What I dislike so very much about May and the Tories at the moment is that they are putting their party's interests above the interests of the country.
I say this with all honesty. TM will not lead this country into no deal
And it is not hurting the party in the polls
No Deal will happen on March 29th unless something else happens instead. May's Deal has been defeated. She has not got - and is highly unlikely to get - any changes to the WA which will make 116 of those 230 MPs who voted against the deal last month change their vote and support it.
She has ruled out revocation of Article 50 and a referendum.
So, sorry, if she continues as she is doing No Deal is exactly the destination she is heading for.
I do understand all of that of course, but I repeat no deal will not happen
So why do you say that? And what do you think will happen to stop No Deal happening?
In the end one of two things, a deal will pass or an extension will be agreed
How will a deal be passed? Which 116 MPs will change their mind?
An extension, as another poster has already pointed out, is not an alternative to a No Deal.
Apparently upto 60 labour mps are coming onside and when the choice is Norway or no brexit many conservatives will vote the deal through otherwise a mutually agreed extension of some kind will be agreed
And where do you get those 60 MPs from? That only leaves another 56 Tories to go. Who might they be?
I am not getting at you Big G. But I think there is a lot of hope being expressed - which seems to me to have no basis in reality.
May's deal may be better than No Deal. But it is a rubbish deal really for our economy. The idea that as a country we should make such a momentous decision on the basis of a poor deal negotiated by a PM unable to take her party with her other than, possibly, at the last minute out of panic and fear is really quite appalling.
The Tories should be thoroughly ashamed of the way they are behaving. No amount of pointing fingers at Corbyn can excuse the way they are behaving.
I’m no expert but from what I have read on here a permanent CU with the EU would mean us having to accept goods tariff free from third party countries who have FTA with EU but we cannot in return get tariff free access to their markets as they have no incentive to offer that to us . It would be lose lose for the UK . If this is Corbyns plan surely it is a non starter?
Yes but this is a special #CorbynsCustomsUnion in which we will have a much greater say. A #CustomsUnicorn, if you prefer.
Except the EU supported it as a way forward, so maybe not a unicorn at all.
Well the EU want us to be in a permanent customs union, so it’s no surprise they like the sound of that. Doesn’t mean they would entertain his unicorn version.
In the end one of two things, a deal will pass or an extension will be agreed
An extension is just dragging the process out, it is not a destination. We still need to end up at either no deal, this deal, a different deal or revoke. There are no other options.
Extension is an option. No deal is not
I know you desperately wish this to be true but no matter how often you repeat it it doesn't make it any more factually correct.
Extension may be an option but only if May agrees to it and more importantly the 27 EU countries all agree as well. There is absolutely no guarantee of that and it is not something that is in the hands of either Parliament or the PM.
No Deal is clearly an option whether you like it or not. If we do not get Parliament to agree to a Deal (which seems very unlikely) and do not get permission to extend (which is debatable) then it is No Deal or Revoke and I will certainly not be betting a single penny on the chances of Revoke.
Hate it as you might, No Deal remains the value bet.
In the end one of two things, a deal will pass or an extension will be agreed
An extension is just dragging the process out, it is not a destination. We still need to end up at either no deal, this deal, a different deal or revoke. There are no other options.
Extension is an option. No deal is not
An extension is not an option. It requires the consent of the EU. Why would they give it? What would it achieve?
No Deal is the destination. May is ruling out all alternatives and has not set out any plausible way either to change the WA so as to get the majority needed or persuade enough MPs to change their mind on the existing WA.
Her only plan - as far as I can see - is to run out of time in order that MPs, out of fear, will vote for the WA.
It is such a culpably negligent and harmful way to run our affairs. Really quite disgraceful. Such a shame that we do not have a way of making politicians behaving like this personally responsible for the harm caused, in the way that councillors used to be.
Re your first sentence, to avoid an economic wasteland and an EU border imposed on Ireland by the EU
But it doesn't avoid any of that, because a decision will still have to be made. Why should a decision be any easier to make two or three months further on, if the options remain the same. Indeed, if one extension had been agreed, it might well be harder to make, because MPs might well assume a second and third would be agreed. But obviously the EU isn't going to let this go on for ever.
I’m no expert but from what I have read on here a permanent CU with the EU would mean us having to accept goods tariff free from third party countries who have FTA with EU but we cannot in return get tariff free access to their markets as they have no incentive to offer that to us . It would be lose lose for the UK . If this is Corbyns plan surely it is a non starter?
Yes but this is a special #CorbynsCustomsUnion in which we will have a much greater say. A #CustomsUnicorn, if you prefer.
Except the EU supported it as a way forward, so maybe not a unicorn at all.
Well the EU want us to be in a permanent customs union, so it’s no surprise they like the sound of that. Doesn’t mean they would agree to his unicorn version.
Anyone with any sense wants us in a permanent customs union.
Fantastic performance by us today against an almost inconceivably poor French side. I think we’ll win the Grand Slam with plenty of points to spare.
(The nerdish jingoism about ancient conflicts on here is utterly tiresome, but expected)
Actually, the relentless Anglo-centrism of posts like the above is equally tiresome (we are not all the "us" of "Fantastic performance by us", there are many posters who are "them").
Well said.
Oh come on. Why the chip on the shoulder? It's quite clear who they mean by saying "us". It's very common in English to describe ones team as 'us'...
Not everything is a slight against the Welsh, Irish or Scots. Don't be such sore losers.
I am half English half Welsh so I can see both sides of the argument but it is common for the Celts to be quite touchy on this subject
But why?
If I were to say "I still can't believe we beat Manchester City!" doesn't mean I think everyone here is a Newcastle United fan.
You are not seeing that International matches are different
Big G you don’t get to make the rules here. The usage was fine.
I would not be so presumptive and if some are upset I apologise
No need to apologise I’m sure but let’s be a bit more live and let live.
In the end one of two things, a deal will pass or an extension will be agreed
An extension is just dragging the process out, it is not a destination. We still need to end up at either no deal, this deal, a different deal or revoke. There are no other options.
Extension is an option. No deal is not
An extension is not an option. It requires the consent of the EU. Why would they give it? What would it achieve?
No Deal is the destination. May is ruling out all alternatives and has not set out any plausible way either to change the WA so as to get the majority needed or persuade enough MPs to change their mind on the existing WA.
Her only plan - as far as I can see - is to run out of time in order that MPs, out of fear, will vote for the WA.
It is such a culpably negligent and harmful way to run our affairs. Really quite disgraceful. Such a shame that we do not have a way of making politicians behaving like this personally responsible for the harm caused, in the way that councillors used to be.
Re your first sentence, to avoid an economic wasteland and an EU border imposed on Ireland by the EU
Is there anything in what the EU has said that suggests they would give an extension for that purpose? And what happens when the extension runs out?
No. An extension will only be given if it allows a resolution i.e. completing the legislative programme needed to enact an agreed WA. Or a referendum (and the choices will be influenced by the EU, I have no doubt).
Or, less likely but also possible, a GE or revocation. I am not even sure that the EU would agree for a GE because there is no certainty that it would change matters much in the HoC and, even if it did, that Labour would be able to agree and or pass a WA.
An extension just because we haven't made our mind up and to allow May to kick the can further down the road is utterly pointless.
I’m no expert but from what I have read on here a permanent CU with the EU would mean us having to accept goods tariff free from third party countries who have FTA with EU but we cannot in return get tariff free access to their markets as they have no incentive to offer that to us . It would be lose lose for the UK . If this is Corbyns plan surely it is a non starter?
Yes but this is a special #CorbynsCustomsUnion in which we will have a much greater say. A #CustomsUnicorn, if you prefer.
Except the EU supported it as a way forward, so maybe not a unicorn at all.
Well the EU want us to be in a permanent customs union, so it’s no surprise they like the sound of that. Doesn’t mean they would entertain his unicorn version.
What I dislike so very much about May and the Tories at the moment is that they are putting their party's interests above the interests of the country.
I say this with all honesty. TM will not lead this country into no deal
And it is not hurting the party in the polls
No Deal will happen on March 29th
I do understand all of that of course, but I repeat no deal will not happen
So why do you say that? And what do you think will happen to stop No Deal happening?
In the end one of two things, a deal will pass or an extension will be agreed
How will a deal be passed? Which 116 MPs will change their mind?
An extension, as another poster has already pointed out, is not an alternative to a No Deal.
Apparently upto 60 labour mps are coming onside and when the choice is Norway or no brexit many conservatives will vote the deal through otherwise a mutually agreed extension of some kind will be agreed
And where do you get those 60 MPs from? That only leaves another 56 Tories to go. Who might they be?
I am not getting at you Big G. But I think there is a lot of hope being expressed - which seems to me to have no basis in reality.
May's deal may be better than No Deal. But it is a rubbish deal really for our economy. The idea that as a country we should make such a momentous decision on the basis of a poor deal negotiated by a PM unable to take her party with her other than, possibly, at the last minute out of panic and fear is really quite appalling.
The Tories should be thoroughly ashamed of the way they are behaving. No amount of pointing fingers at Corbyn can excuse the way they are behaving.
You can blame the conservatives but in reality it is the 75% mps who never accepted the result and have been determined to stop brexit that have an equal responsibility
I am confident we will either agree a deal or an extension to prevent mutual economic armageddon and the incendiary of the EU themselves erecting a hard border in Ireland on 30th March
And I have to be optimistic, anything else is unacceptable
Fantastic performance by us today against an almost inconceivably poor French side. I think we’ll win the Grand Slam with plenty of points to spare.
(The nerdish jingoism about ancient conflicts on here is utterly tiresome, but expected)
Actually, the relentless Anglo-centrism of posts like the above is equally tiresome (we are not all the "us" of "Fantastic performance by us", there are many posters who are "them").
Well said.
Oh come on. Why the chip on the shoulder? It's quite clear who they mean by saying "us". It's very common in English to describe ones team as 'us'...
Not everything is a slight against the Welsh, Irish or Scots. Don't be such sore losers.
I am half English half Welsh so I can see both sides of the argument but it is common for the Celts to be quite touchy on this subject
But why?
If I were to say "I still can't believe we beat Manchester City!" doesn't mean I think everyone here is a Newcastle United fan.
You are not seeing that International matches are different
Big G you don’t get to make the rules here. The usage was fine.
I would not be so presumptive and if some are upset I apologise
No need to apologise I’m sure but let’s be a bit more live and let live.
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.
? I don't think you need either, you just need an FTA with Ireland, right?
Well you need an FTA with the EU not Ireland. But that is not currently on offer and what Corbyn suggests will not solve the issue.
Isn't any arrangement that gives regulatory alignment the answer to a hard border. The problem is if your particular fanciful notion of the benefit of Brexit is the ability to set your own regulations. If you want that then a hard border is inevitable regardless. Agreements, technology and even leprechauns can't help you.
Depends on how you define a hard border. If your definition of a hard border is border posts and queues or if you definition of a hard border is no infrastructure at the border but having to fill in a customs declaration form. This has never been defined in the debate so the debate keeps going round in circles.
I mean, is it really that difficult to have sex with someone and not have your phone with you? Or switch it off?
People these days carry their phone with them wherever they go, with the possible exception of the shower. I agree that it is weird but that's what people do.
I feel very old-fashioned. Were it not for work, I wouldn't bother having a phone at all. And I could happily live without a landline as well.
But I am of the generation which grew up with the phone in the cold hall and parents tut-tutting about the cost of it all if one dared use it for more than the bare minimum.
Autres temps, autres moeurs.
What, no lock on the dial? You don't know how lucky you were.
(My brother and I learnt how to 'dial' a number on the locked phone by tapping it out on the handset plunger, one tap for 1, two fo 2 etc. with a short pause between each. Usually a couple of mis-dials before you got the friend's number you were after!)
This is getting into 4 Yorkshiremen territory I know. But I remember Button A and Button B phones and one of my early memories is my father telling me always to have tuppenny pieces in my coat or bag so that I could make calls home from a phone box (remember them?)
When we were in Italy, if we wanted to call England we had to book an international call and wait around the phone at the appointed hour for the operator to connect you. Phone calls seemed like very exciting and rare events. Not the banalities you hear on buses every day.
I REALLY doubt you remember the tuppenny piece, as it was only minted in copper in 1797 and between 1818-20 in silver. They were also quite huge, the 1d minted in the same style was known as the "cartwheel penny".
They would not have fitted in either Button A or Button B.
I’m no expert but from what I have read on here a permanent CU with the EU would mean us having to accept goods tariff free from third party countries who have FTA with EU but we cannot in return get tariff free access to their markets as they have no incentive to offer that to us . It would be lose lose for the UK . If this is Corbyns plan surely it is a non starter?
Yes but this is a special #CorbynsCustomsUnion in which we will have a much greater say. A #CustomsUnicorn, if you prefer.
Except the EU supported it as a way forward, so maybe not a unicorn at all.
Well the EU want us to be in a permanent customs union, so it’s no surprise they like the sound of that. Doesn’t mean they would entertain his unicorn version.
Methinks you are wrong.
They have welcomed Corbyns version
Which all relates to the Political Declaration about what might be agreed in the future FTA.
None of what Corbyn has said affects the WA or, even if the Political Declaration is changed as he suggests, makes it more likely that the Tories will vote for the WA as is.
And his suggestion that we would have a say over EU trade deals while not being a member is for the birds. We may as well Remain if that is what is wanted. Is there any reason why the EU would agree to that? It amounts to cherry-picking.
I’m no expert but from what I have read on here a permanent CU with the EU would mean us having to accept goods tariff free from third party countries who have FTA with EU but we cannot in return get tariff free access to their markets as they have no incentive to offer that to us . It would be lose lose for the UK . If this is Corbyns plan surely it is a non starter?
Yes but this is a special #CorbynsCustomsUnion in which we will have a much greater say. A #CustomsUnicorn, if you prefer.
Except the EU supported it as a way forward, so maybe not a unicorn at all.
Well the EU want us to be in a permanent customs union, so it’s no surprise they like the sound of that. Doesn’t mean they would entertain his unicorn version.
The point is that according to Corbyn's proposal the EU doesn't need to agree to anything very specific at this stage. Just a form of words about future aspirations for the Political Declaration, and no change to the existing Withdrawal Agreement.
The negotiations that will happen after Brexit are another matter. But the Political Declaration isn't binding, and the legislation Corbyn is asking for can't bind a future government either.
So to my eyes it looks very much like a way of getting out of the current impasse by means of everyone subscribing to some political verbiage about future intentions which isn't going to have any lasting effect in any case. The Tory party won't like it, and they may well take a hit in the polls because of it, but given that this whole screw-up was engineered by the Tory party as a clever little political manoeuvre for party advantage in the first place, it's just about what they deserve,
I mean, is it really that difficult to have sex with someone and not have your phone with you? Or switch it off?
People these days carry their phone with them wherever they go, with the possible exception of the shower. I agree that it is weird but that's what people do.
I feel very old-fashioned. Were it not for work, I wouldn't bother having a phone at all. And I could happily live without a landline as well.
But I am of the generation which grew up with the phone in the cold hall and parents tut-tutting about the cost of it all if one dared use it for more than the bare minimum.
Autres temps, autres moeurs.
What, no lock on the dial? You don't know how lucky you were.
(My brother and I learnt how to 'dial' a number on the locked phone by tapping it out on the handset plunger, one tap for 1, two fo 2 etc. with a short pause between each. Usually a couple of mis-dials before you got the friend's number you were after!)
This is getting into 4 Yorkshiremen territory I know. But I remember Button A and Button B phones and one of my early memories is my father telling me always to have tuppenny pieces in my coat or bag so that I could make calls home from a phone box (remember them?)
When we were in Italy, if we wanted to call England we had to book an international call and wait around the phone at the appointed hour for the operator to connect you. Phone calls seemed like very exciting and rare events. Not the banalities you hear on buses every day.
I REALLY doubt you remember the tuppenny piece, as it was only minted in copper in 1797 and between 1818-20 in silver. They were also quite huge, the 1d minted in the same style was known as the "cartwheel penny".
They would not have fitted in either Button A or Button B.
I do remember twopence coins and threepenny coins as well. The former were large.
The twopence pieces were what you made calls from in phone boxes. Not the Button A/Button B ones because while I remember my father explaining them I was too young to be let out alone to use them. Two pennies was also the cost of a bus ride from my stop on the Finchley Road to the tube station.
Somewhere in the attic I still have some of these coins. Oh - and a ten-shilling note.
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.
? I don't think you need either, you just need an FTA with Ireland, right?
Well you need an FTA with the EU not Ireland. But that is not currently on offer and what Corbyn suggests will not solve the issue.
Isn't any arrangement that gives regulatory alignment the answer to a hard border. The problem is if your particular fanciful notion of the benefit of Brexit is the ability to set your own regulations. If you want that then a hard border is inevitable regardless. Agreements, technology and even leprechauns can't help you.
Depends on how you define a hard border. If your definition of a hard border is border posts and queues or if you definition of a hard border is no infrastructure at the border but having to fill in a customs declaration form. This has never been defined in the debate so the debate keeps going round in circles.
Sort of, but you need at least some infrastructure. A purely virtual border isn't going to stop some of the things we'd want to stop.
Yes but this is a special #CorbynsCustomsUnion in which we will have a much greater say. A #CustomsUnicorn, if you prefer.
It's like the single market access they plan, all the benefits without actually being in the single market. Strangely, there hasn't been any detail on why the EU would accept this.
I’m no expert but from what I have read on here a permanent CU with the EU would mean us having to accept goods tariff free from third party countries who have FTA with EU but we cannot in return get tariff free access to their markets as they have no incentive to offer that to us . It would be lose lose for the UK . If this is Corbyns plan surely it is a non starter?
Yes but this is a special #CorbynsCustomsUnion in which we will have a much greater say. A #CustomsUnicorn, if you prefer.
Except the EU supported it as a way forward, so maybe not a unicorn at all.
Well the EU want us to be in a permanent customs union, so it’s no surprise they like the sound of that. Doesn’t mean they would entertain his unicorn version.
Methinks you are wrong.
They have welcomed Corbyns version
Which all relates to the Political Declaration about what might be agreed in the future FTA.
None of what Corbyn has said affects the WA or, even if the Political Declaration is changed as he suggests, makes it more likely that the Tories will vote for the WA as is.
And his suggestion that we would have a say over EU trade deals while not being a member is for the birds. We may as well Remain if that is what is wanted. Is there any reason why the EU would agree to that? It amounts to cherry-picking.
And that tunes with my attitude.
Corbyn is playing games, hasn' t thought it through, and is a terrible idea which would result in me wanting to remain or rejoin
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.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.
Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.
I have read it and to be honest it is pretty much meaningless in this day and age when so much has changed in the intervening period.
There is nothing inevitable as he implies about these trends and about our place in the world. He could never have predicted the fantastic changes wrought by Thatcher in the 80s nor that we would be in a position where our GDP per capita was now higher than that of France.
His note is a reflection of his own despondency about the future - a future that actually did not come to pass.
Those who ask why are we leaving are asking exactly the wrong question. The question should be why did we join ?
It's a very good question. The reasons for the UK joining the EU don't disappear with Brexit. In a nutshell, the UK didn't want to be left out and there weren't any good alternatives.
More precisely if you are a medium sized but fairly prosperous country with some ambition to influence, even if not powerful enough to control, a liberal democracy, that benefits from the rule of law, with an open economy and somewhat wanting other countries to reciprocate, you would be looking for an association of like minded countries to be a part of. There is only one such association in the world, it's on our doorstep and we're leaving it.
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.
I don't speak for other Remainers but I don't want to rule over other countries nor do I blame the EU for not remoulding itself in the way we want. The arrogance is in that expectation. Multilateral organisations work by consensus, as the EU does, and as it should do.
Apparently upto 60 labour mps are coming onside and when the choice is Norway or no brexit many conservatives will vote the deal through otherwise a mutually agreed extension of some kind will be agreed
And where do you get those 60 MPs from? That only leaves another 56 Tories to go. Who might they be?
I am not getting at you Big G. But I think there is a lot of hope being expressed - which seems to me to have no basis in reality.
May's deal may be better than No Deal. But it is a rubbish deal really for our economy. The idea that as a country we should make such a momentous decision on the basis of a poor deal negotiated by a PM unable to take her party with her other than, possibly, at the last minute out of panic and fear is really quite appalling.
The Tories should be thoroughly ashamed of the way they are behaving. No amount of pointing fingers at Corbyn can excuse the way they are behaving.
You can blame the conservatives but in reality it is the 75% mps who never accepted the result and have been determined to stop brexit that have an equal responsibility
I am confident we will either agree a deal or an extension to prevent mutual economic armageddon and the incendiary of the EU themselves erecting a hard border in Ireland on 30th March
And I have to be optimistic, anything else is unacceptable
I prefer to be realistic. I see little basis for optimism, I'm afraid.
The Tories embarked on this. They have made a mess of it. They will take the consequences of their handling of it. They should have thought things through first. It's not as if there have not been plenty of lessons in our past, even in our recent past, from which they could have learnt something. Which is where I came in.
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.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.
Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.
Nonsense. Socialism caused Britain's decline and it only ended not when we joined the EEC but rather when Thatcher fixed our economy (the Winter of Discontent was after we joined).
Globally comparable English=speaking developed nations perform at least as well as we do.
In what way did Thatcher 'fix' our economy? She ruined the lives of many and brought misery to millions with her sadomasochistic monetarism in her first term - policies later abandoned by Lawson. Unemployment soared under her stewardship and - despite the bonus of North Sea Oil - the Balance of Payments deteriorated. Inflation, at the time of her departure, was unchanged from the level inherited from Callaghan 11.5 years earlier - indeed inflation was higher for most of her last full year in office than in Callaghan's final year. Despite the Privatisation receipts , by 1990 the Public Finances were again in a sorry state.
I have to be honest and say I don’t think I could have done what I have done without Thatcherism. Like it or not, she did send entrepreneurialism free. But I lived in London and went to university (for free). I was her target audience. That does not excuse her utter failure to manage deindustrialisation. Her neglect caused devastated countless communities and they still have not recovered. We should bear that in mind with Brexit. Once torn asunder communities are very difficult to put together again.
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.
? I don't think you need either, you just need an FTA with Ireland, right?
Well you need an FTA with the EU not Ireland. But that is not currently on offer and what Corbyn suggests will not solve the issue.
Isn't any arrangement that gives regulatory alignment the answer to a hard border. The problem is if your particular fanciful notion of the benefit of Brexit is the ability to set your own regulations. If you want that then a hard border is inevitable regardless. Agreements, technology and even leprechauns can't help you.
Depends on how you define a hard border. If your definition of a hard border is border posts and queues or if you definition of a hard border is no infrastructure at the border but having to fill in a customs declaration form. This has never been defined in the debate so the debate keeps going round in circles.
Sort of, but you need at least some infrastructure. A purely virtual border isn't going to stop some of the things we'd want to stop.
No it is a choice. We tolerate VAT carousel fraud from the UK to the continental EU, we tolerate booze and fag smuggling as well. I can not believe that smuggling NI/Ireland will ever reach the monetary levels of the smuggling from continetal EU to the UK. Then there is the fact that it is easy to stop, just equalise prices. That leaves the health checks.
Apparently upto 60 labour mps are coming onside and when the choice is Norway or no brexit many conservatives will vote the deal through otherwise a mutually agreed extension of some kind will be agreed
And where do you get those 60 MPs from? That only leaves another 56 Tories to go. Who might they be?
I am not getting at you Big G. But I think there is a lot of hope being expressed - which seems to me to have no basis in reality.
May's deal may be better than No Deal. But it is a rubbish deal really for our economy. The idea that as a country we should make such a momentous decision on the basis of a poor deal negotiated by a PM unable to take her party with her other than, possibly, at the last minute out of panic and fear is really quite appalling.
The Tories should be thoroughly ashamed of the way they are behaving. No amount of pointing fingers at Corbyn can excuse the way they are behaving.
You can blame the conservatives but in reality it is the 75% mps who never accepted the result and have been determined to stop brexit that have an equal responsibility
I am confident we will either agree a deal or an extension to prevent mutual economic armageddon and the incendiary of the EU themselves erecting a hard border in Ireland on 30th March
And I have to be optimistic, anything else is unacceptable
I prefer to be realistic. I see little basis for optimism, I'm afraid.
The Tories embarked on this. They have made a mess of it. They will take the consequences of their handling of it. They should have thought things through first. It's not as if there have not been plenty of lessons in our past, even in our recent past, from which they could have learnt something. Which is where I came in.
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.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.
Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.
Nonsense. Socialism caused Britain's decline and it only ended not when we joined the EEC but rather when Thatcher fixed our economy (the Winter of Discontent was after we joined).
Globally comparable English=speaking developed nations perform at least as well as we do.
In what way did Thatcher 'fix' our economy? She ruined the lives of many and brought misery to millions with her sadomasochistic monetarism in her first term - policies later abandoned by Lawson. Unemployment soared under her stewardship and - despite the bonus of North Sea Oil - the Balance of Payments deteriorated. Inflation, at the time of her departure, was unchanged from the level inherited from Callaghan 11.5 years earlier - indeed inflation was higher for most of her last full year in office than in Callaghan's final year. Despite the Privatisation receipts , by 1990 the Public Finances were again in a sorry state.
Of course she fixed our economy. So the rich could get richer and the poor could get poorer.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.
Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.
Nonsense. Socialism caused Britain's decline and it only ended not when we joined the EEC but rather when Thatcher fixed our economy (the Winter of Discontent was after we joined).
Globally comparable English=speaking developed nations perform at least as well as we do.
In what way did Thatcher 'fix' our economy? She ruined the lives of many and brought misery to millions with her sadomasochistic monetarism in her first term - policies later abandoned by Lawson. Unemployment soared under her stewardship and - despite the bonus of North Sea Oil - the Balance of Payments deteriorated. Inflation, at the time of her departure, was unchanged from the level inherited from Callaghan 11.5 years earlier - indeed inflation was higher for most of her last full year in office than in Callaghan's final year. Despite the Privatisation receipts , by 1990 the Public Finances were again in a sorry state.
I have to be honest and say I don’t think I could have done what I have done without Thatcherism. Like it or not, she did send entrepreneurialism free. But I lived in London and went to university (for free). I was her target audience. That does not excuse her utter failure to manage deindustrialisation. Her neglect caused devastated countless communities and they still have not recovered. We should bear that in mind with Brexit. Once torn asunder communities are very difficult to put together again.
In debates like this I would advise that people read the released cabinet documents of the period for when the Labour Govt called in the IMF. The discussions in cabinet were absolutely clear that calling in the IMF would result in the hollowing out of UK industry, shipbuilding, car manufacturing, etc would all shrink dramatically. It is a credit to the Labour Party that they have dishonestly put the blame on Thatcher.
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.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.
Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.
Nonsense. Socialism caused Britain's decline and it only ended not when we joined the EEC but rather when Thatcher fixed our economy (the Winter of Discontent was after we joined).
Globally comparable English=speaking developed nations perform at least as well as we do.
In what way did Thatcher 'fix' our economy? She ruined the lives of many and brought misery to millions with her sadomasochistic monetarism in her first term - policies later abandoned by Lawson. Unemployment soared under her stewardship and - despite the bonus of North Sea Oil - the Balance of Payments deteriorated. Inflation, at the time of her departure, was unchanged from the level inherited from Callaghan 11.5 years earlier - indeed inflation was higher for most of her last full year in office than in Callaghan's final year. Despite the Privatisation receipts , by 1990 the Public Finances were again in a sorry state.
Of course she fixed our economy. So the rich could get richer and the poor could get poorer.
Whereas of course Corbyn's goal is for the rich to get much poorer and for the poor to be destitute.
That does look ludicrous, though not sure how it is worrying exactly? However stupid it is, for instance, it will be stupid no matter if it is delayed by a number of hours, and its contents will be more important than the silly demand it not go out before a certain time.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.
Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.
Nonsense. Socialism caused Britain's decline and it only ended not when we joined the EEC but rather when Thatcher fixed our economy (the Winter of Discontent was after we joined).
Globally comparable English=speaking developed nations perform at least as well as we do.
In what way 11.5 years earlier - indeed inflation was higher for most of her last full year in office than in Callaghan's final year. Despite the Privatisation receipts , by 1990 the Public Finances were again in a sorry state.
I have to be honest and say I don’t think I could have done what I have done without Thatcherism. Like it or not, she did send entrepreneurialism free. But I lived in London and went to university (for free). I was her target audience. That does not excuse her utter failure to manage deindustrialisation. Her neglect caused devastated countless communities and they still have not recovered. We should bear that in mind with Brexit. Once torn asunder communities are very difficult to put together again.
In debates like this I would advise that people read the released cabinet documents of the period for when the Labour Govt called in the IMF. The discussions in cabinet were absolutely clear that calling in the IMF would result in the hollowing out of UK industry, shipbuilding, car manufacturing, etc would all shrink dramatically. It is a credit to the Labour Party that they have dishonestly put the blame on Thatcher.
I don’t blame Thatcher for deindustrialisation. I hold her responsible for her response to it.
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.
? I don't think you need either, you just need an FTA with Ireland, right?
Well you need an FTA with the EU not Ireland. But that is not currently on offer and what Corbyn suggests will not solve the issue.
Isn't any arrangement that gives regulatory alignment the answer to a hard border. The problem is if your particular fanciful notion of the benefit of Brexit is the ability to set your own regulations. If you want that then a hard border is inevitable regardless. Agreements, technology and even leprechauns can't help you.
Depends on how you define a hard border. If your definition of a hard border is border posts and queues or if you definition of a hard border is no infrastructure at the border but having to fill in a customs declaration form. This has never been defined in the debate so the debate keeps going round in circles.
Sort of, but you need at least some infrastructure. A purely virtual border isn't going to stop some of the things we'd want to stop.
No it is a choice. We tolerate VAT carousel fraud from the UK to the continental EU, we tolerate booze and fag smuggling as well. I can not believe that smuggling NI/Ireland will ever reach the monetary levels of the smuggling from continetal EU to the UK. Then there is the fact that it is easy to stop, just equalise prices. That leaves the health checks.
I was told by an old family friend who claimed knowledge that one of the terms around NI paramilitary disarmament was that there would be no automated number plate recognition systems on the border which might restrict their smuggling business
Why do we have passport control and customs staff at airports? It is an interesting idea to fully open our borders to anyone but not sure this is what leavers were voting for.
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.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.
Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.
Nonsense. Socialism caused Britain's decline and it only ended not when we joined the EEC but rather when Thatcher fixed our economy (the Winter of Discontent was after we joined).
Globally comparable English=speaking developed nations perform at least as well as we do.
In what way did Thatcher 'fix' our economy? She ruined the lives of many and brought misery to millions with her sadomasochistic monetarism in her first term - policies later abandoned by Lawson. Unemployment soared under her stewardship and - despite the bonus of North Sea Oil - the Balance of Payments deteriorated. Inflation, at the time of her departure, was unchanged from the level inherited from Callaghan 11.5 years earlier - indeed inflation was higher for most of her last full year in office than in Callaghan's final year. Despite the Privatisation receipts , by 1990 the Public Finances were again in a sorry state.
Of course she fixed our economy. So the rich could get richer and the poor could get poorer.
I think Thatcher's influence was more than that, and indeed seperates into phases. 79-82 were pretty grim most places, with high unemployment, high interest rates and inflation. The mid Eighties were Yuppie heaven in London and some other parts. Post 87, things started to go sour again with division over polltax, Europe and industrial issues like Westland. It was a long decade, and clearly a transforming one in some areas of the economy, some transformation for the good, and some for the bad.
I remember one Eighties Joke.
Q: How do you start a small business in Britain?
A: Start with a large nationalised one, and vote in Mrs Thatcher!
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.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.
Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.
Nonsense. Socialism caused Britain's decline and it only ended not when we joined the EEC but rather when Thatcher fixed our economy (the Winter of Discontent was after we joined).
Globally comparable English=speaking developed nations perform at least as well as we do.
In what way did Thatcher 'fix' our economy? She ruined the lives of many and brought misery to millions with her sadomasochistic monetarism in her first term - policies later abandoned by Lawson. Unemployment soared under her stewardship and - despite the bonus of North Sea Oil - the Balance of Payments deteriorated. Inflation, at the time of her departure, was unchanged from the level inherited from Callaghan 11.5 years earlier - indeed inflation was higher for most of her last full year in office than in Callaghan's final year. Despite the Privatisation receipts , by 1990 the Public Finances were again in a sorry state.
I have to be honest and say I don’t think I could have done what I have done without Thatcherism. Like it or not, she did send entrepreneurialism free. But I lived in London and went to university (for free). I was her target audience. That does not excuse her utter failure to manage deindustrialisation. Her neglect caused devastated countless communities and they still have not recovered. We should bear that in mind with Brexit. Once torn asunder communities are very difficult to put together again.
UK manufacturing output was higher when Thatcher left office than when she became PM:
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.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.
Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.
I have read it and to be honest it is pretty much meaningless in this day and age when so much has changed in the intervening period.
There is nothing inevitable as he implies about these trends and about our place in the world. He could never have predicted the fantastic changes wrought by Thatcher in the 80s nor that we would be in a position where our GDP per capita was now higher than that of France.
His note is a reflection of his own despondency about the future - a future that actually did not come to pass.
The UK has historically had a higher GDP per capita than France, and quite a lot higher during the industrial revolution. The figures got closer in the fifties and sixties where the French did rather better than the UK at indicative planning. But the seventies the French had a small edge - but that was the era of the three day week over here. I am not sure what exactly was fantastic about Thatcher as her rather gormless demand contraction knocked per capita GDP for six compared to that of France. That was the only time the UK fell seriously behind France, but even that wasn't for long.
It was the Blair/Brown years where the UK raced ahead of France. Who knows why - not me for sure. I suspect nobody on this forum can explain it.
Yes but this is a special #CorbynsCustomsUnion in which we will have a much greater say. A #CustomsUnicorn, if you prefer.
It's like the single market access they plan, all the benefits without actually being in the single market. Strangely, there hasn't been any detail on why the EU would accept this.
Actually there are now fewer unicorns on the single-market side. No mention in Jez’s letter of ending free movement, which used to be Labour policy.
It was the Blair/Brown years where the UK raced ahead of France. Who knows why - not me for sure. I suspect nobody on this forum can explain it.
The house price boom. The percentage of the GDP figure that's made up simply of a calculation of the imaginary rent that owner occupiers would pay themselves if they rented their own houses increased dramatically.
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.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
Nonsense. Socialism caused Britain's decline and it only ended not when we joined the EEC but rather when Thatcher fixed our economy (the Winter of Discontent was after we joined).
Globally comparable English=speaking developed nations perform at least as well as we do.
In what way did Thatcher 'fix' our economy? She ruined the lives of many and brought misery to millions with her sadomasochistic monetarism in her first term - policies later abandoned by Lawson. Unemployment soared under her stewardship and - despite the bonus of North Sea Oil - the Balance of Payments deteriorated. Inflation, at the time of her departure, was unchanged from the level inherited from Callaghan 11.5 years earlier - indeed inflation was higher for most of her last full year in office than in Callaghan's final year. Despite the Privatisation receipts , by 1990 the Public Finances were again in a sorry state.
I have to be honest and say I don’t think I could have done what I have done without Thatcherism. Like it or not, she did send entrepreneurialism free. But I lived in London and went to university (for free). I was her target audience. That does not excuse her utter failure to manage deindustrialisation. Her neglect caused devastated countless communities and they still have not recovered. We should bear that in mind with Brexit. Once torn asunder communities are very difficult to put together again.
You and others may have flourished individually during those years , but despite the massive advantages she enjoyed in terms of North Sea Oil and receipts from Privatisation it is not clear that the key Macroeconomic indicators improved during her long years in office . Unemployment? Economic Growth? Balance of Payments? Inflation?
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.
Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.
Nonsense. Socialism caused Britain's decline and it only ended not when we joined the EEC but rather when Thatcher fixed our economy (the Winter of Discontent was after we joined).
Globally comparable English=speaking developed nations perform at least as well as we do.
In what way did Thatcher 'fix' our economy? She ruined the lives of many and brought misery to millions with her sadomasochistic monetarism in her first term - policies later abandoned by Lawson. Unemployment soared under her stewardship and - despite the bonus of North Sea Oil - the Balance of Payments deteriorated. Inflation, at the time of her departure, was unchanged from the level inherited from Callaghan 11.5 years earlier - indeed inflation was higher for most of her last full year in office than in Callaghan's final year. Despite the Privatisation receipts , by 1990 the Public Finances were again in a sorry state.
Of course she fixed our economy. So the rich could get richer and the poor could get poorer.
I think Thatcher's influence was more than that, and indeed seperates into phases. 79-82 were pretty grim most places, with high unemployment, high interest rates and inflation. The mid Eighties were Yuppie heaven in London and some other parts. Post 87, things started to go sour again with division over polltax, Europe and industrial issues like Westland. It was a long decade, and clearly a transforming one in some areas of the economy, some transformation for the good, and some for the bad.
I remember one Eighties Joke.
Q: How do you start a small business in Britain?
A: Start with a large nationalised one, and vote in Mrs Thatcher!
I thought the answer was ' Start with a big one!'. By the way Westland was Jan/Feb 1986.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.
Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.
Nonsense. Socialism caused Britain's decline and it only ended not when we joined the EEC but rather when Thatcher fixed our economy (the Winter of Discontent was after we joined).
Globally comparable English=speaking developed nations perform at least as well as we do.
In what way did Thatcher 'fix' our economy? She ruined the lives of many and brought misery to millions with her sadomasochistic monetarism in her first term - policies later abandoned by Lawson. Unemployment soared under her stewardship and - despite the bonus of North Sea Oil - the Balance of Payments deteriorated. Inflation, at the time of her departure, was unchanged from the level inherited from Callaghan 11.5 years earlier - indeed inflation was higher for most of her last full year in office than in Callaghan's final year. Despite the Privatisation receipts , by 1990 the Public Finances were again in a sorry state.
Of course she fixed our economy. So the rich could get richer and the poor could get poorer.
I think Thatcher's influence was more than that, and indeed seperates into phases. 79-82 were pretty grim most places, with high unemployment, high interest rates and inflation. The mid Eighties were Yuppie heaven in London and some other parts. Post 87, things started to go sour again with division over polltax, Europe and industrial issues like Westland. It was a long decade, and clearly a transforming one in some areas of the economy, some transformation for the good, and some for the bad.
I remember one Eighties Joke.
Q: How do you start a small business in Britain?
A: Start with a large nationalised one, and vote in Mrs Thatcher!
I thought the answer was ' Start with a big one!'. By the way Westland was Jan/Feb 1986.
I thought it began in November 85? Or are you referring to when it became public?
It was the Blair/Brown years where the UK raced ahead of France. Who knows why - not me for sure. I suspect nobody on this forum can explain it.
The house price boom. The percentage of the GDP figure that's made up simply of a calculation of the imaginary rent that owner occupiers would pay themselves if they rented their own houses increased dramatically.
Maybe. But I am not sure if it was cause or effect.
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.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
Nonsense. Socialism caused Britain's decline and it only ended not when we joined the EEC but rather when Thatcher fixed our economy (the Winter of Discontent was after we joined).
Globally comparable English=speaking developed nations perform at least as well as we do.
In what way did Thatcher 'fix' our economy? She ruined the lives of many and brought misery to millions with her sadomasochistic monetarism in her first term - policies later abandoned by Lawson. Unemployment soared under her stewardship and - despite the bonus of North Sea Oil - the Balance of Payments deteriorated. Inflation, at the time of her departure, was unchanged from the level inherited from Callaghan 11.5 years earlier - indeed inflation was higher for most of her last full year in office than in Callaghan's final year. Despite the Privatisation receipts , by 1990 the Public Finances were again in a sorry state.
I have to be honest and say I don’t think I could have done what I have done without Thatcherism. Like it or not, she did send entrepreneurialism free. But I lived in London and went to university (for free). I was her target audience. That does not excuse her utter failure to manage deindustrialisation. Her neglect caused devastated countless communities and they still have not recovered. We should bear that in mind with Brexit. Once torn asunder communities are very difficult to put together again.
You and others may have flourished individually during those years , but despite the massive advantages she enjoyed in terms of North Sea Oil and receipts from Privatisation it is not clear that the key Macroeconomic indicators improved during her long years in office . Unemployment? Economic Growth? Balance of Payments? Inflation?
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.
Well, in some ways their economies have improved, for example the old Leics Coalfield around Coalville, but these and our other post industrial regions remain places unhappy with the modern world. Working in the Amazon fulfillment centre in Coalville does not provide the fulfillment or community that the NCB did. Much of the other work is similar low level and unstable service work.
Yet North West Leicestershire, like many other old mining areas, has swung hugely to the Conservatives.
If we're looking at areas which are dependent upon low level, unstable service work then many urban areas would be prime examples.
And they have added low home ownership and high inequality as well.
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.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.
Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.
Nonsense. Socialism caused Britain's decline and it only ended not when we joined the EEC but rather when Thatcher fixed our economy (the Winter of Discontent was after we joined).
Globally comparable English=speaking developed nations perform at least as well as we do.
In what way did Despite the Privatisation receipts , by 1990 the Public Finances were again in a sorry state.
I have to be honest and say I don’t think I could have done what I have done without Thatcherism. Like it or not, she did send entrepreneurialism free. But I lived in London and went to university (for free). I was her target audience. That does not excuse her utter failure to manage deindustrialisation. Her neglect caused devastated countless communities and they still have not recovered. We should bear that in mind with Brexit. Once torn asunder communities are very difficult to put together again.
UK manufacturing output was higher when Thatcher left office than when she became PM:
If you want to talk about deindustrialisation then the Blair / Brown Labour government would be a better place to begin.
Output is different. I am talking about the communities that had to live through the closures of major vehicles of industrial production. That happened in the 80s and early 90s, probably inevitably. But there was no plan to rebuild or reskill. And we continue to live with the consequences today.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.
Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.
Nonsense. Socialism caused Britain's decline and it only ended not when we joined the EEC but rather when Thatcher fixed our economy (the Winter of Discontent was after we joined).
Globally comparable English=speaking developed nations perform at least as well as we do.
In what way did Thatcher 'fix' our economy? She ruined the lives of many and brought misery to millions with her sadomasochistic monetarism in her first term - policies later abandoned by Lawson. Unemployment soared under her stewardship and - despite the bonus of North Sea Oil - the Balance of Payments deteriorated. Inflation, at the time of her departure, was unchanged from the level inherited from Callaghan 11.5 years earlier - indeed inflation was higher for most of her last full year in office than in Callaghan's final year. Despite the Privatisation receipts , by 1990 the Public Finances were again in a sorry state.
Of course she fixed our economy. So the rich could get richer and the poor could get poorer.
I think Thatcher's influence was more than that, and indeed seperates into phases. 79-82 were pretty grim most places, with high unemployment, high interest rates and inflation. The mid Eighties were Yuppie heaven in London and some other parts. Post 87, things started to go sour again with division over polltax, Europe and industrial issues like Westland. It was a long decade, and clearly a transforming one in some areas of the economy, some transformation for the good, and some for the bad.
I remember one Eighties Joke.
Q: How do you start a small business in Britain?
A: Start with a large nationalised one, and vote in Mrs Thatcher!
I thought that was a joke Australians told about New Zealanders.
Q: How does a New Zealander get a small business ?
A: He starts with a large business and runs it for a few years.
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.
? I don't think you need either, you just need an FTA with Ireland, right?
Well you need an FTA with the EU not Ireland. But that is not currently on offer and what Corbyn suggests will not solve the issue.
Isn't any arrangement that gives regulatory alignment the answer to a hard border. The problem is if your particular fanciful notion of the benefit of Brexit is the ability to set your own regulations. If you want that then a hard border is inevitable regardless. Agreements, technology and even leprechauns can't help you.
Depends on how you define a hard border. If your definition of a hard border is border posts and queues or if you definition of a hard border is no infrastructure at the border but having to fill in a customs declaration form. This has never been defined in the debate so the debate keeps going round in circles.
Sort of, but you need at least some infrastructure. A purely virtual border isn't going to stop some of the things we'd want to stop.
How do you catch the criminals who choose not to fill in the forms without checks at the border?
You and others may have flourished individually during those years , but despite the massive advantages she enjoyed in terms of North Sea Oil and receipts from Privatisation it is not clear that the key Macroeconomic indicators improved during her long years in office . Unemployment? Economic Growth? Balance of Payments? Inflation?
Well compared with where Henderson claims we were and where we were heading in 1979, things were certainly whole magnitudes better by the time she left power in 1990.
Those massive advantages you mention are nothing compared to the massive problems she was faced with resulting from years of mismanagement of the economy that had left us the sick man of Europe. All those people clinging to the Henderson claims need to think about just how badly the UK had been run in the period prior to 1979 for him to be making such statements. And about how different the picture is today thanks to the Thatcherite reforms.
It is worth pointing out that in 1980 GDP per capita in the UK was around $22,000. France was $27,000. And yet today Britain is ahead of France (just) in GDP per capita.
And our balance of payments issues are related directly to our membership of the EU.
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.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.
Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.
Nonsense. Socialism caused Britain's decline and it only ended not when we joined the EEC but rather when Thatcher fixed our economy (the Winter of Discontent was after we joined).
Globally comparable English=speaking developed nations perform at least as well as we do.
In what way did Despite the Privatisation receipts , by 1990 the Public Finances were again in a sorry state.
I have to be honest and say I don’t think I could have done what I have done without Thatcherism. Like it or not, she did send entrepreneurialism free. But I lived in London and went to university (for free). I was her target audience. That does not excuse her utter failure to manage deindustrialisation. Her neglect caused devastated countless communities and they still have not recovered. We should bear that in mind with Brexit. Once torn asunder communities are very difficult to put together again.
UK manufacturing output was higher when Thatcher left office than when she became PM:
If you want to talk about deindustrialisation then the Blair / Brown Labour government would be a better place to begin.
Output is different. I am talking about the communities that had to live through the closures of major vehicles of industrial production. That happened in the 80s and early 90s, probably inevitably. But there was no plan to rebuild or reskill. And we continue to live with the consequences today.
So what was the Nissan car plant in Sunderland but rebuilding and reskilling ?
And our balance of payments issues are related directly to our membership of the EU.
But you want to remain in the single market with no tariffs or quotas, so even if you believed your argument to be true, you are not proposing to solve the problem.
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.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.
Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.
Nonsense. Socialism caused Britain's decline and it only ended not when we joined the EEC but rather when Thatcher fixed our economy (the Winter of Discontent was after we joined).
Globally comparable English=speaking developed nations perform at least as well as we do.
In what way did Despite the Privatisation receipts , by 1990 the Public Finances were again in a sorry state.
I have to be honest andwith Brexit. Once torn asunder communities are very difficult to put together again.
UK manufacturing output was higher when Thatcher left office than when she became PM:
If you want to talk about deindustrialisation then the Blair / Brown Labour government would be a better place to begin.
Output is different. I am talking about the communities that had to live through the closures of major vehicles of industrial production. That happened in the 80s and early 90s, probably inevitably. But there was no plan to rebuild or reskill. And we continue to live with the consequences today.
So what was the Nissan car plant in Sunderland but rebuilding and reskilling ?
I think it would be very hard to argue that Nissan was anything other than the exception. But it definitely shows the value of government intervention.
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.
? I don't think you need either, you just need an FTA with Ireland, right?
Well you need an FTA with the EU not Ireland. But that is not currently on offer and what Corbyn suggests will not solve the issue.
Isn't any arrangement that gives regulatory alignment the answer to a hard border. The problem is if your particular fanciful notion of the benefit of Brexit is the ability to set your own regulations. If you want that then a hard border is inevitable regardless. Agreements, technology and even leprechauns can't help you.
Depends on how you define a hard border. If your definition of a hard border is border posts and queues or if you definition of a hard border is no infrastructure at the border but having to fill in a customs declaration form. This has never been defined in the debate so the debate keeps going round in circles.
Sort of, but you need at least some infrastructure. A purely virtual border isn't going to stop some of the things we'd want to stop.
How do you catch the criminals who choose not to fill in the forms without checks at the border?
I’m not sure of the correct punchline to that one either.
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.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.
Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.
I have read it and to be honest it is pretty much meaningless in this day and age when so much has changed in the intervening period.
There is nothing inevitable as he implies about these trends and about our place in the world. He could never have predicted the fantastic changes wrought by Thatcher in the 80s nor that we would be in a position where our GDP per capita was now higher than that of France.
His note is a reflection of his own despondency about the future - a future that actually did not come to pass.
Just a coincidence then that the UK's fortunes, which had fared so miserably in the 30 years after the war, improved so much during the 40 years we were a member of the European market?
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.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.
Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.
I have read it and to be honest it is pretty much meaningless in this day and age when so much has changed in the intervening period.
There is nothing inevitable as he implies about these trends and about our place in the world. He could never have predicted the fantastic changes wrought by Thatcher in the 80s nor that we would be in a position where our GDP per capita was now higher than that of France.
His note is a reflection of his own despondency about the future - a future that actually did not come to pass.
The UK has historically had a higher GDP per capita than France, and quite a lot higher during the industrial revolution. The figures got closer in the fifties and sixties where the French did rather better than the UK at indicative planning. But the seventies the French had a small edge - but that was the era of the three day week over here. I am not sure what exactly was fantastic about Thatcher as her rather gormless demand contraction knocked per capita GDP for six compared to that of France. That was the only time the UK fell seriously behind France, but even that wasn't for long.
It was the Blair/Brown years where the UK raced ahead of France. Who knows why - not me for sure. I suspect nobody on this forum can explain it.
Simply wrong. Our GDP per capita was a 5th lower than France in 1980 as a result of the mismanagement of the 70s by both Tory and Labour Governments. That gap was closing by the time she left power in 1990 and Blair/Brown continued closing it by following her macro-economic policies.
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.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.
Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.
I have read it and to be honest it is pretty much meaningless in this day and age when so much has changed in the intervening period.
There is nothing inevitable as he implies about these trends and about our place in the world. He could never have predicted the fantastic changes wrought by Thatcher in the 80s nor that we would be in a position where our GDP per capita was now higher than that of France.
His note is a reflection of his own despondency about the future - a future that actually did not come to pass.
Just a coincidence then that the UK's fortunes, which had fared so miserably in the 30 years after the war, improved so much during the 40 years we were a member of the European market?
They didn't. They didn't start to change until 8 years after we joined the EU - which surprise surprise coincided with the arrival of Thatcher.
Bar one quarter in the mid 1980s the last time we had a balance of payments surplus with the countries of the EU/EEC was the year before we joined.
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.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.
Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.
I have read it and to be honest it is pretty much meaningless in this day and age when so much has changed in the intervening period.
There is nothing inevitable as he implies about these trends and about our place in the world. He could never have predicted the fantastic changes wrought by Thatcher in the 80s nor that we would be in a position where our GDP per capita was now higher than that of France.
His note is a reflection of his own despondency about the future - a future that actually did not come to pass.
Just a coincidence then that the UK's fortunes, which had fared so miserably in the 30 years after the war, improved so much during the 40 years we were a member of the European market?
There's a lot of relativity about the 1950s and 1960s.
Not only because of the recovery of Germany, Italy etc from the aftermath of WW2 but because of the huge shift away from peasant agriculture to a modern industrial economy which Western Europe undertook but which had already happened in the UK.
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.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.
Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.
I have read it and to be honest it is pretty much meaningless in this day and age when so much has changed in the intervening period.
There is nothing inevitable as he implies about these trends and about our place in the world. He could never have predicted the fantastic changes wrought by Thatcher in the 80s nor that we would be in a position where our GDP per capita was now higher than that of France.
His note is a reflection of his own despondency about the future - a future that actually did not come to pass.
Just a coincidence then that the UK's fortunes, which had fared so miserably in the 30 years after the war, improved so much during the 40 years we were a member of the European market?
They didn't. They didn't start to change until 8 years after we joined the EU - which surprise surprise coincided with the arrival of Thatcher.
Bar one quarter in the mid 1980s the last time we had a balance of payments surplus with the countries of the EU/EEC was the year before we joined.
We had a long transition phase after joining and weren't fully in until just before Thatcher came to power.
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.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.
Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.
I have read it and to be honest it is pretty much meaningless in this day and age when so much has changed in the intervening period.
There is nothing inevitable as he implies about these trends and about our place in the world. He could never have predicted the fantastic changes wrought by Thatcher in the 80s nor that we would be in a position where our GDP per capita was now higher than that of France.
His note is a reflection of his own despondency about the future - a future that actually did not come to pass.
Just a coincidence then that the UK's fortunes, which had fared so miserably in the 30 years after the war, improved so much during the 40 years we were a member of the European market?
They didn't. They didn't start to change until 8 years after we joined the EU - which surprise surprise coincided with the arrival of Thatcher.
Bar one quarter in the mid 1980s the last time we had a balance of payments surplus with the countries of the EU/EEC was the year before we joined.
Sorry, to equate 'the UK's fortunes' with 'a balance of payments surplus with the EU/EEC' just shows how narrow your thinking is.
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.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.
Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.
I have read it and to be honest it is pretty much meaningless in this day and age when so much has changed in the intervening period.
There is nothing inevitable as he implies about these trends and about our place in the world. He could never have predicted the fantastic changes wrought by Thatcher in the 80s nor that we would be in a position where our GDP per capita was now higher than that of France.
His note is a reflection of his own despondency about the future - a future that actually did not come to pass.
Just a coincidence then that the UK's fortunes, which had fared so miserably in the 30 years after the war, improved so much during the 40 years we were a member of the European market?
They didn't. They didn't start to change until 8 years after we joined the EU - which surprise surprise coincided with the arrival of Thatcher.
Bar one quarter in the mid 1980s the last time we had a balance of payments surplus with the countries of the EU/EEC was the year before we joined.
Sorry, to equate 'the UK's fortunes' with 'a balance of payments surplus with the EU/EEC' just shows how narrow your thinking is.
I don't it is just one example amongst many. And since trade and exporting is the one you Remoaners spend all day, every day harping on about I am surprised you are so blasé about it.
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.
? I don't think you need either, you just need an FTA with Ireland, right?
Well you need an FTA with the EU not Ireland. But that is not currently on offer and what Corbyn suggests will not solve the issue.
Isn't any arrangement that gives regulatory alignment the answer to a hard border. The problem is if your particular fanciful notion of the benefit of Brexit is the ability to set your own regulations. If you want that then a hard border is inevitable regardless. Agreements, technology and even leprechauns can't help you.
Depends on how you define a hard border. If your definition of a hard border is border posts and queues or if you definition of a hard border is no infrastructure at the border but having to fill in a customs declaration form. This has never been defined in the debate so the debate keeps going round in circles.
Sort of, but you need at least some infrastructure. A purely virtual border isn't going to stop some of the things we'd want to stop.
How do you catch the criminals who choose not to fill in the forms without checks at the border?
I’m not sure of the correct punchline to that one either.
I’m sure @ralphmalph will be along shortly to explain it to us simpletons.
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.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.
Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.
I have read it and to be honest it is pretty much meaningless in this day and age when so much has changed in the intervening period.
There is nothing inevitable as he implies about these trends and about our place in the world. He could never have predicted the fantastic changes wrought by Thatcher in the 80s nor that we would be in a position where our GDP per capita was now higher than that of France.
His note is a reflection of his own despondency about the future - a future that actually did not come to pass.
Just a coincidence then that the UK's fortunes, which had fared so miserably in the 30 years after the war, improved so much during the 40 years we were a member of the European market?
They didn't. They didn't start to change until 8 years after we joined the EU - which surprise surprise coincided with the arrival of Thatcher.
Bar one quarter in the mid 1980s the last time we had a balance of payments surplus with the countries of the EU/EEC was the year before we joined.
We had a long transition phase after joining and weren't fully in until just before Thatcher came to power.
LOL. More Williamglenn garbage. At least it gives me something to laugh about.
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.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.
Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.
I have read it and to be honest it is pretty much meaningless in this day and age when so much has changed in the intervening period.
There is nothing inevitable as he implies about these trends and about our place in the world. He could never have predicted the fantastic changes wrought by Thatcher in the 80s nor that we would be in a position where our GDP per capita was now higher than that of France.
His note is a reflection of his own despondency about the future - a future that actually did not come to pass.
Just a coincidence then that the UK's fortunes, which had fared so miserably in the 30 years after the war, improved so much during the 40 years we were a member of the European market?
They didn't. They didn't start to change until 8 years after we joined the EU - which surprise surprise coincided with the arrival of Thatcher.
Bar one quarter in the mid 1980s the last time we had a balance of payments surplus with the countries of the EU/EEC was the year before we joined.
Sorry, to equate 'the UK's fortunes' with 'a balance of payments surplus with the EU/EEC' just shows how narrow your thinking is.
I don't it is just one example amongst many. And since trade and exporting is the one you Remoaners spend all day, every day harping on about I am surprised you are so blasé about it.
Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.
Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.
Nonsense. Socialism caused Britain's decline and it only ended not when we joined the EEC but rather when Thatcher fixed our economy (the Winter of Discontent was after we joined).
Globally comparable English=speaking developed nations perform at least as well as we do.
In what way did Despite the Privatisation receipts , by 1990 the Public Finances were again in a sorry state.
I have to be honest andwith Brexit. Once torn asunder communities are very difficult to put together again.
UK manufacturing output was higher when Thatcher left office than when she became PM:
If you want to talk about deindustrialisation then the Blair / Brown Labour government would be a better place to begin.
Output is different. I am talking about the communities that had to live through the closures of major vehicles of industrial production. That happened in the 80s and early 90s, probably inevitably. But there was no plan to rebuild or reskill. And we continue to live with the consequences today.
So what was the Nissan car plant in Sunderland but rebuilding and reskilling ?
I think it would be very hard to argue that Nissan was anything other than the exception. But it definitely shows the value of government intervention.
Nissan is only the most prominent example.
Its the explanation as to why manufacturing output was higher when Thatcher left office than it was when she became PM.
Now there were certainly localised areas which were not able to be redeveloped economically but that wasn't a process which began in 1979.
For example, here's a list of mines in the Rhondda Valley:
It strikes me that there is a very obvious response that Theresa May could make to Corbyn's proposal. He says he would be willing to support the Withdrawal Agreement provided the government was committed to a particular approach in the negotiations with the EU after Brexit. Why not offer Corbyn a post-Brexit general election, so that the people can decide which approach they prefer?
I suppose the objection to that is the same as the objection to every other reasonable solution - it might break the Tory party. Though she'd have to think of a different excuse for public consumption.
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.
? I don't think you need either, you just need an FTA with Ireland, right?
Well you need an FTA with the EU not Ireland. But that is not currently on offer and what Corbyn suggests will not solve the issue.
Isn't any arrangement that gives regulatory alignment the answer to a hard border. The problem is if your particular fanciful notion of the benefit of Brexit is the ability to set your own regulations. If you want that then a hard border is inevitable regardless. Agreements, technology and even leprechauns can't help you.
Depends on how you define a hard border. If your definition of a hard border is border posts and queues or if you definition of a hard border is no infrastructure at the border but having to fill in a customs declaration form. This has never been defined in the debate so the debate keeps going round in circles.
Sort of, but you need at least some infrastructure. A purely virtual border isn't going to stop some of the things we'd want to stop.
How do you catch the criminals who choose not to fill in the forms without checks at the border?
I’m not sure of the correct punchline to that one either.
I’m sure @ralphmalph will be along shortly to explain it to us simpletons.
Seeing as you have declared yourself to be a simpleton, let me know what you want explaining and I will be happy to explain trying not to use any words longer than 5 letters.
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.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.
Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.
I have read it and to be honest it is pretty much meaningless in this day and age when so much has changed in the intervening period.
There is nothing inevitable as he implies about these trends and about our place in the world. He could never have predicted the fantastic changes wrought by Thatcher in the 80s nor that we would be in a position where our GDP per capita was now higher than that of France.
His note is a reflection of his own despondency about the future - a future that actually did not come to pass.
Just a coincidence then that the UK's fortunes, which had fared so miserably in the 30 years after the war, improved so much during the 40 years we were a member of the European market?
They didn't. They didn't start to change until 8 years after we joined the EU - which surprise surprise coincided with the arrival of Thatcher.
Bar one quarter in the mid 1980s the last time we had a balance of payments surplus with the countries of the EU/EEC was the year before we joined.
We had a long transition phase after joining and weren't fully in until just before Thatcher came to power.
LOL. More Williamglenn garbage. At least it gives me something to laugh about.
It's a fact, Richard. Even tariffs between ourselves and the other EEC members were not immediately abolished after we joined but reduced by 20% increments lasting until 1977.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
So sick of this argument. 0% the rest of the world were previously EU members so it's not comparable. It's like saying jumping off a moving high speed train is perfectly safe because most of the world is not on a train.
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.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.
Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.
I have read it and to be honest it is pretty much meaningless in this day and age when so much has changed in the intervening period.
There is nothing inevitable as he implies about these trends and about our place in the world. He could never have predicted the fantastic changes wrought by Thatcher in the 80s nor that we would be in a position where our GDP per capita was now higher than that of France.
His note is a reflection of his own despondency about the future - a future that actually did not come to pass.
Just a coincidence then that the UK's fortunes, which had fared so miserably in the 30 years after the war, improved so much during the 40 years we were a member of the European market?
They didn't. They didn't start to change until 8 years after we joined the EU - which surprise surprise coincided with the arrival of Thatcher.
Bar one quarter in the mid 1980s the last time we had a balance of payments surplus with the countries of the EU/EEC was the year before we joined.
Surely the effect of North Sea Oil on the value of Sterling was quite a big influence too.
Though I agree that access to better quality* imported European consumer goods was quite a major benefit to British consumers.
There were 9 closures in the 1950s and another 14 in the 1960s.
This is another of those left wing myths that needs killing (the point to which you are answering not your point)
In 1958 there were 700,000 men employed in coal mining in the UK. In 1979 that had dropped to 250,000. The largest number of pit closures and job losses were under Wilson in the 1960s, not Thatcher in the 1980s.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
So sick of this argument. 0% the rest of the world were previously EU members so it's not comparable. It's like saying jumping off a moving high speed train is perfectly safe because most of the world is not on a train.
Except in this case the train is moving very slowly backwards not shooting forwards. You do need to think about your similes a bit more.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
So sick of this argument. 0% the rest of the world were previously EU members so it's not comparable. It's like saying jumping off a moving high speed train is perfectly safe because most of the world is not on a train.
Except in this case the train is moving very slowly backwards not shooting forwards. You do need to think about your similes a bit more.
As far as I can tell you want us off onto a sidings which heads straight off a cliff.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
So sick of this argument. 0% the rest of the world were previously EU members so it's not comparable. It's like saying jumping off a moving high speed train is perfectly safe because most of the world is not on a train.
Except in this case the train is moving very slowly backwards not shooting forwards. You do need to think about your similes a bit more.
You're a zealot beyond reason. The extent of your logic is that you don't like the EU, therefore the EU is failing and has failed us.
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.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.
Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.
I have read it and to be honest it is pretty much meaningless in this day and age when so much has changed in the intervening period.
There is nothing inevitable as he implies about these trends and about our place in the world. He could never have predicted the fantastic changes wrought by Thatcher in the 80s nor that we would be in a position where our GDP per capita was now higher than that of France.
His note is a reflection of his own despondency about the future - a future that actually did not come to pass.
Just a coincidence then that the UK's fortunes, which had fared so miserably in the 30 years after the war, improved so much during the 40 years we were a member of the European market?
There's a lot of relativity about the 1950s and 1960s.
Not only because of the recovery of Germany, Italy etc from the aftermath of WW2 but because of the huge shift away from peasant agriculture to a modern industrial economy which Western Europe undertook but which had already happened in the UK.
That's one point. The U.K. was still much better off in 1973 than in 1945. For all the policy errors, the 1945-1973 period was an economic boom.
We enjoyed another genuine economic boom for about 20 years after 1982. After 2002, growth was largely driven by debt and rising house prices. Then it turned to bust in 2008, since when, growth has been weak here and elsewhere in the EU.
It strikes me that there is a very obvious response that Theresa May could make to Corbyn's proposal. He says he would be willing to support the Withdrawal Agreement provided the government was committed to a particular approach in the negotiations with the EU after Brexit. Why not offer Corbyn a post-Brexit general election, so that the people can decide which approach they prefer?
I suppose the objection to that is the same as the objection to every other reasonable solution - it might break the Tory party. Though she'd have to think of a different excuse for public consumption.
It is not in May's power to offer a general election. There is no guarantee she could persuade her backbenchers to vote for one. And in any case no sane person would rely on a political promise from her, her record of going back on her word is second to none.
There were 9 closures in the 1950s and another 14 in the 1960s.
This is another of those left wing myths that needs killing (the point to which you are answering not your point)
In 1958 there were 700,000 men employed in coal mining in the UK. In 1979 that had dropped to 250,000. The largest number of pit closures and job losses were under Wilson in the 1960s, not Thatcher in the 1980s.
Though in the 1960's there was full employment, and unlike the 1980's, suitable well renumerated employment nearby was available.
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.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.
Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.
I have read it and to be honest it is pretty much meaningless in this day and age when so much has changed in the intervening period.
There is nothing inevitable as he implies about these trends and about our place in the world. He could never have predicted the fantastic changes wrought by Thatcher in the 80s nor that we would be in a position where our GDP per capita was now higher than that of France.
His note is a reflection of his own despondency about the future - a future that actually did not come to pass.
Just a coincidence then that the UK's fortunes, which had fared so miserably in the 30 years after the war, improved so much during the 40 years we were a member of the European market?
They didn't. They didn't start to change until 8 years after we joined the EU - which surprise surprise coincided with the arrival of Thatcher.
Bar one quarter in the mid 1980s the last time we had a balance of payments surplus with the countries of the EU/EEC was the year before we joined.
Surely the effect of North Sea Oil on the value of Sterling was quite a big influence too.
Though I agree that access to better quality* imported European consumer goods was quite a major benefit to British consumers.
Not the Alfa Sud, obviously!
Nope. The value of Sterling against the DM dropped 25% between the start and end of Thatcher's period in office. That should have made exports cheaper.
It strikes me that there is a very obvious response that Theresa May could make to Corbyn's proposal. He says he would be willing to support the Withdrawal Agreement provided the government was committed to a particular approach in the negotiations with the EU after Brexit. Why not offer Corbyn a post-Brexit general election, so that the people can decide which approach they prefer?
I suppose the objection to that is the same as the objection to every other reasonable solution - it might break the Tory party. Though she'd have to think of a different excuse for public consumption.
It is not in May's power to offer a general election. There is no guarantee she could persuade her backbenchers to vote for one. And in any case no sane person would rely on a political promise from her, her record of going back on her word is second to none.
She only needs about 100 of her backbenchers to support a GE, assuming all the opposition parties support one.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
So sick of this argument. 0% the rest of the world were previously EU members so it's not comparable. It's like saying jumping off a moving high speed train is perfectly safe because most of the world is not on a train.
Except in this case the train is moving very slowly backwards not shooting forwards. You do need to think about your similes a bit more.
You're a zealot beyond reason. The extent of your logic is that you don't like the EU, therefore the EU is failing and has failed us.
Well I suppose you are an expert on zealotry beyond reason given your undying faith in the purity of the EU project.
I agree with you. But that is quite a detailed metaphor to illustrate it.
Take the point but it was a picture I couldn't shake. A dozen Brexiteers on an away day in a residential complex. I suppose the question is why. I have no answer to that.
There were 9 closures in the 1950s and another 14 in the 1960s.
This is another of those left wing myths that needs killing (the point to which you are answering not your point)
In 1958 there were 700,000 men employed in coal mining in the UK. In 1979 that had dropped to 250,000. The largest number of pit closures and job losses were under Wilson in the 1960s, not Thatcher in the 1980s.
Though in the 1960's there was full employment, and unlike the 1980's, suitable well renumerated employment nearby was available.
There was not a lot of well-paid employment in places like the Rhondda in the Sixties. The problem was mining was already a dying industry by 1948.
There were 9 closures in the 1950s and another 14 in the 1960s.
This is another of those left wing myths that needs killing (the point to which you are answering not your point)
In 1958 there were 700,000 men employed in coal mining in the UK. In 1979 that had dropped to 250,000. The largest number of pit closures and job losses were under Wilson in the 1960s, not Thatcher in the 1980s.
Though in the 1960's there was full employment, and unlike the 1980's, suitable well renumerated employment nearby was available.
Indeed. And the government made efforts to ensure new jobs were available by supporting new industrial facilities such as the car factory at Linwood and expansion of the steelworks on Teesside.
It is not in May's power to offer a general election. There is no guarantee she could persuade her backbenchers to vote for one. And in any case no sane person would rely on a political promise from her, her record of going back on her word is second to none.
If the backbenchers didn't want an election, May could just go the palace and tell Liz to call Corbyn instead
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.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.
Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.
I have read it and to be honest it is pretty much meaningless in this day and age when so much has changed in the intervening period.
His note is a reflection of his own despondency about the future - a future that actually did not come to pass.
The UK has historically had a higher GDP per capita than France, and quite a lot higher during the industrial revolution. The figures got closer in the fifties and sixties where the French did rather better than the UK at indicative planning. But the seventies the French had a small edge - but that was the era of the three day week over here. I am not sure what exactly was fantastic about Thatcher as her rather gormless demand contraction knocked per capita GDP for six compared to that of France. That was the only time the UK fell seriously behind France, but even that wasn't for long.
It was the Blair/Brown years where the UK raced ahead of France. Who knows why - not me for sure. I suspect nobody on this forum can explain it.
Simply wrong. Our GDP per capita was a 5th lower than France in 1980 as a result of the mismanagement of the 70s by both Tory and Labour Governments. That gap was closing by the time she left power in 1990 and Blair/Brown continued closing it by following her macro-economic policies.
It was a 14% difference in 1980. It got worse after that, and then improved. I don't think the numbers match your narrative particularly well. But you can find statistics to tell any story.
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.
I do wonder how the other 94% of the planet not tied to the EU manage to survive and thrive given that apparently it is impossible to exist as a civilisation without EU membership.
Well 80% of that 94% exist and 'thrive' at much lower standards of living than we have enjoyed, and most of the remainder benefit from their own large markets or huge supplies of natural resources.
Since we don't have either of the latter, a drift to relative poverty is what we will face.
Nonsense. Socialism caused Britain's decline and it only ended not when we joined the EEC but rather when Thatcher fixed our economy (the Winter of Discontent was after we joined).
Globally comparable English=speaking developed nations perform at least as well as we do.
In what way did Thatcher 'fix' our economy? She ruined the lives of many and brought misery to millions with her sadomasochistic monetarism in her first term - policies later abandoned by Lawson. Unemployment soared under her stewardship and - despite the bonus of North Sea Oil - the Balance of Payments deteriorated. Inflation, at the time of her departure, was unchanged from the level inherited from Callaghan 11.5 years earlier - indeed inflation was higher for most of her last full year in office than in Callaghan's final year. Despite the Privatisation receipts , by 1990 the Public Finances were again in a sorry state.
Of course she fixed our economy. So the rich could get richer and the poor could get poorer.
Whereas of course Corbyn's goal is for the rich to get much poorer and for the poor to be destitute.
Corbyn’s hero Maduro has certainly done his bit to address relative poverty in Venezuela - now they are in paradise as there is almost no relative poverty.
Comments
I am not getting at you Big G. But I think there is a lot of hope being expressed - which seems to me to have no basis in reality.
May's deal may be better than No Deal. But it is a rubbish deal really for our economy. The idea that as a country we should make such a momentous decision on the basis of a poor deal negotiated by a PM unable to take her party with her other than, possibly, at the last minute out of panic and fear is really quite appalling.
The Tories should be thoroughly ashamed of the way they are behaving. No amount of pointing fingers at Corbyn can excuse the way they are behaving.
Extension may be an option but only if May agrees to it and more importantly the 27 EU countries all agree as well. There is absolutely no guarantee of that and it is not something that is in the hands of either Parliament or the PM.
No Deal is clearly an option whether you like it or not. If we do not get Parliament to agree to a Deal (which seems very unlikely) and do not get permission to extend (which is debatable) then it is No Deal or Revoke and I will certainly not be betting a single penny on the chances of Revoke.
Hate it as you might, No Deal remains the value bet.
England are taking wickets.
No. An extension will only be given if it allows a resolution i.e. completing the legislative programme needed to enact an agreed WA. Or a referendum (and the choices will be influenced by the EU, I have no doubt).
Or, less likely but also possible, a GE or revocation. I am not even sure that the EU would agree for a GE because there is no certainty that it would change matters much in the HoC and, even if it did, that Labour would be able to agree and or pass a WA.
An extension just because we haven't made our mind up and to allow May to kick the can further down the road is utterly pointless.
They have welcomed Corbyns version
I am confident we will either agree a deal or an extension to prevent mutual economic armageddon and the incendiary of the EU themselves erecting a hard border in Ireland on 30th March
And I have to be optimistic, anything else is unacceptable
That was a very Wooden attempt at humour.
This has never been defined in the debate so the debate keeps going round in circles.
They would not have fitted in either Button A or Button B.
None of what Corbyn has said affects the WA or, even if the Political Declaration is changed as he suggests, makes it more likely that the Tories will vote for the WA as is.
And his suggestion that we would have a say over EU trade deals while not being a member is for the birds. We may as well Remain if that is what is wanted. Is there any reason why the EU would agree to that? It amounts to cherry-picking.
Keaton Jennings to throw away his wicketour openers to extend the lead.The negotiations that will happen after Brexit are another matter. But the Political Declaration isn't binding, and the legislation Corbyn is asking for can't bind a future government either.
So to my eyes it looks very much like a way of getting out of the current impasse by means of everyone subscribing to some political verbiage about future intentions which isn't going to have any lasting effect in any case. The Tory party won't like it, and they may well take a hit in the polls because of it, but given that this whole screw-up was engineered by the Tory party as a clever little political manoeuvre for party advantage in the first place, it's just about what they deserve,
The twopence pieces were what you made calls from in phone boxes. Not the Button A/Button B ones because while I remember my father explaining them I was too young to be let out alone to use them. Two pennies was also the cost of a bus ride from my stop on the Finchley Road to the tube station.
Somewhere in the attic I still have some of these coins. Oh - and a ten-shilling note.
Corbyn is playing games, hasn' t thought it through, and is a terrible idea which would result in me wanting to remain or rejoin
There is nothing inevitable as he implies about these trends and about our place in the world. He could never have predicted the fantastic changes wrought by Thatcher in the 80s nor that we would be in a position where our GDP per capita was now higher than that of France.
His note is a reflection of his own despondency about the future - a future that actually did not come to pass.
More precisely if you are a medium sized but fairly prosperous country with some ambition to influence, even if not powerful enough to control, a liberal democracy, that benefits from the rule of law, with an open economy and somewhat wanting other countries to reciprocate, you would be looking for an association of like minded countries to be a part of. There is only one such association in the world, it's on our doorstep and we're leaving it. I don't speak for other Remainers but I don't want to rule over other countries nor do I blame the EU for not remoulding itself in the way we want. The arrogance is in that expectation. Multilateral organisations work by consensus, as the EU does, and as it should do.
Must be my rash id.
https://twitter.com/michaellcrick/status/1094699213525581824?s=21
I remember one Eighties Joke.
Q: How do you start a small business in Britain?
A: Start with a large nationalised one, and vote in Mrs Thatcher!
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity/output/timeseries/k22a/diop
If you want to talk about deindustrialisation then the Blair / Brown Labour government would be a better place to begin.
It was the Blair/Brown years where the UK raced ahead of France. Who knows why - not me for sure. I suspect nobody on this forum can explain it.
I do hope it's not that though.
By the way Westland was Jan/Feb 1986.
If we're looking at areas which are dependent upon low level, unstable service work then many urban areas would be prime examples.
And they have added low home ownership and high inequality as well.
Q: How does a New Zealander get a small business ?
A: He starts with a large business and runs it for a few years.
Those massive advantages you mention are nothing compared to the massive problems she was faced with resulting from years of mismanagement of the economy that had left us the sick man of Europe. All those people clinging to the Henderson claims need to think about just how badly the UK had been run in the period prior to 1979 for him to be making such statements. And about how different the picture is today thanks to the Thatcherite reforms.
It is worth pointing out that in 1980 GDP per capita in the UK was around $22,000. France was $27,000. And yet today Britain is ahead of France (just) in GDP per capita.
And our balance of payments issues are related directly to our membership of the EU.
Bar one quarter in the mid 1980s the last time we had a balance of payments surplus with the countries of the EU/EEC was the year before we joined.
Not only because of the recovery of Germany, Italy etc from the aftermath of WW2 but because of the huge shift away from peasant agriculture to a modern industrial economy which Western Europe undertook but which had already happened in the UK.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/10/exclusive-hard-left-critics-jewish-mp-luciana-berger-have-close/
Its the explanation as to why manufacturing output was higher when Thatcher left office than it was when she became PM.
Now there were certainly localised areas which were not able to be redeveloped economically but that wasn't a process which began in 1979.
For example, here's a list of mines in the Rhondda Valley:
http://rhonddavalleys.com/rhondda_collieries_chronologically.htm
There were 9 closures in the 1950s and another 14 in the 1960s.
I suppose the objection to that is the same as the objection to every other reasonable solution - it might break the Tory party. Though she'd have to think of a different excuse for public consumption.
It's like saying jumping off a moving high speed train is perfectly safe because most of the world is not on a train.
Though I agree that access to better quality* imported European consumer goods was quite a major benefit to British consumers.
Not the Alfa Sud, obviously!
In 1958 there were 700,000 men employed in coal mining in the UK. In 1979 that had dropped to 250,000. The largest number of pit closures and job losses were under Wilson in the 1960s, not Thatcher in the 1980s.
You do need to think about your similes a bit more.
We enjoyed another genuine economic boom for about 20 years after 1982. After 2002, growth was largely driven by debt and rising house prices. Then it turned to bust in 2008, since when, growth has been weak here and elsewhere in the EU.