@iainjwatson: Andy Burnham hasn't asked Jeremy Corbyn to resign and isn't at this stage resigning himself
LOL - so just a cosy cup of early evening tea while watching the cricket then? Not a single backbone between the lot of them!
Well if AB could be persuaded to run he would have best chance.
Are you sat down
I would vote for him this time to save the party
But would you now vote Anyone But Corbyn?
I have reached Anyone Decent territory, regardless of left-right position - but I don't rate Eagle as Decent.
Because of Corbyns actions, the future is bleak for Labour however it plays out. It will be a miracle if Labour can pull it back.
I agree with your sentance but think the word Corbyn should be replaced by PLP
You are wrong, no one man is more important than the party and the 9 million voters who depend on it.
Didnt say they were. Apportioning the blame on JC is cretinous
No need to be rude. Responsibility is the price of leadership. This is Corbyns Labour, the blame is his and no-one else's.
PLP provoked the crisis it was clearly planned but didnt reckon on Corbyns loyalty to members.
AE is proof they have completely fooked up here putting Lab into what is likely to be terminal decline.
They were desperate to avoid the democracy of Labs system and thought that a coup would be accepted.
Completely unacceptable in a democratic socialist party i am afraid
Well thanks to Corbyn said party won't exist much longer, then we'll all be afraid. Well done JC you let your ego break Labour.
I agree Jonathon . To believe that one man can destroy the Labour Party is really sad. Surely he could negotiate that someone like Clive Lewis was on the ballot to be leader. So there was a vote on policies not just on him. This has to be more than just about Corbyn. He has become a selfish arrogant man , whatever they say about his polite quiet decency.
So the answer is yes: Norway and Liechtenstein and Iceland each would have a veto over our access to the single market if we are EEA members.
Oh, but they've neve EEA route.
Um. No. They woul
Stop diverting, Richard. This is what the EEA agreement is:
Article 102, paragraphs 3-6 are the ones you are after, Richard.
If there is no agreement on an issue within the "Contracting Parties" (ie EU + EEA states) then the issue is suspended.
But you yourself agreed they have the power of veto but have never used it. Apart from Norway, as you say.
i fucking e, other EEA members have a veto over our access to the single market.
The current EFTA members have a veto over us joining EFTA. That I have said all along. No one anywhere has denied that. Of course the fact that they are already saying they would welcome us is something that seems to have passed you by.
If we join EFTA they have no veto over our membership of the EEA because we are already in.
You really do seem to be getting desperate to make something an issue where none exists.
Edit: And please don't bother quoting bits of the EEA Agreement at me as if it is something new. I doubt you had even seen a copy of it before this week whereas I have been studying it and quoting it for the last decade.
Here's an expert on the matter:
"All EFTA members have a veto over the expansion of the EEA agreement (hence the Norwegian refusal to allow it to include oil and gas legislation)"
You said that Richard.
All EFTA members but only three (soon to be four?) who care about the EEA Agreement - Norway (the example you cited), Liechtenstein, and Iceland.
So if any of those non-EU EEA/EFTA members object to an expansion of the EEA Agreement which would otherwise benefit the UK, they would veto it.
And vice versa.
So much time studying the agreement..so little understanding.
Actually you do of course understand it as you gave me the example of Norway using the veto. It's just that you are in denial about it. You should try to lose the blog/chatroom mentality where you insult people and refuse to accept a point. It does you no favours.
I believe it is possible to unilaterally take up any vetoed regulations or legislation and the EU would consider it settled.
Interesting if so. Now why couldn't Richard, who has had a copy of the EEA Agreement under his bed since he was twelve years old, tell me that?
@DPJHodges: Spoken to several Labour MPs. Told very strong feeling in PLP that no one should declare tomorrow. Confirmed Owen Smith taking soundings.
I know these people are totally fking useless but some of us have MONEY ON THIS FFS!
These guys really cannot inspire confidence surely have the nerve to have no confidence in the leader at a time like this and have no clue what to do next.
Completely incompetent.
Its not as though Lab has changed the system and somehow wrong footed them.
Incompetent fools cant think beyond ABC but then realise nobodys called that
We will end up with Liz Kendall as the challenger at this rate.
Boris has always struck me as either someone who really is that clever and devious but hides it will beneath a bluff, daft exterior or as someone who is that stupid but won a prize for scripture knowledge at school, was friends with the right boys and has been winging since he was 21. I really don't think that finding out which man he is would be best when was head of the UK government.
This leaves us with May, a solid placeholder who has been in the crappiest department in government for the last six years and seen off every challenger to her quite easily. Will she inspire the country to great heights; no. Will she make us look like clown shoes; no.
Right now we need that, and I've thought so for some time. I would have backed Boris in 2019 if he had taken his time to shine in some cabinet job and proved himself, but he hasn't yet and has more skeletons in his closet than Ed Gein.
I've asked on here, which specific regulations hinder competition and flexibility. I get bluster. There are bright people who post here and if they could say, I'd have more confidence about next steps.
MIFID 2
Thank you. It's good that it won't apply in the EEA then.
Are there any others? This is a real question. What are the changes in national law which will happen as a result of EU derived legislation bring repealed? It's that uncertainty point.
i understand May will appoint either Boris or Gove Minister for Brexit
So when it all goes tits up they still get the blame, and she can swoop in and sign the deal they should have done all along.
Liking it so far...
Genius!
Yes, this is May's to lose. Boris is just too combustible. He'd have been a great PM in a time of confidence and expansion, he'd have made us laugh and done surprising and good things, and told great jokes.
But... this is nerve wracking. Tedious managerial competence is required. May did pretty well in probably the worst job in politics, Home Sec. She doesn't rock my coracle with her charisma but it's rocky enough, anyway.
We have a choice between a 60-year-old calm headed woman with bags of experience and a passion for country walks or a bone idle testosterone-fuelled professional clown who betrayed his party, prime minister and former mayoral territory.
Now let me think.
May has been the Conservatives' best choice since Cameron said he was standing down. What's changed is that now every sensible person wants the Conservatives to make the best choice, regardless of which party they support, because the stakes are so high for all of us.
Exactly right. This is no time for narrow party political advantage (Fox, Baron).
@DPJHodges: Spoken to several Labour MPs. Told very strong feeling in PLP that no one should declare tomorrow. Confirmed Owen Smith taking soundings.
I know these people are totally fking useless but some of us have MONEY ON THIS FFS!
These guys really cannot inspire confidence surely have the nerve to have no confidence in the leader at a time like this and have no clue what to do next.
Completely incompetent.
Its not as though Lab has changed the system and somehow wrong footed them.
Incompetent fools cant think beyond ABC but then realise nobodys called that
We will end up with Liz Kendall as the challenger at this rate.
I think that's a pragmatic way of looking at it. All I would add is when I said that in April that potential deal flow was down, I was told look at PMIs, everything's fine. I know of a number of deals that were pulled on Friday. It's easy to dismiss these as froth and not the real economy and I'd concede that there's a point there. But these are confidence straws in the wind.
Equally, financial institutions (and I use that in the widest sense of the phrase) are making relocation plans. .. It subsidises the country financially, if not perhaps morally. Choices have consequences.
Yes, we are definitely going to take a hit. And it won't be pretty. Question is, how big.
Ten years of misery with an economy shrivelled by 15%? Not worth it.
Three years of stagnancy followed a bounceback, trend growth up, and the fecking EU question finally settled - Worth it.
As I've said before, Iceland is a fascinating example of how a shattered economy can quickly recover. Right now it has 3.5% GDP growth, 4% unemployment, and its GDP per capita has overtaken ours again, returning to trend.
If we can boast similar stats in eight years we'll have made the right choice. IF.
It's generally easier for smaller nations to recover than larger ones because policy changes have an almost immediate effect.
Sure, but the UK recovered equally quickly under Thatcherism. It was just seven years from the Winter of Discontent to us becoming the fastest growing nation in Europe.
While I'm feeling mellow and optimistic, if we do use our tough times to drive through reforms that we've been too fat, dumb and happy to attempt before, that would be rather lovely. Not likely given our current batch of political pygmies.
If I ruled the world, the Triple lock would be gone, wealthy pensioners would forfeit the state pension and all other benefits (probably only save three and fourpence, but it would show willing) and there'd be carrot AND stick to get people to downsize. That would only be the start of my Reign of Terror.
Ah - a supporter of the bedroom tax then.
That only applies to social housing right? If so, not a supporter. My downsizing measure would only apply to homeowners. Got to get older people moving.
Yes - However where are the downsized properties? That is the problem with the Bedroom tax. For people to move there must be a ready supply.
i understand May will appoint either Boris or Gove Minister for Brexit
So when it all goes tits up they still get the blame, and she can swoop in and sign the deal they should have done all along.
Liking it so far...
Genius!
Yes, this is May's to lose. Boris is just too combustible. He'd have been a great PM in a time of confidence and expansion, he'd have made us laugh and done surprising and good things, and told great jokes.
But... this is nerve wracking. Tedious managerial competence is required. May did pretty well in probably the worst job in politics, Home Sec. She doesn't rock my coracle with her charisma but it's rocky enough, anyway.
We have a choice between a 60-year-old calm headed woman with bags of experience and a passion for country walks or a bone idle testosterone-fuelled professional clown who betrayed his party, prime minister and former mayoral territory.
Now let me think.
Mays biggest challenge is squaring the circle between backing remain and being a Brexit PM.
I have no doubt she'll have come up with an explanation/argument. The challenge will be whether the Eurosceptic membership accepts it.
That's not a criticism, it's a comment. Her whole candidacy succeeds or falls on getting that tone right.
Not really, as long as she says she would lead the UK out of the EU and trigger article 50 as soon as she has an outline of the deal ready it won't be a problem. The party would destroy her if she rowed back on leaving.
I've asked on here, which specific regulations hinder competition and flexibility. I get bluster. There are bright people who post here and if they could say, I'd have more confidence about next steps.
MIFID 2
You don't understand MiFID II, Charles.
No shame there.
Bits of it are good. Bits of it are crap.
All of it written by people who don't understand (or care about the City), despite Kay's best efforts to get the EU to see sense.
No shame here.
I agree absolutely. But crap as bits of it undoubtedly are, I think it is misplaced to say it hinders competition. Everyone after all is in the same boat. Clumsy as it is, it was formed (lest we forget with a kickstart from CP176 all those years ago) essentially to protect consumers from the likes of you. And me.
@DPJHodges: Spoken to several Labour MPs. Told very strong feeling in PLP that no one should declare tomorrow. Confirmed Owen Smith taking soundings.
I know these people are totally fking useless but some of us have MONEY ON THIS FFS!
These guys really cannot inspire confidence surely have the nerve to have no confidence in the leader at a time like this and have no clue what to do next.
Completely incompetent.
Its not as though Lab has changed the system and somehow wrong footed them.
Incompetent fools cant think beyond ABC but then realise nobodys called that
We will end up with Liz Kendall as the challenger at this rate.
slightly off topic. - I was thinking about the pre referendum predictions on turnout - the consensus seemed to be sub-60% meant leave, 60-75% meant remain, and above 75% meant leave. I don't think anyone was saying leave on 72% turnout - any theories on why we saw decently but not massively elevated turnout from GE yet a leave vote?
I think that's a pragmatic way of looking at it. All I would add is when I said that in April that potential deal flow was down, I was told look at PMIs, everything's fine. I know of a number of deals that were pulled on Friday. It's easy to dismiss these as froth and not the real economy and I'd concede that there's a point there. But these are confidence straws in the wind.
Equally, financial institutions (and nd decided to take a giant pace forward. Let's hope there's a parachute. And that someone's willing to pull the ripcord because base jumping kills....
Yes, we are definitely going to take a hit. And it won't be pretty. Question is, how big.
Ten years of misery with an economy permanently shrivelled by 15%? Not worth it.
Three years of stagnancy followed a bounceback, trend growth up, and the fecking EU question finally settled - Worth it.
As I've said before, Iceland is a fascinating example of how a shattered economy can quickly recover. Right now it has 3.5% GDP growth, 4% unemployment, and its GDP per capita has overtaken ours again, returning to trend.
If we can boast similar stats in eight years we'll have made the right choice. IF.
It's generally easier for smaller nations to recover than larger ones because policy changes have an almost immediate effect.
Sure, but the UK recovered equally quickly under Thatcherism. It was just seven years from the Winter of Discontent to us becoming the fastest growing nation in Europe.
Though it was the Thatcher years that accelerated the already existing trend of deindustrialisation. The concentration on London and the South East and financial services in particular is how the economy recovered, with post industrial areas becoming backwaters. They have just had their revenge by voting Leave to bugger the bankers and the Metropolis. They may even be about to elect the former Mayor of the city to preside over its demise.
Be careful who you are nasty to on the way up, you are certain to meet them again on the way down.
What tends to get overlooked is how well manufacturing did under Thatcher and Major. Manufacturing output rose 44% from 1979-97. De-industrialisation took place after 2000.
So the answer is yes: Norway and Liechtenstein and Iceland each would have a veto over our access to the single market if we are EEA members.
Oh, but they've neve EEA route.
Um. No. They woul
Stop diverting, Richard. This is what the EEA agreement is:
Article 102, paragraphs 3-6 are the ones you are after, Richard.
If there is no agreement on an issue within the "Contracting Parties" (ie EU + EEA states) then the issue is suspended.
But you yourself agreed they have the power of veto but have never used it. Apart from Norway, as you say.
i fucking e, other EEA members have a veto over our access to the single market.
The current EFTA members have a veto over us joining EFTA. That I have said all along. No one anywhere has denied that. Of course the fact that they are already saying they would welcome us is something that seems to have passed you by.
If we join EFTA they have no veto over our membership of the EEA because we are already in.
You really do seem to be getting desperate to make something an issue where none exists.
Edit: And please don't bother quoting bits of the EEA Agreement at me as if it is something new. I doubt you had even seen a copy of it before this week whereas I have been studying it and quoting it for the last decade.
Here's an expert on the matter:
"All EFTA members have a veto over the expansion of the EEA agreement (hence the Norwegian refusal to allow it to include oil and gas legislation)"
You said that Richard.
All EFTA members but only three (soon to be four?) who care about the EEA Agreement - Norway (the example you cited), Liechtenstein, and Iceland.
So if any of those non-EU EEA/EFTA members object to an expansion of the EEA Agreement which would otherwise benefit the UK, they would veto it.
And vice versa.
So much time studying the agreement..so little understanding.
Actually you do of course understand it as you gave me the example of Norway using the veto. It's just that you are in denial about it. You should try to lose the blog/chatroom mentality where you insult people and refuse to accept a point. It does you no favours.
I believe it is possible to unilaterally take up any vetoed regulations or legislation and the EU would consider it settled.
Interesting if so. Now why couldn't Richard, who has had a copy of the EEA Agreement under his bed since he was twelve years old, tell me that?
slightly off topic. - I was thinking about the pre referendum predictions on turnout - the consensus seemed to be sub-60% meant leave, 60-75% meant remain, and above 75% meant leave. I don't think anyone was saying leave on 72% turnout - any theories on why we saw decently but not massively elevated turnout from GE yet a leave vote?
People thought the young would be enthused before the WWC.
If, as now seems entirely likely, Labour splits to become Labour (hard left nutjobs) and Another Party (with the MPs and voters) I view the Another Party as being all but indistinguishable from the LibDems. Might these folk simply cross the floor and create a moderate centre left union, essentially reuniting the SDP and 'real' / non-loony Labour? That might give the Tories a serious run for their money.
It would just be current Labour minus 30% of their voters and also the brand name which is one of their main assets. I guess they'd gain 8 Lib Dem MPs.
I doubt the LibDems would welcome a bunch of authoritarian centralising Tory-light machine politicians from Labour's right wing. It took the Liberals years to absorb the last lot.
No it wouldn't be their interest for now - but another alliance would help in a GE for sure
i understand May will appoint either Boris or Gove Minister for Brexit
So when it all goes tits up they still get the blame, and she can swoop in and sign the deal they should have done all along.
Liking it so far...
Genius!
Yes, this is May's to lose. Boris is just too combustible. He'd have been a great PM in a time of confidence and expansion, he'd have made us laugh and done surprising and good things, and told great jokes.
But... this is nerve wracking. Tedious managerial competence is required. May did pretty well in probably the worst job in politics, Home Sec. She doesn't rock my coracle with her charisma but it's rocky enough, anyway.
Her number 1 priority at the Home Office was to get net migration down to the tens of thousands. How did she do?
Absolutely impossible target set by Cameron at his most casually irresponsible.
She also did pretty damn well with non-EU migrants, cutting them by a third, but mainly among the low skilled.
I've asked on here, which specific regulations hinder competition and flexibility. I get bluster. There are bright people who post here and if they could say, I'd have more confidence about next steps.
MIFID 2
You don't understand MiFID II, Charles.
No shame there.
Bits of it are good. Bits of it are crap.
All of it written by people who don't understand (or care about the City), despite Kay's best efforts to get the EU to see sense.
No shame here.
The other thing, while we are on the subject of MiFID, god help us, is that as you say, it was written by people who might not have had a great understanding of the City (or by those in the City who lobbied most strongly, as Kay never failed to point out), but who had a great understanding of what their constituents wanted. Which, in short, was bankers' heads on a plate.
Post-GFC, politicians were taking their lead from Main St, not Wall St (another reason I don't think it is a good example of the EU being anti-democratic).
I remember the days not so long ago when an England team would have been despairing of getting 308 off 50 overs. Now off 42 it's a dawdle. This is some batting lineup.
I remember the days not so long ago when an England team would have been despairing of getting 308 off 50 overs. Now off 42 it's a dawdle. This is some batting lineup.
What a great week for England and Roy if you don't follow football
I remember the days not so long ago when an England team would have been despairing of getting 308 off 50 overs. Now off 42 it's a dawdle. This is some batting lineup.
To say the game has changed is no understatement. 100 of the last 10 is just the norm.
i understand May will appoint either Boris or Gove Minister for Brexit
So when it all goes tits up they still get the blame, and she can swoop in and sign the deal they should have done all along.
Liking it so far...
Genius!
Yes, this is May's to lose. Boris is just too combustible. He'd have been a great PM in a time of confidence and expansion, he'd have made us laugh and done surprising and good things, and told great jokes.
But... this is nerve wracking. Tedious managerial competence is required. May did pretty well in probably the worst job in politics, Home Sec. She doesn't rock my coracle with her charisma but it's rocky enough, anyway.
Her number 1 priority at the Home Office was to get net migration down to the tens of thousands. How did she do?
Absolutely impossible target set by Cameron at his most casually irresponsible.
But she took the job and failed to deliver it. Yes she was hampered by Osborne and others but we would not see Thatcher preside over that scale of failure.
"French President Francois Hollande has said that Britain's vote to leave the EU should not affect a deal to stop migrants crossing the Channel, which led to many being stuck at camps in Calais."
Surprising he's announcing it now though - would have been good leverage in negotiations. That tells me the EU is serious about its no negotiating\special treatment stand, so no need to hold that card to his chest. They will offer standard EEA or Nothing at all, no negotiations.
I've asked on here, which specific regulations hinder competition and flexibility. I get bluster. There are bright people who post here and if they could say, I'd have more confidence about next steps.
MIFID 2
Thank you. It's good that it won't apply in the EEA then.
Are there any others? This is a real question. What are the changes in national law which will happen as a result of EU derived legislation bring repealed? It's that uncertainty point.
The problem is that regulations are specific to each industry, so not many people can give you multiple examples.
However, looking at lifesciences and financial services (the two sectors I know best) what you consistently see is the multinationals lobbying at the Brussels level for higher and more complex regulations. This is because it creates a barrier to entry as well as a raising fixed costs for all market participants - thus creating a relative competitive advantage for the bigger players.
Of course this will still happen at the national level, but the SMEs will have a better chance to interact with their national ministers on an even footing to the MNCs.
I think that it's a reasonable assumption that MNCs behave the same in other industries.
i understand May will appoint either Boris or Gove Minister for Brexit
So when it all goes tits up they still get the blame, and she can swoop in and sign the deal they should have done all along.
Liking it so far...
Genius!
Yes, this is May's to lose. Boris is just too combustible. He'd have been a great PM in a time of confidence and expansion, he'd have made us laugh and done surprising and good things, and told great jokes.
But... this is nerve wracking. Tedious managerial competence is required. May did pretty well in probably the worst job in politics, Home Sec. She doesn't rock my coracle with her charisma but it's rocky enough, anyway.
We have a choice between a 60-year-old calm headed woman with bags of experience and a passion for country walks or a bone idle testosterone-fuelled professional clown who betrayed his party, prime minister and former mayoral territory.
Now let me think.
Mays biggest challenge is squaring the circle between backing remain and being a Brexit PM.
I have no doubt she'll have come up with an explanation/argument. The challenge will be whether the Eurosceptic membership accepts it.
That's not a criticism, it's a comment. Her whole candidacy succeeds or falls on getting that tone right.
Not really, as long as she says she would lead the UK out of the EU and trigger article 50 as soon as she has an outline of the deal ready it won't be a problem. The party would destroy her if she rowed back on leaving.
All of the sensible candidates will stand up there and say they'll invoke Article 50 and leave the EU. The people have spoken and the writing is on the wall. That is not a huge hurdle to overcome.
The successful candidate will persuade the membership that they will go to Europe and get a good deal for Britain. To convince people, a remain backer is going to come under much more scrutiny in that respect. It will be the question on every interviewers lips: "why are you the best person to lead us out given your past position?" I'm not saying this can't be done, nor that May won't manage it. I'm simply saying that she will have to be clever in her positioning and tone on the subject. She will be challenged on it. She's a savvy operator but that is the biggest problem for her, just as Boris' biggest problem is the perception of some of a lack of credibility/competence.
I think that's a pragmatic way of looking at it. All I would add is when I said that in April that potential deal flow was down, I was told look at PMIs, everything's fine. I know of a number of deals that were pulled on Friday. It's easy to dismiss these as froth and not the real economy and I'd concede that there's a point there. But these are confidence straws in the wind.
Equally, financial institutions (and I use that in the widest sense of the phrase) are making relocation plans. .. It subsidises the country financially, if not perhaps morally. Choices have consequences.
Yes, we are definitely going to take a hit. And it won't be pretty. Question is, how big.
Ten years of misery with an economy shrivelled by 15%? Not worth it.
Three years of stagnancy followed a bounceback, trend growth up, and the fecking EU question finally settled - Worth it.
As I've said before, Iceland is a fascinating example of how a shattered economy can quickly recover. Right now it has 3.5% GDP growth, 4% unemployment, and its GDP per capita has overtaken ours again, returning to trend.
If we can boast similar stats in eight years we'll have made the right choice. IF.
It's generally easier for smaller nations to recover than larger ones because policy changes have an almost immediate effect.
Sure, but the UK recovered equally quickly under Thatcherism. It was just seven years from the Winter of Discontent to us becoming the fastest growing nation in Europe.
Ah - a supporter of the bedroom tax then.
That only applies to social housing right? If so, not a supporter. My downsizing measure would only apply to homeowners. Got to get older people moving.
Yes - However where are the downsized properties? That is the problem with the Bedroom tax. For people to move there must be a ready supply.
I don't want to do the homework, so colour me lazy. I've just noted that in my immediate social circle there are 14 people with c. 46 bedrooms between 'em. All empty nesters, bar me.
Council tax is so regressive (Wales had a property revaluation in 2005, so we're less out of kilter than England) that there's no real incentive to move; in fact, it's the other way round, you'd be crazy to move with the house price inflation we've had.
slightly off topic. - I was thinking about the pre referendum predictions on turnout - the consensus seemed to be sub-60% meant leave, 60-75% meant remain, and above 75% meant leave. I don't think anyone was saying leave on 72% turnout - any theories on why we saw decently but not massively elevated turnout from GE yet a leave vote?
The highest increases came from council estates, in Scotland where the debate was one sided turnout was similar to GE, I.e. middle class more likely to turnout.
i understand May will appoint either Boris or Gove Minister for Brexit
So when it all goes tits up they still get the blame, and she can swoop in and sign the deal they should have done all along.
Liking it so far...
Genius!
Yes, this is May's to lose. Boris is just too combustible. He'd have been a great PM in a time of confidence and expansion, he'd have made us laugh and done surprising and good things, and told great jokes.
But... this is nerve wracking. Tedious managerial competence is required. May did pretty well in probably the worst job in politics, Home Sec. She doesn't rock my coracle with her charisma but it's rocky enough, anyway.
We have a choice between a 60-year-old calm headed woman with bags of experience and a passion for country walks or a bone idle testosterone-fuelled professional clown who betrayed his party, prime minister and former mayoral territory.
Now let me think.
Mays biggest challenge is squaring the circle between backing remain and being a Brexit PM.
I have no doubt she'll have come up with an explanation/argument. The challenge will be whether the Eurosceptic membership accepts it.
That's not a criticism, it's a comment. Her whole candidacy succeeds or falls on getting that tone right.
No. We're in the Brexit hangover now, with everyone squeezing their eyeballs and saying, 'Why oh why?'. That level of anti-EU fervour will never be reached again. Most of the Tories will have got it out of their system too, and the call we be to make the most of a bad job whatever it takes.
i understand May will appoint either Boris or Gove Minister for Brexit
So when it all goes tits up they still get the blame, and she can swoop in and sign the deal they should have done all along.
Liking it so far...
Genius!
Yes, this is May's to lose. Boris is just too combustible. He'd have been a great PM in a time of confidence and expansion, he'd have made us laugh and done surprising and good things, and told great jokes.
But... this is nerve wracking. Tedious managerial competence is required. May did pretty well in probably the worst job in politics, Home Sec. She doesn't rock my coracle with her charisma but it's rocky enough, anyway.
We have a choice between a 60-year-old calm headed woman with bags of experience and a passion for country walks or a bone idle testosterone-fuelled professional clown who betrayed his party, prime minister and former mayoral territory.
Now let me think.
Mays biggest challenge is squaring the circle between backing remain and being a Brexit PM.
I have no doubt she'll have come up with an explanation/argument. The challenge will be whether the Eurosceptic membership accepts it.
That's not a criticism, it's a comment. Her whole candidacy succeeds or falls on getting that tone right.
No. We're in the Brexit hangover now, with everyone squeezing their eyeballs and saying, 'Why oh why?'. That level of anti-EU fervour will never be reached again. Most of the Tories will have got it out of their system now, and the call we be to make the most of a bad job whatever it takes.
You remainders are in for a big shock if u think we r just going to go away quietly now.
i understand May will appoint either Boris or Gove Minister for Brexit
So when it all goes tits up they still get the blame, and she can swoop in and sign the deal they should have done all along.
Liking it so far...
Genius!
Yes, this is May's to lose. Boris is just too combustible. He'd have been a great PM in a time of confidence and expansion, he'd have made us laugh and done surprising and good things, and told great jokes.
But... this is nerve wracking. Tedious managerial competence is required. May did pretty well in probably the worst job in politics, Home Sec. She doesn't rock my coracle with her charisma but it's rocky enough, anyway.
We have a choice between a 60-year-old calm headed woman with bags of experience and a passion for country walks or a bone idle testosterone-fuelled professional clown who betrayed his party, prime minister and former mayoral territory.
Now let me think.
Mays biggest challenge is squaring the circle between backing remain and being a Brexit PM.
I have no doubt she'll have come up with an explanation/argument. The challenge will be whether the Eurosceptic membership accepts it.
That's not a criticism, it's a comment. Her whole candidacy succeeds or falls on getting that tone right.
Not really, as long as she says she would lead the UK out of the EU and trigger article 50 as soon as she has an outline of the deal ready it won't be a problem. The party would destroy her if she rowed back on leaving.
All of the sensible candidates will stand up there and say they'll invoke Article 50 and leave the EU. The people have spoken and the writing is on the wall. That is not a huge hurdle to overcome.
The successful candidate will persuade the membership that they will go to Europe and get a good deal for Britain. To convince people, a remain backer is going to come under much more scrutiny in that respect. It will be the question on every interviewers lips: "why are you the best person to lead us out given your past position?" I'm not saying this can't be done, nor that May won't manage it. I'm simply saying that she will have to be clever in her positioning and tone on the subject. She will be challenged on it. She's a savvy operator but that is the biggest problem for her, just as Boris' biggest problem is the perception of some of a lack of credibility/competence.
Because I'm not beholden to the leave campaign's bullshit claims like Boris. Most Tories recognise most of it as utter bullshit. As loads of us pointed out at the time, Boris would have to deliver that stupid manifesto, Theresa wouldn't.
I've asked on here, which specific regulations hinder competition and flexibility. I get bluster. There are bright people who post here and if they could say, I'd have more confidence about next steps.
MIFID 2
You don't understand MiFID II, Charles.
No shame there.
Bits of it are good. Bits of it are crap.
All of it written by people who don't understand (or care about the City), despite Kay's best efforts to get the EU to see sense.
No shame here.
I agree absolutely. But crap as bits of it undoubtedly are, I think it is misplaced to say it hinders competition. Everyone after all is in the same boat. Clumsy as it is, it was formed (lest we forget with a kickstart from CP176 all those years ago) essentially to protect consumers from the likes of you. And me.
I was thinking about flexibility, rather than competition (e.g. fixed costs vs variable costs)
Although - as I posted subsequently - higher regulatory barriers makes it harder for new market entrants, so it does stifle competition in my view.
As for me, sweet and innocent that I am, I don't deal with retail consumers. And the family's watchword is to treat customers like we would like to be treated ourselves.
slightly off topic. - I was thinking about the pre referendum predictions on turnout - the consensus seemed to be sub-60% meant leave, 60-75% meant remain, and above 75% meant leave. I don't think anyone was saying leave on 72% turnout - any theories on why we saw decently but not massively elevated turnout from GE yet a leave vote?
The highest increases came from council estates, in Scotland where the debate was one sided turnout was similar to GE, I.e. middle class more likely to turnout.
The turnout of pensioners was at a record high, the turnout of working class voters in safe seats rose more than was expected, the turnout of younger voters esp 18-24 appears to have been below 50%. Turnout in Scotland and London was good, but not as good as most of the English provinces. Thus turnout rose, but not evenly.
Stop diverting, Richard. This is what the EEA agreement is:
Article 102, paragraphs 3-6 are the ones you are after, Richard.
If there is no agreement on an issue within the "Contracting Parties" (ie EU + EEA states) then the issue is suspended.
But you yourself agreed they have the power of veto but have never used it. Apart from Norway, as you say.
i fucking e, other EEA members have a veto over our access to the single market.
The current EFTA members have a veto over us joining EFTA. That I have said all along. No one anywhere has denied that. Of course the fact that they are already saying they would welcome us is something that seems to have passed you by.
If we join EFTA they have no veto over our membership of the EEA because we are already in.
You really do seem to be getting desperate to make something an issue where none exists.
Edit: And please don't bother quoting bits of the EEA Agreement at me as if it is something new. I doubt you had even seen a copy of it before this week whereas I have been studying it and quoting it for the last decade.
Here's an expert on the matter:
"All EFTA members have a veto over the expansion of the EEA agreement (hence the Norwegian refusal to allow it to include oil and gas legislation)"
You said that Richard.
All EFTA members but only three (soon to be four?) who care about the EEA Agreement - Norway (the example you cited), Liechtenstein, and Iceland.
So if any of those non-EU EEA/EFTA members object to an expansion of the EEA Agreement which would otherwise benefit the UK, they would veto it.
And vice versa.
So much time studying the agreement..so little understanding.
Actually you do of course understand it as you gave me the example of Norway using the veto. It's just that you are in denial about it. You should try to lose the blog/chatroom mentality where you insult people and refuse to accept a point. It does you no favours.
I believe it is possible to unilaterally take up any vetoed regulations or legislmation and the EU would consider it settled.
Interesting if so. Now why couldn't Richard, who has had a copy of the EEA Agreement under his bed since he was twelve years old, tell me that?
slightly off topic. - I was thinking about the pre referendum predictions on turnout - the consensus seemed to be sub-60% meant leave, 60-75% meant remain, and above 75% meant leave. I don't think anyone was saying leave on 72% turnout - any theories on why we saw decently but not massively elevated turnout from GE yet a leave vote?
The highest increases came from council estates, in Scotland where the debate was one sided turnout was similar to GE, I.e. middle class more likely to turnout.
The turnout of pensioners was at a record high, the turnout of working class voters in safe seats rose more than was expected, the turnout of younger voters esp 18-24 appears to have been below 50%. Turnout in Scotland and London was good, but not as good as most of the English provinces. Thus turnout rose, but not evenly.
I think that's a pragmatic way of looking at it. All I would add is when I said that in April that potential deal flow was down, I was told look at PMIs, everything's fine. I know of a number of deals that were pulled on Friday. It's easy to dismiss these as froth and not the real economy and I'd concede that there's a point there. But these are confidence straws in the wind.
Equally, financial institutions (and nd decided to take a giant pace forward. Let's hope there's a parachute. And that someone's willing to pull the ripcord because base jumping kills....
Yes, we are definitely going to take a hit. And it won't be pretty. Question is, how big.
Ten years of misery with an economy permanently shrivelled by 15%? Not worth it.
Three years of stagnancy followed a bounceback, trend growth up, and the fecking EU question finally settled - Worth it.
As I've said before, Iceland is a fascinating example of how a shattered economy can quickly recover. Right now it has 3.5% GDP growth, 4% unemployment, and its GDP per capita has overtaken ours again, returning to trend.
If we can boast similar stats in eight years we'll have made the right choice. IF.
It's generally easier for smaller nations to recover than larger ones because policy changes have an almost immediate effect.
Sure, but the UK recovered equally quickly under Thatcherism. It was just seven years from the Winter of Discontent to us becoming the fastest growing nation in Europe.
Though it was the Thatcher years that accelerated the already existing trend of deindustrialisation. The concentration on London and the South East and financial services in particular is how the economy recovered, with post industrial areas becoming backwaters. They have just had their revenge by voting Leave to bugger the bankers and the Metropolis. They may even be about to elect the former Mayor of the city to preside over its demise.
Be careful who you are nasty to on the way up, you are certain to meet them again on the way down.
What tends to get overlooked is how well manufacturing did under Thatcher and Major. Manufacturing output rose 44% from 1979-97. De-industrialisation took place after 2000.
But not the heavy industries that the most Leave areas had. As a percentage of the economy or of workforce the trend has been longterm decline.
These areas had forty years or more of decline, with the quid pro quo being decent subsidies either direct or indirect (such as relocation of civil service jobs) from the rich South East. Now they have bitten the hand that feeds them.
I think that's a pragmatic way of looking at it. All I would add is when I said that in April that potential deal flow was down, I was told look at PMIs, everything's fine. I know of a number of deals that were pulled on Friday. It's easy to dismiss these as froth and not the real economy and I'd concede that there's a point there. But these are confidence straws in the wind.
Equally, financial institutions (and nd decided to take a giant pace forward. Let's hope there's a parachute. And that someone's willing to pull the ripcord because base jumping kills....
Yes, we are definitely going to take a hit. And it won't be pretty. Question is, how big.
Ten years of misery with an economy permanently shrivelled by 15%? Not worth it.
Three years of stagnancy followed a bounceback, trend growth up, and the fecking EU question finally settled - Worth it.
As I've said before, Iceland is a fascinating example of how a shattered economy can quickly recover. Right now it has 3.5% GDP growth, 4% unemployment, and its GDP per capita has overtaken ours again, returning to trend.
If we can boast similar stats in eight years we'll have made the right choice. IF.
It's generally easier for smaller nations to recover than larger ones because policy changes have an almost immediate effect.
Sure, but the UK recovered equally quickly under Thatcherism. It was just seven years from the Winter of Discontent to us becoming the fastest growing nation in Europe.
Though it was the Thatcher years that accelerated the already existing trend of deindustrialisation. The concentration on London and the South East and financial services in particular is how the economy recovered, with post industrial areas becoming backwaters. They have just had their revenge by voting Leave to bugger the bankers and the Metropolis. They may even be about to elect the former Mayor of the city to preside over its demise.
Be careful who you are nasty to on the way up, you are certain to meet them again on the way down.
What tends to get overlooked is how well manufacturing did under Thatcher and Major. Manufacturing output rose 44% from 1979-97. De-industrialisation took place after 2000.
Some truth in what you say but there's a big difference between "manufacturing" and "industry".
I've asked on here, which specific regulations hinder competition and flexibility. I get bluster. There are bright people who post here and if they could say, I'd have more confidence about next steps.
MIFID 2
You don't understand MiFID II, Charles.
No shame there.
Bits of it are good. Bits of it are crap.
All of it written by people who don't understand (or care about the City), despite Kay's best efforts to get the EU to see sense.
No shame here.
The other thing, while we are on the subject of MiFID, god help us, is that as you say, it was written by people who might not have had a great understanding of the City (or by those in the City who lobbied most strongly, as Kay never failed to point out), but who had a great understanding of what their constituents wanted. Which, in short, was bankers' heads on a plate.
Post-GFC, politicians were taking their lead from Main St, not Wall St (another reason I don't think it is a good example of the EU being anti-democratic).
I think it is a great example of what is wrong with the EU.
European MEPs - responding to anger among their local voters as you say - were doing their best to hamstring an industry that didn't operate in their country.
That's not a basis for good governance - it's a basis for rule by emotion.
Far better that a government who has to live with the consequences of their actions makes the rules - they then weigh up the pros and cons of specific moves much more carefully
I remember the days not so long ago when an England team would have been despairing of getting 308 off 50 overs. Now off 42 it's a dawdle. This is some batting lineup.
To say the game has changed is no understatement. 100 of the last 10 is just the norm.
Quite. They would have got to 400 today off 50 if they had had to. Apparently England has the fastest average scoring rate of any international team since the ODI World Cup.
I've asked on here, which specific regulations hinder competition and flexibility. I get bluster. There are bright people who post here and if they could say, I'd have more confidence about next steps.
MIFID 2
Thank you. It's good that it won't apply in the EEA then.
Are there any others? This is a real question. What are the changes in national law which will happen as a result of EU derived legislation bring repealed? It's that uncertainty point.
The problem is that regulations are specific to each industry, so not many people can give you multiple examples.
However, looking at lifesciences and financial services (the two sectors I know best) what you consistently see is the multinationals lobbying at the Brussels level for higher and more complex regulations. This is because it creates a barrier to entry as well as a raising fixed costs for all market participants - thus creating a relative competitive advantage for the bigger players.
Of course this will still happen at the national level, but the SMEs will have a better chance to interact with their national ministers on an even footing to the MNCs.
I think that it's a reasonable assumption that MNCs behave the same in other industries.
Thanks for the decency of a reply. I'm not convinced that I wholly agree with you (and I'm fairly well versed on FS regs) but at least that shows thought. I'm very bored with people thinking that acting as a facsimile of the Daily Mail is an adequate replacement of for actual thought. No money changes hands here and you get what you pay for but I always took the view with trainees and junior lawyers that, ultimately, it didn't matter if they were right or wrong, as long as they had give real thought to the matter before reaching their conclusion. That's on, in the grand scheme of things, unimportant matters. unfortunately, I don't think that the motto, "think more, say less" is a winner.
i understand May will appoint either Boris or Gove Minister for Brexit
So when it all goes tits up they still get the blame, and she can swoop in and sign the deal they should have done all along.
Liking it so far...
Genius!
Yes, this is May's to lose. Boris is just too combustible. He'd have been a great PM in a time of confidence and expansion, he'd have made us laugh and done surprising and good things, and told great jokes.
But... this is nerve wracking. Tedious managerial competence is required. May did pretty well in probably the worst job in politics, Home Sec. She doesn't rock my coracle with her charisma but it's rocky enough, anyway.
We have a choice between a 60-year-old calm headed woman with bags of experience and a passion for country walks or a bone idle testosterone-fuelled professional clown who betrayed his party, prime minister and former mayoral territory.
Now let me think.
Sure, it sounds like a simple choice, but where has betting against Boris succeeding ever gotten anyone?
"French President Francois Hollande has said that Britain's vote to leave the EU should not affect a deal to stop migrants crossing the Channel, which led to many being stuck at camps in Calais."
Surprising he's announcing it now though - would have been good leverage in negotiations. That tells me the EU is serious about its no negotiating\special treatment stand, so no need to hold that card to his chest. They will offer standard EEA or Nothing at all, no negotiations.
Nah - it would have never worked in negotiations because (ignoring the fact it's a bilateral not an EU agreement) it would have been rightly viewed as a threat.
That's not a good way to build a consensual relationship between negotiators.
But by pre-announcing it like this he comes across as fair and reasonable, so sending a signal that France can be dealt with (which may create opportunities further down the line)
Engineering Employers Federation asks Art.50 not to be invoked.
Where they go, the nation will follow.
I'm being glib, but in fairness the longer it's not declared the more voices will ask it never be invoked. But it'd take a tsunami for the clamour to be unavoidable.
"All EFTA members have a veto over the expansion of the EEA agreement (hence the Norwegian refusal to allow it to include oil and gas legislation)"
You said that Richard.
All EFTA members but only three (soon to be four?) who care about the EEA Agreement - Norway (the example you cited), Liechtenstein, and Iceland.
So if any of those non-EU EEA/EFTA members object to an expansion of the EEA Agreement which would otherwise benefit the UK, they would veto it.
And vice versa.
So much time studying the agreement..so little understanding.
Actually you do of course understand it as you gave me the example of Norway using the veto. It's just that you are in denial about it. You should try to lose the blog/chatroom mentality where you insult people and refuse to accept a point. It does you no favours.
I honestly don't now know what you are going on about. You are quoting bits of what I have said back at me as if it proves some point but what that point is I have no idea. Your posts on this over the last few hours have become rather incoherent.
EFTA members (4 of them not 3) can block our joining EFTA. If we do not join EFTA we do not remain in the EEA. Bad news.
However it appears that they are very keen for us to join EFTA so not bad news.
Once we are in EFTA we retain our place in the EEA. Good news.
Once in the EEA as an EFTA member rather than an EU member we are only subject to around 9% of the total EU legislative burden. Good news.
We cannot impose any new regulation on fellow EFTA members and they cannot impose it on us. Good news.
This does not mean we cannot adopt legislation unilaterally if we choose to do so although I don't really see any reason why we would do that. Good news.
If there is any move to increase the scope of the EEA agreement to cover new areas we can veto it - Very good news.
If there is any new legislation covered by the EEA agreement that we feel is fundamentally against our interests then we can also veto that - good news.
i understand May will appoint either Boris or Gove Minister for Brexit
So when it all goes tits up they still get the blame, and she can swoop in and sign the deal they should have done all along.
Liking it so far...
Genius!
Yes, this is May's to lose. Boris is just too combustible. He'd have been a great PM in a time of confidence and expansion, he'd have made us laugh and done surprising and good things, and told great jokes.
But... this is nerve wracking. Tedious managerial competence is required. May did pretty well in probably the worst job in politics, Home Sec. She doesn't rock my coracle with her charisma but it's rocky enough, anyway.
We have a choice between a 60-year-old calm headed woman with bags of experience and a passion for country walks or a bone idle testosterone-fuelled professional clown who betrayed his party, prime minister and former mayoral territory.
Now let me think.
Sure, it sounds like a simple choice, but where has betting against Boris succeeding ever gotten anyone?
Personally I don't doubt he has a really good chance of winning, just that I think he shouldn't.
Though it was the Thatcher years that accelerated the already existing trend of deindustrialisation.
I don't agree.
Between 1973 and 1979, manufacturing as a percentage of UK GDP declined by 2.7 percentage points, or about 0.4%/year. Between 1979 and 1990, it declined by 5.4 percentage points, or about the same rate (assuming mineral oil processing held steady between those years). Very slightly faster, but you'd need a microscope to see the difference in the stats. See https://catalogue.pearsoned.co.uk/assets/hip/gb/hip_gb_pearsonhighered/samplechapter/0273736906.pdf table 1.2.
@DPJHodges: Spoken to several Labour MPs. Told very strong feeling in PLP that no one should declare tomorrow. Confirmed Owen Smith taking soundings.
I know these people are totally fking useless but some of us have MONEY ON THIS FFS!
These guys really cannot inspire confidence surely have the nerve to have no confidence in the leader at a time like this and have no clue what to do next.
Completely incompetent.
Its not as though Lab has changed the system and somehow wrong footed them.
Incompetent fools cant think beyond ABC but then realise nobodys called that
We will end up with Liz Kendall as the challenger at this rate.
Who would still be far, far, far better than Corbyn. With the possible exception of John McDonnell, Corbyn is the LEAST electable Labour MP in the Commons.
WAKE UP
P.S. Has Nick declared whether he thinks Corbyn should stay or go yet? We've been waiting longer for him than Charlie bloody Falconer
slightly off topic. - I was thinking about the pre referendum predictions on turnout - the consensus seemed to be sub-60% meant leave, 60-75% meant remain, and above 75% meant leave. I don't think anyone was saying leave on 72% turnout - any theories on why we saw decently but not massively elevated turnout from GE yet a leave vote?
The highest increases came from council estates, in Scotland where the debate was one sided turnout was similar to GE, I.e. middle class more likely to turnout.
The turnout of pensioners was at a record high, the turnout of working class voters in safe seats rose more than was expected, the turnout of younger voters esp 18-24 appears to have been below 50%. Turnout in Scotland and London was good, but not as good as most of the English provinces. Thus turnout rose, but not evenly.
18-24 was 36.4%.
I find that figure one of the most depressing aspects of the referendum vote.
Comments
To believe that one man can destroy the Labour Party is really sad.
Surely he could negotiate that someone like Clive Lewis was on the ballot to be leader.
So there was a vote on policies not just on him.
This has to be more than just about Corbyn.
He has become a selfish arrogant man , whatever they say about his polite quiet decency.
Any link?
Completely incompetent.
Its not as though Lab has changed the system and somehow wrong footed them.
Incompetent fools cant think beyond ABC but then realise nobodys called that
We will end up with Liz Kendall as the challenger at this rate.
I really don't think that finding out which man he is would be best when was head of the UK government.
This leaves us with May, a solid placeholder who has been in the crappiest department in government for the last six years and seen off every challenger to her quite easily.
Will she inspire the country to great heights; no.
Will she make us look like clown shoes; no.
Right now we need that, and I've thought so for some time. I would have backed Boris in 2019 if he had taken his time to shine in some cabinet job and proved himself, but he hasn't yet and has more skeletons in his closet than Ed Gein.
Are there any others? This is a real question. What are the changes in national law which will happen as a result of EU derived legislation bring repealed? It's that uncertainty point.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/liz-kendall-posed-tank-now-8008614
Fly Eagle Fly!
Post-GFC, politicians were taking their lead from Main St, not Wall St (another reason I don't think it is a good example of the EU being anti-democratic).
https://twitter.com/OliverKamm/status/748253178756497408
(on BF)
However, looking at lifesciences and financial services (the two sectors I know best) what you consistently see is the multinationals lobbying at the Brussels level for higher and more complex regulations. This is because it creates a barrier to entry as well as a raising fixed costs for all market participants - thus creating a relative competitive advantage for the bigger players.
Of course this will still happen at the national level, but the SMEs will have a better chance to interact with their national ministers on an even footing to the MNCs.
I think that it's a reasonable assumption that MNCs behave the same in other industries.
The successful candidate will persuade the membership that they will go to Europe and get a good deal for Britain. To convince people, a remain backer is going to come under much more scrutiny in that respect. It will be the question on every interviewers lips: "why are you the best person to lead us out given your past position?" I'm not saying this can't be done, nor that May won't manage it. I'm simply saying that she will have to be clever in her positioning and tone on the subject. She will be challenged on it. She's a savvy operator but that is the biggest problem for her, just as Boris' biggest problem is the perception of some of a lack of credibility/competence.
Council tax is so regressive (Wales had a property revaluation in 2005, so we're less out of kilter than England) that there's no real incentive to move; in fact, it's the other way round, you'd be crazy to move with the house price inflation we've had.
Although - as I posted subsequently - higher regulatory barriers makes it harder for new market entrants, so it does stifle competition in my view.
As for me, sweet and innocent that I am, I don't deal with retail consumers. And the family's watchword is to treat customers like we would like to be treated ourselves.
Thank goodness he has you as his wing man.
This evening
These areas had forty years or more of decline, with the quid pro quo being decent subsidies either direct or indirect (such as relocation of civil service jobs) from the rich South East. Now they have bitten the hand that feeds them.
Apart from me, there is Richard N, TSE, Max, Casino, Plato, Concanvasser...must be more surely? So far I count 5 for May, 2 for Johnson.
And Marquee Mark I think too
Aaaah, Wee Dougie.... A nation mourns.
https://twitter.com/philipjcowley/status/748255889916854272
European MEPs - responding to anger among their local voters as you say - were doing their best to hamstring an industry that didn't operate in their country.
That's not a basis for good governance - it's a basis for rule by emotion.
Far better that a government who has to live with the consequences of their actions makes the rules - they then weigh up the pros and cons of specific moves much more carefully
He has a point. Why should he listen to those elected by 9,347,324?
That's not a good way to build a consensual relationship between negotiators.
But by pre-announcing it like this he comes across as fair and reasonable, so sending a signal that France can be dealt with (which may create opportunities further down the line)
I'm being glib, but in fairness the longer it's not declared the more voices will ask it never be invoked. But it'd take a tsunami for the clamour to be unavoidable.
Who ate all the pies?
EFTA members (4 of them not 3) can block our joining EFTA. If we do not join EFTA we do not remain in the EEA. Bad news.
However it appears that they are very keen for us to join EFTA so not bad news.
Once we are in EFTA we retain our place in the EEA. Good news.
Once in the EEA as an EFTA member rather than an EU member we are only subject to around 9% of the total EU legislative burden. Good news.
We cannot impose any new regulation on fellow EFTA members and they cannot impose it on us. Good news.
This does not mean we cannot adopt legislation unilaterally if we choose to do so although I don't really see any reason why we would do that. Good news.
If there is any move to increase the scope of the EEA agreement to cover new areas we can veto it - Very good news.
If there is any new legislation covered by the EEA agreement that we feel is fundamentally against our interests then we can also veto that - good news.
Not really seeing a downside here Topping.
(Equally, I've donated several lifetimes worth of annual dues in the past)
Perhaps you could list her qualities apart from being able to turn on the waterworks at will.
Why do you think she is the anything other than a disaster
4TH OUT OF 5 for Deputy last time suddenly your favoured candidate.
The PLP sparked a crisis then wanted to impose Jarvis without a vote
Insulting to any Democratic Socialist IMO.
What does your CLP think.
Mine is seething
Between 1973 and 1979, manufacturing as a percentage of UK GDP declined by 2.7 percentage points, or about 0.4%/year. Between 1979 and 1990, it declined by 5.4 percentage points, or about the same rate (assuming mineral oil processing held steady between those years). Very slightly faster, but you'd need a microscope to see the difference in the stats. See https://catalogue.pearsoned.co.uk/assets/hip/gb/hip_gb_pearsonhighered/samplechapter/0273736906.pdf table 1.2.
WAKE UP
P.S. Has Nick declared whether he thinks Corbyn should stay or go yet? We've been waiting longer for him than Charlie bloody Falconer