The 48% who didn''t vote for the blitz could stay up top, yelling to the Heinkels "not in my name...."
After all, they wouldn't have put any efforts into building those shelters.
Err. I think the analogy here is that Brexit is the Blitz if half the people in the shelter had ordered the bombing themselves.
Neither analogy works very well. Brexit was voted on by people who know they will gain nothing by voting for it other than the pleasure of making life more difficult for those whose opportunities and livelihoods will be damaged. They are simply vandals. No more no less. The same mentality as people who destroy bus shelters to hear the glass shatter.
Roger are you really a Leaver pretending to be a Remainer? Of course there were genuine concerns; sadly Remain didn't deal with them sensibly. Nor were people enthused to get out on the street.
What concerns that make sense? The young have concerns about the elderly and infirm and those who are going to damage the planet long after we're gone. That's what being a decent citizen is all about. Why must we sympathise with the concerns of people who don't like foreigners? It seems ridiculous. You can think of many justifications for not wanting them around or any selfishness or prejudice but it doesn't mean we should give them weight.
Of course now separately she is likely to be struck off.
Well, if you ignore that she spent several years training as a solicitor, during which her duties to comply at all times with the law were spelt out at length, isn't covered by "failure to respond to warnings or concerns expressed by others about the offender’s behaviour".....
Ms Cyclefree wisely comments at 9 that 'Brexiteers have had the best part of 3 years to come up with a realistic plan. They have failed to do so. It is this - not any great admiration of the EU - which has driven me to the view that, for the moment, we are better off Remaining.'
While I support the idea of the EU I'm quite prepared to be critical of it, but I think that Ms Cyclefree has hit the nail on the head. A prosperous Britain outside the EU, at least in the next 25 years is akin to fairyland.
The 48% who didn''t vote for the blitz could stay up top, yelling to the Heinkels "not in my name...."
After all, they wouldn't have put any efforts into building those shelters.
Err. I think the analogy here is that Brexit is the Blitz if half the people in the shelter had ordered the bombing themselves.
Neither analogy works very well. Brexit was voted on by people who know they will gain nothing by voting for it other than the pleasure of making life more difficult for those whose opportunities and livelihoods will be damaged. They are simply vandals. No more no less. The same mentality as people who destroy bus shelters to hear the glass shatter.
Roger are you really a Leaver pretending to be a Remainer? Of course there were genuine concerns; sadly Remain didn't deal with them sensibly. Nor were people enthused to get out on the street.
What concerns that make sense? The young have concerns about the elderly and infirm and those who are going to damage the planet long after we're gone. That's what being a decent citizen is all about. Why must we sympathise with the concerns of people who don't like foreigners? It seems ridiculous. You can think of many justifications for not wanting them around or any selfishness or prejudice but it doesn't mean we should give them weight.
I've absolutely no problems with 'foreigners' as foreigners, but I do know of sensible, rational, trustworthy people who believe, with good reason, that FOM resulted, in some areas of work, in lower wages for Brits.
6. I could live with an exit with a sensible transition deal followed by a reasonable FTA. But it is Leavers who are refusing to agree to the WA their government has negotiated. So if they won't live with what they claim to desire - Brexit - I don't see why the rest of us who don't want it should.
7. So if the WA won't pass, then my personal preference, as I have stated on numerous occasions, is for a second referendum so that people can vote on whether they want to go ahead with Brexit on the basis of the WA or Remain. That is the most democratic option.
8. But since that is not, apparently, going to be on offer, I would choose Revoke rather than a No Deal exit. If politicians do Revoke they should explain why & let voters judge at the next election. It is a high risk strategy but there are no good options given that other ways out are being closed off, for no very good reason. A No Deal exit is a risk too far, IMO, for lots of reasons.
9. Brexiteers have had the best part of 3 years to come up with a realistic plan. They have failed to do so. It is this - not any great admiration of the EU - which has driven me to the view that, for the moment, we are better off Remaining.
10. And when criticising me for this view (as plenty have done), there is no point listing out all the things wrong with the EU. I agree with many of those criticisms, have made them myself both above and below the line. But criticism is not a plan for action, for the future. It is backward looking. Easy to criticise. Harder to propose. We all know the "push" factors. What we're waiting for are the "pull" ones. Something more than "Let's clap our hands & believe in fairies" is needed.
This happens all the time. To take an easy example, income tax policy and MP salaries. The 60% tax trap is not an issue for them. Non-taxable benefit expenses are different to the ones which apply to you or I.
So, according to that report, Boston is booming because 10 years ago it was a wasteland with lots of boarded up shops that immigrants re-opened and now it is thriving again. It has low unemployment too.
But the key issue is that the locals "Doan like forriners! They speak funny...."
It is about prejudice, not economics.
Keep not listening. It's why, in a second referendum situation, leave would win again.
If you post up articles saying that immigrants regenerated a town and the indigenous folk do not like hearing languages other than English then what sort of reply do you expect to get?
I am past the whole Leave / Remain thing. I still believe that Remaining is best and Leaving is national self-harm, but I am resigned to the country leaving on a WTO basis and I will find the fallout interesting to watch.
Basically - I no longer give a f**k. My country (as was) has gone. The UK is now nothing other than a bipolar mess.
Of course now separately she is likely to be struck off.
Well, if you ignore that she spent several years training as a solicitor, during which her duties to comply at all times with the law were spelt out at length, isn't covered by "failure to respond to warnings or concerns expressed by others about the offender’s behaviour".....
Most commercial solicitors seem to forget their duty to the court or that they are officers of the court.
Neither analogy works very well. Brexit was voted on by people who know they will gain nothing by voting for it other than the pleasure of making life more difficult for those whose opportunities and livelihoods will be damaged. They are simply vandals. No more no less. The same mentality as people who destroy bus shelters to hear the glass shatter.
Roger are you really a Leaver pretending to be a Remainer? Of course there were genuine concerns; sadly Remain didn't deal with them sensibly. Nor were people enthused to get out on the street.
What concerns that make sense? The young have concerns about the elderly and infirm and those who are going to damage the planet long after we're gone. That's what being a decent citizen is all about. Why must we sympathise with the concerns of people who don't like foreigners? It seems ridiculous. You can think of many justifications for not wanting them around or any selfishness or prejudice but it doesn't mean we should give them weight.
There are legitimate concerns about having, say, people from a very different culture living in your country who reject the very basic values of your country eg who think laws should be based on what a particular God thinks rather than on democratic consent. It is entirely reasonable - and, indeed, necessary - to take account of such concerns.
It is also entirely reasonable to take account of people's concerns about the speed of change. People may be fine with foreigners coming to live among them when this is done at a rate and in numbers that everyone is comfortable with. It is also reasonable and, indeed, necessary to take account of whether the costs and benefits of such changes are being fairly shared.
Labelling it as prejudice (even if there is an element of that) and therefore refusing to consider it is what has, in part, landed us in this mess.
Put it this way: if a load of prejudiced and ignorant and, to your mind, uncivilised Hartlepudlians turned up to live next to you in the South of France, didn't mix, didn't learn the language, opened shops selling horrible food with no vegetables, drank beers in public, and generally behaved in a manner which ruined your pleasant home, and the local French reacted by complaining about this, would you just say: "Oh they're just being selfish and prejudiced. So we should ignore their feelings."?
8. But since that is not, apparently, going to be on offer, I would choose Revoke rather than a No Deal exit. If politicians do Revoke they should explain why & let voters judge at the next election. It is a high risk strategy but there are no good options given that other ways out are being closed off, for no very good reason. A No Deal exit is a risk too far, IMO, for lots of reasons.
I agree with all of your reasoning, but sadly I am convinced that (a) May's priorities are immigration control and party unity, (b) Corbyn's priority is blaming everything on the Tories, and, (c) there are not enough MPs on both sides who are willing to defy their party leadership.
6. I could live with an exit with a sensible transition deal followed by a reasonable FTA. But it is Leavers who are refusing to agree to the WA their government has negotiated. So if they won't live with what they claim to desire - Brexit - I don't see why the rest of us who don't want it should.
7. So if the WA won't pass, then my personal preference, as I have stated on numerous occasions, is for a second referendum so that people can vote on whether they want to go ahead with Brexit on the basis of the WA or Remain. That is the most democratic option.
8. But since that is not, apparently, going to be on offer, I would choose Revoke rather than a No Deal exit. If politicians do Revoke they should explain why & let voters judge at the next election. It is a high risk strategy but there are no good options given that other ways out are being closed off, for no very good reason. A No Deal exit is a risk too far, IMO, for lots of reasons.
9. Brexiteers have had the best part of 3 years to come up with a realistic plan. They have failed to do so. It is this - not any great admiration of the EU - which has driven me to the view that, for the moment, we are better off Remaining.
10. And when criticising me for this view (as plenty have done), there is no point listing out all the things wrong with the EU. I agree with many of those criticisms, have made them myself both above and below the line. But criticism is not a plan for action, for the future. It is backward looking. Easy to criticise. Harder to propose. We all know the "push" factors. What we're waiting for are the "pull" ones. Something more than "Let's clap our hands & believe in fairies" is needed.
Excellent posts
Agreed. Though at the this point it’s faintly absurd that Cyclefree should have to explain, yet again, her position on Brexit. I am far from the sharpest reader of PB, but there was nothing in there that came as anything of a revelation.
8. But since that is not, apparently, going to be on offer, I would choose Revoke rather than a No Deal exit. If politicians do Revoke they should explain why & let voters judge at the next election. It is a high risk strategy but there are no good options given that other ways out are being closed off, for no very good reason. A No Deal exit is a risk too far, IMO, for lots of reasons.
I agree with all of your reasoning, but sadly I am convinced that (a) May's priorities are immigration control and party unity, (b) Corbyn's priority is blaming everything on the Tories, and, (c) there are not enough MPs on both sides who are willing to defy their party leadership.
I think this leads us to no deal.
Anyone else watch the BBC2 programme last night? Was suggested that May came in very late in Cameron's discussions with the EU and insisted on immigration control.
So, according to that report, Boston is booming because 10 years ago it was a wasteland with lots of boarded up shops that immigrants re-opened and now it is thriving again. It has low unemployment too.
But the key issue is that the locals "Doan like forriners! They speak funny...."
It is about prejudice, not economics.
Keep not listening. It's why, in a second referendum situation, leave would win again.
If you post up articles saying that immigrants regenerated a town and the indigenous folk do not like hearing languages other than English then what sort of reply do you expect to get?
I am past the whole Leave / Remain thing. I still believe that Remaining is best and Leaving is national self-harm, but I am resigned to the country leaving on a WTO basis and I will find the fallout interesting to watch.
Basically - I no longer give a f**k. My country (as was) has gone. The UK is now nothing other than a bipolar mess.
The article I posted was a balanced one. It pointed out that regeneration had taken place as a result of the influx of peope, yes. But it also pointed out that people felt their wages were suppressed and their quality of life had been affected by competition for housing and public services, as well as changing their community beyond recognition. But, as I say, keep on ignoring those concerns. See how far it gets you if there's a second referendum. Freedom of movement has its winners and its losers. It is not hard to see why those who feel they have lost as a result of it voted to leave, and would vote to leave again.
8. But since that is not, apparently, going to be on offer, I would choose Revoke rather than a No Deal exit. If politicians do Revoke they should explain why & let voters judge at the next election. It is a high risk strategy but there are no good options given that other ways out are being closed off, for no very good reason. A No Deal exit is a risk too far, IMO, for lots of reasons.
I agree with all of your reasoning, but sadly I am convinced that (a) May's priorities are immigration control and party unity, (b) Corbyn's priority is blaming everything on the Tories, and, (c) there are not enough MPs on both sides who are willing to defy their party leadership.
I think this leads us to no deal.
Yes. It is why I am so irritated by the whole thing. This total fixation on the survival of out-of-date ideologies (both in the Tories and Labour) combined with the "throw the country under the bus" attitude.
Ms Cyclefree wisely comments at 9 that 'Brexiteers have had the best part of 3 years to come up with a realistic plan. They have failed to do so. It is this - not any great admiration of the EU - which has driven me to the view that, for the moment, we are better off Remaining.'
While I support the idea of the EU I'm quite prepared to be critical of it, but I think that Ms Cyclefree has hit the nail on the head. A prosperous Britain outside the EU, at least in the next 25 years is akin to fairyland.
I'm enthusiastically pro-EU Federal superstate, but I don't think that's true. The UK can perfectly well succeed outside the EU. You just wouldn't do it this way. You would do it one step at a time and give companies - and government and people - plenty of time to adjust. Keep single market and customs union membership for some time outside the political institutions and then step away one bit at a time.
So, according to that report, Boston is booming because 10 years ago it was a wasteland with lots of boarded up shops that immigrants re-opened and now it is thriving again. It has low unemployment too.
But the key issue is that the locals "Doan like forriners! They speak funny...."
It is about prejudice, not economics.
Keep not listening. It's why, in a second referendum situation, leave would win again.
If you post up articles saying that immigrants regenerated a town and the indigenous folk do not like hearing languages other than English then what sort of reply do you expect to get?
I am past the whole Leave / Remain thing. I still believe that Remaining is best and Leaving is national self-harm, but I am resigned to the country leaving on a WTO basis and I will find the fallout interesting to watch.
Basically - I no longer give a f**k. My country (as was) has gone. The UK is now nothing other than a bipolar mess.
The article I posted was a balanced one. It pointed out that regeneration had taken place as a result of the influx of peope, yes. But it also pointed out that people felt their wages were suppressed and their quality of life had been affected by competition for housing and public services, as well as changing their community beyond recognition. But, as I say, keep on ignoring those concerns. See how far it gets you if there's a second referendum. Freedom of movement has its winners and its losers. It is not hard to see why those who feel they have lost as a result of it voted to leave, and would vote to leave again.
That some people who voted to leave would vote leave again is not in doubt, but that's not enough to win another referendum.
The 48% who didn''t vote for the blitz could stay up top, yelling to the Heinkels "not in my name...."
After all, they wouldn't have put any efforts into building those shelters.
Err. I think the analogy here is that Brexit is the Blitz if half the people in the shelter had ordered the bombing themselves.
Neither analogy works very well. Brexit was voted on by people who know they will gain nothing by voting for it other than the pleasure of making life more difficult for those whose opportunities and livelihoods will be damaged. They are simply vandals. No more no less. The same mentality as people who destroy bus shelters to hear the glass shatter.
Roger are you really a Leaver pretending to be a Remainer? Of course there were genuine concerns; sadly Remain didn't deal with them sensibly. Nor were people enthused to get out on the street.
What concerns that make sense? The young have concerns about the elderly and infirm and those who are going to damage the planet long after we're gone. That's what being a decent citizen is all about. Why must we sympathise with the concerns of people who don't like foreigners? It seems ridiculous. You can think of many justifications for not wanting them around or any selfishness or prejudice but it doesn't mean we should give them weight.
I've absolutely no problems with 'foreigners' as foreigners, but I do know of sensible, rational, trustworthy people who believe, with good reason, that FOM resulted, in some areas of work, in lower wages for Brits.
Sensible, rational and trustworthy they may be, but I don't think they've fully thought it through. Most of the very menial jobs (potato picking, etc) are now carried out almost exclusively by foreigners rather than Brits. Yes, the very few Brits that still work in these areas are likely earning less money than otherwise, but the much larger number of Brits who would otherwise be doing these menial jobs are, instead, earning more money doing better-paying work. So, on average, Brits are almost certainly earning more as a consequence of foreigners taking over the more menial jobs.
8. But since that is not, apparently, going to be on offer, I would choose Revoke rather than a No Deal exit. If politicians do Revoke they should explain why & let voters judge at the next election. It is a high risk strategy but there are no good options given that other ways out are being closed off, for no very good reason. A No Deal exit is a risk too far, IMO, for lots of reasons.
I agree with all of your reasoning, but sadly I am convinced that (a) May's priorities are immigration control and party unity, (b) Corbyn's priority is blaming everything on the Tories, and, (c) there are not enough MPs on both sides who are willing to defy their party leadership.
I think this leads us to no deal.
Anyone else watch the BBC2 programme last night? Was suggested that May came in very late in Cameron's discussions with the EU and insisted on immigration control.
Yes. I found the overall tone rather ploddy to be honest, as if the makers were going through the motions a bit.
I do recall a side comment from Osborne about May being "quiet as usual" during a Cabinet discussion on all this.
So, according to that report, Boston is booming because 10 years ago it was a wasteland with lots of boarded up shops that immigrants re-opened and now it is thriving again. It has low unemployment too.
But the key issue is that the locals "Doan like forriners! They speak funny...."
It is about prejudice, not economics.
Keep not listening. It's why, in a second referendum situation, leave would win again.
If you post up articles saying that immigrants regenerated a town and the indigenous folk do not like hearing languages other than English then what sort of reply do you expect to get?
I am past the whole Leave / Remain thing. I still believe that Remaining is best and Leaving is national self-harm, but I am resigned to the country leaving on a WTO basis and I will find the fallout interesting to watch.
Basically - I no longer give a f**k. My country (as was) has gone. The UK is now nothing other than a bipolar mess.
The article I posted was a balanced one. It pointed out that regeneration had taken place as a result of the influx of peope, yes. But it also pointed out that people felt their wages were suppressed and their quality of life had been affected by competition for housing and public services, as well as changing their community beyond recognition. But, as I say, keep on ignoring those concerns. See how far it gets you if there's a second referendum. Freedom of movement has its winners and its losers. It is not hard to see why those who feel they have lost as a result of it voted to leave, and would vote to leave again.
That some people who voted to leave would vote leave again is not in doubt, but that's not enough to win another referendum.
On freedom of movement, those who might leave for abroad are Remainers and those who would stay at home are Leavers.
The 48% who didn''t vote for the blitz could stay up top, yelling to the Heinkels "not in my name...."
After all, they wouldn't have put any efforts into building those shelters.
Err. I think the analogy here is that Brexit is the Blitz if half the people in the shelter had ordered the bombing themselves.
Neither analogy works very well. Brexit was voted on by people who know they will gain nothing by voting for it other than the pleasure of making life more difficult for those whose opportunities and livelihoods will be damaged. They are simply vandals. No more no less. The same mentality as people who destroy bus shelters to hear the glass shatter.
Roger are you really a Leaver pretending to be a Remainer? Of course there were genuine concerns; sadly Remain didn't deal with them sensibly. Nor were people enthused to get out on the street.
What concerns that make sense? The young have concerns about the elderly and infirm and those who are going to damage the planet long after we're gone. That's what being a decent citizen is all about. Why must we sympathise with the concerns of people who don't like foreigners? It seems ridiculous. You can think of many justifications for not wanting them around or any selfishness or prejudice but it doesn't mean we should give them weight.
I've absolutely no problems with 'foreigners' as foreigners, but I do know of sensible, rational, trustworthy people who believe, with good reason, that FOM resulted, in some areas of work, in lower wages for Brits.
Sensible, rational and trustworthy they may be, but I don't think they've fully thought it through. Most of the very menial jobs (potato picking, etc) are now carried out almost exclusively by foreigners rather than Brits. Yes, the very few Brits that still work in these areas are likely earning less money than otherwise, but the much larger number of Brits who would otherwise be doing these menial jobs are, instead, earning more money doing better-paying work. So, on average, Brits are almost certainly earning more as a consequence of foreigners taking over the more menial jobs.
8. But since that is not, apparently, going to be on offer, I would choose Revoke rather than a No Deal exit. If politicians do Revoke they should explain why & let voters judge at the next election. It is a high risk strategy but there are no good options given that other ways out are being closed off, for no very good reason. A No Deal exit is a risk too far, IMO, for lots of reasons.
I agree with all of your reasoning, but sadly I am convinced that (a) May's priorities are immigration control and party unity, (b) Corbyn's priority is blaming everything on the Tories, and, (c) there are not enough MPs on both sides who are willing to defy their party leadership.
I think this leads us to no deal.
Anyone else watch the BBC2 programme last night? Was suggested that May came in very late in Cameron's discussions with the EU and insisted on immigration control.
Yes. I found the overall tone rather ploddy to be honest, as if the makers were going through the motions a bit.
I do recall a side comment from Osborne about May being "quiet as usual" during a Cabinet discussion on all this.
You would do it one step at a time and give companies - and government and people - plenty of time to adjust. Keep single market and customs union membership for some time outside the political institutions and then step away one bit at a time.
8. But since that is not, apparently, going to be on offer, I would choose Revoke rather than a No Deal exit. If politicians do Revoke they should explain why & let voters judge at the next election. It is a high risk strategy but there are no good options given that other ways out are being closed off, for no very good reason. A No Deal exit is a risk too far, IMO, for lots of reasons.
I agree with all of your reasoning, but sadly I am convinced that (a) May's priorities are immigration control and party unity, (b) Corbyn's priority is blaming everything on the Tories, and, (c) there are not enough MPs on both sides who are willing to defy their party leadership.
I think this leads us to no deal.
Anyone else watch the BBC2 programme last night? Was suggested that May came in very late in Cameron's discussions with the EU and insisted on immigration control.
Yes. I found the overall tone rather ploddy to be honest, as if the makers were going through the motions a bit.
I do recall a side comment from Osborne about May being "quiet as usual" during a Cabinet discussion on all this.
8. But since that is not, apparently, going to be on offer, I would choose Revoke rather than a No Deal exit. If politicians do Revoke they should explain why & let voters judge at the next election. It is a high risk strategy but there are no good options given that other ways out are being closed off, for no very good reason. A No Deal exit is a risk too far, IMO, for lots of reasons.
I agree with all of your reasoning, but sadly I am convinced that (a) May's priorities are immigration control and party unity, (b) Corbyn's priority is blaming everything on the Tories, and, (c) there are not enough MPs on both sides who are willing to defy their party leadership.
I think this leads us to no deal.
Yes. It is why I am so irritated by the whole thing. This total fixation on the survival of out-of-date ideologies (both in the Tories and Labour) combined with the "throw the country under the bus" attitude.
Representative democracy is dead.
But the electorate voted for this. Twice, in fact. It really is a bit rum to be getting angry with Parliament for delivering what the electorate twice voted for.
Sensible, rational and trustworthy they may be, but I don't think they've fully thought it through. Most of the very menial jobs (potato picking, etc) are now carried out almost exclusively by foreigners rather than Brits. Yes, the very few Brits that still work in these areas are likely earning less money than otherwise, but the much larger number of Brits who would otherwise be doing these menial jobs are, instead, earning more money doing better-paying work. So, on average, Brits are almost certainly earning more as a consequence of foreigners taking over the more menial jobs.
I don't think that's how supply and demand works. More supply at the bottom end of the salary gradient doesn't automatically create more jobs higher up; it just creates downward pressure on wages. A few people who would otherwise have found employment in manual labour might be incentivised to seek out skilled work at higher pay, but for the majority of those affected it's a choice between unemployment, and working at an "artificially" reduced rate.
According to the Guardian, the DUP is in favour of the Malthouse proposal because
'There is no better time to advance this alternative given the confusion and disarray which is now manifesting itself in Brussels. This has been displayed both by the contradictory EU statements and the panic stricken behaviour of the Irish government.'
According to Guido, in the absence of a WA, the Malthouse Compromise would offer a “GATT 24 WTO-compliant standstill on trade with no tariffs, no quantitative restrictions and no new barriers for execution" - sounds like full single market access for goods without any of the compromises on FOM, EU regulation and oversight etc.? Weren't they listening in 2016 when the EU ruled this out?
It is a total unicorn wish list yes. But much more importantly it is one the Tory Party can unite around. And that, as we know, is the vital thing.
8. But since that is not, apparently, going to be on offer, I would choose Revoke rather than a No Deal exit. If politicians do Revoke they should explain why & let voters judge at the next election. It is a high risk strategy but there are no good options given that other ways out are being closed off, for no very good reason. A No Deal exit is a risk too far, IMO, for lots of reasons.
I agree with all of your reasoning, but sadly I am convinced that (a) May's priorities are immigration control and party unity, (b) Corbyn's priority is blaming everything on the Tories, and, (c) there are not enough MPs on both sides who are willing to defy their party leadership.
I think this leads us to no deal.
Yes. It is why I am so irritated by the whole thing. This total fixation on the survival of out-of-date ideologies (both in the Tories and Labour) combined with the "throw the country under the bus" attitude.
Representative democracy is dead.
But the electorate voted for this. Twice, in fact. It really is a bit rum to be getting angry with Parliament for delivering what the electorate twice voted for.
In 2017, the electorate voted against a No Deal Brexit.
8. But since that is not, apparently, going to be on offer, I would choose Revoke rather than a No Deal exit. If politicians do Revoke they should explain why & let voters judge at the next election. It is a high risk strategy but there are no good options given that other ways out are being closed off, for no very good reason. A No Deal exit is a risk too far, IMO, for lots of reasons.
I agree with all of your reasoning, but sadly I am convinced that (a) May's priorities are immigration control and party unity, (b) Corbyn's priority is blaming everything on the Tories, and, (c) there are not enough MPs on both sides who are willing to defy their party leadership.
I think this leads us to no deal.
Yes. It is why I am so irritated by the whole thing. This total fixation on the survival of out-of-date ideologies (both in the Tories and Labour) combined with the "throw the country under the bus" attitude.
Representative democracy is dead.
But the electorate voted for this. Twice, in fact. It really is a bit rum to be getting angry with Parliament for delivering what the electorate twice voted for.
They have voted us into an economic meltdown (WTO) and then failing to mitigate it in anyway because a) it would split the Tory party and b) it would split the Labour party.
Brexit is now about party management until the 29th March.
8. But since that is not, apparently, going to be on offer, I would choose Revoke rather than a No Deal exit. If politicians do Revoke they should explain why & let voters judge at the next election. It is a high risk strategy but there are no good options given that other ways out are being closed off, for no very good reason. A No Deal exit is a risk too far, IMO, for lots of reasons.
I agree with all of your reasoning, but sadly I am convinced that (a) May's priorities are immigration control and party unity, (b) Corbyn's priority is blaming everything on the Tories, and, (c) there are not enough MPs on both sides who are willing to defy their party leadership.
I think this leads us to no deal.
Yes. It is why I am so irritated by the whole thing. This total fixation on the survival of out-of-date ideologies (both in the Tories and Labour) combined with the "throw the country under the bus" attitude.
Representative democracy is dead.
But the electorate voted for this. Twice, in fact. It really is a bit rum to be getting angry with Parliament for delivering what the electorate twice voted for.
They have voted us into an economic meltdown (WTO) and then failing to mitigate it in anyway because a) it would split the Tory party and b) it would split the Labour party.
Brexit is now about party management until the 29th March.
Well, we don't try to abolish capitalism because, despite producing much greater prosperity overall, it makes some people worse off than they would otherwise have been.
In the same way, it's absolutely bone-headedly stupid to say that large numbers of young, healthy, unmarried Europeans without children shouldn't be allowed to come here and work, generating fruitful economic activity and paying taxes while making minimal demands on our public services, just because smaller numbers of Europeans may be coming here and doing otherwise.
It's all very well saying concerns about immigration can't just be dismissed. But for God's sake, if our politicians - who are supposed to be skilled at talking if nothing else - are incapable of explaining something so simple and self-evident to the electorate, let them get a proper job - if they're capable of it.
Sensible, rational and trustworthy they may be, but I don't think they've fully thought it through. Most of the very menial jobs (potato picking, etc) are now carried out almost exclusively by foreigners rather than Brits. Yes, the very few Brits that still work in these areas are likely earning less money than otherwise, but the much larger number of Brits who would otherwise be doing these menial jobs are, instead, earning more money doing better-paying work. So, on average, Brits are almost certainly earning more as a consequence of foreigners taking over the more menial jobs.
I don't think that's how supply and demand works. More supply at the bottom end of the salary gradient doesn't automatically create more jobs higher up; it just creates downward pressure on wages. A few people who would otherwise have found employment in manual labour might be incentivised to seek out skilled work at higher pay, but for the majority of those affected it's a choice between unemployment, and working at an "artificially" reduced rate.
If that were true, there would be a positive correlation between immigration and Brit unemployment. There isn't, because supply and demand doesn't work for labour as it does for widgets.
According to the Guardian, the DUP is in favour of the Malthouse proposal because
'There is no better time to advance this alternative given the confusion and disarray which is now manifesting itself in Brussels. This has been displayed both by the contradictory EU statements and the panic stricken behaviour of the Irish government.'
Er....... are they sure?
The world is laughing at Brussels because of its hopeless confusion and disarray.
The world is smiling sympathetically at London because it knows we are in the right. Either that, or it knows the men in white coats are about to pay us a visit.
8. But since that is not, apparently, going to be on offer, I would choose Revoke rather than a No Deal exit. If politicians do Revoke they should explain why & let voters judge at the next election. It is a high risk strategy but there are no good options given that other ways out are being closed off, for no very good reason. A No Deal exit is a risk too far, IMO, for lots of reasons.
I agree with all of your reasoning, but sadly I am convinced that (a) May's priorities are immigration control and party unity, (b) Corbyn's priority is blaming everything on the Tories, and, (c) there are not enough MPs on both sides who are willing to defy their party leadership.
I think this leads us to no deal.
Yes. It is why I am so irritated by the whole thing. This total fixation on the survival of out-of-date ideologies (both in the Tories and Labour) combined with the "throw the country under the bus" attitude.
Representative democracy is dead.
But the electorate voted for this. Twice, in fact. It really is a bit rum to be getting angry with Parliament for delivering what the electorate twice voted for.
They have voted us into an economic meltdown (WTO) and then failing to mitigate it in anyway because a) it would split the Tory party and b) it would split the Labour party.
Brexit is now about party management until the 29th March.
How many countries trade on WTO basis? one, two?
If trading in WTO is so great, why does anyone bother with trade agreements? WTO is a backstop - a starting point. It is the fit-anybody kind of trade deal. It is far, far worse than what we have.
But do not worry - no one gives a d*mn about the economics. Just wave your hand airily and voice a few platitudes and wait for reality to kick you up the backside.
Can't see the Brady amendment passing. Also, the UK needs the extra time anyway - even if you think the EU will cave on the backstop, that won't happen in time for us to leave on 29th March.
Labour whipping for the Cooper amendment appears on the face of it to undermine the theory (which I was starting to give credence to) that they are seeking to drive May to a cliff-edge 'lose lose' choice between no deal and revoke.
Well, we don't try to abolish capitalism because, despite producing much greater prosperity overall, it makes some people worse off than they would otherwise have been.
In the same way, it's absolutely bone-headedly stupid to say that large numbers of young, healthy, unmarried Europeans without children shouldn't be allowed to come here and work, generating fruitful economic activity and paying taxes while making minimal demands on our public services, just because smaller numbers of Europeans may be coming here and doing otherwise.
It's all very well saying concerns about immigration can't just be dismissed. But for God's sake, if our politicians - who are supposed to be skilled at talking if nothing else - are incapable of explaining something so simple and self-evident to the electorate, let them get a proper job - if they're capable of it.
But we mitigate capitalism’s effects.
It is very likely too late now, but Westminster could have done a much better job of addressing the concerns of the country’s Bostons - had they even been considered. Brexit likely won’t do much other than replace those grievances with a whole new set, though.
Well, we don't try to abolish capitalism because, despite producing much greater prosperity overall, it makes some people worse off than they would otherwise have been.
In the same way, it's absolutely bone-headedly stupid to say that large numbers of young, healthy, unmarried Europeans without children shouldn't be allowed to come here and work, generating fruitful economic activity and paying taxes while making minimal demands on our public services, just because smaller numbers of Europeans may be coming here and doing otherwise.
It's all very well saying concerns about immigration can't just be dismissed. But for God's sake, if our politicians - who are supposed to be skilled at talking if nothing else - are incapable of explaining something so simple and self-evident to the electorate, let them get a proper job - if they're capable of it.
But we mitigate capitalism’s effects.
It is very likely too late now, but Westminster could have done a much better job of addressing the concerns of the country’s Bostons - had they even been considered. Brexit likely won’t do much other than replace those grievances with a whole new set, though.
correct
the root causes of disenchantment have been largely ignored as MPs do their blinker visioned Brexit crusade to the exclusion of voters interests
If two and half years hasn't been enough for the UK Govt., how is just another say 3-6 months going to be enough to assist its shit-gathering activities?
snippage....10. And when criticising me for this view (as plenty have done), there is no point listing out all the things wrong with the EU. I agree with many of those criticisms, have made them myself both above and below the line. But criticism is not a plan for action, for the future. It is backward looking. Easy to criticise. Harder to propose. We all know the "push" factors. What we're waiting for are the "pull" ones. Something more than "Let's clap our hands & believe in fairies" is needed.
As a Leaver (and I remain one) I agree with almost everything written here. I think we should take the Deal (as is), poor though it may be. Remain second if that fails. I don't think No deal is going to be viable.
Sensible, rational and trustworthy they may be, but I don't think they've fully thought it through. Most of the very menial jobs (potato picking, etc) are now carried out almost exclusively by foreigners rather than Brits. Yes, the very few Brits that still work in these areas are likely earning less money than otherwise, but the much larger number of Brits who would otherwise be doing these menial jobs are, instead, earning more money doing better-paying work. So, on average, Brits are almost certainly earning more as a consequence of foreigners taking over the more menial jobs.
I don't think that's how supply and demand works. More supply at the bottom end of the salary gradient doesn't automatically create more jobs higher up; it just creates downward pressure on wages. A few people who would otherwise have found employment in manual labour might be incentivised to seek out skilled work at higher pay, but for the majority of those affected it's a choice between unemployment, and working at an "artificially" reduced rate.
This is exactly what the research shows, but only in reference to the pay of *earlier low-skilled immigrants*. Immigration doesn't usually have that effect on the wages of non-immigrants. This is because natives and immigrants aren't direct substitutes: The jobs that immigrants can do efficiently to do are subtly (or sometimes unsubtly) different from jobs that non-immigrants can do efficiently. Although there's *some* overlap, the immigrants also make economic activity viable that wouldn't otherwise have been, and that creates jobs for non-immigrants, many of them better than the ones they'd have had before.
To do the analogy with widgets, you don't want lots of supply of directly competing products, but you do want supply of *complementary* products. For example, if you're making wine glasses, you don't want to have to compete with cheaper wine glasses. But you totally do benefit from cheaper *wine*, because that's complementary, not competitive: The more people can afford wine, the more people will want to buy wine glasses.
snippage....10. And when criticising me for this view (as plenty have done), there is no point listing out all the things wrong with the EU. I agree with many of those criticisms, have made them myself both above and below the line. But criticism is not a plan for action, for the future. It is backward looking. Easy to criticise. Harder to propose. We all know the "push" factors. What we're waiting for are the "pull" ones. Something more than "Let's clap our hands & believe in fairies" is needed.
As a Leaver (and I remain one) I agree with almost everything written here. I think we should take the Deal (as is), poor though it may be. Remain second if that fails. I don't think No deal is going to be viable.
Well after all the times Jezza defied the whip (and if he wasn't leader would himself be defying the whip tonight) Lab leadership won't be able to say much about those that do!
Labour whipping for the Cooper amendment appears on the face of it to undermine the theory (which I was starting to give credence to) that they are seeking to drive May to a cliff-edge 'lose lose' choice between no deal and revoke.
Southam Observer will no doubt be along soon to tell us how Corbyn doing everything to pass a vote to block a No Deal Brexit, is actually a dastardly plot to bring about a No Deal Brexit.
Comments
https://twitter.com/tombarton/status/1090211804108804096
'Brexiteers have had the best part of 3 years to come up with a realistic plan. They have failed to do so. It is this - not any great admiration of the EU - which has driven me to the view that, for the moment, we are better off Remaining.'
While I support the idea of the EU I'm quite prepared to be critical of it, but I think that Ms Cyclefree has hit the nail on the head. A prosperous Britain outside the EU, at least in the next 25 years is akin to fairyland.
https://twitter.com/tombarton/status/1090212658752745479
See Mr P Woosnam.
If you post up articles saying that immigrants regenerated a town and the indigenous folk do not like hearing languages other than English then what sort of reply do you expect to get?
I am past the whole Leave / Remain thing. I still believe that Remaining is best and Leaving is national self-harm, but I am resigned to the country leaving on a WTO basis and I will find the fallout interesting to watch.
Basically - I no longer give a f**k. My country (as was) has gone. The UK is now nothing other than a bipolar mess.
https://twitter.com/tombarton/status/1090213841106014208
It is also entirely reasonable to take account of people's concerns about the speed of change. People may be fine with foreigners coming to live among them when this is done at a rate and in numbers that everyone is comfortable with. It is also reasonable and, indeed, necessary to take account of whether the costs and benefits of such changes are being fairly shared.
Labelling it as prejudice (even if there is an element of that) and therefore refusing to consider it is what has, in part, landed us in this mess.
Put it this way: if a load of prejudiced and ignorant and, to your mind, uncivilised Hartlepudlians turned up to live next to you in the South of France, didn't mix, didn't learn the language, opened shops selling horrible food with no vegetables, drank beers in public, and generally behaved in a manner which ruined your pleasant home, and the local French reacted by complaining about this, would you just say: "Oh they're just being selfish and prejudiced. So we should ignore their feelings."?
I think this leads us to no deal.
Some interesting comments here and there.
Though at the this point it’s faintly absurd that Cyclefree should have to explain, yet again, her position on Brexit. I am far from the sharpest reader of PB, but there was nothing in there that came as anything of a revelation.
Representative democracy is dead.
https://twitter.com/tombarton/status/1090216033238044673
Some of us want to go to the beach, to watch a politically charged and hugely significant football match on a massive TV.
I do recall a side comment from Osborne about May being "quiet as usual" during a Cabinet discussion on all this.
Long-dead magic unicorns are springing back to life all around us. Unicorns of every hue and alignment.
It's the most wonderful time.
'There is no better time to advance this alternative given the confusion and disarray which is now manifesting itself in Brussels. This has been displayed both by the contradictory EU statements and the panic stricken behaviour of the Irish government.'
Er....... are they sure?
But much more importantly it is one the Tory Party can unite around.
And that, as we know, is the vital thing.
https://twitter.com/UKDemockery/status/1089933000572317696
https://twitter.com/CPBritain/status/1089943526857756672
Brexit is now about party management until the 29th March.
In the same way, it's absolutely bone-headedly stupid to say that large numbers of young, healthy, unmarried Europeans without children shouldn't be allowed to come here and work, generating fruitful economic activity and paying taxes while making minimal demands on our public services, just because smaller numbers of Europeans may be coming here and doing otherwise.
It's all very well saying concerns about immigration can't just be dismissed. But for God's sake, if our politicians - who are supposed to be skilled at talking if nothing else - are incapable of explaining something so simple and self-evident to the electorate, let them get a proper job - if they're capable of it.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/427361-dem-2020-candidates-court-puerto-rico-as-long-nomination-contest-looms
The world is smiling sympathetically at London because it knows we are in the right. Either that, or it knows the men in white coats are about to pay us a visit.
But do not worry - no one gives a d*mn about the economics. Just wave your hand airily and voice a few platitudes and wait for reality to kick you up the backside.
That is the only reason Labour leadership will have agreed a 3-line whip on it.
It is very likely too late now, but Westminster could have done a much better job of addressing the concerns of the country’s Bostons - had they even been considered.
Brexit likely won’t do much other than replace those grievances with a whole new set, though.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/29/liz-cheney-republicans-1128132
The Amendment looking to guarantee No Deal is OFF the table
" will undoubtedly end up adding to the risk of No Deal Brexit"
the root causes of disenchantment have been largely ignored as MPs do their blinker visioned Brexit crusade to the exclusion of voters interests
To do the analogy with widgets, you don't want lots of supply of directly competing products, but you do want supply of *complementary* products. For example, if you're making wine glasses, you don't want to have to compete with cheaper wine glasses. But you totally do benefit from cheaper *wine*, because that's complementary, not competitive: The more people can afford wine, the more people will want to buy wine glasses.
So even if it passes, the EU could block it. they won't just let a can kick down the road.
Doesn't mean they didn't mean it, of course.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-2020-presidential-contest-is-wide-open-as-danger-mounts-for-trump-new-washington-post-abc-news-poll-shows/2019/01/28/88a3fd16-227b-11e9-90cd-dedb0c92dc17_story.html
‘Wide open’, but I think the contest is between Biden and Harris.
Has the judge returned, wearing his black cap?