Cyclefree misses the most obvious consequence of Acheson's comments. Those in Britain who thought that losing an Empire was a thing to be regretted were then arrogant enough to think that joining the EEC would provide us with a ready made replacement to rule over. Such was the thinking inside the political classes and the civil service for many years both before and after 1973. It is also the arrogance that has pervaded the Europhile elements of British society for all of our membership - the idea that if only we played a greater role the then EU would be bound to transform into something we could be happy with, something we had remade in our own image.
Even now this is a common delusion repeated on here regularly by Remainers.
And yet the EU was never, ever going to be remoulded in the way we wanted and nor should it. For this reason, amongst many others, we are much better off being out of it for both our sakes and those of the rest of the EU.
Spot on. Those who ask why are we leaving are asking exactly the wrong question. The question should be why did we join ?
It was genuinely interesting to the English that the continentals were setting up a Common Market. Now, after 1789, 1914 and 1939 it was self-evident that Johnny Foreigner really wasn't up to these big projects and they would need our experience in leadership.
We never joined to be equal, we joined to provide the same leadership we had already given, so benevolently to the Irish, the Scots and the Welsh. At first it went to plan and it was England that provided the first leaders of Europe, Henry Plumb, Chris Tugenhat and Roy Jenkins for instance. I think we assumed that like the Welsh, the Scots and the Irish, the French, the Germans at al would become more English than the English.
As early as 1980 Giscard d'Estang famously said he didn't like Margaret Thatcher, "ni comme homme, ni comme femme". But, he wasn't being honest, he didn't like her because she was English.
Only De Gaulle truly had our interests at heart when he said "non".
This is self-pitying tosh. If we'd joined because we thought we should take the lead, we wouldn't have shown the level of disinterest that led some to conclude we were only in it to take what we could get out of it.
We were in it to buy and sell our widgets. Leadership by ud was never on the agenda. Theirs, or ours.
Which is why it may then be forced to come cap-in-hand for a deal on British terms. Which is why it is ONLY by leaving with no deal that the UK has any prospect of gaining the whip hand in the negotiations
Cyclefree misses the most obvious consequence of Acheson's comments. Those in Britain who thought that losing an Empire was a thing to be regretted were then arrogant enough to think that joining the EEC would provide us with a ready made replacement to rule over. Such was the thinking inside the political classes and the civil service for many years both before and after 1973. It is also the arrogance that has pervaded the Europhile elements of British society for all of our membership - the idea that if only we played a greater role the then EU would be bound to transform into something we could be happy with, something we had remade in our own image.
Even now this is a common delusion repeated on here regularly by Remainers.
And yet the EU was never, ever going to be remoulded in the way we wanted and nor should it. For this reason, amongst many others, we are much better off being out of it for both our sakes and those of the rest of the EU.
Spot on. Those who ask why are we leaving are asking exactly the wrong question. The question should be why did we join ?
It was genuinely interesting to the English that the continentals were setting up a Common Market. Now, after 1789, 1914 and 1939 it was self-evident that Johnny Foreigner really wasn't up to these big projects and they would need our experience in leadership.
We never joined to be equal, we joined to provide the same leadership we had already given, so benevolently to the Irish, the Scots and the Welsh. At first it went to plan and it was England that provided the first leaders of Europe, Henry Plumb, Chris Tugenhat and Roy Jenkins for instance. I think we assumed that like the Welsh, the Scots and the Irish, the French, the Germans at al would become more English than the English.
As early as 1980 Giscard d'Estang famously said he didn't like Margaret Thatcher, "ni comme homme, ni comme femme". But, he wasn't being honest, he didn't like her because she was English.
Only De Gaulle truly had our interests at heart when he said "non".
This is self-pitying tosh. If we'd joined because we thought we should take the lead, we wouldn't have shown the level of disinterest that led some to conclude we were only in it to take what we could get out of it.
So you're saying we should never have joined in the first place?
Which is why it may then be forced to come cap-in-hand for a deal on British terms. Which is why it is ONLY by leaving with no deal that the UK has any prospect of gaining the whip hand in the negotiations
Melanie doesn't realise that a deal after we've left is even harder to achieve than going via A50.
Nowhere near first because I have been rabbiting away to myself on the PT and I have also read this (very good!) header.
Regarding the topic here, I think Brexit creates a marvelous opportunity to go in one of two directions, both of which are incompatible with EU membership.
Radical shift Left - big state, widespread public ownership, socialistic redistribution of wealth.
Radical shift Right - small state, low taxes, light regulation, free port, bulldog tiger economy.
However if we wish to trundle along broadly as we are (which I am pretty certain that we do) then Brexit is above all else a complete waste of time.
If we are not going to do anything particularly big and frightening that we could not in any case do as an EU member it follows that leaving the bloc does not even remotely justify the trauma, the time, the trouble of it all.
I think there is a third option - a radical re-imagining of the nation state for the 21st Century. Your notions of the Left and Right shift are the mindsets of the 20th Century (or even further back). We need something different and better.
It goes right back to the fundamentals - the kind of society and communities we want, the kind of decision making process best equipped to a digital age, the nature of work, the economic model we want to follow, the places we want to live in, the ways we want to relax.
Leaving the EU affords us the opportunity to re-invent ourselves from the ground up and it's a debate that ought to begin the minute we leave the EU. Confronting those who feel alienated, disengaged and discontent and challenging power in all its form is what we should be about in the 2020s.
Unfortunately, all we have is Corbyn's clapped out socialism and the Conservatives' clapped out old Thatcherism.
Time traveling me returns from a trip to 2029 in the DeLorean.
'Readers, this ground up, radical re-invention did not take place.'
Cyclefree misses the most obvious consequence of Acheson's comments. Those in Britain who thought that losing an Empire was a thing to be regretted were then arrogant enough to think that joining the EEC would provide us with a ready made replacement to rule over. Such was the thinking inside the political classes and the civil service for many years both before and after 1973. It is also the arrogance that has pervaded the Europhile elements of British society for all of our membership - the idea that if only we played a greater role the then EU would be bound to transform into something we could be happy with, something we had remade in our own image.
Even now this is a common delusion repeated on here regularly by Remainers.
And yet the EU was never, ever going to be remoulded in the way we wanted and nor should it. For this reason, amongst many others, we are much better off being out of it for both our sakes and those of the rest of the EU.
Spot on. Those who ask why are we leaving are asking exactly the wrong question. The question should be why did we join ?
It was genuinely interesting to the English that the continentals were setting up a Common Market. Now, after 1789, 1914 and 1939 it was self-evident that Johnny Foreigner really wasn't up to these big projects and they would need our experience in leadership.
We never joined to be equal, we joined to provide the same leadership we had already given, so benevolently to the Irish, the Scots and the Welsh. At first it went to plan and it was England that provided the first leaders of Europe, Henry Plumb, Chris Tugenhat and Roy Jenkins for instance. I think we assumed that like the Welsh, the Scots and the Irish, the French, the Germans at al would become more English than the English.
As early as 1980 Giscard d'Estang famously said he didn't like Margaret Thatcher, "ni comme homme, ni comme femme". But, he wasn't being honest, he didn't like her because she was English.
Only De Gaulle truly had our interests at heart when he said "non".
This is self-pitying tosh. If we'd joined because we thought we should take the lead, we wouldn't have shown the level of disinterest that led some to conclude we were only in it to take what we could get out of it.
So you're saying we should never have joined in the first place?
We should have joined the coal and steel community from the beginning.
More holes in the French defence than the Maignot Line.
The French chances of winning this match have sunk quicker than the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir.
Um. Surely a better comparison would be Trafalgar?
At Mers-el-Kebir, the French only lost one battleship outright, the Bretagne. And a tugboat.
Well, only one ship was actually sunk at Trafalgar - Achille. Several more were either lost or scuttled in the storm that followed, of course, but it wasn't exactly fast.
David Davis and others have suggested the UK could leave the EU without paying the £39 billion “divorce bill” designed to cover our outstanding financial commitments to Brussels.
A House of Lords report from 2017 says that we won’t be bound by EU law after Brexit, and so we could get out of paying the bill. But that report is contentious. Irrespective of our membership of the EU, we are still bound to our financial commitments under international law.
And it’s worth remembering that even beyond the legal issues, reneging on our financial obligations is likely to make any free trade deal with Europe, or other potential partners, politically impossible.
Close to it. It is unbelievably irresponsible to keep kicking the can like this.
Brexit will be fun, soon the EU will realise the UK holds all the cards and acquiesce to the UK's demands.
Don’t they think they’ll still get the full £39bn if we left in a no deal scenario?
Much of the 39 bill is two years (non voting) of membership fees.
Precisely. Remember when it was going to be £100bn, without any extra years of membership?
I recall very briefly that was reported, and it seemed purely designed to make the subsequent amount not seem as onerous.
Why would The Guardian do that?
Whoever floated the figure would be the ones to ask I imagine, not whoever reported it. If memory serves it was a lot more than previous estimates had been, and did indeed make £39 look low.
The issue now though is what sort of Britain the Brexiteers want it to be, how to get there and what sort of relationship with the EU Britain should have.
There is no sign of any sensible thinking on these rather important topics. Rather, there is evidence of the sort of arrogance and delusions about facts which you make of the Europhiles.
There is plenty of sensible thinking, just not by the politicians. And it seems to be the Remainers who bemoan the loss of influence and power projection which they associate with Brexit just as much as the 'Singapore on Sea' crowd seen to think it would enhance our position. Neither is necessary or viable. There is nothing wrong with being Norway, or Canada or for that matter Estonia. What is important is we find a sustainable position in the world that we are happy with and which provides the population with a certain standard of living. Telling the rest of the world what they should be doing is a mugs game better left to mugs like the US and China.
Unfortunately, it is the politicians who are in charge.
So the lack of sensible thinking by them is a bit of a problem.
I agree that we need to find a sustainable position in the world and a clear strategy. Nothing about the way Brexit is being conducted at the moment suggests to me that we are anywhere near doing this.
So whether or not we should or should not have joined at the start is a bit irrelevant. The question is what we should do now. It seems to me we risk making the same mistakes as before but in reverse. I.e. we are not working out a clear strategy and then implementing it. Rather we are reacting against something and hoping for the best while ignoring those facts which don't suit us.
More holes in the French defence than the Maignot Line.
The French chances of winning this match have sunk quicker than the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir.
Um. Surely a better comparison would be Trafalgar?
At Mers-el-Kebir, the French only lost one battleship outright, the Bretagne. And a tugboat.
Well, only one ship was actually sunk at Trafalgar - Achille. Several more were either lost or scuttled in the storm that followed, of course, but it wasn't exactly fast.
Among the captured French ships were L'Aigle, Algésiras, Berwick, Bucentaure, Fougueux, Intrépide, Redoutable, and Swiftsure. The Spanish ships taken were Argonauta, Bahama, Monarca, Neptuno, San Agustín, San Ildefonso, San Juan Nepomuceno, Santísima Trinidad, and Santa Ana. Of these, Redoutable sank, and Santísima Trinidad and Argonauta were scuttled by the British. Achille exploded, Intrépide and San Augustín burned, and L'Aigle, Berwick, Fougueux, and Monarca were wrecked in a gale following the battle.
More holes in the French defence than the Maignot Line.
The French chances of winning this match have sunk quicker than the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir.
Um. Surely a better comparison would be Trafalgar?
At Mers-el-Kebir, the French only lost one battleship outright, the Bretagne. And a tugboat.
Well, only one ship was actually sunk at Trafalgar - Achille. Several more were either lost or scuttled in the storm that followed, of course, but it wasn't exactly fast.
Among the captured French ships were L'Aigle, Algésiras, Berwick, Bucentaure, Fougueux, Intrépide, Redoutable, and Swiftsure. The Spanish ships taken were Argonauta, Bahama, Monarca, Neptuno, San Agustín, San Ildefonso, San Juan Nepomuceno, Santísima Trinidad, and Santa Ana. Of these, Redoutable sank, and Santísima Trinidad and Argonauta were scuttled by the British. Achille exploded, Intrépide and San Augustín burned, and L'Aigle, Berwick, Fougueux, and Monarca were wrecked in a gale following the battle.
Imagine watching England's flawless kicking performance against Ireland's back 3 and thinking the answer was to pick two centres on the wing and Huget at fullback.
I would say I agree with Stodge's vision entirely. I would also say that yes, these sorts of changes can only take place outside the EU because so many aspects of our lives that would need to be adjusted for this revolution to take place are now controlled by the EU.
One has to agree with his vision because he is simply articulating well some of the challenges that the UK and indeed the rest of the developed world will face over the next few decades.
The question is, does leaving the EU make it more likely that we will meet those challenges.
I can see a clear practical reason why not - because we might well be scrabbling around with economic damage limitation for the foreseeable future, therefore less bandwidth for nice to haves such as re-engineering our fundamentals. Ooo sounds a bit painful that doesn't it?
I think you need to have a quite romantic view of Britain to have real confidence that it goes the other way.
Mr. Eagles, ha. If you believe the EU would've thrown billions at Greece had they left the organisation, then you're dafter than Caesar's attack on Gergovia.
Mr. Eagles, ha. If you believe the EU would've thrown billions at Greece had they left the organisation, then you're dafter than Caesar's attack on Gergovia.
More holes in the French defence than the Maignot Line.
The French chances of winning this match have sunk quicker than the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir.
Um. Surely a better comparison would be Trafalgar?
At Mers-el-Kebir, the French only lost one battleship outright, the Bretagne. And a tugboat.
Well, only one ship was actually sunk at Trafalgar - Achille. Several more were either lost or scuttled in the storm that followed, of course, but it wasn't exactly fast.
Among the captured French ships were L'Aigle, Algésiras, Berwick, Bucentaure, Fougueux, Intrépide, Redoutable, and Swiftsure. The Spanish ships taken were Argonauta, Bahama, Monarca, Neptuno, San Agustín, San Ildefonso, San Juan Nepomuceno, Santísima Trinidad, and Santa Ana. Of these, Redoutable sank, and Santísima Trinidad and Argonauta were scuttled by the British. Achille exploded, Intrépide and San Augustín burned, and L'Aigle, Berwick, Fougueux, and Monarca were wrecked in a gale following the battle.
Yes, but only Achille sank in the actual battle.
Intrepide and San Augustin burned. Before the gale.
David Davis and others have suggested the UK could leave the EU without paying the £39 billion “divorce bill” designed to cover our outstanding financial commitments to Brussels.
A House of Lords report from 2017 says that we won’t be bound by EU law after Brexit, and so we could get out of paying the bill. But that report is contentious. Irrespective of our membership of the EU, we are still bound to our financial commitments under international law.
And it’s worth remembering that even beyond the legal issues, reneging on our financial obligations is likely to make any free trade deal with Europe, or other potential partners, politically impossible.
If we leave without a deal then somewhere over £20 billion of the sum would not be liable as it is to pay for our effective continued membership during the transition period. We should of course pay for those programmes we agreed on prior to departure but that amounts to around £8 billion not £39 billion.
I do love the way they quote Professor Iain Begg on this as if he were an independent authority rather than a Council Member of the Federal Trust which campaigns for the UK to be part of a Federal Europe. It is like claiming Tommy Robinson is an independent authority on race relations.
I would say I agree with Stodge's vision entirely. I would also say that yes, these sorts of changes can only take place outside the EU because so many aspects of our lives that would need to be adjusted for this revolution to take place are now controlled by the EU.
One has to agree with his vision because he is simply articulating well some of the challenges that the UK and indeed the rest of the developed world will face over the next few decades.
The question is, does leaving the EU make it more likely that we will meet those challenges.
I can see a clear practical reason why not - because we might well be scrabbling around with economic damage limitation for the foreseeable future, therefore less bandwidth for nice to haves such as re-engineering our fundamentals. Ooo sounds a bit painful that doesn't it?
I think you need to have a quite romantic view of Britain to have real confidence that it goes the other way.
In answer to your question I would say undoubtedly yes. If we do not leave the EU we will never realign to meet those challenges and will be dragged down along with the rest of Europe in a stupid vainglorious attempt to stand toe to toe with China and the US.
It is not a matter of romance it is a matter of accepting basic reality.
I would say I agree with Stodge's vision entirely. I would also say that yes, these sorts of changes can only take place outside the EU because so many aspects of our lives that would need to be adjusted for this revolution to take place are now controlled by the EU.
One has to agree with his vision because he is simply articulating well some of the challenges that the UK and indeed the rest of the developed world will face over the next few decades.
The question is, does leaving the EU make it more likely that we will meet those challenges.
I can see a clear practical reason why not - because we might well be scrabbling around with economic damage limitation for the foreseeable future, therefore less bandwidth for nice to haves such as re-engineering our fundamentals. Ooo sounds a bit painful that doesn't it?
I think you need to have a quite romantic view of Britain to have real confidence that it goes the other way.
In answer to your question I would say undoubtedly yes. If we do not leave the EU we will never realign to meet those challenges and will be dragged down along with the rest of Europe in a stupid vainglorious attempt to stand toe to toe with China and the US.
It is not a matter of romance it is a matter of accepting basic reality.
Your vision would make us a chessboard fought over by others. There is no splendid isolation.
Why is no-one talking about the Bezos story: in particular the attempted blackmail of Jeff Bezos by the National Enquirer, where they basically said "stop suggesting we're backing Trump, or we'll print naked pictures of you?"
In answer to your question I would say undoubtedly yes. If we do not leave the EU we will never realign to meet those challenges and will be dragged down along with the rest of Europe in a stupid vainglorious attempt to stand toe to toe with China and the US.
It is not a matter of romance it is a matter of accepting basic reality.
And yet all those other European countries which face the very same challenges appear to think otherwise. Is this because they are misguided? Or is it because there is something very special and different about Britain?
The latter - a genuine belief that there IS something very special and different about Britain, as compared to other Western European nations - that is what I meant by 'romantic' in this context.
Truth is, you are an unusual Brexiteer. I will go further. If we take a random sample of 11 of them, then add you in to make the round dozen, then take the group off for an away-day to a residential complex which has 2 dining rooms, one for those who share your reasons for wanting to leave the EU, your hopes & expectations for what it will bring, and the other one for those who don't, you will find that when 8 pm comes around you will be eating alone.
Why is no-one talking about the Bezos story: in particular the attempted blackmail of Jeff Bezos by the National Enquirer, where they basically said "stop suggesting we're backing Trump, or we'll print naked pictures of you?"
I don't really care about someone who is stupid enough to allow naked pictures to be taken of himself.
"Publish and be damned" should be the response. We're not going to faint at the sight of a naked man, even if it is someone as ugly as Jeff Bezos (sorry Mr Meeks!)
You couldn't make it up could you? It's difficult to see the point of Brexit now. I mean, to me and most economic literates it always was difficult but now even all but the most knee jerking little Englanders must be able to see it.
1. Who is ever going to trust us? We want everyone to treat us fairly but are quite happy to break our obligations. 2. We are seen to be effectively abandoning UK citizens living abroad. 3. We expect everyone to give us most-favoured nation terms when the reality is that the few people who don't actively dislike us are seeking the very best terms they can squeeze out of us. 4. We have broken promises to foreign investors and partners.
I'm reminded of the decision of 17th Century Japan to cut themselves off from the world for two hundred years. Perhaps that's it? 200 years of self-inflicted isolation. A fitting end to a once great nation that prided itself on it's internationalism and prided itself in it's contribution to the world.
You couldn't make it up could you? It's difficult to see the point of Brexit now. I mean, to me and most economic literates it always was difficult but now even all but the most knee jerking little Englanders must be able to see it.
1. Who is ever going to trust us? We want everyone to treat us fairly but are quite happy to break our obligations. 2. We are seen to be effectively abandoning UK citizens living abroad. 3. We expect everyone to give us most-favoured nation terms when the reality is that the few people who don't actively dislike us are seeking the very best terms they can squeeze out of us. 4. We have broken promises to foreign investors and partners.
I'm reminded of the decision of 17th Century Japan to cut themselves off from the world for two hundred years. Perhaps that's it? 200 years of self-inflicted isolation. A fitting end to a once great nation that prided itself on it's internationalism and prided itself in it's contribution to the world.
May's can kicking was vaguely amusing at the start but is now actively dangerous. If ever there was a time for the fabled men in grey suits to prise her fingers from the doors of No 10 this is it.
Our MPs are cowards, from those Tories promising to resign if something isn't done but never actually doing it to those Labour MPs always finding some reason not to resign despite not agreeing with or supporting their leader. Despicable cowards - the lot of them. And the rest of us will have to pay the price.
Why is no-one talking about the Bezos story: in particular the attempted blackmail of Jeff Bezos by the National Enquirer, where they basically said "stop suggesting we're backing Trump, or we'll print naked pictures of you?"
The most interesting part of the story is the suggestion that they messages were not obtained by some normal means — by one party to the messaging, or a person able to access their devices/accounts — but potentially by a state actor. As yet though no evidence has been presented to support the claim.
Why is no-one talking about the Bezos story: in particular the attempted blackmail of Jeff Bezos by the National Enquirer, where they basically said "stop suggesting we're backing Trump, or we'll print naked pictures of you?"
The story has really set tongues wagging in media and political circles, but what enquiring minds really want to know is: how the hell did the Enquirer get hold of Jeff's actual texts? Insiders suggest it might be worth looking to Hollywood talent agent Michael Sanchez. Michael is well-known as being the brother of Lauren Sanchez, the woman lucky enough to receive the Bezos dick pics.
And rather less well-known as a close friend of Dylan Howard, editor of the National Enquirer.
Cyclefree misses the most obvious consequence of Acheson's comments. Those in Britain who thought that losing an Empire was a thing to be regretted were then arrogant enough to think that joining the EEC would provide us with a ready made replacement to rule over. Such was the thinking inside the political classes and the civil service for many years both before and after 1973. It is also the arrogance that has pervaded the Europhile elements of British society for all of our membership - the idea that if only we played a greater role the then EU would be bound to transform into something we could be happy with, something we had remade in our own image.
Even now this is a common delusion repeated on here regularly by Remainers.
And yet the EU was never, ever going to be remoulded in the way we wanted and nor should it. For this reason, amongst many others, we are much better off being out of it for both our sakes and those of the rest of the EU.
Again and again your analysis falls down because of a moveable definition of "we". Whether or not members of the British elite were deluded about the level of influence they would have within the EEC/EU has no bearing on whether or not it is right for "us" to be part of it.
That is just meaningless drivel.
You're arguing against a strawman, which should be obvious given that you've just suggested we could be like Estonia.
I fully agree. Let's start by joining the Eurozone.
Lets pretend we were in the Eurozone in 2008 - would things have gone better for us or worse?
You couldn't make it up could you? It's difficult to see the point of Brexit now. I mean, to me and most economic literates it always was difficult but now even all but the most knee jerking little Englanders must be able to see it.
1. Who is ever going to trust us? We want everyone to treat us fairly but are quite happy to break our obligations. 2. We are seen to be effectively abandoning UK citizens living abroad. 3. We expect everyone to give us most-favoured nation terms when the reality is that the few people who don't actively dislike us are seeking the very best terms they can squeeze out of us. 4. We have broken promises to foreign investors and partners.
I'm reminded of the decision of 17th Century Japan to cut themselves off from the world for two hundred years. Perhaps that's it? 200 years of self-inflicted isolation. A fitting end to a once great nation that prided itself on it's internationalism and prided itself in it's contribution to the world.
May's can kicking was vaguely amusing at the start but is now actively dangerous. If ever there was a time for the fabled men in grey suits to prise her fingers from the doors of No 10 this is it. ...
Why is no-one talking about the Bezos story: in particular the attempted blackmail of Jeff Bezos by the National Enquirer, where they basically said "stop suggesting we're backing Trump, or we'll print naked pictures of you?"
The most interesting part of the story is the suggestion that they messages were not obtained by some normal means — by one party to the messaging, or a person able to access their devices/accounts — but potentially by a state actor. As yet though no evidence has been presented to support the claim.
Why would anyone with any sense allow photos of themselves naked or in flagrante to be taken let alone allow them to be sent electronically?
Cyclefree misses the most obvious consequence of Acheson's comments. Those in Britain who thought that losing an Empire was a thing to be regretted were then arrogant enough to think that joining the EEC would provide us with a ready made replacement to rule over. Such was the thinking inside the political classes and the civil service for many years both before and after 1973. It is also the arrogance that has pervaded the Europhile elements of British society for all of our membership - the idea that if only we played a greater role the then EU would be bound to transform into something we could be happy with, something we had remade in our own image.
Even now this is a common delusion repeated on here regularly by Remainers.
And yet the EU was never, ever going to be remoulded in the way we wanted and nor should it. For this reason, amongst many others, we are much better off being out of it for both our sakes and those of the rest of the EU.
Again and again your analysis falls down because of a moveable definition of "we". Whether or not members of the British elite were deluded about the level of influence they would have within the EEC/EU has no bearing on whether or not it is right for "us" to be part of it.
That is just meaningless drivel.
You're arguing against a strawman, which should be obvious given that you've just suggested we could be like Estonia.
I fully agree. Let's start by joining the Eurozone.
Lets pretend we were in the Eurozone in 2008 - would things have gone better for us or worse?
You'd have to assume that all the things that were done or not done between 2001 and 2008, when Britain was not in the euro, would have been done in exactly the same way, had it joined at the start.
Is it safe to make that assumption? If it isn't then you can't take 2008 as your starting point.
You couldn't make it up could you? It's difficult to see the point of Brexit now. I mean, to me and most economic literates it always was difficult but now even all but the most knee jerking little Englanders must be able to see it.
1. Who is ever going to trust us? We want everyone to treat us fairly but are quite happy to break our obligations. 2. We are seen to be effectively abandoning UK citizens living abroad. 3. We expect everyone to give us most-favoured nation terms when the reality is that the few people who don't actively dislike us are seeking the very best terms they can squeeze out of us. 4. We have broken promises to foreign investors and partners.
I'm reminded of the decision of 17th Century Japan to cut themselves off from the world for two hundred years. Perhaps that's it? 200 years of self-inflicted isolation. A fitting end to a once great nation that prided itself on it's internationalism and prided itself in it's contribution to the world.
May's can kicking was vaguely amusing at the start but is now actively dangerous. If ever there was a time for the fabled men in grey suits to prise her fingers from the doors of No 10 this is it. ...
Or perhaps the fabled men in white coats.
It is understandable to have a go at TM but is this another example of knowing what you are against rather knowing a way out of this mess
You couldn't make it up could you? It's difficult to see the point of Brexit now. I mean, to me and most economic literates it always was difficult but now even all but the most knee jerking little Englanders must be able to see it.
1. Who is ever going to trust us? We want everyone to treat us fairly but are quite happy to break our obligations. 2. We are seen to be effectively abandoning UK citizens living abroad. 3. We expect everyone to give us most-favoured nation terms when the reality is that the few people who don't actively dislike us are seeking the very best terms they can squeeze out of us. 4. We have broken promises to foreign investors and partners.
I'm reminded of the decision of 17th Century Japan to cut themselves off from the world for two hundred years. Perhaps that's it? 200 years of self-inflicted isolation. A fitting end to a once great nation that prided itself on it's internationalism and prided itself in it's contribution to the world.
May's can kicking was vaguely amusing at the start but is now actively dangerous. If ever there was a time for the fabled men in grey suits to prise her fingers from the doors of No 10 this is it. ...
Or perhaps the fabled men in white coats.
It is understandable to have a go at TM but is this another example of knowing what you are against rather knowing a way out of this mess
More holes in the French defence than the Maignot Line.
The French chances of winning this match have sunk quicker than the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir.
Um. Surely a better comparison would be Trafalgar?
At Mers-el-Kebir, the French only lost one battleship outright, the Bretagne. And a tugboat.
Well, only one ship was actually sunk at Trafalgar - Achille. Several more were either lost or scuttled in the storm that followed, of course, but it wasn't exactly fast.
Among the captured French ships were L'Aigle, Algésiras, Berwick, Bucentaure, Fougueux, Intrépide, Redoutable, and Swiftsure. The Spanish ships taken were Argonauta, Bahama, Monarca, Neptuno, San Agustín, San Ildefonso, San Juan Nepomuceno, Santísima Trinidad, and Santa Ana. Of these, Redoutable sank, and Santísima Trinidad and Argonauta were scuttled by the British. Achille exploded, Intrépide and San Augustín burned, and L'Aigle, Berwick, Fougueux, and Monarca were wrecked in a gale following the battle.
Yes, but only Achille sank in the actual battle.
Intrepide and San Augustin burned. Before the gale.
Incorrect. They were burned on Collingwood's orders. Intrepide was set on fire by Lieutenant Charles Anthony of Britannia at 9am precisely on the 24th October and blew up at 9.30. San Augustin was actually kept afloat until the 29th October before Sir Edward Codrington set her afire.
Why is no-one talking about the Bezos story: in particular the attempted blackmail of Jeff Bezos by the National Enquirer, where they basically said "stop suggesting we're backing Trump, or we'll print naked pictures of you?"
The most interesting part of the story is the suggestion that they messages were not obtained by some normal means — by one party to the messaging, or a person able to access their devices/accounts — but potentially by a state actor. As yet though no evidence has been presented to support the claim.
Why would anyone with any sense allow photos of themselves naked or in flagrante to be taken let alone allow them to be sent electronically?
My impression is (rightly or wrongly) that it is incredibly normalised these days ! Then again Bezos is not some random under 30 single on Tindr..
Which is why it may then be forced to come cap-in-hand for a deal on British terms. Which is why it is ONLY by leaving with no deal that the UK has any prospect of gaining the whip hand in the negotiations
You couldn't make it up could you? It's difficult to see the point of Brexit now. I mean, to me and most economic literates it always was difficult but now even all but the most knee jerking little Englanders must be able to see it.
1. Who is ever going to trust us? We want everyone to treat us fairly but are quite happy to break our obligations. 2. We are seen to be effectively abandoning UK citizens living abroad. 3. We expect everyone to give us most-favoured nation terms when the reality is that the few people who don't actively dislike us are seeking the very best terms they can squeeze out of us. 4. We have broken promises to foreign investors and partners.
I'm reminded of the decision of 17th Century Japan to cut themselves off from the world for two hundred years. Perhaps that's it? 200 years of self-inflicted isolation. A fitting end to a once great nation that prided itself on it's internationalism and prided itself in it's contribution to the world.
May's can kicking was vaguely amusing at the start but is now actively dangerous. If ever there was a time for the fabled men in grey suits to prise her fingers from the doors of No 10 this is it. ...
Or perhaps the fabled men in white coats.
It is understandable to have a go at TM but is this another example of knowing what you are against rather knowing a way out of this mess
#CorbynsCustomsUnionitsstaringyouinthface
Not a chance. It is staying in all but name with no control of immigration, taking rules and paying in
Corbyn's game is a nonsense and if he believes in a Norway deal he would be better backing a referendum and stopping brexit
Cyclefree misses the most obvious consequence of Acheson's comments. Those in Britain who thought that losing an Empire was a thing to be regretted were then arrogant enough to think that joining the EEC would provide us with a ready made replacement to rule over. Such was the thinking inside the political classes and the civil service for many years both before and after 1973. It is also the arrogance that has pervaded the Europhile elements of British society for all of our membership - the idea that if only we played a greater role the then EU would be bound to transform into something we could be happy with, something we had remade in our own image.
Even now this is a common delusion repeated on here regularly by Remainers.
And yet the EU was never, ever going to be remoulded in the way we wanted and nor should it. For this reason, amongst many others, we are much better off being out of it for both our sakes and those of the rest of the EU.
Again and again your analysis falls down because of a moveable definition of "we". Whether or not members of the British elite were deluded about the level of influence they would have within the EEC/EU has no bearing on whether or not it is right for "us" to be part of it.
That is just meaningless drivel.
You're arguing against a strawman, which should be obvious given that you've just suggested we could be like Estonia.
I fully agree. Let's start by joining the Eurozone.
Lets pretend we were in the Eurozone in 2008 - would things have gone better for us or worse?
You'd have to assume that all the things that were done or not done between 2001 and 2008, when Britain was not in the euro, would have been done in exactly the same way, had it joined at the start.
Is it safe to make that assumption? If it isn't then you can't take 2008 as your starting point.
looking at Irelands blow out on property its pretty obvious things might actually have been worse
when have the brits ever missed a chance to binge on bricks and mortar
Which is why it may then be forced to come cap-in-hand for a deal on British terms. Which is why it is ONLY by leaving with no deal that the UK has any prospect of gaining the whip hand in the negotiations
Why would anyone with any sense allow photos of themselves naked or in flagrante to be taken let alone allow them to be sent electronically?
I agree with you, but this is normal behaviour for a lot of people nowadays. Mind you I would have thought that Bezos would be in the "I understand the technology therefore I don't trust it" camp.
You couldn't make it up could you? It's difficult to see the point of Brexit now. I mean, to me and most economic literates it always was difficult but now even all but the most knee jerking little Englanders must be able to see it.
1. Who is ever going to trust us? We want everyone to treat us fairly but are quite happy to break our obligations. 2. We are seen to be effectively abandoning UK citizens living abroad. 3. We expect everyone to give us most-favoured nation terms when the reality is that the few people who don't actively dislike us are seeking the very best terms they can squeeze out of us. 4. We have broken promises to foreign investors and partners.
I'm reminded of the decision of 17th Century Japan to cut themselves off from the world for two hundred years. Perhaps that's it? 200 years of self-inflicted isolation. A fitting end to a once great nation that prided itself on it's internationalism and prided itself in it's contribution to the world.
May's can kicking was vaguely amusing at the start but is now actively dangerous. If ever there was a time for the fabled men in grey suits to prise her fingers from the doors of No 10 this is it. ...
Or perhaps the fabled men in white coats.
It is understandable to have a go at TM but is this another example of knowing what you are against rather knowing a way out of this mess
#CorbynsCustomsUnionitsstaringyouinthface
Not a chance. It is staying in all but name with no control of immigration, taking rules and paying in
Corbyn's game is a nonsense and if he believes in a Norway deal he would be better backing a referendum and stopping brexit
The EU appear to be ready to sign up to Labour's proposals which do not include Freedom of Movement. I'm a total broken record on this but if:
a) The EU are happy with this b) There is a majority in Parliament for it
May is bonkers for not jumping at the one way out of her own shambles.
Why is no-one talking about the Bezos story: in particular the attempted blackmail of Jeff Bezos by the National Enquirer, where they basically said "stop suggesting we're backing Trump, or we'll print naked pictures of you?"
The most interesting part of the story is the suggestion that they messages were not obtained by some normal means — by one party to the messaging, or a person able to access their devices/accounts — but potentially by a state actor. As yet though no evidence has been presented to support the claim.
Why would anyone with any sense allow photos of themselves naked or in flagrante to be taken let alone allow them to be sent electronically?
My impression is (rightly or wrongly) that it is incredibly normalised these days ! Then again Bezos is not some random under 30 single on Tindr..
Well quite.
And for others, well, they're idiots, however normalised it may be.
I have on numerous occasions had to view what people put on their work email / work computers - including films of them having sex. In one particularly sad case, blackmail was attempted.
I did a talk explaining what the proper use of communications at work should be. One audience member asked me how private their private communications at work were and I replied that they weren't. If it was on work email or on a work computer, there was no guarantee of privacy (though in practice investigators aren't interested in Ocado shopping lists)
The look of shock on the audience's faces was a bit of a surprise to me, I must say.
People need a much much better understanding of how the digital world can adversely impact their privacy if they don't use it sensibly.
You couldn't make it up could you? It's difficult to see the point of Brexit now. I mean, to me and most economic literates it always was difficult but now even all but the most knee jerking little Englanders must be able to see it.
1. Who is ever going to trust us? We want everyone to treat us fairly but are quite happy to break our obligations. 2. We are seen to be effectively abandoning UK citizens living abroad. 3. We expect everyone to give us most-favoured nation terms when the reality is that the few people who don't actively dislike us are seeking the very best terms they can squeeze out of us. 4. We have broken promises to foreign investors and partners.
I'm reminded of the decision of 17th Century Japan to cut themselves off from the world for two hundred years. Perhaps that's it? 200 years of self-inflicted isolation. A fitting end to a once great nation that prided itself on it's internationalism and prided itself in it's contribution to the world.
May's can kicking was vaguely amusing at the start but is now actively dangerous. If ever there was a time for the fabled men in grey suits to prise her fingers from the doors of No 10 this is it. ...
Or perhaps the fabled men in white coats.
It is understandable to have a go at TM but is this another example of knowing what you are against rather knowing a way out of this mess
#CorbynsCustomsUnionitsstaringyouinthface
Not a chance. It is staying in all but name with no control of immigration, taking rules and paying in
Corbyn's game is a nonsense and if he believes in a Norway deal he would be better backing a referendum and stopping brexit
Nevertheless, Corbyn is saying that Labour will vote for the Withdrawal Agreement in return for declarations of intent, which by their nature can't bind the actions of any future government. In view of that, why not at least try to see if a form of words can be agreed on, including a statement of that obvious fact, which would allow the Withdrawal Agreement to pass?
Why would anyone with any sense allow photos of themselves naked or in flagrante to be taken let alone allow them to be sent electronically?
I agree with you, but this is normal behaviour for a lot of people nowadays. Mind you I would have thought that Bezos would be in the "I understand the technology therefore I don't trust it" camp.
Perhaps Alexa took the photos when Bezos wasn't paying attention?
I did a talk explaining what the proper use of communications at work should be. One audience member asked me how private their private communications at work were and I replied that they weren't. If it was on work email or on a work computer, there was no guarantee of privacy (though in practice investigators aren't interested in Ocado shopping lists)
The look of shock on the audience's faces was a bit of a surprise to me, I must say.
You know your job is teaching bankers not to be fuckwits?
Why would anyone with any sense allow photos of themselves naked or in flagrante to be taken let alone allow them to be sent electronically?
I agree with you, but this is normal behaviour for a lot of people nowadays. Mind you I would have thought that Bezos would be in the "I understand the technology therefore I don't trust it" camp.
Perhaps Alexa took the photos when Bezos wasn't paying attention?
Or maybe he thought the magnification on the average iPhone wouldn't be enough to show anything?
More holes in the French defence than the Maignot Line.
The French chances of winning this match have sunk quicker than the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir.
Um. Surely a better comparison would be Trafalgar?
At Mers-el-Kebir, the French only lost one battleship outright, the Bretagne. And a tugboat.
Well, only one ship was actually sunk at Trafalgar - Achille. Several more were either lost or scuttled in the storm that followed, of course, but it wasn't exactly fast.
Among the captured French ships were L'Aigle, Algésiras, Berwick, Bucentaure, Fougueux, Intrépide, Redoutable, and Swiftsure. The Spanish ships taken were Argonauta, Bahama, Monarca, Neptuno, San Agustín, San Ildefonso, San Juan Nepomuceno, Santísima Trinidad, and Santa Ana. Of these, Redoutable sank, and Santísima Trinidad and Argonauta were scuttled by the British. Achille exploded, Intrépide and San Augustín burned, and L'Aigle, Berwick, Fougueux, and Monarca were wrecked in a gale following the battle.
Yes, but only Achille sank in the actual battle.
Intrepide and San Augustin burned. Before the gale.
Incorrect. They were burned on Collingwood's orders. Intrepide was set on fire by Lieutenant Charles Anthony of Britannia at 9am precisely on the 24th October and blew up at 9.30. San Augustin was actually kept afloat until the 29th October before Sir Edward Codrington set her afire.
Hmmm... Looks like TSE needs a better example of an actual French fleet being sunk in its entirety!
You couldn't make it up could you? It's difficult to see the point of Brexit now. I mean, to me and most economic literates it always was difficult but now even all but the most knee jerking little Englanders must be able to see it.
1. Who is ever going to trust us? We want everyone to treat us fairly but are quite happy to break our obligations. 2. We are seen to be effectively abandoning UK citizens living abroad. 3. We expect everyone to give us most-favoured nation terms when the reality is that the few people who don't actively dislike us are seeking the very best terms they can squeeze out of us. 4. We have broken promises to foreign investors and partners.
I'm reminded of the decision of 17th Century Japan to cut themselves off from the world for two hundred years. Perhaps that's it? 200 years of self-inflicted isolation. A fitting end to a once great nation that prided itself on it's internationalism and prided itself in it's contribution to the world.
May's can kicking was vaguely amusing at the start but is now actively dangerous. If ever there was a time for the fabled men in grey suits to prise her fingers from the doors of No 10 this is it. ...
Or perhaps the fabled men in white coats.
It is understandable to have a go at TM but is this another example of knowing what you are against rather knowing a way out of this mess
I'm sure we can all think of several reasonable ways out of the mess. The difficulty is the dysfunctional state of the Tory party, and the attitude that the first priority is to humour the Tory party rather than acting in the country's best interests.
You couldn't make it up could you? It's difficult to see the point of Brexit now. I mean, to me and most economic literates it always was difficult but now even all but the most knee jerking little Englanders must be able to see it.
1. Who is ever going to trust us? We want everyone to treat us fairly but are quite happy to break our obligations. 2. We are seen to be effectively abandoning UK citizens living abroad. 3. We expect everyone to give us most-favoured nation terms when the reality is that the few people who don't actively dislike us are seeking the very best terms they can squeeze out of us. 4. We have broken promises to foreign investors and partners.
I'm reminded of the decision of 17th Century Japan to cut themselves off from the world for two hundred years. Perhaps that's it? 200 years of self-inflicted isolation. A fitting end to a once great nation that prided itself on it's internationalism and prided itself in it's contribution to the world.
May's can kicking was vaguely amusing at the start but is now actively dangerous. If ever there was a time for the fabled men in grey suits to prise her fingers from the doors of No 10 this is it. ...
Or perhaps the fabled men in white coats.
It is understandable to have a go at TM but is this another example of knowing what you are against rather knowing a way out of this mess
#CorbynsCustomsUnionitsstaringyouinthface
Not a chance. It is staying in all but name with no control of immigration, taking rules and paying in
Corbyn's game is a nonsense and if he believes in a Norway deal he would be better backing a referendum and stopping brexit
The EU appear to be ready to sign up to Labour's proposals which do not include Freedom of Movement. I'm a total broken record on this but if:
a) The EU are happy with this b) There is a majority in Parliament for it
May is bonkers for not jumping at the one way out of her own shambles.
They will not break their four freedoms and the EU have not said they will.
And most of the conservative party and upto 60 labour mps from leave areas would be against.
The whole idea is pointless and Corbyn only suggested it knowing it will not be accepted. He doesn't want it himself, his ideal brexit is no deal
You couldn't make it up could you? It's difficult to see the point of Brexit now. I mean, to me and most economic literates it always was difficult but now even all but the most knee jerking little Englanders must be able to see it.
1. Who is ever going to trust us? We want everyone to treat us fairly but are quite happy to break our obligations. 2. We are seen to be effectively abandoning UK citizens living abroad. 3. We expect everyone to give us most-favoured nation terms when the reality is that the few people who don't actively dislike us are seeking the very best terms they can squeeze out of us. 4. We have broken promises to foreign investors and partners.
I'm reminded of the decision of 17th Century Japan to cut themselves off from the world for two hundred years. Perhaps that's it? 200 years of self-inflicted isolation. A fitting end to a once great nation that prided itself on it's internationalism and prided itself in it's contribution to the world.
May's can kicking was vaguely amusing at the start but is now actively dangerous. If ever there was a time for the fabled men in grey suits to prise her fingers from the doors of No 10 this is it. ...
Or perhaps the fabled men in white coats.
It is understandable to have a go at TM but is this another example of knowing what you are against rather knowing a way out of this mess
#CorbynsCustomsUnionitsstaringyouinthface
Not a chance. It is staying in all but name with no control of immigration, taking rules and paying in
Corbyn's game is a nonsense and if he believes in a Norway deal he would be better backing a referendum and stopping brexit
The EU appear to be ready to sign up to Labour's proposals which do not include Freedom of Movement. I'm a total broken record on this but if:
a) The EU are happy with this b) There is a majority in Parliament for it
May is bonkers for not jumping at the one way out of her own shambles.
They will not break their four freedoms and the EU have not said they will.
And most of the conservative party and upto 60 labour mps from leave areas would be against.
The whole idea is pointless and Corbyn only suggested it knowing it will not be accepted. He doesn't want it himself, his ideal brexit is no deal
You couldn't make it up could you? It's difficult to see the point of Brexit now. I mean, to me and most economic literates it always was difficult but now even all but the most knee jerking little Englanders must be able to see it.
1. Who is ever going to trust us? We want everyone to treat us fairly but are quite happy to break our obligations. 2. We are seen to be effectively abandoning UK citizens living abroad. 3. We expect everyone to give us most-favoured nation terms when the reality is that the few people who don't actively dislike us are seeking the very best terms they can squeeze out of us. 4. We have broken promises to foreign investors and partners.
I'm reminded of the decision of 17th Century Japan to cut themselves off from the world for two hundred years. Perhaps that's it? 200 years of self-inflicted isolation. A fitting end to a once great nation that prided itself on it's internationalism and prided itself in it's contribution to the world.
May's can kicking was vaguely amusing at the start but is now actively dangerous. If ever there was a time for the fabled men in grey suits to prise her fingers from the doors of No 10 this is it. ...
Or perhaps the fabled men in white coats.
It is understandable to have a go at TM but is this another example of knowing what you are against rather knowing a way out of this mess
I'm sure we can all think of several reasonable ways out of the mess. The difficulty is the dysfunctional state of the Tory party, and the attitude that the first priority is to humour the Tory party rather than acting in the country's best interests.
Just as a matter of interest what is your way out that would receive majority support to pass the HOC
Thanks @Cyclefree for a thoughtful header. I was particularly struck by this passage in the Henderson Dispatch, which I don't previously recall reading.
Top paragraph page 5: "In any case the UK has a large population accustomed to and skilled in industrial life, who within the confines of the British Isles, would suffer a large drop in standards were they to become the pioneers of of a de-industrial revolution."
Some of the issues in the Despatch are obselete, but this strikes me as very prescient. Henderson was a favourite of Maggie, but she must have skipped this bit. Overall the economy has become better, but in new service industries and regions. The rust belts of our coalfields have this in common with Ohio or Picardy. A Brexit that fails to meet the needs of those people 40 years on, is not going to be a success.
Of course, previous national narratives were not universally supported, whether colonial conquest, or joining the EEC. Indeed they were quite divisive. One of the reasons for British nostalgia for WW2 was that it was a brief period in modern times where the nation was nearly entirely united. For the other 95% of the 20th Century we were pretty much as divided as the present.
Nevertheless, Corbyn is saying that Labour will vote for the Withdrawal Agreement in return for declarations of intent, which by their nature can't bind the actions of any future government. In view of that, why not at least try to see if a form of words can be agreed on, including a statement of that obvious fact, which would allow the Withdrawal Agreement to pass?
How can I put this?
If Corbyn agrees to whip Labour to support BRexit, he will face rebellions;
If he whips Labour to support Brexit for a politically worthless declaration, he will cause a formal split in his party;
If he supports the WA and then the ultimate agreement is a diamond hard Brexit that even Rees-Mogg says goes too far - which could happen, although it doesn't seem likely - Labour itself is wrecked past all hope of recovery and will have the influence of the Liberals under Sinclair and Davies;
If, on the other hand, he can force a no deal Brexit by indecision and dithering there is a reasonable chance of sweeping to power with a mandate to totally wreck, er, reshape the British economic and social system. All he has to do is make a few soothing noises about how sad he is.
Therefore - why would he take the course you outline right now?
Answer - he wouldn't. Because even Mr Flunked a Poly Course Inside A Week Corbyn ain't that thick.
Therefore, any suggestions to the contrary are just posturing and can be ignored.
That's not to say what's happening right now is good, but if he is to let the WA pass he would have to have some sort of legally binding commitment on what TM will seek as the outcome.
1. Who is ever going to trust us? We want everyone to treat us fairly but are quite happy to break our obligations. 2. We are seen to be effectively abandoning UK citizens living abroad. 3. We expect everyone to give us most-favoured nation terms when the reality is that the few people who don't actively dislike us are seeking the very best terms they can squeeze out of us. 4. We have broken promises to foreign investors and partners.
I'm reminded of the decision of 17th Century Japan to cut themselves off from the world for two hundred years. Perhaps that's it? 200 years of self-inflicted isolation. A fitting end to a once great nation that prided itself on it's internationalism and prided itself in it's contribution to the world.
May's can kicking was vaguely amusing at the start but is now actively dangerous. If ever there was a time for the fabled men in grey suits to prise her fingers from the doors of No 10 this is it. ...
Or perhaps the fabled men in white coats.
It is understandable to have a go at TM but is this another example of knowing what you are against rather knowing a way out of this mess
#CorbynsCustomsUnionitsstaringyouinthface
Not a chance. It is staying in all but name with no control of immigration, taking rules and paying in
Corbyn's game is a nonsense and if he believes in a Norway deal he would be better backing a referendum and stopping brexit
The EU appear to be ready to sign up to Labour's proposals which do not include Freedom of Movement. I'm a total broken record on this but if:
a) The EU are happy with this b) There is a majority in Parliament for it
May is bonkers for not jumping at the one way out of her own shambles.
They will not break their four freedoms and the EU have not said they will.
And most of the conservative party and upto 60 labour mps from leave areas would be against.
The whole idea is pointless and Corbyn only suggested it knowing it will not be accepted. He doesn't want it himself, his ideal brexit is no deal
May's can kicking was vaguely amusing at the start but is now actively dangerous. If ever there was a time for the fabled men in grey suits to prise her fingers from the doors of No 10 this is it. ...
Or perhaps the fabled men in white coats.
It is understandable to have a go at TM but is this another example of knowing what you are against rather knowing a way out of this mess
#CorbynsCustomsUnionitsstaringyouinthface
Not a chance. It is staying in all but name with no control of immigration, taking rules and paying in
Corbyn's game is a nonsense and if he believes in a Norway deal he would be better backing a referendum and stopping brexit
The EU appear to be ready to sign up to Labour's proposals which do not include Freedom of Movement. I'm a total broken record on this but if:
a) The EU are happy with this b) There is a majority in Parliament for it
May is bonkers for not jumping at the one way out of her own shambles.
They will not break their four freedoms and the EU have not said they will.
And most of the conservative party and upto 60 labour mps from leave areas would be against.
The whole idea is pointless and Corbyn only suggested it knowing it will not be accepted. He doesn't want it himself, his ideal brexit is no deal
It's all very well saying MPs won't support this or that. But frankly it's the MPs - and particularly the Tory MPs - who have got us into this mess, and they are very rapidly running out of time to indulge themselves in the luxury of being against things without being able to come up with an alternative.
You couldn't make it up could you? It's difficult to see the point of Brexit now. I mean, to me and most economic literates it always was difficult but now even all but the most knee jerking little Englanders must be able to see it.
1. Who is ever going to trust us? We want everyone to treat us fairly but are quite happy to break our obligations. 2. We are seen to be effectively abandoning UK citizens living abroad. 3. We expect everyone to give us most-favoured nation terms when the reality is that the few people who don't actively dislike us are seeking the very best terms they can squeeze out of us. 4. We have broken promises to foreign investors and partners.
I'm reminded of the decision of 17th Century Japan to cut themselves off from the world for two hundred years. Perhaps that's it? 200 years of self-inflicted isolation. A fitting end to a once great nation that prided itself on it's internationalism and prided itself in it's contribution to the world.
May's can kicking was vaguely amusing at the start but is now actively dangerous. If ever there was a time for the fabled men in grey suits to prise her fingers from the doors of No 10 this is it. ...
Or perhaps the fabled men in white coats.
It is understandable to have a go at TM but is this another example of knowing what you are against rather knowing a way out of this mess
#CorbynsCustomsUnionitsstaringyouinthface
Not a chance. It is staying in all but name with no control of immigration, taking rules and paying in
Corbyn's game is a nonsense and if he believes in a Norway deal he would be better backing a referendum and stopping brexit
The EU appear to be ready to sign up to Labour's proposals which do not include Freedom of Movement. I'm a total broken record on this but if:
a) The EU are happy with this b) There is a majority in Parliament for it
May is bonkers for not jumping at the one way out of her own shambles.
Except it solves nothing.
To prevent a border in Ireland you need both Customs Union and Single Market membership. This is a classic case of salami slicing. They take the Single Market membership and then point out that to have an open border we must accept Single Market membership as well.
You couldn't make it up could you? It's difficult to see the point of Brexit now. I mean, to me and most economic literates it always was difficult but now even all but the most knee jerking little Englanders must be able to see it.
1. Who is ever going to trust us? We want everyone to treat us fairly but are quite happy to break our obligations. 2. We are seen to be effectively abandoning UK citizens living abroad. 3. We expect everyone to give us most-favoured nation terms when the reality is that the few people who don't actively dislike us are seeking the very best terms they can squeeze out of us. 4. We have broken promises to foreign investors and partners.
I'm reminded of the decision of 17th Century Japan to cut themselves off from the world for two hundred years. Perhaps that's it? 200 years of self-inflicted isolation. A fitting end to a once great nation that prided itself on it's internationalism and prided itself in it's contribution to the world.
May's can kicking was vaguely amusing at the start but is now actively dangerous. If ever there was a time for the fabled men in grey suits to prise her fingers from the doors of No 10 this is it. ...
Or perhaps the fabled men in white coats.
It is understandable to have a go at TM but is this another example of knowing what you are against rather knowing a way out of this mess
I'm sure we can all think of several reasonable ways out of the mess. The difficulty is the dysfunctional state of the Tory party, and the attitude that the first priority is to humour the Tory party rather than acting in the country's best interests.
Just as a matter of interest what is your way out that would receive majority support to pass the HOC
The Corbyn Customs Union plan would pass if May endorsed it, and DUP as well as SNP would support too, as would the EU.
You couldn't make it up could you? It's difficult to see the point of Brexit now. I mean, to me and most economic literates it always was difficult but now even all but the most knee jerking little Englanders must be able to see it.
1. Who is ever going to trust us? We want everyone to treat us fairly but are quite happy to break our obligations. 2. We are seen to be effectively abandoning UK citizens liv
May's can kicking was vaguely amusing at the start but is now actively dangerous. If ever there was a time for the fabled men in grey suits to prise her fingers from the doors of No 10 this is it. ...
Or perhaps the fabled men in white coats.
It is understandable to have a go at TM but is this another example of knowing what you are against rather knowing a way out of this mess
#CorbynsCustomsUnionitsstaringyouinthface
Not a chance. It is staying in all but name with no control of immigration, taking rules and paying in
Corbyn's game is a nonsense and if he believes in a Norway deal he would be better backing a referendum and stopping brexit
The EU appear to be ready to sign up to Labour's proposals which do not include Freedom of Movement. I'm a total broken record on this but if:
a) The EU are happy with this b) There is a majority in Parliament for it
May is bonkers for not jumping at the one way out of her own shambles.
They will not break their four freedoms and the EU have not said they will.
And most of the conservative party and upto 60 labour mps from leave areas would be against.
The whole idea is pointless and Corbyn only suggested it knowing it will not be accepted. He doesn't want it himself, his ideal brexit is no deal
It has got more chance of success than her current approach of shouting louder and louder at Jonny Foreigner until they understand.
The way out of the labyrinth is through the door marked 'Cross Party Consensus', not the one marked 'Try and placate the ERG fruitcakes'.
More holes in the French defence than the Maignot Line.
The French chances of winning this match have sunk quicker than the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir.
Um. Surely a better comparison would be Trafalgar?
At Mers-el-Kebir, the French only lost one battleship outright, the Bretagne. And a tugboat.
Well, only one ship was actually sunk at Trafalgar - Achille. Several more were either lost or scuttled in the storm that followed, of course, but it wasn't exactly fast.
Among the captured French ships were L'Aigle, Algésiras, Berwick, Bucentaure, Fougueux, Intrépide, Redoutable, and Swiftsure. The Spanish ships taken were Argonauta, Bahama, Monarca, Neptuno, San Agustín, San Ildefonso, San Juan Nepomuceno, Santísima Trinidad, and Santa Ana. Of these, Redoutable sank, and Santísima Trinidad and Argonauta were scuttled by the British. Achille exploded, Intrépide and San Augustín burned, and L'Aigle, Berwick, Fougueux, and Monarca were wrecked in a gale following the battle.
Yes, but only Achille sank in the actual battle.
Intrepide and San Augustin burned. Before the gale.
Incorrect. They were burned on Collingwood's orders. Intrepide was set on fire by Lieutenant Charles Anthony of Britannia at 9am precisely on the 24th October and blew up at 9.30. San Augustin was actually kept afloat until the 29th October before Sir Edward Codrington set her afire.
Hmmm... Looks like TSE needs a better example of an actual French fleet being sunk in its entirety!
Five ships were sunk during, and three very shortly afterwards from battle damage, at the battle of the Nile in 1798.
1. Who is ever going to trust us? We want everyone to treat us fairly but are quite happy to break our obligations. 2. We are seen to be effectively abandoning UK citizens living abroad. 3. We expect everyone to give us most-favoured nation terms when the reality is that the few people who don't actively dislike us are seeking the very best terms they can squeeze out of us. 4. We have broken promises to foreign investors and partners.
I'm reminded of the decision of 17th Century Japan to cut themselves off from the world for two hundred years. Perhaps that's it? 200 years of self-inflicted isolation. A fitting end to a once great nation that prided itself on it's internationalism and prided itself in it's contribution to the world.
May's can kicking was vaguely amusing at the start but is now actively dangerous. If ever there was a time for the fabled men in grey suits to prise her fingers from the doors of No 10 this is it. ...
Or perhaps the fabled men in white coats.
It is understandable to have a go at TM but is this another example of knowing what you are against rather knowing a way out of this mess
#CorbynsCustomsUnionitsstaringyouinthface
Not a chance. It is staying in all but name with no control of immigration, taking rules and paying in
Corbyn's game is a nonsense and if he believes in a Norway deal he would be better backing a referendum and stopping brexit
The EU ap
a) The EU are happy with this b) There is a majority in Parliament for it
May is bonkers for not jumping at the one way out of her own shambles.
They will not break their four freedoms and the EU have not said they will.
And most of the conservative party and upto 60 labour mps from leave areas would be against.
The whole idea is pointless and Corbyn only suggested it knowing it will not be accepted. He doesn't want it himself, his ideal brexit is no deal
In what way would it be breaking the 4 freedoms?
Norway requires free movement of people
Maybe I'm behind, but I thought Corbyn was just suggesting CU, and then some vaguer language on the SM. Or has he fully come out for Norway now?
Thanks @Cyclefree for a thoughtful header. I was particularly struck by this passage in the Henderson Dispatch, which I don't previously recall reading.
Top paragraph page 5: "In any case the UK has a large population accustomed to and skilled in industrial life, who within the confines of the British Isles, would suffer a large drop in standards were they to become the pioneers of of a de-industrial revolution."
Some of the issues in the Despatch are obselete, but this strikes me as very prescient. Henderson was a favourite of Maggie, but she must have skipped this bit. Overall the economy has become better, but in new service industries and regions. The rust belts of our coalfields have this in common with Ohio or Picardy. A Brexit that fails to meet the needs of those people 40 years on, is not going to be a success.
Of course, previous national narratives were not universally supported, whether colonial conquest, or joining the EEC. Indeed they were quite divisive. One of the reasons for British nostalgia for WW2 was that it was a brief period in modern times where the nation was nearly entirely united. For the other 95% of the 20th Century we were pretty much as divided as the present.
Actually the 'rust belts' of some of our former coalfields are doing so well they have started electing Tory MPs - unheard of a couple of decades ago.
And I find it amusing that we have people who in one breath bemoan the fate of our coalfields and in another harp on about decarbonisation of the economy for the good of the planet.
May's can kicking was vaguely amusing at the start but is now actively dangerous. If ever there was a time for the fabled men in grey suits to prise her fingers from the doors of No 10 this is it. ...
Or perhaps the fabled men in white coats.
It is understandable to have a go at TM but is this another example of knowing what you are against rather knowing a way out of this mess
#CorbynsCustomsUnionitsstaringyouinthface
Not a chance. It is staying in all but name with no control of immigration, taking rules and paying in
Corbyn's game is a nonsense and if he believes in a Norway deal he would be better backing a referendum and stopping brexit
The EU appear to be ready to sign up to Labour's proposals which do not include Freedom of Movement. I'm a total broken record on this but if:
a) The EU are happy with this b) There is a majority in Parliament for it
May is bonkers for not jumping at the one way out of her own shambles.
They will not break their four freedoms and the EU have not said they will.
And most of the conservative party and upto 60 labour mps from leave areas would be against.
The whole idea is pointless and Corbyn only suggested it knowing it will not be accepted. He doesn't want it himself, his ideal brexit is no deal
It's all very well saying MPs won't support this or that. But frankly it's the MPs - and particularly the Tory MPs - who have got us into this mess, and they are very rapidly running out of time to indulge themselves in the luxury of being against things without being able to come up with an alternative.
It is each and every one of the 498 mps who voted for A50 with default no deal who are responsible
Do you have a solution that will receive majority support in tbe HOC and is doable
Comments
http://www.melaniephillips.com/uk-must-now-keep-nerve/
Which is why it may then be forced to come cap-in-hand for a deal on British terms. Which is why it is ONLY by leaving with no deal that the UK has any prospect of gaining the whip hand in the negotiations
'Readers, this ground up, radical re-invention did not take place.'
Unless you want the world and all those countries we want to strike trade deals with knowing that the UK will not honour its previous agreements.
The UK rejected the proposed deal. There's no binding agreement upon which to renege.
At Mers-el-Kebir, the French only lost one battleship outright, the Bretagne. And a tugboat.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-divorce-bill-uk-pay-eu-trade-deal-talks-david-davis-suella-braverman-a8364841.html
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-can-we-avoid-paying-the-39-billion-brexit-divorce-bill
FactCheck verdict
David Davis and others have suggested the UK could leave the EU without paying the £39 billion “divorce bill” designed to cover our outstanding financial commitments to Brussels.
A House of Lords report from 2017 says that we won’t be bound by EU law after Brexit, and so we could get out of paying the bill. But that report is contentious. Irrespective of our membership of the EU, we are still bound to our financial commitments under international law.
And it’s worth remembering that even beyond the legal issues, reneging on our financial obligations is likely to make any free trade deal with Europe, or other potential partners, politically impossible.
I presume the commentator means Waterloo.
So very like the EU.
So the lack of sensible thinking by them is a bit of a problem.
I agree that we need to find a sustainable position in the world and a clear strategy. Nothing about the way Brexit is being conducted at the moment suggests to me that we are anywhere near doing this.
So whether or not we should or should not have joined at the start is a bit irrelevant. The question is what we should do now. It seems to me we risk making the same mistakes as before but in reverse. I.e. we are not working out a clear strategy and then implementing it. Rather we are reacting against something and hoping for the best while ignoring those facts which don't suit us.
Tens of thousands gathered in Madrid for a protest by right-wing parties opposed to a Spanish government plan to ease tension in the Catalonia region.
We're leaving with just under two years of the budget cycle we had previously agreed to.
The question is, does leaving the EU make it more likely that we will meet those challenges.
I can see a clear practical reason why not - because we might well be scrabbling around with economic damage limitation for the foreseeable future, therefore less bandwidth for nice to haves such as re-engineering our fundamentals. Ooo sounds a bit painful that doesn't it?
I think you need to have a quite romantic view of Britain to have real confidence that it goes the other way.
I do love the way they quote Professor Iain Begg on this as if he were an independent authority rather than a Council Member of the Federal Trust which campaigns for the UK to be part of a Federal Europe. It is like claiming Tommy Robinson is an independent authority on race relations.
It is not a matter of romance it is a matter of accepting basic reality.
Chelsea to sack manager ???? . Mourinho is available - now that would be hilarious
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/jeff-bezos-american-media-national-enquirer-blackmail.html
The latter - a genuine belief that there IS something very special and different about Britain, as compared to other Western European nations - that is what I meant by 'romantic' in this context.
Truth is, you are an unusual Brexiteer. I will go further. If we take a random sample of 11 of them, then add you in to make the round dozen, then take the group off for an away-day to a residential complex which has 2 dining rooms, one for those who share your reasons for wanting to leave the EU, your hopes & expectations for what it will bring, and the other one for those who don't, you will find that when 8 pm comes around you will be eating alone.
"Publish and be damned" should be the response. We're not going to faint at the sight of a naked man, even if it is someone as ugly as Jeff Bezos (sorry Mr Meeks!)
1. Who is ever going to trust us? We want everyone to treat us fairly but are quite happy to break our obligations.
2. We are seen to be effectively abandoning UK citizens living abroad.
3. We expect everyone to give us most-favoured nation terms when the reality is that the few people who don't actively dislike us are seeking the very best terms they can squeeze out of us.
4. We have broken promises to foreign investors and partners.
I'm reminded of the decision of 17th Century Japan to cut themselves off from the world for two hundred years. Perhaps that's it? 200 years of self-inflicted isolation. A fitting end to a once great nation that prided itself on it's internationalism and prided itself in it's contribution to the world.
Our MPs are cowards, from those Tories promising to resign if something isn't done but never actually doing it to those Labour MPs always finding some reason not to resign despite not agreeing with or supporting their leader. Despicable cowards - the lot of them. And the rest of us will have to pay the price.
The story has really set tongues wagging in media and political circles, but what enquiring minds really want to know is: how the hell did the Enquirer get hold of Jeff's actual texts? Insiders suggest it might be worth looking to Hollywood talent agent Michael Sanchez. Michael is well-known as being the brother of Lauren Sanchez, the woman lucky enough to receive the Bezos dick pics.
And rather less well-known as a close friend of Dylan Howard, editor of the National Enquirer.
Is it safe to make that assumption? If it isn't then you can't take 2008 as your starting point.
Corbyn's game is a nonsense and if he believes in a Norway deal he would be better backing a referendum and stopping brexit
when have the brits ever missed a chance to binge on bricks and mortar
I for one had never come across Nico Henderson's analysis - what remarkable insight it shows.
I fear we may be about to enter a period of significant decline as we cut ourselves adrift from Europe once again.
a) The EU are happy with this
b) There is a majority in Parliament for it
May is bonkers for not jumping at the one way out of her own shambles.
And for others, well, they're idiots, however normalised it may be.
I have on numerous occasions had to view what people put on their work email / work computers - including films of them having sex. In one particularly sad case, blackmail was attempted.
I did a talk explaining what the proper use of communications at work should be. One audience member asked me how private their private communications at work were and I replied that they weren't. If it was on work email or on a work computer, there was no guarantee of privacy (though in practice investigators aren't interested in Ocado shopping lists)
The look of shock on the audience's faces was a bit of a surprise to me, I must say.
People need a much much better understanding of how the digital world can adversely impact their privacy if they don't use it sensibly.
Hadn't even thought about this. Another black mark for Theresa.
That anecdote tells me it's a lost cause.
Hmmm... Looks like TSE needs a better example of an actual French fleet being sunk in its entirety!
And most of the conservative party and upto 60 labour mps from leave areas would be against.
The whole idea is pointless and Corbyn only suggested it knowing it will not be accepted. He doesn't want it himself, his ideal brexit is no deal
Top paragraph page 5: "In any case the UK has a large population accustomed to and skilled in industrial life, who within the confines of the British Isles, would suffer a large drop in standards were they to become the pioneers of of a de-industrial revolution."
Some of the issues in the Despatch are obselete, but this strikes me as very prescient. Henderson was a favourite of Maggie, but she must have skipped this bit. Overall the economy has become better, but in new service industries and regions. The rust belts of our coalfields have this in common with Ohio or Picardy. A Brexit that fails to meet the needs of those people 40 years on, is not going to be a success.
Of course, previous national narratives were not universally supported, whether colonial conquest, or joining the EEC. Indeed they were quite divisive. One of the reasons for British nostalgia for WW2 was that it was a brief period in modern times where the nation was nearly entirely united. For the other 95% of the 20th Century we were pretty much as divided as the present.
If Corbyn agrees to whip Labour to support BRexit, he will face rebellions;
If he whips Labour to support Brexit for a politically worthless declaration, he will cause a formal split in his party;
If he supports the WA and then the ultimate agreement is a diamond hard Brexit that even Rees-Mogg says goes too far - which could happen, although it doesn't seem likely - Labour itself is wrecked past all hope of recovery and will have the influence of the Liberals under Sinclair and Davies;
If, on the other hand, he can force a no deal Brexit by indecision and dithering there is a reasonable chance of sweeping to power with a mandate to totally wreck, er, reshape the British economic and social system. All he has to do is make a few soothing noises about how sad he is.
Therefore - why would he take the course you outline right now?
Answer - he wouldn't. Because even Mr Flunked a Poly Course Inside A Week Corbyn ain't that thick.
Therefore, any suggestions to the contrary are just posturing and can be ignored.
That's not to say what's happening right now is good, but if he is to let the WA pass he would have to have some sort of legally binding commitment on what TM will seek as the outcome.
To prevent a border in Ireland you need both Customs Union and Single Market membership. This is a classic case of salami slicing. They take the Single Market membership and then point out that to have an open border we must accept Single Market membership as well.
The way out of the labyrinth is through the door marked 'Cross Party Consensus', not the one marked 'Try and placate the ERG fruitcakes'.
And I find it amusing that we have people who in one breath bemoan the fate of our coalfields and in another harp on about decarbonisation of the economy for the good of the planet.
Do you have a solution that will receive majority support in tbe HOC and is doable