Leavers need better representation amongst the public .
When tv news reporters interview them they always seem to find people who either look like their heads going to explode with rage or find someone who clearly voted against their own interests .
Tonights consisted on ITV of a NI sheep farmer who voted Leave and now is really worried about no deal and selling his lamb to the EU!, and an angry bloke with no teeth and limited vocabulary who could hardly string two words together on Newsnight who gave the stock answer “ we voted out , just want out” from Hastings .
TV producers choose what they deem “newsworthy”. This is not the same as fair representation
Who could have predicted a few years ago that the Bicester Village shopping experience would be the second most popular UK tourist attraction for Chinese tourists?
Charles 1,100,000,000 Philip T 10,000,000 Pulpstar 5,000,000 Kle4 3,000,000 Ben P 3
Remember, there are 1.2 billion people in China, and therefore about 300 million households. Use that to guide your guess.
Any more...
65,000,000
I salute you.
That is indeed the correct answer.
Assuming you didn't Google it, then please PM me your address, and I shall send across SeanT's next magnum opus.
Wow. I didn't Google it, honest. Just thought it would be amusing if there was one spare for every Brit. As everyone seems so unhappy here, thought we could just all up sticks and start again over there!
Never thought it would be CORRECT!
I went with the “amusing if there was a spare one for every Chinese person!”
I think his Democrat opponent should call him a "draft dodger" - no worse than the stuff that he throws out, and something which will genuinely worry part of his base.
This only has any heft if it comes from somebody who did serve and Bernie's years as a KGB asset don't count. Biden also dodged via highly convenient asthma. It's like when the pb.com tory chickenhawks call out Corbo's lack of military zeal - it means nothing.
It would take somebody like Senator Tammy Duckworth to say it with genuine authenticity.
George W Bush was a draft dodger, so was Clinton IIRC. The evidence that it affects prospects is...slight.
Clinton, as a coming man, was not affected by his dodging a career as a seaman?
I'll get my coat. Have a good morning.
With hindsight the swift boating campaign against Kerry by W was the point when it was proven beyond doubt that facts are almost an irrelevancy in modern political campaigns. It has been so ever since.
It will eventually. In some form. Within 13 years of the Canadian Conservatives being wiped out to just 2 seats there was a Canadian Conservative PM.
The party may go but the ideas and voters are still there for a resurgence after years in opposition getting your s""t together.
Except it was not the old Canadian Progressive Conservatives who returned to power but a new Canadian Conservative Party formed from the PCs and the populist Alliance .
The equivalent would be the Tories revoking Brexit, being overtaken by Farage's Brexit Party at the next election and only returning to office after merging with the latter
So what?
The Tories aren't the original Tory party either. That ceased to exist hundreds of years ago. Doesn't stop them being called Tories either.
To a large extent they are e.g. when the Peelites split off from the Tories they formed the Liberals with the Radicals and the Whigs
They all came home - the Whigs and the Peelites as Liberal Unionists, the Radicals as National Liberals.
Who could have predicted a few years ago that the Bicester Village shopping experience would be the second most popular UK tourist attraction for Chinese tourists?
There’s so much of this. Modern life is so complex but we increasingly look for binary solutions so as not to engage with the boring small print. Civilization is not exiting - it’s held up by a lot of complex, interconnected and very dull details. A movie about the millennia long development of Rome and its civilization would bomb, whereas one set against its sacking, with detailed special effects detailing the destruction, would more likely be a hit. We love the excitement of politics but have no time for the boring admin required to actually run a prosperous country.
There's a lot in that. Most people think about politics as intermittently and briefly interesting but a footnote to their lives, and if anything's complex they look for some simple guidelines to sort it out quickly. X is an idiot, Y is a racist, Z would cause economic disaster, better vote for W.
Referendums are pretty good at making simple binary choices where either outcome has few disastrous effects. I remember a Basel vote on the design of a new bridge. More or less taxpayers' money on making it beautiful? This style or that style? Everyone could get their heads round that, and when it was built they felt a sense of pride and engagement - "we decided to build it like that". But Brexit? Hard even for specialists to be sure of the implications, even now.
On Trump, I was thinking in terms of neutralising Trump attacks on "Commie Bernie" or the like.
There’s so much of this. Modern life is so complex but we increasingly look for binary solutions so as not to engage with the boring small print. Civilization is not exiting - it’s held up by a lot of complex, interconnected and very dull details. A movie about the millennia long development of Rome and its civilization would bomb, whereas one set against its sacking, with detailed special effects detailing the destruction, would more likely be a hit. We love the excitement of politics but have no time for the boring admin required to actually run a prosperous country.
There's a lot in that. Most people think about politics as intermittently and briefly interesting but a footnote to their lives, and if anything's complex they look for some simple guidelines to sort it out quickly. X is an idiot, Y is a racist, Z would cause economic disaster, better vote for W.
Referendums are pretty good at making simple binary choices where either outcome has few disastrous effects. I remember a Basel vote on the design of a new bridge. More or less taxpayers' money on making it beautiful? This style or that style? Everyone could get their heads round that, and when it was built they felt a sense of pride and engagement - "we decided to build it like that". But Brexit? Hard even for specialists to be sure of the implications, even now.
On Trump, I was thinking in terms of neutralising Trump attacks on "Commie Bernie" or the like.
I think our problem is rather that too many people have been voting for W?
You are right that even politicians struggle with the detail of what is before them. It was the same during my time on the council; people always got most animated about some detail where there was a clear yes or no decision, arguing which could easily fill a meeting whilst the big picture went through on the nod.
I think his Democrat opponent should call him a "draft dodger" - no worse than the stuff that he throws out, and something which will genuinely worry part of his base.
This only has any heft if it comes from somebody who did serve and Bernie's years as a KGB asset don't count. Biden also dodged via highly convenient asthma. It's like when the pb.com tory chickenhawks call out Corbo's lack of military zeal - it means nothing.
It would take somebody like Senator Tammy Duckworth to say it with genuine authenticity.
This sort of medical talk pi**es me off. I went to a fairly military school, and many of my compatriots ended up serving. I had health issues (at times I could hardly walk), which meant that there was no way I could join if I had wanted - and it did interest me.
Now I go walking hither and thither, and if there had been a war on at the time it would be easy for someone to point and sneer: "Oh look, how convenient - he's fine now."
And asthma is odd: a relative of mine suffered terribly from it (including being hospitalised) until around his mid twenties, and has not suffered an attack in decades since. Because of it and another issue, he missed national service. He was not skiving; he was not pretending.
We can't all be a superhero-fit adonis who flies for his country.
At the core of the paralysis is the fallacy of the One True Brexit. This is the mythical deal that avoids economic disturbance while convincing ardent leavers that their demands have been met. This cannot exist because the disruption itself – the sound of fabric tearing and glass breaking – is what many Brexiters crave. Stable transition defers the gratification of instantaneous release. But it is also in the nature of Brexit, even in its hardest form, that the moment of release is illusory. It is a process, not a destination. The article 50 timetable gives structure to the first phase but it never offered resolution. The highest point for leavers, the purest elation, was in the early hours of 24 June 2016, when the referendum result was declared. The trajectory since then was towards failure. Disappointment was coded into Brexit’s political algorithms.
There is no variant of the future in which Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees-Mogg declare themselves satisfied with the outcome of Brexit and magnanimously seek reconciliation with its critics. Grievance is the raw material they need to fuel their politics, and Euroscepticism is the mine where they extract it. They will not shut the facility down to celebrate Britain leaving the EU. Europe will always be there on our doorstep, brazenly existing, flaunting its continentalism in our faces, and the Brexit hardliners are impatient to move on to the next phase of their betrayal.
Nicely written piece. The grievance-mongers will always find something to hate the furriners for. Even if they get their moronic Brexit they will still be whipping up hatred for the EU and claiming that they stitched us up and that all the resulting problems in the economy were the fault of Remainers. They are the purveyors of hatred; it is the oxygen that keeps their pathetic form of politics breathing.
Reading between the lines of the BBC report of the No-deal assessment, it seems the main cause of the possible fresh food shortage will be panic-buying. No shit, Sherlock. I wonder if Project Fear could end up being self-fulfilling to some extent.
But news editors thrive on this. You only have to look at the Express, the Mail and the Guardian too.
What these countries need is some sort of Brexit equivalent that is going to paralyse their political class completely and expose them to such ridicule that no one will ever take anything they say seriously again. Wars don't do that, we tried with Iraq and people still listened to the prats. Hell, Alastair Campbell was on the radio again on Monday and not just for the laughs.
Well since Partition was modelled on Ireland may be they could copy the GFA?
It will eventually. In some form. Within 13 years of the Canadian Conservatives being wiped out to just 2 seats there was a Canadian Conservative PM.
The party may go but the ideas and voters are still there for a resurgence after years in opposition getting your s""t together.
Except it was not the old Canadian Progressive Conservatives who returned to power but a new Canadian Conservative Party formed from the PCs and the populist Alliance .
The equivalent would be the Tories revoking Brexit, being overtaken by Farage's Brexit Party at the next election and only returning to office after merging with the latter
So what?
The Tories aren't the original Tory party either. That ceased to exist hundreds of years ago. Doesn't stop them being called Tories either.
To a large extent they are e.g. when the Peelites split off from the Tories they formed the Liberals with the Radicals and the Whigs
They all came home - the Whigs and the Peelites as Liberal Unionists, the Radicals as National Liberals.
Not true, the majority of the Whigs and Peelites certainly stayed in the Liberals, Gladstone for example was a Peelite and after joining the Liberals never returned to the Tories. The Liberals remained the Tories' main opponents until the 1920s and universal suffrage saw Labour overtake them, indeed the Liberals won a landslide in 1906 well after the Liberal Unionists were founded
I think his Democrat opponent should call him a "draft dodger" - no worse than the stuff that he throws out, and something which will genuinely worry part of his base.
This only has any heft if it comes from somebody who did serve and Bernie's years as a KGB asset don't count. Biden also dodged via highly convenient asthma. It's like when the pb.com tory chickenhawks call out Corbo's lack of military zeal - it means nothing.
It would take somebody like Senator Tammy Duckworth to say it with genuine authenticity.
This sort of medical talk pi**es me off. I went to a fairly military school, and many of my compatriots ended up serving. I had health issues (at times I could hardly walk), which meant that there was no way I could join if I had wanted - and it did interest me.
Now I go walking hither and thither, and if there had been a war on at the time it would be easy for someone to point and sneer: "Oh look, how convenient - he's fine now."
And asthma is odd: a relative of mine suffered terribly from it (including being hospitalised) until around his mid twenties, and has not suffered an attack in decades since. Because of it and another issue, he missed national service. He was not skiving; he was not pretending.
We can't all be a superhero-fit adonis who flies for his country.
I completely agree with your proposition, except that we are currently talking about POTUS and Trump. It is very likely that Trump did skive. He is also "The Commander in Chief", and one that is quite repulsive in his faux machismo. For those reasons, it would be fair for someone with the right credentials to call him a draft dodger.
What these countries need is some sort of Brexit equivalent that is going to paralyse their political class completely and expose them to such ridicule that no one will ever take anything they say seriously again. Wars don't do that, we tried with Iraq and people still listened to the prats. Hell, Alastair Campbell was on the radio again on Monday and not just for the laughs.
Well since Partition was modelled on Ireland may be they could copy the GFA?
Partition and then fuck off has been the reflexive British imperialist response for a very a long time.
Who could have predicted a few years ago that the Bicester Village shopping experience would be the second most popular UK tourist attraction for Chinese tourists?
Don’t ever mention Bicester Village on here. Bunch of shysters and ******
Now you’ve got us interested!
I had a restaurant there in an unpromising part of the Villlage. Built it up to be very profitable and acted as an anchor for the development. They thought it was great so triggered a minor clause in the agreement (it wasn’t “in keeping with the vision of the development” enough) to terminate the lease with no notice and minimal compensation because they wanted to relet on much more attractive terms.
Destroyed the chain (it was the flagship site) and put 70 people out of work
There’s so much of this. Modern life is so complex but we increasingly look for binary solutions so as not to engage with the boring small print. Civilization is not exiting - it’s held up by a lot of complex, interconnected and very dull details. A movie about the millennia long development of Rome and its civilization would bomb, whereas one set against its sacking, with detailed special effects detailing the destruction, would more likely be a hit. We love the excitement of politics but have no time for the boring admin required to actually run a prosperous country.
There's a lot in that. Most people think about politics as intermittently and briefly interesting but a footnote to their lives, and if anything's complex they look for some simple guidelines to sort it out quickly. X is an idiot, Y is a racist, Z would cause economic disaster, better vote for W.
Referendums are pretty good at making simple binary choices where either outcome has few disastrous effects. I remember a Basel vote on the design of a new bridge. More or less taxpayers' money on making it beautiful? This style or that style? Everyone could get their heads round that, and when it was built they felt a sense of pride and engagement - "we decided to build it like that". But Brexit? Hard even for specialists to be sure of the implications, even now.
On Trump, I was thinking in terms of neutralising Trump attacks on "Commie Bernie" or the like.
I think our problem is rather that too many people have been voting for W?
You are right that even politicians struggle with the detail of what is before them. It was the same during my time on the council; people always got most animated about some detail where there was a clear yes or no decision, arguing which could easily fill a meeting whilst the big picture went through on the nod.
Brexit has also produced a whole class of people who believe they can find free-trade deals just above the wills on the legal forms shelf in WH Smiths.
I think his Democrat opponent should call him a "draft dodger" - no worse than the stuff that he throws out, and something which will genuinely worry part of his base.
This only has any heft if it comes from somebody who did serve and Bernie's years as a KGB asset don't count. Biden also dodged via highly convenient asthma. It's like when the pb.com tory chickenhawks call out Corbo's lack of military zeal - it means nothing.
It would take somebody like Senator Tammy Duckworth to say it with genuine authenticity.
George W Bush was a draft dodger, so was Clinton IIRC. The evidence that it affects prospects is...slight.
Clinton, as a coming man, was not affected by his dodging a career as a seaman?
I'll get my coat. Have a good morning.
With hindsight the swift boating campaign against Kerry by W was the point when it was proven beyond doubt that facts are almost an irrelevancy in modern political campaigns. It has been so ever since.
Mind you Kerry went to Vietnam with a camera specifically to record for future campaigns then trashed the military on returning home for his political agenda, he was no John McCain in Vietnam
There’s so much of this. Modern life is so complex but we increasingly look for binary solutions so as not to engage with the boring small print. Civilization is not exiting - it’s held up by a lot of complex, interconnected and very dull details. A movie about the millennia long development of Rome and its civilization would bomb, whereas one set against its sacking, with detailed special effects detailing the destruction, would more likely be a hit. We love the excitement of politics but have no time for the boring admin required to actually run a prosperous country.
There's a lot in that. Most people think about politics as intermittently and briefly interesting but a footnote to their lives, and if anything's complex they look for some simple guidelines to sort it out quickly. X is an idiot, Y is a racist, Z would cause economic disaster, better vote for W.
Referendums are pretty good at making simple binary choices where either outcome has few disastrous effects. I remember a Basel vote on the design of a new bridge. More or less taxpayers' money on making it beautiful? This style or that style? Everyone could get their heads round that, and when it was built they felt a sense of pride and engagement - "we decided to build it like that". But Brexit? Hard even for specialists to be sure of the implications, even now.
On Trump, I was thinking in terms of neutralising Trump attacks on "Commie Bernie" or the like.
I think our problem is rather that too many people have been voting for W?
You are right that even politicians struggle with the detail of what is before them. It was the same during my time on the council; people always got most animated about some detail where there was a clear yes or no decision, arguing which could easily fill a meeting whilst the big picture went through on the nod.
Reading between the lines of the BBC report of the No-deal assessment, it seems the main cause of the possible fresh food shortage will be panic-buying. No shit, Sherlock. I wonder if Project Fear could end up being self-fulfilling to some extent.
But news editors thrive on this. You only have to look at the Express, the Mail and the Guardian too.
Also remarkable is that government has finally worked out that the impact at Dover is most likely to be a drying up of export traffic, due to the reduction in business from both the current uncertainty and the extra red tape and paperwork for imports and exports. Bad news for the economy, but not for traffic flow on the M20.
I expect a large quantity of portaloos will soon be appearing for sale on eBay?
I accidentally addressed you as Mr Wingnut - it was the subject of the comment, not a comment on you. I apologise. Like Jezza, I'm getting old, you know, even if I still have my own teeth.
It will eventually. In some form. Within 13 years of the Canadian Conservatives being wiped out to just 2 seats there was a Canadian Conservative PM.
The party may go but the ideas and voters are still there for a resurgence after years in opposition getting your s""t together.
Except it was not the old Canadian Progressive Conservatives who returned to power but a new Canadian Conservative Party formed from the PCs and the populist Alliance .
The equivalent would be the Tories revoking Brexit, being overtaken by Farage's Brexit Party at the next election and only returning to office after merging with the latter
So what?
The Tories aren't the original Tory party either. That ceased to exist hundreds of years ago. Doesn't stop them being called Tories either.
To a large extent they are e.g. when the Peelites split off from the Tories they formed the Liberals with the Radicals and the Whigs
They all came home - the Whigs and the Peelites as Liberal Unionists, the Radicals as National Liberals.
Not true, the majority of the Whigs and Peelites certainly stayed in the Liberals, Gladstone for example was a Peelite and after joining the Liberals never returned to the Tories. The Liberals remained the Tories' main opponents until the 1920s and universal suffrage saw Labour overtake them, indeed the Liberals won a landslide in 1906 well after the Liberal Unionists were founded
You are wrong.
But there’s no point in getting into arguments with you as you can’t accept that ever.
What these countries need is some sort of Brexit equivalent that is going to paralyse their political class completely and expose them to such ridicule that no one will ever take anything they say seriously again. Wars don't do that, we tried with Iraq and people still listened to the prats. Hell, Alastair Campbell was on the radio again on Monday and not just for the laughs.
Well since Partition was modelled on Ireland may be they could copy the GFA?
Partition and then fuck off has been the reflexive British imperialist response for a very a long time.
Well it gives them something to do once we have left.
Will John McD act, and finish off this pointless troublemaker?
He's not helping them, so why keep him? His marginal seat is hopefully lost anyway.
That's usually the way things get sorted.
It's interesting in a way. This is someone who despite his fanatical loyalty managed to get sacked from the shadow cabinet (though not over stuff like this) which rather shows how bad he must be. His utterances constantly undermine the party's attempts to settle things and he clearly provokes people deliberately.
He's the living embodification of a fanatical Twitter account. And he'd back the party even if suspended I bet.
Who could have predicted a few years ago that the Bicester Village shopping experience would be the second most popular UK tourist attraction for Chinese tourists?
Don’t ever mention Bicester Village on here. Bunch of shysters and ******
Now you’ve got us interested!
I had a restaurant there in an unpromising part of the Villlage. Built it up to be very profitable and acted as an anchor for the development. They thought it was great so triggered a minor clause in the agreement (it wasn’t “in keeping with the vision of the development” enough) to terminate the lease with no notice and minimal compensation because they wanted to relet on much more attractive terms.
Destroyed the chain (it was the flagship site) and put 70 people out of work
Are such clauses common? Could you have contested it in court? That sounds like quite a difficult thing to prove.
There’s so much of this. Modern life is so complex but we increasingly look for binary solutions so as not to engage with the boring small print. Civilization is not exiting - it’s held up by a lot of complex, interconnected and very dull details. A movie about the millennia long development of Rome and its civilization would bomb, whereas one set against its sacking, with detailed special effects detailing the destruction, would more likely be a hit. We love the excitement of politics but have no time for the boring admin required to actually run a prosperous country.
There's a lot in that. Most people think about politics as intermittently and briefly interesting but a footnote to their lives, and if anything's complex they look for some simple guidelines to sort it out quickly. X is an idiot, Y is a racist, Z would cause economic disaster, better vote for W.
Referendums are pretty good at making simple binary choices where either outcome has few disastrous effects. I remember a Basel vote on the design of a new bridge. More or less taxpayers' money on making it beautiful? This style or that style? Everyone could get their heads round that, and when it was built they felt a sense of pride and engagement - "we decided to build it like that". But Brexit? Hard even for specialists to be sure of the implications, even now.
On Trump, I was thinking in terms of neutralising Trump attacks on "Commie Bernie" or the like.
I think our problem is rather that too many people have been voting for W?
You are right that even politicians struggle with the detail of what is before them. It was the same during my time on the council; people always got most animated about some detail where there was a clear yes or no decision, arguing which could easily fill a meeting whilst the big picture went through on the nod.
Brexit has also produced a whole class of people who believe they can find free-trade deals just above the wills on the legal forms shelf in WH Smiths.
Has anyone checked if that is, definitely, not the case?
I think his Democrat opponent should call him a "draft dodger" - no worse than the stuff that he throws out, and something which will genuinely worry part of his base.
This only has any heft if it comes from somebody who did serve and Bernie's years as a KGB asset don't count. Biden also dodged via highly convenient asthma. It's like when the pb.com tory chickenhawks call out Corbo's lack of military zeal - it means nothing.
It would take somebody like Senator Tammy Duckworth to say it with genuine authenticity.
George W Bush was a draft dodger, so was Clinton IIRC. The evidence that it affects prospects is...slight.
Indeed, Dole, Kerry, McCain were all veterans and lost, Reagan, Clinton, W Bush, Trump all draft dodgers who won. Indeed you have to go back to George HW Bush to find the last elected US President who served in the military in combat
Who could have predicted a few years ago that the Bicester Village shopping experience would be the second most popular UK tourist attraction for Chinese tourists?
Don’t ever mention Bicester Village on here. Bunch of shysters and ******
Now you’ve got us interested!
I had a restaurant there in an unpromising part of the Villlage. Built it up to be very profitable and acted as an anchor for the development. They thought it was great so triggered a minor clause in the agreement (it wasn’t “in keeping with the vision of the development” enough) to terminate the lease with no notice and minimal compensation because they wanted to relet on much more attractive terms.
Destroyed the chain (it was the flagship site) and put 70 people out of work
Are such clauses common? Could you have contested it in court? That sounds like quite a difficult thing to prove.
It was absolutely unexpected - we considered taking it to court but didn’t really have the money for something without certainty - used the leverage to settle for more compensation
It will eventually. In some form. Within 13 years of the Canadian Conservatives being wiped out to just 2 seats there was a Canadian Conservative PM.
The party may go but the ideas and voters are still there for a resurgence after years in opposition getting your s""t together.
Except it was not the old Canadian Progressive Conservatives who returned to power but a new Canadian Conservative Party formed from the PCs and the populist Alliance .
The equivalent would be the Tories revoking Brexit, being overtaken by Farage's Brexit Party at the next election and only returning to office after merging with the latter
So what?
The Tories aren't the original Tory party either. That ceased to exist hundreds of years ago. Doesn't stop them being called Tories either.
To a large extent they are e.g. when the Peelites split off from the Tories they formed the Liberals with the Radicals and the Whigs
They all came home - the Whigs and the Peelites as Liberal Unionists, the Radicals as National Liberals.
Not true, the majority of the Whigs and Peelites certainly stayed in the Liberals, Gladstone for example was a Peelite and after joining the Liberals never returned to the Tories. The Liberals remained the Tories' main opponents until the 1920s and universal suffrage saw Labour overtake them, indeed the Liberals won a landslide in 1906 well after the Liberal Unionists were founded
You are wrong.
But there’s no point in getting into arguments with you as you can’t accept that ever.
No I am sorry but I am right on this, you made a point 'all Peelites, Whigs and Radicals returned to the Tories' which was wrong. If it was correct even a Peelite like Gladstone would have returned to the Tories which he never did.
The Liberal Unionists were formed in 1886 and Gladstone died 12 years later in 1898 still in the Liberals
You are right that even politicians struggle with the detail of what is before them. It was the same during my time on the council; people always got most animated about some detail where there was a clear yes or no decision, arguing which could easily fill a meeting whilst the big picture went through on the nod.
Common in private industry too. I've been to a Novartis management meeting where a global investment of a billion went through after an hour's discussion, but two hours were spent on a minor managerial principle which everyone had an opinion about.
At the core of the paralysis is the fallacy of the One True Brexit. This is the mythical deal that avoids economic disturbance while convincing ardent leavers that their demands have been met. This cannot exist because the disruption itself – the sound of fabric tearing and glass breaking – is what many Brexiters crave. Stable transition defers the gratification of instantaneous release. But it is also in the nature of Brexit, even in its hardest form, that the moment of release is illusory. It is a process, not a destination. The article 50 timetable gives structure to the first phase but it never offered resolution. The highest point for leavers, the purest elation, was in the early hours of 24 June 2016, when the referendum result was declared. The trajectory since then was towards failure. Disappointment was coded into Brexit’s political algorithms.
There is no variant of the future in which Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees-Mogg declare themselves satisfied with the outcome of Brexit and magnanimously seek reconciliation with its critics. Grievance is the raw material they need to fuel their politics, and Euroscepticism is the mine where they extract it. They will not shut the facility down to celebrate Britain leaving the EU. Europe will always be there on our doorstep, brazenly existing, flaunting its continentalism in our faces, and the Brexit hardliners are impatient to move on to the next phase of their betrayal.
Nicely written piece. The grievance-mongers will always find something to hate the furriners for. Even if they get their moronic Brexit they will still be whipping up hatred for the EU and claiming that they stitched us up and that all the resulting problems in the economy were the fault of Remainers. They are the purveyors of hatred; it is the oxygen that keeps their pathetic form of politics breathing.
All you do is hatred post on here,can we put you in the same job lot of a remoaning hate monger ?
There’s so much of this. Modern life is so complex but we increasingly look for binary solutions so as not to engage with the boring small print. Civilization is not exiting - it’s held up by a lot of complex, interconnected and very dull details. A movie about the millennia long development of Rome and its civilization would bomb, whereas one set against its sacking, with detailed special effects detailing the destruction, would more likely be a hit. We love the excitement of politics but have no time for the boring admin required to actually run a prosperous country.
There's a lot in that. Most people think about politics as intermittently and briefly interesting but a footnote to their lives, and if anything's complex they look for some simple guidelines to sort it out quickly. X is an idiot, Y is a racist, Z would cause economic disaster, better vote for W.
Referendums are pretty good at making simple binary choices where either outcome has few disastrous effects. I remember a Basel vote on the design of a new bridge. More or less taxpayers' money on making it beautiful? This style or that style? Everyone could get their heads round that, and when it was built they felt a sense of pride and engagement - "we decided to build it like that". But Brexit? Hard even for specialists to be sure of the implications, even now.
On Trump, I was thinking in terms of neutralising Trump attacks on "Commie Bernie" or the like.
I think our problem is rather that too many people have been voting for W?
You are right that even politicians struggle with the detail of what is before them. It was the same during my time on the council; people always got most animated about some detail where there was a clear yes or no decision, arguing which could easily fill a meeting whilst the big picture went through on the nod.
Who could have predicted a few years ago that the Bicester Village shopping experience would be the second most popular UK tourist attraction for Chinese tourists?
Don’t ever mention Bicester Village on here. Bunch of shysters and ******
Now you’ve got us interested!
I had a restaurant there in an unpromising part of the Villlage. Built it up to be very profitable and acted as an anchor for the development. They thought it was great so triggered a minor clause in the agreement (it wasn’t “in keeping with the vision of the development” enough) to terminate the lease with no notice and minimal compensation because they wanted to relet on much more attractive terms.
Destroyed the chain (it was the flagship site) and put 70 people out of work
At the core of the paralysis is the fallacy of the One True Brexit. This is the mythical deal that avoids economic disturbance while convincing ardent leavers that their demands have been met. This cannot exist because the disruption itself – the sound of fabric tearing and glass breaking – is what many Brexiters crave. Stable transition defers the gratification of instantaneous release. But it is also in the nature of Brexit, even in its hardest form, that the moment of release is illusory. It is a process, not a destination. The article 50 timetable gives structure to the first phase but it never offered resolution. The highest point for leavers, the purest elation, was in the early hours of 24 June 2016, when the referendum result was declared. The trajectory since then was towards failure. Disappointment was coded into Brexit’s political algorithms.
There is no variant of the future in which Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees-Mogg declare themselves satisfied with the outcome of Brexit and magnanimously seek reconciliation with its critics. Grievance is the raw material they need to fuel their politics, and Euroscepticism is the mine where they extract it. They will not shut the facility down to celebrate Britain leaving the EU. Europe will always be there on our doorstep, brazenly existing, flaunting its continentalism in our faces, and the Brexit hardliners are impatient to move on to the next phase of their betrayal.
Nicely written piece. The grievance-mongers will always find something to hate the furriners for. Even if they get their moronic Brexit they will still be whipping up hatred for the EU and claiming that they stitched us up and that all the resulting problems in the economy were the fault of Remainers. They are the purveyors of hatred; it is the oxygen that keeps their pathetic form of politics breathing.
All you do is hatred post on here,can we put you in the same job lot of a remoaning hate monger ?
I don't hate anyone. Even you; while your posts are quite inarticulate, your views quite juvenile and your belief in Brexit highly gullible, you may well be a very nice person when not discussing politics. I do hate some ideas, such as those as espoused by Jeremy Corbyn and his ilk, or the other cheek to the same arse; Jacob Rees Mogg and Nigel Farage. (Actually maybe bordering on hatred for the last idiot perhaps)
You are right that even politicians struggle with the detail of what is before them. It was the same during my time on the council; people always got most animated about some detail where there was a clear yes or no decision, arguing which could easily fill a meeting whilst the big picture went through on the nod.
Common in private industry too. I've been to a Novartis management meeting where a global investment of a billion went through after an hour's discussion, but two hours were spent on a minor managerial principle which everyone had an opinion about.
This is a common phenomenon. There should be a name for this. Perhaps Palmer’s law: the amount of time spent discussing a matter is in inverse proportion to the sums involved.
I can live with that. I think its deeply concerning to go into a Treaty expecting to need to unilaterally abrogate it while the other party is making clear you can't unilaterally do so though.
SNIP they have broken to the treaty.
We only abrogate in the circumstance where the EU does not abide by its treaty obligations; abrogation is not our intention.
SNIP why not a 2 year exit clause from the deal?
That's longer than the 12 months exit we'll have to give under the Vienna Convention (if it applies)
PS Thanks for your positive remarks FPT about my proposal to extend to end 2020. From where we are now that seems to me the most logical thing to do, extending for a couple of months (unless a deal has already been agreed and we just need time to get it implemented) is utterly pointless. A lengthy extension would allow us to get stuff done and get Fox replaced or to take his job seriously.
Well, there are plenty of existing international arbitration systems already in existence. Many of which the EU already leans upon.
But to keep things moving, we should simply announce we would be forming an international committee of independent trade academics. We should even invite someone from the EU to be on it. And it writes a report every year on whether the parties are abiding by their treaty commitments.
The worldview it requires to think that this will do anything other than make us look ridiculous explains so much about why you backed Brexit.
William Glenn, you are usually polite, even when I disagree with you. But that's simply rude.
The only circumstance where we would abrogate the treaty would be one where the EU had demonstrably failed to meet its commitments, and where it was confirmed by people who weren't principles in the matter.
There exist today systems for international arbitration to whom Her Majesty's Government and the EU submit themselves all the time. This would be no different.
It is a pipe dream though Robert, no way it could be administered and would involve years to make decisions and even then most countries would have their own opinions on welching in any case.
At the core of the paralysis is the fallacy of the One True Brexit. This is the mythical deal that avoids economic disturbance while convincing ardent leavers that their demands have been met. This cannot exist because the disruption itself – the sound of fabric tearing and glass breaking – is what many Brexiters crave. Stable transition defers the gratification of instantaneous release. But it is also in the nature of Brexit, even in its hardest form, that the moment of release is illusory. It is a process, not a destination. The article 50 timetable gives structure to the first phase but it never offered resolution. The highest point for leavers, the purest elation, was in the early hours of 24 June 2016, when the referendum result was declared. The trajectory since then was towards failure. Disappointment was coded into Brexit’s political algorithms.
There is no variant of the future in which Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees-Mogg declare themselves satisfied with the outcome of Brexit and magnanimously seek reconciliation with its critics. Grievance is the raw material they need to fuel their politics, and Euroscepticism is the mine where they extract it. They will not shut the facility down to celebrate Britain leaving the EU. Europe will always be there on our doorstep, brazenly existing, flaunting its continentalism in our faces, and the Brexit hardliners are impatient to move on to the next phase of their betrayal.
Nicely written piece. The grievance-mongers will always find something to hate the furriners for. Even if they get their moronic Brexit they will still be whipping up hatred for the EU and claiming that they stitched us up and that all the resulting problems in the economy were the fault of Remainers. They are the purveyors of hatred; it is the oxygen that keeps their pathetic form of politics breathing.
All you do is hatred post on here,can we put you in the same job lot of a remoaning hate monger ?
I don't hate anyone. Even you; while your posts are quite inarticulate, your views quite juvenile and your belief in Brexit highly gullible, you may well be a very nice person when not discussing politics. I do hate some ideas, such as those as espoused by Jeremy Corbyn and his ilk, or the other cheek to the same arse; Jacob Rees Mogg and Nigel Farage. (Actually maybe bordering on hatred for the last idiot perhaps)
Hahaha - you really do need some self-awareness treatment.
You are right that even politicians struggle with the detail of what is before them. It was the same during my time on the council; people always got most animated about some detail where there was a clear yes or no decision, arguing which could easily fill a meeting whilst the big picture went through on the nod.
Common in private industry too. I've been to a Novartis management meeting where a global investment of a billion went through after an hour's discussion, but two hours were spent on a minor managerial principle which everyone had an opinion about.
This is a common phenomenon. There should be a name for this. Perhaps Palmer’s law: the amount of time spent discussing a matter is in inverse proportion to the sums involved.
Interesting article in this morning’s FT: “The Canadian Brain Gain”. Apparently Toronto has gained more high tech jobs than any US metro including San Francisco in the past 5 years. This due to liberal and judicious immigration policies
If we are serious about rebooting our cities outside London, the very simplest thing we could do is attract highly skilled migrants via location-tied visas.
It’s basically a “free” policy, whereas other things we ought to be doing - regional development banks; pro-cluster industrial policies; local government reform; metro transport network investment - all take time and money.
The films are illogical. How are the undead killed by being blasted into smaller pieces? Surely their numbers are increased. Just imagine a hundred extra Chris Williamsons on the Labour benches. They'd be a majority government.
I notice in that clip that Sheffield Momentum Platform Chairs didn't sit on their hands when Chris Williamson explained about Labour being too apologetic about antisemitism. Nor did I see in that they looked shocked or remained silent. Do I need to go to specsavers?
You are right that even politicians struggle with the detail of what is before them. It was the same during my time on the council; people always got most animated about some detail where there was a clear yes or no decision, arguing which could easily fill a meeting whilst the big picture went through on the nod.
Common in private industry too. I've been to a Novartis management meeting where a global investment of a billion went through after an hour's discussion, but two hours were spent on a minor managerial principle which everyone had an opinion about.
Hello Nick. I saw that Boris mentioned you approvingly a couple of times in his Monday Telegraph piece.
It will eventually. In some form. Within 13 years of the Canadian Conservatives being wiped out to just 2 seats there was a Canadian Conservative PM.
The party may go but the ideas and voters are still there for a resurgence after years in opposition getting your s""t together.
Except it was not the old Canadian Progressive Conservatives who returned to power but a new Canadian Conservative Party formed from the PCs and the populist Alliance .
The equivalent would be the Tories revoking Brexit, being overtaken by Farage's Brexit Party at the next election and only returning to office after merging with the latter
So what?
The Tories aren't the original Tory party either. That ceased to exist hundreds of years ago. Doesn't stop them being called Tories either.
To a large extent they are e.g. when the Peelites split off from the Tories they formed the Liberals with the Radicals and the Whigs
They all came home - the Whigs and the Peelites as Liberal Unionists, the Radicals as National Liberals.
Not true, the majority of the Whigs and Peelites certainly stayed in the Liberals, Gladstone for example was a Peelite and after joining the Liberals never returned to the Tories. The Liberals remained the Tories' main opponents until the 1920s and universal suffrage saw Labour overtake them, indeed the Liberals won a landslide in 1906 well after the Liberal Unionists were founded
You are wrong.
But there’s no point in getting into arguments with you as you can’t accept that ever.
No I am sorry but I am right on this, you made a point 'all Peelites, Whigs and Radicals returned to the Tories' which was wrong. If it was correct even a Peelite like Gladstone would have returned to the Tories which he never did.
The Liberal Unionists were formed in 1886 and Gladstone died 12 years later in 1898 still in the Liberals
Yes I think he is. Of course the old guard led by Disraeli did move 20 odd years later I think to accept FT and the ROTCL.
Rafael Behr on blistering form in the Guardian today. I thought this was particularly well observed:
There is no variant of the future in which Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees-Mogg declare themselves satisfied with the outcome of Brexit and magnanimously seek reconciliation with its critics. Grievance is the raw material they need to fuel their politics, and Euroscepticism is the mine where they extract it. They will not shut the facility down to celebrate Britain leaving the EU. Europe will always be there on our doorstep, brazenly existing, flaunting its continentalism in our faces, and the Brexit hardliners are impatient to move on to the next phase of their betrayal.
The Tory Party have gone full UKIP. Theresa May has led them there.
The public as a whole back a short extension but even the public oppose a full 2 year extension.
Crucially though voters are warning to May's Deal which only trails now by 7%.
Of course your last point is absurd, most Tory voters voted Leave even when May backed Remain
Bottom line is that the public has more sense than Tories.
The public probably just want it to be over one way or another.
If there is one certainty in the whole Brexit phenomenon, it is that it will not be over quickly. Whether No Deal, Mays Deal or Remain, what we have seen in the last three years is only the amuse bouche for a veritable banquet of issues.
Interesting article in this morning’s FT: “The Canadian Brain Gain”. Apparently Toronto has gained more high tech jobs than any US metro including San Francisco in the past 5 years. This due to liberal and judicious immigration policies
If we are serious about rebooting our cities outside London, the very simplest thing we could do is attract highly skilled migrants via location-tied visas.
I’d be very surprised if you can do that. How are you going to enforce it?
I think Germany tried to restrict some migrants in Germany to specific locations in Lander, and the German Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional.
Why should someone be restricted to e.g., Newcastle if they wish to work in London? And who is going to stop them if they move?
The Tory Party have gone full UKIP. Theresa May has led them there.
The public as a whole back a short extension but even the public oppose a full 2 year extension.
Crucially though voters are warning to May's Deal which only trails now by 7%.
Of course your last point is absurd, most Tory voters voted Leave even when May backed Remain
Bottom line is that the public has more sense than Tories.
The public probably just want it to be over one way or another.
If there is one certainty in the whole Brexit phenomenon, it is that it will not be over quickly. Whether No Deal, Mays Deal or Remain, what we have seen in the last three years is only the amuse bouche for a veritable banquet of issues.
Single market membership would have put it to bed as an issue though, and we could focus on other things. The purists on both sides would froth, but in essence it would have been a fair response to a very close result. We leave the European Union but mantain a very deep relationship.
Interesting article in this morning’s FT: “The Canadian Brain Gain”. Apparently Toronto has gained more high tech jobs than any US metro including San Francisco in the past 5 years. This due to liberal and judicious immigration policies
If we are serious about rebooting our cities outside London, the very simplest thing we could do is attract highly skilled migrants via location-tied visas.
I’d be very surprised if you can do that. How are you going to enforce it?
I think Germany tried to restrict some migrants in Germany to specific locations in Lander, and the German Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional.
Why should someone be restricted to e.g., Newcastle if they wish to work in London? And who is going to stop them if they move?
It does kind of go against the whole 'freedom of movement' thing.
Interesting article in this morning’s FT: “The Canadian Brain Gain”. Apparently Toronto has gained more high tech jobs than any US metro including San Francisco in the past 5 years. This due to liberal and judicious immigration policies
If we are serious about rebooting our cities outside London, the very simplest thing we could do is attract highly skilled migrants via location-tied visas.
I’d be very surprised if you can do that. How are you going to enforce it?
I think Germany tried to restrict some migrants in Germany to specific locations in Lander, and the German Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional.
Why should someone be restricted to e.g., Newcastle if they wish to work in London? And who is going to stop them if they move?
It does kind of go against the whole 'freedom of movement' thing.
Indeed, it is fantastically illiberal, in that creates different classes of migrants.
I am pretty sure it will be against EU law. It was certainly ruled unconstitutional in Germany.
Rafael Behr on blistering form in the Guardian today. I thought this was particularly well observed:
There is no variant of the future in which Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees-Mogg declare themselves satisfied with the outcome of Brexit and magnanimously seek reconciliation with its critics. Grievance is the raw material they need to fuel their politics, and Euroscepticism is the mine where they extract it. They will not shut the facility down to celebrate Britain leaving the EU. Europe will always be there on our doorstep, brazenly existing, flaunting its continentalism in our faces, and the Brexit hardliners are impatient to move on to the next phase of their betrayal.
And while willing to accept that JRM probably actually believes in his zealot like puritanism, Boris, however, is like one of those touring evangelical preachers who claims to heals people with the power of prayer and whips up the paying visitors into a frenzy. Then fu*ks off to do the same thing a few days later down the road. Nothing more than naked opportunism.
Who could have predicted a few years ago that the Bicester Village shopping experience would be the second most popular UK tourist attraction for Chinese tourists?
That would probably be people who read a newspaper in about 2012, rather than the BBC in 2018 :-) . But is that tourism claim true? It's not in the piece.
It has the classic look of a BBC News "puffed it off Twitter" piece, and they do not seem to have any source except for the figures from the Outlet itself. 6.6m total visitors - Wow! As many as the British Museum - Wow! Context seriously missing.
Don't tell anyone that total tourists from China to the UK were 337k in pa (2017 number). So 160k visitors if the other claim is true, or 3000 a week. An achievement, but why the hyper exaggeration?
The more interesting stuff is that VisitBritain ran a trip to China for Designer Outlets in about 2010, and this is the one that has succeeded. Why? Probably the L-word and good marketing.
Interesting article in this morning’s FT: “The Canadian Brain Gain”. Apparently Toronto has gained more high tech jobs than any US metro including San Francisco in the past 5 years. This due to liberal and judicious immigration policies
If we are serious about rebooting our cities outside London, the very simplest thing we could do is attract highly skilled migrants via location-tied visas.
I’d be very surprised if you can do that. How are you going to enforce it?
I think Germany tried to restrict some migrants in Germany to specific locations in Lander, and the German Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional.
Why should someone be restricted to e.g., Newcastle if they wish to work in London? And who is going to stop them if they move?
It does kind of go against the whole 'freedom of movement' thing.
Indeed, it is fantastically illiberal, in that creates different classes of migrants.
I am pretty sure it will be against EU law. It was certainly ruled unconstitutional in Germany.
Though it is perfectly possible for a work visa to be tied to a particular employer in a particular geography. I had such a visa when working in NZ.
It will eventually. In some form. Within 13 years of the Canadian Conservatives being wiped out to just 2 seats there was a Canadian Conservative PM.
The party may go but the ideas and voters are still there for a resurgence after years in opposition getting your s""t together.
Except it was not the old Canadian Progressive Conservatives who returned to power but a new Canadian Conservative Party formed from the PCs and the populist Alliance .
The equivalent would be the Tories revoking Brexit, being overtaken by Farage's Brexit Party at the next election and only returning to office after merging with the latter
So what?
The Tories aren't the original Tory party either. That ceased to exist hundreds of years ago. Doesn't stop them being called Tories either.
To a large extent they are e.g. when the Peelites split off from the Tories they formed the Liberals with the Radicals and the Whigs
They all came home - the Whigs and the Peelites as Liberal Unionists, the Radicals as National Liberals.
Not true, the majority of the Whigs and Peelites certainly stayed in the Liberals, Gladstone for example was a Peelite and after joining the Liberals never returned to the Tories. The Liberals remained the Tories' main opponents until the 1920s and universal suffrage saw Labour overtake them, indeed the Liberals won a landslide in 1906 well after the Liberal Unionists were founded
You are wrong.
But there’s no point in getting into arguments with you as you can’t accept that ever.
No I am sorry but I am right on this, you made a point 'all Peelites, Whigs and Radicals returned to the Tories' which was wrong. If it was correct even a Peelite like Gladstone would have returned to the Tories which he never did.
The Liberal Unionists were formed in 1886 and Gladstone died 12 years later in 1898 still in the Liberals
Yes I think he is. Of course the old guard led by Disraeli did move 20 odd years later I think to accept FT and the ROTCL.
True but they never left the Tories unlike the Peelites and that was mainly out of electoral necessity, Disraeli was ideologically more of an Empire protectionist and supporter of the landed classes than a free trader
You've pointed out one of the main fracture lines here.
Staying in the single market means accepting the four freedoms and a customs union, and more importantly paying the same membership fees.
That's called staying and ignoring the referendum result completely. I suspect the only people who think that is honouring the referendum result are those are used to having their own way. "You have to reach out to we losers and agree with us.",
Interesting article in this morning’s FT: “The Canadian Brain Gain”. Apparently Toronto has gained more high tech jobs than any US metro including San Francisco in the past 5 years. This due to liberal and judicious immigration policies
If we are serious about rebooting our cities outside London, the very simplest thing we could do is attract highly skilled migrants via location-tied visas.
I’d be very surprised if you can do that. How are you going to enforce it?
I think Germany tried to restrict some migrants in Germany to specific locations in Lander, and the German Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional.
Why should someone be restricted to e.g., Newcastle if they wish to work in London? And who is going to stop them if they move?
It works in Canada because they have a federal system. It wouldn't work here because we don't.
What you can do is hand out more visas tied to a specific company (I forget what they're called) and reduce open visas where they can work for anyone. The problem is that the former have a tendency to lock people into jobs and so are pretty unattractive to the employee.
You've pointed out one of the main fracture lines here.
Staying in the single market means accepting the four freedoms and a customs union, and more importantly paying the same membership fees.
That's called staying and ignoring the referendum result completely. I suspect the only people who think that is honouring the referendum result are those are used to having their own way. "You have to reach out to we losers and agree with us.",
It isn't on offer right now, but very clearly it is a nonsense to claim that leaving is staying.
Sky showing Williamson video and it does not look good.
Let us see Tom Watson take action if he is to be seen to be credible
Williamson has, wittingly or probably otherwise, set himself up nicely to be the required fall guy. What a gift he offers his party, if Labour is sensible enough to take it.
re. Bicester Village - doesn't surprise me at all. Some years ago I brought a Chinese company's senior management to London as part of their IPO roadshow. After all the investor meetings I asked if they would like to go to see the sights - Houses of Parliament, St. Paul's, Tower of London, etc? "Shopping" they replied.
As you're in the legal profession, can you explain to me how staying in the single market is leaving the EU if we have to accept all the same rules and pay the same membership fees?
You've pointed out one of the main fracture lines here.
Staying in the single market means accepting the four freedoms and a customs union, and more importantly paying the same membership fees.
That's called staying and ignoring the referendum result completely. I suspect the only people who think that is honouring the referendum result are those are used to having their own way. "You have to reach out to we losers and agree with us.",
Sky showing Williamson video and it does not look good.
Let us see Tom Watson take action if he is to be seen to be credible
Williamson has, wittingly or probably otherwise, set himself up nicely to be the required fall guy. What a gift he offers his party, if Labour is sensible enough to take it.
Labour mp on Sky saying he has spoken to Tom Watson and he is actively seeking Williamson's suspension
You've pointed out one of the main fracture lines here.
Staying in the single market means accepting the four freedoms and a customs union, and more importantly paying the same membership fees.
That's called staying and ignoring the referendum result completely. I suspect the only people who think that is honouring the referendum result are those are used to having their own way. "You have to reach out to we losers and agree with us.",
Staying in the single market does not require membership of the customs union.
Rafael Behr on blistering form in the Guardian today. I thought this was particularly well observed:
There is no variant of the future in which Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees-Mogg declare themselves satisfied with the outcome of Brexit and magnanimously seek reconciliation with its critics. Grievance is the raw material they need to fuel their politics, and Euroscepticism is the mine where they extract it. They will not shut the facility down to celebrate Britain leaving the EU. Europe will always be there on our doorstep, brazenly existing, flaunting its continentalism in our faces, and the Brexit hardliners are impatient to move on to the next phase of their betrayal.
And while willing to accept that JRM probably actually believes in his zealot like puritanism, Boris, however, is like one of those touring evangelical preachers who claims to heals people with the power of prayer and whips up the paying visitors into a frenzy. Then fu*ks off to do the same thing a few days later down the road. Nothing more than naked opportunism.
Boris still has the power to whip people into a frenzy, I see......
Interesting article in this morning’s FT: “The Canadian Brain Gain”. Apparently Toronto has gained more high tech jobs than any US metro including San Francisco in the past 5 years. This due to liberal and judicious immigration policies
If we are serious about rebooting our cities outside London, the very simplest thing we could do is attract highly skilled migrants via location-tied visas.
It’s basically a “free” policy, whereas other things we ought to be doing - regional development banks; pro-cluster industrial policies; local government reform; metro transport network investment - all take time and money.
Would that be legal and if so how would you regulate it ?
Don't skilled immigrants already move to where skilled jobs are available ? They do where I work and my dentist is a scarily purposeful African lady.
Interesting article in this morning’s FT: “The Canadian Brain Gain”. Apparently Toronto has gained more high tech jobs than any US metro including San Francisco in the past 5 years. This due to liberal and judicious immigration policies
If we are serious about rebooting our cities outside London, the very simplest thing we could do is attract highly skilled migrants via location-tied visas.
I’d be very surprised if you can do that. How are you going to enforce it?
I think Germany tried to restrict some migrants in Germany to specific locations in Lander, and the German Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional.
Why should someone be restricted to e.g., Newcastle if they wish to work in London? And who is going to stop them if they move?
It does kind of go against the whole 'freedom of movement' thing.
Indeed, it is fantastically illiberal, in that creates different classes of migrants.
I am pretty sure it will be against EU law. It was certainly ruled unconstitutional in Germany.
Though it is perfectly possible for a work visa to be tied to a particular employer in a particular geography. I had such a visa when working in NZ.
That’s how visas work in this part of the world too. Most expat employees have to be sponsored by their employer, who is responsible among other things for ensuring they leave the country when their employment finishes.
As you're in the legal profession, can you explain to me how staying in the single market is leaving the EU if we have to accept all the same rules and pay the same membership fees?
I don't think I'm the only one confused.
I suggest you go ask those non-EU countries that are in it.
Interesting article in this morning’s FT: “The Canadian Brain Gain”. Apparently Toronto has gained more high tech jobs than any US metro including San Francisco in the past 5 years. This due to liberal and judicious immigration policies
If we are serious about rebooting our cities outside London, the very simplest thing we could do is attract highly skilled migrants via location-tied visas.
I’d be very surprised if you can do that. How are you going to enforce it?
I think Germany tried to restrict some migrants in Germany to specific locations in Lander, and the German Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional.
Why should someone be restricted to e.g., Newcastle if they wish to work in London? And who is going to stop them if they move?
It does kind of go against the whole 'freedom of movement' thing.
Indeed, it is fantastically illiberal, in that creates different classes of migrants.
I am pretty sure it will be against EU law. It was certainly ruled unconstitutional in Germany.
It is not “fantastically illiberal”. That’s absurd hyperbole. At present many visas are employer-tied. This would simply add a condition that you must be employed, say, in Birmingham.
Rafael Behr on blistering form in the Guardian today. I thought this was particularly well observed:
There is no variant of the future in which Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees-Mogg declare themselves satisfied with the outcome of Brexit and magnanimously seek reconciliation with its critics. Grievance is the raw material they need to fuel their politics, and Euroscepticism is the mine where they extract it. They will not shut the facility down to celebrate Britain leaving the EU. Europe will always be there on our doorstep, brazenly existing, flaunting its continentalism in our faces, and the Brexit hardliners are impatient to move on to the next phase of their betrayal.
Which is why there is almost no agreement with the EU that would be acceptable to them. Any agreement has to be foisted onto them by Remainers so that they can continue to oppose and take no responsibility for the results of their policy.
Many ordinary Chinese think it's perfectly normal to own a couple of flats. They keep them for their children and grandchildren or they inherit them from their parents and hang onto them.
Property taxes are almost non-existent, so there's little cost in them keeping their flats empty. That will change very soon. There's a shortage of affordable accommodation. It's actually more expensive per sqm than the UK in many places.
Interesting article in this morning’s FT: “The Canadian Brain Gain”. Apparently Toronto has gained more high tech jobs than any US metro including San Francisco in the past 5 years. This due to liberal and judicious immigration policies
If we are serious about rebooting our cities outside London, the very simplest thing we could do is attract highly skilled migrants via location-tied visas.
I’d be very surprised if you can do that. How are you going to enforce it?
I think Germany tried to restrict some migrants in Germany to specific locations in Lander, and the German Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional.
Why should someone be restricted to e.g., Newcastle if they wish to work in London? And who is going to stop them if they move?
It does kind of go against the whole 'freedom of movement' thing.
Indeed, it is fantastically illiberal, in that creates different classes of migrants.
I am pretty sure it will be against EU law. It was certainly ruled unconstitutional in Germany.
Though it is perfectly possible for a work visa to be tied to a particular employer in a particular geography. I had such a visa when working in NZ.
That’s how visas work in this part of the world too. Most expat employees have to be sponsored by their employer, who is responsible among other things for ensuring they leave the country when their employment finishes.
It does rather leave the holder in a difficult position if employer is abusive, but in Canterbury Health Board it wasn't an issue.
"Staying in the single market does not require membership of the customs union."
So we could stay in the single market and make deals with other countries? How about FOM? Membership fees? How about input into standardisation committees?
Yes, I suspect I should know this, but I'm with the great unwashed on these topics?
Comments
Referendums are pretty good at making simple binary choices where either outcome has few disastrous effects. I remember a Basel vote on the design of a new bridge. More or less taxpayers' money on making it beautiful? This style or that style? Everyone could get their heads round that, and when it was built they felt a sense of pride and engagement - "we decided to build it like that". But Brexit? Hard even for specialists to be sure of the implications, even now.
On Trump, I was thinking in terms of neutralising Trump attacks on "Commie Bernie" or the like.
You are right that even politicians struggle with the detail of what is before them. It was the same during my time on the council; people always got most animated about some detail where there was a clear yes or no decision, arguing which could easily fill a meeting whilst the big picture went through on the nod.
Now I go walking hither and thither, and if there had been a war on at the time it would be easy for someone to point and sneer: "Oh look, how convenient - he's fine now."
And asthma is odd: a relative of mine suffered terribly from it (including being hospitalised) until around his mid twenties, and has not suffered an attack in decades since. Because of it and another issue, he missed national service. He was not skiving; he was not pretending.
We can't all be a superhero-fit adonis who flies for his country.
"The wingnut in chief has achieved lead news even on R2 - he'll be chuffed most likely..."
Being already undead, Uncle Fester is bomb-proof. He does have the virtue of honesty, though,
But news editors thrive on this. You only have to look at the Express, the Mail and the Guardian too.
After all, for years they didn't even 'realise' Osama bin Laden had been living near one of their military bases ...
Destroyed the chain (it was the flagship site) and put 70 people out of work
He's not helping them, so why keep him? His marginal seat is hopefully lost anyway.
That's usually the way things get sorted.
I expect a large quantity of portaloos will soon be appearing for sale on eBay?
Crucially though voters are warning to May's Deal which only trails now by 7%.
Of course your last point is absurd, most Tory voters voted Leave even when May backed Remain
I accidentally addressed you as Mr Wingnut - it was the subject of the comment, not a comment on you. I apologise. Like Jezza, I'm getting old, you know, even if I still have my own teeth.
But there’s no point in getting into arguments with you as you can’t accept that ever.
He's the living embodification of a fanatical Twitter account. And he'd back the party even if suspended I bet.
The Liberal Unionists were formed in 1886 and Gladstone died 12 years later in 1898 still in the Liberals
Freudian typo?
There should be a name for this.
Perhaps Palmer’s law: the amount of time spent discussing a matter is in inverse proportion to the sums involved.
If we are serious about rebooting our cities outside London, the very simplest thing we could do is attract highly skilled migrants via location-tied visas.
It’s basically a “free” policy, whereas other things we ought to be doing - regional development banks; pro-cluster industrial policies; local government reform; metro transport network investment - all take time and money.
What is the error bar on your number?
Can you convince is that your answer is correct to within a factor of 2 or 3?
Because of course a Google fact is no fact at all.
The films are illogical. How are the undead killed by being blasted into smaller pieces? Surely their numbers are increased. Just imagine a hundred extra Chris Williamsons on the Labour benches. They'd be a majority government.
Edit: these Williamsons are all the same.
https://twitter.com/wizbates/status/1100471552678735873
There is no variant of the future in which Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees-Mogg declare themselves satisfied with the outcome of Brexit and magnanimously seek reconciliation with its critics. Grievance is the raw material they need to fuel their politics, and Euroscepticism is the mine where they extract it. They will not shut the facility down to celebrate Britain leaving the EU. Europe will always be there on our doorstep, brazenly existing, flaunting its continentalism in our faces, and the Brexit hardliners are impatient to move on to the next phase of their betrayal.
I think Germany tried to restrict some migrants in Germany to specific locations in Lander, and the German Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional.
Why should someone be restricted to e.g., Newcastle if they wish to work in London? And who is going to stop them if they move?
Let us see Tom Watson take action if he is to be seen to be credible
I am pretty sure it will be against EU law. It was certainly ruled unconstitutional in Germany.
And while willing to accept that JRM probably actually believes in his zealot like puritanism, Boris, however, is like one of those touring evangelical preachers who claims to heals people with the power of prayer and whips up the paying visitors into a frenzy. Then fu*ks off to do the same thing a few days later down the road. Nothing more than naked opportunism.
The public also back May's Deal 37% to 26% with a backstop guarantee with only 14% for No Deal in that poll
It has the classic look of a BBC News "puffed it off Twitter" piece, and they do not seem to have any source except for the figures from the Outlet itself. 6.6m total visitors - Wow! As many as the British Museum - Wow! Context seriously missing.
Don't tell anyone that total tourists from China to the UK were 337k in pa (2017 number). So 160k visitors if the other claim is true, or 3000 a week. An achievement, but why the hyper exaggeration?
Sorry @AndyS - feeling grumpy this AM.
The more interesting stuff is that VisitBritain ran a trip to China for Designer Outlets in about 2010, and this is the one that has succeeded. Why? Probably the L-word and good marketing.
You've pointed out one of the main fracture lines here.
Staying in the single market means accepting the four freedoms and a customs union, and more importantly paying the same membership fees.
That's called staying and ignoring the referendum result completely. I suspect the only people who think that is honouring the referendum result are those are used to having their own way. "You have to reach out to we losers and agree with us.",
What you can do is hand out more visas tied to a specific company (I forget what they're called) and reduce open visas where they can work for anyone. The problem is that the former have a tendency to lock people into jobs and so are pretty unattractive to the employee.
As you're in the legal profession, can you explain to me how staying in the single market is leaving the EU if we have to accept all the same rules and pay the same membership fees?
I don't think I'm the only one confused.
I thought he was a spent force?
Don't skilled immigrants already move to where skilled jobs are available ? They do where I work and my dentist is a scarily purposeful African lady.
As for the EU comment, I thought we were leaving?
Property taxes are almost non-existent, so there's little cost in them keeping their flats empty. That will change very soon. There's a shortage of affordable accommodation. It's actually more expensive per sqm than the UK in many places.
"Staying in the single market does not require membership of the customs union."
So we could stay in the single market and make deals with other countries? How about FOM? Membership fees? How about input into standardisation committees?
Yes, I suspect I should know this, but I'm with the great unwashed on these topics?