Nope, in a lot of cases especially up North productive youngsters came along and then discovered how to play our welfare system. And being organised a lot have discovered how to play our welfare system better than the locals can.
This is utter bollocks. Have you any expereince of the welfare system in action?
No 'productive youngster' would choose that route if they had a genuine alternative of productive employment - living on welfare is pretty crap.
On here they think that people on benefits are living in a land of milk and honey , half the time abroad and other half in their mansions, all funded by being lazy tossers.
No I mean comment on what I see - East Europeans with children joining the 16 hour a week brigade.
I agree with @OnlyLivingBoy that there is no point in simply trading anecdote.
The data says immigration has been overwhelmingly positive.
The problem, however, is that our in-work credits system incentivises what you are talking about and to most fair-minded people, it shouldn’t be allowed.
Do you have that data ?
The most recent ONS data gives unemployment at 3.7% UK nationals, 3.5% EU nationals and 7.0% non-EU nationals.
I was talking about EU migration.
Those non-EU rates surprise me, but one imagines if you drill into the data the issue is overwhelmingly immigrants from poorer Muslim communities, and Somalis.
Other groups, like West Africans, will probably overperform.
There a noticeable higher employment of Indian immigrants than those from Pakistan & Bangladesh.
The highest employment rates are of those from South Africa followed by Australia & New Zealand.
Within the EU total there will be variances between the type of immigrant.
I would like to see data differentiated on socioeconomic class rather than on country of origin - an educated English speaking Pole has more in common, in terms of employability in this country, with an educated English speaking German or an educated English speaking Indian than a working class Pole with limited English language skills.
A majority of voters voted for Brexit, a majority have not voted for Corbyn
1.8% voted for no deal. 40% voted for Corbyns Labour.
Why do you keep conflating Brexit with no deal? The vast majority of the country can accept Brexit but not no deal. The government is choosing not to deliver it.
The majority of the country oppose both further extension and revoke and Remain with Survation this weekend, I conflate Brexit with the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop as 52% of voters want with Survation and as Macron and Merkel did not rule out if Boris offers a technical solution for the Irish border.
So bloody obvious, I’ve been saying this ever since Boris Johnson became Prime Minister.
But how do they force it? Boris Just has to sit on his hands and wait until they VONC him. Then the date is in his gift. He’s never going to agree an extension.
It is not in his gift if the Commons is willing to install an alternative PM.
That’s the only path open to them. Jeremy to lay the motion Tuesday?
Wouldn’t that mess up the Remainers plans though...
1. Jezza doing something which take priority over their other plans 2. Unlikely (?) to be successful - in which case time is wasted and Boris strengthened 3. If successful need to find a new PM 4. Corbyn goes first (?) unlikely to be successful - if not he has wasted time 5. If no alternative found then an election where Boris sets the date (can an election be called while Parliament is prorogued it does it need to wait until it returns to move a writ or whatever?)
But if the EU don't enforce 31 October date, then we remain indefinitely.
But indefinititely in default of the EU treaties - because we have already repealed the law that gives EU law supremacy. That takes effect on 31st October.
So bloody obvious, I’ve been saying this ever since Boris Johnson became Prime Minister.
But how do they force it? Boris Just has to sit on his hands and wait until they VONC him. Then the date is in his gift. He’s never going to agree an extension.
Control of the Order Paper? They have time, even if the EU doesn't unilaterally extend.
They pass a motion asking the govt to extend. The govt refuses. Their only remaining option is to VONC the government. Unless they have a PM who can command the house GE Oct 31.
The Government refuses to act on a motion passed by the House? Wow!
Is this how A Very British Coup begins?
The House refuses to act on a referendum passed by the voters.
Boris has the moral authority.
Boris doesn't have the moral authority for No Deal as all Leave campaigning groups ruled out No Deal...
Corbyn doesn't have the moral authority for further extension which voters opposed 47% to 41% with Survation yesterday.
52% of voters back the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop with a technical alternative as Boris wants in the same poll
How many backed No Deal
That did not have a majority either but then further extension and revoke also failed to get a majority, as I said the only majority was for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop, exactly as Boris is aiming for
The Survation says 18% want No Deal
Wake up HYUFD
You can’t reason with extremists @bigjohnowls. You should know.
You certainly cannot reason with diehard Remainer extremists no
I'm having a Twitter debate with OGH. Why can't we just repeal the FTPA? Surely it's in the interest of both sides
Surely the repeal of the FTPA requiresa one-line bill? Plenty of time to get that done. It' not the process that is the problem - it is the political will from Labour. Who are now frit of the voters.
Under the FTPA there can't be "a motion for an early election," only a motion for an election. The date of the election would then be decided by the prime minister.
Under the FTPA there can't be "a motion for an early election," only a motion for an election. The date of the election would then be decided by the prime minister.
When May made her election announcement in Downing Street, she included the date proposed!
Under the FTPA there can't be "a motion for an early election," only a motion for an election. The date of the election would then be decided by the prime minister.
And that's where the plan falls down - there is no way anyone is going to let Boris choose the election date....
Under the FTPA there can't be "a motion for an early election," only a motion for an election. The date of the election would then be decided by the prime minister.
When May made her election announcement in Downing Street, she included the date proposed!
Of course the prime minister can say anything he likes. But the motion before the Commons wouldn't specify a date.
A majority of voters voted for Brexit, a majority have not voted for Corbyn
1.8% voted for no deal. 40% voted for Corbyns Labour.
Why do you keep conflating Brexit with no deal? The vast majority of the country can accept Brexit but not no deal. The government is choosing not to deliver it.
The majority of the country oppose both further extension and revoke and Remain with Survation this weekend, I conflate Brexit with the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop as 52% of voters want with Survation and as Macron and Merkel did not rule out if Boris offers a technical solution for the Irish border.
If not No Deal it has to be
It is fine for you to believe in unicorn negotiations with the EU and/or to prefer no deal if the unicorn is not found. It is nonsense for you to assign your personal preference of no deal if no unicorn to 17.4 million people despite all evidence to the contrary. No deal does not have majority support.
Under the FTPA there can't be "a motion for an early election," only a motion for an election. The date of the election would then be decided by the prime minister.
And that's where the plan falls down - there is no way anyone is going to let Boris choose the election date....
Ironically Teesside University is one of its better current exports.
That's not saying much as it is ranked as one of the worst uni's in the country, albeit still higher than Sunderland.
It’s good enough for the huge, american conglomerate that I work for to use it for both engineering and business studies/management degrees. It also has a reasonably big International Student population.
They should ask for their money back on the business studies at least...ranked 83 out of 122.
I suspect they don't pay the market rate and it's already far cheaper than the other options.
I'd also argue that what they need from it (good quality technical tuition) can be sourced from there. You don't need to pay a premium price for an Oxbridge or DurEx brand and Tees is probably more willing to tailor the course.
Under the FTPA there can't be "a motion for an early election," only a motion for an election. The date of the election would then be decided by the prime minister.
And that's where the plan falls down - there is no way anyone is going to let Boris choose the election date....
Ah yes... good point.
It's why any election request will be preceded by a demand for an extension because Wednesday proved that he cannot be trusted.
I don't think either part of that is correct. There are many other countries in Europe with a far shorter tail of the unproductive and uneducated. The reasons why we are different are I suspect complex and tied into our history of industrialisation and deindustrialization, both of which were particularly brutal. I imagine with some effort we could do something about it.
Also, I believe that the data tell us we are disproportionately importing the young, educated and productive from Europe. The kind of people who would be sitting on their arse in their equivalent of Hartlepool smoking tabs are probably still sitting on their arse in their equivalent of Hartlepool smoking tabs.
Nope, in a lot of cases especially up North productive youngsters came along and then discovered how to play our welfare system. And being organised a lot have discovered how to play our welfare system better than the locals can.
This is utter bollocks. Have you any expereince of the welfare system in action?
No 'productive youngster' would choose that route if they had a genuine alternative of productive employment - living on welfare is pretty crap.
On here they think that people on benefits are living in a land of milk and honey , half the time abroad and other half in their mansions, all funded by being lazy tossers.
No I mean comment on what I see - East Europeans with children joining the 16 hour a week brigade.
I agree with @OnlyLivingBoy that there is no point in simply trading anecdote.
The data says immigration has been overwhelmingly positive.
The problem, however, is that our in-work credits system incentivises what you are talking about and to most fair-minded people, it shouldn’t be allowed.
Do you have that data ?
The most recent ONS data gives unemployment at 3.7% UK nationals, 3.5% EU nationals and 7.0% non-EU nationals.
That piece of data doesn't assist in deciding whether immigration is net pos or net neg. It is comparing the populations, not the situations, against one another. Instead of comparing Peter against Pavel, you have to compare the situation where Pavel is in Warsaw to the one where he's in Wolverhampton.
What if the response is we abstain unless you seek an extension beyond Election Day?
Er... if election day is 17th October no extension is required.
Edit: But of course as has been pointed out, the Remain opposition would have to trust BoJo to stick to the date... tricky.
Then the Election Date would need to be made explicit. And unalterable, regardless of a string of unexpected Bank Holidays, washing his hair, plague of frogs, etc. Trust in the goodwill of the PM has broken down already.
So bloody obvious, I’ve been saying this ever since Boris Johnson became Prime Minister.
But how do they force it? Boris Just has to sit on his hands and wait until they VONC him. Then the date is in his gift. He’s never going to agree an extension.
It is not in his gift if the Commons is willing to install an alternative PM.
That’s the only path open to them. Jeremy to lay the motion Tuesday?
Wouldn’t that mess up the Remainers plans though...
1. Jezza doing something which take priority over their other plans 2. Unlikely (?) to be successful - in which case time is wasted and Boris strengthened 3. If successful need to find a new PM 4. Corbyn goes first (?) unlikely to be successful - if not he has wasted time 5. If no alternative found then an election where Boris sets the date (can an election be called while Parliament is prorogued it does it need to wait until it returns to move a writ or whatever?)
But if the EU don't enforce 31 October date, then we remain indefinitely.
But indefinititely in default of the EU treaties - because we have already repealed the law that gives EU law supremacy. That takes effect on 31st October.
So bloody obvious, I’ve been saying this ever since Boris Johnson became Prime Minister.
But how do they force it? Boris Just has to sit on his hands and wait until they VONC him. Then the date is in his gift. He’s never going to agree an extension.
It is not in his gift if the Commons is willing to install an alternative PM.
That’s the only path open to them. Jeremy to lay the motion Tuesday?
Wouldn’t that mess up the Remainers plans though...
1. Jezza doing something which take priority over their other plans 2. Unlikely (?) to be successful - in which case time is wasted and Boris strengthened 3. If successful need to find a new PM 4. Corbyn goes first (?) unlikely to be successful - if not he has wasted time 5. If no alternative found then an election where Boris sets the date (can an election be called while Parliament is prorogued it does it need to wait until it returns to move a writ or whatever?)
But if the EU don't enforce 31 October date, then we remain indefinitely.
It is not their choice. They are bound by treaty law unless all sides agree to a change in the date.
I don't think either part of that is correct. There are many other countries in Europe with a far shorter tail of the unproductive and uneducated. The reasons why we are different are I suspect complex and tied into our history of industrialisation and deindustrialization, both of which were particularly brutal. I imagine with some effort we could do something about it.
Also, I believe that the data tell us we are disproportionately importing the young, educated and productive from Europe. The kind of people who would be sitting on their arse in their equivalent of Hartlepool smoking tabs are probably still sitting on their arse in their equivalent of Hartlepool smoking tabs.
Nope, in a lot of cases especially up North productive youngsters came along and then discovered how to play our welfare system. And being organised a lot have discovered how to play our welfare system better than the locals can.
This is utter bollocks. Have you any expereince of the welfare system in action?
No 'productive youngster' would choose that route if they had a genuine alternative of productive employment - living on welfare is pretty crap.
On here they think that people on benefits are living in a land of milk and honey , half the time abroad and other half in their mansions, all funded by being lazy tossers.
No I mean comment on what I see - East Europeans with children joining the 16 hour a week brigade.
I agree with @OnlyLivingBoy that there is no point in simply trading anecdote.
The data says immigration has been overwhelmingly positive.
The problem, however, is that our in-work credits system incentivises what you are talking about and to most fair-minded people, it shouldn’t be allowed.
Do you have that data ?
The most recent ONS data gives unemployment at 3.7% UK nationals, 3.5% EU nationals and 7.0% non-EU nationals.
That piece of data doesn't assist in deciding whether immigration is net pos or net neg. It is comparing the populations, not the situations, against one another. Instead of comparing Peter against Pavel, you have to compare the situation where Pavel is in Warsaw to the one where he's in Wolverhampton.
Indeed.
It doesn't show differences between types of employment or how they vary between different locations.
Right... so I only have to abide by the law if I like the legislation?
If the act passed by Parliament is constitutionally illegal then the Government don't have to follow it. Trouble is Remainers want to pick and choose which bits of the constitution they will follow to suit themselves
With all the court cases bandying about, could the government challenge the speaker in the courts if he approves an amendable section 24 debate?
No. The Speaker is omniscient in his ruling on procedure. He can rule that only those who perform 50 press ups before speaking are in order if the whim takes him. The only solution is to remove him. Rather like the PM. Yet another way our Constitution is outdated.
So bloody obvious, I’ve been saying this ever since Boris Johnson became Prime Minister.
But how do they force it? Boris Just has to sit on his hands and wait until they VONC him. Then the date is in his gift. He’s never going to agree an extension.
It is not in his gift if the Commons is willing to install an alternative PM.
That’s the only path open to them. Jeremy to lay the motion Tuesday?
Wouldn’t that mess up the Remainers plans though...
1. Jezza doing something which take priority over their other plans 2. Unlikely (?) to be successful - in which case time is wasted and Boris strengthened 3. If successful need to find a new PM 4. Corbyn goes first (?) unlikely to be successful - if not he has wasted time 5. If no alternative found then an election where Boris sets the date (can an election be called while Parliament is prorogued it does it need to wait until it returns to move a writ or whatever?)
But if the EU don't enforce 31 October date, then we remain indefinitely.
But indefinititely in default of the EU treaties - because we have already repealed the law that gives EU law supremacy. That takes effect on 31st October.
So bloody obvious, I’ve been saying this ever since Boris Johnson became Prime Minister.
But how do they force it? Boris Just has to sit on his hands and wait until they VONC him. Then the date is in his gift. He’s never going to agree an extension.
Control of the Order Paper? They have time, even if the EU doesn't unilaterally extend.
They pass a motion asking the govt to extend. The govt refuses. Their only remaining option is to VONC the government. Unless they have a PM who can command the house GE Oct 31.
The Government refuses to act on a motion passed by the House? Wow!
Is this how A Very British Coup begins?
The House refuses to act on a referendum passed by the voters.
Boris has the moral authority.
Boris doesn't have the moral authority for No Deal as all Leave campaigning groups ruled out No Deal...
He will, when it comes down to "us" or "them"....
I thought Johnson was aiming to unify the country, or was that just another of his endless lies? You don't unify the country by opting for a type of Brexit that the leave campaigns themselves ruled out. Any short term political gain will be a pyrrhic victory.
He's going to unify the country against those MPs voting to block Brexit.
Just watch.....
They are uniting to try to block No Deal Brexit and you cannot conflate that with "blocking Brexit" but leavers do it all the time quite intentionally and dishonestly. They are trying to block No Deal because there is no mandate for it, the leave campaigns us assured us that we would only leave with a deal. Only 26% of voters want a No Deal Brexit so good luck uniting the country behind that policy.
So bloody obvious, I’ve been saying this ever since Boris Johnson became Prime Minister.
But how do they force it? Boris Just has to sit on his hands and wait until they VONC him. Then the date is in his gift. He’s never going to agree an extension.
Control of the Order Paper? They have time, even if the EU doesn't unilaterally extend.
They pass a motion asking the govt to extend. The govt refuses. Their only remaining option is to VONC the government. Unless they have a PM who can command the house GE Oct 31.
The Government refuses to act on a motion passed by the House? Wow!
Is this how A Very British Coup begins?
The House refuses to act on a referendum passed by the voters.
Boris has the moral authority.
Boris doesn't have the moral authority for No Deal as all Leave campaigning groups ruled out No Deal...
He will, when it comes down to "us" or "them"....
I thought Johnson was aiming to unify the country, or was that just another of his endless lies? You don't unify the country by opting for a type of Brexit that the leave campaigns themselves ruled out. Any short term political gain will be a pyrrhic victory.
He's going to unify the country against those MPs voting to block Brexit.
Just watch.....
They are uniting to try to block No Deal Brexit and you cannot conflate that with "blocking Brexit" but leavers do it all the time quite intentionally and dishonestly. They are trying to block No Deal because there is no mandate for it, the leave campaigns us assured us that we would only leave with a deal. Only 26% of voters want a No Deal Brexit so good luck uniting the country behind that policy.
MPs voted against the Withdrawal Agreement and against No Deal and thus against Brexit.
With Survation this weekend only 40% back Revoke and Remain, only 41% back extension again and 52% back Boris' policy of the Withdrawal Agreement with a technical alternative to the backstop. Good luck opposing that!
Right... so I only have to abide by the law if I like the legislation?
If the act passed by Parliament is constitutionally illegal then the Government don't have to follow it. Trouble is Remainers want to pick and choose which bits of the constitution they will follow to suit themselves
And leavers want to make it up as they go along....
These rather desperate threats to upend the constitution by the government are wholly counterproductive. First, MPs are only going to stiffen their sinews in response. Secondly, the court cases about prorogation do not take place in a vacuum. A government threatening to dismantle longstanding conventions is going to get less leeway from the courts. Thirdly, contempt of Parliament is an offence and the Commons can and has in the past taken action against offenders (a sentence of over 12 months in prison for a miscreant Prime Minister would have some intriguing consequences). Fourthly, the monarchy is really not going to want to open a Pandora’s box that was last opened in the reign of Queen Anne. Fifthly, the courts could be expected to intervene.
In reality, these wild threats show weakness rather than strength.
A majority of voters voted for Brexit, a majority have not voted for Corbyn
1.8% voted for no deal. 40% voted for Corbyns Labour.
Why do you keep conflating Brexit with no deal? The vast majority of the country can accept Brexit but not no deal. The government is choosing not to deliver it.
The majority of the country oppose both further extension and revoke and Remain with Survation this weekend, I conflate Brexit with the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop as 52% of voters want with Survation and as Macron and Merkel did not rule out if Boris offers a technical solution for the Irish border.
If not No Deal it has to be
It is fine for you to believe in unicorn negotiations with the EU and/or to prefer no deal if the unicorn is not found. It is nonsense for you to assign your personal preference of no deal if no unicorn to 17.4 million people despite all evidence to the contrary. No deal does not have majority support.
Extension and revoke do NOT have majority support as Survation showed this weekend.
Only Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop does as Survation also showed, if Boris wins a majority he can pass the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop through the Commons, propose a technical solution for the Irish border instead and put the ball in the EU's court. If they refuse No Deal it is.
Even Barnier today said a technical alternative to the backstop could be found once the Withdrawal Agreement is passed through the British Parliament
A majority of voters voted for Brexit, a majority have not voted for Corbyn
1.8% voted for no deal. 40% voted for Corbyns Labour.
Why do you keep conflating Brexit with no deal? The vast majority of the country can accept Brexit but not no deal. The government is choosing not to deliver it.
The majority of the country oppose both further extension and revoke and Remain with Survation this weekend, I conflate Brexit with the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop as 52% of voters want with Survation and as Macron and Merkel did not rule out if Boris offers a technical solution for the Irish border.
If not No Deal it has to be
It is fine for you to believe in unicorn negotiations with the EU and/or to prefer no deal if the unicorn is not found. It is nonsense for you to assign your personal preference of no deal if no unicorn to 17.4 million people despite all evidence to the contrary. No deal does not have majority support.
Extension and revoke do NOT have majority support as Survation showed this weekend.
Only Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop does as Survation also showed, if Boris wins a majority he can pass the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop through the Commons, propose a technical solution for the Irish border instead and put the ball in the EU's court. If they refuse No Deal it is.
Even Barnier today said a technical alternative to the backstop could be found once the Withdrawal Agreement is passed through the British Parliament
This is all bollocks @HYUFD. You know it. It doesn’t matter if WA minus backstop has a majority. That’s fine. But that does not in any way logically lead to no deal.
I will repeat: there is no popular mandate for no deal. This is a fact.
Ironically Teesside University is one of its better current exports.
That's not saying much as it is ranked as one of the worst uni's in the country, albeit still higher than Sunderland.
It’s good enough for the huge, american conglomerate that I work for to use it for both engineering and business studies/management degrees. It also has a reasonably big International Student population.
They should ask for their money back on the business studies at least...ranked 83 out of 122.
It's good at a few niche subjects like computer aided animation and more practical things like social work iirc
This is my general issue with the way university expansion has gone. We have created 130+ universities that in order to become unis (rather than polys / HE facilities) have to had to add a wider range of subjects. The result a dilution at massive cost, and lots and lots of crap degrees.
Very very few old polys have become excellent all round unis, and often in order to offer the "wider range" they have come up with all sorts of crap rather than offering say STEM.
Winchester was decent teacher training place, Coventry for practical mechanical engineering, Harper Adams for agriculture. Now all piss poor ranked unis.
Although they have a very good Centre for Responsible Management
Right... so I only have to abide by the law if I like the legislation?
If the act passed by Parliament is constitutionally illegal then the Government don't have to follow it. Trouble is Remainers want to pick and choose which bits of the constitution they will follow to suit themselves
Interesting concept - a law passed by Parliament being illegal.
I keep thinking we've reached peak Brexiteer stupidity, but no.
Murdo 'Queen's 11' Fraser and Adam 'Always good to see a team wearing green thumped 6-1' Tomkins, your boys took a hell of a beating today (mainly by being really shite despite Celtic being mediocre).
Even Barnier today said a technical alternative to the backstop could be found once the Withdrawal Agreement is passed through the British Parliament
He's talking about a scenario that would require years of negotiation to finalise agreement, after a WA with the backstop is passed ...… not something that can be whipped up in weeks.
So bloody obvious, I’ve been saying this ever since Boris Johnson became Prime Minister.
But how do they force it? Boris Just has to sit on his hands and wait until they VONC him. Then the date is in his gift. He’s never going to agree an extension.
Control of the Order Paper? They have time, even if the EU doesn't unilaterally extend.
They pass a motion asking the govt to extend. The govt refuses. Their only remaining option is to VONC the government. Unless they have a PM who can command the house GE Oct 31.
The Government refuses to act on a motion passed by the House? Wow!
Is this how A Very British Coup begins?
The House refuses to act on a referendum passed by the voters.
Boris has the moral authority.
Boris doesn't have the moral authority for No Deal as all Leave campaigning groups ruled out No Deal...
Corbyn doesn't have the moral authority for further extension which voters opposed 47% to 41% with Survation yesterday.
52% of voters back the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop with a technical alternative as Boris wants in the same poll
How many backed No Deal
That did not have a majority either but then further extension and revoke also failed to get a majority, as I said the only majority was for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop, exactly as Boris is aiming for
The Survation says 18% want No Deal
Wake up HYUFD
You can’t reason with extremists @bigjohnowls. You should know.
You certainly cannot reason with diehard Remainer extremists no
I’m no diehard Remainer. I would happily accept a Brexit compromise of full and permanent membership of the Single Market and Customs Union.
A majority of voters voted for Brexit, a majority have not voted for Corbyn
1.8% voted for no deal. 40% voted for Corbyns Labour.
Why do you keep conflating Brexit with no deal? The vast majority of the country can accept Brexit but not no deal. The government is choosing not to deliver it.
The majority of the country oppose both further extension and revoke and Remain with Survation this weekend, I conflate Brexit with the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop as 52% of voters want with Survation and as Macron and Merkel did not rule out if Boris offers a technical solution for the Irish border.
If not No Deal it has to be
It is fine for you to believe in unicorn negotiations with the EU and/or to prefer no deal if the unicorn is not found. It is nonsense for you to assign your personal preference of no deal if no unicorn to 17.4 million people despite all evidence to the contrary. No deal does not have majority support.
Extension and revoke do NOT have majority support as Survation showed this weekend.
Only Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop does as Survation also showed, if Boris wins a majority he can pass the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop through the Commons, propose a technical solution for the Irish border instead and put the ball in the EU's court. If they refuse No Deal it is.
Even Barnier today said a technical alternative to the backstop could be found once the Withdrawal Agreement is passed through the British Parliament
This is all bollocks @HYUFD. You know it. It doesn’t matter if WA minus backstop has a majority. That’s fine. But that does not in any way logically lead to no deal.
I will repeat: there is no popular mandate for no deal. This is a fact.
What's more, this theory all hangs on this "technical solution" miraculously emerging.
The immediate option open to the house is to VONC. Meanwhile Boris will be all over the TV saying “look how they’re trying to sabotage getting a deal” and “ Ill ask for an extension if they drop the backstop”.
VONC will only occur in the event that the legislative route fails, i.e. when Parliament returns in October.
There are very good reasons for this:
1) The fact that the the prorogation cuts short the 14 day period for forming an alternative government. If they fail in those 5 days then Johnson chooses the election date (likely post-Brexit, so not worth the risk)
2) Conservative rebels are understandably more open to defying the party whip than they are voting down their own government - so legislation is easier to pass (even with the latest threats of deselection)
3) There is still time for a VONC in October if needed - and it will be clear that there's no alternative to stop no deal by that point and so a caretaker government (Corbyn or otherwise) is more likely to be agreed
I agree that the politics of this generally works in Johnson's favour in terms of coalescing the Brexit vote to his party, and he'll spin any extension as being forced on him by a "Remoaner Parliament". So he may well lose the battle but win the war. But if the Conservatives win a majority on a no deal manifesto, then so be it - they will also own the consequences.
This looks plausible. A normal election sees Labour votes switching to Conservatives so Conservatives win or Conservative votes switching to Labour so Labour wins. 2017 wasn't a normal election and the upcoming one won't be either.
It all depends on tactical voting and whether former Labour party voters will stay with them in Labour marginals rather than switching to Lib Dems. Also Scotland will represent a solid 50 seats for Remain. Conservatives won't necessarily get a majority IMO
It’s an imperfect analogy - as are pretty well all analogies - since it suggests he’ll die at the end of the process, which obviously isn’t the case. And even on the metaphorical level ignores the fact that those likely to suffer the consequences of the game of chicken are lots of people who are not Dominic Cummings. About whom he doesn’t give two shits.
This bit was quite good, though. As I said: I’m speculating. But it fits my existing mental model of Dominic Cummings, which is that he reads these fascinating, interesting ideas from brilliant people, and takes completely the wrong message from them. For one thing, a key principle of the Rationalist blogosphere that we both admire is the “principle of charity”, the idea that “if you don’t understand how someone could possibly believe something as stupid as they do, that this is more likely a failure of understanding on your part than a failure of reason on theirs”, rather than assuming people are stupid or evil....
You claim to know exactly what drove each leave voters decision?
Some arrogance or delusion on display here
Leave won by 3.8% of the vote therefore it is highly likely that both the Turkish Muslim scare poster and the lies on the bus each tipped enough votes to win it for leave. That doesn't mean it motivated every leave voter but it motivated enough to make a difference.
Right... so I only have to abide by the law if I like the legislation?
If the act passed by Parliament is constitutionally illegal then the Government don't have to follow it. Trouble is Remainers want to pick and choose which bits of the constitution they will follow to suit themselves
Interesting concept - a law passed by Parliament being illegal.
I keep thinking we've reached peak Brexiteer stupidity, but no.
The negotiation and execution of treaties is part of the Royal Prerogative. Parliament cannot simply ignore that because it finds it incovenient. If they want to change that they need to introduce primary legislation specifically changing that and removing the Royal Prerogative powers from the Executive. I have long said on here they should do this but until they do they don't get to pick which bits of the constitution they ignore. Remainer arrogance and stupidity keeps plumbing new depths.
You claim to know exactly what drove each leave voters decision?
Some arrogance or delusion on display here
Leave won by 3.8% of the vote therefore it is highly likely that both the Turkish Muslim scare poster and the lies on the bus each tipped enough votes to win it for leave. That doesn't mean it motivated every leave voter but it motivated enough to make a difference.
Leave might have won by more if the government hadnt frightened voters.
A majority of voters voted for Brexit, a majority have not voted for Corbyn
1.8% voted for no deal. 40% voted for Corbyns Labour.
Why do you keep conflating Brexit with no deal? The vast majority of the country can accept Brexit but not no deal. The government is choosing not to deliver it.
The majority of the country oppose both further extension and revoke and Remain with Survation this weekend, I conflate Brexit with the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop as 52% of voters want with Survation and as Macron and Merkel did not rule out if Boris offers a technical solution for the Irish border.
If not No Deal it has to be
It is fine for you to believe in unicorn negotiations with the EU and/or to prefer no deal if the unicorn is not found. It is nonsense for you to assign your personal preference of no deal if no unicorn to 17.4 million people despite all evidence to the contrary. No deal does not have majority support.
Extension and revoke do NOT have majority support as Survation showed this weekend.
Only Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop does as Survation also showed, if Boris wins a majority he can pass the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop through the Commons, propose a technical solution for the Irish border instead and put the ball in the EU's court. If they refuse No Deal it is.
Even Barnier today said a technical alternative to the backstop could be found once the Withdrawal Agreement is passed through the British Parliament
Great news, so once Johnson discloses the technical alternative and demonstrates the means by which it will be implemented by 31 October it should be job done. It’s hard to see why he’s being so coy about his solution.
It’s an imperfect analogy - as are pretty well all analogies - since it suggests he’ll die at the end of the process, which obviously isn’t the case. And even on the metaphorical level ignores the fact that those likely to suffer the consequences of the game of chicken are lots of people who are not Dominic Cummings. About whom he doesn’t give two shits.
This bit was quite good, though. As I said: I’m speculating. But it fits my existing mental model of Dominic Cummings, which is that he reads these fascinating, interesting ideas from brilliant people, and takes completely the wrong message from them. For one thing, a key principle of the Rationalist blogosphere that we both admire is the “principle of charity”, the idea that “if you don’t understand how someone could possibly believe something as stupid as they do, that this is more likely a failure of understanding on your part than a failure of reason on theirs”, rather than assuming people are stupid or evil....
I don't doubt that Cummings doesn't give two shits (perhaps to extend the metaphor, he has a James Bond style ejector seat to get out of the car before it crashes but all the passengers die).
But I think the key point remains. The EU will be damaged in a no deal, but not catastrophically so, and is prepared to take the damage to keep the train on the rails than derail it.
I must admit I didn't quite follow the italicised quote point. Is the author saying Cummings doesn't get this point, or does get it?
So bloody obvious, I’ve been saying this ever since Boris Johnson became Prime Minister.
But how do they force it? Boris Just has to sit on his hands and wait until they VONC him. Then the date is in his gift. He’s never going to agree an extension.
Control of the Order Paper? They have time, even if the EU doesn't unilaterally extend.
They pass a motion asking the govt to extend. The govt refuses. Their only remaining option is to VONC the government. Unless they have a PM who can command the house GE Oct 31.
The Government refuses to act on a motion passed by the House? Wow!
Is this how A Very British Coup begins?
The House refuses to act on a referendum passed by the voters.
Boris has the moral authority.
Boris doesn't have the moral authority for No Deal as all Leave campaigning groups ruled out No Deal...
Corbyn doesn't have the moral authority for further extension which voters opposed 47% to 41% with Survation yesterday.
52% of voters back the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop with a technical alternative as Boris wants in the same poll
How many backed No Deal
That did not have a majority either but then further extension and revoke also failed to get a majority, as I said the only majority was for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop, exactly as Boris is aiming for
The Survation says 18% want No Deal
Wake up HYUFD
You can’t reason with extremists @bigjohnowls. You should know.
You certainly cannot reason with diehard Remainer extremists no
I’m no diehard Remainer. I would happily accept a Brexit compromise of full and permanent membership of the Single Market and Customs Union.
I doubt there are any PB Remainers would wouldn't agree with you there @Gallowgate.
But no, @HYUFD has to paint us all as diehard Remainers. Although I now see our label has got a bit longer: 'diehard Remainer extremists'. Presumably 'diehard Remainer extremist traitors' and 'marxist diehard Remainer extremist traitors' will be following by the end of the week.
A majority of voters voted for Brexit, a majority have not voted for Corbyn
1.8% voted for no deal. 40% voted for Corbyns Labour.
Why do you keep conflating Brexit with no deal? The vast majority of the country can accept Brexit but not no deal. The government is choosing not to deliver it.
The majority of the country oppose both further extension and revoke and Remain with Survation this weekend, I conflate Brexit with the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop as 52% of voters want with Survation and as Macron and Merkel did not rule out if Boris offers a technical solution for the Irish border.
If not No Deal it has to be
It is fine for you to believe in unicorn negotiations with the EU and/or to prefer no deal if the unicorn is not found. It is nonsense for you to assign your personal preference of no deal if no unicorn to 17.4 million people despite all evidence to the contrary. No deal does not have majority support.
Extension and revoke do NOT have majority support as Survation showed this weekend.
Only Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop does as Survation also showed, if Boris wins a majority he can pass the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop through the Commons, propose a technical solution for the Irish border instead and put the ball in the EU's court. If they refuse No Deal it is.
Even Barnier today said a technical alternative to the backstop could be found once the Withdrawal Agreement is passed through the British Parliament
I have made no comment on extension and revoke having majority support. I support extension but not revoke on its merits.
I am pointing out that you repeatedly claim no deal has majority support when all evidence shows it does not. I can only assume this is because you cannot support no deal on its merits and know it is folly.
A majority of voters voted for Brexit, a majority have not voted for Corbyn
1.8% voted for no deal. 40% voted for Corbyns Labour.
Why do you keep conflating Brexit with no deal? The vast majority of the country can accept Brexit but not no deal. The government is choosing not to deliver it.
The majority of the country oppose both further extension and revoke and Remain with Survation this weekend, I conflate Brexit with the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop as 52% of voters want with Survation and as Macron and Merkel did not rule out if Boris offers a technical solution for the Irish border.
If not No Deal it has to be
It is fine for you to believe in unicorn negotiations with the EU and/or to prefer no deal if the unicorn is not found. It is nonsense for you to assign your personal preference of no deal if no unicorn to 17.4 million people despite all evidence to the contrary. No deal does not have majority support.
Extension and revoke do NOT have majority support as Survation showed this weekend.
Only Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop does as Survation also showed, if Boris wins a majority he can pass the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop through the Commons, propose a technical solution for the Irish border instead and put the ball in the EU's court. If they refuse No Deal it is.
Even Barnier today said a technical alternative to the backstop could be found once the Withdrawal Agreement is passed through the British Parliament
This is all bollocks @HYUFD. You know it. It doesn’t matter if WA minus backstop has a majority. That’s fine. But that does not in any way logically lead to no deal.
I will repeat: there is no popular mandate for no deal. This is a fact.
No HY believes polls confer moral authority for Johnson’s government policies to be enacted, I’m not sure wether survation give more authority than YouGov we will have to wait
Hartlepool IS reinventing itself. It just takes a long time and a lot of people suffer.
The regeneration around the marina is lovely.
The Americans have the right idea - just leave it to become a ghost town.
There speaks a real Tory
Towns and cities develop where they do because of reasons.
If that reason is no longer relevant (e.g. a closed coal mine) then the community needs to find a new sense of purpose. That could be new industries, or as a commuter town or something else. But if it doesn't have a purpose when why insist that it continues to exist?
[yes, this is the same philosophical argument that makes sense for the dissolution of the Union if one of the consistent parts decides that it no longer has merit]
Fine for someone who has collected all the money from said places and can live the high life anywhere they wish.
A majority of voters voted for Brexit, a majority have not voted for Corbyn
1.8% voted for no deal. 40% voted for Corbyns Labour.
Why do you keep conflating Brexit with no deal? The vast majority of the country can accept Brexit but not no deal. The government is choosing not to deliver it.
The majority of the country oppose both further extension and revoke and Remain with Survation this weekend, I conflate Brexit with the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop as 52% of voters want with Survation and as Macron and Merkel did not rule out if Boris offers a technical solution for the Irish border.
If not No Deal it has to be
It is fine for you to believe in unicorn negotiations with the EU and/or to prefer no deal if the unicorn is not found. It is nonsense for you to assign your personal preference of no deal if no unicorn to 17.4 million people despite all evidence to the contrary. No deal does not have majority support.
Extension and revoke do NOT have majority support as Survation showed this weekend.
Only Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop does as Survation also showed, if Boris wins a majority he can pass the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop through the Commons, propose a technical solution for the Irish border instead and put the ball in the EU's court. If they refuse No Deal it is.
Even Barnier today said a technical alternative to the backstop could be found once the Withdrawal Agreement is passed through the British Parliament
This is all bollocks @HYUFD. You know it. It doesn’t matter if WA minus backstop has a majority. That’s fine. But that does not in any way logically lead to no deal.
I will repeat: there is no popular mandate for no deal. This is a fact.
I've given up responding to HYUFD, it's akin to banging your head against a brick wall. I'd give pif I were you
I don't think either part of that is correct. There are many other countries in Europe with a far shorter tail of the unproductive and uneducated. The reasons why we are different are I suspect complex and tied into our history of industrialisation and deindustrialization, both of which were particularly brutal. I imagine with some effort we could do something about it.
Also, I believe that the data tell us we are disproportionately importing the young, educated and productive from Europe. The kind of people who would be sitting on their arse in their equivalent of Hartlepool smoking tabs are probably still sitting on their arse in their equivalent of Hartlepool smoking tabs.
Nope, in a lot of cases especially up North productive youngsters came along and then discovered how to play our welfare system. And being organised a lot have discovered how to play our welfare system better than the locals can.
This is utter bollocks. Have you any expereince of the welfare system in action?
No 'productive youngster' would choose that route if they had a genuine alternative of productive employment - living on welfare is pretty crap.
On here they think that people on benefits are living in a land of milk and honey , half the time abroad and other half in their mansions, all funded by being lazy tossers.
No I mean comment on what I see - East Europeans with children joining the 16 hour a week brigade.
I agree with @OnlyLivingBoy that there is no point in simply trading anecdote.
The data says immigration has been overwhelmingly positive.
The problem, however, is that our in-work credits system incentivises what you are talking about and to most fair-minded people, it shouldn’t be allowed.
Do you have that data ?
The most recent ONS data gives unemployment at 3.7% UK nationals, 3.5% EU nationals and 7.0% non-EU nationals.
Leavers will be foaming at the mouth at those numbers , especially as the one they wanted stopped from coming to UK is by far the largest
It’s an imperfect analogy - as are pretty well all analogies - since it suggests he’ll die at the end of the process, which obviously isn’t the case. And even on the metaphorical level ignores the fact that those likely to suffer the consequences of the game of chicken are lots of people who are not Dominic Cummings. About whom he doesn’t give two shits.
This bit was quite good, though. As I said: I’m speculating. But it fits my existing mental model of Dominic Cummings, which is that he reads these fascinating, interesting ideas from brilliant people, and takes completely the wrong message from them. For one thing, a key principle of the Rationalist blogosphere that we both admire is the “principle of charity”, the idea that “if you don’t understand how someone could possibly believe something as stupid as they do, that this is more likely a failure of understanding on your part than a failure of reason on theirs”, rather than assuming people are stupid or evil....
I don't doubt that Cummings doesn't give two shits (perhaps to extend the metaphor, he has a James Bond style ejector seat to get out of the car before it crashes but all the passengers die).
But I think the key point remains. The EU will be damaged in a no deal, but not catastrophically so, and is prepared to take the damage to keep the train on the rails than derail it.
I must admit I didn't quite follow the italicised quote point. Is the author saying Cummings doesn't get this point, or does get it?
Perhaps I didn’t quote enough of it - he’s saying it’s a principle Cummins seems to ignore (which is not a great surprise).
You’re right about the ‘key point’, but it completely fails to capture the other key point that sustaining damage from a head on confrontation with the EU is simply not a direct concern for Cummings et al. In fact it might have electoral advantages for them, in which case he would see it as something to be desired. Which certainly would not be true of the Fiat driver.
Right... so I only have to abide by the law if I like the legislation?
If the act passed by Parliament is constitutionally illegal then the Government don't have to follow it. Trouble is Remainers want to pick and choose which bits of the constitution they will follow to suit themselves
Interesting concept - a law passed by Parliament being illegal.
I keep thinking we've reached peak Brexiteer stupidity, but no.
The negotiation and execution of treaties is part of the Royal Prerogative. Parliament cannot simply ignore that because it finds it incovenient. If they want to change that they need to introduce primary legislation specifically changing that and removing the Royal Prerogative powers from the Executive. I have long said on here they should do this but until they do they don't get to pick which bits of the constitution they ignore. Remainer arrogance and stupidity keeps plumbing new depths.
As you say, parliament has the power to limit the royal prerogative in any way it wishes.
You claim to know exactly what drove each leave voters decision?
Some arrogance or delusion on display here
Leave won by 3.8% of the vote therefore it is highly likely that both the Turkish Muslim scare poster and the lies on the bus each tipped enough votes to win it for leave. That doesn't mean it motivated every leave voter but it motivated enough to make a difference.
Leave might have won by more if the government hadnt frightened voters.
I'd be inclined to wait for Cumming's No Deal before concluding whether voters should have been frightened or not.
So bloody obvious, I’ve been saying this ever since Boris Johnson became Prime Minister.
But how do they force it? Boris Just has to sit on his hands and wait until they VONC him. Then the date is in his gift. He’s never going to agree an extension.
Control of the Order Paper? They have time, even if the EU doesn't unilaterally extend.
They pass a motion asking the govt to extend. The govt refuses. Their only remaining option is to VONC the government. Unless they have a PM who can command the house GE Oct 31.
The Government refuses to act on a motion passed by the House? Wow!
Is this how A Very British Coup begins?
The House refuses to act on a referendum passed by the voters.
Boris has the moral authority.
Boris doesn't have the moral authority for No Deal as all Leave campaigning groups ruled out No Deal...
Corbyn doesn't have the moral authority for further extension which voters opposed 47% to 41% with Survation yesterday.
52% of voters back the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop with a technical alternative as Boris wants in the same poll
How many backed No Deal
That did not have a majority either but then further extension and revoke also failed to get a majority, as I said the only majority was for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop, exactly as Boris is aiming for
The Survation says 18% want No Deal
Wake up HYUFD
You can’t reason with extremists @bigjohnowls. You should know.
You certainly cannot reason with diehard Remainer extremists no
I’m no diehard Remainer. I would happily accept a Brexit compromise of full and permanent membership of the Single Market and Customs Union.
I doubt there are any PB Remainers would wouldn't agree with you there @Gallowgate...
No, there are a few who wouldn’t, just as there are a few irreconcilables in Parliament, which is I suppose how he justifies his tediously repetitive rhetorical excess.
I’m no diehard Remainer. I would happily accept a Brexit compromise of full and permanent membership of the Single Market and Customs Union.
I doubt there are any PB Remainers would wouldn't agree with you there @Gallowgate.
But no, @HYUFD has to paint us all as diehard Remainers. Although I now see our label has got a bit longer: 'diehard Remainer extremists'. Presumably 'diehard Remainer extremist traitors' and 'marxist diehard Remainer extremist traitors' will be following by the end of the week.
I am a diehard Remainer and I would accept EEA/EFTA
It’s an imperfect analogy - as are pretty well all analogies - since it suggests he’ll die at the end of the process, which obviously isn’t the case. And even on the metaphorical level ignores the fact that those likely to suffer the consequences of the game of chicken are lots of people who are not Dominic Cummings. About whom he doesn’t give two shits.
This bit was quite good, though. As I said: I’m speculating. But it fits my existing mental model of Dominic Cummings, which is that he reads these fascinating, interesting ideas from brilliant people, and takes completely the wrong message from them. For one thing, a key principle of the Rationalist blogosphere that we both admire is the “principle of charity”, the idea that “if you don’t understand how someone could possibly believe something as stupid as they do, that this is more likely a failure of understanding on your part than a failure of reason on theirs”, rather than assuming people are stupid or evil....
I don't doubt that Cummings doesn't give two shits (perhaps to extend the metaphor, he has a James Bond style ejector seat to get out of the car before it crashes but all the passengers die).
But I think the key point remains. The EU will be damaged in a no deal, but not catastrophically so, and is prepared to take the damage to keep the train on the rails than derail it.
I must admit I didn't quite follow the italicised quote point. Is the author saying Cummings doesn't get this point, or does get it?
Perhaps I didn’t quote enough of it - he’s saying it’s a principle Cummins seems to ignore (which is not a great surprise).
You’re right about the ‘key point’, but it completely fails to capture the other key point that sustaining damage from a head on confrontation with the EU is simply not a direct concern for Cummings et al. In fact it might have electoral advantages for them, in which case he would see it as something to be desired. Which certainly would not be true of the Fiat driver.
It's why game theory is an interesting intellectual exercise with applications for, well, games. It should never be used in real world situations which have variables.
You claim to know exactly what drove each leave voters decision?
Some arrogance or delusion on display here
Leave won by 3.8% of the vote therefore it is highly likely that both the Turkish Muslim scare poster and the lies on the bus each tipped enough votes to win it for leave. That doesn't mean it motivated every leave voter but it motivated enough to make a difference.
Leave might have won by more if the government hadnt frightened voters.
I'd be inclined to wait for Cumming's No Deal before concluding whether voters should have been frightened or not.
as ever that will depend on who you are as to how it will affect you.
I’m no diehard Remainer. I would happily accept a Brexit compromise of full and permanent membership of the Single Market and Customs Union.
I doubt there are any PB Remainers would wouldn't agree with you there @Gallowgate.
But no, @HYUFD has to paint us all as diehard Remainers. Although I now see our label has got a bit longer: 'diehard Remainer extremists'. Presumably 'diehard Remainer extremist traitors' and 'marxist diehard Remainer extremist traitors' will be following by the end of the week.
I am a diehard Remainer and I would accept EEA/EFTA
In a die hard extremist conspiracy theory based traitor who could live with that
A majority of voters voted for Brexit, a majority have not voted for Corbyn
1.8% voted for no deal. 40% voted for Corbyns Labour.
Why do you keep conflating Brexit with no deal? The vast majority of the country can accept Brexit but not no deal. The government is choosing not to deliver it.
The majority of the country oppose both further extension and revoke and Remain with Survation this weekend, I conflate Brexit with the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop as 52% of voters want with Survation and as Macron and Merkel did not rule out if Boris offers a technical solution for the Irish border.
If not No Deal it has to be
It is fine for you to believe in unicorn negotiations with the EU and/or to prefer no deal if the unicorn is not found. It is nonsense for you to assign your personal preference of no deal if no unicorn to 17.4 million people despite all evidence to the contrary. No deal does not have majority support.
Extension and revoke do NOT have majority support as Survation showed this weekend.
Only Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop does as Survation also showed, if Boris wins a majority he can pass the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop through the Commons, propose a technical solution for the Irish border instead and put the ball in the EU's court. If they refuse No Deal it is.
Even Barnier today said a technical alternative to the backstop could be found once the Withdrawal Agreement is passed through the British Parliament
This is all bollocks @HYUFD. You know it. It doesn’t matter if WA minus backstop has a majority. That’s fine. But that does not in any way logically lead to no deal.
I will repeat: there is no popular mandate for no deal. This is a fact.
I've given up responding to HYUFD, it's akin to banging your head against a brick wall. I'd give pif I were you
Total waste of time, he has gone off his rocker completely.
I’m no diehard Remainer. I would happily accept a Brexit compromise of full and permanent membership of the Single Market and Customs Union.
I doubt there are any PB Remainers would wouldn't agree with you there @Gallowgate.
But no, @HYUFD has to paint us all as diehard Remainers. Although I now see our label has got a bit longer: 'diehard Remainer extremists'. Presumably 'diehard Remainer extremist traitors' and 'marxist diehard Remainer extremist traitors' will be following by the end of the week.
I am a diehard Remainer and I would accept EEA/EFTA
In a die hard extremist conspiracy theory based traitor who could live with that
You're only a die hard extremist conspiracy theory based traitor?
What's wrong with you - toughen up for goodness sake!
You claim to know exactly what drove each leave voters decision?
Some arrogance or delusion on display here
Leave won by 3.8% of the vote therefore it is highly likely that both the Turkish Muslim scare poster and the lies on the bus each tipped enough votes to win it for leave. That doesn't mean it motivated every leave voter but it motivated enough to make a difference.
Leave might have won by more if the government hadnt frightened voters.
I'd be inclined to wait for Cumming's No Deal before concluding whether voters should have been frightened or not.
as ever that will depend on who you are as to how it will affect you.
What do you think the effect on UK car production and associated industries will be @Alanbrooke ?
But how do they force it? Boris Just has to sit on his hands and wait until they VONC him. Then the date is in his gift. He’s never going to agree an extension.
Control of the Order Paper? They have time, even if the EU doesn't unilaterally extend.
They pass a motion asking the govt to extend. The govt refuses. Their only remaining option is to VONC the government. Unless they have a PM who can command the house GE Oct 31.
The Government refuses to act on a motion passed by the House? Wow!
Is this how A Very British Coup begins?
The House refuses to act on a referendum passed by the voters.
Boris has the moral authority.
Boris doesn't have the moral authority for No Deal as all Leave campaigning groups ruled out No Deal...
Corbyn doesn't have the moral authority for further extension which voters opposed 47% to 41% with Survation yesterday.
52% of voters back the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop with a technical alternative as Boris wants in the same poll
How many backed No Deal
That did not have a majority either but then further extension and revoke also failed to get a majority, as I said the only majority was for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop, exactly as Boris is aiming for
The Survation says 18% want No Deal
Wake up HYUFD
You can’t reason with extremists @bigjohnowls. You should know.
You certainly cannot reason with diehard Remainer extremists no
I’m no diehard Remainer. I would happily accept a Brexit compromise of full and permanent membership of the Single Market and Customs Union.
I doubt there are any PB Remainers would wouldn't agree with you there @Gallowgate...
No, there are a few who wouldn’t, just as there are a few irreconcilables in Parliament, which is I suppose how he justifies his tediously repetitive rhetorical excess.
You claim to know exactly what drove each leave voters decision?
Some arrogance or delusion on display here
Leave won by 3.8% of the vote therefore it is highly likely that both the Turkish Muslim scare poster and the lies on the bus each tipped enough votes to win it for leave. That doesn't mean it motivated every leave voter but it motivated enough to make a difference.
Leave might have won by more if the government hadnt frightened voters.
I'd be inclined to wait for Cumming's No Deal before concluding whether voters should have been frightened or not.
as ever that will depend on who you are as to how it will affect you.
What do you think the effect on UK car production and associated industries will be @Alanbrooke ?
we'll continue to produce cars. the biggest impact on the auto sector is the uncertainty round diesels.
You claim to know exactly what drove each leave voters decision?
Some arrogance or delusion on display here
Leave won by 3.8% of the vote therefore it is highly likely that both the Turkish Muslim scare poster and the lies on the bus each tipped enough votes to win it for leave. That doesn't mean it motivated every leave voter but it motivated enough to make a difference.
Leave might have won by more if the government hadnt frightened voters.
I'd be inclined to wait for Cumming's No Deal before concluding whether voters should have been frightened or not.
as ever that will depend on who you are as to how it will affect you.
What do you think the effect on UK car production and associated industries will be @Alanbrooke ?
we'll continue to produce cars. the biggest impact on the auto sector is the uncertainty round diesels.
Will we produce any significant numbers for export, though, compared to what we did before this year ?
Right... so I only have to abide by the law if I like the legislation?
If the act passed by Parliament is constitutionally illegal then the Government don't have to follow it. Trouble is Remainers want to pick and choose which bits of the constitution they will follow to suit themselves
who decides if it is illegal, assume it would need to go to court and would be legal until proven not to be?
Right... so I only have to abide by the law if I like the legislation?
If the act passed by Parliament is constitutionally illegal then the Government don't have to follow it. Trouble is Remainers want to pick and choose which bits of the constitution they will follow to suit themselves
who decides if it is illegal, assume it would need to go to court and would be legal until proven not to be?
You claim to know exactly what drove each leave voters decision?
Some arrogance or delusion on display here
Leave won by 3.8% of the vote therefore it is highly likely that both the Turkish Muslim scare poster and the lies on the bus each tipped enough votes to win it for leave. That doesn't mean it motivated every leave voter but it motivated enough to make a difference.
Leave might have won by more if the government hadnt frightened voters.
I'd be inclined to wait for Cumming's No Deal before concluding whether voters should have been frightened or not.
as ever that will depend on who you are as to how it will affect you.
What do you think the effect on UK car production and associated industries will be @Alanbrooke ?
we'll continue to produce cars. the biggest impact on the auto sector is the uncertainty round diesels.
Will we produce any significant numbers for export, though, compared to what we did before this year ?
really that will depend on what HMG does post brexit. With a deal no change, with no deal it will depend on the policies it pursues. It can choose to make manufacturing more attractive in the UK. I hope they do.
I’m no diehard Remainer. I would happily accept a Brexit compromise of full and permanent membership of the Single Market and Customs Union.
Lots of people say that. But increasingly it feels that only the extreme positions - No Deal and Revoke - are acceptable to the section of the public who take an interest (60% or so now). People arguing for soft Brexit (from Clarke to Corbyn) are having real trouble getting a hearing at all.
Ironically Teesside University is one of its better current exports.
That's not saying much as it is ranked as one of the worst uni's in the country, albeit still higher than Sunderland.
It’s good enough for the huge, american conglomerate that I work for to use it for both engineering and business studies/management degrees. It also has a reasonably big International Student population.
They should ask for their money back on the business studies at least...ranked 83 out of 122.
It's good at a few niche subjects like computer aided animation and more practical things like social work iirc
This is my general issue with the way university expansion has gone. We have created 130+ universities that in order to become unis (rather than polys / HE facilities) have to had to add a wider range of subjects. The result a dilution at massive cost, and lots and lots of crap degrees.
Very very few old polys have become excellent all round unis.
I’m about to go to a former poly after doing my original degree at a redbrick so I will let you know what I think of the differences.
(Newcastle University and Northumbria University)
Oh the City University of Newcastle upon Tyne (as it was almost called).
Reminds me of the apocryphal story that Porstmouth Poly was going to rename itself the South Hampshire Institute of Technology.
Hartlepool IS reinventing itself. It just takes a long time and a lot of people suffer.
The regeneration around the marina is lovely.
Improved public spaces are great, but they don't often herald a big change in economic fortunes.
Quite right. At worst it’s displacement activity.
But local authorities don’t have the power to do much. The very least they should do is to make sure their public spaces are attractive, welcoming guests and safe. Most local authorities even fail at that.
Councils seem to do a lot of nice and expensive hard landscaping against a background of empty shops. Putting the cart before the horse it seems to me. Prosperous towns result in public improvements. The opposite is not the case. But I suppose when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
I think you are totally wrong there. I have business in Lancaster from time to time and always stay in a nice bnb in Morecombe. That's a town that has seen better days, but it remains attractive because public money has been spent on the seafront. So visitors, even fleeting ones like me, still turn up and spend money. If it went to wrack and ruin I'd find somewhere else to spend my travelling expenses.
Morecambe has undergone a huge redevelopment over recent years and on Sunny week-ends the place is packed out. The sea wall has been rebuilt,Midland Hotel re-opened, tatty funfair gone, Eric statue attracts thousands etc. OK the West end is grim, but the Bare end and Happy mount park are very good, especially as Blobby land was kicked out of the park.
I’m no diehard Remainer. I would happily accept a Brexit compromise of full and permanent membership of the Single Market and Customs Union.
Lots of people say that. But increasingly it feels that only the extreme positions - No Deal and Revoke - are acceptable to the section of the public who take an interest (60% or so now). People arguing for soft Brexit (from Clarke to Corbyn) are having real trouble getting a hearing at all.
It is much easier for people to make public their support for their first preferences rather than what they would accept. Polling questions, TV, print media, social media all love to show the extremes and ignore the silent middle. We exist, we are just not reflected in the news of whatever format.
Separately, I dont think Corbyn is particularly arguing for soft Brexit, his party is for referendum and remain, and he is for as much damage to the Tories as possible, whether at the expense of the country or not. It seems he would accept any of no deal thru revoke if it meant Labour get a majority. Understandable if cynical, but he has not been very active in pushing for soft Brexit.
I’m no diehard Remainer. I would happily accept a Brexit compromise of full and permanent membership of the Single Market and Customs Union.
I doubt there are any PB Remainers would wouldn't agree with you there @Gallowgate.
But no, @HYUFD has to paint us all as diehard Remainers. Although I now see our label has got a bit longer: 'diehard Remainer extremists'. Presumably 'diehard Remainer extremist traitors' and 'marxist diehard Remainer extremist traitors' will be following by the end of the week.
I am a diehard Remainer and I would accept EEA/EFTA
"I am an exceptional Remainer, Mrs McClean, and since I’m moving up to revoking, you should be more polite!"
Hartlepool IS reinventing itself. It just takes a long time and a lot of people suffer.
The regeneration around the marina is lovely.
Improved public spaces are great, but they don't often herald a big change in economic fortunes.
Quite right. At worst it’s displacement activity.
But local authorities don’t have the power to do much. The very least they should do is to make sure their public spaces are attractive, welcoming guests and safe. Most local authorities even fail at that.
Councils seem to do a lot of nice and expensive hard landscaping against a background of empty shops. Putting the cart before the horse it seems to me. Prosperous towns result in public improvements. The opposite is not the case. But I suppose when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
I think you are totally wrong there. I have business in Lancaster from time to time and always stay in a nice bnb in Morecombe. That's a town that has seen better days, but it remains attractive because public money has been spent on the seafront. So visitors, even fleeting ones like me, still turn up and spend money. If it went to wrack and ruin I'd find somewhere else to spend my travelling expenses.
Morecambe has undergone a huge redevelopment over recent years and on Sunny week-ends the place is packed out. The sea wall has been rebuilt,Midland Hotel re-opened, tatty funfair gone, Eric statue attracts thousands etc. OK the West end is grim, but the Bare end and Happy mount park are very good, especially as Blobby land was kicked out of the park.
I did the train to Heysham
Were you the only person on board.
Not quite!
Were you the only person on board other than the driver, the conductor, and the ovine mutation returning from a day trip on Grange Fell?
Hartlepool IS reinventing itself. It just takes a long time and a lot of people suffer.
The regeneration around the marina is lovely.
Improved public spaces are great, but they don't often herald a big change in economic fortunes.
Quite right. At worst it’s displacement activity.
But local authorities don’t have the power to do much. The very least they should do is to make sure their public spaces are attractive, welcoming guests and safe. Most local authorities even fail at that.
Councils seem to do a lot of nice and expensive hard landscaping against a background of empty shops. Putting the cart before the horse it seems to me. Prosperous towns result in public improvements. The opposite is not the case. But I suppose when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
I think you are totally wrong there. I have business in Lancaster from time to time and always stay in a nice bnb in Morecombe. That's a town that has seen better days, but it remains attractive because public money has been spent on the seafront. So visitors, even fleeting ones like me, still turn up and spend money. If it went to wrack and ruin I'd find somewhere else to spend my travelling expenses.
Morecambe has undergone a huge redevelopment over recent years and on Sunny week-ends the place is packed out. The sea wall has been rebuilt,Midland Hotel re-opened, tatty funfair gone, Eric statue attracts thousands etc. OK the West end is grim, but the Bare end and Happy mount park are very good, especially as Blobby land was kicked out of the park.
I did the train to Heysham
Were you the only person on board.
Not quite!
Were you the only person on board other than the driver, the conductor, and the ovine mutation returning from a day trip on Grange Fell?
I’m no diehard Remainer. I would happily accept a Brexit compromise of full and permanent membership of the Single Market and Customs Union.
I doubt there are any PB Remainers would wouldn't agree with you there @Gallowgate.
But no, @HYUFD has to paint us all as diehard Remainers. Although I now see our label has got a bit longer: 'diehard Remainer extremists'. Presumably 'diehard Remainer extremist traitors' and 'marxist diehard Remainer extremist traitors' will be following by the end of the week.
I am a diehard Remainer and I would accept EEA/EFTA
"I am an exceptional Remainer, Mrs McClean, and since I’m moving up to revoking, you should be more polite!"
I’m no diehard Remainer. I would happily accept a Brexit compromise of full and permanent membership of the Single Market and Customs Union.
I doubt there are any PB Remainers would wouldn't agree with you there @Gallowgate.
But no, @HYUFD has to paint us all as diehard Remainers. Although I now see our label has got a bit longer: 'diehard Remainer extremists'. Presumably 'diehard Remainer extremist traitors' and 'marxist diehard Remainer extremist traitors' will be following by the end of the week.
I am a diehard Remainer and I would accept EEA/EFTA
In a die hard extremist conspiracy theory based traitor who could live with that
You're only a die hard extremist conspiracy theory based traitor?
What's wrong with you - toughen up for goodness sake!
I’m no diehard Remainer. I would happily accept a Brexit compromise of full and permanent membership of the Single Market and Customs Union.
I doubt there are any PB Remainers would wouldn't agree with you there @Gallowgate.
But no, @HYUFD has to paint us all as diehard Remainers. Although I now see our label has got a bit longer: 'diehard Remainer extremists'. Presumably 'diehard Remainer extremist traitors' and 'marxist diehard Remainer extremist traitors' will be following by the end of the week.
I am a diehard Remainer and I would accept EEA/EFTA
"I am an exceptional Remainer, Mrs McClean, and since I’m moving up to revoking, you should be more polite!"
Interesting lunch with some green activists. Exftinction Rebellion are planning a busy October. All part of the perfect storm developing then in Westminster.
You claim to know exactly what drove each leave voters decision?
Some arrogance or delusion on display here
Leave won by 3.8% of the vote therefore it is highly likely that both the Turkish Muslim scare poster and the lies on the bus each tipped enough votes to win it for leave. That doesn't mean it motivated every leave voter but it motivated enough to make a difference.
Leave might have won by more if the government hadnt frightened voters.
I'd be inclined to wait for Cumming's No Deal before concluding whether voters should have been frightened or not.
as ever that will depend on who you are as to how it will affect you.
I agree that some hedge fund managers will make a killing but I'm pretty sure a consensus will develop as to whether a No Deal Brexit has economically benefitted the nation as a whole or not
Are you lot still banging on about Brexit? I'm going to Belfast TODAY! On a PLANE! I just had to spend XX quid on hold fees but heck, I'm on holiday. I shall have jolly times. I will regale you with tales of graphs and drinking. (Adopts Hellraiser voice). Oh, but I have such sights to show you....
What if the response is we abstain unless you seek an extension beyond Election Day?
Labour need to say "This is not the time for electioneering" and go for the moral high ground.
Remember that Barclay has already signed the SI's / Acts needed to revoke the UK side of the Treaties. Is anyone willing to bet they would un-revoke them for an election campaign?
Right... so I only have to abide by the law if I like the legislation?
If the act passed by Parliament is constitutionally illegal then the Government don't have to follow it. Trouble is Remainers want to pick and choose which bits of the constitution they will follow to suit themselves
But if it is constitutionally legal then the govt do have to, right?
Comments
The highest employment rates are of those from South Africa followed by Australia & New Zealand.
Within the EU total there will be variances between the type of immigrant.
I would like to see data differentiated on socioeconomic class rather than on country of origin - an educated English speaking Pole has more in common, in terms of employability in this country, with an educated English speaking German or an educated English speaking Indian than a working class Pole with limited English language skills.
https://twitter.com/evazhengll/status/1167822398311284741?s=20
Just think of all those juicy constituencies in which the LDs are going to stand aside in their favour!
If not No Deal it has to be
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/brexit-secretary-signs-order-to-scrap-1972-brussels-act-ending-all-eu-law-in-the-uk
I'm not sure how the Coalition of C**** are going to put that back together again in three days.....
It's also crystalised my thinking about the no-deal brinkmanship. Cummings is most definitely driving a Fiat 500 towards a train.
https://unherd.com/2019/08/dominic-cummings-is-no-chicken/?fbclid=IwAR3eSCo1A_6djhwQc7n59IjiRz6B6jFM65916To8-tYS_4uDtmnN8jmv-Uo
Just a thought!
Edit: But of course as has been pointed out, the Remain opposition would have to trust BoJo to stick to the date... tricky.
Trust in the goodwill of the PM has broken down already.
It doesn't show differences between types of employment or how they vary between different locations.
Yet another way our Constitution is outdated.
With Survation this weekend only 40% back Revoke and Remain, only 41% back extension again and 52% back Boris' policy of the Withdrawal Agreement with a technical alternative to the backstop. Good luck opposing that!
In reality, these wild threats show weakness rather than strength.
Only Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop does as Survation also showed, if Boris wins a majority he can pass the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop through the Commons, propose a technical solution for the Irish border instead and put the ball in the EU's court. If they refuse No Deal it is.
Even Barnier today said a technical alternative to the backstop could be found once the Withdrawal Agreement is passed through the British Parliament
I will repeat: there is no popular mandate for no deal. This is a fact.
I keep thinking we've reached peak Brexiteer stupidity, but no.
It all depends on tactical voting and whether former Labour party voters will stay with them in Labour marginals rather than switching to Lib Dems. Also Scotland will represent a solid 50 seats for Remain. Conservatives won't necessarily get a majority IMO
This bit was quite good, though.
As I said: I’m speculating. But it fits my existing mental model of Dominic Cummings, which is that he reads these fascinating, interesting ideas from brilliant people, and takes completely the wrong message from them. For one thing, a key principle of the Rationalist blogosphere that we both admire is the “principle of charity”, the idea that “if you don’t understand how someone could possibly believe something as stupid as they do, that this is more likely a failure of understanding on your part than a failure of reason on theirs”, rather than assuming people are stupid or evil....
But I think the key point remains. The EU will be damaged in a no deal, but not catastrophically so, and is prepared to take the damage to keep the train on the rails than derail it.
I must admit I didn't quite follow the italicised quote point. Is the author saying Cummings doesn't get this point, or does get it?
But no, @HYUFD has to paint us all as diehard Remainers. Although I now see our label has got a bit longer: 'diehard Remainer extremists'. Presumably 'diehard Remainer extremist traitors' and 'marxist diehard Remainer extremist traitors' will be following by the end of the week.
I am pointing out that you repeatedly claim no deal has majority support when all evidence shows it does not. I can only assume this is because you cannot support no deal on its merits and know it is folly.
You’re right about the ‘key point’, but it completely fails to capture the other key point that sustaining damage from a head on confrontation with the EU is simply not a direct concern for Cummings et al. In fact it might have electoral advantages for them, in which case he would see it as something to be desired.
Which certainly would not be true of the Fiat driver.
It should never be used in real world situations which have variables.
What's wrong with you - toughen up for goodness sake!
If there is no one here who is utterly determined that only Revoke is an acceptable outcome, then I apologise to all and sundry.
Our peak year of production by the way was 1972
Separately, I dont think Corbyn is particularly arguing for soft Brexit, his party is for referendum and remain, and he is for as much damage to the Tories as possible, whether at the expense of the country or not. It seems he would accept any of no deal thru revoke if it meant Labour get a majority. Understandable if cynical, but he has not been very active in pushing for soft Brexit.
A solution of sorts I suppose
Remember that Barclay has already signed the SI's / Acts needed to revoke the UK side of the Treaties. Is anyone willing to bet they would un-revoke them for an election campaign?