Would you care to name any of these people? If there are 'a lot' it shouldn't be hard. I can't think of any.
The person who wrote that Express headline further up this thread, the people wanking over the prospect of the EU vaccine programme being a disaster, the people wanking over the prospect of Ireland being punished by a no deal brexit, the people applauding the micro dick British gunboats headlines, the people who are desperate for the EU to fail at everything. One of your 'top' Unionist tweeters, Effie Deans, and her creepy fanbois epitomise them.
If the whole EU edifice comes crashing down, it proves that Johnson and his chums were even more awesome than the fanbois have been telling us for all these years.
TBH I don't see anybody wanking over anything though it is very Express style. 45% of Italians saying they support Italexit in 5 years if ours is working is interesting, mind - assuming the poll is reliable.
I would say what I have thought for quite a few years - the EU needs to be reformed; imo it currently remains a pig in a poke.
It cuts both ways - here are a couple of (I assume) academics explaining the reasons (on 14 March 2020 - before even the first Lockdown) why Brexit means the UK will be forced to stand at the back of the queue behind the whole EU for a vaccine: "Brexit threatens UK’s ability to respond to a future pandemic." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/14/why-brexit-will-delay-uk-getting-vaccine-and-cost-more
They seem to have swallowed, or at least want to push, the idea that being outside the EU means some sort of end to international cooperation:The coronavirus should remind us of just why international cooperation is so important in reducing the threat of infectious disease. It doesn't, of course.
Yes - much better for me with veggies on the side to dilute the sweetness. Squash, varous flavourings, and a big hunk of olive oil toast. Though I would probably not put anything acidic with it.
Need to try "Soussed " Herring next, which I think is Dutch.
Very important if we are all going to need to eat an extra 5kg of Herring every year .
Personally, I think Labour should allow a free vote on it. The less-ERG-like Labour Brexiteers and assorted pragmatists can vote for the deal, thus nullifying any faint concern that the ERG can cause a bit more market-manipulating (perish the thought) chaos, while removing Boris's ability to say "well you voted for it" when problems arise later, if the shad cab abstain.
Labour have stood on the sidelines for 4 years swinging this way and that effectively letting different MPs play to different constituencies. Starmer correctly recognises that if the electorate are to take them seriously again people need to know what they stand for. Which means the leadership staking out clear positions, and the party following. Not forever having a conversation with itself or even worse trying to take 3 different positions on everything. Agree the deal doesn't meet the promises and expectations and the time of the referendum. Accept the logic nevertheless that the deal is better than no deal. And start to move forward setting out a united vision and direction for the future. It's time to move on.
Yes, I agree. Starmer has to become the Attlee to Johnson's Churchill. Instead of harking back to the past, he has define a positive vision of how to move the country forward that has more appeal than what Johnson is offering. Former Labour voters, who deserted the party over the last decade due to Brexit, can thank Johnson for winning the war, but stll decide that Starmer is better placed to win the peace.
Except Starmer is a policy vacuum, vision free. All we know is that despite being a strong Remainer, he backs Brexit out of political expediency. I don't think voters in the Purple Wall are stupid enough to fall for that. He either needs to enthuse them for Labour on some other issue, or find other seats that he can appeal to.
For all his manifest flaws, Corbyn managed to win over the Northern seats against the trend of the last decades, in 2017 if not 2019.
Did he? Wasn't the story of 2017 in many Northern seats one of Tory over-reach? Making significant gains, but not enough to breach the dam.
Labor gained 36 seats in 2017, 28 of them from the Tories, and most of them old coalfield seats.
For all his faults, and there are plenty of those, Corbyn got the juices flowing in a way that Starmer has not.
Conservative to Labour (28) Battersea Bedford Brighton Kemptown Bristol North West Bury North Canterbury Cardiff North Colne Valley Crewe and Nantwich Croydon Central Derby North Enfield Southgate Gower High Peak Ipswich Keighley Kensington Lincoln Peterborough Plymouth Sutton and Devonport Portsmouth South Reading East Stockton South Stroud Vale of Clwyd Warrington South Warwick and Leamington Weaver Vale
I think only Gower could be described as a 'coalfield' seat.
Altogether half of Labour's gains were in southern England.
These are the 6 Lab to Tory gains in 2017: Two are mining to my knowledge - Mansfield and Derbyshre North-East. Middlesbrough S & Cleveand E and Stoke on Trent S are post-industrial. Not sure about Copeland (Cumbria) and Walsall.
Copeland[n 13] Derbyshire North East Mansfield Middlesbrough South and Cleveland East Stoke-on-Trent South Walsall North
Here's something that should terrify Labour, regarding those 6 seats. If this trend continues to the next election for red Wall seats, their voting a Conservative MP in once let's the genie out the bottle. We can dub it the Mansfield Effect.
As between 2017 and 2019:
Copeland - Con majority increased by 4,150 Derbyshire North East - Con majority increased by 10,000 Mansfield - Con majority increased by 15,200 Middlesbrough South and Cleveland East - Con majority increased by 10,500 Stoke-on-Trent South - Con majority increased by 10,600 Walsall North - Con majority increased by 9,300
On any normal reading of politics, all bar Copeland are in the safe --> very safe Conservative seats.
Good morning everyone. Mr D, that's good. Strange Christmas Day but we had a long Zoom with much of our family and two long FaceTimes with others. One of those was with family in Thailand, where 18 were able to gather together and celebrate.
As a patriotic Brit, I hope it doesn't go wrong; as an observer of recent British politics, and especially Conservative ones I have very little confidence that it won't.
Personally, I think Labour should allow a free vote on it. The less-ERG-like Labour Brexiteers and assorted pragmatists can vote for the deal, thus nullifying any faint concern that the ERG can cause a bit more market-manipulating (perish the thought) chaos, while removing Boris's ability to say "well you voted for it" when problems arise later, if the shad cab abstain.
Labour have stood on the sidelines for 4 years swinging this way and that effectively letting different MPs play to different constituencies. Starmer correctly recognises that if the electorate are to take them seriously again people need to know what they stand for. Which means the leadership staking out clear positions, and the party following. Not forever having a conversation with itself or even worse trying to take 3 different positions on everything. Agree the deal doesn't meet the promises and expectations and the time of the referendum. Accept the logic nevertheless that the deal is better than no deal. And start to move forward setting out a united vision and direction for the future. It's time to move on.
Yes, I agree. Starmer has to become the Attlee to Johnson's Churchill. Instead of harking back to the past, he has define a positive vision of how to move the country forward that has more appeal than what Johnson is offering. Former Labour voters, who deserted the party over the last decade due to Brexit, can thank Johnson for winning the war, but stll decide that Starmer is better placed to win the peace.
Except Starmer is a policy vacuum, vision free. All we know is that despite being a strong Remainer, he backs Brexit out of political expediency. I don't think voters in the Purple Wall are stupid enough to fall for that. He either needs to enthuse them for Labour on some other issue, or find other seats that he can appeal to.
For all his manifest flaws, Corbyn managed to win over the Northern seats against the trend of the last decades, in 2017 if not 2019.
Did he? Wasn't the story of 2017 in many Northern seats one of Tory over-reach? Making significant gains, but not enough to breach the dam.
Labor gained 36 seats in 2017, 28 of them from the Tories, and most of them old coalfield seats.
For all his faults, and there are plenty of those, Corbyn got the juices flowing in a way that Starmer has not.
Conservative to Labour (28) Battersea Bedford Brighton Kemptown Bristol North West Bury North Canterbury Cardiff North Colne Valley Crewe and Nantwich Croydon Central Derby North Enfield Southgate Gower High Peak Ipswich Keighley Kensington Lincoln Peterborough Plymouth Sutton and Devonport Portsmouth South Reading East Stockton South Stroud Vale of Clwyd Warrington South Warwick and Leamington Weaver Vale
I think only Gower could be described as a 'coalfield' seat.
Altogether half of Labour's gains were in southern England.
These are the 6 Lab to Tory gains in 2017: Two are mining to my knowledge - Mansfield and Derbyshre North-East. Middlesbrough S & Cleveand E and Stoke on Trent S are post-industrial. Not sure about Copeland (Cumbria) and Walsall.
Copeland[n 13] Derbyshire North East Mansfield Middlesbrough South and Cleveland East Stoke-on-Trent South Walsall North
Thatchers children finishing the job off for her with a self centered me now electorate democratically electing MPs in their own mage, it’s taken thirty years but it’s almost all sewn up.
Personally, I think Labour should allow a free vote on it. The less-ERG-like Labour Brexiteers and assorted pragmatists can vote for the deal, thus nullifying any faint concern that the ERG can cause a bit more market-manipulating (perish the thought) chaos, while removing Boris's ability to say "well you voted for it" when problems arise later, if the shad cab abstain.
Labour have stood on the sidelines for 4 years swinging this way and that effectively letting different MPs play to different constituencies. Starmer correctly recognises that if the electorate are to take them seriously again people need to know what they stand for. Which means the leadership staking out clear positions, and the party following. Not forever having a conversation with itself or even worse trying to take 3 different positions on everything. Agree the deal doesn't meet the promises and expectations and the time of the referendum. Accept the logic nevertheless that the deal is better than no deal. And start to move forward setting out a united vision and direction for the future. It's time to move on.
Yes, I agree. Starmer has to become the Attlee to Johnson's Churchill. Instead of harking back to the past, he has define a positive vision of how to move the country forward that has more appeal than what Johnson is offering. Former Labour voters, who deserted the party over the last decade due to Brexit, can thank Johnson for winning the war, but stll decide that Starmer is better placed to win the peace.
Except Starmer is a policy vacuum, vision free. All we know is that despite being a strong Remainer, he backs Brexit out of political expediency. I don't think voters in the Purple Wall are stupid enough to fall for that. He either needs to enthuse them for Labour on some other issue, or find other seats that he can appeal to.
For all his manifest flaws, Corbyn managed to win over the Northern seats against the trend of the last decades, in 2017 if not 2019.
Did he? Wasn't the story of 2017 in many Northern seats one of Tory over-reach? Making significant gains, but not enough to breach the dam.
Labor gained 36 seats in 2017, 28 of them from the Tories, and most of them old coalfield seats.
For all his faults, and there are plenty of those, Corbyn got the juices flowing in a way that Starmer has not.
Conservative to Labour (28) Battersea Bedford Brighton Kemptown Bristol North West Bury North Canterbury Cardiff North Colne Valley Crewe and Nantwich Croydon Central Derby North Enfield Southgate Gower High Peak Ipswich Keighley Kensington Lincoln Peterborough Plymouth Sutton and Devonport Portsmouth South Reading East Stockton South Stroud Vale of Clwyd Warrington South Warwick and Leamington Weaver Vale
I think only Gower could be described as a 'coalfield' seat.
Altogether half of Labour's gains were in southern England.
These are the 6 Lab to Tory gains in 2017: Two are mining to my knowledge - Mansfield and Derbyshre North-East. Middlesbrough S & Cleveand E and Stoke on Trent S are post-industrial. Not sure about Copeland (Cumbria) and Walsall.
Copeland[n 13] Derbyshire North East Mansfield Middlesbrough South and Cleveland East Stoke-on-Trent South Walsall North
Thatchers children finishing the job off for her with a self centered me now electorate democratically electing MPs in their own mage, it’s taken thirty years but it’s almost all sewn up.
Those who were born after 2000 (indeed 1990) are much less self-centred though.
Personally, I think Labour should allow a free vote on it. The less-ERG-like Labour Brexiteers and assorted pragmatists can vote for the deal, thus nullifying any faint concern that the ERG can cause a bit more market-manipulating (perish the thought) chaos, while removing Boris's ability to say "well you voted for it" when problems arise later, if the shad cab abstain.
Labour have stood on the sidelines for 4 years swinging this way and that effectively letting different MPs play to different constituencies. Starmer correctly recognises that if the electorate are to take them seriously again people need to know what they stand for. Which means the leadership staking out clear positions, and the party following. Not forever having a conversation with itself or even worse trying to take 3 different positions on everything. Agree the deal doesn't meet the promises and expectations and the time of the referendum. Accept the logic nevertheless that the deal is better than no deal. And start to move forward setting out a united vision and direction for the future. It's time to move on.
Yes, I agree. Starmer has to become the Attlee to Johnson's Churchill. Instead of harking back to the past, he has define a positive vision of how to move the country forward that has more appeal than what Johnson is offering. Former Labour voters, who deserted the party over the last decade due to Brexit, can thank Johnson for winning the war, but stll decide that Starmer is better placed to win the peace.
Except Starmer is a policy vacuum, vision free. All we know is that despite being a strong Remainer, he backs Brexit out of political expediency. I don't think voters in the Purple Wall are stupid enough to fall for that. He either needs to enthuse them for Labour on some other issue, or find other seats that he can appeal to.
For all his manifest flaws, Corbyn managed to win over the Northern seats against the trend of the last decades, in 2017 if not 2019.
Did he? Wasn't the story of 2017 in many Northern seats one of Tory over-reach? Making significant gains, but not enough to breach the dam.
Labor gained 36 seats in 2017, 28 of them from the Tories, and most of them old coalfield seats.
For all his faults, and there are plenty of those, Corbyn got the juices flowing in a way that Starmer has not.
Conservative to Labour (28) Battersea Bedford Brighton Kemptown Bristol North West Bury North Canterbury Cardiff North Colne Valley Crewe and Nantwich Croydon Central Derby North Enfield Southgate Gower High Peak Ipswich Keighley Kensington Lincoln Peterborough Plymouth Sutton and Devonport Portsmouth South Reading East Stockton South Stroud Vale of Clwyd Warrington South Warwick and Leamington Weaver Vale
I think only Gower could be described as a 'coalfield' seat.
Altogether half of Labour's gains were in southern England.
These are the 6 Lab to Tory gains in 2017: Two are mining to my knowledge - Mansfield and Derbyshre North-East. Middlesbrough S & Cleveand E and Stoke on Trent S are post-industrial. Not sure about Copeland (Cumbria) and Walsall.
Copeland[n 13] Derbyshire North East Mansfield Middlesbrough South and Cleveland East Stoke-on-Trent South Walsall North
Here's something that should terrify Labour, regarding those 6 seats. If this trend continues to the next election for red Wall seats, their voting a Conservative MP in once let's the genie out the bottle. We can dub it the Mansfield Effect.
As between 2017 and 2019:
Copeland - Con majority increased by 4,150 Derbyshire North East - Con majority increased by 10,000 Mansfield - Con majority increased by 15,200 Middlesbrough South and Cleveland East - Con majority increased by 10,500 Stoke-on-Trent South - Con majority increased by 10,600 Walsall North - Con majority increased by 9,300
On any normal reading of politics, all bar Copeland are in the safe --> very safe Conservative seats.
I am not disputing that 2019 was a disaster for Labour in these seats, just pointing out that 2017 was against the trend of recent decades. Pidcock got 5.8% increase in vote share in NW Durham in 2017, for a total of 52.8% of the vote for example. That was a better vote share than either the 1983 or 87 elections, the latter in the aftermath of the Miners strike.
Clearly Corbyns Labour was popular in 2017 in a way it was not in 2019. Obviously Brexit was a large share of the difference, but the enthusiasm for redistribution and focus on the young was a factor in 2017 too.
If Starmer wants to win, he needs to consider what went down well in 2017, alongside what went down badly in 2019. We shall see how much levelling up happens under BoZo. My money is on sweet FA, but enhanced culture war bollocks instead.
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone - with about 15 million and probably much more of mixed descent - and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it and employ and be employed anywhere.
Personally, I think Labour should allow a free vote on it. The less-ERG-like Labour Brexiteers and assorted pragmatists can vote for the deal, thus nullifying any faint concern that the ERG can cause a bit more market-manipulating (perish the thought) chaos, while removing Boris's ability to say "well you voted for it" when problems arise later, if the shad cab abstain.
Labour have stood on the sidelines for 4 years swinging this way and that effectively letting different MPs play to different constituencies. Starmer correctly recognises that if the electorate are to take them seriously again people need to know what they stand for. Which means the leadership staking out clear positions, and the party following. Not forever having a conversation with itself or even worse trying to take 3 different positions on everything. Agree the deal doesn't meet the promises and expectations and the time of the referendum. Accept the logic nevertheless that the deal is better than no deal. And start to move forward setting out a united vision and direction for the future. It's time to move on.
Yes, I agree. Starmer has to become the Attlee to Johnson's Churchill. Instead of harking back to the past, he has define a positive vision of how to move the country forward that has more appeal than what Johnson is offering. Former Labour voters, who deserted the party over the last decade due to Brexit, can thank Johnson for winning the war, but stll decide that Starmer is better placed to win the peace.
Except Starmer is a policy vacuum, vision free. All we know is that despite being a strong Remainer, he backs Brexit out of political expediency. I don't think voters in the Purple Wall are stupid enough to fall for that. He either needs to enthuse them for Labour on some other issue, or find other seats that he can appeal to.
For all his manifest flaws, Corbyn managed to win over the Northern seats against the trend of the last decades, in 2017 if not 2019.
Did he? Wasn't the story of 2017 in many Northern seats one of Tory over-reach? Making significant gains, but not enough to breach the dam.
Labor gained 36 seats in 2017, 28 of them from the Tories, and most of them old coalfield seats.
For all his faults, and there are plenty of those, Corbyn got the juices flowing in a way that Starmer has not.
Conservative to Labour (28) Battersea Bedford Brighton Kemptown Bristol North West Bury North Canterbury Cardiff North Colne Valley Crewe and Nantwich Croydon Central Derby North Enfield Southgate Gower High Peak Ipswich Keighley Kensington Lincoln Peterborough Plymouth Sutton and Devonport Portsmouth South Reading East Stockton South Stroud Vale of Clwyd Warrington South Warwick and Leamington Weaver Vale
I think only Gower could be described as a 'coalfield' seat.
Altogether half of Labour's gains were in southern England.
These are the 6 Lab to Tory gains in 2017: Two are mining to my knowledge - Mansfield and Derbyshre North-East. Middlesbrough S & Cleveand E and Stoke on Trent S are post-industrial. Not sure about Copeland (Cumbria) and Walsall.
Copeland[n 13] Derbyshire North East Mansfield Middlesbrough South and Cleveland East Stoke-on-Trent South Walsall North
Thatchers children finishing the job off for her with a self centered me now electorate democratically electing MPs in their own mage, it’s taken thirty years but it’s almost all sewn up.
Those who were born after 2000 (indeed 1990) are much less self-centred though.
The other thing which gets missed is that having once voted Tory and found that your granddad doesn’t haunt you each night then the historical links to labour dissolve. Covid has not provided the focus for a national or international desire to work together for the common good, maybe climate change will. Although minor details I thought the failure to help the Lordy drivers in Dover and the boasting about who got what vaccine when as indicators of the caring sharing UK of the future, let’s hope I’m wrong.
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
The polling seems to indicate that, more than ever, age is what determines your political alliegance. The last YouGov was very stark - Labour had a very big lead among the under 50s, the Tories a huge one among the over-65s, with the 50-65 demographic evenly split. It would be interesting to map the seats where Tory majorities are growing against such demographics.
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
Yep - If you are a UK company that does business in the EU and you are looking to recruit, why would you not favour candidates with EU passports over those with UK ones if on other measures they are equally well-qualified? For Irish passport holders especially it’s fantastic news.
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
Yep - If you are a UK company that does business in the EU and you are looking to recruit, why would you not favour candidates with EU passports over those with UK ones if on other measures they are equally well-qualified? For Irish passport holders especially it’s fantastic news.
Presumably Scotland could get the same deal, at this point independence seems like a no-brainer for anyone pragmatic-minded.
The polling seems to indicate that, more than ever, age is what determines your political alliegance. The last YouGov was very stark - Labour had a very big lead among the under 50s, the Tories a huge one among the over-65s, with the 50-65 demographic evenly split. It would be interesting to map the seats where Tory majorities are growing against such demographics.
I did quite a bit of that when looking for constituency bets in the GE, as I did think that the age divide would increase further. It will be interesting to see if Starmer can get the youth vote out as well as Corbyn could. He will make gains with older voters, but will that be offset by losses elsewhere?. One possible extinction event for Labour is if the young shift to the Greens.
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
Is it possible to have a dual Irish Republic UK passport? If so a good opportunity for the Irish to make some money selling Irish citizenship. Who wouldn't give several thousand to remain part of the EU without having to upend yourself.
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
Yep - If you are a UK company that does business in the EU and you are looking to recruit, why would you not favour candidates with EU passports over those with UK ones if on other measures they are equally well-qualified? For Irish passport holders especially it’s fantastic news.
IANAL but it would be an illegal policy is the main pragmatic reason, so could only be done if individual managers tacitly bought into without it ever being discussed. Might happen at the margins and in small owner run businesses but not a big issue.
Mr. Above, lots of smaller businesses just don't recruit women who are of an age to have kids, because the generous maternity leave in this country can make it a difficult burden to bear. They don't ask. It just happens.
In that way, an Irish accent might prove an asset. Or someone might 'casually' mention it without being asked.
And good to see what’s been a wretched year end on a positive note . Although the full text hasn’t been released for the EU UK deal it does seem from snippets so far that compromises were made on both sides.
And good to see what’s been a wretched year end on a positive note . Although the full text hasn’t been released for the EU UK deal it does seem from snippets so far that compromises were made on both sides.
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
Yep - If you are a UK company that does business in the EU and you are looking to recruit, why would you not favour candidates with EU passports over those with UK ones if on other measures they are equally well-qualified? For Irish passport holders especially it’s fantastic news.
IANAL but it would be an illegal policy is the main pragmatic reason, so could only be done if individual managers tacitly bought into without it ever being discussed. Might happen at the margins and in small owner run businesses but not a big issue.
A lot will depend on how easy it is to get a EU visa* to go to a trade exhibition etc. If it is fairly nominal then may not be much of a bar, if difficult or expensive, then may be a genuine issue.
*actually a national competency, I think, so likely to vary amongst the EU27. Presumably reciprocity will apply, so if EU citizens get easy access to UK work visas, less hassle for our citizens too.
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
Yep - If you are a UK company that does business in the EU and you are looking to recruit, why would you not favour candidates with EU passports over those with UK ones if on other measures they are equally well-qualified? For Irish passport holders especially it’s fantastic news.
IANAL but it would be an illegal policy is the main pragmatic reason, so could only be done if individual managers tacitly bought into without it ever being discussed. Might happen at the margins and in small owner run businesses but not a big issue.
Why would it be illegal to require people to have full freedom to work in the single market?
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
Yep - If you are a UK company that does business in the EU and you are looking to recruit, why would you not favour candidates with EU passports over those with UK ones if on other measures they are equally well-qualified? For Irish passport holders especially it’s fantastic news.
IANAL but it would be an illegal policy is the main pragmatic reason, so could only be done if individual managers tacitly bought into without it ever being discussed. Might happen at the margins and in small owner run businesses but not a big issue.
Why would it be illegal to require people to have full freedom to work in the single market?
I think a case could be made for indirect discrimination under the Equalities Act, unless there was a genuine need for international commercial travelling.
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
We should conclude CANZUK. Personally I would rather have the right to live in those countries than in Europe.
Also, talking of residence rights, I note we have about a month before three million HongKongers can live there. I wonder how many will come?
Equality Act 2010. "Race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin" is a protected characteristic.
None of which apply.
My old boss was an American. Resident in the UK. With an Irish passport.
You couldn't exclude him on the basis of race, colour, Nationality or ethnic origin, but you could prefer him over any other candidate without an Irish passport
Personally, I think Labour should allow a free vote on it. The less-ERG-like Labour Brexiteers and assorted pragmatists can vote for the deal, thus nullifying any faint concern that the ERG can cause a bit more market-manipulating (perish the thought) chaos, while removing Boris's ability to say "well you voted for it" when problems arise later, if the shad cab abstain.
Labour have stood on the sidelines for 4 years swinging this way and that effectively letting different MPs play to different constituencies. Starmer correctly recognises that if the electorate are to take them seriously again people need to know what they stand for. Which means the leadership staking out clear positions, and the party following. Not forever having a conversation with itself or even worse trying to take 3 different positions on everything. Agree the deal doesn't meet the promises and expectations and the time of the referendum. Accept the logic nevertheless that the deal is better than no deal. And start to move forward setting out a united vision and direction for the future. It's time to move on.
Yes, I agree. Starmer has to become the Attlee to Johnson's Churchill. Instead of harking back to the past, he has define a positive vision of how to move the country forward that has more appeal than what Johnson is offering. Former Labour voters, who deserted the party over the last decade due to Brexit, can thank Johnson for winning the war, but stll decide that Starmer is better placed to win the peace.
Except Starmer is a policy vacuum, vision free. All we know is that despite being a strong Remainer, he backs Brexit out of political expediency. I don't think voters in the Purple Wall are stupid enough to fall for that. He either needs to enthuse them for Labour on some other issue, or find other seats that he can appeal to.
For all his manifest flaws, Corbyn managed to win over the Northern seats against the trend of the last decades, in 2017 if not 2019.
Did he? Wasn't the story of 2017 in many Northern seats one of Tory over-reach? Making significant gains, but not enough to breach the dam.
Labor gained 36 seats in 2017, 28 of them from the Tories, and most of them old coalfield seats.
For all his faults, and there are plenty of those, Corbyn got the juices flowing in a way that Starmer has not.
Conservative to Labour (28) Battersea Bedford Brighton Kemptown Bristol North West Bury North Canterbury Cardiff North Colne Valley Crewe and Nantwich Croydon Central Derby North Enfield Southgate Gower High Peak Ipswich Keighley Kensington Lincoln Peterborough Plymouth Sutton and Devonport Portsmouth South Reading East Stockton South Stroud Vale of Clwyd Warrington South Warwick and Leamington Weaver Vale
I think only Gower could be described as a 'coalfield' seat.
Altogether half of Labour's gains were in southern England.
These are the 6 Lab to Tory gains in 2017: Two are mining to my knowledge - Mansfield and Derbyshre North-East. Middlesbrough S & Cleveand E and Stoke on Trent S are post-industrial. Not sure about Copeland (Cumbria) and Walsall.
Copeland[n 13] Derbyshire North East Mansfield Middlesbrough South and Cleveland East Stoke-on-Trent South Walsall North
Thatchers children finishing the job off for her with a self centered me now electorate democratically electing MPs in their own mage, it’s taken thirty years but it’s almost all sewn up.
Blaming the voters and calling them names is not a good look.
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
We should conclude CANZUK. Personally I would rather have the right to live in those countries than in Europe.
Nothing was preventing us agreeing to free movement with Australia/NZ/Canada while we were in the EU.
Equality Act 2010. "Race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin" is a protected characteristic.
None of which apply.
My old boss was an American. Resident in the UK. With an Irish passport.
You couldn't exclude him on the basis of race, colour, Nationality or ethnic origin, but you could prefer him over any other candidate without an Irish passport
"prefer him over any other candidate" = discrimination against other candidates. There may be a loophole in that having a passport technically is not nationality, but I don't believe it would work.
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
We should conclude CANZUK. Personally I would rather have the right to live in those countries than in Europe.
Also, talking of residence rights, I note we have about a month before three million HongKongers can live there. I wonder how many will come?
A problem for the future is that the youngest generation tends to choose continental europe as a work preference as often as those countries, if I remember one of those recent surveys correctly. That will be one of the key cultural battlegrounds in the first years of exit to come, that will shape the long-term view and destiny of Brexit.
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
Yep - If you are a UK company that does business in the EU and you are looking to recruit, why would you not favour candidates with EU passports over those with UK ones if on other measures they are equally well-qualified? For Irish passport holders especially it’s fantastic news.
IANAL but it would be an illegal policy is the main pragmatic reason, so could only be done if individual managers tacitly bought into without it ever being discussed. Might happen at the margins and in small owner run businesses but not a big issue.
A lot will depend on how easy it is to get a EU visa* to go to a trade exhibition etc. If it is fairly nominal then may not be much of a bar, if difficult or expensive, then may be a genuine issue.
*actually a national competency, I think, so likely to vary amongst the EU27. Presumably reciprocity will apply, so if EU citizens get easy access to UK work visas, less hassle for our citizens too.
No need for a visa to attend or exhibit at an event. You may well need one if you are organising it, though. If you need your staff to be freely available to work in the UK and the single market, especially at short notice, you can now only guarantee it if they have an EU passport and UK residence or an Irish passport.
In my own field it is the lack of automatic recognition of professional qualifications that will tell. Both the GMC and NMC registration processes can take a year for recognition, compared to a few weeks for EU citizens. That stops next week. Many EU staff have come on short term contracts, at least initially, looking for a years experience before heading home. It is the nature of emigration that that year becomes a decade or two, or even a lifetime. Indeed that is how my grandparents came to Britain from Australia.
"prefer him over any other candidate" = discrimination against other candidates. There may be a loophole in that having a passport technically is not nationality, but I don't believe it would work.
His Nationality is American, and he is not preferred on that basis.
This whole discussion is about people who are not Irish Nationals, but can get Irish passports.
Personally, I think Labour should allow a free vote on it. The less-ERG-like Labour Brexiteers and assorted pragmatists can vote for the deal, thus nullifying any faint concern that the ERG can cause a bit more market-manipulating (perish the thought) chaos, while removing Boris's ability to say "well you voted for it" when problems arise later, if the shad cab abstain.
Labour have stood on the sidelines for 4 years swinging this way and that effectively letting different MPs play to different constituencies. Starmer correctly recognises that if the electorate are to take them seriously again people need to know what they stand for. Which means the leadership staking out clear positions, and the party following. Not forever having a conversation with itself or even worse trying to take 3 different positions on everything. Agree the deal doesn't meet the promises and expectations and the time of the referendum. Accept the logic nevertheless that the deal is better than no deal. And start to move forward setting out a united vision and direction for the future. It's time to move on.
Yes, I agree. Starmer has to become the Attlee to Johnson's Churchill. Instead of harking back to the past, he has define a positive vision of how to move the country forward that has more appeal than what Johnson is offering. Former Labour voters, who deserted the party over the last decade due to Brexit, can thank Johnson for winning the war, but stll decide that Starmer is better placed to win the peace.
Except Starmer is a policy vacuum, vision free. All we know is that despite being a strong Remainer, he backs Brexit out of political expediency. I don't think voters in the Purple Wall are stupid enough to fall for that. He either needs to enthuse them for Labour on some other issue, or find other seats that he can appeal to.
For all his manifest flaws, Corbyn managed to win over the Northern seats against the trend of the last decades, in 2017 if not 2019.
Did he? Wasn't the story of 2017 in many Northern seats one of Tory over-reach? Making significant gains, but not enough to breach the dam.
Labor gained 36 seats in 2017, 28 of them from the Tories, and most of them old coalfield seats.
For all his faults, and there are plenty of those, Corbyn got the juices flowing in a way that Starmer has not.
Conservative to Labour (28) Battersea Bedford Brighton Kemptown Bristol North West Bury North Canterbury Cardiff North Colne Valley Crewe and Nantwich Croydon Central Derby North Enfield Southgate Gower High Peak Ipswich Keighley Kensington Lincoln Peterborough Plymouth Sutton and Devonport Portsmouth South Reading East Stockton South Stroud Vale of Clwyd Warrington South Warwick and Leamington Weaver Vale
I think only Gower could be described as a 'coalfield' seat.
Altogether half of Labour's gains were in southern England.
These are the 6 Lab to Tory gains in 2017: Two are mining to my knowledge - Mansfield and Derbyshre North-East. Middlesbrough S & Cleveand E and Stoke on Trent S are post-industrial. Not sure about Copeland (Cumbria) and Walsall.
Copeland[n 13] Derbyshire North East Mansfield Middlesbrough South and Cleveland East Stoke-on-Trent South Walsall North
Thatchers children finishing the job off for her with a self centered me now electorate democratically electing MPs in their own mage, it’s taken thirty years but it’s almost all sewn up.
Those who were born after 2000 (indeed 1990) are much less self-centred though.
The other thing which gets missed is that having once voted Tory and found that your granddad doesn’t haunt you each night then the historical links to labour dissolve. Covid has not provided the focus for a national or international desire to work together for the common good, maybe climate change will. Although minor details I thought the failure to help the Lordy drivers in Dover and the boasting about who got what vaccine when as indicators of the caring sharing UK of the future, let’s hope I’m wrong.
You are wrong. Covid has seen massive levels of cooperation with relatively few examples in the opposite direction anywhere. No doubt you will condemn any examples from within the EU which hinted that the UK early authorising was due to a lack of rigour from the UK authorities.
No need for a visa to attend or exhibit at an event. You may well need one if you are organising it, though. If you need your staff to be freely available to work in the UK and the single market, especially at short notice, you can now only guarantee it if they have an EU passport and UK residence or an Irish passport.
It may be in another part of the document, but the list of exemptions posted earlier doesn't seem to cover musicians or other performers travelling
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
We should conclude CANZUK. Personally I would rather have the right to live in those countries than in Europe.
Nothing was preventing us agreeing to free movement with Australia/NZ/Canada while we were in the EU.
Never said it was. But now the latter isn't possible, concluding the former makes even more sense.
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
Yep - If you are a UK company that does business in the EU and you are looking to recruit, why would you not favour candidates with EU passports over those with UK ones if on other measures they are equally well-qualified? For Irish passport holders especially it’s fantastic news.
IANAL but it would be an illegal policy is the main pragmatic reason, so could only be done if individual managers tacitly bought into without it ever being discussed. Might happen at the margins and in small owner run businesses but not a big issue.
A lot will depend on how easy it is to get a EU visa* to go to a trade exhibition etc. If it is fairly nominal then may not be much of a bar, if difficult or expensive, then may be a genuine issue.
*actually a national competency, I think, so likely to vary amongst the EU27. Presumably reciprocity will apply, so if EU citizens get easy access to UK work visas, less hassle for our citizens too.
No need for a visa to attend or exhibit at an event. You may well need one if you are organising it, though. If you need your staff to be freely available to work in the UK and the single market, especially at short notice, you can now only guarantee it if they have an EU passport and UK residence or an Irish passport.
In the tweet at the beginning of this thread, section e) covers exhibiting at events. It does look as if a visa is required.
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
Yep - If you are a UK company that does business in the EU and you are looking to recruit, why would you not favour candidates with EU passports over those with UK ones if on other measures they are equally well-qualified? For Irish passport holders especially it’s fantastic news.
IANAL but it would be an illegal policy is the main pragmatic reason, so could only be done if individual managers tacitly bought into without it ever being discussed. Might happen at the margins and in small owner run businesses but not a big issue.
Why would it be illegal to require people to have full freedom to work in the single market?
I think a case could be made for indirect discrimination under the Equalities Act, unless there was a genuine need for international commercial travelling.
Yep - but in many services sectors there is, especially professions like the law, accountancy, architecture etc. Cumulatively, it just means fewer opportunities for Brits (especially younger ones with less experience to sell).
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
Yep - If you are a UK company that does business in the EU and you are looking to recruit, why would you not favour candidates with EU passports over those with UK ones if on other measures they are equally well-qualified? For Irish passport holders especially it’s fantastic news.
IANAL but it would be an illegal policy is the main pragmatic reason, so could only be done if individual managers tacitly bought into without it ever being discussed. Might happen at the margins and in small owner run businesses but not a big issue.
A lot will depend on how easy it is to get a EU visa* to go to a trade exhibition etc. If it is fairly nominal then may not be much of a bar, if difficult or expensive, then may be a genuine issue.
*actually a national competency, I think, so likely to vary amongst the EU27. Presumably reciprocity will apply, so if EU citizens get easy access to UK work visas, less hassle for our citizens too.
The Spanish press seem very happy with the deal as it will allow trade to continue. I think they will also be keen to encourage retirees, etc to come here and settle - especially in the coastal areas.
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
We should conclude CANZUK. Personally I would rather have the right to live in those countries than in Europe.
Also, talking of residence rights, I note we have about a month before three million HongKongers can live there. I wonder how many will come?
A lot apparently. Could save London* if they come with money.
"prefer him over any other candidate" = discrimination against other candidates. There may be a loophole in that having a passport technically is not nationality, but I don't believe it would work.
His Nationality is American, and he is not preferred on that basis.
This whole discussion is about people who are not Irish Nationals, but can get Irish passports.
Yes, there is an argument there. I would bet heavily against it succeeding in court.
No need for a visa to attend or exhibit at an event. You may well need one if you are organising it, though. If you need your staff to be freely available to work in the UK and the single market, especially at short notice, you can now only guarantee it if they have an EU passport and UK residence or an Irish passport.
It may be in another part of the document, but the list of exemptions posted earlier doesn't seem to cover musicians or other performers travelling
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
We should conclude CANZUK. Personally I would rather have the right to live in those countries than in Europe.
Nothing was preventing us agreeing to free movement with Australia/NZ/Canada while we were in the EU.
Never said it was. But now the latter isn't possible, concluding the former makes even more sense.
Why? I thought the whole point was to regain control over our borders?
Lots of "experts" will pore over the details, but as many have already noted the big question is this.
How stable is this deal?
Given our political turmoil over the last 5 years, and current administration's willingness to abandon the rule of law on a whim, who would bet on a long term UK investment on this basis?
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
We should conclude CANZUK. Personally I would rather have the right to live in those countries than in Europe.
Also, talking of residence rights, I note we have about a month before three million HongKongers can live there. I wonder how many will come?
A lot apparently. Could save London* if they come with money.
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
We should conclude CANZUK. Personally I would rather have the right to live in those countries than in Europe.
Also, talking of residence rights, I note we have about a month before three million HongKongers can live there. I wonder how many will come?
A lot apparently. Could save London if they come with money.
What percentage of UK overseas territory passport holders work in financial services, as opposed to cleaning and other manual service jobs?
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
We should conclude CANZUK. Personally I would rather have the right to live in those countries than in Europe.
Nothing was preventing us agreeing to free movement with Australia/NZ/Canada while we were in the EU.
Never said it was. But now the latter isn't possible, concluding the former makes even more sense.
Why? I thought the whole point was to regain control over our borders?
Because for many people control of the borders was not an end in itself but a means to an end - in this case, stopping the flood of East Europeans, from countries with a much lower living standard, who can offer us no meaningful work opportunities in return. There was no feeling against freedom of movement for Germans or Swedes - not that I've ever picked up on anyway. It started when the A8 countries joined in 2004, and intensified when even poorer Romanians and Bulgarians joined a few years later.
But CANZ are not much poorer than us, and they are culturally even more similar than the Germans or the Swedes. So the flow will almost certainly be two-way.
Yes, there is an argument there. I would bet heavily against it succeeding in court.
Who would bring a case, and on what grounds?
A British citizen passed over as a result.
A lot depends on how onerous getting a work visa would be in each of the EU27 countries. If fairly nominal then not a problem. If the UK applies similar rules to Nigerians as Dutch, then reciprocity would make it quite a burden.
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
We should conclude CANZUK. Personally I would rather have the right to live in those countries than in Europe.
Also, talking of residence rights, I note we have about a month before three million HongKongers can live there. I wonder how many will come?
A lot apparently. Could save London* if they come with money.
*or the London property market
I read recently it could be up to 600,000.
Could be up to three million (plus their dependents), or down to zero. Remember somebody forecast 13,000 Eastern Europeans in 2004, when 2-3 million came?
But I understand that Hong Kong is introducing laws to make it difficult for them to come, so who knows?
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
We should conclude CANZUK. Personally I would rather have the right to live in those countries than in Europe.
Nothing was preventing us agreeing to free movement with Australia/NZ/Canada while we were in the EU.
Never said it was. But now the latter isn't possible, concluding the former makes even more sense.
Why? I thought the whole point was to regain control over our borders?
Because for many people control of the borders was not an end in itself but a means to an end - in this case, stopping the flood of East Europeans, from countries with a much lower living standard, who can offer us no meaningful work opportunities in return. There was no feeling against freedom of movement for Germans or Swedes - not that I've ever picked up on anyway. It started when the A8 countries joined in 2004, and intensified when even poorer Romanians and Bulgarians joined a few years later.
But CANZ are not much poorer than us, and they are culturally even more similar than the Germans or the Swedes. So the flow will almost certainly be two-way.
They don’t seem to want to agree free movement deals with us, though.
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
We should conclude CANZUK. Personally I would rather have the right to live in those countries than in Europe.
Nothing was preventing us agreeing to free movement with Australia/NZ/Canada while we were in the EU.
Never said it was. But now the latter isn't possible, concluding the former makes even more sense.
Why? I thought the whole point was to regain control over our borders?
Because for many people control of the borders was not an end in itself but a means to an end - in this case, stopping the flood of East Europeans, from countries with a much lower living standard, who can offer us no meaningful work opportunities in return. There was no feeling against freedom of movement for Germans or Swedes - not that I've ever picked up on anyway. It started when the A8 countries joined in 2004, and intensified when even poorer Romanians and Bulgarians joined a few years later.
But CANZ are not much poorer than us, and they are culturally even more similar than the Germans or the Swedes. So the flow will almost certainly be two-way.
They don’t seem to want to agree free movement deals with us, though.
If they did, it would solve our net immigration issue! It would be a new wave of ten pound Poms to the antipodes.
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
We should conclude CANZUK. Personally I would rather have the right to live in those countries than in Europe.
Nothing was preventing us agreeing to free movement with Australia/NZ/Canada while we were in the EU.
Never said it was. But now the latter isn't possible, concluding the former makes even more sense.
Why? I thought the whole point was to regain control over our borders?
Because for many people control of the borders was not an end in itself but a means to an end - in this case, stopping the flood of East Europeans, from countries with a much lower living standard, who can offer us no meaningful work opportunities in return. There was no feeling against freedom of movement for Germans or Swedes - not that I've ever picked up on anyway. It started when the A8 countries joined in 2004, and intensified when even poorer Romanians and Bulgarians joined a few years later.
But CANZ are not much poorer than us, and they are culturally even more similar than the Germans or the Swedes. So the flow will almost certainly be two-way.
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
Is it possible to have a dual Irish Republic UK passport? If so a good opportunity for the Irish to make some money selling Irish citizenship. Who wouldn't give several thousand to remain part of the EU without having to upend yourself.
You can have the two passports. Under the Common Travel Area people with UK passports have the right to live and work in Ireland. After five or six (three if married to an Irish citizen) years of residency in Ireland you qualify for citizenship and a passport.
By the time Keir Starmer has his chance to win the 2024GE I may therefore be in possession of two EU passports.
As an aside, my understanding is that when UK citizens move abroad they retain the right to vote for fifteen years in the constituency they were last registered to vote in.
If I moved to Ireland, and my last constituency of registration was in Scotland, and Scotland became independent, would I be able to register to vote in an English constituency? (If it matters, I was born in London to parents born in England, and lived in England for several decades)
Perhaps it would be fifteen years since I moved from England?
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
We should conclude CANZUK. Personally I would rather have the right to live in those countries than in Europe.
Nothing was preventing us agreeing to free movement with Australia/NZ/Canada while we were in the EU.
Never said it was. But now the latter isn't possible, concluding the former makes even more sense.
Why? I thought the whole point was to regain control over our borders?
Because for many people control of the borders was not an end in itself but a means to an end - in this case, stopping the flood of East Europeans, from countries with a much lower living standard, who can offer us no meaningful work opportunities in return. There was no feeling against freedom of movement for Germans or Swedes - not that I've ever picked up on anyway. It started when the A8 countries joined in 2004, and intensified when even poorer Romanians and Bulgarians joined a few years later.
But CANZ are not much poorer than us, and they are culturally even more similar than the Germans or the Swedes. So the flow will almost certainly be two-way.
You think they're poorer than us?
Per capita GDP is lower in NZ than UK, marginally.
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
We should conclude CANZUK. Personally I would rather have the right to live in those countries than in Europe.
Nothing was preventing us agreeing to free movement with Australia/NZ/Canada while we were in the EU.
Never said it was. But now the latter isn't possible, concluding the former makes even more sense.
Why? I thought the whole point was to regain control over our borders?
Because for many people control of the borders was not an end in itself but a means to an end - in this case, stopping the flood of East Europeans, from countries with a much lower living standard, who can offer us no meaningful work opportunities in return. There was no feeling against freedom of movement for Germans or Swedes - not that I've ever picked up on anyway. It started when the A8 countries joined in 2004, and intensified when even poorer Romanians and Bulgarians joined a few years later.
But CANZ are not much poorer than us, and they are culturally even more similar than the Germans or the Swedes. So the flow will almost certainly be two-way.
You think they're poorer than us?
Per capita GDP is lower in NZ than UK, marginally.
Personally, I think Labour should allow a free vote on it. The less-ERG-like Labour Brexiteers and assorted pragmatists can vote for the deal, thus nullifying any faint concern that the ERG can cause a bit more market-manipulating (perish the thought) chaos, while removing Boris's ability to say "well you voted for it" when problems arise later, if the shad cab abstain.
Labour have stood on the sidelines for 4 years swinging this way and that effectively letting different MPs play to different constituencies. Starmer correctly recognises that if the electorate are to take them seriously again people need to know what they stand for. Which means the leadership staking out clear positions, and the party following. Not forever having a conversation with itself or even worse trying to take 3 different positions on everything. Agree the deal doesn't meet the promises and expectations and the time of the referendum. Accept the logic nevertheless that the deal is better than no deal. And start to move forward setting out a united vision and direction for the future. It's time to move on.
Yes, I agree. Starmer has to become the Attlee to Johnson's Churchill. Instead of harking back to the past, he has define a positive vision of how to move the country forward that has more appeal than what Johnson is offering. Former Labour voters, who deserted the party over the last decade due to Brexit, can thank Johnson for winning the war, but stll decide that Starmer is better placed to win the peace.
Except Starmer is a policy vacuum, vision free. All we know is that despite being a strong Remainer, he backs Brexit out of political expediency. I don't think voters in the Purple Wall are stupid enough to fall for that. He either needs to enthuse them for Labour on some other issue, or find other seats that he can appeal to.
For all his manifest flaws, Corbyn managed to win over the Northern seats against the trend of the last decades, in 2017 if not 2019.
Did he? Wasn't the story of 2017 in many Northern seats one of Tory over-reach? Making significant gains, but not enough to breach the dam.
Labor gained 36 seats in 2017, 28 of them from the Tories, and most of them old coalfield seats.
For all his faults, and there are plenty of those, Corbyn got the juices flowing in a way that Starmer has not.
Conservative to Labour (28) Battersea Bedford Brighton Kemptown Bristol North West Bury North Canterbury Cardiff North Colne Valley Crewe and Nantwich Croydon Central Derby North Enfield Southgate Gower High Peak Ipswich Keighley Kensington Lincoln Peterborough Plymouth Sutton and Devonport Portsmouth South Reading East Stockton South Stroud Vale of Clwyd Warrington South Warwick and Leamington Weaver Vale
I think only Gower could be described as a 'coalfield' seat.
Altogether half of Labour's gains were in southern England.
These are the 6 Lab to Tory gains in 2017: Two are mining to my knowledge - Mansfield and Derbyshre North-East. Middlesbrough S & Cleveand E and Stoke on Trent S are post-industrial. Not sure about Copeland (Cumbria) and Walsall.
Copeland[n 13] Derbyshire North East Mansfield Middlesbrough South and Cleveland East Stoke-on-Trent South Walsall North
Thatchers children finishing the job off for her with a self centered me now electorate democratically electing MPs in their own mage, it’s taken thirty years but it’s almost all sewn up.
Blaming the voters and calling them names is not a good look.
I’m not, they have been brought up in the aftermath of thatcher, is that an insult? It’s just the definition of a generation that has now come to ascendancy and choosing its way forward. There is no future for a Labour Party that doesn’t recognize the changed environment that has no interest in trade unions and a party that is more worried about its standing orders than providing solutions. What are the problems that our politicians trying to solve? I would say jobs, security, health care and education, the same problems that have been with us for years is there any evidence that any of them have a solution for anything, no so it all becomes distraction politics gestures and personalities. I don’t blame the voters only those who choose to complain but fail to get off their arse to try and make it better.
Yes, there is an argument there. I would bet heavily against it succeeding in court.
Who would bring a case, and on what grounds?
A British citizen passed over as a result.
A lot depends on how onerous getting a work visa would be in each of the EU27 countries. If fairly nominal then not a problem. If the UK applies similar rules to Nigerians as Dutch, then reciprocity would make it quite a burden.
That is exactly what the UK plans to do. Ask Priti Patel!
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
We should conclude CANZUK. Personally I would rather have the right to live in those countries than in Europe.
Nothing was preventing us agreeing to free movement with Australia/NZ/Canada while we were in the EU.
Never said it was. But now the latter isn't possible, concluding the former makes even more sense.
Why? I thought the whole point was to regain control over our borders?
Because for many people control of the borders was not an end in itself but a means to an end - in this case, stopping the flood of East Europeans, from countries with a much lower living standard, who can offer us no meaningful work opportunities in return. There was no feeling against freedom of movement for Germans or Swedes - not that I've ever picked up on anyway. It started when the A8 countries joined in 2004, and intensified when even poorer Romanians and Bulgarians joined a few years later.
But CANZ are not much poorer than us, and they are culturally even more similar than the Germans or the Swedes. So the flow will almost certainly be two-way.
They don’t seem to want to agree free movement deals with us, though.
They do - read the opinion polls on the subject. Also the Conservative Party of Canada has CANZUK as its policy.
I'm not saying it'll happen this year, but I think the omens for it are much better than, say, they were for Brexit in 2005.
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
We should conclude CANZUK. Personally I would rather have the right to live in those countries than in Europe.
Nothing was preventing us agreeing to free movement with Australia/NZ/Canada while we were in the EU.
Never said it was. But now the latter isn't possible, concluding the former makes even more sense.
Why? I thought the whole point was to regain control over our borders?
Because for many people control of the borders was not an end in itself but a means to an end - in this case, stopping the flood of East Europeans, from countries with a much lower living standard, who can offer us no meaningful work opportunities in return. There was no feeling against freedom of movement for Germans or Swedes - not that I've ever picked up on anyway. It started when the A8 countries joined in 2004, and intensified when even poorer Romanians and Bulgarians joined a few years later.
But CANZ are not much poorer than us, and they are culturally even more similar than the Germans or the Swedes. So the flow will almost certainly be two-way.
They don’t seem to want to agree free movement deals with us, though.
If they did, it would solve our net immigration issue! It would be a new wave of ten pound Poms to the antipodes.
Yep, I think they realise the flow would be very much in their direction.
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
We should conclude CANZUK. Personally I would rather have the right to live in those countries than in Europe.
Also, talking of residence rights, I note we have about a month before three million HongKongers can live there. I wonder how many will come?
A lot apparently. Could save London* if they come with money.
*or the London property market
A friend who was looking for flats in London over the summer said that the estate agents he was talking to said that the market was being sustained by Hongkongers more than the stamp duty cut.
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
We should conclude CANZUK. Personally I would rather have the right to live in those countries than in Europe.
Nothing was preventing us agreeing to free movement with Australia/NZ/Canada while we were in the EU.
Never said it was. But now the latter isn't possible, concluding the former makes even more sense.
Why? I thought the whole point was to regain control over our borders?
Because for many people control of the borders was not an end in itself but a means to an end - in this case, stopping the flood of East Europeans, from countries with a much lower living standard, who can offer us no meaningful work opportunities in return. There was no feeling against freedom of movement for Germans or Swedes - not that I've ever picked up on anyway. It started when the A8 countries joined in 2004, and intensified when even poorer Romanians and Bulgarians joined a few years later.
But CANZ are not much poorer than us, and they are culturally even more similar than the Germans or the Swedes. So the flow will almost certainly be two-way.
You think they're poorer than us?
Good try at dodging his point. (And he's answered you anyway.)
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
We should conclude CANZUK. Personally I would rather have the right to live in those countries than in Europe.
Nothing was preventing us agreeing to free movement with Australia/NZ/Canada while we were in the EU.
Never said it was. But now the latter isn't possible, concluding the former makes even more sense.
Why? I thought the whole point was to regain control over our borders?
Because for many people control of the borders was not an end in itself but a means to an end - in this case, stopping the flood of East Europeans, from countries with a much lower living standard, who can offer us no meaningful work opportunities in return. There was no feeling against freedom of movement for Germans or Swedes - not that I've ever picked up on anyway. It started when the A8 countries joined in 2004, and intensified when even poorer Romanians and Bulgarians joined a few years later.
But CANZ are not much poorer than us, and they are culturally even more similar than the Germans or the Swedes. So the flow will almost certainly be two-way.
They don’t seem to want to agree free movement deals with us, though.
They do - read the opinion polls on the subject. Also the Conservative Party of Canada has CANZUK as its policy.
I'm not saying it'll happen this year, but I think the omens for it are much better than, say, they were for Brexit in 2005.
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
We should conclude CANZUK. Personally I would rather have the right to live in those countries than in Europe.
Nothing was preventing us agreeing to free movement with Australia/NZ/Canada while we were in the EU.
Never said it was. But now the latter isn't possible, concluding the former makes even more sense.
Why? I thought the whole point was to regain control over our borders?
Because for many people control of the borders was not an end in itself but a means to an end - in this case, stopping the flood of East Europeans, from countries with a much lower living standard, who can offer us no meaningful work opportunities in return. There was no feeling against freedom of movement for Germans or Swedes - not that I've ever picked up on anyway. It started when the A8 countries joined in 2004, and intensified when even poorer Romanians and Bulgarians joined a few years later.
But CANZ are not much poorer than us, and they are culturally even more similar than the Germans or the Swedes. So the flow will almost certainly be two-way.
You think they're poorer than us?
Per capita GDP is lower in NZ than UK, marginally.
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
We should conclude CANZUK. Personally I would rather have the right to live in those countries than in Europe.
Nothing was preventing us agreeing to free movement with Australia/NZ/Canada while we were in the EU.
Never said it was. But now the latter isn't possible, concluding the former makes even more sense.
Why? I thought the whole point was to regain control over our borders?
Because for many people control of the borders was not an end in itself but a means to an end - in this case, stopping the flood of East Europeans, from countries with a much lower living standard, who can offer us no meaningful work opportunities in return. There was no feeling against freedom of movement for Germans or Swedes - not that I've ever picked up on anyway. It started when the A8 countries joined in 2004, and intensified when even poorer Romanians and Bulgarians joined a few years later.
But CANZ are not much poorer than us, and they are culturally even more similar than the Germans or the Swedes. So the flow will almost certainly be two-way.
They don’t seem to want to agree free movement deals with us, though.
If they did, it would solve our net immigration issue! It would be a new wave of ten pound Poms to the antipodes.
Yep, I think they realise the flow would be very much in their direction.
Emigration has always been a safety valve for economically struggling areas. With the end of easy migration to Australasia, South Africa or Canada in the Seventies that safety valve failed. There was a lot of internal migration from the North and Midlands to the South in the Eighties. I am not sure settling hundreds of thousands of HK in UK will aid that safety valve. Even less likely is it to economically revive smaller, non university Northern towns.
I have got a long run planned for today, hopefully it does not rain! Will be nice to get outside for an hour or two.
I've been bored to death by a lot of my fellow left-wingers who can't seem to let Brexit go. I moved on months ago but I've especially moved on now the deal has been signed. Continuing to fight it is just a waste of time, I think on this occasion Keir has got the right approach but I worry about some of the front benchers who still seem to have this idea Brexit can be stopped.
I genuinely believe there is now scope for Labour to really hit hard on the issues that matter. Issues that I think the Tories will fail to resolve between now and 2024. That's the job for the opposition now, to show the country we're ready to govern and that crucially we have changed for the better. I think it's a long road but we're on the right track.
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
We should conclude CANZUK. Personally I would rather have the right to live in those countries than in Europe.
Nothing was preventing us agreeing to free movement with Australia/NZ/Canada while we were in the EU.
People from the White Commonwealth ... comin' over ere ... with their familiar looking faces and their chinos and polo shirts, talking in passable English about rugby union and cricket and how ghastly the yanks are.
I think some of these “Labour frontbenchers” need to get over themselves. Starmer is right that they can’t just continue with the policy of refusing to take a stand on major national issues of the day. And nobody is going to suggest that any future criticism of a future poor performing economy will be invalid because of a failure to oppose the deal, when the only realistic alternative was far worse.
This is not 2017-19 when it was possible to at least make an argument that supporting the Govt was tantamount to abandoning their supporters who still held out hope of avoiding Brexit altogether. Harping back to Brexiteers “promises” that haven’t been realised cut no ice, when everyone knows they were phoney.
The treaty will pass as the government has a majority of 80. Opposition parties who can see what it is should vote against. It isn't deal or no deal. Its the deal or the deal - it will pass.
It's the trolley problem. The Lib Dems are choosing to stand aside while Labour are choosing to switch the points.
SR BA PPE (Open)
Nah, its going to pass anyway. No one will remember how anyone other than the Tories voted, so no point in a whip.
We need to win back a pile of Leave seats in 2024. It matters.
Yes you do. And in these seats people have decided that Labour had failed them over a long period and were sold on Brexit as the solution.
The problem is that Brexit isn't the solution. And by 2024 that will be painfully obvious. Selling this as the Tory Brexit disaster will be easier if they are not seen as complicit in bringing it in.
For me following Starmer's dire decision is crazy. Labour should be voting against and clearly stating the Tories lied and the deal is crap.
It is possible for one of the 27 to reject the deal or that it does not get through the European Parliament, so are there betting odds on that possibility?
They will be glad to be shot of the whinging no marks, there will be a stampede to sign.
The devil is in the detail - it always is and 1,246 pages suggests a lot of detail.
Boris Johnson's predictably bouncy optimism sounds even more hollow than usual - I appreciate a Deal represents the avoidance of chaos but to dress it up as the greatest event since the last one is absurd.
What it has done is turn the page on a significant chapter in British history - I suspect our relationship with the EU will improve markedly now we are on the outside. The problem for us is and remains to be the failure of anyone in power to advance a coherent argument for the way forward for the United Kingdom.
For that reason, the Deal, for all its not doubt many limitations, will go ahead simply because there's no stomach to countenance the opposite whether that may be a descent into the chaos of WTO or a return for more negotiation. It's done - for better or worse, we have to move on and start having a proper national conversation about the way forward.
I am nearly certain, the UK will find life very uncomfortable outside the EU. The UK is too big to be told what to do and in any case the whole point of Brexit was to take control. On the other hand the EU is the only show in town in Europe. The UK can't just ignore the EU and only deal with Australia, although it will try to sometimes. It will at different times also try to co-opt the EU and to undermine it. It will probably fail at all three. Meanwhile the EU will either ignore the UK or lean heavily on the UK to agree to what it wants. It doesn't promise to be a particularly happy relationship.
The lead story in the Express gives a taste of what the discourse in the UK will be like: "EU braced for pandemonium as Dan Hannan warns THREE countries will follow UK out of bloc". The Brexiteer obsession with waiting for the collapse of the EU won't go away.
Breaking up the EU is a logical goal for Brexiteers . The EU is hardly going to treat the UK better as a non-member and so remains a problem as a powerful and coherent bloc. Thing is, Brexiteers are unlikely to succeed in destroying the EU and in the meantime they antagonise member states, making the whole situation more toxic.
Sorry but this is utter confected rubbish. I expect the EU, and every other power, to act in its own interests, not to 'treat the UK better'. It's their prerogative to do that, and ours to look after our own interests.
It does matter because the EU will effectively be making decisions for Europe, including the UK, in a whole raft of areas. To take a couple of examples in the current deal, batteries for electric vehicles and energy markets. These are where the UK sees a need to be integrated with Europe or it isn't viable to go alone. The EU will take those decisions, as you say in its own interest and without reference to the UK, which unlike eg Malta no longer has a vote. This means the EU will make decisions that the UK doesn't like, more often than it did before. (Quite a lot more than before, actually).
What's the UK going to do about it?
whinge and then grovel and pay over the odds PS: Chant "Great World Power" 100 times
Nationality and citizenship are protected characteristics under the Equality Act.
Indeed.
And he was not preferred for either of those reasons.
Next!
Nice to see you so eager to see people try and violate the Equality Act. I suppose you'd have the same attitude if someone said they would give white people the job for the same reason?
The devil is in the detail - it always is and 1,246 pages suggests a lot of detail.
Boris Johnson's predictably bouncy optimism sounds even more hollow than usual - I appreciate a Deal represents the avoidance of chaos but to dress it up as the greatest event since the last one is absurd.
What it has done is turn the page on a significant chapter in British history - I suspect our relationship with the EU will improve markedly now we are on the outside. The problem for us is and remains to be the failure of anyone in power to advance a coherent argument for the way forward for the United Kingdom.
For that reason, the Deal, for all its not doubt many limitations, will go ahead simply because there's no stomach to countenance the opposite whether that may be a descent into the chaos of WTO or a return for more negotiation. It's done - for better or worse, we have to move on and start having a proper national conversation about the way forward.
I am nearly certain, the UK will find life very uncomfortable outside the EU. The UK is too big to be told what to do and in any case the whole point of Brexit was to take control. On the other hand the EU is the only show in town in Europe. The UK can't just ignore the EU and only deal with Australia, although it will try to sometimes. It will at different times also try to co-opt the EU and to undermine it. It will probably fail at all three. Meanwhile the EU will either ignore the UK or lean heavily on the UK to agree to what it wants. It doesn't promise to be a particularly happy relationship.
The lead story in the Express gives a taste of what the discourse in the UK will be like: "EU braced for pandemonium as Dan Hannan warns THREE countries will follow UK out of bloc". The Brexiteer obsession with waiting for the collapse of the EU won't go away.
In fairness to Lord Hannan, his words are much more cautious than the headline implies. It's obviously just speculation.
IMHO it's time for people here to shut up about what EU member countries may or may not do in that regard. Speculation of that sort is too much like gossip spoken within the victim's hearing. Damaging and offensive.
Hannan is a humungous bellend , almost as bad as Farage.
What has actually happened though? A whole year of massive disruption linked to Covid 19 has seen true hardship for millions and thunderous criticism of the government which has left them level pegging in the opinion polls. Are you really convinced that the loss of an educational project and some regional grants all of which are being replaced by government funds will do the trick. I mean you say it is reality now - if so why on earth is Labour voting for it and why are the seething hordes not marching on London right now? I mean I agree the deal is imperfect and I'd have preferred to stay in the EU but you know that many remainers always were half hearted about it. The only place in Europe wth regular civli disobediance over the past few months is Paris - did they all take a wrong turning before reaching London? Starmer wants to move on. He is right.
Nobody cares about Erasmus as nobody uses it. The regional funds absolutely will not be replaced neither will the farming subsidies. The Tories have a long and proud track record of not spending money on such things that aren't about to suddenly be overturned in some fit of concern for the lower orders. People won't notice straight away - but the people in run down areas which have at least benefited from EU investment into local projects won't even be getting that.
If we are very lucky the good people at places like Toyota and Nissan will reconfigure their supply chain so that their UK factories uniquely don't operate to their just in time model and will remain open.
Or they'll maintain a just in time model that is reliant on insourced UK supply chains possibly?
Of course! Perhaps we will rebuild British industry and stop off-sourcing everything for a fast profit! The Tories are very good on such measures, and now they have their new ability to intervene I am Very Confident that they will step in to nationalise Toyota when they pull the plug.
LOL, what will they build Allegro's or Morris Oxford's
Morning all. Yes, in an interesting turnaround, the Irish now have the golden ticket. The old anglo-irish animosity at the popular level is long gone, and the Irish will enjoy a uniquely well-placed relationship with both Britain and the EU, able to hot-foot it anywhere.
On top of the Irish passport holders, and the 4.2 million settled EU citizens, there must be another few million entitled to other EU passports via descent. It is only us native Brits that are disadvantaged.
We should conclude CANZUK. Personally I would rather have the right to live in those countries than in Europe.
Nothing was preventing us agreeing to free movement with Australia/NZ/Canada while we were in the EU.
Never said it was. But now the latter isn't possible, concluding the former makes even more sense.
Why? I thought the whole point was to regain control over our borders?
Because for many people control of the borders was not an end in itself but a means to an end - in this case, stopping the flood of East Europeans, from countries with a much lower living standard, who can offer us no meaningful work opportunities in return. There was no feeling against freedom of movement for Germans or Swedes - not that I've ever picked up on anyway. It started when the A8 countries joined in 2004, and intensified when even poorer Romanians and Bulgarians joined a few years later.
But CANZ are not much poorer than us, and they are culturally even more similar than the Germans or the Swedes. So the flow will almost certainly be two-way.
They don’t seem to want to agree free movement deals with us, though.
If they did, it would solve our net immigration issue! It would be a new wave of ten pound Poms to the antipodes.
Yep, I think they realise the flow would be very much in their direction.
Emigration has always been a safety valve for economically struggling areas. With the end of easy migration to Australasia, South Africa or Canada in the Seventies that safety valve failed. There was a lot of internal migration from the North and Midlands to the South in the Eighties. I am not sure settling hundreds of thousands of HK in UK will aid that safety valve. Even less likely is it to economically revive smaller, non university Northern towns.
Personally, I think Labour should allow a free vote on it. The less-ERG-like Labour Brexiteers and assorted pragmatists can vote for the deal, thus nullifying any faint concern that the ERG can cause a bit more market-manipulating (perish the thought) chaos, while removing Boris's ability to say "well you voted for it" when problems arise later, if the shad cab abstain.
Labour have stood on the sidelines for 4 years swinging this way and that effectively letting different MPs play to different constituencies. Starmer correctly recognises that if the electorate are to take them seriously again people need to know what they stand for. Which means the leadership staking out clear positions, and the party following. Not forever having a conversation with itself or even worse trying to take 3 different positions on everything. Agree the deal doesn't meet the promises and expectations and the time of the referendum. Accept the logic nevertheless that the deal is better than no deal. And start to move forward setting out a united vision and direction for the future. It's time to move on.
Yes, I agree. Starmer has to become the Attlee to Johnson's Churchill. Instead of harking back to the past, he has define a positive vision of how to move the country forward that has more appeal than what Johnson is offering. Former Labour voters, who deserted the party over the last decade due to Brexit, can thank Johnson for winning the war, but stll decide that Starmer is better placed to win the peace.
Except Starmer is a policy vacuum, vision free. All we know is that despite being a strong Remainer, he backs Brexit out of political expediency. I don't think voters in the Purple Wall are stupid enough to fall for that. He either needs to enthuse them for Labour on some other issue, or find other seats that he can appeal to.
For all his manifest flaws, Corbyn managed to win over the Northern seats against the trend of the last decades, in 2017 if not 2019.
Did he? Wasn't the story of 2017 in many Northern seats one of Tory over-reach? Making significant gains, but not enough to breach the dam.
Labor gained 36 seats in 2017, 28 of them from the Tories, and most of them old coalfield seats.
For all his faults, and there are plenty of those, Corbyn got the juices flowing in a way that Starmer has not.
Conservative to Labour (28) Battersea Bedford Brighton Kemptown Bristol North West Bury North Canterbury Cardiff North Colne Valley Crewe and Nantwich Croydon Central Derby North Enfield Southgate Gower High Peak Ipswich Keighley Kensington Lincoln Peterborough Plymouth Sutton and Devonport Portsmouth South Reading East Stockton South Stroud Vale of Clwyd Warrington South Warwick and Leamington Weaver Vale
I think only Gower could be described as a 'coalfield' seat.
Altogether half of Labour's gains were in southern England.
These are the 6 Lab to Tory gains in 2017: Two are mining to my knowledge - Mansfield and Derbyshre North-East. Middlesbrough S & Cleveand E and Stoke on Trent S are post-industrial. Not sure about Copeland (Cumbria) and Walsall.
Copeland[n 13] Derbyshire North East Mansfield Middlesbrough South and Cleveland East Stoke-on-Trent South Walsall North
Thatchers children finishing the job off for her with a self centered me now electorate democratically electing MPs in their own mage, it’s taken thirty years but it’s almost all sewn up.
Blaming the voters and calling them names is not a good look.
I’m not, they have been brought up in the aftermath of thatcher, is that an insult? It’s just the definition of a generation that has now come to ascendancy and choosing its way forward. There is no future for a Labour Party that doesn’t recognize the changed environment that has no interest in trade unions and a party that is more worried about its standing orders than providing solutions. What are the problems that our politicians trying to solve? I would say jobs, security, health care and education, the same problems that have been with us for years is there any evidence that any of them have a solution for anything, no so it all becomes distraction politics gestures and personalities. I don’t blame the voters only those who choose to complain but fail to get off their arse to try and make it better.
You stated the electorate is 'self-centred me now' - judgmental voter blaming garbage and you cannot even see it. Hilarious.
Nationality and citizenship are protected characteristics under the Equality Act.
Indeed.
And he was not preferred for either of those reasons.
Next!
Nice to see you so eager to see people try and violate the Equality Act. I suppose you'd have the same attitude if someone said they would give white people the job for the same reason?
You have had a total break with reality.
The Erasmus grief has eased so it's on to the next whinge..
The devil is in the detail - it always is and 1,246 pages suggests a lot of detail.
Boris Johnson's predictably bouncy optimism sounds even more hollow than usual - I appreciate a Deal represents the avoidance of chaos but to dress it up as the greatest event since the last one is absurd.
What it has done is turn the page on a significant chapter in British history - I suspect our relationship with the EU will improve markedly now we are on the outside. The problem for us is and remains to be the failure of anyone in power to advance a coherent argument for the way forward for the United Kingdom.
For that reason, the Deal, for all its not doubt many limitations, will go ahead simply because there's no stomach to countenance the opposite whether that may be a descent into the chaos of WTO or a return for more negotiation. It's done - for better or worse, we have to move on and start having a proper national conversation about the way forward.
Oh, the way forward is obvious enough. Charge the taxpayer 1.5 times the cost of this disaster and continue to buy off pensioners with the excess cash.
I am amazed at the hatred of pensioners on this site. Other countries love and support their elders, in UK they want them impoverished or buried, sick place indeed.
Personally, I think Labour should allow a free vote on it. The less-ERG-like Labour Brexiteers and assorted pragmatists can vote for the deal, thus nullifying any faint concern that the ERG can cause a bit more market-manipulating (perish the thought) chaos, while removing Boris's ability to say "well you voted for it" when problems arise later, if the shad cab abstain.
Labour have stood on the sidelines for 4 years swinging this way and that effectively letting different MPs play to different constituencies. Starmer correctly recognises that if the electorate are to take them seriously again people need to know what they stand for. Which means the leadership staking out clear positions, and the party following. Not forever having a conversation with itself or even worse trying to take 3 different positions on everything. Agree the deal doesn't meet the promises and expectations and the time of the referendum. Accept the logic nevertheless that the deal is better than no deal. And start to move forward setting out a united vision and direction for the future. It's time to move on.
Yes, I agree. Starmer has to become the Attlee to Johnson's Churchill. Instead of harking back to the past, he has define a positive vision of how to move the country forward that has more appeal than what Johnson is offering. Former Labour voters, who deserted the party over the last decade due to Brexit, can thank Johnson for winning the war, but stll decide that Starmer is better placed to win the peace.
Except Starmer is a policy vacuum, vision free. All we know is that despite being a strong Remainer, he backs Brexit out of political expediency. I don't think voters in the Purple Wall are stupid enough to fall for that. He either needs to enthuse them for Labour on some other issue, or find other seats that he can appeal to.
For all his manifest flaws, Corbyn managed to win over the Northern seats against the trend of the last decades, in 2017 if not 2019.
Did he? Wasn't the story of 2017 in many Northern seats one of Tory over-reach? Making significant gains, but not enough to breach the dam.
Labor gained 36 seats in 2017, 28 of them from the Tories, and most of them old coalfield seats.
For all his faults, and there are plenty of those, Corbyn got the juices flowing in a way that Starmer has not.
Starmer has yet to fight an election and Corbyn was totally dreadful at GE2019
He is up in the polls by 10%, so not a bad start, and it does seem there is a higher than average swing to Labour in the "Purple Wall".
Nonetheless, it is not just Labour voters wondering what he actually believes, and his choice of nonentities for the front bench does not inspire confidence. Better than Johnson, but that is a pretty low bar. He needs to give people that vision thing.
He is an empty vessel, he will vacillate and flip flop, hard to believe he has any vision or plan , other than banning Scottish Independence. The man is a clown.
I have got a long run planned for today, hopefully it does not rain! Will be nice to get outside for an hour or two.
I've been bored to death by a lot of my fellow left-wingers who can't seem to let Brexit go. I moved on months ago but I've especially moved on now the deal has been signed. Continuing to fight it is just a waste of time, I think on this occasion Keir has got the right approach but I worry about some of the front benchers who still seem to have this idea Brexit can be stopped.
I genuinely believe there is now scope for Labour to really hit hard on the issues that matter. Issues that I think the Tories will fail to resolve between now and 2024. That's the job for the opposition now, to show the country we're ready to govern and that crucially we have changed for the better. I think it's a long road but we're on the right track.
Have a lovely day.
Better get out early , some heavy stuff coming your way
Comments
I would say what I have thought for quite a few years - the EU needs to be reformed; imo it currently remains a pig in a poke.
It cuts both ways - here are a couple of (I assume) academics explaining the reasons (on 14 March 2020 - before even the first Lockdown) why Brexit means the UK will be forced to stand at the back of the queue behind the whole EU for a vaccine: "Brexit threatens UK’s ability to respond to a future pandemic."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/14/why-brexit-will-delay-uk-getting-vaccine-and-cost-more
They seem to have swallowed, or at least want to push, the idea that being outside the EU means some sort of end to international cooperation:The coronavirus should remind us of just why international cooperation is so important in reducing the threat of infectious disease. It doesn't, of course.
Yes - much better for me with veggies on the side to dilute the sweetness. Squash, varous flavourings, and a big hunk of olive oil toast. Though I would probably not put anything acidic with it.
Need to try "Soussed " Herring next, which I think is Dutch.
Very important if we are all going to need to eat an extra 5kg of Herring every year
As between 2017 and 2019:
Copeland - Con majority increased by 4,150
Derbyshire North East - Con majority increased by 10,000
Mansfield - Con majority increased by 15,200
Middlesbrough South and Cleveland East - Con majority increased by 10,500
Stoke-on-Trent South - Con majority increased by 10,600
Walsall North - Con majority increased by 9,300
On any normal reading of politics, all bar Copeland are in the safe --> very safe Conservative seats.
Mr. W, Italexit?
Quitaly, surely?
https://twitter.com/samuelmarclowe/status/1342714181611626496?s=21
Strange Christmas Day but we had a long Zoom with much of our family and two long FaceTimes with others. One of those was with family in Thailand, where 18 were able to gather together and celebrate.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37246769#:~:text=That means about 6.7 million,Ireland, which is 4.8 million.
I don't have a number for how many there are already.
Clearly Corbyns Labour was popular in 2017 in a way it was not in 2019. Obviously Brexit was a large share of the difference, but the enthusiasm for redistribution and focus on the young was a factor in 2017 too.
If Starmer wants to win, he needs to consider what went down well in 2017, alongside what went down badly in 2019. We shall see how much levelling up happens under BoZo. My money is on sweet FA, but enhanced culture war bollocks instead.
https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1342742740438831104
In that way, an Irish accent might prove an asset. Or someone might 'casually' mention it without being asked.
And good to see what’s been a wretched year end on a positive note . Although the full text hasn’t been released for the EU UK deal it does seem from snippets so far that compromises were made on both sides.
Both sides should be happy.
*actually a national competency, I think, so likely to vary amongst the EU27. Presumably reciprocity will apply, so if EU citizens get easy access to UK work visas, less hassle for our citizens too.
Also, talking of residence rights, I note we have about a month before three million HongKongers can live there. I wonder how many will come?
My old boss was an American. Resident in the UK. With an Irish passport.
You couldn't exclude him on the basis of race, colour, Nationality or ethnic origin, but you could prefer him over any other candidate without an Irish passport
This whole discussion is about people who are not Irish Nationals, but can get Irish passports.
*or the London property market
How stable is this deal?
Given our political turmoil over the last 5 years, and current administration's willingness to abandon the rule of law on a whim, who would bet on a long term UK investment on this basis?
But CANZ are not much poorer than us, and they are culturally even more similar than the Germans or the Swedes. So the flow will almost certainly be two-way.
A lot depends on how onerous getting a work visa would be in each of the EU27 countries. If fairly nominal then not a problem. If the UK applies similar rules to Nigerians as Dutch, then reciprocity would make it quite a burden.
But I understand that Hong Kong is introducing laws to make it difficult for them to come, so who knows?
By the time Keir Starmer has his chance to win the 2024GE I may therefore be in possession of two EU passports.
As an aside, my understanding is that when UK citizens move abroad they retain the right to vote for fifteen years in the constituency they were last registered to vote in.
If I moved to Ireland, and my last constituency of registration was in Scotland, and Scotland became independent, would I be able to register to vote in an English constituency? (If it matters, I was born in London to parents born in England, and lived in England for several decades)
Perhaps it would be fifteen years since I moved from England?
I'm not saying it'll happen this year, but I think the omens for it are much better than, say, they were for Brexit in 2005.
A small Imperial dividend for that profession?
https://twitter.com/tedgioia/status/1339951302323761153
https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/australia-rejects-visa-free-immigration-deal-with-uk/
And he was not preferred for either of those reasons.
Next!
Those who have it will be able to more easily secure some jobs that those without.
Unless the law is rewritten, that is not discriminatory.
I have got a long run planned for today, hopefully it does not rain! Will be nice to get outside for an hour or two.
I've been bored to death by a lot of my fellow left-wingers who can't seem to let Brexit go. I moved on months ago but I've especially moved on now the deal has been signed. Continuing to fight it is just a waste of time, I think on this occasion Keir has got the right approach but I worry about some of the front benchers who still seem to have this idea Brexit can be stopped.
I genuinely believe there is now scope for Labour to really hit hard on the issues that matter. Issues that I think the Tories will fail to resolve between now and 2024. That's the job for the opposition now, to show the country we're ready to govern and that crucially we have changed for the better. I think it's a long road but we're on the right track.
Have a lovely day.
PS: Chant "Great World Power" 100 times
It will take many months to absorb the full details of the deal.
It will be years before we know how satisfied the British public are with it.
You have had a total break with reality.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-36299682