I think it’s a good thing that Westminster respects the constitution
It’s disingenuous of the supporters of this measure to make this claim. It is shameful that they would try to override the rights of NI to determine their own wishes
But imposing Brexit against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland is ok?
Foreign affairs is reserved to the U.K. as a whole not the regions
In the third quarter of last year, 51% of the country’s total trade in goods and services (exports plus imports) was with the rest of the EU. The figures for exports were 46% for total trade and 49% for goods. That’s a lot of trade to risk with barriers.
You could argue that point both ways though, if a lot of jobs are being created despite the highly unstable political situation and uncertain Brexit outcome, then perhaps even in the event of no deal they will be required.
What's fascinating is the high numbers of self-employed people in the job stats and also the number of over 50s entering the work force. It's quite possible both are long-term trends. My economic objection to Brexit has always been that it will make the UK a far less enticing investment opportunity and that it will lead to a lot of jobs dependent on Single Market access moving to other parts of Europe. Both still look inevitable to me.
I Asylum etc.
Now I’m not trying to hark back to Empire here like some of the Brexiteers - this is a structural advantage not related to but assisted by Empire and spread of English through commonwealth and US influence.
As such I think the role of London as an international business centre will probably remain
Yep - London and the SE East will be fine post-Brexit.
The thing about languages is that they can be learned and the fact that English is a universal language actually makes the fact we speak it a lot less important! Across the world young people are becoming familiar with English and may speak it it to a very high standard - even in France! I remember when I lived in Spain many years ago knowledge of English outside the big cities was almost non-existent. That has changed dramatically.
Nonsense. It means English people can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world. That is a big advantage for us.
Being a native speaker of "proper" English also carries prestige and weight.
No, it means that anyone who can speak English can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world.
The backstop represents an unusually favourable position for the UK, not one in which the EU would want us staying indefinitely, and its detail represents something of a negotiating success for the PM. It's her lack of strategy for landing the deal and her inability to involve and then sell to her colleagues (edit/ coupled with their intransigence, as Edmund says) that have led to the crisis, not any overreach by the EU. It is in all of our interests to make sure the settlement protects the fragile peace in Ireland and not consequential on some evil intent by our neighbours.
Therefore I don't buy Alastair's lead at all. Although the historical stuff about Turkey, about which I was broadly aware having read the Mandolin guy's other books, is interesting and little known.
This is one of the most frustrating things about the whole situation. If not framed universally as something that the EU desires that "traps" the UK into the customs union in perpetuity, it would be realised that the backstop is actually something far more desirable to the UK than the EU. It is in many ways only the fetish that "no deal is nothing to fear" that prevents this from being recognised.
Because May's "deal" is by no means the end state - there are significant negotiations on future trading relationships that still need to be done and have barely commenced. Without the backstop, the potential for no deal simply comes around again in 2-3 years time - with all the hard brexiteers claiming that the EU are offering us a shit deal and the whole current scenario repeating itself. The backstop takes no deal off the table, and allows sensible negotiations with a lesser threat of blackmail being played on both sides.
The EU in general and Ireland in particular seem to have made the same mistake in negotiating the terms of Brexit as Venizelos made. The best outcome is one that will actually stick, not the one with nominally the most favourable terms. It has been apparent for a very long time that Theresa May is not in secure control of Parliament and to proceed as if she is was reckless
You talk a lot of sense, by which I mean I agree. Though while I liked Cameron I'm not sure many would go for your last sentence in your header!
The EU is currently taking the line that it is for Britain to come up with a new position. Certainly Britain needs to do that
Thing is, backing.
I certainly share us, but good for them for there to be a deal) and that even if the deal scrapes through it will be a long and bitter legacy.
But the bus.
Setting aside for the moment that the U.K. has not handled this process well
Do you not think it extraordinary that a group of mature western democracies cannot agree a mutually sensible separation?
Politicians should be able to look beyond the “but they told us to fuck off” line some on here like
The fundamental strategic interest of the West is having a close relationship between the EU and the U.K. with both being prosperous. The EU (and Ireland - internal politics with Varadker worrying about being outflanked by SF - is hugely to blame for this possible mess).
May's red lines have defined the parameters within which discussions have taken place. She ruled out a lot of creative thinking by stating in advance there were certain things that the UK would not contemplate. I wonder if she took advice in advance of announcing them and how much notice she took of any advice she was given.
It is probably accurate to say that she took little advice and little heed of any advice she did receive. Hence Ivan Rogers departure and the painted corner we’re now in.
I think a soft Norway style arrangement, outside the governing structures but subject the SM rules would have been a sellable position, combine with the fall back ability to stop free movement (but would not use), but introduce a series of measures used by other EU states to differentiate between freedom of movement and freedom of labour. Also a chance to redefine our welfare state to a more contributory one. So many birds could be killed with one stone.
The leave leavers and the remain remainers would still shout betrayal, but the middle 80% would recognise a compromise that honours the absolute mandate to leave, while acknowledging that the result was exceptionally close.
The backstop represents an unusually favourable position for the UK, not one in which the EU would want us staying indefinitely, and its detail represents something of a negotiating success for the PM. It's her lack of strategy for landing the deal and her inability to involve and then sell to her colleagues (edit/ coupled with their intransigence, as Edmund says) that have led to the crisis, not any overreach by the EU. It is in all of our interests to make sure the settlement protects the fragile peace in Ireland and not consequential on some evil intent by our neighbours.
Therefore I don't buy Alastair's lead at all. Although the historical stuff about Turkey, about which I was broadly aware having read the Mandolin guy's other books, is interesting and little known.
This is one of the most frustrating things about the whole situation. If not framed universally as something that the EU desires that "traps" the UK into the customs union in perpetuity, it would be realised that the backstop is actually something far more desirable to the UK than the EU. It is in many ways only the fetish that "no deal is nothing to fear" that prevents this from being recognised.
Because May's "deal" is by no means the end state - there are significant negotiations on future trading relationships that still need to be done and have barely commenced. Without the backstop, the potential for no deal simply comes around again in 2-3 years time - with all the hard brexiteers claiming that the EU are offering us a shit deal and the whole current scenario repeating itself. The backstop takes no deal off the table, and allows sensible negotiations with a lesser threat of blackmail being played on both sides.
If this is the case how come an unwillingness to time limit it? That might be enough to save it.
The EU in general and Ireland in particular seem to have made the same mistake in negotiating the terms of Brexit as Venizelos made. The best outcome is one that will actually stick, not the one with nominally the most favourable terms. It has been apparent for a very long time that Theresa May is not in secure control of Parliament and to proceed as if she is was reckless
The EU is currently taking the line that it is for Britain to come up with a new position. Certainly Britain needs to do that
Thing is, while I don't see much hope in passing the deal sans backstop and expecting the EU to accept that, it is technically us coming up with a new position, just not one more favourable to the EU. But as much as I do blame May for not coming up with an actual plan B, if parliament were to pass the deal sans backstop she would be acting on instruction from parliament, the EU would be well within their rights to refuse but it is not as though May would be going off without backing.
But I see no solution. Remaining takes away the immediate problem of how to leave, by definition, but hardly addresses all the problems that caused it to win in the first place, as well as the problem of how parliament would feel comfortable cancelling Brexit, but in terms of flexibility the EU seems to have lost its much vaunted love of a last minute fudge and is behaving no different than any petty nationalist, willing to lose it all rather than concede, especially on a point no one seems to actually want to go through with. But they are not about to throw Ireland under the bus.
Setting aside for the moment that the U.K. has not handled this process well
Do you not think it extraordinary that a group of mature western democracies cannot agree a mutually sensible separation?
Politicians should be able to look beyond the “but they told us to fuck off” line some on here like
The fundamental strategic interest of the West is having a close relationship between the EU and the U.K. with both being prosperous. The EU (and Ireland - internal politics with Varadker worrying about being outflanked by SF - is hugely to blame for this possible mess).
For many European countries the EU is an emotional project and the fact the UK voted to Leave has also been treated very emotionally as a consequence.
The irony is the total inability of the EU to understand the very different emotions it can itself provoke in the UK just by being emotional itself.
That’s my point: countries have interests not emotions. (To bastardise a well known quote). They are undermining their strategic interests by allowing their emotions to rule. That’s a failure of an entire political class.
I think it’s a good thing that Westminster respects the constitution
It’s disingenuous of the supporters of this measure to make this claim. It is shameful that they would try to override the rights of NI to determine their own wishes
But imposing Brexit against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland is ok?
Foreign affairs is reserved to the U.K. as a whole not the regions
If the Supreme Court agreed with you that Brexit were a matter of foreign affairs they would have ruled differently on the Miller case.
The EU in general and Ireland in particular seem to have made the same mistake in negotiating the terms of Brexit as Venizelos made. The best outcome is one that will actually stick, not the one with nominally the most favourable terms. It has been apparent for a very long time that Theresa May is not in secure control of Parliament and to proceed as if she is was reckless
You talk a lot of sense, by which I mean I agree. Though while I liked Cameron I'm not sure many would go for your last sentence in your header!
The EU is currently taking the line that it is for Britain to come up with a new position. Certainly Britain needs to do that
Thing is, backing.
I certainly share us, but good for them for there to be a deal) and that even if the deal scrapes through it will be a long and bitter legacy.
But the bus.
Setting aside for the moment that the U.K. has not handled this process well
Do you not think it extraordinary that a group of mature western democracies cannot agree a mutually sensible separation?
Politicians should be able to look beyond the “but they told us to fuck off” line some on here like .
May's red lines have defined the parameters within which discussions have taken place. She ruled out a lot of creative thinking by stating in advance there were certain things that the UK would not contemplate. I wonder if she took advice in advance of announcing them and how much notice she took of any advice she was given.
It is probably accurate to say that she took little advice and little heed of any advice she did receive. Hence Ivan Rogers departure and the painted corner we’re now in.
I think a soft Norway style arrangement, outside the governing structures but subject the SM rules would have been a sellable position, combine with the fall back ability to stop free movement (but would not use), but introduce a series of measures used by other EU states to differentiate between freedom of movement and freedom of labour. Also a chance to redefine our welfare state to a more contributory one. So many birds could be killed with one stone.
The leave leavers and the remain remainers would still shout betrayal, but the middle 80% would recognise a compromise that honours the absolute mandate to leave, while acknowledging that the result was exceptionally close.
I could not accept that compromise and would just want to remain
TM deal is the best compromise otherwise just stay
I see Phil has apologised to the unfortunate woman whose car he trundled in front of. I thought we'd been assured that protocol demanded that the monarch & her consort never apologised? We have truly reached the end of days.
I think it’s a great thing that our constitution is so flexible
😝
'Whatever you do, don't put anything down in writing.'
It’s only in the U.K. that a speech to the WI could have massive political significance 😂
In the third quarter of last year, 51% of the country’s total trade in goods and services (exports plus imports) was with the rest of the EU. The figures for exports were 46% for total trade and 49% for goods. That’s a lot of trade to risk with barriers.
You could argue that point both ways though, if a lot of jobs are being created despite the highly unstable political situation and uncertain Brexit outcome, then perhaps even in the event of no deal they will be required.
What's fascinating is the high numbers of self-employed people in the job stats and also the number of over 50s entering the work force. It's quite possible both are long-term trends. My economic objection to Brexit has always been that it will make the UK a far less enticing investment opportunity and that it will lead to a lot of jobs dependent on Single Market access moving to other parts of Europe. Both still look inevitable to me.
I Asylum etc.
Now I’m not trying to hark back to Empire here like some of the Brexiteers - this is a structural advantage not related to but assisted by Empire and spread of English through commonwealth and US influence.
As such I think the role of London as an international business centre will probably remain
Yep - London and the SE East will be fine post-Brexit.
The thing about languages is that they can be learned and the fact that English is a universal language actually makes the fact we speak it a lot less important! Across the world young people are becoming familiar with English and may speak it it to a very high standard - even in France! I remember when I lived in Spain many years ago knowledge of English outside the big cities was almost non-existent. That has changed dramatically.
Nonsense. It means English people can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world. That is a big advantage for us.
Being a native speaker of "proper" English also carries prestige and weight.
No, it means that anyone who can speak English can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world.
No, being a native speaker carries considerable advantages.
In the third quarter of last year, 51% of the country’s total trade in goods and services (exports plus imports) was with the rest of the EU. The figures for exports were 46% for total trade and 49% for goods.
What's fascinating is the high numbers of self-employed people in the job stats and also the number of over 50s entering the work force. It's quite possible both are long-term trends. My economic objection to Brexit has always been that it will make the UK a far less enticing investment opportunity and that it will lead to a lot of jobs dependent on Single Market access moving to other parts of Europe. Both still look inevitable to me.
I wouldn’t claim to know much about job creation, and there are certainly more qualified people commenting here. I have however studied languages, and I think it is underestimated the importance of the English language. English is a convergence of the Northern European Germanic languages and Latin based Romance languages. This amongst other things has led to the international business language being English (much to the displeasure of the French). It is one of the reasons that explains why people travel through all of Europe to get to U.K. for new life through Asylum etc.
Now I’m not trying to hark back to Empire here like some of the Brexiteers - this is a structural advantage not related to but assisted by Empire and spread of English through commonwealth and US influence.
As such I think the role of London as an international business centre will probably remain
Yep - London and the SE East will be fine post-Brexit.
The thing about languages is that they can be learned and the fact that English is a universal language actually makes the fact we speak it a lot less important! Across the world young people are becoming familiar with English and may speak it it to a very high standard - even in France! I remember when I lived in Spain many years ago knowledge of English outside the big cities was almost non-existent. That has changed dramatically.
Nonsense. It means English people can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world. That is a big advantage for us.
Being a native speaker of "proper" English also carries prestige and weight.
If you need the 'prestige and weight' of speaking "proper English" then you are a sad human being almost certainly without talent.
Europe’s quest for the quiet life goes much further. The EU and most of its states were born or reborn from the rubble of war and the traumas of totalitarianism. Britons forget how deeply that affects their instincts. History is dense, present, complicated and inescapable on the mainland in a way that it is not in Britain. Memories of flight, destruction and oppression – the 3am rap at the door, the rumble of military trucks on cobbles, the squelch of carts laden with possessions on muddy tracks – live on in continental families in a way that they do in comparatively few British ones.
The opposite of horror and cataclysm is the quiet life. Voltaire wrote his novel Candide in 1759 after the catastrophic Lisbon earthquake and amid the destruction of the Seven Years’ War. The book preaches neither Panglossian optimism nor head-in-hands gloom, and rather the stoical satisfaction of a peaceful plot of land providing for its owners’ needs under the maxim: “We must cultivate our garden.” In the shadow of horror and cataclysm, the modest goal of a happily cultivated garden is the height of decency and civilisation. More than grand rhetoric about continental unity or geopolitics or European culture, this is the real objective of the EU – and what holds it together. It is also the thing that Brits most struggle to understand.
By the same token, most Continental Europeans do not understand in their bones why many on this island have an attachment to the idea and reality of a nation-state, do not see why they should abandon it because others made a mess of theirs. The misunderstand goes both ways and is perhaps the result of very different experiences of - and perspectives on - a shared but not identical history.
A bit more emapthetic and imaginative understanding of the other’s perspective is needed on both sides of the Channel. And the Irish sea.
But Britain is not a Nation-State - it is a multi-nation state. It is the Little-Englanders and Ultra-Brexiteers who do not acknowledge this that will turn their perception into a reality (albeit with a smaller geographical area)
It is most certainly a unitary nation state. Any body acting in a regional capacity exists at the pleasure of parliament.
The EU in general and Ireland in particular seem to have made the same mistake in negotiating the terms of Brexit as Venizelos made. The best outcome is one that will actually stick, not the one with nominally the most favourable terms. It has been apparent for a very long time that Theresa May is not in secure control of Parliament and to proceed as if she is was reckless
You talk a lot of sense, by which I mean I agree. Though while I liked Cameron I'm not sure many would go for your last sentence in your header!
The EU is currently taking the line that it is for Britain to come up with a new position. Certainly Britain needs to do that
Thing is, backing.
I certainly share much of Mr Meeks' concern both at the prospect of a no deal on relations, for both sides (which makes the occasional person's glee that the EU is not sorting out our mess rather misplaced, since the point is not that it is good for us, but good for them for there to be a deal) and that even if the deal scrapes through it will be a long and bitter legacy.
But the bus.
Setting aside for the moment that the U.K. has not handled this process well
Do you not think it extraordinary that a group of mature western democracies cannot agree a mutually sensible separation?
Politicians should be able to look beyond the “but they told us to fuck off” line some on here like
The fundamental strategic interest of the West is having a close relationship between the EU and the U.K. with both being prosperous. The EU (and Ireland - internal politics with Varadker worrying about being outflanked by SF - is hugely to blame for this possible mess).
May's red lines have defined the parameters within which discussions have taken place. She ruled out a lot of creative thinking by stating in advance there were certain things that the UK would not contemplate. I wonder if she took advice in advance of announcing them and how much notice she took of any advice she was given.
I think she took the advice of EU leaders.
For about 9 months after the referendum result all we heard from Europe was that the four freedoms were indivisible and we couldn't be in the Single Market and end FoM. May decided that honouring the result meant ending FoM and therefore on EU leaders red lines that meant leaving the SM.
If EU leaders were more flexible and willing to consider having a Single Market without FoM then May would have probably acted differently. But they didn't.
The EU in general and Ireland in particular seem to have made the same mistake in negotiating the terms of Brexit as Venizelos made. The best outcome is one that will actually stick, not the one with nominally the most favourable terms. It has been apparent for a very long time that Theresa May is not in secure control of Parliament and to proceed as if she is was reckless
You talk a lot of sense, by which I mean I agree. Though while I liked Cameron I'm not sure many would go for your last sentence in your header!
The EU is currently taking the line that it is for Britain to come up with a new position. Certainly Britain needs to do that
Thing is, backing.
I certainly share much of Mr Meeks' concern both at the prospect of a no deal on relations, for both sides (which makes the occasional person's glee that the EU is not sorting out our mess rather misplaced, since the point is not that it is good for us, but good for them for there to be a deal) and that even if the deal scrapes through it will be a long and bitter legacy.
But the bus.
Setting aside for the moment that the U.K. has not handled this process well
Do you not think it extraordinary that a group of mature western democracies cannot agree a mutually sensible separation?
Politicians should be able to look beyond the “but they told us to fuck off” line some on here like
The fundamental strategic interest of the West is having a close relationship between the EU and the U.K. with both being prosperous. The EU (and Ireland - internal politics with Varadker worrying about being outflanked by SF - is hugely to blame for this possible mess).
May's red lines have defined the parameters within which discussions have taken place. She ruled out a lot of creative thinking by stating in advance there were certain things that the UK would not contemplate. I wonder if she took advice in advance of announcing them and how much notice she took of any advice she was given.
Not really. There are liabilities that need to be negotiated, citizens rights and other bits and pieces. Those are complex but not fundamental issues of principle
If you are saying that wanting to be outside FoM means no deal can be done that that is a lack of flexibility on the EUs part. I u serstabdcthey want FoM because it is hugely beneficial for them but that’s not the same as it being essential
The red lines were not necessary. They severely restricted the ability to negotiate. What good was served by ruling out, say, the continuation of current arrangements relating to trademarks and copyrights before any talking had been done? The extent of citizens' rights are clearly linked to FoM and the role of the CJEU.
I think it’s a good thing that Westminster respects the constitution
It’s disingenuous of the supporters of this measure to make this claim. It is shameful that they would try to override the rights of NI to determine their own wishes
But imposing Brexit against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland is ok?
Foreign affairs is reserved to the U.K. as a whole not the regions
If the Supreme Court agreed with you that Brexit were a matter of foreign affairs they would have ruled differently on the Miller case.
No - they determined that it was a foreign treaty that conferred rights on U.K. citizens. As a foreign treaty its a matter for the Uk.
The EU in general and Ireland in particular seem to have made the same mistake in negotiating the terms of Brexit as Venizelos made. The best outcome is one that will actually stick, not the one with nominally the most favourable terms. It has been apparent for a very long time that Theresa May is not in secure control of Parliament and to proceed as if she is was reckless
You talk a lot of sense, by which I mean I agree. Though while I liked Cameron I'm not sure many would go for your last sentence in your header!
The EU is currently taking the line that it is for Britain to come up with a new position. Certainly Britain needs to do that
Thing is, backing.
I certainly share us, but good for them for there to be a deal) and that even if the deal scrapes through it will be a long and bitter legacy.
But the bus.
Setting aside for the moment that the U.K. has not handled this process well
Do you not think it extraordinary that a group of mature western democracies cannot agree a mutually sensible separation?
Politicians should be able to look beyond the “but they told us to fuck off” line some on here like .
May's red lines have defined the parameters within which discussions have taken place. She ruled out a lot of creative thinking by stating in advance there were certain things that the UK would not contemplate. I wonder if she took advice in advance of announcing them and how much notice she took of any advice she was given.
It is probably accurate to say that she took little advice and little heed of any advice she did receive. Hence Ivan Rogers departure and the painted corner we’re now in.
I think a soft Norway style arrangement, outside the governing structures but subject the SM rules would have been a sellable position, combine with the fall back ability to stop free movement (but would not use), but introduce a series of measures used by other EU states to differentiate between freedom of movement and freedom of labour. Also a chance to redefine our welfare state to a more contributory one. So many birds could be killed with one stone.
The leave leavers and the remain remainers would still shout betrayal, but the middle 80% would recognise a compromise that honours the absolute mandate to leave, while acknowledging that the result was exceptionally close.
I could not accept that compromise and would just want to remain
TM deal is the best compromise otherwise just stay
But it’s not your compromise or no compromise while looking back at what could have been done.
I think it’s a good thing that Westminster respects the constitution
It’s disingenuous of the supporters of this measure to make this claim. It is shameful that they would try to override the rights of NI to determine their own wishes
But imposing Brexit against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland is ok?
Foreign affairs is reserved to the U.K. as a whole not the regions
If the Supreme Court agreed with you that Brexit were a matter of foreign affairs they would have ruled differently on the Miller case.
No - they determined that it was a foreign treaty that conferred rights on U.K. citizens. As a foreign treaty its a matter for the Uk.
In the same sense that the Good Friday Agreement is a “foreign treaty”, to use your tautology?
In the third quarter of last year, 51% of the country’s total trade in goods and services (exports plus imports) was with the rest of the EU. The figures for exports were 46% for total trade and 49% for goods. That’s a lot of trade to risk with barriers.
You could argue that point both ways though, if a lot of jobs are being created despite the highly unstable political situation and uncertain Brexit outcome, then perhaps even in the event of no deal they will be required.
What's fascinating is the high numbers of self-employed people in the job stats and also the number of over 50s entering the work force. It's quite possible both are long-term trends. My economic objection to Brexit has always been that it will make the UK a far less enticing investment opportunity and that it will lead to a lot of jobs dependent on Single Market access moving to other parts of Europe. Both still look inevitable to me.
I Asylum etc.
Now I’m not trying to hark back to Empire here like some of the Brexiteers - this is a structural advantage not related to but assisted by Empire and spread of English through commonwealth and US influence.
As such I think the role of London as an international business centre will probably remain
Yep - London and the SE East will be fine post-Brexit.
The thing about languages is that they can be learned and the fact that English is a universal language actually makes the fact we speak it a lot less important! Across the world young people are becoming familiar with English and may speak it it to a very high standard - even in France! I remember when I lived in Spain many years ago knowledge of English outside the big cities was almost non-existent. That has changed dramatically.
Nonsense. It means English people can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world. That is a big advantage for us.
Being a native speaker of "proper" English also carries prestige and weight.
No, it means that anyone who can speak English can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world.
No, being a native speaker carries considerable advantages.
In my experience being a native English speaker offers no advantage whatsoever. It is at best a mild curiosity. International English with all its grammar and accent quirks is the lingua Franca.
Some people, when faced with a crisis, a deadline, a seemingly insurmountable challenge, rise to the occasion. Cameron was able to do that. May is not. I think that @AlistairM is referring to this quality in his delightfully provocative last paragraph. After all, wouldn’t we all prefer a leader with such an ability at a time like this?
The same David Cameron who caused this whole sorry mess, by putting narrow Conservative party interests above all other considerations, and then ran away? No thanks...
He didn't cause anti EU sentiment but I think it fair to say that while he isn't the man to sort this out sometimes the same people who cause one problem can be appropriate to resolve another because of their particular skill and temperament.
Setting aside for the moment that the U.K. has not handled this process well
Do you not think it extraordinary that a group of mature western democracies cannot agree a mutually sensible separation?
Politicians should be able to look beyond the “but they told us to fuck off” line some on here like
The fundamental strategic interest of the West is having a close relationship between the EU and the U.K. with both being prosperous. The EU (and Ireland - internal politics with Varadker worrying about being outflanked by SF - is hugely to blame for this possible mess).
May's red lines have defined the parameters within which discussions have taken place. She ruled out a lot of creative thinking by stating in advance there were certain things that the UK would not contemplate. I wonder if she took advice in advance of announcing them and how much notice she took of any advice she was given.
It is probably accurate to say that she took little advice and little heed of any advice she did receive. Hence Ivan Rogers departure and the painted corner we’re now in.
I think a soft Norway style arrangement, outside the governing structures but subject the SM rules would have been a sellable position, combine with the fall back ability to stop free movement (but would not use), but introduce a series of measures used by other EU states to differentiate between freedom of movement and freedom of labour. Also a chance to redefine our welfare state to a more contributory one. So many birds could be killed with one stone.
The leave leavers and the remain remainers would still shout betrayal, but the middle 80% would recognise a compromise that honours the absolute mandate to leave, while acknowledging that the result was exceptionally close.
Norway was closed off by a campaign of xenophobic lies. Arguing for it now is the dishonest Leavers’ attempt to have their cake and eat it; just another group who want compromise on their own terms.
In the third quarter of last year, 51% of the country’s total trade in goods and services (exports plus imports) was with the rest of the EU. The figures for exports were 46% for total trade and 49% for goods. That’s a lot of trade to risk with barriers.
You could argue that point both ways though, if a lot of jobs are being created despite the highly unstable political situation and uncertain Brexit outcome, then perhaps even in the event of no deal they will be required.
What's o me.
I Asylum etc.
Now influence.
As such I think the role of London as an international business centre will probably remain
Yep - London and the SE East will be fine post-Brexit.
The tdramatically.
Nonsense. It means English people can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world. That is a big advantage for us.
Being a native speaker of "proper" English also carries prestige and weight.
No, it means that anyone who can speak English can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world.
No, being a native speaker carries considerable advantages.
If the person on the other side of the table is not a native speaker then it makes no difference. The key point is to be able to communicate clearly and effectively. Why is it that so many non-native speakers are able to do well in the UK? When Germans go to China to close deals - and they do it a whole lot more than we do - they do not communicate in German; and you can bet your bottom dollar that the Chinese doing deals in Latin America and Africa are not doing them in Chinese.
No real interest either, I have something of a natural aversion to countries that are North and South (or East West but it seems rarer) from when I was young, why not be united, but then I would be more than happy for Ireland to be united within the UK and then happier still for us to all be united within a larger construct which is maybe somewhat the case in the EU.
I guess you must deplore that much of your leader's parliamentary career was hugely interested in, not to say obsessed with, the construct of Ireland as a nation. Of course as a late convert to political realism, Corbyn (as with so many other areas) has learned to keep his trap shut on the issue.
Some of what Britain did in N. Ireland was terrible and deserved attention, my natural lean would probably be for the country to be united but it isn't my number one issue.
Not sure why that would lead to me deploring him... Would you deplore the SNP if a few decades ago if it spent some time on an issue you sorta agreed with but wasn't your first priority?
Not sure as to what you are referencing there but two points - right wing trolls don’t tend to be Tory trolls, and as with phone hacking MPs and Celebrities kind of sign up to getting attention for their profession so they should expect some attention from newspapers or political opponents. Not sure how this one will play out.
The kind of rhetoric the Tories and their supporters put out in the right wing press which leads to harassment, attempted murder and murder of Labour MPs and more recently some Tory MPs such as Anna Soubry as well.
Not really sure how you are defining Tories unless you mean anyone with an opinion more right wing than your own. It is organisations like Britain first and idiots like Tommy Robinson and his UKIP appeasers and not the Tories. Again I will point out that Jo Cox was murdered by someone with mental health problems
‘Thomas Mair, a 52-year-old Batley and Spen constituent[43] who had a history of psychiatric problems, and links to the US-based neo-Nazi group National Alliance,[44] shouted "Britain first" as he carried out the attack.[11]’. From Wikipedia
It is no coincidence that they go for much the same people the right wing press go for which are for all intents and purposes the Tories (or their supporters) Anna Soubry and others starting to get the same negative attention many Labour MPs suffer is no coincidence. Some of the biggest nutters and the ones who take action usually have no direct links themselves but they share the same opponents.
I’m not going to drop this. The right wing nutters are in Britain first, and their ilk. They are not part of the Tories. Some newspapers talk about similar things but that is just the nature of tabloids. If you put their extreme propaganda next to a tabloid they would be much more extreme. You can hardly say Anna Soubry does not invite the criticism - there are other pro European MPs who do not court the media like she does. She gets criticism because of it, not that this is right where it is plain abusive or threats.
For clarity in Labour, and Momentum which I count as affiiliated, the extremists are in the movement after the £3 entry program. It is people lol Williamson on the front bench. For the Tories it is like your third cousin once removed being racist, for Labour it is like your fiancée being racist and you are getting married next week because you like their views.
In the third quarter of last year, 51% of the country’s total trade in goods and services (exports plus imports) was with the rest of the EU. The figures for exports were 46% for total trade and 49% for goods. That’s a lot of trade to risk with barriers.
You could argue that point both ways though, if a lot of jobs are being created despite the highly unstable political situation and uncertain Brexit outcome, then perhaps even in the event of no deal they will be required.
What's o me.
I Asylum etc.
Now influence.
As such I think the role of London as an international business centre will probably remain
Yep - London and the SE East will be fine post-Brexit.
The tdramatically.
Nonsense. It means English people can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world. That is a big advantage for us.
Being a native speaker of "proper" English also carries prestige and weight.
No, it means that anyone who can speak English can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world.
No, being a native speaker carries considerable advantages.
If the person on the other side of the table is not a native speaker then it makes no difference. The key point is to be able to communicate clearly and effectively. Why is it that so many non-native speakers are able to do well in the UK? When Germans go to China to close deals - and they do it a whole lot more than we do - they do not communicate in German; and you can bet your bottom dollar that the Chinese doing deals in Latin America and Africa are not doing them in Chinese.
It does make a difference. Being a native speaker carries weight and prestige, as I told you earlier, and other second speakers of English are always curious to learn pronunciation, intonation, context, etymology and tone from you, and that's before you get onto cultural and historical curiosity.
But, you delight in denigrating your own country and revelling in sorrow and demise, so I'm not surprised at this latest meme of yours.
Labour is a text-book example of an institutionally racist organisation. In fact, text books will be written about the fact that a supposedly anti-racist political party refuses to allow a specific ethnic minority to define the racism it suffers while allowing those who attack that minority free rein to do so.
We were, which is why the party supported the hostile environment, although in fairness the Tories really took that on and made it their own. Luckily the left came in to clean up the parties act, much to the dismay of many hostile environment supporters.
These days, Labour's hostile environment is reserved for Jews. They are not allowed to define the racism they face and can be attacked, insulted and demeaned by Labour members consequence-free - as the Jim Sheridan example and Chris Williamson's continued presence on the Labour benches in the Commons demonstrate.
You are just upset we don't condone racism against BAME groups anymore by supporting policies such as the hostile environment, which is why you pretend that Labour is now racist as you can't successfully argue for the racist policies to come back. No racist policies now sorry, try a different party.
Plenty of racist behaviour, though. I don't think Jewish Labour MP's and activists are lying when they talk of the abuse they've suffered at the hands of people who claim to be on their side of the political divide.
And the ones racially abused for being left wing?
The apparent anti anti semitism organisations such as LAAS that block various Jewish Labour members and attack them on social media?
I realise these are much less of a concern for many of the right because they can't be used to target Corbyn but I am always interested in consistency.
Personally I take each case on its merit. Rachel Riley claiming 'Chomski' is an anti semite is a severe dent in the one she brings...
Chomsky is not an anti-Semite, simply a fool..
I'm sure you could make a decent argument for it even if I disagree, some random person who can't even spell his name on the other hand and I have my doubts about that and some other claims she has.
In the third quarter of last year, 51% of the country’s total trade in goods and services (exports plus imports) was with the rest of the EU. The figures for exports were 46% for total trade and 49% for goods.
What's fascinating is the high numbers of self-employed people in the job stats and also the number of over 50s entering the work force. It's quite possible both are long-term trends. My economic objection to Brexit has always been that it will make the UK a far less enticing investment opportunity and that it will lead to a lot of jobs dependent on Single Market access moving to other parts of Europe. Both still look inevitable to me.
I wouldn’t claim to know much about job creation, and there are certainly more qualified people commenting here. I have however studied languages, and I think it is underestimated the importance of the English language. English is a convergence of the Northern European Germanic languages and Latin based Romance languages. This amongst other things has led to the international business language being English (much to the displeasure of the French). It is one of the reasons that explains why people travel through all of Europe to get to U.K. for new life through Asylum etc.
Now I’m not trying to hark back to Empire here like some of the Brexiteers - this is a structural advantage not related to but assisted by Empire and spread of English through commonwealth and US influence.
As such I think the role of London as an international business centre will probably remain
Yep - London and the SE East will be fine post-Brexit.
The dramatically.
Nonsense. It means English people can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world. That is a big advantage for us.
Being a native speaker of "proper" English also carries prestige and weight.
If you need the 'prestige and weight' of speaking "proper English" then you are a sad human being almost certainly without talent.
Oh ...and a fascist to boot.
Bloody hell, Roger - it's not fascist to believe that being a native English speaker confers business advantages. It's just misguided. Don't let true fascists off the hook by waving the term around so freely. You owe Mr Royale an apology.
In the third quarter of last year, 51% of the country’s total trade in goods and services (exports plus imports) was with the rest of the EU. The figures for exports were 46% for total trade and 49% for goods. That’s a lot of trade to risk with barriers.
You could argue that point both ways though, if a lot of jobs are being created despite the highly unstable political situation and uncertain Brexit outcome, then perhaps even in the event of no deal they will be required.
What's fascinating
I Asylum etc.
Now I’m not trying to hark back to Empire here like some of the Brexiteers - this is a structural advantage not related to but assisted by Empire and spread of English through commonwealth and US influence.
As such I think the role of London as an international business centre will probably remain
Yep - London and the SE East will be fine post-Brexit.
The thing about languages is that they can be learned and the fact that English is a universal language actually makes the fact we speak it a lot less important! Across the world young people are becoming familiar with English and may speak it it to a very high standard - even in France! I remember when I lived in Spain many years ago knowledge of English outside the big cities was almost non-existent. That has changed dramatically.
Nonsense. It means English people can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world. That is a big advantage for us.
Being a native speaker of "proper" English also carries prestige and weight.
No, it means that anyone who can speak English can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world.
No, being a native speaker carries considerable advantages.
In my experience being a native English speaker offers no advantage whatsoever. It is at best a mild curiosity. International English with all its grammar and accent quirks is the lingua Franca.
Wrong again. Another depressive talking down his country and the truth of how it's perceived.
Setting aside for the moment that the U.K. has not handled this process well
Do you not think it extraordinary that a group of mature western democracies cannot agree a mutually sensible separation?
Politicians should be able to look beyond the “but they told us to fuck off” line some on here like
The fundamental strategic interest of the West is having a close relationship between the EU and the U.K. with both being prosperous. The EU (and Ireland - internal politics with Varadker worrying about being outflanked by SF - is hugely to blame for this possible mess).
May's red lines have defined the parameters within which discussions have taken place. She ruled out a lot of creative thinking by stating in advance there were certain things that the UK would not contemplate. I wonder if she took advice in advance of announcing them and how much notice she took of any advice she was given.
It is probably accurate to say that she took little advice and little heed of any advice she did receive. Hence Ivan Rogers departure and the painted corner we’re now in.
I think a soft Norway style arrangement, outside the governing structures but subject the SM rules would have been a sellable position, combine with the fall back ability to stop free movement (but would not use), but introduce a series of measures used by other EU states to differentiate between freedom of movement and freedom of labour. Also a chance to redefine our welfare state to a more contributory one. So many birds could be killed with one stone.
The leave leavers and the remain remainers would still shout betrayal, but the middle 80% would recognise a compromise that honours the absolute mandate to leave, while acknowledging that the result was exceptionally close.
Norway was closed off by a campaign of xenophobic lies. Arguing for it now is the dishonest Leavers’ attempt to have their cake and eat it; just another group who want compromise on their own terms.
I, and my MP have consistently argued this position. I’ve argued here over and over before during and after the referendum. I was flabbergasted that May imposed such red lines as it gave no potential for a climb down, and most of the problems of massive Eu migration have already happened. Future migration would be more a stream than full flowing river. Any Conservative worth his salt should be valuing the single market and the way it has moved the continent to an economically liberal position. A position we pioneered in this country. Leaving it is a danger as it gives a radical left government the opportunity to turn back the clock in a way not possible if we stayed members.
In the third quarter of last year, 51% of the country’s total trade in goods and services (exports plus imports) was with the rest of the EU. The figures for exports were 46% for total trade and 49% for goods. That’s a lot of trade to risk with barriers.
You could argue that point both ways though, if a lot of jobs are being created despite the highly unstable political situation and uncertain Brexit outcome, then perhaps even in the event of no deal they will be required.
What's o me.
I Asylum etc.
Now influence.
As such I think the role of London as an international business centre will probably remain
Yep - London and the SE East will be fine post-Brexit.
The tdramatically.
Nonsense. It means English people can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world. That is a big advantage for us.
Being a native speaker of "proper" English also carries prestige and weight.
No, it means that anyone who can speak English can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world.
No, being a native speaker carries considerable advantages.
If the person on the other side of the table is not a native speaker then it makes no difference. The key point is to be able to communicate clearly and effectively. Why is it that so many non-native speakers are able to do well in the UK? When Germans go to China to close deals - and they do it a whole lot more than we do - they do not communicate in German; and you can bet your bottom dollar that the Chinese doing deals in Latin America and Africa are not doing them in Chinese.
It does make a difference. Being a native speaker carries weight and prestige, as I told you earlier, and other second speakers of English are always curious to learn pronunciation, intonation, context, etymology and tone from you, and that's before you get onto cultural and historical curiosity.
But, you delight in denigrating your own country and revelling in sorrow and demise, so I'm not surprised at this latest meme of yours.
Labour is a text-book example of an institutionally racist organisation. In fact, text books will be written about the fact that a supposedly anti-racist political party refuses to allow a specific ethnic minority to define the racism it suffers while allowing those who attack that minority free rein to do so.
We were, which is why the party supported the hostile environment, although in fairness the Tories really took that on and made it their own. Luckily the left came in to clean up the parties act, much to the dismay of many hostile environment supporters.
These days, Labour's hostile environment is reserved for Jews. They are not allowed to define the racism they face and can be attacked, insulted and demeaned by Labour members consequence-free - as the Jim Sheridan example and Chris Williamson's continued presence on the Labour benches in the Commons demonstrate.
You are just upset we don't condone racism against BAME groups anymore by supporting policies such as the hostile environment, which is why you pretend that Labour is now racist as you can't successfully argue for the racist policies to come back. No racist policies now sorry, try a different party.
Why would I be upset that Labour does not condone racism against BAME groups? I wish that were the case.
Why would an anti-racist party allow Chris Williamson to sit on its benches in the Commons or allow Jim Sheridan to remain a member?
Why would it allow all those MPs who voted for the hostile environment policy?
For all the tears from many on the right about rhetoric this really affected people's lives yet the people claiming Labour are racist don't seem to want to target the MPs who actually supported these racist policies. Why?
I think it’s a good thing that Westminster respects the constitution
It’s disingenuous of the supporters of this measure to make this claim. It is shameful that they would try to override the rights of NI to determine their own wishes
But imposing Brexit against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland is ok?
Foreign affairs is reserved to the U.K. as a whole not the regions
If the Supreme Court agreed with you that Brexit were a matter of foreign affairs they would have ruled differently on the Miller case.
No - they determined that it was a foreign treaty that conferred rights on U.K. citizens. As a foreign treaty its a matter for the Uk.
In the same sense that the Good Friday Agreement is a “foreign treaty”, to use your tautology?
Sure. The UK parliament could cancel the GFA. There are certain specific rights in it that are granted to NI.
Europe’s quest for the quiet life goes much further. The EU and most of its states were born or reborn from the rubble of war and the traumas of totalitarianism. Britons forget how deeply that affects their instincts. History is dense, present, complicated and inescapable on the mainland in a way that it is not in Britain. Memories of flight, destruction and oppression – the 3am rap at the door, the rumble of military trucks on cobbles, the squelch of carts laden with possessions on muddy tracks – live on in continental families in a way that they do in comparatively few British ones.
The opposite of horror and cataclysm is the quiet life. Voltaire wrote his novel Candide in 1759 after the catastrophic Lisbon earthquake and amid the destruction of the Seven Years’ War. The book preaches neither Panglossian optimism nor head-in-hands gloom, and rather the stoical satisfaction of a peaceful plot of land providing for its owners’ needs under the maxim: “We must cultivate our garden.” In the shadow of horror and cataclysm, the modest goal of a happily cultivated garden is the height of decency and civilisation. More than grand rhetoric about continental unity or geopolitics or European culture, this is the real objective of the EU – and what holds it together. It is also the thing that Brits most struggle to understand.
By the same token, most Continental Europeans do not understand in their bones why many on this island have an attachment to the idea and reality of a nation-state, do not see why they should abandon it because others made a mess of theirs. The misunderstand goes both ways and is perhaps the result of very different experiences of - and perspectives on - a shared but not identical history.
A bit more emapthetic and imaginative understanding of the other’s perspective is needed on both sides of the Channel. And the Irish sea.
But Britain is not a Nation-State - it is a multi-nation state. It is the Little-Englanders and Ultra-Brexiteers who do not acknowledge this that will turn their perception into a reality (albeit with a smaller geographical area)
It is most certainly a unitary nation state. Any body acting in a regional capacity exists at the pleasure of parliament.
You are missing the point - It may be a Unitary State - but it is not based on a single nation.
Setting aside for the moment that the U.K. has not handled this process well
Do you not think it extraordinary that a group of mature western democracies cannot agree a mutually sensible separation?
Politicians should be able to look beyond the “but they told us to fuck off” line some on here like
The fundamental strategic interest of the West is having a close relationship between the EU and the U.K. with both being prosperous. The EU (and Ireland - internal politics with Varadker worrying about being outflanked by SF - is hugely to blame for this possible mess).
May's red lines have defined the parameters within which discussions have taken place. She ruled out a lot of creative thinking by stating in advance there were certain things that the UK would not contemplate. I wonder if she took advice in advance of announcing them and how much notice she took of any advice she was given.
It is probably accurate to say that she took little advice and little heed of any advice she did receive. Hence Ivan Rogers departure and the painted corner we’re now in.
I think a soft Norway style arrangement, outside the governing structures but subject the SM rules would have been a sellable position, combine with the fall back ability to stop free movement (but would not use), but introduce a series of measures used by other EU states to differentiate between freedom of movement and freedom of labour. Also a chance to redefine our welfare state to a more contributory one. So many birds could be killed with one stone.
The leave leavers and the remain remainers would still shout betrayal, but the middle 80% would recognise a compromise that honours the absolute mandate to leave, while acknowledging that the result was exceptionally close.
Norway was closed off by a campaign of xenophobic lies. Arguing for it now is the dishonest Leavers’ attempt to have their cake and eat it; just another group who want compromise on their own terms.
In the third quarter of last year, 51% of the country’s total trade in goods and services (exports plus imports) was with the rest of the EU. The figures for exports were 46% for total trade and 49% for goods. That’s a lot of trade to risk with barriers.
You could argue that point both ways though, if a lot of jobs are being created despite the highly unstable political situation and uncertain Brexit outcome, then perhaps even in the event of no deal they will be required.
What's fascinating
I Asylum etc.
Now I’m not trying to hark back to Empire here like some of the Brexiteers - this is a structural advantage not related to but assisted by Empire and spread of English through commonwealth and US influence.
As such I think the role of London as an international business centre will probably remain
Yep - London and the SE East will be fine post-Brexit.
English and may speak it it to a very high standard - even in France! I remember when I lived in Spain many years ago knowledge of English outside the big cities was almost non-existent. That has changed dramatically.
Nonsense. It means English people can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world. That is a big advantage for us.
Being a native speaker of "proper" English also carries prestige and weight.
No, it means that anyone who can speak English can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world.
No, being a native speaker carries considerable advantages.
In my experience being a native English speaker offers no advantage whatsoever. It is at best a mild curiosity. International English with all its grammar and accent quirks is the lingua Franca.
Wrong again. Another depressive talking down his country and the truth of how it's perceived.
No, my experience differs to yours. Maybe it’s an industry thing. But in my world native English is at most a mild curiosity.
Oh and this has nothing to do with country. Brits represent a minority of native English speakers.
I think it’s a good thing that Westminster respects the constitution
It’s disingenuous of the supporters of this measure to make this claim. It is shameful that they would try to override the rights of NI to determine their own wishes
But imposing Brexit against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland is ok?
Foreign affairs is reserved to the U.K. as a whole not the regions
If the Supreme Court agreed with you that Brexit were a matter of foreign affairs they would have ruled differently on the Miller case.
No - they determined that it was a foreign treaty that conferred rights on U.K. citizens. As a foreign treaty its a matter for the Uk.
In the same sense that the Good Friday Agreement is a “foreign treaty”, to use your tautology?
Sure. The UK parliament could cancel the GFA. There are certain specific rights in it that are granted to NI.
If the UK parliament cancelled it against the wishes of the people of NI, would you think it “shameful”?
In the third quarter of last year, 51% of the country’s total trade in goods and services (exports plus imports) was with the rest of the EU. The figures for exports were 46% for total trade and 49% for goods. That’s a lot of trade to risk with barriers.
You could argue that point both ways though, if a lot of jobs are being created despite the highly unstable political situation and uncertain Brexit outcome, then perhaps even in the event of no deal they will be required.
What's fascinating
I Asylum etc.
Now I’m not trying to hark back to Empire here like some of the Brexiteers - this is a structural advantage not related to but assisted by Empire and spread of English through commonwealth and US influence.
As such I think the role of London as an international business centre will probably remain
Yep - London and the SE East will be fine post-Brexit.
The thing about languages is that they can be learned and the fact that English is a universal language actually makes the fact we speak it a lot less important! Across the world young people are becoming familiar with English and may speak it it to a very high standard - even in France! I remember when I lived in Spain many years ago knowledge of English outside the big cities was almost non-existent. That has changed dramatically.
Nonsense. It means English people can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world. That is a big advantage for us.
Being a native speaker of "proper" English also carries prestige and weight.
No, it means that anyone who can speak English can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world.
No, being a native speaker carries considerable advantages.
In my experience being a native English speaker offers no advantage whatsoever. It is at best a mild curiosity. International English with all its grammar and accent quirks is the lingua Franca.
Wrong again. Another depressive talking down his country and the truth of how it's perceived.
Some people, when faced with a crisis, a deadline, a seemingly insurmountable challenge, rise to the occasion. Cameron was able to do that. May is not. I think that @AlistairM is referring to this quality in his delightfully provocative last paragraph. After all, wouldn’t we all prefer a leader with such an ability at a time like this?
The same David Cameron who caused this whole sorry mess, by putting narrow Conservative party interests above all other considerations, and then ran away? No thanks...
I agree. Whoevee the answer is, it is not Cameron . it was his sloppy approach that caused this mess.
We need a leader who is able to rise to the occasion. Mrs May is not that leader. If you won’t take Cameron who had that ability on occasion, who?
So no takers for Mr Cameron? Oh well. Still, someone is going to have to start being imaginative and flexible soon.
** waves ** - your only supporter on here so far.....
I personally would be quite happy to have him as pm again, I regret that the referendum took him down. But you can see that remainers and leavers despise him, so no way he could wranglewith the competing factions in parliament.
In the third quarter of last year, 51% of the country’s total trade in goods and services (exports plus imports) was with the rest of the EU. The figures for exports were 46% for total trade and 49% for goods. That’s a lot of trade to risk with barriers.
You could argue that point both ways though, if a lot of jobs are being created despite the highly unstable political situation and uncertain Brexit outcome, then perhaps even in the event of no deal they will be required.
What's o me.
I Asylum etc.
Now influence.
As such I think the role of London as an international business centre will probably remain
Yep - London and the SE East will be fine post-Brexit.
The tdramatically.
Nonsense. It means English people can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world. That is a big advantage for us.
Being a native speaker of "proper" English also carries prestige and weight.
No, it means that anyone who can speak English can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world.
No, being a native speaker carries considerable advantages.
If the person on the other side of the table
It does make a difference. Being a native speaker carries weight and prestige, as I told you earlier, and other second speakers of English are always curious to learn pronunciation, intonation, context, etymology and tone from you, and that's before you get onto cultural and historical curiosity.
But, you delight in denigrating your own country and revelling in sorrow and demise, so I'm not surprised at this latest meme of yours.
You’re experience does not match mine at all.
Maybe you don't speak proper? ;-)
In all seriousness I encounter fascination that I'm truly an English English speaker when I go abroad.
This unlocks doors for me, rightly or wrongly, but you have to also be good at your job.
In the third quarter of last year, 51% of the country’s total trade in goods and services (exports plus imports) was with the rest of the EU. The figures for exports were 46% for total trade and 49% for goods. That’s a lot of trade to risk with barriers.
You could argue that point both ways though, if a lot of jobs are being created despite the highly unstable political situation and uncertain Brexit outcome, then perhaps even in the event of no deal they will be required.
What's fascinating
I Asylum etc.
Now I’m not trying to hark back to Empire here like some of the Brexiteers - this is a structural advantage not related to but assisted by Empire and spread of English through commonwealth and US influence.
As such I think the role of London as an international business centre will probably remain
Yep - London and the SE East will be fine post-Brexit.
The thing about languages is that they can be learned and the fact that English is a universal language actually makes the fact we speak it a lot less important! Across the world young people are becoming familiar with English and may speak it it to a very high standard - even in France! I remember when I lived in Spain many years ago knowledge of English outside the big cities was almost non-existent. That has changed dramatically.
Nonsense. It means English people can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world. That is a big advantage for us.
Being a native speaker of "proper" English also carries prestige and weight.
No, it means that anyone who can speak English can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world.
No, being a native speaker carries considerable advantages.
In my experience being a native English speaker offers no advantage whatsoever. It is at best a mild curiosity. International English with all its grammar and accent quirks is the lingua Franca.
Wrong again. Another depressive talking down his country and the truth of how it's perceived.
Make your mind up. Is it being a native English speaker that's an advantage (which is by no means unique to this country), or is it the value of Brand Britain?
The backstop represents an unusually favourable position for the UK, not one in which the EU would want us staying indefinitely, and its detail represents something of a negotiating success for the PM. It's her lack of strategy for landing the deal and her inability to involve and then sell to her colleagues (edit/ coupled with their intransigence, as Edmund says) that have led to the crisis, not any overreach by the EU. It is in all of our interests to make sure the settlement protects the fragile peace in Ireland and not consequential on some evil intent by our neighbours.
Therefore I don't buy Alastair's lead at all. Although the historical stuff about Turkey, about which I was broadly aware having read the Mandolin guy's other books, is interesting and little known.
This is one of the most frustrating things about the whole situation. If not framed universally as something that the EU desires that "traps" the UK into the customs union in perpetuity, it would be realised that the backstop is actually something far more desirable to the UK than the EU. It is in many ways only the fetish that "no deal is nothing to fear" that prevents this from being recognised.
Because May's "deal" is by no means the end state - there are significant negotiations on future trading relationships that still need to be done and have barely commenced. Without the backstop, the potential for no deal simply comes around again in 2-3 years time - with all the hard brexiteers claiming that the EU are offering us a shit deal and the whole current scenario repeating itself. The backstop takes no deal off the table, and allows sensible negotiations with a lesser threat of blackmail being played on both sides.
If this is the case how come an unwillingness to time limit it? That might be enough to save it.
Because they would prefer we remain and think it is on their grasp if they hold firm.
In the third quarter of last year, 51% of the country’s total trade in goods and services (exports plus imports) was with the rest of the EU. The figures for exports were 46% for total trade and 49% for goods.
What's fascinating is the high numbers of self-employed people in the job stats and also the number of over 50s entering the work force. It's quite possible both are long-term trends. My economic objection to Brexit has always been that it will make the UK a far less enticing investment opportunity and that it will lead to a lot of jobs dependent on Single Market access moving to other parts of Europe. Both still look inevitable to me.
I wouldn’t claim
Now I’m not trying to hark back to Empire here like some of the Brexiteers - this is a structural advantage not related to but assisted by Empire and spread of English through commonwealth and US influence.
As such I think the role of London as an international business centre will probably remain
Yep - London and the SE East will be fine post-Brexit.
The thing about languages is that they can be learned and the fact that English is a universal language actually makes the fact we speak it a lot less important! Across the world young people are becoming familiar with English and may speak it it to a very high standard - even in France! I remember when I lived in Spain many years ago knowledge of English outside the big cities was almost non-existent. That has changed dramatically.
Nonsense. It means English people can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world. That is a big advantage for us.
Being a native speaker of "proper" English also carries prestige and weight.
If you need the 'prestige and weight' of speaking "proper English" then you are a sad human being almost certainly without talent.
Oh ...and a fascist to boot.
High praise from pb.coms biggest pillock, who is wrong about everything - all the time, and inspires pitry rather than anger.
Setting aside for the moment that the U.K. has not handled this process well
Do you not think it extraordinary that a group of mature western democracies cannot agree a mutually sensible separation?
Politicians should be able to look beyond the “but they told us to fuck off” line some on here like
The fundamental strategic interest of the West is having a close relationship between the EU and the U.K. with both being prosperous. The EU (and Ireland - internal politics with Varadker worrying about being outflanked by SF - is hugely to blame for this possible mess).
May's red lines have defined the parameters within which discussions have taken place. She ruled out a lot of creative thinking by stating in advance there were certain things that the UK would not contemplate. I wonder if she took advice in advance of announcing them and how much notice she took of any advice she was given.
It is probably accurate to say that she took little advice and little heed of any advice she did receive. Hence Ivan Rogers departure and the painted corner we’re now in.
I think a soft Norway style arrangement, outside the governing structures but subject the SM rules would have been a sellable position, combine with the fall back ability to stop free movement (but would not use), but introduce a series of measures used by other EU states to differentiate between freedom of movement and freedom of labour. Also a chance to redefine our welfare state to a more contributory one. So many birds could be killed with one stone.
The leave leavers and the remain remainers would still shout betrayal, but the middle 80% would recognise a compromise that honours the absolute mandate to leave, while acknowledging that the result was exceptionally close.
Norway was closed off by a campaign of xenophobic lies. Arguing for it now is the dishonest Leavers’ attempt to have their cake and eat it; just another group who want compromise on their own terms.
you have a very bad case on Adonisitis
see a doctor
It’s amazing how all these “pragmatic” Leavers are crawling out from under their rocks now, hoping everyone has forgotten that the Leave campaign won by frightening the public into believing that millions of Muslims were poised to descend on Britain unless free movement was stopped.
In the third quarter of last year, 51% of the country’s total trade in goods and services (exports plus imports) was with the rest of the EU. The figures for exports were 46% for total trade and 49% for goods. That’s a lot of trade to risk with barriers.
You could argue that point both ways though, if a lot of jobs are being created despite the highly unstable political situation and uncertain Brexit outcome, then perhaps even in the event of no deal they will be required.
What's o me.
I Asylum etc.
Now influence.
As such I think the role of London as an international business centre will probably remain
Yep - London and the SE East will be fine post-Brexit.
The tdramatically.
Nonsense. It means English people can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world. That is a big advantage for us.
Being a native speaker of "proper" English also carries prestige and weight.
No, it means that anyone who can speak English can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world.
No, being a native speaker carries considerable advantages.
If the person on the other side of the table is not a native speaker then it makes no difference. The key point is to be able to communicate clearly and effectively. Why is it that so many non-native speakers are able to do well in the UK? When Germans go to China to close deals - and they do it a whole lot more than we do - they do not communicate in German; and you can bet your bottom dollar that the Chinese doing deals in Latin America and Africa are not doing them in Chinese.
It is interesting that in Asia there is a form of ‘English’ we would find difficult to understand, and also I know in Germany they have loan words that are English (or sound English- they call a mobile a handy).
The point 8 forgot to make earlier is that young people and professionals will still be looking to come to the U.K. to improve their language skills if possible, as there is no better way to improve than living in the country and communicating with native speakers. This is a downside of Brexit that is under appreciated- we get fantastic and ambitious professionals and students coming here to learn and improve English skills which benefits our economy.
Some people, when faced with a crisis, a deadline, a seemingly insurmountable challenge, rise to the occasion. Cameron was able to do that. May is not. I think that @AlistairM is referring to this quality in his delightfully provocative last paragraph. After all, wouldn’t we all prefer a leader with such an ability at a time like this?
The same David Cameron who caused this whole sorry mess, by putting narrow Conservative party interests above all other considerations, and then ran away? No thanks...
I agree. Whoevee the answer is, it is not Cameron . it was his sloppy approach that caused this mess.
We need a leader who is able to rise to the occasion. Mrs May is not that leader. If you won’t take Cameron who had that ability on occasion, who?
So no takers for Mr Cameron? Oh well. Still, someone is going to have to start being imaginative and flexible soon.
** waves ** - your only supporter on here so far.....
I personally would be quite happy to have him as pm again, I regret that the referendum took him down. But you can see that remainers and leavers despise him, so no way he could wranglewith the competing factions in parliament.
William Hague might have the best chance at uniting the Tory party.
Labour is a text-book example of an institutionally racist organisation. In fact, text books will be written about the fact that a supposedly anti-racist political party refuses to allow a specific ethnic minority to define the racism it suffers while allowing those who attack that minority free rein to do so.
We were, which is why the party supported the hostile environment, although in fairness the Tories really took that on and made it their own. Luckily the left came in to clean up the parties act, much to the dismay of many hostile environment supporters.
These days, Labour's hostile environment is reserved for Jews. They are not allowed to define the racism they face and can be attacked, insulted and demeaned by Labour members consequence-free - as the Jim Sheridan example and Chris Williamson's continued presence on the Labour benches in the Commons demonstrate.
You are just upset we don't condone racism against BAME groups anymore by supporting policies such as the hostile environment, which is why you pretend that Labour is now racist as you can't successfully argue for the racist policies to come back. No racist policies now sorry, try a different party.
Why would I be upset that Labour does not condone racism against BAME groups? I wish that were the case.
Why would an anti-racist party allow Chris Williamson to sit on its benches in the Commons or allow Jim Sheridan to remain a member?
Why would it allow all those MPs who voted for the hostile environment policy?
For all the tears from many on the right about rhetoric this really affected people's lives yet the people claiming Labour are racist don't seem to want to target the MPs who actually supported these racist policies. Why?
Look, a squirrel.
Can you name me any Labour MPs who voted for the hostile environment policy? I agree that all those who did should be thrown out of the party.
Simon Coveney on Marr reiterates there cannot be a Withdrawal Agreement without a backstop or a time limit beyond a review and no separate UK Irish Agreement to replace it. However he says Ireland will support an extension to Article 50 if Parliament votes for it
In the third quarter of last year, 51% of the country’s total trade in goods and services (exports plus imports) was with the rest of the EU. The figures for exports were 46% for total trade and 49% for goods.
What's fascinating is the high numbers of self-employed people in the job stats and also the number of over 50s entering the work force. It's quite possible both are long-term trends. My economic objection to Brexit has always been that it will make the UK a far less enticing investment opportunity and that it will lead to a lot of jobs dependent on Single Market access moving to other parts of Europe. Both still look inevitable to me.
I Now I’m not trying to hark back to Empire here like some of the Brexiteers - this is a structural advantage not related to but assisted by Empire and spread of English through commonwealth and US influence.
As such I think the role of London as an international business centre will probably remain
Yep - London and the SE East will be fine post-Brexit.
The dramatically.
Nonsense. It means English people can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world. That is a big advantage for us.
Being a native speaker of "proper" English also carries prestige and weight.
If you need the 'prestige and weight' of speaking "proper English" then you are a sad human being almost certainly without talent.
Oh ...and a fascist to boot.
Bloody hell, Roger - it's not fascist to believe that being a native English speaker confers business advantages. It's just misguided. Don't let true fascists off the hook by waving the term around so freely. You owe Mr Royale an apology.
Thanks SO, and no apology required or expected from Roger.
We all know what's he's like and it's priced into his posts on here now, which I use purely as a benchmark to triangulate how right others are.
Setting aside for the moment that the U.K. has not handled this process well
Do you not think it extraordinary that a group of mature western democracies cannot agree a mutually sensible separation?
Politicians should be able to look beyond the “but they told us to fuck off” line some on here like
The fundamental strategic interest of the West is having a close relationship between the EU and the U.K. with both being prosperous. The EU (and Ireland - internal politics with Varadker worrying about being outflanked by SF - is hugely to blame for this possible mess).
May's red lines have defined the parameters within which discussions have taken place. She ruled out a lot of creative thinking by stating in advance there were certain things that the UK would not contemplate. I wonder if she took advice in advance of announcing them and how much notice she took of any advice she was given.
It is probably accurate to say that she took little advice and little heed of any advice she did receive. Hence Ivan Rogers departure and the painted corner we’re now in.
I think a soft Norway style arrangement, outside the governing structures but subject the SM rules would have been a sellable position, combine with the fall back ability to stop free movement (but would not use), but introduce a series of measures used by other EU states to differentiate between freedom of movement and freedom of labour. Also a chance to redefine our welfare state to a more contributory one. So many birds could be killed with one stone.
The leave leavers and the remain remainers would still shout betrayal, but the middle 80% would recognise a compromise that honours the absolute mandate to leave, while acknowledging that the result was exceptionally close.
Norway was closed off by a campaign of xenophobic lies. Arguing for it now is the dishonest Leavers’ attempt to have their cake and eat it; just another group who want compromise on their own terms.
you have a very bad case on Adonisitis
see a doctor
It’s amazing how all these “pragmatic” Leavers are crawling out from under their rocks now, hoping everyone has forgotten that the Leave campaign won by frightening the public into believing that millions of Muslims were poised to descend on Britain unless free movement was stopped.
I think you have an interesting understanding of the word ‘won’ - I personally think they would have won in any case as Remain had no positive case.
Not sure as to what you are referencing there but two points - right wing trolls don’t tend to be Tory trolls, and as with phone hacking MPs and Celebrities kind of sign up to getting attention for their profession so they should expect some attention from newspapers or political opponents. Not sure how this one will play out.
It is no coincidence that they go for much the same people the right wing press go for which are for all intents and purposes the Tories (or their supporters) Anna Soubry and others starting to get the same negative attention many Labour MPs suffer is no coincidence. Some of the biggest nutters and the ones who take action usually have no direct links themselves but they share the same opponents.
I’m not going to drop this. The right wing nutters are in Britain first, and their ilk. They are not part of the Tories. Some newspapers talk about similar things but that is just the nature of tabloids. If you put their extreme propaganda next to a tabloid they would be much more extreme. You can hardly say Anna Soubry does not invite the criticism - there are other pro European MPs who do not court the media like she does. She gets criticism because of it, not that this is right where it is plain abusive or threats.
For clarity in Labour, and Momentum which I count as affiiliated, the extremists are in the movement after the £3 entry program. It is people lol Williamson on the front bench. For the Tories it is like your third cousin once removed being racist, for Labour it is like your fiancée being racist and you are getting married next week because you like their views.
Boris Johnson?!!?
The Conservatives and their supporters in right wing press put out far worse stuff than Labour/Momentum this is why their outliers and those more extreme have been threatening and worse to MPs, specifically MPs who oppose the Tories, or are Tories and oppose some part of their policy such as Anna Soubry.
In the third quarter of last year, 51% of the country’s total trade in goods and services (exports plus imports) was with the rest of the EU. The figures for exports were 46% for total trade and 49% for goods. That’s a lot of trade to risk with barriers.
You could argue that point both ways though, if a lot of jobs are being created despite the highly unstable political situation and uncertain Brexit outcome, then perhaps even in the event of no deal they will be required.
What's fascinating
I Asylum etc.
Now I’m not trying to hark back to Empire here like some of the Brexiteers - this is a structural advantage not related to but assisted by Empire and spread of English through commonwealth and US influence.
As such I think the role of London as an international business centre will probably remain
Yep - London and the SE East will be fine post-Brexit.
speak it a lot less important! Across the world young people are becoming familiar with English and may speak it it to a very high standard - even in France! I remember when I lived in Spain many years ago knowledge of English outside the big cities was almost non-existent. That has changed dramatically.
Nonsense. It means English people can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world. That is a big advantage for us.
Being a native speaker of "proper" English also carries prestige and weight.
No, it means that anyone who can speak English can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world.
No, being a native speaker carries considerable advantages.
In my experience being a native English speaker offers no advantage whatsoever. It is at best a mild curiosity. International English with all its grammar and accent quirks is the lingua Franca.
Wrong again. Another depressive talking down his country and the truth of how it's perceived.
Make your mind up. Is it being a native English speaker that's an advantage (which is by no means unique to this country), or is it the value of Brand Britain?
In the third quarter of last year, 51% of the country’s total trade in goods and services (exports plus imports) was with the rest of the EU. The figures for exports were 46% for total trade and 49% for goods. That’s a lot of trade to risk with barriers.
You could argue that point both ways though, if a lot of jobs are being created despite the highly unstable political situation and uncertain Brexit outcome, then perhaps even in the event of no deal they will be required.
What's fascinating
I Asylum etc.
Now I’m not trying to hark back to Empire here like some of the Brexiteers - this is a structural advantage not related to but assisted by Empire and spread of English through commonwealth and US influence.
As such I think the role of London as an international business centre will probably remain
Yep - London and the SE East will be fine post-Brexit.
The thing about languages is that they can be learned and the fact that English is a universal language actually makes the fact we speak it a lot less important! Across the world young people are becoming familiar with English and may speak it it to a very high standard - even in France! I remember when I lived in Spain many years ago knowledge of English outside the big cities was almost non-existent. That has changed dramatically.
Nonsense. It means English people can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world. That is a big advantage for us.
Being a native speaker of "proper" English also carries prestige and weight.
No, it means that anyone who can speak English can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world.
No, being a native speaker carries considerable advantages.
In my experience being a native English speaker offers no advantage whatsoever. It is at best a mild curiosity. International English with all its grammar and accent quirks is the lingua Franca.
Wrong again. Another depressive talking down his country and the truth of how it's perceived.
Singaporean English can be somewhat different.
Ditto Filipino English and Indian English. Same same in theory, same different in reality.
Setting aside for the moment that the U.K. has not handled this process well
Do you not think it extraordinary that a group of mature western democracies cannot agree a mutually sensible separation?
Politicians should be able to look beyond the “but they told us to fuck off” line some on here like
The fundamental strategic interest of the West is having a close relationship between the EU and the U.K. with both being prosperous. The EU (and Ireland - internal politics with Varadker worrying about being outflanked by SF - is hugely to blame for this possible mess).
May's red lines have defined the parameters within which discussions have taken place. She ruled out a lot of creative thinking by stating in advance there were certain things that the UK would not contemplate. I wonder if she took advice in advance of announcing them and how much notice she took of any advice she was given.
It is probably accurate to say that she took little advice and little heed of any advice she did receive. Hence Ivan Rogers departure and the painted corner we’re now in.
I think a soft Norway style arrangement, outside the governing structures but subject the SM rules would have been a sellable position, combine with the fall back ability to stop free movement (but would not use), but introduce a series of measures used by other EU states to differentiate between freedom of movement and freedom of labour. Also a chance to redefine our welfare state to a more contributory one. So many birds could be killed with one stone.
The leave leavers and the remain remainers would still shout betrayal, but the middle 80% would recognise a compromise that honours the absolute mandate to leave, while acknowledging that the result was exceptionally close.
Norway was closed off by a campaign of xenophobic lies. Arguing for it now is the dishonest Leavers’ attempt to have their cake and eat it; just another group who want compromise on their own terms.
you have a very bad case on Adonisitis
see a doctor
It’s amazing how all these “pragmatic” Leavers are crawling out from under their rocks now, hoping everyone has forgotten that the Leave campaign won by frightening the public into believing that millions of Muslims were poised to descend on Britain unless free movement was stopped.
Great article. But what could have been done differently? Even without sequencing there would have been a backstop-requiring interim period.
I don't think the government thought about customs properly before deciding to leave the single market and customs union.
If you go look back to the time before negotiations started, the border was only ever mentioned in the context of movement of people. They just dropped the ball and didn't consider the red lines properly.
Britain is seeking to shift the frontline of immigration controls to Ireland’s ports and airports to avoid having to introduce a “hard border” between north and south after the UK leaves the European Union, the Guardian has learned.
No, being a native speaker carries considerable advantages.
I've been teaching English, French and (some) Russian to corporate arseholes for over 10 years and, in my experience, being a native English speaker doesn't really confer any advantage in business. You can do just about any job (maybe law would be an exception) at CERF B2 competency as long your command of the domain specific vocabulary is good. The same applies to French.
Being a native Russian speaker is a different matter. Very, very few foreigners achieve true fluency due to very subtle conventions of vernacular emphasis. I lived in Russia for 9 years and on my very best day I still sound very much like a foreigner. I could maybe pass for Polish...
The primacy of English, this discussion and me are shortly going to be rendered redundant by ubiquitous machine translation anyway.
In the third quarter of last year, 51% of the country’s total trade in goods and services (exports plus imports) was with the rest of the EU. The figures for exports were 46% for total trade and 49% for goods. That’s a lot of trade to risk with barriers.
You could argue that point both ways though, if a lot of jobs are being created despite the highly unstable political situa
What's fascinating
I Asylum etc.
Now I’m not trying to hark back to Empire here like some of the Brexiteers - this is a structural advantage not related to but assisted by Empire and spread of English through commonwealth and US influence.
As such I think the role of London as an international business centre will probably remain
Yep - London and the SE East will be fine post-Brexit.
English and may speak it it to a very high standard - even in France! I remember when I lived in Spain many years ago knowledge of English outside the big cities was almost non-existent. That has changed dramatically.
Nonsense. It means English people can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world. That is a big advantage for us.
Being a native speaker of "proper" English also carries prestige and weight.
No, it means that anyone who can speak English can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world.
No, being a native speaker carries considerable advantages.
In my experience being a native English speaker offers no advantage whatsoever. It is at best a mild curiosity. International English with all its grammar and accent quirks is the lingua Franca.
Wrong again. Another depressive talking down his country and the truth of how it's perceived.
No, my experience differs to yours. Maybe it’s an industry thing. But in my world native English is at most a mild curiosity.
Oh and this has nothing to do with country. Brits represent a minority of native English speakers.
British English carries a prestige (or Queen's English, if you prefer) over and above native speakers in Canada or Australia.
Labour is a text-book example of an institutionally racist organisation. In fact, text books will be written about the fact that a supposedly anti-racist political party refuses to allow a specific ethnic minority to define the racism it suffers while allowing those who attack that minority free rein to do so.
We were, which is why the party supported the hostile environment, although in fairness the Tories really took that on and made it their own. Luckily the left came in to clean up the parties act, much to the dismay of many hostile environment supporters.
Why would I be upset that Labour does not condone racism against BAME groups? I wish that were the case.
Why would an anti-racist party allow Chris Williamson to sit on its benches in the Commons or allow Jim Sheridan to remain a member?
Why would it allow all those MPs who voted for the hostile environment policy?
For all the tears from many on the right about rhetoric this really affected people's lives yet the people claiming Labour are racist don't seem to want to target the MPs who actually supported these racist policies. Why?
Look, a squirrel.
Can you name me any Labour MPs who voted for the hostile environment policy? I agree that all those who did should be thrown out of the party.
David Lammy, Diane Abbott, John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn all voted against, the rest voted for it to pass.... through their abstention. Ahem, my story and I am sticking to it.
Bit of a stretch in the voting for / abstaining but I wonder if you would really be happy getting rid of all the MPs bar those for not opposing racism?
Edit: Obviously not those MPs who weren't MPs yet.
I assume you would delighted if someone outside of that list (from the progress wing) was leader instead, because let's be honest the shouting racism is just a political tool to get what you want.
In the third quarter of last year, 51% of the country’s total trade in goods and services (exports plus imports) was with the rest of the EU. The figures for exports were 46% for total trade and 49% for goods. That’s a lot of trade to risk with barriers.
You could argue that point both ways though, if a lot of jobs are being created despite the highly unstable political situation and uncertain Brexit outcome, then perhaps even in the event of no deal they will be required.
What's o me.
I Asylum etc.
Now influence.
As such I think the role of London as an international business centre will probably remain
Yep - London and the SE East will be fine post-Brexit.
The tdramatically.
Nonsense. It means English people can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world. That is a big advantage for us.
Being a native speaker of "proper" English also carries prestige and weight.
No, it means that anyone who can speak English can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world.
No, being a native speaker carries considerable advantages.
If t Chinese.
It does make a difference. Being a native speaker carries weight and prestige, as I told you earlier, and other second speakers of English are always curious to learn pronunciation, intonation, context, etymology and tone from you, and that's before you get onto cultural and historical curiosity.
But, you delight in denigrating your own country and revelling in sorrow and demise, so I'm not surprised at this latest meme of yours.
Don't be so utterly ridiculous. I travel extensively for my work - in the US, Europe and Asia. I am speaking from personal experience. We organise conferences in multiple countries - most recently in Brazil, China and Japan - and do do them all in English. Why? Because it is the language in our market that everyone speaks.
I am not denigrating the UK by pointing this out. It is a statement of fact.
Setting aside for the moment that the U.K. has not handled this process well
Do you not think it extraordinary that a group of mature western democracies cannot agree a mutually sensible separation?
Politicians should be able to look beyond the “but they told us to fuck off” line some on here like
The fundamental strategic interest of the West is having apossible mess).
May's red lines have defined the parameters advice in advance of announcing them and how much notice she took of any advice she was given.
It is probably accurate to say that she took little advice and little heed of any advice she did receive. Hence Ivan Rogers departure and the painted corner we’re now in.
I think a soft Norway style arrangement, outside the governing structures but subject.
Norway was closed off by a campaign of xenophobic lies. Arguing for it now is the dishonest Leavers’ attempt to have their cake and eat it; just another group who want compromise on their own terms.
you have a very bad case on Adonisitis
see a doctor
It’s weird. A Norway style agreement is a reasonable compromise. Yet remainers and leavers reject it most forcefully. For the bulk of people, for the bulk of their experience, been in the EEA but out of the customs union will make little difference. A customs agreement at some level would need to be negotiated that facilitates trade with Ireland and the rest of the Eu. That can be put together through the the two years wa. In the EEA the uk gets to piggy back on all the existing trad agreements, it binds the uk and the rest of the Eu to honour free movement of labour and mutual recognition of rights.
The Eu keep us in their influence, they’ll be happy with that, citizens can freely live and move around the EU that will please the younger generations who consider this quite important, businesses can trade freely with a common set of rules, and importantly have the jurisdiction of the ECJ to stop non tarif barriers that other member states will be putting up as soon as we are off. We can chase the magical unicorns of trade deals if we so wish.
It is Cakism, in the sense that that is what other states like Norway Iceland and Switzerland already have.
It also largely puts to bed the whole damn thing. Norway as an end point not a step on a journey.
May is dying in a ditch to end free movement when Labour, who have never met an immigrant they haven’t wanted to shower with money will abandon as soon as they take control.
I think it’s a good thing that Westminster respects the constitution
It’s disingenuous of the supporters of this measure to make this claim. It is shameful that they would try to override the rights of NI to determine their own wishes
But imposing Brexit against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland is ok?
Foreign affairs is reserved to the U.K. as a whole not the regions
If the Supreme Court agreed with you that Brexit were a matter of foreign affairs they would have ruled differently on the Miller case.
No - they determined that it was a foreign treaty that conferred rights on U.K. citizens. As a foreign treaty its a matter for the Uk.
In the same sense that the Good Friday Agreement is a “foreign treaty”, to use your tautology?
Sure. The UK parliament could cancel the GFA. There are certain specific rights in it that are granted to NI.
If the UK parliament cancelled it against the wishes of the people of NI, would you think it “shameful”?
No because that is a reserved power for Westminster.
I wouldn’t agree with that approach but they have the authority to do it
The fundamental tap point is that while Stormont is suspended the U.K. government is rightly keeping things “ticking over” without making fundamental changes.
To amend the abortion laws would be a fundamental change. I personally believe it would be a good thing, but it’s not an urgent decision and it’s one that should be left to NI.
Not sure as to what you are referencing there but two points - right wing trolls don’t tend to be Tory trolls, and as with phone hacking MPs and Celebrities kind of sign up to getting attention for their profession so they should expect some attention from newspapers or political opponents. Not sure how this one will play out.
The kind of rhetoric the Tories and their supporters put out in the right wing press which leads to harassment, attempted murder and murder of Labour MPs and more recently some Tory MPs such as Anna Soubry as well.
Not really sure how you are defining Tories unless you mean anyone with an opinion more right wing than your own. It is organisations like Britain first and idiots like Tommy Robinson and his UKIP appeasers and not the Tories. Again I will point out that Jo Cox was murdered by someone with mental health problems
‘Thomas Mair, a 52-year-old Batley and Spen constituent[43] who had a history of psychiatric problems, and links to the US-based neo-Nazi group National Alliance,[44] shouted "Britain first" as he carried out the attack.[11]’. From Wikipedia
It is no coincidence that they go for much the same people the right wing press go for which are for all intents and purposes the Tories (or their supporters) Anna Soubry and others starting to get the same negative attention many Labour MPs suffer is no coincidence. Some of the biggest nutters and the ones who take action usually have no direct links themselves but they share the same opponents.
I’m not going to drop this. The right wing nutters are in Britain first, and their ilk. They are not part of the Tories. Some newspapers talk about similar things but that is just the nature of tabloids. If you put their extreme propaganda next to a tabloid they would be much more extreme. You can hardly say Anna Soubry does not invite the criticism - there are other pro European MPs who do not court the media like she does. She gets criticism because of it, not that this is right where it is plain abusive or threats.
For clarity in Labour, and Momentum which I count as affiiliated, the extremists are in the movement after the £3 entry program. It is people lol Williamson on the front bench. For the Tories it is like your third cousin once removed being racist, for Labour it is like your fiancée being racist and you are getting married next week because you like their views.
Anna Soubry is not the only Tory MP who gets abused. Any Tory MP, especially a woman, gets a lot of abuse.
No, being a native speaker carries considerable advantages.
I've been teaching English, French and (some) Russian to corporate arseholes for over 10 years and, in my experience, being a native English speaker doesn't really confer any advantage in business. You can do just about any job (maybe law would be an exception) at CERF B2 competency as long your command of the domain specific vocabulary is good. The same applies to French.
Being a native Russian speaker is a different matter. Very, very few foreigners achieve true fluency due to very subtle conventions of vernacular emphasis. I lived in Russia for 9 years and on my very best day I still sound very much like a foreigner. I could maybe pass for Polish...
The primacy of English, this discussion and me are shortly going to be rendered redundant by ubiquitous machine translation anyway.
I disagree. I don't doubt your competence in languages but I've met and done business in as many international countries as you have (all over the world) in the engineering industry and my experience is very different to yours.
I also suspect your perspectives are strongly influenced by your firm political beliefs, which you're not exactly shy of advertising on here in all their glory.
Nonsense. It means English people can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world. That is a big advantage for us.
Being a native speaker of "proper" English also carries prestige and weight.
Rubbish. I work for a French company in Russia. There are multiple languages used for informal communications but all official communications and meetings etc are in English. Nobody cares if you are native speaker or not except that the worst speakers of English are usually native English speakers.
In the third quarter of last year, 51% of the country’s total trade in goods and services (exports plus imports) was with the rest of the EU. The figures for exports were 46% for total trade and 49% for goods.
I wouldn’t claim to know much about job creation, and there are certainly more qualified people commenting here. I have however studied languages, and I think it is underestimated the importance of the English language. English is a convergence of the Northern European Germanic languages and Latin based Romance languages. This amongst other things has led to the international business language being English (much to the displeasure of the French). It is one of the reasons that explains why people travel through all of Europe to get to U.K. for new life through Asylum etc.
Now I’m not trying to hark back to Empire here like some of the Brexiteers - this is a structural advantage not related to but assisted by Empire and spread of English through commonwealth and US influence.
As such I think the role of London as an international business centre will probably remain
Yep - London and the SE East will be fine post-Brexit.
The dramatically.
Nonsense. It means English people can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world. That is a big advantage for us.
Being a native speaker of "proper" English also carries prestige and weight.
If you need the 'prestige and weight' of speaking "proper English" then you are a sad human being almost certainly without talent.
Oh ...and a fascist to boot.
Bloody hell, Roger - it's not fascist to believe that being a native English speaker confers business advantages. It's just misguided. Don't let true fascists off the hook by waving the term around so freely. You owe Mr Royale an apology.
Like you I work all over the world (32 countries at the last count) and I meet Colonel Blimps like Casino Royale all too often. My work is freelance and very competitive and thus a survival of those who can do their jobs well. The bane of my life is meeting clowns who think being from England alone makes them more gifted than the locals.
Simon Coveney on Marr reiterates there cannot be a Withdrawal Agreement without a backstop or a time limit beyond a review and no separate UK Irish Agreement to replace it. However he says Ireland will support an extension to Article 50 if Parliament votes for it
Of course he’s going to say that. The important question is what will the border look like the day after no deal? If it’s the same as the day before, with no customs checkpoints and soldiers stopping vehicles at the border, then everyone agrees there isn’t going to be a hard border and we can sign the deal minus the backstop which makes everyone’s life easier.
I don't think Labours "permanent customs union" is quite the same as the EU's one. A significant number of Tories would probably have no problem with the Labour one as described. The point is that isn't remotely on offer.
The Government's position on leaving the Single Market, Customs Union etc isn't due to ideological opposition to those things in isolation. It is because being in them imposes other restrictions (most obviously Freedom of Movement, also "ability to strike own trade deals) and they've had to pick between the two.
Labour's position is effectively that under their brilliant negotiating the EU would give in on these points.
Labour is not bothered about negotiating trade deals, hence they want GB to stay in the customs union but not the single market. At the moment with 301 MPs having already voted for staying in a Customs Union last year and the EU saying they will accept that that looks the likeliest Brexit outcome
The EU in general and Ireland in particular seem to eeds to do that
Thing is, while I don't see much hope in passing the deal sans backstop and expecting the EU to accept that, it is technically us coming up with a new se but it is not as though May would be going off without backing.
But I see no ems to actually want to go through with. But they are not about to throw Ireland under the bus.
Setting aside for the moment that the U.K. has not handled this process well
Do you not think it extraordinary that a group of mature western democracies cannot agree a mutually sensible separation?
Politicians should be able to look beyond the “but they told us to fuck off” line some on here like
The fundamental strategic interest of the West is having a close relationship between the EU and the U.K. with both being prosperous. The EU (and Ireland - internal politics with Varadker worrying about being outflanked by SF - is hugely to blame for this possible mess).
For many European countries the EU is an emotional project and the fact the UK voted to Leave has also been treated very emotionally as a consequence.
The irony is the total inability of the EU to understand the very different emotions it can itself provoke in the UK just by being emotional itself.
That’s my point: countries have interests not emotions. (To bastardise a well known quote). They are undermining their strategic interests by allowing their emotions to rule. That’s a failure of an entire political class.
Yes that May be so. We're simultaneously told how ruthless and pragmatic they are and that they are emotionally hurt and being all 'Just sod off' at the prospect of getting it resolved.
Whoever's fault this mess is, primarily ours, the EU have a great interest in seeing it resolved and are far more able to be politically flexible to do that. They have also consistently underestimated what the UK will accept and do. Again whether you think us reasonable or not is not the point, they key is they think we won't do things which we will, and they mess up tactically as a result.
Right now they and the Irish are hurtling toward either remain or No deal. If they get lucky it will be the former but the unwillingness to last minute fudge, which we know the EU can do, could cause no deal.
And the EU and Ireland are showing they are fine with no deal.
The backstop represents an unusually favourable position for the UK, not one in which the EU would want us staying indefinitely, and its detail represents something of a negotiating success for the PM. It's her lack of strategy for landing the deal and her inability to involve and then sell to her colleagues (edit/ coupled with their intransigence, as Edmund says) that have led to the crisis, not any overreach by the EU. It is in all of our interests to make sure the settlement protects the fragile peace in Ireland and not consequential on some evil intent by our neighbours.
Therefore I don't buy Alastair's lead at all. Although the historical stuff about Turkey, about which I was broadly aware having read the Mandolin guy's other books, is interesting and little known.
This is one of the most frustrating things about the whole situation. If not framed universally as something that the EU desires that "traps" the UK into the customs union in perpetuity, it would be realised that the backstop is actually something far more desirable to the UK than the EU. It is in many ways only the fetish that "no deal is nothing to fear" that prevents this from being recognised.
Because May's "deal" is by no means the end state - there are significant negotiations on future trading relationships that still need to be done and have barely commenced. Without the backstop, the potential for no deal simply comes around again in 2-3 years time - with all the hard brexiteers claiming that the EU are offering us a shit deal and the whole current scenario repeating itself. The backstop takes no deal off the table, and allows sensible negotiations with a lesser threat of blackmail being played on both sides.
If this is the case how come an unwillingness to time limit it? That might be enough to save it.
Whether it is primarily good for the UK, or good for the EU, or actually mutually beneficial because it removes the trade negotiations being infected by threats of an outcome that nobody wants (no deal), it is pretty obvious that a backstop with a time limit is not a backstop.
And by the way - what is the period attached to this "time limit" that would make it acceptable? 1 yr, 2yrs, 5yrs, 10?
No real interest either, I have something of a natural aversion to countries that are North and South (or East West but it seems rarer) from when I was young, why not be united, but then I would be more than happy for Ireland to be united within the UK and then happier still for us to all be united within a larger construct which is maybe somewhat the case in the EU.
I guess you must deplore that much of your leader's parliamentary career was hugely interested in, not to say obsessed with, the construct of Ireland as a nation. Of course as a late convert to political realism, Corbyn (as with so many other areas) has learned to keep his trap shut on the issue.
Some of what Britain did in N. Ireland was terrible and deserved attention, my natural lean would probably be for the country to be united but it isn't my number one issue.
Not sure why that would lead to me deploring him... Would you deplore the SNP if a few decades ago if it spent some time on an issue you sorta agreed with but wasn't your first priority?
You've mixed up leaders and parties in your comparison. Jim Sillars is (assuming he's still a member) on the left of the SNP, which I sorta agree with. He also supports Brexit being undemocratically imposed on Scotland. If he was SNP leader I'd deplore him even more than I do now.
In the third quarter of last year, 51% of the country’s total trade in goods and services (exports plus imports) was with the rest of the EU. The figures for exports were 46% for total trade and 49% for goods.
What's fascinating is the high numbers of self-employed people in the job stats and also the number of over 50s entering the work force. It's quite possible both are long-term trends. My economic objection to Brexit has always been that it will make the UK a far less enticing investment opportunity and that it will lead to a lot of jobs dependent on Single Market access moving to other parts of Europe. Both still look inevitable to me.
Yep - London and the SE East will be fine post-Brexit.
The thing about languages is that they can be learned and the fact that English is a universal language actually makes the fact we speak it a lot less important! Across the world young people are becoming familiar with English and may speak it it to a very high standard - even in France! I remember when I lived in Spain many years ago knowledge of English outside the big cities was almost non-existent. That has changed dramatically.
Nonsense. It means English people can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world. That is a big advantage for us.
Being a native speaker of "proper" English also carries prestige and weight.
If you need the 'prestige and weight' of speaking "proper English" then you are a sad human being almost certainly without talent.
Oh ...and a fascist to boot.
Ahh the inevitable ignorant commentm. Firstly not sure how you can understand the word ‘proper’ as meaning fascist. The reason so many come to work in service industries here is so that they can work and learn English. I have never met someone who has worked in the service industry abroad in order to improve their prospects in a career outside of hospitality. On the other hand I have met plenty of Europeans normally coming here to learn English but work in hospitality in order to improve their prospects in all forms of business
It is no coincidence that they go for much the same people the right wing press go for which are for all intents and purposes the Tories (or their supporters) Anna Soubry and others starting to get the same negative attention many Labour MPs suffer is no coincidence. Some of the biggest nutters and the ones who take action usually have no direct links themselves but they share the same opponents.
I’m not going to drop this. The right wing nutters are in Britain first, and their ilk. They are not part of the Tories. Some newspapers talk about similar things but that is just the nature of tabloids. If you put their extreme propaganda next to a tabloid they would be much more extreme. You can hardly say Anna Soubry does not invite the criticism - there are other pro European MPs who do not court the media like she does. She gets criticism because of it, not that this is right where it is plain abusive or threats.
For clarity in Labour, and Momentum which I count as affiiliated, the extremists are in the movement after the £3 entry program. It is people lol Williamson on the front bench. For the Tories it is like your third cousin once removed being racist, for Labour it is like your fiancée being racist and you are getting married next week because you like their views.
Anna Soubry is not the only Tory MP who gets abused. Any Tory MP, especially a woman, gets a lot of abuse.
Diane Abbott tops the list of abused woman MPs, a favourite target of the Tory supporters in right wing press and a favourite of the threatening far right types...
The backstop represents an unusually favourable position for the UK, not one in which the EU would want us staying indefinitely, and its detail represents something of a negotiating success for the PM. It's her lack of strategy for landing the deal and her inability to involve and then sell to her colleagues (edit/ coupled with their intransigence, as Edmund says) that have led to the crisis, not any overreach by the EU. It is in all of our interests to make sure the settlement protects the fragile peace in Ireland and not consequential on some evil intent by our neighbours.
Therefore I don't buy Alastair's lead at all. Although the historical stuff about Turkey, about which I was broadly aware having read the Mandolin guy's other books, is interesting and little known.
This is one of the most frustrating things about the whole situation. If not framed universally as something that the EU desires that "traps" the UK into the customs union in perpetuity, it would be realised that the backstop is actually something far more desirable to the UK than the EU. It is in many ways only the fetish that "no deal is nothing to fear" that prevents this from being recognised.
Because May's "deal" is by no means the end state - there are significant negotiations on future trading relationships that still need to be done and have barely commenced. Without the backstop, the potential for no deal simply comes around again in 2-3 years time - with all the hard brexiteers claiming that the EU are offering us a shit deal and the whole current scenario repeating itself. The backstop takes no deal off the table, and allows sensible negotiations with a lesser threat of blackmail being played on both sides.
If this is the case how come an unwillingness to time limit it? That might be enough to save it.
Whether it is primarily good for the UK, or good for the EU, or actually mutually beneficial because it removes the trade negotiations being infected by threats of an outcome that nobody wants (no deal), it is pretty obvious that a backstop with a time limit is not a backstop.
And by the way - what is the period attached to this "time limit" that would make it acceptable? 1 yr, 2yrs, 5yrs, 10?
I think it’s the indefinite aspect of it that makes it unpalatable to so many. We become tied into something with perpetuity. Something that is supposed to be temporary becomes permanent. Like Income Tax.
The backstop represents an unusually favourable position for the UK, not one in which the EU would want us staying indefinitely, and its detail represents something of a negotiating success for the PM. It's her lack of strategy for landing the deal and her inability to involve and then sell to her colleagues (edit/ coupled with their intransigence, as Edmund says) that have led to the crisis, not any overreach by the EU. It is in all of our interests to make sure the settlement protects the fragile peace in Ireland and not consequential on some evil intent by our neighbours.
Therefore I don't buy Alastair's lead at all. Although the historical stuff about Turkey, about which I was broadly aware having read the Mandolin guy's other books, is interesting and little known.
This is one of the most frustrating things about the whole situation. If not framed universally as something that the EU desires that "traps" the UK into the customs union in perpetuity, it would be realised that the backstop is actually something far more desirable to the UK than the EU. It is in many ways only the fetish that "no deal is nothing to fear" that prevents this from being recognised.
Because May's "deal" is by no means the end state - there are significant negotiations on future trading relationships that still need to be done and have barely commenced. Without the backstop, the potential for no deal simply comes around again in 2-3 years time - with all the hard brexiteers claiming that the EU are offering us a shit deal and the whole current scenario repeating itself. The backstop takes no deal off the table, and allows sensible negotiations with a lesser threat of blackmail being played on both sides.
If this is the case how come an unwillingness to time limit it? That might be enough to save it.
Whether it is primarily good for the UK, or good for the EU, or actually mutually beneficial because it removes the trade negotiations being infected by threats of an outcome that nobody wants (no deal), it is pretty obvious that a backstop with a time limit is not a backstop.
And by the way - what is the period attached to this "time limit" that would make it acceptable? 1 yr, 2yrs, 5yrs, 10?
A time limited backstop should have no reason to be longer than the a50 notice
May's red lines have defined the parameters advice in advance of announcing them and how much notice she took of any advice she was given.
It is probably accurate to say that she took little advice and little heed of any advice she did receive. Hence Ivan Rogers departure and the painted corner we’re now in.
I think a soft Norway style arrangement, outside the governing structures but subject.
Norway was closed off by a campaign of xenophobic lies. Arguing for it now is the dishonest Leavers’ attempt to have their cake and eat it; just another group who want compromise on their own terms.
you have a very bad case on Adonisitis
see a doctor
It’s weird. A Norway style agreement is a reasonable compromise. Yet remainers and leavers reject it most forcefully. For the bulk of people, for the bulk of their experience, been in the EEA but out of the customs union will make little difference. A customs agreement at some level would need to be negotiated that facilitates trade with Ireland and the rest of the Eu. That can be put together through the the two years wa. In the EEA the uk gets to piggy back on all the existing trad agreements, it binds the uk and the rest of the Eu to honour free movement of labour and mutual recognition of rights.
The Eu keep us in their influence, they’ll be happy with that, citizens can freely live and move around the EU that will please the younger generations who consider this quite important, businesses can trade freely with a common set of rules, and importantly have the jurisdiction of the ECJ to stop non tarif barriers that other member states will be putting up as soon as we are off. We can chase the magical unicorns of trade deals if we so wish.
It is Cakism, in the sense that that is what other states like Norway Iceland and Switzerland already have.
It also largely puts to bed the whole damn thing. Norway as an end point not a step on a journey.
May is dying in a ditch to end free movement when Labour, who have never met an immigrant they haven’t wanted to shower with money will abandon as soon as they take control.
It’s cakism because it is the polar opposite of what Leave campaigned for. But you like it so you hope everyone is going to forget that inconvenient fact.
He in particular seems to very eager to have no deal, I hope for Ireland's sake it is not as bad as feared because he sure doesn't care if it hits them.
Why would I be upset that Labour does not condone racism against BAME groups? I wish that were the case.
Why would an anti-racist party allow Chris Williamson to sit on its benches in the Commons or allow Jim Sheridan to remain a member?
Why would it allow all those MPs who voted for the hostile environment policy?
For Why?
Look, a squirrel.
Can you name me any Labour MPs who voted for the hostile environment policy? I agree that all those who did should be thrown out of the party.
David Lammy, Diane Abbott, John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn all voted against, the rest voted for it to pass.... through their abstention. Ahem, my story and I am sticking to it.
Bit of a stretch in the voting for / abstaining but I wonder if you would really be happy getting rid of all the MPs bar those for not opposing racism?
I assume you would delighted if someone outside of that list (from the progress wing) was leader instead, because let's be honest the shouting racism is just a political tool to get what you want.
Why is Jim Sheridan still a member of the Labour party? Why is Chris Williamson still a Labour MP. Why was Jenny Rathbone allowed back into Labour?
It is true that I would love an anti-racist Labour party and that I opposed Jeremy Corbyn's leadership in 2015 and 2016 - and continue to oppose it now - because he has stood shoulder to shoulder with anti-Semites for decades. I make absolutely no apologies for that. I would have no problem at all with an anti-racist Labour leader who wanted to nationalise the railways and other utilities. But if you want to pretend otherwise, so be it.
He in particular seems to very eager to have no deal, I hope for Ireland's sake it is not as bad as feared because he sure doesn't care if it hits them.
What happens if Ireland does nothing in the case of a No Deal and leaves the border as it is? Clearly it would make life easier for the Irish, but how would it help the UK in practical terms?
Nonsense. It means English people can communicate and get work or do business anywhere in the world. That is a big advantage for us.
Being a native speaker of "proper" English also carries prestige and weight.
Rubbish. I work for a French company in Russia. There are multiple languages used for informal communications but all official communications and meetings etc are in English. Nobody cares if you are native speaker or not except that the worst speakers of English are usually native English speakers.
An entertaining piece as always but I think that the premise upon which it is based in flawed. What the HoC has been asked to approve is a 500 odd page document which sets out the terms of our leaving. It ties up our budgetary responsibilities, it provides a structure for at least goods for a transitional period and it agrees how a number of existing arrangements are to be continued. The declaration which came with it looks pretty aspirational to me, what a lawyer would call an agreement to agree which is unenforceable.
In short for all the sound and fury this is not Versailles or Sevres but the armistice which brings hostilities to an end before any treaty is agreed. Like an armistice the WA does set parameters within which it is expected those subsequent discussions are to take place but it is not binding in that respect (other than, possibly, the back stop).
I am not sure if it is depressing or hopeful that we still have much more of this to come and it will matter a lot more than anything agreed to date. Will we be able to agree equivalence of regulation for financial services for the longer run, will Dutch lawyers still be able to come to the Court of Session and represent their clients as they did a few years ago, will financial products created and regulated in London be freely available and enforceable across the continent, will we still operate the European Arrest Warrant, share intelligence, enforce each others decrees, etc etc?
What I think is clear is that our present government and indeed our PM have done a very, very poor job to date. They have been disunited, secretive, incompetent, weak and unfocused. That cannot be the approach for the next stage. We need people in charge who have some concept of what they are doing. Finding people like that is not looking straightforward at the moment. If May moves on, as she surely must, is there a way back for Osborne? I would like a team of him and Mandelson to lead a technical team that negotiates our trade agreement. We will get a better deal and a better relationship with the EU going forward without the resentments that Alastair fears.
Comments
Because May's "deal" is by no means the end state - there are significant negotiations on future trading relationships that still need to be done and have barely commenced. Without the backstop, the potential for no deal simply comes around again in 2-3 years time - with all the hard brexiteers claiming that the EU are offering us a shit deal and the whole current scenario repeating itself. The backstop takes no deal off the table, and allows sensible negotiations with a lesser threat of blackmail being played on both sides.
The leave leavers and the remain remainers would still shout betrayal, but the middle 80% would recognise a compromise that honours the absolute mandate to leave, while acknowledging that the result was exceptionally close.
TM deal is the best compromise otherwise just stay
Oh ...and a fascist to boot.
For about 9 months after the referendum result all we heard from Europe was that the four freedoms were indivisible and we couldn't be in the Single Market and end FoM. May decided that honouring the result meant ending FoM and therefore on EU leaders red lines that meant leaving the SM.
If EU leaders were more flexible and willing to consider having a Single Market without FoM then May would have probably acted differently. But they didn't.
Not sure why that would lead to me deploring him... Would you deplore the SNP if a few decades ago if it spent some time on an issue you sorta agreed with but wasn't your first priority?
For clarity in Labour, and Momentum which I count as affiiliated, the extremists are in the movement after the £3 entry program. It is people lol Williamson on the front bench. For the Tories it is like your third cousin once removed being racist, for Labour it is like your fiancée being racist and you are getting married next week because you like their views.
But, you delight in denigrating your own country and revelling in sorrow and demise, so I'm not surprised at this latest meme of yours.
https://www.debate.org/opinions/in-a-poll-asking-americans-whether-theyd-ever-been-decapitated-4-of-respondents-replied-that-they-had-been-are-americans-afraid-to-admit-they-dont-know-something
It’s almost as if men and women who are married can hold different views.
For all the tears from many on the right about rhetoric this really affected people's lives yet the people claiming Labour are racist don't seem to want to target the MPs who actually supported these racist policies. Why?
The last Flat Earth UK Convention was held between27-29, April 2018
see a doctor
Oh and this has nothing to do with country. Brits represent a minority of native English speakers.
Maybe that is part of the problem.
In all seriousness I encounter fascination that I'm truly an English English speaker when I go abroad.
This unlocks doors for me, rightly or wrongly, but you have to also be good at your job.
The point 8 forgot to make earlier is that young people and professionals will still be looking to come to the U.K. to improve their language skills if possible, as there is no better way to improve than living in the country and communicating with native speakers. This is a downside of Brexit that is under appreciated- we get fantastic and ambitious professionals and students coming here to learn and improve English skills which benefits our economy.
Can you name me any Labour MPs who voted for the hostile environment policy? I agree that all those who did should be thrown out of the party.
We all know what's he's like and it's priced into his posts on here now, which I use purely as a benchmark to triangulate how right others are.
The Conservatives and their supporters in right wing press put out far worse stuff than Labour/Momentum this is why their outliers and those more extreme have been threatening and worse to MPs, specifically MPs who oppose the Tories, or are Tories and oppose some part of their policy such as Anna Soubry.
Gove is perhaps the only one who could really unite both wings properly.
If you go look back to the time before negotiations started, the border was only ever mentioned in the context of movement of people. They just dropped the ball and didn't consider the red lines properly.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/09/britain-to-push-post-brexit-uk-immigration-controls-back-to-irish-border
Britain is seeking to shift the frontline of immigration controls to Ireland’s ports and airports to avoid having to introduce a “hard border” between north and south after the UK leaves the European Union, the Guardian has learned.
Being a native Russian speaker is a different matter. Very, very few foreigners achieve true fluency due to very subtle conventions of vernacular emphasis. I lived in Russia for 9 years and on my very best day I still sound very much like a foreigner. I could maybe pass for Polish...
The primacy of English, this discussion and me are shortly going to be rendered redundant by ubiquitous machine translation anyway.
We might just have to agree to disagree on this.
Hmm.
are you still a reservist ?
Bit of a stretch in the voting for / abstaining but I wonder if you would really be happy getting rid of all the MPs bar those for not opposing racism?
Edit: Obviously not those MPs who weren't MPs yet.
I assume you would delighted if someone outside of that list (from the progress wing) was leader instead, because let's be honest the shouting racism is just a political tool to get what you want.
I am not denigrating the UK by pointing this out. It is a statement of fact.
The Eu keep us in their influence, they’ll be happy with that, citizens can freely live and move around the EU that will please the younger generations who consider this quite important, businesses can trade freely with a common set of rules, and importantly have the jurisdiction of the ECJ to stop non tarif barriers that other member states will be putting up as soon as we are off. We can chase the magical unicorns of trade deals if we so wish.
It is Cakism, in the sense that that is what other states like Norway Iceland and Switzerland already have.
It also largely puts to bed the whole damn thing. Norway as an end point not a step on a journey.
May is dying in a ditch to end free movement when Labour, who have never met an immigrant they haven’t wanted to shower with money will abandon as soon as they take control.
I wouldn’t agree with that approach but they have the authority to do it
The fundamental tap point is that while Stormont is suspended the U.K. government is rightly keeping things “ticking over” without making fundamental changes.
To amend the abortion laws would be a fundamental change. I personally believe it would be a good thing, but it’s not an urgent decision and it’s one that should be left to NI.
I also suspect your perspectives are strongly influenced by your firm political beliefs, which you're not exactly shy of advertising on here in all their glory.
Whoever's fault this mess is, primarily ours, the EU have a great interest in seeing it resolved and are far more able to be politically flexible to do that. They have also consistently underestimated what the UK will accept and do. Again whether you think us reasonable or not is not the point, they key is they think we won't do things which we will, and they mess up tactically as a result.
Right now they and the Irish are hurtling toward either remain or No deal. If they get lucky it will be the former but the unwillingness to last minute fudge, which we know the EU can do, could cause no deal.
And the EU and Ireland are showing they are fine with no deal.
Presumably they mean MACA and MACP.
Martial law sounds scarier (only saw the headline).
And by the way - what is the period attached to this "time limit" that would make it acceptable? 1 yr, 2yrs, 5yrs, 10?
Jim Sillars is (assuming he's still a member) on the left of the SNP, which I sorta agree with. He also supports Brexit being undemocratically imposed on Scotland. If he was SNP leader I'd deplore him even more than I do now.
The reason so many come to work in service industries here is so that they can work and learn English. I have never met someone who has worked in the service industry abroad in order to improve their prospects in a career outside of hospitality.
On the other hand I have met plenty of Europeans normally coming here to learn English but work in hospitality in order to improve their prospects in all forms of business
Another complete coincidence I'm sure....
It is true that I would love an anti-racist Labour party and that I opposed Jeremy Corbyn's leadership in 2015 and 2016 - and continue to oppose it now - because he has stood shoulder to shoulder with anti-Semites for decades. I make absolutely no apologies for that. I would have no problem at all with an anti-racist Labour leader who wanted to nationalise the railways and other utilities. But if you want to pretend otherwise, so be it.
Idiot.
In short for all the sound and fury this is not Versailles or Sevres but the armistice which brings hostilities to an end before any treaty is agreed. Like an armistice the WA does set parameters within which it is expected those subsequent discussions are to take place but it is not binding in that respect (other than, possibly, the back stop).
I am not sure if it is depressing or hopeful that we still have much more of this to come and it will matter a lot more than anything agreed to date. Will we be able to agree equivalence of regulation for financial services for the longer run, will Dutch lawyers still be able to come to the Court of Session and represent their clients as they did a few years ago, will financial products created and regulated in London be freely available and enforceable across the continent, will we still operate the European Arrest Warrant, share intelligence, enforce each others decrees, etc etc?
What I think is clear is that our present government and indeed our PM have done a very, very poor job to date. They have been disunited, secretive, incompetent, weak and unfocused. That cannot be the approach for the next stage. We need people in charge who have some concept of what they are doing. Finding people like that is not looking straightforward at the moment. If May moves on, as she surely must, is there a way back for Osborne? I would like a team of him and Mandelson to lead a technical team that negotiates our trade agreement. We will get a better deal and a better relationship with the EU going forward without the resentments that Alastair fears.
But confidence certainly helps in business, of course.