Either you, the guardian or Carney is wrong. Or all of you. See my recent post
It depends what timescale you look at. Yes it's lost growth if you look far enough out, but to get there you have substantial downturn first.
Hahaha. I pwned the great Nabavi. All your base are belong to I. Etc
But it’s an understandable error. That is truly shit reporting by the Guardian. Making lost growth look like absolute shrinkage? TSK
You are quibbling over details. To people losing jobs because of it, they will not gave a d*mn which category the recession belongs to.
You don’t understand basic economics. There is a WORLD of difference between 5% shrinkage in absolute GDP, and a 5% opportunity cost in lost growth
If I lose my job because of it, why would I care which category it belongs in?
What difference would it make? I would still be unemployed.
Finally a remain voter is in the mindset of the people who voted Leave because of the mass immigration of cheap EU labour
Is the average EU migrant earning more or less than you, I wonder?
Me personally? It depends which year
But the pressure put on wages, job security & state services added to the rapid change in their neighbourhood demographic were the equivalent of a No Deal Brexit on the lowest paid British workers from 2004-2016, that's why they voted Leave, and the lack of negative impact on richer Brits was the reason they didn't/don't understand the problem with FOM
Except the highest Brexit votes were in areas of low EU immigration. The laces where most EU immigrants tend to settle voted Remain.
One wonders how we will all get on if we Revoke and Remain, after, say, a 2nd referendum. Very uncomfortable.
Disastrously. A very karge portion of the population will vote for anyone who can undermine and derail any relationship with the EU. Any party promising using blanket vetoes on all EU plans such as budgets will do very well.
Either you, the guardian or Carney is wrong. Or all of you. See my recent post
It depends what timescale you look at. Yes it's lost growth if you look far enough out, but to get there you have substantial downturn first.
Hahaha. I pwned the great Nabavi. All your base are belong to I. Etc
But it’s an understandable error. That is truly shit reporting by the Guardian. Making lost growth look like absolute shrinkage? TSK
You are quibbling over details. To people losing jobs because of it, they will not gave a d*mn which category the recession belongs to.
You don’t understand basic economics. There is a WORLD of difference between 5% shrinkage in absolute GDP, and a 5% opportunity cost in lost growth
If I lose my job because of it, why would I care which category it belongs in?
What difference would it make? I would still be unemployed.
Finally a remain voter is in the mindset of the people who voted Leave because of the mass immigration of cheap EU labour
Is the average EU migrant earning more or less than you, I wonder?
Me personally? It depends which year
But the pressure put on wages, job security & state services added to the rapid change in their neighbourhood demographic were the equivalent of a No Deal Brexit on the lowest paid British workers from 2004-2016, that's why they voted Leave, and the lack of negative impact on richer Brits was the reason they didn't/don't understand the problem with FOM
Trouble is, you expel productive European workers and sack higher rate taxpayers, shrink the economy and wreck trade for decades, you're not going to make life any better for anyone.
But the have nots / those without hope don't care about that as they won't initially see the impact.
That will only occur later when austerity 2 needs to be rapidly implemented to make up for the tax shortfalls.
Kicking out Spelman is sure to calm some nerves...
So tonight we're going to get the usual: 'One MP, not normally a loyalist, told me that Boris received the most positive reception he'd ever seen. Everyone was cheerful and relaxed.'
Either you, the guardian or Carney is wrong. Or all of you. See my recent post
It depends what timescale you look at. Yes it's lost growth if you look far enough out, but to get there you have substantial downturn first.
Hahaha. I pwned the great Nabavi. All your base are belong to I. Etc
But it’s an understandable error. That is truly shit reporting by the Guardian. Making lost growth look like absolute shrinkage? TSK
You are quibbling over details. To people losing jobs because of it, they will not gave a d*mn which category the recession belongs to.
You don’t understand basic economics. There is a WORLD of difference between 5% shrinkage in absolute GDP, and a 5% opportunity cost in lost growth
If I lose my job because of it, why would I care which category it belongs in?
What difference would it make? I would still be unemployed.
Finally a remain voter is in the mindset of the people who voted Leave because of the mass immigration of cheap EU labour
Is the average EU migrant earning more or less than you, I wonder?
Me personally? It depends which year
But the pressure put on wages, job security & state services added to the rapid change in their neighbourhood demographic were the equivalent of a No Deal Brexit on the lowest paid British workers from 2004-2016, that's why they voted Leave, and the lack of negative impact on richer Brits was the reason they didn't/don't understand the problem with FOM
Except the highest Brexit votes were in areas of low EU immigration.
What gave you that absurd idea? The highest Brexit votes were in eastern English areas exposed to mass EU immigration. The biggest leave vote of all was in Boston
Unless the Queen signs a law requiring further extension Boris will not be breaking the law as passage of an Act of Parliament alone does not a law make, it also requires royal assent.
With over 20% of UK voters believing the Queen was right to assent to proroguing Parliament the current crisis is not harming the monarchy but the legislature
Over 20%. Wow. A colossal level of public support.
Over 20% - which means over 70% believe the Queen was wrong to assent to proroguing Parliament.
Boris is really going to be remembered - as the person who destroyed the UK and destroyed the monarchy with it.
The Queen acts on the advice of her PM. The truly revolutionary act would have been to refuse Johnson's request (which after all was only for 4 days).
You people are sowing dragons' teeth with this nonsense...
For those who understand how Parliament works 4 days is a obvious falsehood.
I think the past 24 hours have been utterly devastating for the Conservatives. Worse than Black Wednesday by a significant factor.
The optics are truly awful. Starting with Johnson's bullshit speech outside Number 10 being drowned out by booing. Losing a phlanx of the most solidly Tory MPs you could imagine through your own childish intransigence. The utterly bollocks "rowing back from austerity", Lee crossing the floor, the much bigger defeat than expected and the body language of Rees Mogg. 100,000 signing up to vote in 24 hours- the *same 24 hours* as the Tory government imploded.
This is the inflection point when the Tories can't get it back.
I think the polls will be increasingly terrifying for Johnson- no one likes losers, and they particularly don't like entitled bastard losers.
I also think that tactical voting against the Tories will accelerate the losses they are going to make.
1997 may not be the low point for the Tories- this time I don't think that they can come back.
What utter crap, the latest poll gives a 10% Tory lead what clueless diehard Remainers like you cannot understand is the people have had enough, they are fed up with being patronised by the likes of you and by a Commons which refuses to respect their Leave vote which is why Boris will win the next general election and crush Corbyn Labour once and for all into the bargain
Kicking out Spelman is sure to calm some nerves...
So tonight we're going to get the usual: 'One MP told me, not normally a loyalist, that Boris received the most positive reception he'd ever seen. Everyone was cheerful and relaxed.'
The 1922 committee meetings are possibly the global acme of hail-fellow-well-met hypocrisy.
Either you, the guardian or Carney is wrong. Or all of you. See my recent post
It depends what timescale you look at. Yes it's lost growth if you look far enough out, but to get there you have substantial downturn first.
Hahaha. I pwned the great Nabavi. All your base are belong to I. Etc
But it’s an understandable error. That is truly shit reporting by the Guardian. Making lost growth look like absolute shrinkage? TSK
You are quibbling over details. To people losing jobs because of it, they will not gave a d*mn which category the recession belongs to.
You don’t understand basic economics. There is a WORLD of difference between 5% shrinkage in absolute GDP, and a 5% opportunity cost in lost growth
If I lose my job because of it, why would I care which category it belongs in?
What difference would it make? I would still be unemployed.
Finally a remain voter is in the mindset of the people who voted Leave because of the mass immigration of cheap EU labour
Is the average EU migrant earning more or less than you, I wonder?
Me personally? It depends which year
But the pressure put on wages, job security & state services added to the rapid change in their neighbourhood demographic were the equivalent of a No Deal Brexit on the lowest paid British workers from 2004-2016, that's why they voted Leave, and the lack of negative impact on richer Brits was the reason they didn't/don't understand the problem with FOM
Trouble is, you expel productive European workers and sack higher rate taxpayers, shrink the economy and wreck trade for decades, you're not going to make life any better for anyone.
But the have nots / those without hope don't care about that as they won't initially see the impact.
That will only occur later when austerity 2 needs to be rapidly implemented to make up for the tax shortfalls.
Depend whether anyone points out the connection between tax revenues and benefit handouts, I suppose.
Haven't heard anything for a while about the "Money Resolution" issue.
ie Staying in the EU requires the spending of money and only the Govt can propose the spending of money.
I think Bercow announced it wasn't a money issue, but can't find a source for that at the moment. Given that the bill has reached second reading already makes that a moot point, surely?
The fallout from both 2014 and 2016 has been a masterclass in why representative and direct democracy are wholly incompatible. First the Scottish electorate votes in a Nationalist Government and then denies it its core policy objective at a referendum. Then the UK electorate votes for a policy in a referendum, but elects a Parliament that is unwilling and unable to implement the policy. The result is that the policy in dispute gains a life of its own and all else begins to revolve and polarise around it. Scotland has Ulsterized around independence, and it's quite possible that England will Ulsterize around membership of the EU. It's hugely destructive.
We should therefore follow the example of the Germans and ban plebiscites under all circumstances save two: an NI border poll, because of the GFA, and for ratification or amendment of a constitution, should Parliament decide that one is needed and put it to the people.
As far as any other issue, include Scottish independence, is concerned, it should be a matter for our representatives. England as well as Scotland and Wales should have its own Parliament and, if we are going to continue to recognise the Union between them as temporary and dissoluble rather than permanent, then all three of those bodies should have a right to vote for secession, subject to certain limited safeguards.
Couldn't disagree more. Plenty of countries make referendums a key part of their legislation and do it very well. And your two examples of failure are spurious.
In the case of the Scottish vote there is nothing problematic or inconsistent with having the SNP elected with one their policies being independence and then having that specific policy rejected by the electorate. They still have many other policies they can enact in Government. Moreover the alternative would be to say that the SNP should simply have declared independence without a referendum - something that at the time clearly had only minority support as we well know from the referendum itself.
As far as Brexit is concerned I would suggest many of those MPs now obstructing or trying to reverse Brexit would never have got elected in 2015 had they been honest and said they would try to reverse the referendum.
Either you, the guardian or Carney is wrong. Or all of you. See my recent post
It depends what timescale you look at. Yes it's lost growth if you look far enough out, but to get there you have substantial downturn first.
Hahaha. I pwned the great Nabavi. All your base are belong to I. Etc
But it’s an understandable error. That is truly shit reporting by the Guardian. Making lost growth look like absolute shrinkage? TSK
You are quibbling over details. To people losing jobs because of it, they will not gave a d*mn which category the recession belongs to.
You don’t understand basic economics. There is a WORLD of difference between 5% shrinkage in absolute GDP, and a 5% opportunity cost in lost growth
If I lose my job because of it, why would I care which category it belongs in?
What difference would it make? I would still be unemployed.
Finally a remain voter is in the mindset of the people who voted Leave because of the mass immigration of cheap EU labour
Is the average EU migrant earning more or less than you, I wonder?
Me personally? It depends which year
But the pressure put on wages, job security & state services added to the rapid change in their neighbourhood demographic were the equivalent of a No Deal Brexit on the lowest paid British workers from 2004-2016, that's why they voted Leave, and the lack of negative impact on richer Brits was the reason they didn't/don't understand the problem with FOM
Except the highest Brexit votes were in areas of low EU immigration.
What gave you that absurd idea? The highest Brexit votes were in eastern English areas exposed to mass EU immigration. The biggest leave vote of all was in Boston
One wonders how we will all get on if we Revoke and Remain, after, say, a 2nd referendum. Very uncomfortable.
Disastrously. A very karge portion of the population will vote for anyone who can undermine and derail any relationship with the EU. Any party promising using blanket vetoes on all EU plans such as budgets will do very well.
Oh surely not: we're so genteel.
While I'm up & running let me ask why we don't "bin" the monarchy and write a few things down?
Either you, the guardian or Carney is wrong. Or all of you. See my recent post
It depends what timescale you look at. Yes it's lost growth if you look far enough out, but to get there you have substantial downturn first.
Hahaha. I pwned the great Nabavi. All your base are belong to I. Etc
But it’s an understandable error. That is truly shit reporting by the Guardian. Making lost growth look like absolute shrinkage? TSK
You are quibbling over details. To people losing jobs because of it, they will not gave a d*mn which category the recession belongs to.
You don’t understand basic economics. There is a WORLD of difference between 5% shrinkage in absolute GDP, and a 5% opportunity cost in lost growth
If I lose my job because of it, why would I care which category it belongs in?
What difference would it make? I would still be unemployed.
Finally a remain voter is in the mindset of the people who voted Leave because of the mass immigration of cheap EU labour
Is the average EU migrant earning more or less than you, I wonder?
Me personally? It depends which year
But the pressure put on wages, job security & state services added to the rapid change in their neighbourhood demographic were the equivalent of a No Deal Brexit on the lowest paid British workers from 2004-2016, that's why they voted Leave, and the lack of negative impact on richer Brits was the reason they didn't/don't understand the problem with FOM
Except the highest Brexit votes were in areas of low EU immigration. The laces where most EU immigrants tend to settle voted Remain.
Either you, the guardian or Carney is wrong. Or all of you. See my recent post
It depends what timescale you look at. Yes it's lost growth if you look far enough out, but to get there you have substantial downturn first.
Hahaha. I pwned the great Nabavi. All your base are belong to I. Etc
But it’s an understandable error. That is truly shit reporting by the Guardian. Making lost growth look like absolute shrinkage? TSK
You are quibbling over details. To people losing jobs because of it, they will not gave a d*mn which category the recession belongs to.
You don’t understand basic economics. There is a WORLD of difference between 5% shrinkage in absolute GDP, and a 5% opportunity cost in lost growth
If I lose my job because of it, why would I care which category it belongs in?
What difference would it make? I would still be unemployed.
Finally a remain voter is in the mindset of the people who voted Leave because of the mass immigration of cheap EU labour
Is the average EU migrant earning more or less than you, I wonder?
Me personally? It depends which year
But the pressure put on wages, job security & state services added to the rapid change in their neighbourhood demographic were the equivalent of a No Deal Brexit on the lowest paid British workers from 2004-2016, that's why they voted Leave, and the lack of negative impact on richer Brits was the reason they didn't/don't understand the problem with FOM
Except the highest Brexit votes were in areas of low EU immigration. The laces where most EU immigrants tend to settle voted Remain.
I think both statements can be true. The immigrants who had a positive impact on the country predominantly moved to and could afford to live in the remain areas. The immigrants who brought fewer positives perhaps couldnt afford to live in the more affluent remain areas and were therefore disproportionately in the leave areas.
It was clearly a factor in some leave voters decisions and whether their perception is correct or not it is hard to argue that was not their perception.
I think the past 24 hours have been utterly devastating for the Conservatives. Worse than Black Wednesday by a significant factor.
The optics are truly awful. Starting with Johnson's bullshit speech outside Number 10 being drowned out by booing. Losing a phlanx of the most solidly Tory MPs you could imagine through your own childish intransigence. The utterly bollocks "rowing back from austerity", Lee crossing the floor, the much bigger defeat than expected and the body language of Rees Mogg. 100,000 signing up to vote in 24 hours- the *same 24 hours* as the Tory government imploded.
This is the inflection point when the Tories can't get it back.
I think the polls will be increasingly terrifying for Johnson- no one likes losers, and they particularly don't like entitled bastard losers.
I also think that tactical voting against the Tories will accelerate the losses they are going to make.
1997 may not be the low point for the Tories- this time I don't think that they can come back.
What utter crap, the latest poll gives a 10% Tory lead what clueless diehard Remainers like you cannot understand is the people have had enough, they are fed up with being patronised by the likes of you and by a Commons which refuses to respect their Leave vote which is why Boris will win the next general election and crush Corbyn Labour once and for all into the bargain
I think you will be proved correct. The split opposition lab lib and a deal with Farage , will ensure a healthy Johnson majority.
I think the past 24 hours have been utterly devastating for the Conservatives. Worse than Black Wednesday by a significant factor.
The optics are truly awful. Starting with Johnson's bullshit speech outside Number 10 being drowned out by booing. Losing a phlanx of the most solidly Tory MPs you could imagine through your own childish intransigence. The utterly bollocks "rowing back from austerity", Lee crossing the floor, the much bigger defeat than expected and the body language of Rees Mogg. 100,000 signing up to vote in 24 hours- the *same 24 hours* as the Tory government imploded.
This is the inflection point when the Tories can't get it back.
I think the polls will be increasingly terrifying for Johnson- no one likes losers, and they particularly don't like entitled bastard losers.
I also think that tactical voting against the Tories will accelerate the losses they are going to make.
1997 may not be the low point for the Tories- this time I don't think that they can come back.
What utter crap, the latest poll gives a 10% Tory lead what clueless diehard Remainers like you cannot understand is the people have had enough, they are fed up with being patronised by the likes of you and by a Commons which refuses to respect their Leave vote which is why Boris will win the next general election and crush Corbyn Labour once and for all into the bargain
Haven't heard anything for a while about the "Money Resolution" issue.
ie Staying in the EU requires the spending of money and only the Govt can propose the spending of money.
I think Bercow announced it wasn't a money issue, but can't find a source for that at the moment. Given that the bill has reached second reading already makes that a moot point, surely?
Some existing bill or other made extensions allowable so it's not a monetary issue as the extension falls under that act.
Haven't heard anything for a while about the "Money Resolution" issue.
ie Staying in the EU requires the spending of money and only the Govt can propose the spending of money.
I think Bercow announced it wasn't a money issue, but can't find a source for that at the moment. Given that the bill has reached second reading already makes that a moot point, surely?
Don't think so - Money Bill and Money Resolution are two completely different things!
The fallout from both 2014 and 2016 has been a masterclass in why representative and direct democracy are wholly incompatible. First the Scottish electorate votes in a Nationalist Government and then denies it its core policy objective at a referendum. Then the UK electorate votes for a policy in a referendum, but elects a Parliament that is unwilling and unable to implement the policy. The result is that the policy in dispute gains a life of its own and all else begins to revolve and polarise around it. Scotland has Ulsterized around independence, and it's quite possible that England will Ulsterize around membership of the EU. It's hugely destructive.
We should therefore follow the example of the Germans and ban plebiscites under all circumstances save two: an NI border poll, because of the GFA, and for ratification or amendment of a constitution, should Parliament decide that one is needed and put it to the people.
As far as any other issue, include Scottish independence, is concerned, it should be a matter for our representatives. England as well as Scotland and Wales should have its own Parliament and, if we are going to continue to recognise the Union between them as temporary and dissoluble rather than permanent, then all three of those bodies should have a right to vote for secession, subject to certain limited safeguards.
Couldn't disagree more. Plenty of countries make referendums a key part of their legislation and do it very well. And your two examples of failure are spurious.
In the case of the Scottish vote there is nothing problematic or inconsistent with having the SNP elected with one their policies being independence and then having that specific policy rejected by the electorate. They still have many other policies they can enact in Government. Moreover the alternative would be to say that the SNP should simply have declared independence without a referendum - something that at the time clearly had only minority support as we well know from the referendum itself.
As far as Brexit is concerned I would suggest many of those MPs now obstructing or trying to reverse Brexit would never have got elected in 2015 had they been honest and said they would try to reverse the referendum.
I think the past 24 hours have been utterly devastating for the Conservatives. Worse than Black Wednesday by a significant factor.
The optics are truly awful. Starting with Johnson's bullshit speech outside Number 10 being drowned out by booing. Losing a phlanx of the most solidly Tory MPs you could imagine through your own childish intransigence. The utterly bollocks "rowing back from austerity", Lee crossing the floor, the much bigger defeat than expected and the body language of Rees Mogg. 100,000 signing up to vote in 24 hours- the *same 24 hours* as the Tory government imploded.
This is the inflection point when the Tories can't get it back.
I think the polls will be increasingly terrifying for Johnson- no one likes losers, and they particularly don't like entitled bastard losers.
I also think that tactical voting against the Tories will accelerate the losses they are going to make.
1997 may not be the low point for the Tories- this time I don't think that they can come back.
What utter crap, the latest poll gives a 10% Tory lead what clueless diehard Remainers like you cannot understand is the people have had enough, they are fed up with being patronised by the likes of you and by a Commons which refuses to respect their Leave vote which is why Boris will win the next general election and crush Corbyn Labour once and for all into the bargain
I think you will be proved correct. The split opposition lab lib and a deal with Farage , will ensure a healthy Johnson majority.
I agree Boris will get a majority mainly through gains from Labour but I do not expect a huge Tory majority as he will also lose some seats to the LDs and SNP
Either you, the guardian or Carney is wrong. Or all of you. See my recent post
It depends what timescale you look at. Yes it's lost growth if you look far enough out, but to get there you have substantial downturn first.
Hahaha. I pwned the great Nabavi. All your base are belong to I. Etc
But it’s an understandable error. That is truly shit reporting by the Guardian. Making lost growth look like absolute shrinkage? TSK
You are quibbling over details. To people losing jobs because of it, they will not gave a d*mn which category the recession belongs to.
You don’t understand basic economics. There is a WORLD of difference between 5% shrinkage in absolute GDP, and a 5% opportunity cost in lost growth
If I lose my job because of it, why would I care which category it belongs in?
What difference would it make? I would still be unemployed.
Finally a remain voter is in the mindset of the people who voted Leave because of the mass immigration of cheap EU labour
Is the average EU migrant earning more or less than you, I wonder?
Me personally? It depends which year
But FOM
Except the highest Brexit votes were in areas of low EU immigration. The laces where most EU immigrants tend to settle voted Remain.
I think both statements can be true. The immigrants who had a positive impact on the country predominantly moved to and could afford to live in the remain areas. The immigrants who brought fewer positives perhaps couldnt afford to live in the more affluent remain areas and were therefore disproportionately in the leave areas.
It was clearly a factor in some leave voters decisions and whether their perception is correct or not it is hard to argue that was not their perception.
I totally agree. But it is also the case that areas in which immigration is relatively low tended to vote Leave, while those where it is high tended to vote Remain. What is also the case, without question, is that those areas in England and Wales where wages are low and pubic services are most constrained also tended to vote Leave - regardless of EU immigration levels. The other hting to throw into the mix, of course, is age: the older you were the more likely you were to vote Leave, wherever you lived and whatever your financial circumstances.
Haven't heard anything for a while about the "Money Resolution" issue.
ie Staying in the EU requires the spending of money and only the Govt can propose the spending of money.
I think Bercow announced it wasn't a money issue, but can't find a source for that at the moment. Given that the bill has reached second reading already makes that a moot point, surely?
From the Hansard website: The hon. Gentleman has raised very important questions about a money resolution and Queen’s consent. Yes, this Bill is different, but I have, of course, consulted the Clerk of Legislation and other senior Clerks, on whose procedural expertise we regularly call. My ruling on Wednesday 3 April 2019, in respect of the earlier Bill that the hon. Gentleman referenced, was that
“the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill does not require either a Ways and Means motion or a money resolution… extending the period under article 50 would continue the UK’s rights and obligations as a member state of the EU for the period of the extension, which would have substantial consequences for both spending and taxation.”—[Official Report, 3 April 2019; Vol. 657, c. 1130-31.]
Clause 4(1) of the Bill before us today would require exit day to be moved to match any extension agreed with the European Council. The financial resolutions passed on Monday 11 September 2017 give fully adequate cover for the exercise by Ministers of their powers under sections 23 and 24 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to move exit day in order to keep in lockstep with the date for the expiry of the European treaties, which, of course, is determined by article 50 of the treaty on European Union.
So far as Queen’s consent is concerned, my ruling on Wednesday 3 April was that
“as no prerogative consent was required for the Bill in 2017 giving parliamentary authority to the Prime Minister to take action under article 50 of the treaty on European Union, there is no requirement for new and separate prerogative consent to be sought for legislation in 2019 on what further action the Prime Minister should take under the same article 50 of the treaty on European Union.”
The Bill before us today could require the Prime Minister to seek and accept an extension in certain circumstances, although it would still be up to the European Council to agree unanimously to an extension with the UK. In these circumstances, and I say this on the basis of professional advice, my ruling is that Queen’s consent is not needed for this Bill.
Unfortunately Nicola doesn't want to hang around until Labour's polls lead recovers.
Nicola + Boris isn't 440 MPs. And the FTPA requires 440 MPs to vote for an early election.
Not if they go for passing a one line bill stating that the election will be on "X" day.
That only requires a majority of one. Boris + Nicola + DUP will get the job done but Labour will have to reverse ferret as soon as it looks like an election is going to happen.
Either you, the guardian or Carney is wrong. Or all of you. See my recent post
It depends what timescale you look at. Yes it's lost growth if you look far enough out, but to get there you have substantial downturn first.
Hahaha. I pwned the great Nabavi. All your base are belong to I. Etc
But it’s an understandable error. That is truly shit reporting by the Guardian. Making lost growth look like absolute shrinkage? TSK
You are quibbling over details. To people losing jobs because of it, they will not gave a d*mn which category the recession belongs to.
You don’t understand basic economics. There is a WORLD of difference between 5% shrinkage in absolute GDP, and a 5% opportunity cost in lost growth
If I lose my job because of it, why would I care which category it belongs in?
What difference would it make? I would still be unemployed.
Finally a remain voter is in the mindset of the people who voted Leave because of the mass immigration of cheap EU labour
Is the average EU migrant earning more or less than you, I wonder?
Me personally? It depends which year
But the pressure put on wages, job security & state services added to the rapid change in their neighbourhood demographic were the equivalent of a No Deal Brexit on the lowest paid British workers from 2004-2016, that's why they voted Leave, and the lack of negative impact on richer Brits was the reason they didn't/don't understand the problem with FOM
Except the highest Brexit votes were in areas of low EU immigration.
What gave you that absurd idea? The highest Brexit votes were in eastern English areas exposed to mass EU immigration. The biggest leave vote of all was in Boston
Either you, the guardian or Carney is wrong. Or all of you. See my recent post
It depends what timescale you look at. Yes it's lost growth if you look far enough out, but to get there you have substantial downturn first.
Hahaha. I pwned the great Nabavi. All your base are belong to I. Etc
But it’s an understandable error. That is truly shit reporting by the Guardian. Making lost growth look like absolute shrinkage? TSK
You are quibbling over details. To people losing jobs because of it, they will not gave a d*mn which category the recession belongs to.
You don’t understand basic economics. There is a WORLD of difference between 5% shrinkage in absolute GDP, and a 5% opportunity cost in lost growth
If I lose my job because of it, why would I care which category it belongs in?
What difference would it make? I would still be unemployed.
Finally a remain voter is in the mindset of the people who voted Leave because of the mass immigration of cheap EU labour
Is the average EU migrant earning more or less than you, I wonder?
Me personally? It depends which year
But the pressure put on wages, job security & state services added to the rapid change in their neighbourhood demographic were the equivalent of a No Deal Brexit on the lowest paid British workers from 2004-2016, that's why they voted Leave, and the lack of negative impact on richer Brits was the reason they didn't/don't understand the problem with FOM
Except the highest Brexit votes were in areas of low EU immigration. The laces where most EU immigrants tend to settle voted Remain.
Wrong.
I don't know all the areas well but Hartlepool????
I think the past 24 hours have been utterly devastating for the Conservatives. Worse than Black Wednesday by a significant factor.
The optics are truly awful. Starting with Johnson's bullshit speech outside Number 10 being drowned out by booing. Losing a phlanx of the most solidly Tory MPs you could imagine through your own childish intransigence. The utterly bollocks "rowing back from austerity", Lee crossing the floor, the much bigger defeat than expected and the body language of Rees Mogg. 100,000 signing up to vote in 24 hours- the *same 24 hours* as the Tory government imploded.
This is the inflection point when the Tories can't get it back.
I think the polls will be increasingly terrifying for Johnson- no one likes losers, and they particularly don't like entitled bastard losers.
I also think that tactical voting against the Tories will accelerate the losses they are going to make.
1997 may not be the low point for the Tories- this time I don't think that they can come back.
What utter crap, the latest poll gives a 10% Tory lead what clueless diehard Remainers like you cannot understand is the people have had enough, they are fed up with being patronised by the likes of you and by a Commons which refuses to respect their Leave vote which is why Boris will win the next general election and crush Corbyn Labour once and for all into the bargain
I think you will be proved correct. The split opposition lab lib and a deal with Farage , will ensure a healthy Johnson majority.
How many prospective Tory voters would be put off by a deal with Farage? I find him horrible but I guess the Tories have already lost everyone put off by him.
Either you, the guardian or Carney is wrong. Or all of you. See my recent post
It depends what timescale you look at. Yes it's lost growth if you look far enough out, but to get there you have substantial downturn first.
Hahaha. I pwned the great Nabavi. All your base are belong to I. Etc
But it’s an understandable error. That is truly shit reporting by the Guardian. Making lost growth look like absolute shrinkage? TSK
You are quibbling over details. To people losing jobs because of it, they will not gave a d*mn which category the recession belongs to.
You don’t understand basic economics. There is a WORLD of difference between 5% shrinkage in absolute GDP, and a 5% opportunity cost in lost growth
It didn't cut any ice with those that accused the Treasury for lying when they made the same point in their short term impacts report back in 2016.
I admit to being surprised by suggestions that No Deal will cost a couple of percentage points over ten years when Brexit has already cost 3% over three years and we haven't left yet.
For my sins, I’ve just read the BoE report on No Deal Brexit. To be fair, me, Nabavi and the Guardian are allowed to be confused, because the bank itself is confused. These predictions are so tenuous as to be practically valueless. Also, we have no real idea what might have happened in alternative scenarios, not more than a year or so into the “future”, anyway
The one thing we can say is that No Deal will be painful. With a potential to be hideously painful. And is really best avoided, if poss.
I think it's simpler than that. No Deal just isn't viable beyond a short term. What does "No Deal" actually mean? It means the absence of agreement. The UK cannot function never agreeing anything with the countries it shares a continent with and with which it is highly integrated.
This leads to the central contradiction of Brexit. Any acceptable outcome involves a very close relationship with the EU, which will be on the EU's terms. If you voted Leave to "take back control", you won't be happy with a rule taking arrangement that results in less influence over the things that matter.
The political mess, which was entirely predictable back in 2016 in scale if not the detail comes from Leavers' continuing unwillingness to accept that contradiction.
Either you, the guardian or Carney is wrong. Or all of you. See my recent post
It depends what timescale you look at. Yes it's lost growth if you look far enough out, but to get there you have substantial downturn first.
Hahaha. I pwned the great Nabavi. All your base are belong to I. Etc
But it’s an understandable error. That is truly shit reporting by the Guardian. Making lost growth look like absolute shrinkage? TSK
You are quibbling over details. To people losing jobs because of it, they will not gave a d*mn which category the recession belongs to.
You don’t understand basic economics. There is a WORLD of difference between 5% shrinkage in absolute GDP, and a 5% opportunity cost in lost growth
If I lose my job because of it, why would I care which category it belongs in?
What difference would it make? I would still be unemployed.
Finally a remain voter is in the mindset of the people who voted Leave because of the mass immigration of cheap EU labour
Is the average EU migrant earning more or less than you, I wonder?
Me personally? It depends which year
But reason they didn't/don't understand the problem with FOM
Except the highest Brexit votes were in areas of low EU immigration.
What gave you that absurd idea? The highest Brexit votes were in eastern English areas exposed to mass EU immigration. The biggest leave vote of all was in Boston
Unfortunately Nicola doesn't want to hang around until Labour's polls lead recovers.
Nicola + Boris isn't 440 MPs. And the FTPA requires 440 MPs to vote for an early election.
But a one clause Bill doesn’t: and if they are agreed on the text it won’t be amended. If it looks likely, Corbyn will have to find a way to support.
Where did this one clause Bill idea come from as it's not supported under the FTPA.
"Alternatively, as the New Statesman’s political editor Stephen Bush has noted, an election can be called by “passing a one-line bill stating that ‘notwithstanding the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, the next election will be on X, the FTPA act will continue to apply otherwise” (one route Theresa May considered in 2017)."
Couldn't disagree more. Plenty of countries make referendums a key part of their legislation and do it very well. And your two examples of failure are spurious.
In the case of the Scottish vote there is nothing problematic or inconsistent with having the SNP elected with one their policies being independence and then having that specific policy rejected by the electorate. They still have many other policies they can enact in Government. Moreover the alternative would be to say that the SNP should simply have declared independence without a referendum - something that at the time clearly had only minority support as we well know from the referendum itself.
As far as Brexit is concerned I would suggest many of those MPs now obstructing or trying to reverse Brexit would never have got elected in 2015 had they been honest and said they would try to reverse the referendum.
The problem is not referendums it is the MPs.
In the case of Brexit, (most) MPs are obviously to a very large extent to blame for this mess - if, as seems pretty clear, the majority of them thought leaving the EU a disaster not to be contemplated, then they should never have voted to hold the referendum in the first place - but it doesn't solve the central problem of trying to treat our representatives as delegates.
By voting contrary to what MPs were willing to stomach in a referendum, and then compounding the situation by voting in another contrarian Parliament, voters have created circumstances - and this isn't deliberate and isn't their fault, but it is what has come about nonetheless - in which continual corrosive damage to democracy is bound to result. We end up with a confused, dithering and impotent Parliament which contains a majority of members that wish either to comply with the instruction given in the referendum half-heartedly or not at all, and cannot agree on any resolution at all as a result. Meanwhile, a large chunk of the Leave electorate now feels insulted and robbed. It's madness.
In Scotland the situation is somewhat different. Voters have rejected independence in a plebiscite, but keep returning secessionist Parliaments - there is sufficient support for one thing but not quite enough for the other. The risk is that, therefore, both Scotland and the rest of the UK become stuck in a rut: as long as this stalemate exists, the Scottish Government will keep trying to engineer independence referendums and the rest of the UK will be under constant threat of dissolution, with no idea as to if or when it might happen. It's not exactly ideal...
So how does agrifood resolve all the other markets, taxes and laws...
I understand there are three areas at stake:
- People - Customs - Live animals
People seems to be dealt with by CTA/Schengen opt out for Ireland. Customs can be done by making it a criminal act in each side's domestic law. Live animals os a thorny one but looks like Boris is playing for DUP to back down.
Loads of people want to be MPs, I think many of them have an overinflated sense of their own self importance. If 70 novices are put in place over 70 deselections it won't change the voting totals one bit.
I think both statements can be true. The immigrants who had a positive impact on the country predominantly moved to and could afford to live in the remain areas. The immigrants who brought fewer positives perhaps couldnt afford to live in the more affluent remain areas and were therefore disproportionately in the leave areas.
It was clearly a factor in some leave voters decisions and whether their perception is correct or not it is hard to argue that was not their perception.
For those with 7 and 8 figure assets or those with fixed incomes immigration has been fantastic.
The downwards pressure on the wages of the poorest has kept inflation in check which is the number 1 enemy for those with wealth.
Stuart Rose let the cat out of the bag and was promptly sacked from the Remain campaign in 2016.
Unfortunately Nicola doesn't want to hang around until Labour's polls lead recovers.
Nicola + Boris isn't 440 MPs. And the FTPA requires 440 MPs to vote for an early election.
But a one clause Bill doesn’t: and if they are agreed on the text it won’t be amended. If it looks likely, Corbyn will have to find a way to support.
Where did this one clause Bill idea come from as it's not supported under the FTPA.
"Alternatively, as the New Statesman’s political editor Stephen Bush has noted, an election can be called by “passing a one-line bill stating that ‘notwithstanding the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, the next election will be on X, the FTPA act will continue to apply otherwise” (one route Theresa May considered in 2017)."
And thus the supermajority provision in the FTPA is effectively worthless, because it can be set aside by a simple majority. Boris Johnson's problem is, of course, that he doesn't have even a simple majority that will support him, hence the fact that neither this route nor the mechanism of simply no-confidencing himself are available to him.
For supermajorities to be effective, e.g. as used for some decisions in the US Congress, they need to be contained within constitutions or basic laws that a legislature can't simply amend or repeal entirely under its own authority.
Couldn't disagree more. Plenty of countries make referendums a key part of their legislation and do it very well. And your two examples of failure are spurious.
In the case of the Scottish vote there is nothing problematic or inconsistent with having the SNP elected with one their policies being independence and then having that specific policy rejected by the electorate. They still have many other policies they can enact in Government. Moreover the alternative would be to say that the SNP should simply have declared independence without a referendum - something that at the time clearly had only minority support as we well know from the referendum itself.
As far as Brexit is concerned I would suggest many of those MPs now obstructing or trying to reverse Brexit would never have got elected in 2015 had they been honest and said they would try to reverse the referendum.
The problem is not referendums it is the MPs.
In the case of Brexit, (most) MPs are obviously to a very large extent to blame for this mess - if, as seems pretty clear, the majority of them thought leaving the EU a disaster not to be contemplated, then they should never have voted to hold the referendum in the first place - but it doesn't solve the central problem of trying to treat our representatives as delegates.
I don't think that's clear at all. All but a small handful, like Ken Clarke, were utterly complacent about what leaving the EU would actually entail, and after a couple of decades of a 'special status' relationship, naively thought that even if the vote were lost, we could maintain much the same benefits as a non-member.
How will Remainers react if there is an election and Boris wins a comfortable majority?
This is the most likely scenario. We will all have to suck it up and then watch what happens as Johnson delivers his "easily manageable" No Deal Brexit.
I think both statements can be true. The immigrants who had a positive impact on the country predominantly moved to and could afford to live in the remain areas. The immigrants who brought fewer positives perhaps couldnt afford to live in the more affluent remain areas and were therefore disproportionately in the leave areas.
It was clearly a factor in some leave voters decisions and whether their perception is correct or not it is hard to argue that was not their perception.
For those with 7 and 8 figure assets or those with fixed incomes immigration has been fantastic.
The downwards pressure on the wages of the poorest has kept inflation in check which is the number 1 enemy for those with wealth.
Stuart Rose let the cat out of the bag and was promptly sacked from the Remain campaign in 2016.
Keep the doors wide open as far as i'm concerned.
It is more complicated than just money and incomes though. The last decade the over 50s have got richer and richer and the under 50s have struggled more than ever. Yet the opposite trend is shown in the Brexit vote.
So how does agrifood resolve all the other markets, taxes and laws...
I understand there are three areas at stake:
- People - Customs - Live animals
People seems to be dealt with by CTA/Schengen opt out for Ireland. Customs can be done by making it a criminal act in each side's domestic law. Live animals os a thorny one but looks like Boris is playing for DUP to back down.
Sorry, but how does making cross-border trade without paying tariffs a criminal act protect the Good Friday Agreement?
So how does agrifood resolve all the other markets, taxes and laws...
I understand there are three areas at stake:
- People - Customs - Live animals
People seems to be dealt with by CTA/Schengen opt out for Ireland. Customs can be done by making it a criminal act in each side's domestic law. Live animals os a thorny one but looks like Boris is playing for DUP to back down.
whats there to back down from ?. technically the island of Ireland has always operated as one when controlling livestock, its to prevent things like foot and mouth and increasingly to protect native flora and fauna.
So how does agrifood resolve all the other markets, taxes and laws...
I understand there are three areas at stake:
- People - Customs - Live animals
People seems to be dealt with by CTA/Schengen opt out for Ireland. Customs can be done by making it a criminal act in each side's domestic law. Live animals os a thorny one but looks like Boris is playing for DUP to back down.
Sorry, but how does making cross-border trade without paying tariffs a criminal act protect the Good Friday Agreement?
There are a lot of remain voting conservatives who now have to come to terms with the fact that JRM has voted against his party on numerous occasions whilst DG has only ever done once. You must be a different type of conservative who his happy with this right wing take over
How will Remainers react if there is an election and Boris wins a comfortable majority?
This is the most likely scenario. We will all have to suck it up and then watch what happens as Johnson delivers his "easily manageable" No Deal Brexit.
Leavers are going to be tearing down the doors at the polling stations after Brexit is delayed again.There is a lot of anger out there now.
Comments
Given how things are going, I wonder if some of them are contemplating throwing him overboard before he does that to them.
Your language is unhelpful and betrays both a slightly weak mind as well as a weak argument.
That will only occur later when austerity 2 needs to be rapidly implemented to make up for the tax shortfalls.
Don't think it'll happen immediately, mind.
How immigration changed Boston, Lincolnshire http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36258541
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/world/20-areas-in-the-uk-that-recorded-highest-leave-and-remain-votes-in-the-brexit-referendum-897432.html
Fail.
Didn't vote for it, didn't think it was a good idea.
But, this Parliament Taking Back Control lark is extremely entertaining...
ie Staying in the EU requires the spending of money and only the Govt can propose the spending of money.
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1169289589200175106
http://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-areas-with-low-immigration-voted-mainly-for-brexit-62138
While I'm up & running let me ask why we don't "bin" the monarchy and write a few things down?
Good riddance.
"Actor, writer, director, fool."
It was clearly a factor in some leave voters decisions and whether their perception is correct or not it is hard to argue that was not their perception.
The split opposition lab lib and a deal with Farage , will ensure a healthy Johnson majority.
The hon. Gentleman has raised very important questions about a money resolution and Queen’s consent. Yes, this Bill is different, but I have, of course, consulted the Clerk of Legislation and other senior Clerks, on whose procedural expertise we regularly call. My ruling on Wednesday 3 April 2019, in respect of the earlier Bill that the hon. Gentleman referenced, was that
“the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill does not require either a Ways and Means motion or a money resolution… extending the period under article 50 would continue the UK’s rights and obligations as a member state of the EU for the period of the extension, which would have substantial consequences for both spending and taxation.”—[Official Report, 3 April 2019; Vol. 657, c. 1130-31.]
Clause 4(1) of the Bill before us today would require exit day to be moved to match any extension agreed with the European Council. The financial resolutions passed on Monday 11 September 2017 give fully adequate cover for the exercise by Ministers of their powers under sections 23 and 24 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to move exit day in order to keep in lockstep with the date for the expiry of the European treaties, which, of course, is determined by article 50 of the treaty on European Union.
So far as Queen’s consent is concerned, my ruling on Wednesday 3 April was that
“as no prerogative consent was required for the Bill in 2017 giving parliamentary authority to the Prime Minister to take action under article 50 of the treaty on European Union, there is no requirement for new and separate prerogative consent to be sought for legislation in 2019 on what further action the Prime Minister should take under the same article 50 of the treaty on European Union.”
The Bill before us today could require the Prime Minister to seek and accept an extension in certain circumstances, although it would still be up to the European Council to agree unanimously to an extension with the UK. In these circumstances, and I say this on the basis of professional advice, my ruling is that Queen’s consent is not needed for this Bill.
That only requires a majority of one. Boris + Nicola + DUP will get the job done but Labour will have to reverse ferret as soon as it looks like an election is going to happen.
This leads to the central contradiction of Brexit. Any acceptable outcome involves a very close relationship with the EU, which will be on the EU's terms. If you voted Leave to "take back control", you won't be happy with a rule taking arrangement that results in less influence over the things that matter.
The political mess, which was entirely predictable back in 2016 in scale if not the detail comes from Leavers' continuing unwillingness to accept that contradiction.
"Alternatively, as the New Statesman’s political editor Stephen Bush has noted, an election can be called by “passing a one-line bill stating that ‘notwithstanding the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, the next election will be on X, the FTPA act will continue to apply otherwise” (one route Theresa May considered in 2017)."
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/09/how-general-election-called
By voting contrary to what MPs were willing to stomach in a referendum, and then compounding the situation by voting in another contrarian Parliament, voters have created circumstances - and this isn't deliberate and isn't their fault, but it is what has come about nonetheless - in which continual corrosive damage to democracy is bound to result. We end up with a confused, dithering and impotent Parliament which contains a majority of members that wish either to comply with the instruction given in the referendum half-heartedly or not at all, and cannot agree on any resolution at all as a result. Meanwhile, a large chunk of the Leave electorate now feels insulted and robbed. It's madness.
In Scotland the situation is somewhat different. Voters have rejected independence in a plebiscite, but keep returning secessionist Parliaments - there is sufficient support for one thing but not quite enough for the other. The risk is that, therefore, both Scotland and the rest of the UK become stuck in a rut: as long as this stalemate exists, the Scottish Government will keep trying to engineer independence referendums and the rest of the UK will be under constant threat of dissolution, with no idea as to if or when it might happen. It's not exactly ideal...
Stand back and have a look at the bigger picture.
Perhaps even chat with normal people who have rounded lives and don't sit obsessing about politics.
I think you might find that the wider perception is more like:
1. Johnson is trying to get Brexit through
2. Parliament are stopping him implementing the referendum result
For the vast majority of normal people it goes no deeper than that.
Which is why the swivel-eyed headbangers on here are in all likelihood going to get an enormous shock the morning after the GE.
- People
- Customs
- Live animals
People seems to be dealt with by CTA/Schengen opt out for Ireland. Customs can be done by making it a criminal act in each side's domestic law. Live animals os a thorny one but looks like Boris is playing for DUP to back down.
The downwards pressure on the wages of the poorest has kept inflation in check which is the number 1 enemy for those with wealth.
Stuart Rose let the cat out of the bag and was promptly sacked from the Remain campaign in 2016.
Keep the doors wide open as far as i'm concerned.
For supermajorities to be effective, e.g. as used for some decisions in the US Congress, they need to be contained within constitutions or basic laws that a legislature can't simply amend or repeal entirely under its own authority.
DC: Yes
BoZo: Including Spelman.
DC: No, that's just what they expect us to do. Now we really fuck up their OODA loop...
here we analyse the inside of a maggots arse. Most of it is just wasted pixels.
In the wider world there is a much simpler narrative people just arent that interested in politics/
Accept Bill and get RA
Reinstate the mps
Seek an election for the 15th October
All on monday
And then prorogue parliament
"Why Remoaners are so terrified of a General Election
These anti-democrats fear the judgement of the people. And they’re right to fear it.
Brendan O'Neill"
https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/09/04/why-remoaners-are-so-terrified-of-a-general-election/
Of course, you could engage with what I say. If you wanted to.