to talk of “fifty years”, even though the comment was foolishly unguarded, politically.
Yet the "diktats" from Brussels have little to do with why so many people are on the wrong end of the currently injust economic settlement. The US has the same issues, in spades.
Indeed. I heartily recommend reading this brilliant essay on Trump, from 2016, which has much to say, tangentially, on Brexit. Some of it is spookily relevant, e.g. -
“To the surprise of no one who understands human nature, many whites didn’t appreciate being told that they had to die off for “progress” to be achieved“
I saw HadesTown last night. Terrific. Faithful to the original Greek myth but also highly relevant today.. Listen to "Why do we build the wall" by Hades. Guess who he is.
The current system we were locked in is great for the wealthy and the poor in eastern europe.
It's not good for the lower skilled members of our community. We have an obligation to look to their interests.
Brexit will allow our politicians the ability to address these deep seated problems. I doubt they will take it, but they should. And if they don't we can sack them and replace them with others who will.
That’s one of the best arguments for and explanations of Brexit I have ever read. In just a few pithy sentences. Bravo.
Except that if you sat down to analyse the problem (without the assistance of alcohol) you would quickly realise that not only is Brexit superfluous to any of the actions needed but that it is likely to be a handicap.
I’ve had one gin martini, here on soi 8, under the tropic moon.
Brexit returns power to the British voter to elect and eject those who rule over them. No more diktats from Brussels, no more unelected commissioners conjuring laws, no more no more no more.
In the long term this is clearly the best thing for the country. It will hurt in the short term. J R Mogg was logically right to talk of “fifty years”, even though the comment was foolishly unguarded, politically.
Yet the "diktats" from Brussels have little to do with why so many people are on the wrong end of the currently injust economic settlement. The US has the same issues, in spades.
Indeed. I heartily recommend reading this brilliant essay on Trump, from 2016, which has much to say, tangentially, on Brexit. Some of it is spookily relevant, e.g. -
“To the surprise of no one who understands human nature, many whites didn’t appreciate being told that they had to die off for “progress” to be achieved“
You so often seem to have the ability to see all the dots yet so rarely are you able to join them up.
I plot bestselling thrillers for a living. My entire job is based on “joining the dots”. I am thus able to see much further into the political future than you, and in a more complex and important way. I’m playing chess, even as you play draughts.
OK I’ve had two martinis now.
Haha! Ok maestro, what does the end game to our current political chaos look like?
The current system we were locked in is great for the wealthy and the poor in eastern europe.
It's not good for the lower skilled members of our community. We have an obligation to look to their interests.
Brexit will allow our politicians the ability to address these deep seated problems. I doubt they will take it, but they should. And if they don't we can sack them and replace them with others who will.
That’s one of the best arguments for and explanations of Brexit I have ever read. In just a few pithy sentences. Bravo.
Except that if you sat down to analyse the problem (without the assistance of alcohol) you would quickly realise that not only is Brexit superfluous to any of the actions needed but that it is likely to be a handicap.
I’ve had one gin martini, here on soi 8, under the tropic moon.
Brexit returns power to the British voter to elect and eject those who rule over them. No more diktats from Brussels, no more unelected commissioners conjuring laws, no more no more no more.
In the long term this is clearly the best thing for the country. It will hurt in the short term. J R Mogg was logically right to talk of “fifty years”, even though the comment was foolishly unguarded, politically.
Yet the "diktats" from Brussels have little to do with why so many people are on the wrong end of the currently injust economic settlement. The US has the same issues, in spades.
Indeed. I heartily recommend reading this brilliant essay on Trump, from 2016, which has much to say, tangentially, on Brexit. Some of it is spookily relevant, e.g. -
“To the surprise of no one who understands human nature, many whites didn’t appreciate being told that they had to die off for “progress” to be achieved“
You so often seem to have the ability to see all the dots yet so rarely are you able to join them up.
I plot bestselling thrillers for a living. My entire job is based on “joining the dots”. I am thus able to see much further into the political future than you, and in a more complex and important way. I’m playing chess, even as you play draughts.
OK I’ve had two martinis now.
When you try you end up spouting the sort of late night nonsense that gets you a bad name. Selling novels is rather different from political insight.
Brexit returns power to the British voter to elect and eject those who rule over them. No more diktats from Brussels, no more unelected commissioners conjuring laws, no more no more no more.
In the long term this is clearly the best thing for the country. It will hurt in the short term. J R Mogg was logically right to talk of “fifty years”, even though the comment was foolishly unguarded, politically.
No.
That's not how the World works anymore. Long gone are the days when the UK elite could make diktats that changed how things work in Global markets.
We need to do deals with other people. We can be in the room (as we are now), or we can look on while our future is decided by other people.
Brexit reduces the ability of our elected representatives to control our destiny.
+1. To illustrate the point, substitute "Northamptonshire" for "British" and "Westminster" for Brussels. It is intuitively clear (though perhaps someone will disagree) that Northants wouldn't be better off making its own decisions outside the UK, because they would find themselves unable to influence things that affected them. It's not obvious that the nation state is not now in the same position - and certainly that it's likely to be in that position in 50 years' time.
The Labour position has (at times) been to have all the benefits of the Single Market without actually being a member of it. Which is impossible. You can't be in the club and out of the club at the same time.
And there is zero evidence that this would be acceptable to the 27 - and even if it were, we don't know the cost of that would be.
Of course their 'exactly the same benefits' talk is nonsense. Totally agree. Do they take us for fools?
But the 'jobs first' brexit? Yes, I'm fine with that as a description for an end state that has the UK in a customs union and closely aligned to the single market - which is Labour's actual brexit position once you blow off the suds.
The inability to have control over our own trade deals could of course be detrimental to jobs. So a customs union and jobs Brexit could be contradictory.
Brexit returns power to the British voter to elect and eject those who rule over them. No more diktats from Brussels, no more unelected commissioners conjuring laws, no more no more no more.
In the long term this is clearly the best thing for the country. It will hurt in the short term. J R Mogg was logically right to talk of “fifty years”, even though the comment was foolishly unguarded, politically.
No.
That's not how the World works anymore. Long gone are the days when the UK elite could make diktats that changed how things work in Global markets.
We need to do deals with other people. We can be in the room (as we are now), or we can look on while our future is decided by other people.
Brexit reduces the ability of our elected representatives to control our destiny.
In the words of Hamilton in the best political musical, we need to "be in the room where it happens"
Since the virtual demise of the peoples vote this morning Sky seem to have moved away from the subject. Is Faisal in a corner sobbing ?
You're over-egging this somewhat. There's been no demise of the people's vote. This is all just a tactical move to keep the pressure on Corbyn and May.
How does withdrawing the second referendum amendment keep the pressure on Corbyn and May?
Wollaston is having a bit of a meltdown on Twitter it would appear. I heard from good sources that during the Ref she was being used by Cameron (not sure if Britain Stronger in Europe were aware) as someone who would infiltrate the leave camp and change sides if and when the going got tough, much like Baroness Warsi, (their respective NHS and asian backgrounds giving their change of views increased gravitas). Her reward would presumably be a promotion into the Cameron cabinet. The strange thing is I never heard anyone in Totnes or anywhere else talk about her Euroscepticism prior to the Ref which made it peculiar that she initially fell on the leave side.
Her transformation to People's Vote advocate appears to be more about a personal injustice due to Brexit and Cameron's departure stalling her career rather than life long affinity towards the EU.
I sense a new movement supporting a No-Deal Brexit but coming at it from the point of view that we need to be taught a lesson that we're not the the masters of the universe we think we are.
It's a movement short of a name. Something that what it appears like the Pre- Raphaelites or the Post-Moggists.
Since the virtual demise of the peoples vote this morning Sky seem to have moved away from the subject. Is Faisal in a corner sobbing ?
You're over-egging this somewhat. There's been no demise of the people's vote. This is all just a tactical move to keep the pressure on Corbyn and May.
How does withdrawing the second referendum amendment keep the pressure on Corbyn and May?
They just decided not to table it yet so that May and Corbyn lose the chance to defeat it. It's analogous to May pulling the vote in December.
I am not resigning, though the Tory party is unrecognisable from what it was. I am not resigning for the same reason why moderates in the Labour Party have not. The loonies will have their day. One day, those of a more moderate mindset will have to come and clear up the shit
Indeed. I heartily recommend reading this brilliant essay on Trump, from 2016, which has much to say, tangentially, on Brexit. Some of it is spookily relevant, e.g. -
“To the surprise of no one who understands human nature, many whites didn’t appreciate being told that they had to die off for “progress” to be achieved“
That is a good article. My first though after reading it is that if Trump can double down he may well win again, as the fundamental characteristics of the US voters will not have changed by much by 2020. Of course Trump also has to evade justice, which will be tricky, but perhaps not impossible with a compliant Senate.
Many thanks for a genuinely thought provoking thread header.
My thoughts over lunch is that when we look at the issues that need to be addressed many of them seem to be issues for the left rather than the right. So:
We need to take advantage of our very strong jobs market to build in additional protections for those in work, guaranteeing them better security, more fixed hours, less abuse of "off the clock" time such as travelling time and less of the "self employed" nonsense.
We need to build a lot more public sector housing. A mobile population with a high element of migration will not find their housing problems solved by new build for sale.
We need to sort out the student loan mess before it simply becomes too big to deal with. As part of that we need to cut back on the mickey mouse courses missold to impressionable 18 year olds which result in decades of a lower standard of living.
We need to get seriously aggressive with the parasites who make so much money from our society but pay so little tax.
We need to develop alternatives to tertiary education with a massive expansion of apprenticeships with guaranteed minimum standards.
We need to invest seriously in our infrastructure, particularly internet infrastructure, to help British workers stay competitive.
That is an attractive manifesto. I would sign up. But none of it requires leaving the European Union.
The answer to the question "What is the point of Brexit?" must surely be to do things that the strictures of EU membership prevent us from doing now.
For example, and only as an example, nationalize the retail banking and mortgage sector.
I sense a new movement supporting a No-Deal Brexit but coming at it from the point of view that we need to be taught a lesson that we're not the the masters of the universe we think we are.
Remainers For No Deal?
Can't see this one being as successful as Tories For Palmer somehow!
Many thanks for a genuinely thought provoking thread header.
My thoughts over lunch is that when we look at the issues that need to be addressed many of them seem to be issues for the left rather than the right. So:
We need to take advantage of our very strong jobs market to build in additional protections for those in work, guaranteeing them better security, more fixed hours, less abuse of "off the clock" time such as travelling time and less of the "self employed" nonsense.
We need to build a lot more public sector housing. A mobile population with a high element of migration will not find their housing problems solved by new build for sale.
We need to sort out the student loan mess before it simply becomes too big to deal with. As part of that we need to cut back on the mickey mouse courses missold to impressionable 18 year olds which result in decades of a lower standard of living.
We need to get seriously aggressive with the parasites who make so much money from our society but pay so little tax.
We need to develop alternatives to tertiary education with a massive expansion of apprenticeships with guaranteed minimum standards.
We need to invest seriously in our infrastructure, particularly internet infrastructure, to help British workers stay competitive.
That is an attractive manifesto. I would sign up. But none of it requires leaving the European Union.
The answer to the question "What is the point of Brexit?" must surely be to do things that the strictures of EU membership prevent us from doing now.
For example, and only as an example, nationalize the retail banking and mortgage sector.
What would be the purpose of nationalising the banking and mortgage sector?
Since the virtual demise of the peoples vote this morning Sky seem to have moved away from the subject. Is Faisal in a corner sobbing ?
You're over-egging this somewhat. There's been no demise of the people's vote. This is all just a tactical move to keep the pressure on Corbyn and May.
How does withdrawing the second referendum amendment keep the pressure on Corbyn and May?
They just decided not to table it yet so that May and Corbyn lose the chance to defeat it. It's analogous to May pulling the vote in December.
Keeping it on the table then like the No Deal Brexit.
Anecdote alert. I got a call from a client last night, who thinks Brexit might finish his small business off. A warning letter this morning from a stockist about possible shortages in the near future. And I have just lost some business because a long standing client is worried about whether my services will be usable in the event of a no deal.
If you don't think Brexit should be postponed immediately you are either out of touch or not very bright.
Thanks - all good points, though I would like more clarity how certain it is that Corbyn opposes leaving, given the manifesto and his voting record in the past. On your sixth point, as time goes on and the actual choice becomes a binary forced choice between TMs deal or no deal - that is the point at which for most MPs there can only be one answer. I hope.
What Corbyn said to me in our half-hour chat was that he had indeed been against the EU, as he felt it entrenched free-market capitalism. Over time it had evolved and there were now substantial progressive European forces that we could work with, and on the other hand the scope for Britain to be progressive on its own had shrunk. So although he wasn't especially keen on the EU, it was in his view now better to stay.
I don't see any reason to think that he'd bother to lie extensively in a private conservation with a long-standing acquaintance. It's what he thinks. Inconveniently, it's not the passionate Remain or Leave position that most people nowadays seem to want. It's the 7 out of 10 view that he expressed at the time of the referendum. As a more cynical politician, I feel it'd be good if he simulated greater passion on the subject, since it'd attract voters who otherwise can't stand Labour. But I respect the fact that he really doesn't do simulation.
Many thanks for a genuinely thought provoking thread header.
My thoughts over lunch is that when we look at the issues that need to be addressed many of them seem to be issues for the left rather than the right. So:
We need to take advantage of our very strong jobs market to build in additional protections for those in work, guaranteeing them better security, more fixed hours, less abuse of "off the clock" time such as travelling time and less of the "self employed" nonsense.
We need to build a lot more public sector housing. A mobile population with a high element of migration will not find their housing problems solved by new build for sale.
We need to sort out the student loan mess before it simply becomes too big to deal with. As part of that we need to cut back on the mickey mouse courses missold to impressionable 18 year olds which result in decades of a lower standard of living.
We need to get seriously aggressive with the parasites who make so much money from our society but pay so little tax.
We need to develop alternatives to tertiary education with a massive expansion of apprenticeships with guaranteed minimum standards.
We need to invest seriously in our infrastructure, particularly internet infrastructure, to help British workers stay competitive.
That is an attractive manifesto. I would sign up. But none of it requires leaving the European Union.
The answer to the question "What is the point of Brexit?" must surely be to do things that the strictures of EU membership prevent us from doing now.
For example, and only as an example, nationalize the retail banking and mortgage sector.
Brexit is incidental to what we want to do. It has largely been a displacement activity from our political class allowing them to bore us stupid and avoid more difficult problems. I share Alastair's concern that there is very little evidence of thinking about what we do when it is finally out of the way. But walking and chewing gum at the same time is truly aspirational for our political class.
Brexit returns power to the British voter to elect and eject those who rule over them. No more diktats from Brussels, no more unelected commissioners conjuring laws, no more no more no more.
In the long term this is clearly the best thing for the country. It will hurt in the short term. J R Mogg was logically right to talk of “fifty years”, even though the comment was foolishly unguarded, politically.
No.
That's not how the World works anymore. Long gone are the days when the UK elite could make diktats that changed how things work in Global markets.
We need to do deals with other people. We can be in the room (as we are now), or we can look on while our future is decided by other people.
Brexit reduces the ability of our elected representatives to control our destiny.
+1. To illustrate the point, substitute "Northamptonshire" for "British" and "Westminster" for Brussels. It is intuitively clear (though perhaps someone will disagree) that Northants wouldn't be better off making its own decisions outside the UK, because they would find themselves unable to influence things that affected them. It's not obvious that the nation state is not now in the same position - and certainly that it's likely to be in that position in 50 years' time.
Brexit and Trump are parts of the painful last hurrahs of nationalism; a poisonous irrational psychosis that believes one nation or nationality to be superior to another, not unlike its close cousin fascism. It is a philosophy of win-lose rather than win-win. It is a stupidity that still needs to be bled out of the human spirit in the same way socialism does. Unfortunately human beings will have to suffer further before they fully understand the vacuousness of both of these simplistic ideologies.
Wollaston is having a bit of a meltdown on Twitter it would appear. I heard from good sources that during the Ref she was being used by Cameron (not sure if Britain Stronger in Europe were aware) as someone who would infiltrate the leave camp and change sides if and when the going got tough, much like Baroness Warsi, (their respective NHS and asian backgrounds giving their change of views increased gravitas). Her reward would presumably be a promotion into the Cameron cabinet. The strange thing is I never heard anyone in Totnes or anywhere else talk about her Euroscepticism prior to the Ref which made it peculiar that she initially fell on the leave side.
Her transformation to People's Vote advocate appears to be more about a personal injustice due to Brexit and Cameron's departure stalling her career rather than life long affinity towards the EU.
You can see that Wollaston is emotionally ultra Remain rather than a careerist.
Indeed it is Wollaston's main fault that she is too emotionally engaged with policies. Not a good attribute if you are a Minister.
Thanks - all good points, though I would like more clarity how certain it is that Corbyn opposes leaving, given the manifesto and his voting record in the past. On your sixth point, as time goes on and the actual choice becomes a binary forced choice between TMs deal or no deal - that is the point at which for most MPs there can only be one answer. I hope.
What Corbyn said to me in our half-hour chat was that he had indeed been against the EU, as he felt it entrenched free-market capitalism. Over time it had evolved and there were now substantial progressive European forces that we could work with, and on the other hand the scope for Britain to be progressive on its own had shrunk. So although he wasn't especially keen on the EU, it was in his view now better to stay.
I don't see any reason to think that he'd bother to lie extensively in a private conservation with a long-standing acquaintance. It's what he thinks. Inconveniently, it's not the passionate Remain or Leave position that most people nowadays seem to want. It's the 7 out of 10 view that he expressed at the time of the referendum. As a more cynical politician, I feel it'd be good if he simulated greater passion on the subject, since it'd attract voters who otherwise can't stand Labour. But I respect the fact that he really doesn't do simulation.
I think you have been disingenuously triangulated. I know you believe you know him, but my professional observation is that he is a man that, like Boris Johnson, is very comfortable with half truths and full lies if it helps him reach his objective.
Anecdote alert. I got a call from a client last night, who thinks Brexit might finish his small business off. A warning letter this morning from a stockist about possible shortages in the near future. And I have just lost some business because a long standing client is worried about whether my services will be usable in the event of a no deal.
If you don't think Brexit should be postponed immediately you are either out of touch or not very bright.
There's absolutely no doubt that a lot of businesses will go bust in the event of a no-deal crash-out, simply because of the delays and disruption hitting their cash-flow.
What's more, I think we've already reached the point where the prospect of crash-out is doing permanent damage to the UK operations of larger businesses, which won't be reversed even if we avoid the full-Monty crash-out. Those companies which have finally activated their plans for moving some of their operations and legal entities to the EU27 aren't likely to reverse those plans even if they turn out not to have been necessary. And even if we remain in the EU, there will always be that nagging doubt that maybe the nightmare might recur. Why take the risk? The same thinking could hit new inward investment as well, especially for large-scale manufacturing operations with very long planning timescales.
What do we think of Campbell-Bannerman MEP's response to the Airbus CEO's comments:
"Here we have a German CEO putting EU interests first before his own employees. A disgrace. As with Galileo UK should make plans to take over these plants and sell into the global marketplace with our own planes."
I have heard of Trotskyists who think like this - "Seize the plants! Launch our own projects!" Haven't heard it from the Conservative Party up to now.
Thanks - all good points, though I would like more clarity how certain it is that Corbyn opposes leaving, given the manifesto and his voting record in the past. On your sixth point, as time goes on and the actual choice becomes a binary forced choice between TMs deal or no deal - that is the point at which for most MPs there can only be one answer. I hope.
What Corbyn said to me in our half-hour chat was that he had indeed been against the EU, as he felt it entrenched free-market capitalism. Over time it had evolved and there were now substantial progressive European forces that we could work with, and on the other hand the scope for Britain to be progressive on its own had shrunk. So although he wasn't especially keen on the EU, it was in his view now better to stay.
I don't see any reason to think that he'd bother to lie extensively in a private conservation with a long-standing acquaintance. It's what he thinks. Inconveniently, it's not the passionate Remain or Leave position that most people nowadays seem to want. It's the 7 out of 10 view that he expressed at the time of the referendum. As a more cynical politician, I feel it'd be good if he simulated greater passion on the subject, since it'd attract voters who otherwise can't stand Labour. But I respect the fact that he really doesn't do simulation.
That's very interesting. Like the rest of us JC is hemmed in by circumstances and at the moment the way Labour is actually voting appears to be making 'no deal' more likely rather than less. It is also hard to see how Ref2 or a GE would provide any really fresh unifying policies or results. Of the available options, isn't TMs deal, which allows for BRINO, and gives time for a rethink afterwards by a long transition period, for all its faults the most sensible ultimate course for Mr Corbyn and Labour if they want the closest possible integration in terms of Customs Union and Single market? And if not, then what else?
Wollaston is having a bit of a meltdown on Twitter it would appear. I heard from good sources that during the Ref she was being used by Cameron (not sure if Britain Stronger in Europe were aware) as someone who would infiltrate the leave camp and change sides if and when the going got tough, much like Baroness Warsi, (their respective NHS and asian backgrounds giving their change of views increased gravitas). Her reward would presumably be a promotion into the Cameron cabinet. The strange thing is I never heard anyone in Totnes or anywhere else talk about her Euroscepticism prior to the Ref which made it peculiar that she initially fell on the leave side.
Her transformation to People's Vote advocate appears to be more about a personal injustice due to Brexit and Cameron's departure stalling her career rather than life long affinity towards the EU.
I was surprised when she went Leave. I read her reasons why, and they seemed fair enough. But as you say, it seemed a bit "Really? OK...." She hadn't expressed these views in any constituency meeting I'd see her at. Totnes voted Remain, which might be down to her volte face, but it was always going to be solidly Remain in Totnes town, which is a bit of Camden dropped in the Devon countryside.
But her flip-flopping has lost her plenty of credibility across the wider constituency. Her desire for a second referendum is very much a personal crusade. We aren't exactly out with the pitchforks and flaming brands demanding it of Govt.
The inability to have control over our own trade deals could of course be detrimental to jobs. So a customs union and jobs Brexit could be contradictory.
It could be - it depends on one's view of how much benefit we will get from doing our own trade deals as opposed to having a great one with the EU and having them do other ones for us. My view of this benefit is that it is of the negative variety.
But I could be wrong. Point is, Labour believe it is better for jobs to stick close to the EU and therefore a 'jobs first' brexit is a heartfelt and accurate and bang-on-the-money description of their policy.
Brexit returns power to the British voter to elect and eject those who rule over them. No more diktats from Brussels, no more unelected commissioners conjuring laws, no more no more no more.
In the long term this is clearly the best thing for the country. It will hurt in the short term. J R Mogg was logically right to talk of “fifty years”, even though the comment was foolishly unguarded, politically.
No.
That's not how the World works anymore. Long gone are the days when the UK elite could make diktats that changed how things work in Global markets.
We need to do deals with other people. We can be in the room (as we are now), or we can look on while our future is decided by other people.
Brexit reduces the ability of our elected representatives to control our destiny.
+1. To illustrate the point, substitute "Northamptonshire" for "British" and "Westminster" for Brussels. It is intuitively clear (though perhaps someone will disagree) that Northants wouldn't be better off making its own decisions outside the UK, because they would find themselves unable to influence things that affected them. It's not obvious that the nation state is not now in the same position - and certainly that it's likely to be in that position in 50 years' time.
And yet, as I’ve just shown, most of the wealthiest countries in the world are NOT in the room. They do not, apparently, have any influence. And yet they survive, and thrive. AND they rule themselves.
Indeed it is arguable that the best position to be is just outside a much larger political entity, but freely trading with it. Norway, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, Korea, (arguably Oz) are all in that position. Sometimes the larger bloc can be overbearing and annoying, but the smaller countries evolve and adapt, and become nimbler, because they have to be.
We won’t ever be the Britain of the 19th century, and who would want to be. Running an empire, and therefore the world, is a thankless task. Cf America.
We are a resourceful and gifted country, which speaks English, has brilliant universities, etc etc etc
We will be fine. Moreover, technological changes coming down the line are gonna make all this Brexit stuff seem very small beer, anyway.
It is possible we might be fine. It doesn't reassure me that the clear risk is worth it for what are very marginal benefits
Anecdote alert. I got a call from a client last night, who thinks Brexit might finish his small business off. A warning letter this morning from a stockist about possible shortages in the near future. And I have just lost some business because a long standing client is worried about whether my services will be usable in the event of a no deal.
If you don't think Brexit should be postponed immediately you are either out of touch or not very bright.
There's absolutely no doubt that a lot of businesses will go bust in the event of a no-deal crash-out, simply because of the delays and disruption hitting their cash-flow.
What's more, I think we've already reached the point where the prospect of crash-out is doing permanent damage to the UK operations of larger businesses, which won't be reversed even if we avoid the full-Monty crash-out. Those companies which have finally activated their plans for moving some of their operations and legal entities to the EU27 aren't likely to reverse those plans even if they turn out not to have been necessary. And even if we remain in the EU, there will always be that nagging doubt that maybe the nightmare might recur. Why take the risk? The same thinking could hit new inward investment as well, especially for large-scale manufacturing operations with very long planning timescales.
That's all too true. We've got to not only reverse Brexit but purge public life of all its supporters.
I don't see any reason to think that he'd bother to lie extensively in a private conservation with a long-standing acquaintance. It's what he thinks. Inconveniently, it's not the passionate Remain or Leave position that most people nowadays seem to want. It's the 7 out of 10 view that he expressed at the time of the referendum. As a more cynical politician, I feel it'd be good if he simulated greater passion on the subject, since it'd attract voters who otherwise can't stand Labour. But I respect the fact that he really doesn't do simulation.
When people say things like this, I wonder if the circles I mix in are wildly unrepresentative, because it's not my experience at all. Most of my collegues are generally Labour voters (though none are members) and the feeling among them is more irritation that Corbyn isn't being pragmatic enough, and is only refusing to work with May to get Brexit "sorted" because he wants an election (obviously any politician in his position would be doing anything to try to get an election, but you're not meant to be so blatant in public about it!).
Indeed. I heartily recommend reading this brilliant essay on Trump, from 2016, which has much to say, tangentially, on Brexit. Some of it is spookily relevant, e.g. -
“To the surprise of no one who understands human nature, many whites didn’t appreciate being told that they had to die off for “progress” to be achieved“
That is a good article. My first though after reading it is that if Trump can double down he may well win again, as the fundamental characteristics of the US voters will not have changed by much by 2020. Of course Trump also has to evade justice, which will be tricky, but perhaps not impossible with a compliant Senate.
Imagine if the same “Sailerism” takes hold in Britain? (Or France or Spain or Sweden, for that matter). Imagine if native whites start voting on ethno-nationalist lines, rather than on ideologies? The hard right will be in power, in western Europe, for generations. It is far from impossible. It is arguably already occurring in Eastern Europe.
That has always been the danger of leftist identity politics, eventually the right will decide to fight on the same turf and the majority votes like a minority bloc. Eventually a white voting for the left will be seen as much a race traitor as a non-white voting for the right is at the moment.
Wollaston is having a bit of a meltdown on Twitter it would appear. I heard from good sources that during the Ref she was being used by Cameron (not sure if Britain Stronger in Europe were aware) as someone who would infiltrate the leave camp and change sides if and when the going got tough, much like Baroness Warsi, (their respective NHS and asian backgrounds giving their change of views increased gravitas). Her reward would presumably be a promotion into the Cameron cabinet. The strange thing is I never heard anyone in Totnes or anywhere else talk about her Euroscepticism prior to the Ref which made it peculiar that she initially fell on the leave side.
Her transformation to People's Vote advocate appears to be more about a personal injustice due to Brexit and Cameron's departure stalling her career rather than life long affinity towards the EU.
It was painfully obvious, even to the stupidest Remainer, that she was an infiltrator - an agent provocateur - paid to pretend she was Leave, then suddenly - wow, look, a burning bush that looks like Jacques Delor! - she realized everything she believed was wrong and she was an ultra-Remainer. Just a couple of weeks before the vote, as well! Lol.
It was lamentably unbelievable, no one bought it, she made herself look a fucking idiot, now she’s that creepy madwoman who wants another referendum. Sad. I feel sorry for her.
Her position as Chair of the Health Select Committee gave her some credibility with the media when she claimed the reason for deserting Leave was that the "numbers on the side of the bus" were far-fetched.
When the Prime Minister then implemented budget increases that were actually HIGHER than our EU contributions, you'd think she might have gone "Ah...oh...um...okay....I'll shut up now...."
Australia, Switzerland, Norway, Japan, Korea, Iceland, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore. What unites these countries? They are all wealthy, or extremely wealthy. Most of them are wealthier than almost any country in the EU. All are outside the EU. And do not belong to any nascent superstate-cum-trading bloc.
As you know some of them are indeed members of supra-National organisations with the intent of improving their lot.
Clearly we could be as successful at exporting natural resources as Canada and Australia, have an aerospace industry to rival the Swiss, compete with the Norwegian car manufacturers, and move vacuum cleaner production from Singapore, if ONLY we left the EU...
Anecdote alert. I got a call from a client last night, who thinks Brexit might finish his small business off. A warning letter this morning from a stockist about possible shortages in the near future. And I have just lost some business because a long standing client is worried about whether my services will be usable in the event of a no deal.
If you don't think Brexit should be postponed immediately you are either out of touch or not very bright.
There's absolutely no doubt that a lot of businesses will go bust in the event of a no-deal crash-out, simply because of the delays and disruption hitting their cash-flow.
What's more, I think we've already reached the point where the prospect of crash-out is doing permanent damage to the UK operations of larger businesses, which won't be reversed even if we avoid the full-Monty crash-out. Those companies which have finally activated their plans for moving some of their operations and legal entities to the EU27 aren't likely to reverse those plans even if they turn out not to have been necessary. And even if we remain in the EU, there will always be that nagging doubt that maybe the nightmare might recur. Why take the risk? The same thinking could hit new inward investment as well, especially for large-scale manufacturing operations with very long planning timescales.
Brexit is going to hurt. There will be blood. We will shit ourselves in public. Why? Because Brexiting is like having a baby
It's a poor analogy. With having a baby you go through a lot of pain but end up with something desirable. With Brexit we don't have to have much pain - it is all due to trying to do it too quickly. And we end up with a country that is less good than when we started out.
Wollaston is having a bit of a meltdown on Twitter it would appear. I heard from good sources that during the Ref she was being used by Cameron (not sure if Britain Stronger in Europe were aware) as someone who would infiltrate the leave camp and change sides if and when the going got tough, much like Baroness Warsi, (their respective NHS and asian backgrounds giving their change of views increased gravitas). Her reward would presumably be a promotion into the Cameron cabinet. The strange thing is I never heard anyone in Totnes or anywhere else talk about her Euroscepticism prior to the Ref which made it peculiar that she initially fell on the leave side.
Her transformation to People's Vote advocate appears to be more about a personal injustice due to Brexit and Cameron's departure stalling her career rather than life long affinity towards the EU.
It was painfully obvious, even to the stupidest Remainer, that she was an infiltrator - an agent provocateur - paid to pretend she was Leave, then suddenly - wow, look, a burning bush that looks like Jacques Delor! - she realized everything she believed was wrong and she was an ultra-Remainer. Just a couple of weeks before the vote, as well! Lol.
It was lamentably unbelievable, no one bought it, she made herself look a fucking idiot, now she’s that creepy madwoman who wants another referendum. Sad. I feel sorry for her.
Her position as Chair of the Health Select Committee gave her some credibility with the media when she claimed the reason for deserting Leave was that the "numbers on the side of the bus" were far-fetched.
When the Prime Minister then implemented budget increases that were actually HIGHER than our EU contributions, you'd think she might have gone "Ah...oh...um...okay....I'll shut up now...."
I see no sign of this supposed meltdown on her twitter account.
Imagine if the same “Sailerism” takes hold in Britain? (Or France or Spain or Sweden, for that matter). Imagine if native whites start voting on ethno-nationalist lines, rather than on ideologies? The hard right will be in power, in western Europe, for generations. It is far from impossible. It is arguably already occurring in Eastern Europe.
Perhaps it's inevitable that when there is a broad consensus about economics (free trade and markets, globalism, capitalism) that we revert to older more tribal differences for our politics. No longer dividing ourselves on what we think, but on who we are.
Anecdote alert. I got a call from a client last night, who thinks Brexit might finish his small business off. A warning letter this morning from a stockist about possible shortages in the near future. And I have just lost some business because a long standing client is worried about whether my services will be usable in the event of a no deal.
If you don't think Brexit should be postponed immediately you are either out of touch or not very bright.
There's absolutely no doubt that a lot of businesses will go bust in the event of a no-deal crash-out, simply because of the delays and disruption hitting their cash-flow.
What's more, I think we've already reached the point where the prospect of crash-out is doing permanent damage to the UK operations of larger businesses, which won't be reversed even if we avoid the full-Monty crash-out. Those companies which have finally activated their plans for moving some of their operations and legal entities to the EU27 aren't likely to reverse those plans even if they turn out not to have been necessary. And even if we remain in the EU, there will always be that nagging doubt that maybe the nightmare might recur. Why take the risk? The same thinking could hit new inward investment as well, especially for large-scale manufacturing operations with very long planning timescales.</blockquote
The first line and a half also make sense. Your sentence now reads
'What's more, I think we've already reached the point where the prospect of crash-out is doing permanent damage to the UK ...'
Australia, Switzerland, Norway, Japan, Korea, Iceland, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore. What unites these countries? They are all wealthy, or extremely wealthy. Most of them are wealthier than almost any country in the EU. All are outside the EU. And do not belong to any nascent superstate-cum-trading bloc.
As you know some of them are indeed members of supra-National organisations with the intent of improving their lot.
Clearly we could be as successful at exporting natural resources as Canada and Australia, have an aerospace industry to rival the Swiss, compete with the Norwegian car manufacturers, and move vacuum cleaner production from Singapore, if ONLY we left the EU...
Yes they are members of supra-national organisations that do not exert any unilateral control over their legislation. They have the right to make their own decisions and ignore any decisions made by those bodies which they do not agree with. Conflating The EU with WTO or the UN or any of the other bodies that countries sign up to in the name of cooperation is just dumb and fundamentally dishonest.
Thanks - all good points, though I would like more clarity how certain it is that Corbyn opposes leaving, given the manifesto and his voting record in the past. On your sixth point, as time goes on and the actual choice becomes a binary forced choice between TMs deal or no deal - that is the point at which for most MPs there can only be one answer. I hope.
What Corbyn said to me in our half-hour chat was that he had indeed been against the EU, as he felt it entrenched free-market capitalism. Over time it had evolved and there were now substantial progressive European forces that we could work with, and on the other hand the scope for Britain to be progressive on its own had shrunk. So although he wasn't especially keen on the EU, it was in his view now better to stay.
I don't see any reason to think that he'd bother to lie extensively in a private conservation with a long-standing acquaintance. It's what he thinks. Inconveniently, it's not the passionate Remain or Leave position that most people nowadays seem to want. It's the 7 out of 10 view that he expressed at the time of the referendum. As a more cynical politician, I feel it'd be good if he simulated greater passion on the subject, since it'd attract voters who otherwise can't stand Labour. But I respect the fact that he really doesn't do simulation.
At the time I regarded that 7/10 comment as one of the most knowingly damning pieces of passive resistance to being pushed into the Remain campaign that Corbyn made.
He was established enough as leader to be aware of surveys and marketing theory - the how was your interaction with our company today surveys we are all familiar with - where if someone says 8 it is don't bank on this one's loyalty and 7 is close to "forget it". If that is how people respond to surveys then, presumably, it is also how they subconsciously understand this scoring.
I heard that 7/10 as a fully fledged and intentional dog whistle to the subconsciousses of the Corbyn base - it is fine to Vote Leave. And amongst far more overtly bad things that were said during the referendum campaign, it stands alone as the one that boiled my blood the most.
Thanks - all good points, though I would like more clarity how certain it is that Corbyn opposes leaving, given the manifesto and his voting record in the past. On your sixth point, as time goes on and the actual choice becomes a binary forced choice between TMs deal or no deal - that is the point at which for most MPs there can only be one answer. I hope.
What Corbyn said to me in our half-hour chat was that he had indeed been against the EU, as he felt it entrenched free-market capitalism. Over time it had evolved and there were now substantial progressive European forces that we could work with, and on the other hand the scope for Britain to be progressive on its own had shrunk. So although he wasn't especially keen on the EU, it was in his view now better to stay.
I don't see any reason to think that he'd bother to lie extensively in a private conservation with a long-standing acquaintance. It's what he thinks. Inconveniently, it's not the passionate Remain or Leave position that most people nowadays seem to want. It's the 7 out of 10 view that he expressed at the time of the referendum. As a more cynical politician, I feel it'd be good if he simulated greater passion on the subject, since it'd attract voters who otherwise can't stand Labour. But I respect the fact that he really doesn't do simulation.
That's very interesting. Like the rest of us JC is hemmed in by circumstances and at the moment the way Labour is actually voting appears to be making 'no deal' more likely rather than less. It is also hard to see how Ref2 or a GE would provide any really fresh unifying policies or results. Of the available options, isn't TMs deal, which allows for BRINO, and gives time for a rethink afterwards by a long transition period, for all its faults the most sensible ultimate course for Mr Corbyn and Labour if they want the closest possible integration in terms of Customs Union and Single market? And if not, then what else?
Jezza doesn't agree with you that a GE would produce fresh unifying policies. He wants one tomorrow, as he is a man in a hurry and is convinced he will win. Although some at least in his team don't think so, if the leaks are to be believed.
Brexit returns power to the British voter to elect and eject those who rule over them. No more diktats from Brussels, no more unelected commissioners conjuring laws, no more no more no more.
In the long term this is clearly the best thing for the country. It will hurt in the short term. J R Mogg was logically right to talk of “fifty years”, even though the comment was foolishly unguarded, politically.
No.
That's not how the World works anymore. Long gone are the days when the UK elite could make diktats that changed how things work in Global markets.
We need to do deals with other people. We can be in the room (as we are now), or we can look on while our future is decided by other people.
Brexit reduces the ability of our elected representatives to control our destiny.
+1. To illustrate the point, substitute "Northamptonshire" for "British" and "Westminster" for Brussels. It is intuitively clear (though perhaps someone will disagree) that Northants wouldn't be better off making its own decisions outside the UK, because they would find themselves unable to influence things that affected them. It's not obvious that the nation state is not now in the same position - and certainly that it's likely to be in that position in 50 years' time.
I disagree. The Nation State is more relevant than ever and an essential vehicle for democracy. It seems to me that the Davos set want to get rid of Nation states and democracy and hand over more and more power to unaccountable supranational bodies and international megacorps. If this happens then expect the populist revolts to continue and grow.
I sense a new movement supporting a No-Deal Brexit but coming at it from the point of view that we need to be taught a lesson that we're not the the masters of the universe we think we are.
It's a movement short of a name. Something that what it appears like the Pre- Raphaelites or the Post-Moggists.
To be fair it has been represented on here for a long time - at least half heartedly. You could call it the Screaming Eagle Movement.
Australia, Switzerland, Norway, Japan, Korea, Iceland, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore. What unites these countries? They are all wealthy, or extremely wealthy. Most of them are wealthier than almost any country in the EU. All are outside the EU. And do not belong to any nascent superstate-cum-trading bloc.
As you know some of them are indeed members of supra-National organisations with the intent of improving their lot.
Clearly we could be as successful at exporting natural resources as Canada and Australia, have an aerospace industry to rival the Swiss, compete with the Norwegian car manufacturers, and move vacuum cleaner production from Singapore, if ONLY we left the EU...
Yes they are members of supra-national organisations that do not exert any unilateral control over their legislation. They have the right to make their own decisions and ignore any decisions made by those bodies which they do not agree with. Conflating The EU with WTO or the UN or any of the other bodies that countries sign up to in the name of cooperation is just dumb and fundamentally dishonest.
Surely based on your own logic, the UK is a far worse supra-national organisation than even the EU?
Brexit returns power to the British voter to elect and eject those who rule over them. No more diktats from Brussels, no more unelected commissioners conjuring laws, no more no more no more.
In the long term this is clearly the best thing for the country. It will hurt in the short term. J R Mogg was logically right to talk of “fifty years”, even though the comment was foolishly unguarded, politically.
No.
That's not how the World works anymore. Long gone are the days when the UK elite could make diktats that changed how things work in Global markets.
We need to do deals with other people. We can be in the room (as we are now), or we can look on while our future is decided by other people.
Brexit reduces the ability of our elected representatives to control our destiny.
+1. To illustrate the point, substitute "Northamptonshire" for "British" and "Westminster" for Brussels. It is intuitively clear (though perhaps someone will disagree) that Northants wouldn't be better off making its own decisions outside the UK, because they would find themselves unable to influence things that affected them. It's not obvious that the nation state is not now in the same position - and certainly that it's likely to be in that position in 50 years' time.
I disagree. The Nation State is more relevant than ever and an essential vehicle for democracy. It seems to me that the Davos set want to get rid of Nation states and democracy and hand over more and more power to unaccountable supranational bodies and international megacorps. If this happens then expect the populist revolts to continue and grow.
so what is a nation state and where does Scotland fit in?
If the Airbus UK spokeswoman on Ian King is to be taken at face value they are actually saying it exactly how the Government wanted and encouraged them to. Nothing wrong with that of course but it does need to all be seen as part of the campaign being run by No 10 in support of the Deal.
Plenty to think about and talk about today but to stay on topic for a moment. It would be churlish not to concede that having more people employed than ever isn't good news but I'm left with this nagging sense of whether productivity in all its forms is the real issue.
Traditionally, businesses have expanded by investing in technology to improve business processes so we had the spinning jenny, the ravelling Nancy, the typewriter, the telephone, the computer etc all of which transformed menial tasks.
The next stage seems to be AI or robotics but at the moment, with a huge and seemingly never-ending pool of cheap labour, it's much easier and cheaper to employ someone.
In any case, the consumer/customer is still resistant to too much automaton - the human interface is still preferred and trusted by many (especially the elderly) to a machine so the need to continue to employ people continues.
How long this will remain the case remains (so to speak) to be seen.
What would be the purpose of nationalising the banking and mortgage sector?
I offer it as an example of something we could do after we have left the EU that we cannot do while we are in it.
One could suggest other things. Really clamp down on immigration? Abolish VAT? Lift the maximum working time restriction?
What we actually do will of course depend on manifestos and general elections.
The point I am seeking - straining even - to make is that if we end up not doing anything of consequence which we could not have done in any case as a member of the EU then the most flattering description that Brexit will ever be able to aspire to in the years to come is that of having been an enormous waste of time.
Brexit returns power to the British voter to elect and eject those who rule over them. No more diktats from Brussels, no more unelected commissioners conjuring laws, no more no more no more.
In the long term this is clearly the best thing for the country. It will hurt in the short term. J R Mogg was logically right to talk of “fifty years”, even though the comment was foolishly unguarded, politically.
No.
That's not how the World works anymore. Long gone are the days when the UK elite could make diktats that changed how things work in Global markets.
We need to do deals with other people. We can be in the room (as we are now), or we can look on while our future is decided by other people.
Brexit reduces the ability of our elected representatives to control our destiny.
+1. To illustrate the point, substitute "Northamptonshire" for "British" and "Westminster" for Brussels. It is intuitively clear (though perhaps someone will disagree) that Northants wouldn't be better off making its own decisions outside the UK, because they would find themselves unable to influence things that affected them. It's not obvious that the nation state is not now in the same position - and certainly that it's likely to be in that position in 50 years' time.
I disagree. The Nation State is more relevant than ever and an essential vehicle for democracy. It seems to me that the Davos set want to get rid of Nation states and democracy and hand over more and more power to unaccountable supranational bodies and international megacorps. If this happens then expect the populist revolts to continue and grow.
so what is a nation state and where does Scotland fit in?
Currently it is the United Kingdom. If Scotland voted to leave it would then be Scotland and whatever the UK renamed itself. Either works as long as it is supported by the people who live there.
If the Airbus UK spokeswoman on Ian King is to be taken at face value they are actually saying it exactly how the Government wanted and encouraged them to. Nothing wrong with that of course but it does need to all be seen as part of the campaign being run by No 10 in support of the Deal.
Okay, on to Venezuela and cheap anti-Corbyn jibes aside, is this the beginning of the end for Maduro? As is always the case. as long as the military are prepared to kill civilians to defend the Government, the Government is probably secure.
Revolution or successful rebellion occurs when the majority of the armed forces will no longer actively defend the Government by killing those in protest. Taking no action or actively siding with the protesters means the Government falls sooner or later.
Guaido must be careful not to overplay his hand. This must solely be about removing Maduro, not trying to become the next South American Trump. For now, Maduro enjoys the support of Russia, Cuba and oddly enough Turkey. That matters little because outside intervention isn't going to settle this nor should it.
I can only hope IF regime change is to happen, it happens with as little bloodshed as possible and action is swiftly taken (with outside help if need be) to stabilise the economy.
Brexit returns power to the British voter to elect and eject those who rule over them. No more diktats from Brussels, no more unelected commissioners conjuring laws, no more no more no more.
In the long term this is clearly the best thing for the country. It will hurt in the short term. J R Mogg was logically right to talk of “fifty years”, even though the comment was foolishly unguarded, politically.
No.
That's not how the World works anymore. Long gone are the days when the UK elite could make diktats that changed how things work in Global markets.
We need to do deals with other people. We can be in the room (as we are now), or we can look on while our future is decided by other people.
Brexit reduces the ability of our elected representatives to control our destiny.
+1. To illustrate the point, substitute "Northamptonshire" for "British" and "Westminster" for Brussels. It is intuitively clear (though perhaps someone will disagree) that Northants wouldn't be better off making its own decisions outside the UK, because they would find themselves unable to influence things that affected them. It's not obvious that the nation state is not now in the same position - and certainly that it's likely to be in that position in 50 years' time.
I disagree. The Nation State is more relevant than ever and an essential vehicle for democracy. It seems to me that the Davos set want to get rid of Nation states and democracy and hand over more and more power to unaccountable supranational bodies and international megacorps. If this happens then expect the populist revolts to continue and grow.
so what is a nation state and where does Scotland fit in?
Currently it is the United Kingdom. If Scotland voted to leave it would then be Scotland and whatever the UK renamed itself. Either works as long as it is supported by the people who live there.
When have the people of England ever been asked if they wanted a UK superstate?
Australia, Switzerland, Norway, Japan, Korea, Iceland, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore. What unites these countries? They are all wealthy, or extremely wealthy. Most of them are wealthier than almost any country in the EU. All are outside the EU. And do not belong to any nascent superstate-cum-trading bloc.
As you know some of them are indeed members of supra-National organisations with the intent of improving their lot.
Clearly we could be as successful at exporting natural resources as Canada and Australia, have an aerospace industry to rival the Swiss, compete with the Norwegian car manufacturers, and move vacuum cleaner production from Singapore, if ONLY we left the EU...
Yes they are members of supra-national organisations that do not exert any unilateral control over their legislation. They have the right to make their own decisions and ignore any decisions made by those bodies which they do not agree with. Conflating The EU with WTO or the UN or any of the other bodies that countries sign up to in the name of cooperation is just dumb and fundamentally dishonest.
Surely based on your own logic, the UK is a far worse supra-national organisation than even the EU?
If I were Scottish I would certainly think so. Hence the reason I am in favour of Scottish independence as and when they want it. I do feel myself very much a fellow traveller with MalcolmG - if a little less angry.
Brexit returns power to the British voter to elect and eject those who rule over them. No more diktats from Brussels, no more unelected commissioners conjuring laws, no more no more no more.
In the long term this is clearly the best thing for the country. It will hurt in the short term. J R Mogg was logically right to talk of “fifty years”, even though the comment was foolishly unguarded, politically.
No.
That's not how the World works anymore. Long gone are the days when the UK elite could make diktats that changed how things work in Global markets.
We need to do deals with other people. We can be in the room (as we are now), or we can look on while our future is decided by other people.
Brexit reduces the ability of our elected representatives to control our destiny.
+1. To illustrate the point, substitute "Northamptonshire" for "British" and "Westminster" for Brussels. It is intuitively clear (though perhaps someone will disagree) that Northants wouldn't be better off making its own decisions outside the UK, because they would find themselves unable to influence things that affected them. It's not obvious that the nation state is not now in the same position - and certainly that it's likely to be in that position in 50 years' time.
Brexit and Trump are parts of the painful last hurrahs of nationalism; a poisonous irrational psychosis that believes one nation or nationality to be superior to another, not unlike its close cousin fascism. It is a philosophy of win-lose rather than win-win. It is a stupidity that still needs to be bled out of the human spirit in the same way socialism does. Unfortunately human beings will have to suffer further before they fully understand the vacuousness of both of these simplistic ideologies.
Of course the UK and the USA are superior to other nations, it’s quite damn obvious. Are we superior to Sweden, Germany and Canada? Probably not, are we more or less give or take the same, yes. They might consider themselves to have an edge, but it’s an edge, nothing more. But compare that with Russia, Somalia, Brazil, Pakistan, Romania, and a hundred other nations and we are most obviously superior. It’s so obvious you have to create some kind of mind altering mental illness or intellectual willingness to completely avoid that which is clearly true to think otherwise.
I sense a new movement supporting a No-Deal Brexit but coming at it from the point of view that we need to be taught a lesson that we're not the the masters of the universe we think we are.
It's a movement short of a name. Something that what it appears like the Pre- Raphaelites or the Post-Moggists.
Some sympathy with that but unfortunately it won't be the Moggs and Johnsons that suffer it will be families of the poor sods who work for Airbus.
Australia, Switzerland, Norway, Japan, Korea, Iceland, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore. What unites these countries? They are all wealthy, or extremely wealthy. Most of them are wealthier than almost any country in the EU. All are outside the EU. And do not belong to any nascent superstate-cum-trading bloc.
As you know some of them are indeed members of supra-National organisations with the intent of improving their lot.
Clearly we could be as successful at exporting natural resources as Canada and Australia, have an aerospace industry to rival the Swiss, compete with the Norwegian car manufacturers, and move vacuum cleaner production from Singapore, if ONLY we left the EU...
Yes they are members of supra-national organisations that do not exert any unilateral control over their legislation. They have the right to make their own decisions and ignore any decisions made by those bodies which they do not agree with. Conflating The EU with WTO or the UN or any of the other bodies that countries sign up to in the name of cooperation is just dumb and fundamentally dishonest.
Surely based on your own logic, the UK is a far worse supra-national organisation than even the EU?
If I were Scottish I would certainly think so. Hence the reason I am in favour of Scottish independence as and when they want it. I do feel myself very much a fellow traveller with MalcolmG - if a little less angry.
Why do you not think so being English? Many English people did feel that way when we had so many Scots in the New Labour cabinet and a perception that Labour's hold on Scottish politics gave them the whip hand over the UK. In a small way it was one of the things that inspired the Brexit vote.
Brexit returns power to the British voter to elect and eject those who rule over them. No more diktats from Brussels, no more unelected commissioners conjuring laws, no more no more no more.
In the long term this is clearly the best thing for the country. It will hurt in the short term. J R Mogg was logically right to talk of “fifty years”, even though the comment was foolishly unguarded, politically.
No.
That's not how the World works anymore. Long gone are the days when the UK elite could make diktats that changed how things work in Global markets.
We need to do deals with other people. We can be in the room (as we are now), or we can look on while our future is decided by other people.
Brexit reduces the ability of our elected representatives to control our destiny.
+1. To illustrate the point, substitute "Northamptonshire" for "British" and "Westminster" for Brussels. It is intuitively clear (though perhaps someone will disagree) that Northants wouldn't be better off making its own decisions outside the UK, because they would find themselves unable to influence things that affected them. It's not obvious that the nation state is not now in the same position - and certainly that it's likely to be in that position in 50 years' time.
I disagree. The Nation State is more relevant than ever and an essential vehicle for democracy. It seems to me that the Davos set want to get rid of Nation states and democracy and hand over more and more power to unaccountable supranational bodies and international megacorps. If this happens then expect the populist revolts to continue and grow.
so what is a nation state and where does Scotland fit in?
Currently it is the United Kingdom. If Scotland voted to leave it would then be Scotland and whatever the UK renamed itself. Either works as long as it is supported by the people who live there.
When have the people of England ever been asked if they wanted a UK superstate?
They haven't. I would assume that fairly selfishly - at least until recently - they figured they got the best of the deal. Though of course the whole English laws movement shows there is some discontent. Ii is rather like asking why the Germans are so in favour of the EU. When you are the biggest beneficiary you tend not to shout too loudly.
What would be the purpose of nationalising the banking and mortgage sector?
I offer it as an example of something we could do after we have left the EU that we cannot do while we are in it.
One could suggest other things. Really clamp down on immigration? Abolish VAT? Lift the maximum working time restriction?
What we actually do will of course depend on manifestos and general elections.
The point I am seeking - straining even - to make is that if we end up not doing anything of consequence which we could not have done in any case as a member of the EU then the most flattering description that Brexit will ever be able to aspire to in the years to come is that of having been an enormous waste of time.
Not necessarily.
Brexit may be the best way of securing the status quo for the long term. The public may like things exactly as they are now and the only way to preserve that against the forces for change in the EU is to gain our independence. Future UK governments can then prevent the changes we would be forced to adopt if we remained in the EU.
Brexit returns power to the British voter to elect and eject those who rule over them. No more diktats from Brussels, no more unelected commissioners conjuring laws, no more no more no more.
In the long term this is clearly the best thing for the country. It will hurt in the short term. J R Mogg was logically right to talk of “fifty years”, even though the comment was foolishly unguarded, politically.
No.
That's not how the World works anymore. Long gone are the days when the UK elite could make diktats that changed how things work in Global markets.
We need to do deals with other people. We can be in the room (as we are now), or we can look on while our future is decided by other people.
Brexit reduces the ability of our elected representatives to control our destiny.
+1. To illustrate the point, substitute "Northamptonshire" for "British" and "Westminster" for Brussels. It is intuitively clear (though perhaps someone will disagree) that Northants wouldn't be better off making its own decisions outside the UK, because they would find themselves unable to influence things that affected them. It's not obvious that the nation state is not now in the same position - and certainly that it's likely to be in that position in 50 years' time.
Brexit and Trump are parts of the painful last hurrahs of nationalism; a poisonous irrational psychosis that believes one nation or nationality to be superior to another, not unlike its close cousin fascism. It is a philosophy of win-lose rather than win-win. It is a stupidity that still needs to be bled out of the human spirit in the same way socialism does. Unfortunately human beings will have to suffer further before they fully understand the vacuousness of both of these simplistic ideologies.
If some nations are not superior to others, why are so many people willing to risk their lives to move from one country to another?
Okay, on to Venezuela and cheap anti-Corbyn jibes aside, is this the beginning of the end for Maduro? As is always the case. as long as the military are prepared to kill civilians to defend the Government, the Government is probably secure.
Revolution or successful rebellion occurs when the majority of the armed forces will no longer actively defend the Government by killing those in protest. Taking no action or actively siding with the protesters means the Government falls sooner or later.
Guaido must be careful not to overplay his hand. This must solely be about removing Maduro, not trying to become the next South American Trump. For now, Maduro enjoys the support of Russia, Cuba and oddly enough Turkey. That matters little because outside intervention isn't going to settle this nor should it.
I can only hope IF regime change is to happen, it happens with as little bloodshed as possible and action is swiftly taken (with outside help if need be) to stabilise the economy.
If regime change doesn't happen then a grim future of continuing decline similar to Zimbabwe looks to be inevitable. If regime change comes close to happening, but falls short, you potentially have another Syria, though at least the neighbours seem less interested in using the country as a battlefield for a proxy war.
I don't know how you go about encouraging a peaceful regime change.
What would be the purpose of nationalising the banking and mortgage sector?
I offer it as an example of something we could do after we have left the EU that we cannot do while we are in it.
One could suggest other things. Really clamp down on immigration? Abolish VAT? Lift the maximum working time restriction?
What we actually do will of course depend on manifestos and general elections.
The point I am seeking - straining even - to make is that if we end up not doing anything of consequence which we could not have done in any case as a member of the EU then the most flattering description that Brexit will ever be able to aspire to in the years to come is that of having been an enormous waste of time.
If we are out of the EEA we will diverge, but it could take many years. It could be that we don’t change anything but the EU creates more and more rules. The EU has always been very wary of the UKs efforts to exploit comparative advantage by a willingness to not to provide the same social protections as other member states.
Brexit returns power to the British voter to elect and eject those who rule over them. No more diktats from Brussels, no more unelected commissioners conjuring laws, no more no more no more.
In the long term this is clearly the best thing for the country. It will hurt in the short term. J R Mogg was logically right to talk of “fifty years”, even though the comment was foolishly unguarded, politically.
No.
That's not how the World works anymore. Long gone are the days when the UK elite could make diktats that changed how things work in Global markets.
We need to do deals with other people. We can be in the room (as we are now), or we can look on while our future is decided by other people.
Brexit reduces the ability of our elected representatives to control our destiny.
+1. To illustrate the point, substitute "Northamptonshire" for "British" and "Westminster" for Brussels. It is intuitively clear (though perhaps someone will disagree) that Northants wouldn't be better off making its own decisions outside the UK, because they would find themselves unable to influence things that affected them. It's not obvious that the nation state is not now in the same position - and certainly that it's likely to be in that position in 50 years' time.
Brexit and Trump are parts of the painful last hurrahs of nationalism; a poisonous irrational psychosis that believes one nation or nationality to be superior to another, not unlike its close cousin fascism. It is a philosophy of win-lose rather than win-win. It is a stupidity that still needs to be bled out of the human spirit in the same way socialism does. Unfortunately human beings will have to suffer further before they fully understand the vacuousness of both of these simplistic ideologies.
If some nations are not superior to others, why are so many people willing to risk their lives to move from one country to another?
The migration crisis and the Calais jungle helped lead to Brexit not for the commonly accepted reasons, but because it fed into a collective narcissism about Britain being superior.
The Conservatives are no longer a party of pragmatism, of science, of the economy, of opportunity. They’re now the party of ideology, of liars and cheats. I will no longer be a member of such a party.
Brexit returns power to the British voter to elect and eject those who rule over them. No more diktats from Brussels, no more unelected commissioners conjuring laws, no more no more no more.
In the long term this is clearly the best thing for the country. It will hurt in the short term. J R Mogg was logically right to talk of “fifty years”, even though the comment was foolishly unguarded, politically.
No.
That's not how the World works anymore. Long gone are the days when the UK elite could make diktats that changed how things work in Global markets.
We need to do deals with other people. We can be in the room (as we are now), or we can look on while our future is decided by other people.
Brexit reduces the ability of our elected representatives to control our destiny.
+1. To illustrate the point, substitute "Northamptonshire" for "British" and "Westminster" for Brussels. It is intuitively clear (though perhaps someone will disagree) that Northants wouldn't be better off making its own decisions outside the UK, because they would find themselves unable to influence things that affected them. It's not obvious that the nation state is not now in the same position - and certainly that it's likely to be in that position in 50 years' time.
Brexit and Trump are parts of the painful last hurrahs of nationalism; a poisonous irrational psychosis that believes one nation or nationality to be superior to another, not unlike its close cousin fascism. It is a philosophy of win-lose rather than win-win. It is a stupidity that still needs to be bled out of the human spirit in the same way socialism does. Unfortunately human beings will have to suffer further before they fully understand the vacuousness of both of these simplistic ideologies.
In the main, nationalism is a good thing. Nationalism led to the liberation of Eastern Europe.
Brexit returns power to the British voter to elect and eject those who rule over them. No more diktats from Brussels, no more unelected commissioners conjuring laws, no more no more no more.
In the long term this is clearly the best thing for the country. It will hurt in the short term. J R Mogg was logically right to talk of “fifty years”, even though the comment was foolishly unguarded, politically.
No.
That's not how the World works anymore. Long gone are the days when the UK elite could make diktats that changed how things work in Global markets.
We need to do deals with other people. We can be in the room (as we are now), or we can look on while our future is decided by other people.
Brexit reduces the ability of our elected representatives to control our destiny.
+1. To illustrate the point, substitute "Northamptonshire" for "British" and "Westminster" for Brussels. It is intuitively clear (though perhaps someone will disagree) that Northants wouldn't be better off making its own decisions outside the UK, because they would find themselves unable to influence things that affected them. It's not obvious that the nation state is not now in the same position - and certainly that it's likely to be in that position in 50 years' time.
Brexit and Trump are parts of the painful last hurrahs of nationalism; a poisonous irrational psychosis that believes one nation or nationality to be superior to another, not unlike its close cousin fascism. It is a philosophy of win-lose rather than win-win. It is a stupidity that still needs to be bled out of the human spirit in the same way socialism does. Unfortunately human beings will have to suffer further before they fully understand the vacuousness of both of these simplistic ideologies.
If some nations are not superior to others, why are so many people willing to risk their lives to move from one country to another?
The migration crisis and the Calais jungle helped lead to Brexit not for the commonly accepted reasons, but because it fed into a collective narcissism about Britain being superior.
Comments
"'Super poo donors' wanted"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46944631
My thoughts over lunch is that when we look at the issues that need to be addressed many of them seem to be issues for the left rather than the right. So:
We need to take advantage of our very strong jobs market to build in additional protections for those in work, guaranteeing them better security, more fixed hours, less abuse of "off the clock" time such as travelling time and less of the "self employed" nonsense.
We need to build a lot more public sector housing. A mobile population with a high element of migration will not find their housing problems solved by new build for sale.
We need to sort out the student loan mess before it simply becomes too big to deal with. As part of that we need to cut back on the mickey mouse courses missold to impressionable 18 year olds which result in decades of a lower standard of living.
We need to get seriously aggressive with the parasites who make so much money from our society but pay so little tax.
We need to develop alternatives to tertiary education with a massive expansion of apprenticeships with guaranteed minimum standards.
We need to invest seriously in our infrastructure, particularly internet infrastructure, to help British workers stay competitive.
A sane Labour party under a competent leader could probably offer much more of that than the Tories currently do. Unfortunately that is not an option we currently have. The current Tory leadership is average on a good day. That put's them in the lead. It's regrettable.
That's not how the World works anymore. Long gone are the days when the UK elite could make diktats that changed how things work in Global markets.
We need to do deals with other people. We can be in the room (as we are now), or we can look on while our future is decided by other people.
Brexit reduces the ability of our elected representatives to control our destiny.
Man who voted for Remain explains why others voted for Leave. Hmm … now why is that not convincing?
That's the problem in a nutshell. Remainers, who are wise beyond the comprehension of Leavers, deign to lower themselves to impart wisdom. Act surprised when it is rebuffed.
I've always thought that Remain could have won the referendum easily but lacked the restraint to do it civilly. You can moan about the Leave attitude too, but they won.
But the 'jobs first' brexit? Yes, I'm fine with that as a description for an end state that has the UK in a customs union and closely aligned to the single market - which is Labour's actual brexit position once you blow off the suds.
To my mind, none.
Of course talking of a 'jobs first' deal is attractive. But when you look at those claiming to be able to deliver it, you see that it is not something they could possibly achieve.
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/2019/Result-by-election-23-01-19.pdf.pdf
The next by-election will elect a replacement for Viscount Slim who died a fortnight ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wl5-v_vGVE
https://youtu.be/9VZMswBDHxU
Her transformation to People's Vote advocate appears to be more about a personal injustice due to Brexit and Cameron's departure stalling her career rather than life long affinity towards the EU.
It's a movement short of a name. Something that what it appears like the Pre- Raphaelites or the Post-Moggists.
The answer to the question "What is the point of Brexit?" must surely be to do things that the strictures of EU membership prevent us from doing now.
For example, and only as an example, nationalize the retail banking and mortgage sector.
Can't see this one being as successful as Tories For Palmer somehow!
If you don't think Brexit should be postponed immediately you are either out of touch or not very bright.
I don't see any reason to think that he'd bother to lie extensively in a private conservation with a long-standing acquaintance. It's what he thinks. Inconveniently, it's not the passionate Remain or Leave position that most people nowadays seem to want. It's the 7 out of 10 view that he expressed at the time of the referendum. As a more cynical politician, I feel it'd be good if he simulated greater passion on the subject, since it'd attract voters who otherwise can't stand Labour. But I respect the fact that he really doesn't do simulation.
The 2nd referendum is not (alas) quite dead yet.
Indeed it is Wollaston's main fault that she is too emotionally engaged with policies. Not a good attribute if you are a Minister.
What's more, I think we've already reached the point where the prospect of crash-out is doing permanent damage to the UK operations of larger businesses, which won't be reversed even if we avoid the full-Monty crash-out. Those companies which have finally activated their plans for moving some of their operations and legal entities to the EU27 aren't likely to reverse those plans even if they turn out not to have been necessary. And even if we remain in the EU, there will always be that nagging doubt that maybe the nightmare might recur. Why take the risk? The same thinking could hit new inward investment as well, especially for large-scale manufacturing operations with very long planning timescales.
But her flip-flopping has lost her plenty of credibility across the wider constituency. Her desire for a second referendum is very much a personal crusade. We aren't exactly out with the pitchforks and flaming brands demanding it of Govt.
But I could be wrong. Point is, Labour believe it is better for jobs to stick close to the EU and therefore a 'jobs first' brexit is a heartfelt and accurate and bang-on-the-money description of their policy.
When the Prime Minister then implemented budget increases that were actually HIGHER than our EU contributions, you'd think she might have gone "Ah...oh...um...okay....I'll shut up now...."
Clearly we could be as successful at exporting natural resources as Canada and Australia, have an aerospace industry to rival the Swiss, compete with the Norwegian car manufacturers, and move vacuum cleaner production from Singapore, if ONLY we left the EU...
He was established enough as leader to be aware of surveys and marketing theory - the how was your interaction with our company today surveys we are all familiar with - where if someone says 8 it is don't bank on this one's loyalty and 7 is close to "forget it". If that is how people respond to surveys then, presumably, it is also how they subconsciously understand this scoring.
I heard that 7/10 as a fully fledged and intentional dog whistle to the subconsciousses of the Corbyn base - it is fine to Vote Leave. And amongst far more overtly bad things that were said during the referendum campaign, it stands alone as the one that boiled my blood the most.
Plenty to think about and talk about today but to stay on topic for a moment. It would be churlish not to concede that having more people employed than ever isn't good news but I'm left with this nagging sense of whether productivity in all its forms is the real issue.
Traditionally, businesses have expanded by investing in technology to improve business processes so we had the spinning jenny, the ravelling Nancy, the typewriter, the telephone, the computer etc all of which transformed menial tasks.
The next stage seems to be AI or robotics but at the moment, with a huge and seemingly never-ending pool of cheap labour, it's much easier and cheaper to employ someone.
In any case, the consumer/customer is still resistant to too much automaton - the human interface is still preferred and trusted by many (especially the elderly) to a machine so the need to continue to employ people continues.
How long this will remain the case remains (so to speak) to be seen.
One could suggest other things. Really clamp down on immigration? Abolish VAT? Lift the maximum working time restriction?
What we actually do will of course depend on manifestos and general elections.
The point I am seeking - straining even - to make is that if we end up not doing anything of consequence which we could not have done in any case as a member of the EU then the most flattering description that Brexit will ever be able to aspire to in the years to come is that of having been an enormous waste of time.
https://twitter.com/EuroGuido/status/1088443891668393984
Revolution or successful rebellion occurs when the majority of the armed forces will no longer actively defend the Government by killing those in protest. Taking no action or actively siding with the protesters means the Government falls sooner or later.
Guaido must be careful not to overplay his hand. This must solely be about removing Maduro, not trying to become the next South American Trump. For now, Maduro enjoys the support of Russia, Cuba and oddly enough Turkey. That matters little because outside intervention isn't going to settle this nor should it.
I can only hope IF regime change is to happen, it happens with as little bloodshed as possible and action is swiftly taken (with outside help if need be) to stabilise the economy.
Brexit may be the best way of securing the status quo for the long term. The public may like things exactly as they are now and the only way to preserve that against the forces for change in the EU is to gain our independence. Future UK governments can then prevent the changes we would be forced to adopt if we remained in the EU.
https://twitter.com/seanjonesqc/status/1088449876638162944
https://twitter.com/seanjonesqc/status/1088449877942534144
https://twitter.com/seanjonesqc/status/1088449879590920195
I don't know how you go about encouraging a peaceful regime change.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/i-m-leaving-the-conservative-party-and-other-liberals-should-join-me-k2rzc233k