A short time ago you were lamenting how febrile political discourse is now and the increased hurling of insults.
What is incorrect about his evaluation?
It is a very selective number of former colonies, noticeable for the exclusion of other members of the commonwealth that are majority non white.
It seems pretty obvious to me that the idea of a Australia, NZ, Canada, UK FoM zone is centred around whiteness rather than anything else.
“Anything else”?
Like similar levels of economic development and relatively small populations, for example?
Or do you think we should have FOM with 1.4 billion Indians where GDP/capita is one twentieth of the UK?
In any case the “old Commonwealth” countries are far from “white” and I doubt would be keen on FoM with us.....
This is not an economic argument, this is just a fancier way of saying "if we have FoM with India lots of poor brown people will come to the UK for better jobs, and that is unacceptable, but the potential for movement of middle class white people is fine"
If you check the “British Diaspora” - where Brits have chosen to go and live - you will see that Australia New Zealand and Canada are many orders of magnitude more popular than “New Commonwealth” countries. Indeed, more have chosen Australia than the entire EU. Why not aim for FOM with countries where people want to go and live? The “geographical proximity” argument which may apply to trade does not apply here - the most popular destination for Brits could hardly be further away!
If more Londoners migrate to Sydney than to Northern Ireland, is it an argument against free movement within the UK?
Given the House of Commons has refused to vote for May's Deal, has refused to vote for No Deal and is trying to amend the Boris Deal, Boris has had to act as he has to try and deliver Brexit.
Had the 21 Tory rebels who voted for the Benn Act been allowed to stand again then even had Boris won a majority after the next general election on a Brexit with a Deal or No Deal ticket, he could not deliver his manifesto. That particularly applies to the Tory MPs who voted to smrmd the Boris Deal and agsinst the Boris timetable up deliver Brexit by 31st October, again had they been allowed to stand again Boris could not deliver his Deal as stands.
Had Boris stuck to the DUP line and refused to back a Northern Ireland only backstop the EU would also have refused a Deal anyway, while his current Deal as the polling shows is much more popular with Leavers than the May Deal, hence the big current Tory poll lead. So Boris has been absolutely right
LOL
Dear Mr President
The UK parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty’s government to seek an extension of the period provided under article 50(3) of the treaty on European Union, including as applied by article 106a of the Euratom treaty, currently due to expire at 11pm GMT on 31 October 2019, until 11pm GMT on 31 January 2020.
I am writing therefore to inform the European council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under article 50(3) of the treaty on European Union, including as applied by article 106a of the Euratom treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11pm GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the government proposes that the period should be terminated early.
Yours sincerely,
Prime minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
That copy of the Benn Act dent unsigned and with a signed letter rejecting extension attached
Interesting comment from an EU diplomat that the EU have no desire for a leaders council meeting but said that the mood has really changed now with people just wanting it done. Apparently they were at first critical of Boris but now they are critical of the labour opposition for blocking it. Basically they see Boris as an ally and everyone wants the UK to leave as soon as possible
If true it provides a real insight into the why Macron, and it is believed Belgium, Luxembourg and Spain support him with the Dutch leaning towards a much shorter extension.
Who knows but it is clear the EU are divided and it is not a leave supporting media propaganda
Which is why BJ is waiting before making his next move. The EU will now frame the next stage of the game. Short technical delay = boris deal or no deal. Jan 31 flextension = try and get out for mid november. Flat jan 31 = election push. I fancy the first of those
Don’t forget revoke if parliament sees the new suggested deal is crap and don’t want to leave no deal then they can revoke.
Revoke is only possible if the Lib Dems win power
Parliament if faced with two equally disasterous options could revoke with a simple majority.
And revoke being the third disasterious option without a referendum or GE approval
Less disastrous than the other two. Gets it over and done with and able to move on to more important things. A collective sigh of relief and those still wishing to leave can get together and decide what leave means and when they have achieved that they can see if anyone is interested.
Going on about Leavers, empire nostalgia and a white empire isn't exactly dialling down on rhetoric.
It's a straightforward description of the motivation and nothing to do with rhetoric. Extraordinarily, it's never suggested to include, say, Singapore in this Canzuk vision. Or even that this club of countries could expand.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand are far away from us. Their economies are very different from our own, being resource economies. But they have an appeal to a certain type of batty Leaver. That appeal is pretty obvious.
To be honest Alastair my family has great affection for Canada, Australia and New Zealand and indeed our eldest son has Kiwi citizenship and now lives with his Canadian wife in Vancouver.
We have been privileged to visit all three of these countries several times but equally one of our favourite countries is Italy and we do not seek to create a divide of our affection between EU countries and Commonweath ones.
And we are not 'batty' leavers
I fear for some Remainers, any Leaver is, by definition “batty” - along with blinkered xenophobe and the rest.
Given the location of “Brits abroad” very many more UK citizens will have relations in the “old commonwealth” than in the EU.
Given the House of Commons has refused to vote for May's Deal, has refused to vote for No Deal and is trying to amend the Boris Deal, Boris has had to act as he has to try and deliver Brexit.
Had the 21 Tory rebels who voted for the Benn Act been allowed to stand again then even had Boris won a majority after the next general election on a Brexit with a Deal or No Deal ticket, he could not deliver his manifesto. That particularly applies to the Tory MPs who voted to smrmd the Boris Deal and agsinst the Boris timetable up deliver Brexit by 31st October, again had they been allowed to stand again Boris could not deliver his Deal as stands.
Had Boris stuck to the DUP line and refused to back a Northern Ireland only backstop the EU would also have refused a Deal anyway, while his current Deal as the polling shows is much more popular with Leavers than the May Deal, hence the big current Tory poll lead. So Boris has been absolutely right
For once we agree and of course the labour mps who voted for the second reading and against the programme motion were playing politics hoping to change the deal to a customs union/referendum in the committee stage without realising this would wreck the deal resulting in a GE or no deal
Just as the ERG stupidly voted down TM deal, so the labour mps voting down the programme motion effectively did the same and most certainly have now precipitated a GE and put their seats in peril
Yes, the Labour MPs like Nandy who voted to give the Withdrawal Agreement a second reading then against the Boris timetable want the Withdrawal Agreement plus a Customs Union they do not want the Boris Deal
A short time ago you were lamenting how febrile political discourse is now and the increased hurling of insults.
What is incorrect about his evaluation?
It is a very selective number of former colonies, noticeable for the exclusion of other members of the commonwealth that are majority non white.
It seems pretty obvious to me that the idea of a Australia, NZ, Canada, UK FoM zone is centred around whiteness rather than anything else.
“Anything else”?
Like similar levels of economic development and relatively small populations, for example?
Or do you think we should have FOM with 1.4 billion Indians where GDP/capita is one twentieth of the UK?
In any case the “old Commonwealth” countries are far from “white” and I doubt would be keen on FoM with us.....
This is not an economic argument, this is just a fancier way of saying "if we have FoM with India lots of poor brown people will come to the UK for better jobs, and that is unacceptable, but the potential for movement of middle class white people is fine"
If you check the “British Diaspora” - where Brits have chosen to go and live - you will see that Australia New Zealand and Canada are many orders of magnitude more popular than “New Commonwealth” countries. Indeed, more have chosen Australia than the entire EU. Why not aim for FOM with countries where people want to go and live? The “geographical proximity” argument which may apply to trade does not apply here - the most popular destination for Brits could hardly be further away!
If more Londoners migrate to Sydney than to Northern Ireland, is it an argument against free movement within the UK?
Since no one is arguing about freedom of movement within countries it is another of your pointless questions.
Personally of course I would prefer free movement everywhere but then I am in a tiny minority.
Just seen Swinson's tweet. Obviously chasing the woke student vote there. A bit demeaning from a party leader IMO but maybe she doesn't care about that.
she is useless and desperate to confirm it at any opportunity
I actually agree with Malc on Swinson. Shouty, humourless and bound to get on people's wick after a time. All the same she is Scottish and her rise to prominence is unhelpful to the other Scottish female politician who matches that description.
63% of Republican voters now think the party should be more the party of Trump than the party of Romney. Only 30% think it should be more the party of Romney.
Given the House of Commons has refused to vote for May's Deal, has refused to vote for No Deal and is trying to amend the Boris Deal, Boris has had to act as he has to try and deliver Brexit.
Hbsolutely right
LOL
Dear Mr President
The UK parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty’s government to seek an extension of the period provided under article 50(3) of the treaty on European Union, including as applied by article 106a of the Euratom treaty, currently due to expire at 11pm GMT on 31 October 2019, until 11pm GMT on 31 January 2020.
I am writing therefore to inform the European council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under article 50(3) of the treaty on European Union, including as applied by article 106a of the Euratom treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11pm GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the government proposes that the period should be terminated early.
Yours sincerely,
Prime minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
That copy of the Benn Act dent unsigned and with a signed letter rejecting extension attached
LOL x 2
"Dear Mr President
The UK parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty’s government to seek an extension of the period provided under article 50(3) of the treaty on European Union, including as applied by article 106a of the Euratom treaty, currently due to expire at 11pm GMT on 31 October 2019, until 11pm GMT on 31 January 2020.
I am writing therefore to inform the European council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under article 50(3) of the treaty on European Union, including as applied by article 106a of the Euratom treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11pm GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the government proposes that the period should be terminated early.
Yours sincerely,
Prime minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"
A short time ago you were lamenting how febrile political discourse is now and the increased hurling of insults.
What is incorrect about his evaluation?
It is a very selective number of former colonies, noticeable for the exclusion of other members of the commonwealth that are majority non white.
It seems pretty obvious to me that the idea of a Australia, NZ, Canada, UK FoM zone is centred around whiteness rather than anything else.
“Anything else”?
Like similar levels of economic development and relatively small populations, for example?
Or do you think we should have FOM with 1.4 billion Indians where GDP/capita is one twentieth of the UK?
In any case the “old Commonwealth” countries are far from “white” and I doubt would be keen on FoM with us.....
This is not an economic argument, this is just a fancier way of saying "if we have FoM with India lots of poor brown people will come to the UK for better jobs, and that is unacceptable, but the potential for movement of middle class white people is fine"
If you check the “British Diaspora” - where Brits have chosen to go and live - you will see that Australia New Zealand and Canada are many orders of magnitude more popular than “New Commonwealth” countries. Indeed, more have chosen Australia than the entire EU. Why not aim for FOM with countries where people want to go and live? The “geographical proximity” argument which may apply to trade does not apply here - the most popular destination for Brits could hardly be further away!
If more Londoners migrate to Sydney than to Northern Ireland, is it an argument against free movement within the UK?
Who suggested ending free movement within the UK? All I’m asking is what’s wrong with FOM with countries where people actually want to go and live? Rather than those they don’t.
A short time ago you were lamenting how febrile political discourse is now and the increased hurling of insults.
What is incorrect about his evaluation?
It is a very selective number of former colonies, noticeable for the exclusion of other members of the commonwealth that are majority non white.
It seems pretty obvious to me that the idea of a Australia, NZ, Canada, UK FoM zone is centred around whiteness rather than anything else.
“Anything else”?
Like similar levels of economic development and relatively small populations, for example?
Or do you think we should have FOM with 1.4 billion Indians where GDP/capita is one twentieth of the UK?
In any case the “old Commonwealth” countries are far from “white” and I doubt would be keen on FoM with us.....
This is not an economic argument, this is just a fancier way of saying "if we have FoM with India lots of poor brown people will come to the UK for better jobs, and that is unacceptable, but the potential for movement of middle class white people is fine"
If you check the “British Diaspora” - where Brits have chosen to go and live - you will see that Australia New Zealand and Canada are many orders of magnitude more popular than “New Commonwealth” countries. Indeed, more have chosen Australia than the entire EU. Why not aim for FOM with countries where people want to go and live? The “geographical proximity” argument which may apply to trade does not apply here - the most popular destination for Brits could hardly be further away!
If more Londoners migrate to Sydney than to Northern Ireland, is it an argument against free movement within the UK?
Since no one is arguing about freedom of movement within countries it is another of your pointless questions.
Most mentions of “empire” come from Remainers - usually with gratuitous insults they somehow believe reflect on their target rather than themselves...
Paradoxically many Remainers are more attached to the English empire on these islands than Brexiteers, who then get labelled English nationalists.
We are not "attached" to Empire. We are just willing to talk about it because history exists and it is easy to see the connections. Denying internalised British Exceptionalism due to Empire on the part of some Leavers doesn't make it true, it just means those people are in denial.
Maybe my point wasn’t clear. The “English empire” was a reference to the union, without which we wold apparently have “no meaningful role on the world stage”.
What complete crap, even if Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland left the Union Englsnd would still be the 7th largest economy in the world and a G20 member.
It was the end of the British Empire and the independence if India which saw us lose our superpower status, we are now a medium ranked power and would still be a medium ranked power even if the Union broke up.
Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and the UK voted to Leave the EU in 2016
Going on about Leavers, empire nostalgia and a white empire isn't exactly dialling down on rhetoric.
It's a straightforward description of the motivation and nothing to do with rhetoric. Extraordinarily, it's never suggested to include, say, Singapore in this Canzuk vision. Or even that this club of countries could expand.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand are far away from us. Their economies are very different from our own, being resource economies. But they have an appeal to a certain type of batty Leaver. That appeal is pretty obvious.
To be honest Alastair my family has great affection for Canada, Australia and New Zealand and indeed our eldest son has Kiwi citizenship and now lives with his Canadian wife in Vancouver.
We have been privileged to visit all three of these countries several times but equally one of our favourite countries is Italy and we do not seek to create a divide of our affection between EU countries and Commonweath ones.
And we are not 'batty' leavers
It's one thing liking three countries. It's another thing entirely looking to build up an exclusive set of relationships with three countries based on outdated preconceptions (and junking a set of relationships that Britain already had with countries with which it has far closer real ties).
A short time ago you were lamenting how febrile political discourse is now and the increased hurling of insults.
What is incorrect about his evaluation?
It is a very selective number of former colonies, noticeable for the exclusion of other members of the commonwealth that are majority non white.
It seems pretty obvious to me that the idea of a Australia, NZ, Canada, UK FoM zone is centred around whiteness rather than anything else.
“Anything else”?
Like similar levels of economic development and relatively small populations, for example?
Or do you think we should have FOM with 1.4 billion Indians where GDP/capita is one twentieth of the UK?
In any case the “old Commonwealth” countries are far from “white” and I doubt would be keen on FoM with us.....
This is not an economic argument, this is just a fancier way of saying "if we have FoM with India lots of poor brown people will come to the UK for better jobs, and that is unacceptable, but the potential for movement of middle class white people is fine"
If you check the “British Diaspora” - where Brits have chosen to go and live - you will see that Australia New Zealand and Canada are many orders of magnitude more popular than “New Commonwealth” countries. Indeed, more have chosen Australia than the entire EU. Why not aim for FOM with countries where people want to go and live? The “geographical proximity” argument which may apply to trade does not apply here - the most popular destination for Brits could hardly be further away!
If more Londoners migrate to Sydney than to Northern Ireland, is it an argument against free movement within the UK?
Who suggested ending free movement within the UK? All I’m asking is what’s wrong with FOM with countries where people actually want to go and live? Rather than those they don’t.
The two are not mutually exclusive. If we can negotiate reciprocal free movement with Australia, we don’t need to leave the EU to implement it, so the real motivation of those who promote the idea is to increase our separateness from the rest of Europe and create a more exclusive English-speaking realm.
Exactly as I predicted, I thought even she would have tried to put some semblence of decency on it and waited till she was not an MSP, typical Tory and she in particular has always been about Ruth.
I am reminded of the last great US President - Truman.
When he left office he went home to live in the house his wife had inherited from her mother. He took no positions in any business and refused to make any commercial endorsements. He did it on a point of principle that the only reason anyone would want him was because he had been US President and that therefore accepting any of the positions offered would have been to cash in on his term as President.
He lived on his army pension and eventually the sales of his autobiography.
During his time in office he had passed laws to ensure adequate pensions for former office holders and public servants. But he had explicitly excluded his own position as President from these rights.
May never came as close as Boris has to getting a deal through Parliament.
That’s because the Tory party prevented her from bringing her WAB to Parliament.
Because her WAB was a disgrace and Boris has a far better one. The Tory rebels who blocked her were principled heroes in doing so.
No,they were completely wrong. They were people who thought that 52% was a sufficient basis for extreme forms of Brexit. It wasn't and isn't. We need to leave. Everything else should be up for grabs and a decision for a future consensus. By insisting on their extreme version they have deeply divided our country. It was shameful, partisan and very likely self defeating.
Having consent over the laws that affect you is not "extreme" it is democracy. The backstop was inexcusable, we were told under May it was necessary and there was no alternative, under Boris it is gone and good riddance!
That May was prepared to throw the UK under the bus and have a backstop we [or NI] never consented to and could never get out of in the future was a disgrace. No ifs, no buts, it was unforgiveable disgrace.
Democratic consent over your laws is never extreme it is a fundamental human right!
And now that Boris has shown the backstop was never necessary we shouldn't even need to be arguing over it anymore either. It was undemocratic and unnecessary - it has nothing to do with Brexit, I for one am very grateful MPs stood up for democracy.
Interesting comment from an EU diplomat that the EU have no desire for a leaders council meeting but said that the mood has really changed now with people just wanting it done. Apparently they were at first critical of Boris but now they are critical of the labour opposition for blocking it. Basically they see Boris as an ally and everyone wants the UK to leave as soon as possible
If true it provides a real insight into the why Macron, and it is believed Belgium, Luxembourg and Spain support him with the Dutch leaning towards a much shorter extension.
Who knows but it is clear the EU are divided and it is not a leave supporting media propaganda
Which is why BJ is waiting before making his next move. The EU will now frame the next stage of the game. Short technical delay = boris deal or no deal. Jan 31 flextension = try and get out for mid november. Flat jan 31 = election push. I fancy the first of those
Don’t forget revoke if parliament sees the new suggested deal is crap and don’t want to leave no deal then they can revoke.
Revoke is only possible if the Lib Dems win power
Parliament if faced with two equally disasterous options could revoke with a simple majority.
And revoke being the third disasterious option without a referendum or GE approval
Less disastrous than the other two. Gets it over and done with and able to move on to more important things. A collective sigh of relief and those still wishing to leave can get together and decide what leave means and when they have achieved that they can see if anyone is interested.
That will be a Remainer sigh of relief.
That noise you hear from the 17.4m robbed by you is no sigh....
A short time ago you were lamenting how febrile political discourse is now and the increased hurling of insults.
What is incorrect about his evaluation?
It is a very selective number of former colonies, noticeable for the exclusion of other members of the commonwealth that are majority non white.
It seems pretty obvious to me that the idea of a Australia, NZ, Canada, UK FoM zone is centred around whiteness rather than anything else.
“Anything else”?
Like similar levels of economic development and relatively small populations, for example?
Or do you think we should have FOM with 1.4 billion Indians where GDP/capita is one twentieth of the UK?
In any case the “old Commonwealth” countries are far from “white” and I doubt would be keen on FoM with us.....
This is not an economic argument, this is just a fancier way of saying "if we have FoM with India lots of poor brown people will come to the UK for better jobs, and that is unacceptable, but the potential for movement of middle class white people is fine"
If you check the “British Diaspora” - where Brits have chosen to go and live - you will see that Australia New Zealand and Canada are many orders of magnitude more popular than “New Commonwealth” countries. Indeed, more have chosen Australia than the entire EU. Why not aim for FOM with countries where people want to go and live? The “geographical proximity” argument which may apply to trade does not apply here - the most popular destination for Brits could hardly be further away!
If more Londoners migrate to Sydney than to Northern Ireland, is it an argument against free movement within the UK?
Since no one is arguing about freedom of movement within countries it is another of your pointless questions.
Ma patrie, c’est l’Europe!
And that is where the root of all your errors lies.
Interesting comment from an EU diplomat that the EU have no desire for a leaders council meeting but said that the mood has really changed now with people just wanting it done. Apparently they were at first critical of Boris but now they are critical of the labour opposition for blocking it. Basically they see Boris as an ally and everyone wants the UK to leave as soon as possible
If true it provides a real insight into the why Macron, and it is believed Belgium, Luxembourg and Spain support him with the Dutch leaning towards a much shorter extension.
Who knows but it is clear the EU are divided and it is not a leave supporting media propaganda
I still think it'll be 31st January but it will be made clear that this is the final time they'll agree to any extenstion longer than a technical one needed to pass legislation etc.
Many EU nations have had it with the House Of Fools and I don't blame them personally.
A short time ago you were lamenting how febrile political discourse is now and the increased hurling of insults.
What is incorrect about his evaluation?
It is a very selective number of former colonies, noticeable for the exclusion of other members of the commonwealth that are majority non white.
It seems pretty obvious to me that the idea of a Australia, NZ, Canada, UK FoM zone is centred around whiteness rather than anything else.
“Anything else”?
Like similar levels of economic development and relatively small populations, for example?
Or do you think we should have FOM with 1.4 billion Indians where GDP/capita is one twentieth of the UK?
In any case the “old Commonwealth” countries are far from “white” and I doubt would be keen on FoM with us.....
This is not an economic argument, this is just a fancier way of saying "if we have FoM with India lots of poor brown people will come to the UK for better jobs, and that is unacceptable, but the potential for movement of middle class white people is fine"
If you check the “British Diaspora” - where Brits have chosen to go and live - you will see that Australia New Zealand and Canada are many orders of magnitude more popular than “New Commonwealth” countries. Indeed, more have chosen Australia than the entire EU. Why not aim for FOM with countries where people want to go and live? The “geographical proximity” argument which may apply to trade does not apply here - the most popular destination for Brits could hardly be further away!
If more Londoners migrate to Sydney than to Northern Ireland, is it an argument against free movement within the UK?
Since no one is arguing about freedom of movement within countries it is another of your pointless questions.
Ma patrie, c’est l’Europe!
And that is where the root of all your errors lies.
Most mentions of “empire” come from Remainers - usually with gratuitous insults they somehow believe reflect on their target rather than themselves...
Paradoxically many Remainers are more attached to the English empire on these islands than Brexiteers, who then get labelled English nationalists.
We are not "attached" to Empire. We are just willing to talk about it because history exists and it is easy to see the connections. Denying internalised British Exceptionalism due to Empire on the part of some Leavers doesn't make it true, it just means those people are in denial.
Maybe my point wasn’t clear. The “English empire” was a reference to the union, without which we wold apparently have “no meaningful role on the world stage”.
I am always reluctant to criticise people directly but there are literally no words to explain how worthless Seb Dance is. Even by the standards of MEPs he is a dunce.
Interesting comment from an EU diplomat that the EU have no desire for a leaders council meeting but said that the mood has really changed now with people just wanting it done. Apparently they were at first critical of Boris but now they are critical of the labour opposition for blocking it. Basically they see Boris as an ally and everyone wants the UK to leave as soon as possible
If true it provides a real insight into the why Macron, and it is believed Belgium, Luxembourg and Spain support him with the Dutch leaning towards a much shorter extension.
Who knows but it is clear the EU are divided and it is not a leave supporting media propaganda
I still think it'll be 31st January but it will be made clear that this is the final time they'll agree to any extenstion longer than a technical one needed to pass legislation etc.
Many EU nations have had it with the House Of Fools and I don't blame them personally.
Unless or until they're prepared to throw us out without a deal they can't make that clear. The only way to make that clear is to say "no extension" at the time its asked for. Whatever they say now won't be believed.
Mr. L, that's the critical problem, I think. And the resolution to it should've, perhaps must've, happened in the past. But didn't.
We've been integrated far more than most people wanted, and the public were never consulted. And for those who wrongly allege General Elections permitted this, a GE has every other aspect of national politics involved, it isn't a single issue event.
Mr Dancer, this is a critical aspect for those who are prescribing a General Election to solve the issue. The problem is that a General Election, regardless of why it is ostensibly called, is about everything.
As we found out in 2017. When Theresa May called a Brexit General Election. To give her the majority to sort out her vision of Brexit. Oh, and impose the so-called "dementia tax", but that's by-the-by. And take away free school dinners. And change the tax system. And scrap the pensions triple lock. And stuff about NHS funding. And means-test pensioner benefits. And change regulation levels. And minimum wage stuff, and grammar schools, and fox-hunting, and change the electoral system for the London Assembly (seriously?).
Meanwhile, Labour presented their Brexit vision. And it was about that. Oh, and nationalising the railways. And nationalising the utilities. And student loans (but there was some confusion over existing loans). And increasing taxes on the rich. And corporation tax. And childcare. And fracking, and zero-hours contracts, and rail electrification and Strategic Defence Review, and, and, and...
Shockingly, the vast majority of people voted on something other than Brexit (YouGov, after the election, found that only 21% of the Tory voters (so 8.9% of voters) cited Brexit as a key part of their voting choice; the Labour voters didn't have any statistically significant number saying the same).
So, in order to resolve Brexit, we should do a vote on everything other than Brexit?
The cynic in me says that (supporters of) parties that believe they would get a benefit from a General Election right now will come up with a rationale why it's essential. While those in the opposite boat will come up with a reason why we shouldn't. (As it happens, my party looks like it would benefit from a GE right now, but don't tell them I said all this...)
If we look solely at going for a public vote to resolve Brexit, then the simple mind that is me would say to have a public vote on Brexit. Rather than one on everything else. And if we have one, make it post-legislative/confirmatory/non-rerunnable.
(The argument of rights or wrongs about shoulds and shouldn'ts is beside this stance, but the argument for an election necessarily goes into this - and if it is wrong to have a vote on Brexit, it is wrong to have a GE vote that's sold as being on Brexit, anyway)
A short time ago you were lamenting how febrile political discourse is now and the increased hurling of insults.
What is incorrect about his evaluation?
It is a very selective number of former colonies, noticeable for the exclusion of other members of the commonwealth that are majority non white.
It seems pretty obvious to me that the idea of a Australia, NZ, Canada, UK FoM zone is centred around whiteness rather than anything else.
“Anything else”?
Like similar levels of economic development and relatively small populations, for example?
Or do you think we should have FOM with 1.4 billion Indians where GDP/capita is one twentieth of the UK?
In any case the “old Commonwealth” countries are far from “white” and I doubt would be keen on FoM with us.....
This is not an economic argument, this is just a fancier way of saying "if we have FoM with India lots of poor brown people will come to the UK for better jobs, and that is unacceptable, but the potential for movement of middle class white people is fine"
If you check the “British Diaspora” - where Brits have chosen to go and live - you will see that Australia New Zealand and Canada are many orders of magnitude more popular than “New Commonwealth” countries. Indeed, more have chosen Australia than the entire EU. Why not aim for FOM with countries where people want to go and live? The “geographical proximity” argument which may apply to trade does not apply here - the most popular destination for Brits could hardly be further away!
If more Londoners migrate to Sydney than to Northern Ireland, is it an argument against free movement within the UK?
Since no one is arguing about freedom of movement within countries it is another of your pointless questions.
Ma patrie, c’est l’Europe!
And that is where the root of all your errors lies.
Better to go into an election campaign with a deal that has demonstrable support than one that has gone down defeated. The Tories in theory have a deal ready to go whilst Labour would spend months renegotiating.
Most mentions of “empire” come from Remainers - usually with gratuitous insults they somehow believe reflect on their target rather than themselves...
Paradoxically many Remainers are more attached to the English empire on these islands than Brexiteers, who then get labelled English nationalists.
No, they just use the 'threat' to the Union as an excuse to block Brexit, pre Brexit most Remainers could not care less whether Scotlsnd voted for independence or Northern Ireland for a united Ireland given England would still be in the EU anyway.
Plus an Empire is not built on consent but military and police force, Scotland voted against independence in 2014 and most Northern Ireland MPs are DUP so it is a Union not an Empire
Actually I suspect if a poll were run on this we would find remainers were more pro-dissolution of the UK. However I have no proof of this so feel free to give me a kicking.
Going on about Leavers, empire nostalgia and a white empire isn't exactly dialling down on rhetoric.
It's a straightforward description of the motivation and nothing to do with rhetoric. Extraordinarily, it's never suggested to include, say, Singapore in this Canzuk vision. Or even that this club of countries could expand.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand are far away from us. Their economies are very different from our own, being resource economies. But they have an appeal to a certain type of batty Leaver. That appeal is pretty obvious.
To be honest Alastair my family has great affection for Canada, Australia and New Zealand and indeed our eldest son has Kiwi citizenship and now lives with his Canadian wife in Vancouver.
We have been privileged to visit all three of these countries several times but equally one of our favourite countries is Italy and we do not seek to create a divide of our affection between EU countries and Commonweath ones.
And we are not 'batty' leavers
It's one thing liking three countries. It's another thing entirely looking to build up an exclusive set of relationships with three countries based on outdated preconceptions (and junking a set of relationships that Britain already had with countries with which it has far closer real ties).
A short time ago you were lamenting how febrile political discourse is now and the increased hurling of insults.
What is incorrect about his evaluation?
It is a very selective number of former colonies, noticeable for the exclusion of other members of the commonwealth that are majority non white.
It seems pretty obvious to me that the idea of a Australia, NZ, Canada, UK FoM zone is centred around whiteness rather than anything else.
“Anything else”?
Like similar levels of economic development and relatively small populations, for example?
Or do you think we should have FOM with 1.4 billion Indians where GDP/capita is one twentieth of the UK?
In any case the “old Commonwealth” countries are far from “white” and I doubt would be keen on FoM with us.....
This is not an economic argument, this is just a fancier way of saying "if we have FoM with India lots of poor brown people will come to the UK for better jobs, and that is unacceptable, but the potential for movement of middle class white people is fine"
If you check the “British Diaspora” - where Brits have chosen to go and live - you will see that Australia New Zealand and Canada are many orders of magnitude more popular than “New Commonwealth” countries. Indeed, more have chosen Australia than the entire EU. Why not aim for FOM with countries where people want to go and live? The “geographical proximity” argument which may apply to trade does not apply here - the most popular destination for Brits could hardly be further away!
If more Londoners migrate to Sydney than to Northern Ireland, is it an argument against free movement within the UK?
Since no one is arguing about freedom of movement within countries it is another of your pointless questions.
Ma patrie, c’est l’Europe!
And that is where the root of all your errors lies.
My identity cannot be an error. It is what it is.
It is a myth
I can assure you I'm a living and breathing person.
May never came as close as Boris has to getting a deal through Parliament.
That’s because the Tory party prevented her from bringing her WAB to Parliament.
Because her WAB was a disgrace and Boris has a far better one. The Tory rebels who blocked her were principled heroes in doing so.
No,they were completely wrong. They were people who thought that 52% was a sufficient basis for extreme forms of Brexit. It wasn't and isn't. We need to leave. Everything else should be up for grabs and a decision for a future consensus. By insisting on their extreme version they have deeply divided our country. It was shameful, partisan and very likely self defeating.
Having consent over the laws that affect you is not "extreme" it is democracy. The backstop was inexcusable, we were told under May it was necessary and there was no alternative, under Boris it is gone and good riddance!
That May was prepared to throw the UK under the bus and have a backstop we [or NI] never consented to and could never get out of in the future was a disgrace. No ifs, no buts, it was unforgiveable disgrace.
Democratic consent over your laws is never extreme it is a fundamental human right!
And now that Boris has shown the backstop was never necessary we shouldn't even need to be arguing over it anymore either. It was undemocratic and unnecessary - it has nothing to do with Brexit, I for one am very grateful MPs stood up for democracy.
I get why you like this deal better than May's. Do you get why this deal is less attractive to remainers than May's was and less likely to achieve a consensus?
You're not even equal to the North West of England, let alone England!
Oooh, he's got his English nationalist hat on today!
Its always on. When do you take your Scottish Nationalist hat off?
I have never seen TUD claim that Scotland was 'better' than any other part of the UK simply because of numbers. (Or for any other reason for that matter though I am sure he would rather live in Scotland than England).
I thought you were one of those who believed that the same philosophical arguments for Brexit also apply to Scottish Independence?
I am content that the Scots through the Scottish Parliament and the people of the West Midlands through the West Midlands Regional Assembly have the same equality of rights on the matter of Brexit.
Interesting comment from an EU diplomat that the EU have no desire for a leaders council meeting but said that the mood has really changed now with people just wanting it done. Apparently they were at first critical of Boris but now they are critical of the labour opposition for blocking it. Basically they see Boris as an ally and everyone wants the UK to leave as soon as possible
If true it provides a real insight into the why Macron, and it is believed Belgium, Luxembourg and Spain support him with the Dutch leaning towards a much shorter extension.
Who knows but it is clear the EU are divided and it is not a leave supporting media propaganda
Which is why BJ is waiting before making his next move. The EU will now frame the next stage of the game. Short technical delay = boris deal or no deal. Jan 31 flextension = try and get out for mid november. Flat jan 31 = election push. I fancy the first of those
Don’t forget revoke if parliament sees the new suggested deal is crap and don’t want to leave no deal then they can revoke.
Revoke is only possible if the Lib Dems win power
Parliament if faced with two equally disasterous options could revoke with a simple majority.
And revoke being the third disasterious option without a referendum or GE approval
Less disastrous than the other two. Gets it over and done with and able to move on to more important things. A collective sigh of relief and those still wishing to leave can get together and decide what leave means and when they have achieved that they can see if anyone is interested.
That will be a Remainer sigh of relief.
That noise you hear from the 17.4m robbed by you is no sigh....
What noise is that? The rattle of bath chairs? The gnashing of dentures? the swivelling of eyes? I think the young people that have had much more than a pathetic dodgy referendum result stolen from them have a bit more to make a noise about.
You're not even equal to the North West of England, let alone England!
Oooh, he's got his English nationalist hat on today!
Its always on. When do you take your Scottish Nationalist hat off?
Nationalism is a divisive poisonous creed which ever variety you make your excuses for.
It can be. But it's also the force that liberated large parts of the world from colonial imperialism. Nationalism is a tool, like a hammer. You can use it stave someone's head in, or you can use it to build something useful. It's the person wielding it that counts.
Going on about Leavers, empire nostalgia and a white empire isn't exactly dialling down on rhetoric.
It's a straightforward description of the motivation and nothing to do with rhetoric. Extraordinarily, it's never suggested to include, say, Singapore in this Canzuk vision. Or even that this club of countries could expand.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand are far away from us. Their economies are very different from our own, being resource economies. But they have an appeal to a certain type of batty Leaver. That appeal is pretty obvious.
To be honest Alastair my family has great affection for Canada, Australia and New Zealand and indeed our eldest son has Kiwi citizenship and now lives with his Canadian wife in Vancouver.
We have been privileged to visit all three of these countries several times but equally one of our favourite countries is Italy and we do not seek to create a divide of our affection between EU countries and Commonweath ones.
And we are not 'batty' leavers
It's a straightforward description of the motivation and nothing to do with rhetoric. Extraordinarily, it's never suggested to include, say, Singapore in this Canzuk vision. Or even that this club of countries could expand.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand are far away from us. Their economies are very different from our own, being resource economies. But they have an appeal to a certain type of batty Leaver. That appeal is pretty obvious.
To be honest Alastair my family has great affection for Canada, Australia and New Zealand and indeed our eldest son has Kiwi citizenship and now lives with his Canadian wife in Vancouver.
We have been privileged to visit all three of these countries several times but equally one of our favourite countries is Italy and we do not seek to create a divide of our affection between EU countries and Commonweath ones.
And we are not 'batty' leavers
It's one thing liking three countries. It's another thing entirely looking to build up an exclusive set of relationships with three countries based on outdated preconceptions (and junking a set of relationships that Britain already had with countries with which it has far closer real ties).
One of the real issues was the EU expansion. It brought in many nations where wage levels were much lower therefore increased movement and competition for jobs. Until then, there was actually little movement. This radically changed many people’s perception of FoM.
Interesting comment from an EU diplomat that the EU have no desire for a leaders council meeting but said that the mood has really changed now with people just wanting it done. Apparently they were at first critical of Boris but now they are critical of the labour opposition for blocking it. Basically they see Boris as an ally and everyone wants the UK to leave as soon as possible
If true it provides a real insight into the why Macron, and it is believed Belgium, Luxembourg and Spain support him with the Dutch leaning towards a much shorter extension.
Who knows but it is clear the EU are divided and it is not a leave supporting media propaganda
Which is why BJ is waiting before making his next move. The EU will now frame the next stage of the game. Short technical delay = boris deal or no deal. Jan 31 flextension = try and get out for mid november. Flat jan 31 = election push. I fancy the first of those
Don’t forget revoke if parliament sees the new suggested deal is crap and don’t want to leave no deal then they can revoke.
Revoke is only possible if the Lib Dems win power
Parliament if faced with two equally disasterous options could revoke with a simple majority.
And revoke being the third disasterious option without a referendum or GE approval
Less disastrous than the other two. Gets it over and done with and able to move on to more important things. A collective sigh of relief and those still wishing to leave can get together and decide what leave means and when they have achieved that they can see if anyone is interested.
That will be a Remainer sigh of relief.
That noise you hear from the 17.4m robbed by you is no sigh....
What noise is that? The rattle of bath chairs? The gnashing of dentures? the swivelling of eyes? I think the young people that have had much more than a pathetic dodgy referendum result stolen from them have a bit more to make a noise about.
Following the recent Farage Banks split an even more unexpected one has opened up between me and Owen Jones. OJ is up for the Dec election. Does not sound thrilled about the prospect but he argues that Labour should go for it. I disagree. I think Labour should bog Johnson down, frustrate the Deal, prevent an election, take this into 2020 and let time work its (black) magic on the Great Man's aura as he flaps around looking and sounding more and more like an impotent blowhard. That is what I think Labour should do and it's also what I expect they WILL do. Sorry, Owen, respect undimmed, but you have this wrong.
Most mentions of “empire” come from Remainers - usually with gratuitous insults they somehow believe reflect on their target rather than themselves...
Paradoxically many Remainers are more attached to the English empire on these islands than Brexiteers, who then get labelled English nationalists.
No, they just use the 'threat' to the Union as an excuse to block Brexit, pre Brexit most Remainers could not care less whether Scotlsnd voted for independence or Northern Ireland for a united Ireland given England would still be in the EU anyway.
Plus an Empire is not built on consent but military and police force, Scotland voted against independence in 2014 and most Northern Ireland MPs are DUP so it is a Union not an Empire
Actually I suspect if a poll were run on this we would find remainers were more pro-dissolution of the UK. However I have no proof of this so feel free to give me a kicking.
According to Ashcroft's polling both Labour and Con remainers would strongly prefer to sacrifice Brexit to keep Scotland & NI in the Union, Lab & Con leavers the other way round.
Interesting comment from an EU diplomat that the EU have no desire for a leaders council meeting but said that the mood has really changed now with people just wanting it done. Apparently they were at first critical of Boris but now they are critical of the labour opposition for blocking it. Basically they see Boris as an ally and everyone wants the UK to leave as soon as possible
If true it provides a real insight into the why Macron, and it is believed Belgium, Luxembourg and Spain support him with the Dutch leaning towards a much shorter extension.
Who knows but it is clear the EU are divided and it is not a leave supporting media propaganda
Which is why BJ is waiting before making his next move. The EU will now frame the next stage of the game. Short technical delay = boris deal or no deal. Jan 31 flextension = try and get out for mid november. Flat jan 31 = election push. I fancy the first of those
Don’t forget revoke if parliament sees the new suggested deal is crap and don’t want to leave no deal then they can revoke.
Revoke is only possible if the Lib Dems win power
Parliament if faced with two equally disasterous options could revoke with a simple majority.
And revoke being the third disasterious option without a referendum or GE approval
Less disastrous than the other two. Gets it over and done with and able to move on to more important things. A collective sigh of relief and those still wishing to leave can get together and decide what leave means and when they have achieved that they can see if anyone is interested.
That will be a Remainer sigh of relief.
That noise you hear from the 17.4m robbed by you is no sigh....
What noise is that? The rattle of bath chairs? The gnashing of dentures? the swivelling of eyes? I think the young people that have had much more than a pathetic dodgy referendum result stolen from them have a bit more to make a noise about.
Nigel I'm young and I don't think 'old fogies' like yourself should be patronising my fellow young people on an internet forum telling us what we do and don't want. Most of us are perfectly capable of understanding how a democratic referendum works and don't throw our toys out the pram when things don't go our way.
It's a shame people like yourself view all young people as being so entitled that we're all neurotic lunatics who think the bogeyman stole our futures.
Mr Dancer, this is a critical aspect for those who are prescribing a General Election to solve the issue. The problem is that a General Election, regardless of why it is ostensibly called, is about everything.
As we found out in 2017. When Theresa May called a Brexit General Election. To give her the majority to sort out her vision of Brexit. Oh, and impose the so-called "dementia tax", but that's by-the-by. And take away free school dinners. And change the tax system. And scrap the pensions triple lock. And stuff about NHS funding. And means-test pensioner benefits. And change regulation levels. And minimum wage stuff, and grammar schools, and fox-hunting, and change the electoral system for the London Assembly (seriously?).
Meanwhile, Labour presented their Brexit vision. And it was about that. Oh, and nationalising the railways. And nationalising the utilities. And student loans (but there was some confusion over existing loans). And increasing taxes on the rich. And corporation tax. And childcare. And fracking, and zero-hours contracts, and rail electrification and Strategic Defence Review, and, and, and...
Shockingly, the vast majority of people voted on something other than Brexit (YouGov, after the election, found that only 21% of the Tory voters (so 8.9% of voters) cited Brexit as a key part of their voting choice; the Labour voters didn't have any statistically significant number saying the same).
So, in order to resolve Brexit, we should do a vote on everything other than Brexit?
The cynic in me says that (supporters of) parties that believe they would get a benefit from a General Election right now will come up with a rationale why it's essential. While those in the opposite boat will come up with a reason why we shouldn't. (As it happens, my party looks like it would benefit from a GE right now, but don't tell them I said all this...)
If we look solely at going for a public vote to resolve Brexit, then the simple mind that is me would say to have a public vote on Brexit. Rather than one on everything else. And if we have one, make it post-legislative/confirmatory/non-rerunnable.
(The argument of rights or wrongs about shoulds and shouldn'ts is beside this stance, but the argument for an election necessarily goes into this - and if it is wrong to have a vote on Brexit, it is wrong to have a GE vote that's sold as being on Brexit, anyway)
This is obviously right and no way will the next election be just about Brexit. But the current House of Commons is not fit for purpose. It cannot choose a path forward in one direction or another. We need to try again.
May never came as close as Boris has to getting a deal through Parliament.
That’s because the Tory party prevented her from bringing her WAB to Parliament.
Because her WAB was a disgrace and Boris has a far better one. The Tory rebels who blocked her were principled heroes in doing so.
No,they were completely wrong. They were people who thought that 52% was a sufficient basis for extreme forms of Brexit. It wasn't and isn't. We need to leave. Everything else should be up for grabs and a decision for a future consensus. By insisting on their extreme version they have deeply divided our country. It was shameful, partisan and very likely self defeating.
Having consent over the laws that affect you is not "extreme" it is democracy. The backstop was inexcusable, we were told under May it was necessary and there was no alternative, under Boris it is gone and good riddance!
That May was prepared to throw the UK under the bus and have a backstop we [or NI] never consented to and could never get out of in the future was a disgrace. No ifs, no buts, it was unforgiveable disgrace.
Democratic consent over your laws is never extreme it is a fundamental human right!
And now that Boris has shown the backstop was never necessary we shouldn't even need to be arguing over it anymore either. It was undemocratic and unnecessary - it has nothing to do with Brexit, I for one am very grateful MPs stood up for democracy.
I get why you like this deal better than May's. Do you get why this deal is less attractive to remainers than May's was and less likely to achieve a consensus?
The problem, though, was that most of the Remainers sit in the Opposition benches, and weren't going to vote for *any* Tory Brexit. So, in real terms, no, it's not actually less likely to achieve consensus; that is, to use a favourite Remainer term, a "unicorn".
Following the recent Farage Banks split an even more unexpected one has opened up between me and Owen Jones. OJ is up for the Dec election. Does not sound thrilled about the prospect but he argues that Labour should go for it. I disagree. I think Labour should bog Johnson down, frustrate the Deal, prevent an election, take this into 2020 and let time work its (black) magic on the Great Man's aura as he flaps around looking and sounding more and more like an impotent blowhard. That is what I think Labour should do and it's also what I expect they WILL do. Sorry, Owen, respect undimmed, but you have this wrong.
That is disappointing to hear. If bona fide members of the northern workong class turned metropolitan elite start to fall out with each other surely that is the end of days.
Going on about Leavers, empire nostalgia and a white empire isn't exactly dialling down on rhetoric.
It's a straightforward description of the motivation and nothing to do with rhetoric. Extraordinarily, it's never suggested to include, say, Singapore in this Canzuk vision. Or even that this club of countries could expand.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand are far away from us. Their economies are very different from our own, being resource economies. But they have an appeal to a certain type of batty Leaver. That appeal is pretty obvious.
To be honest Alastair my family has great affection for Canada, Australia and New Zealand and indeed our eldest son has Kiwi citizenship and now lives with his Canadian wife in Vancouver.
We have been privileged to visit all three of these countries several times but equally one of our favourite countries is Italy and we do not seek to create a divide of our affection between EU countries and Commonweath ones.
And we are not 'batty' leavers
It's one thing liking three countries. It's another thing entirely looking to build up an exclusive set of relationships with three countries based on outdated preconceptions (and junking a set of relationships that Britain already had with countries with which it has far closer real ties).
May never came as close as Boris has to getting a deal through Parliament.
That’s because the Tory party prevented her from bringing her WAB to Parliament.
Because her WAB was a disgrace and Boris has a far better one. The Tory rebels who blocked her were principled heroes in doing so.
No,they were completely wrong. They were people who thought that 52% was a sufficient basis for extreme forms of Brexit. It wasn't and isn't. We need to leave. Everything else should be up for grabs and a decision for a future consensus. By insisting on their extreme version they have deeply divided our country. It was shameful, partisan and very likely self defeating.
Having consent over the laws that affect you is not "extreme" it is democracy. The backstop was inexcusable, we were told under May it was necessary and there was no alternative, under Boris it is gone and good riddance!
That May was prepared to throw the UK under the bus and have a backstop we [or NI] never consented to and could never get out of in the future was a disgrace. No ifs, no buts, it was unforgiveable disgrace.
Democratic consent over your laws is never extreme it is a fundamental human right!
And now that Boris has shown the backstop was never necessary we shouldn't even need to be arguing over it anymore either. It was undemocratic and unnecessary - it has nothing to do with Brexit, I for one am very grateful MPs stood up for democracy.
I get why you like this deal better than May's. Do you get why this deal is less attractive to remainers than May's was and less likely to achieve a consensus?
The problem, though, was that most of the Remainers sit in the Opposition benches, and weren't going to vote for *any* Tory Brexit. So, in real terms, no, it's not actually less likely to achieve consensus; that is, to use a favourite Remainer term, a "unicorn".
The remainers made an enormous mistake in voting down May's deal. As did the ERG of course. But going to harder versions of Brexit is really not the answer.
Going on about Leavers, empire nostalgia and a white empire isn't exactly dialling down on rhetoric.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand are far away from us. Their economies are very different from our own, being resource economies. But they have an appeal to a certain type of batty Leaver. That appeal is pretty obvious.
To be honest Alastair my family has great affection for Canada, Australia and New Zealand and indeed our eldest son has Kiwi citizenship and now lives with his Canadian wife in Vancouver.
We have been privileged to visit all three of these countries several times but equally one of our favourite countries is Italy and we do not seek to create a divide of our affection between EU countries and Commonweath ones.
And we are not 'batty' leavers
It's a straightforward description of the motivation and nothing to do with rhetoric. Extraordinarily, it's never suggested to include, say, Singapore in this Canzuk vision. Or even that this club of countries could expand.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand are far away from us. Their economies are very different from our own, being resource economies. But they have an appeal to a certain type of batty Leaver. That appeal is pretty obvious.
Commonweath ones.
And we are not 'batty' leavers
It's one thing liking three countries. It's another thing entirely looking to build up an exclusive set of relationships with three countries based on outdated preconceptions (and junking a set of relationships that Britain already had with countries with which it has far closer real ties).
One of the real issues was the EU expansion. It brought in many nations where wage levels were much lower therefore increased movement and competition for jobs. Until then, there was actually little movement. This radically changed many people’s perception of FoM.
My remarks below...... quote system seems to be malfunctioning.
I'm a Remainer, through and through, BUT I was, and am, very doubtful about the wisdom of admitting the membership countries with significantly different histories to the original Six. Bringing in other West and Central European countries, such as ourselves was OK, but the further and further the EU extended into East, and particular South-East, Europe the more the problems seemed to increase. It may be noteworthy that among those who argued strongly for such enlargement was one Margaret Thatcher.
Stephen Bush (would recommend pb'ers subscribe to his email for the pun titles alone): "Jeremy Corbyn's first preference was to go for an election after the Benn Act had passed. His hand was stayed by the lobbying of organised Remainers inside Labour and the fear of the electoral damage that might be inflicted by organised Remainers outside it if he went for it.
But the decision not to go for an election in September has plainly been a disaster for Remainers in general and Labour in particular"
Is that the case? If we end up having a GE, it does feel as though Boris is in a stronger position than previously, and the polls support that. But, the DUP are clearly offside now and have learnt not to trust Boris.
May never came as close as Boris has to getting a deal through Parliament.
That’s because the Tory party prevented her from bringing her WAB to Parliament.
Because her WAB was a disgrace and Boris has a far better one. The Tory rebels who blocked her were principled heroes in doing so.
No,they were completely wrong. They were people who thought that 52% was a sufficient basis for extreme forms of Brexit. It wasn't and isn't. We need to leave. Everything else should be up for grabs and a decision for a future consensus. By insisting on their extreme version they have deeply divided our country. It was shameful, partisan and very likely self defeating.
Having consent over the laws that affect you is not "extreme" it is democracy. The backstop was inexcusable, we were told under May it was necessary and there was no alternative, under Boris it is gone and good riddance!
That May was prepared to throw the UK under the bus and have a backstop we [or NI] never consented to and could never get out of in the future was a disgrace. No ifs, no buts, it was unforgiveable disgrace.
Democratic consent over your laws is never extreme it is a fundamental human right!
And now that Boris has shown the backstop was never necessary we shouldn't even need to be arguing over it anymore either. It was undemocratic and unnecessary - it has nothing to do with Brexit, I for one am very grateful MPs stood up for democracy.
I get why you like this deal better than May's. Do you get why this deal is less attractive to remainers than May's was and less likely to achieve a consensus?
The problem, though, was that most of the Remainers sit in the Opposition benches, and weren't going to vote for *any* Tory Brexit. So, in real terms, no, it's not actually less likely to achieve consensus; that is, to use a favourite Remainer term, a "unicorn".
The remainers made an enormous mistake in voting down May's deal. As did the ERG of course. But going to harder versions of Brexit is really not the answer.
Still not got to grips with this whole "party politics" thing I see, David. Remainers or Leavers why on earth should Labour MPs support the government. It's not in their job description to do so.
May never came as close as Boris has to getting a deal through Parliament.
That’s because the Tory party prevented her from bringing her WAB to Parliament.
Because her WAB was a disgrace and Boris has a far better one. The Tory rebels who blocked her were principled heroes in doing so.
No,they were completely wrong. They were people who thought that 52% was a sufficient basis for extreme forms of Brexit. It wasn't and isn't. We need to leave. Everything else should be up for grabs and a decision for a future consensus. By insisting on their extreme version they have deeply divided our country. It was shameful, partisan and very likely self defeating.
Having consent over the laws that affect you is not "extreme" it is democracy. The backstop was inexcusable, we were told under May it was necessary and there was no alternative, under Boris it is gone and good riddance!
That May was prepared to throw the UK under the bus and have a backstop we [or NI] never consented to and could never get out of in the future was a disgrace. No ifs, no buts, it was unforgiveable disgrace.
Democratic consent over your laws is never extreme it is a fundamental human right!
And now that Boris has shown the backstop was never necessary we shouldn't even need to be arguing over it anymore either. It was undemocratic and unnecessary - it has nothing to do with Brexit, I for one am very grateful MPs stood up for democracy.
I get why you like this deal better than May's. Do you get why this deal is less attractive to remainers than May's was and less likely to achieve a consensus?
The problem, though, was that most of the Remainers sit in the Opposition benches, and weren't going to vote for *any* Tory Brexit. So, in real terms, no, it's not actually less likely to achieve consensus; that is, to use a favourite Remainer term, a "unicorn".
The remainers made an enormous mistake in voting down May's deal. As did the ERG of course. But going to harder versions of Brexit is really not the answer.
Remainers don't want Brexit. You think their goals would have been helped by delivering the very thing they're opposed to?
Stephen Bush (would recommend pb'ers subscribe to his email for the pun titles alone): "Jeremy Corbyn's first preference was to go for an election after the Benn Act had passed. His hand was stayed by the lobbying of organised Remainers inside Labour and the fear of the electoral damage that might be inflicted by organised Remainers outside it if he went for it.
But the decision not to go for an election in September has plainly been a disaster for Remainers in general and Labour in particular"
Is that the case? If we end up having a GE, it does feel as though Boris is in a stronger position than previously, and the polls support that. But, the DUP are clearly offside now and have learnt not to trust Boris.
The disaster for Labour in particular is Jeremy Corbyn.
May never came as close as Boris has to getting a deal through Parliament.
That’s because the Tory party prevented her from bringing her WAB to Parliament.
Because her WAB was a disgrace and Boris has a far better one. The Tory rebels who blocked her were principled heroes in doing so.
No,they were completely wrong. They were people who thought that 52% was a sufficient basis for extreme forms of Brexit. It wasn't and isn't. We need to leave. Everything else should be up for grabs and a decision for a future consensus. By insisting on their extreme version they have deeply divided our country. It was shameful, partisan and very likely self defeating.
Having consent over the laws that affect you is not "extreme" it is democracy. The backstop was inexcusable, we were told under May it was necessary and there was no alternative, under Boris it is gone and good riddance!
That May was prepared to throw the UK under the bus and have a backstop we [or NI] never consented to and could never get out of in the future was a disgrace. No ifs, no buts, it was unforgiveable disgrace.
Democratic consent over your laws is never extreme it is a fundamental human right!
And now that Boris has shown the backstop was never necessary we shouldn't even need to be arguing over it anymore either. It was undemocratic and unnecessary - it has nothing to do with Brexit, I for one am very grateful MPs stood up for democracy.
I get why you like this deal better than May's. Do you get why this deal is less attractive to remainers than May's was and less likely to achieve a consensus?
The problem, though, was that most of the Remainers sit in the Opposition benches, and weren't going to vote for *any* Tory Brexit. So, in real terms, no, it's not actually less likely to achieve consensus; that is, to use a favourite Remainer term, a "unicorn".
The remainers made an enormous mistake in voting down May's deal. As did the ERG of course. But going to harder versions of Brexit is really not the answer.
Remainers don't want Brexit. You think their goals would have been helped by delivering the very thing they're opposed to?
Many Brexiteers see it as the responsibility of Remainers to prevent them from having to take responsibility for their own project.
Stephen Bush (would recommend pb'ers subscribe to his email for the pun titles alone): "Jeremy Corbyn's first preference was to go for an election after the Benn Act had passed. His hand was stayed by the lobbying of organised Remainers inside Labour and the fear of the electoral damage that might be inflicted by organised Remainers outside it if he went for it.
But the decision not to go for an election in September has plainly been a disaster for Remainers in general and Labour in particular"
Is that the case? If we end up having a GE, it does feel as though Boris is in a stronger position than previously, and the polls support that. But, the DUP are clearly offside now and have learnt not to trust Boris.
The disaster for Labour in particular is Jeremy Corbyn.
May never came as close as Boris has to getting a deal through Parliament.
That’s because the Tory party prevented her from bringing her WAB to Parliament.
Because her WAB was a disgrace and Boris has a far better one. The Tory rebels who blocked her were principled heroes in doing so.
No,they were complely self defeating.
Having consent over the laws that affect you is not "extreme" it is democracy. The backstop was inexcusable, we were told under May it was necessary and there was no alternative, under Boris it is gone and good riddance!
That May was prepared to throw the UK under the bus and have a backstop we [or NI] never consented to and could never get out of in the future was a disgrace. No ifs, no buts, it was unforgiveable disgrace.
Democratic consent over your laws is never extreme it is a fundamental human right!
And now that Boris has shown the backstop was never necessary we shouldn't even need to be arguing over it anymore either. It was undemocratic and unnecessary - it has nothing to do with Brexit, I for one am very grateful MPs stood up for democracy.
I get why you like this deal better than May's. Do you get why this deal is less attractive to remainers than May's was and less likely to achieve a consensus?
The problem, though, was that most of the Remainers sit in the Opposition benches, and weren't going to vote for *any* Tory Brexit. So, in real terms, no, it's not actually less likely to achieve consensus; that is, to use a favourite Remainer term, a "unicorn".
The remainers made an enormous mistake in voting down May's deal. As did the ERG of course. But going to harder versions of Brexit is really not the answer.
Remainers don't want Brexit. You think their goals would have been helped by delivering the very thing they're opposed to?
Many Brexiteers see it as the responsibility of Remainers to prevent them from having to take responsibility for their own project.
James Cleverly told us this morning that if only it wasn't for the pesky opposition the government would have achieved all its aims with time to spare.
May never came as close as Boris has to getting a deal through Parliament.
That’s because the Tory party prevented her from bringing her WAB to Parliament.
Because her WAB was a disgrace and Boris has a far better one. The Tory rebels who blocked her were principled heroes in doing so.
No,they were completely wrong. They were people who thought that 52% was a sufficient basis for extreme forms of Brexit. It wasn't and isn't. We need to leave. Everything else should be up for grabs and a decision for a future consensus. By insisting on their extreme version they have deeply divided our country. It was shameful, partisan and very likely self defeating.
Having consent over the laws that affect you is not "extreme" it is democracy. The backstop was inexcusable, we were told under May it was necessary and there was no alternative, under Boris it is gone and good riddance!
That May was prepared to throw the UK under the bus and have a backstop we [or NI] never consented to and could never get out of in the future was a disgrace. No ifs, no buts, it was unforgiveable disgrace.
Democratic consent over your laws is never extreme it is a fundamental human right!
And now that Boris has shown the backstop was never necessary we shouldn't even need to be arguing over it anymore either. It was undemocratic and unnecessary - it has nothing to do with Brexit, I for one am very grateful MPs stood up for democracy.
I get why you like this deal better than May's. Do you get why this deal is less attractive to remainers than May's was and less likely to achieve a consensus?
Yes of course. But one is democratic and can be changed democratically, the other is not.
But the difference between this deal and the backstop is that if opponents of this deal win a future election they can change it. They can seek to rejoin, get a closer deal, further alignment.
As the Attorney General made clear even if opponents of the backstop won future elections they could not legally change it, there was no way out and no reason for the EU to let us out.
If in the future Rejoiners win an election and take us back in so be it that is democracy. If in the even further future Leavers win and take us back out so be it that is democracy. My hardline is not whether we are in or out, close or far, aligned or independent - it is whether we have democratic control. As members we do, in Boris's deal we do, in the backstop we did not and that is never OK under any circumstances.
Had not heard of Ditchley before, but what is interesting about them? Apart from they would make a suitable cabinet for a cross party remain govt.
One of Ditchley's claims to fame is that Churchill used it as an alternative country house because both Blenheim and Chequers were thought to be too easily targetted by the Luftwaffe. It's now a foundation about getting expertise (originally Brit and American) to talk to each other about common concerns. You can usually hazard a guess what the current Big Concern is by clocking the faces at the local (and IK Brunel original) station.
Their sessions are almost always closed and subject to Chatham House rules, but they do get A list politicos
The estate's also among my dogs' favourite walks. They get extra treats if they attack a politician we don't like.
Just had a Newsflash. The 39 poor souls found in the refrigerated lorry in Grays were, apparently Chinese nationals It's also reported that the container in question arrived in Zeebrugge at 2.49pm on Tuesday.
Had not heard of Ditchley before, but what is interesting about them? Apart from they would make a suitable cabinet for a cross party remain govt.
Have a good route around their website. Of course it can be completely innocent, bankers, Mandelson ex EU commissioners, the great and the good all getting together in by invitation only events. I mean, who can question the motives behind their purpose.
"Ditchley addresses current challenges and aims to shape the future. We do this by connecting people and ideas. This enables new thinking, new connections and new scope for action. Positioned at the crossroads of government, business and technology, we work to renew and redefine how liberal democracies can lead and engage in an evolving world."
Having consent over the laws that affect you is not "extreme" it is democracy. The backstop was inexcusable, we were told under May it was necessary and there was no alternative, under Boris it is gone and good riddance!
That May was prepared to throw the UK under the bus and have a backstop we [or NI] never consented to and could never get out of in the future was a disgrace. No ifs, no buts, it was unforgiveable disgrace.
Democratic consent over your laws is never extreme it is a fundamental human right!
And now that Boris has shown the backstop was never necessary we shouldn't even need to be arguing over it anymore either. It was undemocratic and unnecessary - it has nothing to do with Brexit, I for one am very grateful MPs stood up for democracy.
I get why you like this deal better than May's. Do you get why this deal is less attractive to remainers than May's was and less likely to achieve a consensus?
The problem, though, was that most of the Remainers sit in the Opposition benches, and weren't going to vote for *any* Tory Brexit. So, in real terms, no, it's not actually less likely to achieve consensus; that is, to use a favourite Remainer term, a "unicorn".
The remainers made an enormous mistake in voting down May's deal. As did the ERG of course. But going to harder versions of Brexit is really not the answer.
Still not got to grips with this whole "party politics" thing I see, David. Remainers or Leavers why on earth should Labour MPs support the government. It's not in their job description to do so.
At the risk of being naive, the national interest? Their manifesto promise when they were elected? Because things would get worse if they didn't?
The problem here was that May couldn't sell a cold pint of lager to a thirsty man on a hot summer's day. Her attempts to reach out were non existent until it was too late and then derisory. But even so.
Going on about Leavers, empire nostalgia and a white empire isn't exactly dialling down on rhetoric.
It's a straightforward description of the motivation and nothing to do with rhetoric. Extraordinarily, it's never suggested to include, say, Singapore in this Canzuk vision. Or even that this club of countries could expand.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand are far away from us. Their economies are very different from our own, being resource economies. But they have an appeal to a certain type of batty Leaver. That appeal is pretty obvious.
To be honest Alastair my family has great affection for Canada, Australia and New Zealand and indeed our eldest son has Kiwi citizenship and now lives with his Canadian wife in Vancouver.
We have been privileged to visit all three of these countries several times but equally one of our favourite countries is Italy and we do not seek to create a divide of our affection between EU countries and Commonweath ones.
And we are not 'batty' leavers
.
One of the real issues was the EU expansion. It brought in many nations where wage levels were much lower therefore increased movement and competition for jobs. Until then, there was actually little movement. This radically changed many people’s perception of FoM.
"I'm a Remainer, through and through, BUT I was, and am, very doubtful about the wisdom of admitting the membership countries with significantly different histories to the original Six. Bringing in other West and Central European countries, such as ourselves was OK, but the further and further the EU extended into East, and particular South-East, Europe the more the problems seemed to increase. It may be noteworthy that among those who argued strongly for such enlargement was one Margaret Thatcher."
-----
There should be formalised different tiers of EU membership that countries can move between with a couple of years notice, subject to meeting criteria for moving upwards, but anyone can move downwards.
It almost exists already with various opt outs, Schengen, Euro, EEA, EFTA, but having it formalised would allow those countries who want ever closer union and have similar economies to press ahead, whilst allowing space for other countries to have a more remote relationship with the EU if preferred.
Mr Dancer, this is a critical aspect for those who are prescribing a General Election to solve the issue. The problem is that a General Election, regardless of why it is ostensibly called, is about everything.
As we found out in 2017. When Theresa May called a Brexit General Election. To give her the majority to sort out her vision of Brexit. Oh, and impose the so-called "dementia tax", but that's by-the-by. And take away free school dinners. And change the tax system. And scrap the pensions triple lock. And stuff about NHS funding. And means-test pensioner benefits. And change regulation levels. And minimum wage stuff, and grammar schools, and fox-hunting, and change the electoral system for the London Assembly (seriously?).
Meanwhile, Labour presented their Brexit vision. And it was about that. Oh, and nationalising the railways. And nationalising the utilities. And student loans (but there was some confusion over existing loans). And increasing taxes on the rich. And corporation tax. And childcare. And fracking, and zero-hours contracts, and rail electrification and Strategic Defence Review, and, and, and...
Shockingly, the vast majority of people voted on something other than Brexit (YouGov, after the election, found that only 21% of the Tory voters (so 8.9% of voters) cited Brexit as a key part of their voting choice; the Labour voters didn't have any statistically significant number saying the same).
So, in order to resolve Brexit, we should do a vote on everything other than Brexit?
The cynic in me says that (supporters of) parties that believe they would get a benefit from a General Election right now will come up with a rationale why it's essential. While those in the opposite boat will come up with a reason why we shouldn't. (As it happens, my party looks like it would benefit from a GE right now, but don't tell them I said all this...)
If we look solely at going for a public vote to resolve Brexit, then the simple mind that is me would say to have a public vote on Brexit. Rather than one on everything else. And if we have one, make it post-legislative/confirmatory/non-rerunnable.
(The argument of rights or wrongs about shoulds and shouldn'ts is beside this stance, but the argument for an election necessarily goes into this - and if it is wrong to have a vote on Brexit, it is wrong to have a GE vote that's sold as being on Brexit, anyway)
This is obviously right and no way will the next election be just about Brexit. But the current House of Commons is not fit for purpose. It cannot choose a path forward in one direction or another. We need to try again.
Unfortunately it will be just a rearrangement of deckchairs.
May never came as close as Boris has to getting a deal through Parliament.
That’s because the Tory party prevented her from bringing her WAB to Parliament.
Because her WAB was a disgrace and Boris has a far better one. The Tory rebels who blocked her were principled heroes in doing so.
No,they were completely wronefeating.
Having consent over the laws that affect you is not "extreme" it is democracy. The backstop was inexcusable, we were told under May it was necessary and there was no alternative, under Boris it is gone and good riddance!
That May was prepared to throw the UK under the bus and have a backstop we [or NI] never consented to and could never get out of in the future was a disgrace. No ifs, no buts, it was unforgiveable disgrace.
Democratic consent over your laws is never extreme it is a fundamental human right!
And now that Boris has shown the backstop was never necessary we shouldn't even need to be arguing over it anymore either. It was undemocratic and unnecessary - it has nothing to do with Brexit, I for one am very grateful MPs stood up for democracy.
I get why you like this deal better than May's. Do you get why this deal is less attractive to remainers than May's was and less likely to achieve a consensus?
Yes of course. But one is democratic and can be changed democratically, the other is not.
But the difference between this deal and the backstop is that if opponents of this deal win a future election they can change it. They can seek to rejoin, get a closer deal, further alignment.
As the Attorney General made clear even if opponents of the backstop won future elections they could not legally change it, there was no way out and no reason for the EU to let us out.
If in the future Rejoiners win an election and take us back in so be it that is democracy. If in the even further future Leavers win and take us back out so be it that is democracy. My hardline is not whether we are in or out, close or far, aligned or independent - it is whether we have democratic control. As members we do, in Boris's deal we do, in the backstop we did not and that is never OK under any circumstances.
You really lack so much confidence that we will be able to agree a trade deal with the EU?
This is obviously right and no way will the next election be just about Brexit. But the current House of Commons is not fit for purpose. It cannot choose a path forward in one direction or another. We need to try again.
Unfortunately it will be just a rearrangement of deckchairs.
That is a risk but we are running out of options here. And we would lose a lot of particularly annoying MPs. No guarantees about their replacements of course.
Still not got to grips with this whole "party politics" thing I see, David. Remainers or Leavers why on earth should Labour MPs support the government. It's not in their job description to do so.
At the risk of being naive, the national interest? Their manifesto promise when they were elected? Because things would get worse if they didn't?
This promise?
"We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union."
As it happens I’m in Belfast today. My cabbie was very exercised about the recent law change introducing gay marriage (very firmly in favour). It was the first thing he mentioned.
Most mentions of “empire” come from Remainers - usually with gratuitous insults they somehow believe reflect on their target rather than themselves...
Empire 2.0 and CANZUK are very much (very batty) Leaver ideas.
Empire 2.0 is. A closer relationship with Canada, Australia and New Zealand (including free movement of workers) is very much on the table.
It’s just a polite way for reactionary Leavers to try to revive the white empire (not noticing that these countries are now radically different from their memories and preconceptions).
That isn’t true and the countries concerned are less White than our European neighbours.
Further, UK knowledge of such countries is far more contemporary than you think. Not only do I have close relatives in all three but two big growth areas in my line of work, at present, are Toronto and Sydney.
Going on about Leavers, empire nostalgia and a white empire isn't exactly dialling down on rhetoric.
It's a straightforward description of the motivation and nothing to do with rhetoric. Extraordinarily, it's never suggested to include, say, Singapore in this Canzuk vision. Or even that this club of countries could expand.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand are far away from us. Their economies are very different from our own, being resource economies. But they have an appeal to a certain type of batty Leaver. That appeal is pretty obvious.
To be honest Alastair my family has great affection for Canada, Australia and New Zealand and indeed our eldest son has Kiwi citizenship and now lives with his Canadian wife in Vancouver.
We have been privileged to visit all three of these countries several times but equally one of our favourite countries is Italy and we do not seek to create a divide of our affection between EU countries and Commonweath ones.
And we are not 'batty' leavers
.
One of the real issues was the EU expansion. It brought in many nations where wage levels were much lower therefore increased movement and competition for jobs. Until then, there was actually little movement. This radically changed many people’s perception of FoM.
"I'm a Remainer, through and through, BUT I was, and am, very doubtful about the wisdom of admitting the membership countries with significantly different histories to the original Six. Bringing in other West and Central European countries, such as ourselves was OK, but the further and further the EU extended into East, and particular South-East, Europe the more the problems seemed to increase. It may be noteworthy that among those who argued strongly for such enlargement was one Margaret Thatcher."
-----
There should be formalised different tiers of EU membership that countries can move between with a couple of years notice, subject to meeting criteria for moving upwards, but anyone can move downwards.
It almost exists already with various opt outs, Schengen, Euro, EEA, EFTA, but having it formalised would allow those countries who want ever closer union and have similar economies to press ahead, whilst allowing space for other countries to have a more remote relationship with the EU if preferred.
Most mentions of “empire” come from Remainers - usually with gratuitous insults they somehow believe reflect on their target rather than themselves...
Empire 2.0 and CANZUK are very much (very batty) Leaver ideas.
Empire 2.0 is. A closer relationship with Canada, Australia and New Zealand (including free movement of workers) is very much on the table.
There’s nothing to stop us agreeing to reciprocal free movement with those countries while we’re in the EU.
In any case I find this position so needy and undignified. The implication is that we want those countries to have a closer relationship with us than they have with the rest of Europe, like a controlling parent that seeks validation from their children.
Most of the interest those countries had in a deal with the EU was because the UK was in it.
May never came as close as Boris has to getting a deal through Parliament.
That’s because the Tory party prevented her from bringing her WAB to Parliament.
Because her WAB was a disgrace and Boris has a far better one. The Tory rebels who blocked her were principled heroes in doing so.
No,they were completely wrong. They were people who thought that 52% was a sufficient basis for extreme forms of Brexit. It wasn't and isn't. We need to leave. Everything else should be up for grabs and a decision for a future consensus. By insisting on their extreme version they have deeply divided our country. It was shameful, partisan and very likely self defeating.
Having consent over the laws that affect you is not "extreme" it is democracy. The backstop was inexcusable, we were told under May it was necessary and there was no alternative, under Boris it is gone and good riddance!
That May was prepared to throw the UK under the bus and have a backstop we [or NI] never consented to and could never get out of in the future was a disgrace. No ifs, no buts, it was unforgiveable disgrace.
Democratic consent over your laws is never extreme it is a fundamental human right!
And now that Boris has shown the backstop was never necessary we shouldn't even need to be arguing over it anymore either. It was undemocratic and unnecessary - it has nothing to do with Brexit, I for one am very grateful MPs stood up for democracy.
I get why you like this deal better than May's. Do you get why this deal is less attractive to remainers than May's was and less likely to achieve a consensus?
And considerably less attractive to the majority in NI, while apparently still alienating the DUP. So not just 'remainers'.
As for "throwing the UK under a bus", how on earth is this deal any better in that respect ? I think Philip means throwing his own personal concerns under the bus, which is a slightly different thing.
You're not even equal to the North West of England, let alone England!
Oooh, he's got his English nationalist hat on today!
Its always on. When do you take your Scottish Nationalist hat off?
I have never seen TUD claim that Scotland was 'better' than any other part of the UK simply because of numbers. (Or for any other reason for that matter though I am sure he would rather live in Scotland than England).
I thought you were one of those who believed that the same philosophical arguments for Brexit also apply to Scottish Independence?
I never said that England is 'better' than Scotland, I said its not equal. I have never believed that inequality means one thing is better than another.
Manchester is not equal to London, Warrington is not equal to Edinburgh, England is not equal to the EU27, the UK is not equal to the Eurozone, cricket is not equal to football. Bigger does not mean better though. I never used the words better or worse, I just said not equal.
Scotland will never be equal to England within the UK Parliament for the same reason the UK would never be equal to the Eurozone in the European Parliament and yes I believe the same philosophical arguments apply to both. That it is not a pejorative.
I think independence will be good for Scotland for the same reason I think independence will be good for the UK and I think that if independence is denied then neither will ever be equal. They are unions of unequals and that is why I think the unions should end.
As it happens I’m in Belfast today. My cabbie was very exercised about the recent law change introducing gay marriage (very firmly in favour). It was the first thing he mentioned.
Can't help feeling (hoping) that the majority in NI will actually be grateful that these decisions (including abortion) have been made despite the tectonic plates of their politics making it so difficult.
Had not heard of Ditchley before, but what is interesting about them? Apart from they would make a suitable cabinet for a cross party remain govt.
Have a good route around their website. Of course it can be completely innocent, bankers, Mandelson ex EU commissioners, the great and the good all getting together in by invitation only events. I mean, who can question the motives behind their purpose.
"Ditchley addresses current challenges and aims to shape the future. We do this by connecting people and ideas. This enables new thinking, new connections and new scope for action. Positioned at the crossroads of government, business and technology, we work to renew and redefine how liberal democracies can lead and engage in an evolving world."
Well, given liberal democracies are clearly currently failing and under threat from Putin, the Chinese communist system, radical religions and Trumpism I am glad senior people are working together across party and with business and universities to try to find solutions.
As it happens I’m in Belfast today. My cabbie was very exercised about the recent law change introducing gay marriage (very firmly in favour). It was the first thing he mentioned.
Still not got to grips with this whole "party politics" thing I see, David. Remainers or Leavers why on earth should Labour MPs support the government. It's not in their job description to do so.
At the risk of being naive, the national interest? Their manifesto promise when they were elected? Because things would get worse if they didn't?
This promise?
"We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union."
Yes, because that is what May's UK wide backstop did. Which is why the ERG (and Philip) didn't like it of course.
You're not even equal to the North West of England, let alone England!
Oooh, he's got his English nationalist hat on today!
Its always on. When do you take your Scottish Nationalist hat off?
I have never seen TUD claim that Scotland was 'better' than any other part of the UK simply because of numbers. (Or for any other reason for that matter though I am sure he would rather live in Scotland than England).
I thought you were one of those who believed that the same philosophical arguments for Brexit also apply to Scottish Independence?
I never said that England is 'better' than Scotland, I said its not equal. I have never believed that inequality means one thing is better than another.
Manchester is not equal to London, Warrington is not equal to Edinburgh, England is not equal to the EU27, the UK is not equal to the Eurozone, cricket is not equal to football. Bigger does not mean better though. I never used the words better or worse, I just said not equal.
Scotland will never be equal to England within the UK Parliament for the same reason the UK would never be equal to the Eurozone in the European Parliament and yes I believe the same philosophical arguments apply to both. That it is not a pejorative.
I think independence will be good for Scotland for the same reason I think independence will be good for the UK and I think that if independence is denied then neither will ever be equal. They are unions of unequals and that is why I think the unions should end.
On that basis so should the USA end as Wyoming and Vermont will never be equal to California and Texas
Most mentions of “empire” come from Remainers - usually with gratuitous insults they somehow believe reflect on their target rather than themselves...
Empire 2.0 and CANZUK are very much (very batty) Leaver ideas.
Empire 2.0 is. A closer relationship with Canada, Australia and New Zealand (including free movement of workers) is very much on the table.
Is there a subtle difference between people and works that you hope you can then use to humiliate the person that accuses you of suggesting stopping one just to have another?
Still not got to grips with this whole "party politics" thing I see, David. Remainers or Leavers why on earth should Labour MPs support the government. It's not in their job description to do so.
At the risk of being naive, the national interest? Their manifesto promise when they were elected? Because things would get worse if they didn't?
This promise?
"We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union."
Yes, because that is what May's UK wide backstop did. Which is why the ERG (and Philip) didn't like it of course.
May's backstop was intended never to come into effect.
Having consent over the laws that affect you is not "extreme" it is democracy. The backstop was inexcusable, we were told under May it was necessary and there was no alternative, under Boris it is gone and good riddance!
That May was prepared to throw the UK under the bus and have a backstop we [or NI] never consented to and could never get out of in the future was a disgrace. No ifs, no buts, it was unforgiveable disgrace.
Democratic consent over your laws is never extreme it is a fundamental human right!
And now that Boris has shown the backstop was never necessary we shouldn't even need to be arguing over it anymore either. It was undemocratic and unnecessary - it has nothing to do with Brexit, I for one am very grateful MPs stood up for democracy.
I get why you like this deal better than May's. Do you get why this deal is less attractive to remainers than May's was and less likely to achieve a consensus?
The problem, though, was that most of the Remainers sit in the Opposition benches, and weren't going to vote for *any* Tory Brexit. So, in real terms, no, it's not actually less likely to achieve consensus; that is, to use a favourite Remainer term, a "unicorn".
The remainers made an enormous mistake in voting down May's deal. As did the ERG of course. But going to harder versions of Brexit is really not the answer.
Still not got to grips with this whole "party politics" thing I see, David. Remainers or Leavers why on earth should Labour MPs support the government. It's not in their job description to do so.
At the risk of being naive, the national interest? Their manifesto promise when they were elected? Because things would get worse if they didn't?
The problem here was that May couldn't sell a cold pint of lager to a thirsty man on a hot summer's day. Her attempts to reach out were non existent until it was too late and then derisory. But even so.
The national interest is best served by a Labour government* and hence they are entitled to do whatever it takes to bring one of those about. Supporting the Conservative Government does not fall into this category.
*just kidding obvs but there are people who believe this, including the vast majority of Labour MPs and most of their supporters.
As it happens I’m in Belfast today. My cabbie was very exercised about the recent law change introducing gay marriage (very firmly in favour). It was the first thing he mentioned.
Going on about Leavers, empire nostalgia and a white empire isn't exactly dialling down on rhetoric.
It's a straightforward description of the motivation and nothing to do with rhetoric. Extraordinarily, it's never suggested to include, say, Singapore in this Canzuk vision. Or even that this club of countries could expand.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand are far away from us. Their economies are very different from our own, being resource economies. But they have an appeal to a certain type of batty Leaver. That appeal is pretty obvious.
To be honest Alastair my family has great affection for Canada, Australia and New Zealand and indeed our eldest son has Kiwi citizenship and now lives with his Canadian wife in Vancouver.
We have been privileged to visit all three of these countries several times but equally one of our favourite countries is Italy and we do not seek to create a divide of our affection between EU countries and Commonweath ones.
And we are not 'batty' leavers
It's one thing liking three countries. It's another thing entirely looking to build up an exclusive set of relationships with three countries based on outdated preconceptions (and junking a set of relationships that Britain already had with countries with which it has far closer real ties).
I do not want to prefer one over the other
CANZUK advocates very much do.
On security and intelligence, sharing of embassies, some services, emigration from the UK, heritage and culture, and in many areas of foreign affairs we already do have closer ties with CANZUK than the UK.
In others, goods, agricultural products, market and labour regulations and immigration we have closer de jure ties with EU countries.
The remainers made an enormous mistake in voting down May's deal. As did the ERG of course. But going to harder versions of Brexit is really not the answer.
The ERG, like me, hated the backstop and for good reason. The backstop is now gone, a better deal has been negotiated. How does that make it "an enormous mistake".
If we had ratified May's dreadful deal we would be entrapped within the backstop, with Boris's deal we're not, a delay to avoid that is not an enormous mistake. If Boris had gone to Brussels, come back empty handed, said we have no choice afterall but to agree the backstop and gone for that then I can agree the ERG's efforts would have been futile but they're already not. They've already gotten a better result.
You're not even equal to the North West of England, let alone England!
Oooh, he's got his English nationalist hat on today!
Its always on. When do you take your Scottish Nationalist hat off?
I have never seen TUD claim that Scotland was 'better' than any other part of the UK simply because of numbers. (Or for any other reason for that matter though I am sure he would rather live in Scotland than England).
I thought you were one of those who believed that the same philosophical arguments for Brexit also apply to Scottish Independence?
I never said that England is 'better' than Scotland, I said its not equal. I have never believed that inequality means one thing is better than another.
Manchester is not equal to London, Warrington is not equal to Edinburgh, England is not equal to the EU27, the UK is not equal to the Eurozone, cricket is not equal to football. Bigger does not mean better though. I never used the words better or worse, I just said not equal.
Scotland will never be equal to England within the UK Parliament for the same reason the UK would never be equal to the Eurozone in the European Parliament and yes I believe the same philosophical arguments apply to both. That it is not a pejorative.
I think independence will be good for Scotland for the same reason I think independence will be good for the UK and I think that if independence is denied then neither will ever be equal. They are unions of unequals and that is why I think the unions should end.
But this is just incoherent rubbish.
On the basis of the Boris deal which you support, which effectively places NI outside of the UK, and encouraging Scottish independence, what is this UK for which "independence" is going to be so good ?
As it happens I’m in Belfast today. My cabbie was very exercised about the recent law change introducing gay marriage (very firmly in favour). It was the first thing he mentioned.
Comments
Given the location of “Brits abroad” very many more UK citizens will have relations in the “old commonwealth” than in the EU.
Personally of course I would prefer free movement everywhere but then I am in a tiny minority.
https://www.ditchley.com/people/governors
"Dear Mr President
The UK parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty’s government to seek an extension of the period provided under article 50(3) of the treaty on European Union, including as applied by article 106a of the Euratom treaty, currently due to expire at 11pm GMT on 31 October 2019, until 11pm GMT on 31 January 2020.
I am writing therefore to inform the European council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under article 50(3) of the treaty on European Union, including as applied by article 106a of the Euratom treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11pm GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the government proposes that the period should be terminated early.
Yours sincerely,
Prime minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"
Ceci n'est pas une lettre.
It was the end of the British Empire and the independence if India which saw us lose our superpower status, we are now a medium ranked power and would still be a medium ranked power even if the Union broke up.
Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014 and the UK voted to Leave the EU in 2016
When he left office he went home to live in the house his wife had inherited from her mother. He took no positions in any business and refused to make any commercial endorsements. He did it on a point of principle that the only reason anyone would want him was because he had been US President and that therefore accepting any of the positions offered would have been to cash in on his term as President.
He lived on his army pension and eventually the sales of his autobiography.
During his time in office he had passed laws to ensure adequate pensions for former office holders and public servants. But he had explicitly excluded his own position as President from these rights.
That May was prepared to throw the UK under the bus and have a backstop we [or NI] never consented to and could never get out of in the future was a disgrace. No ifs, no buts, it was unforgiveable disgrace.
Democratic consent over your laws is never extreme it is a fundamental human right!
And now that Boris has shown the backstop was never necessary we shouldn't even need to be arguing over it anymore either. It was undemocratic and unnecessary - it has nothing to do with Brexit, I for one am very grateful MPs stood up for democracy.
That noise you hear from the 17.4m robbed by you is no sigh....
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1187266474983002112
You're not even equal to the North West of England, let alone England!
Many EU nations have had it with the House Of Fools and I don't blame them personally.
As we found out in 2017. When Theresa May called a Brexit General Election. To give her the majority to sort out her vision of Brexit. Oh, and impose the so-called "dementia tax", but that's by-the-by. And take away free school dinners. And change the tax system. And scrap the pensions triple lock. And stuff about NHS funding. And means-test pensioner benefits. And change regulation levels. And minimum wage stuff, and grammar schools, and fox-hunting, and change the electoral system for the London Assembly (seriously?).
Meanwhile, Labour presented their Brexit vision. And it was about that. Oh, and nationalising the railways. And nationalising the utilities. And student loans (but there was some confusion over existing loans). And increasing taxes on the rich. And corporation tax. And childcare. And fracking, and zero-hours contracts, and rail electrification and Strategic Defence Review, and, and, and...
Shockingly, the vast majority of people voted on something other than Brexit (YouGov, after the election, found that only 21% of the Tory voters (so 8.9% of voters) cited Brexit as a key part of their voting choice; the Labour voters didn't have any statistically significant number saying the same).
So, in order to resolve Brexit, we should do a vote on everything other than Brexit?
The cynic in me says that (supporters of) parties that believe they would get a benefit from a General Election right now will come up with a rationale why it's essential. While those in the opposite boat will come up with a reason why we shouldn't. (As it happens, my party looks like it would benefit from a GE right now, but don't tell them I said all this...)
If we look solely at going for a public vote to resolve Brexit, then the simple mind that is me would say to have a public vote on Brexit. Rather than one on everything else. And if we have one, make it post-legislative/confirmatory/non-rerunnable.
(The argument of rights or wrongs about shoulds and shouldn'ts is beside this stance, but the argument for an election necessarily goes into this - and if it is wrong to have a vote on Brexit, it is wrong to have a GE vote that's sold as being on Brexit, anyway)
I thought you were one of those who believed that the same philosophical arguments for Brexit also apply to Scottish Independence?
Mind how you go in terms of keeping that hat on.
https://twitter.com/michael_society/status/1184453092982571008?s=20
Nationalism is a tool, like a hammer. You can use it stave someone's head in, or you can use it to build something useful. It's the person wielding it that counts.
We have been privileged to visit all three of these countries several times but equally one of our favourite countries is Italy and we do not seek to create a divide of our affection between EU countries and Commonweath ones.
And we are not 'batty' leavers
It's one thing liking three countries. It's another thing entirely looking to build up an exclusive set of relationships with three countries based on outdated preconceptions (and junking a set of relationships that Britain already had with countries with which it has far closer real ties).
One of the real issues was the EU expansion. It brought in many nations where wage levels were much lower therefore increased movement and competition for jobs. Until then, there was actually little movement. This radically changed many people’s perception of FoM.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/23/labour-election-brexit-boris-johnson-jeremy-corbyn
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2019/10/england-and-the-union/#more-16150
It's a shame people like yourself view all young people as being so entitled that we're all neurotic lunatics who think the bogeyman stole our futures.
One of the real issues was the EU expansion. It brought in many nations where wage levels were much lower therefore increased movement and competition for jobs. Until then, there was actually little movement. This radically changed many people’s perception of FoM.
My remarks below...... quote system seems to be malfunctioning.
I'm a Remainer, through and through, BUT I was, and am, very doubtful about the wisdom of admitting the membership countries with significantly different histories to the original Six. Bringing in other West and Central European countries, such as ourselves was OK, but the further and further the EU extended into East, and particular South-East, Europe the more the problems seemed to increase.
It may be noteworthy that among those who argued strongly for such enlargement was one Margaret Thatcher.
But the decision not to go for an election in September has plainly been a disaster for Remainers in general and Labour in particular"
Is that the case? If we end up having a GE, it does feel as though Boris is in a stronger position than previously, and the polls support that. But, the DUP are clearly offside now and have learnt not to trust Boris.
But the difference between this deal and the backstop is that if opponents of this deal win a future election they can change it. They can seek to rejoin, get a closer deal, further alignment.
As the Attorney General made clear even if opponents of the backstop won future elections they could not legally change it, there was no way out and no reason for the EU to let us out.
If in the future Rejoiners win an election and take us back in so be it that is democracy. If in the even further future Leavers win and take us back out so be it that is democracy. My hardline is not whether we are in or out, close or far, aligned or independent - it is whether we have democratic control. As members we do, in Boris's deal we do, in the backstop we did not and that is never OK under any circumstances.
Their sessions are almost always closed and subject to Chatham House rules, but they do get A list politicos
The estate's also among my dogs' favourite walks. They get extra treats if they attack a politician we don't like.
"Ditchley addresses current challenges and aims to shape the future. We do this by connecting people and ideas. This enables new thinking, new connections and new scope for action. Positioned at the crossroads of government, business and technology, we work to renew and redefine how liberal democracies can lead and engage in an evolving world."
The problem here was that May couldn't sell a cold pint of lager to a thirsty man on a hot summer's day. Her attempts to reach out were non existent until it was too late and then derisory. But even so.
It may be noteworthy that among those who argued strongly for such enlargement was one Margaret Thatcher."
-----
There should be formalised different tiers of EU membership that countries can move between with a couple of years notice, subject to meeting criteria for moving upwards, but anyone can move downwards.
It almost exists already with various opt outs, Schengen, Euro, EEA, EFTA, but having it formalised would allow those countries who want ever closer union and have similar economies to press ahead, whilst allowing space for other countries to have a more remote relationship with the EU if preferred.
https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1187309936147140608
"We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union."
Further, UK knowledge of such countries is far more contemporary than you think. Not only do I have close relatives in all three but two big growth areas in my line of work, at present, are Toronto and Sydney.
It may be noteworthy that among those who argued strongly for such enlargement was one Margaret Thatcher."
-----
There should be formalised different tiers of EU membership that countries can move between with a couple of years notice, subject to meeting criteria for moving upwards, but anyone can move downwards.
It almost exists already with various opt outs, Schengen, Euro, EEA, EFTA, but having it formalised would allow those countries who want ever closer union and have similar economies to press ahead, whilst allowing space for other countries to have a more remote relationship with the EU if preferred.
-------
Quite!
As for "throwing the UK under a bus", how on earth is this deal any better in that respect ?
I think Philip means throwing his own personal concerns under the bus, which is a slightly different thing.
Manchester is not equal to London, Warrington is not equal to Edinburgh, England is not equal to the EU27, the UK is not equal to the Eurozone, cricket is not equal to football. Bigger does not mean better though. I never used the words better or worse, I just said not equal.
Scotland will never be equal to England within the UK Parliament for the same reason the UK would never be equal to the Eurozone in the European Parliament and yes I believe the same philosophical arguments apply to both. That it is not a pejorative.
I think independence will be good for Scotland for the same reason I think independence will be good for the UK and I think that if independence is denied then neither will ever be equal. They are unions of unequals and that is why I think the unions should end.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-liberal-drugs-abortion-lgbt-gay-rights-brexit-death-penalty-violence-survey-a9167931.html
Parliament is something of a laggard in these matters.
https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1187312262807203840
*just kidding obvs but there are people who believe this, including the vast majority of Labour MPs and most of their supporters.
In others, goods, agricultural products, market and labour regulations and immigration we have closer de jure ties with EU countries.
It’s far more balanced than you make out.
If we had ratified May's dreadful deal we would be entrapped within the backstop, with Boris's deal we're not, a delay to avoid that is not an enormous mistake. If Boris had gone to Brussels, come back empty handed, said we have no choice afterall but to agree the backstop and gone for that then I can agree the ERG's efforts would have been futile but they're already not. They've already gotten a better result.
On the basis of the Boris deal which you support, which effectively places NI outside of the UK, and encouraging Scottish independence, what is this UK for which "independence" is going to be so good ?