James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Interestingly this is leading the news. This would be strange if it wasn't that James Chapman is now a partner at Bell Pottinger one of the most powerful PR agencies in the City. Not a company to be trifled with. I wonder who they're working for?
So we need foreigners to pick our strawberries now because we're too fat and lazy to do it ourselves. My mum worked on the fields for years, so did I in school holidays. These articles enrage me, the Independent would have you think we're all going to starve to death because of Brexit.
Automation will end many of these jobs within the next few years anyway.
The drive for a $15 minimum wage in the US is having the opposite effect and McDonald's share price is rocketing at the moment as they roll out robot kiosks. And at the other end of the scale every train will be automated within a decade. And every Airbus wing will be built by pushing a few buttons.
We're going to need to look elsewhere for new industries and different jobs right across the spectrum - and very soon. Luddites will not be able to hold back the tide.
So, what you're saying is that regulation is spurring technological change. Maybe we should have more of it.
Tactical voting certainly did do it for the Tories in Aberdeen South. A relative of mine who I have just visited voted Tory for the first time in her life and indeed campaigned with other like minded Labour supporters who were anti nationalist to do the same.
The Tories won Aberdeen South in 1992 though so again it was also blues returning home
It was very heavy campaigning that a vote for the Tory was the only way to keep the Nat out. If you had any idea how distressing it was for many Labour voters I can assure you you wouldn't be saying it was Tories returning home. I'm afraid after David's extraordinary forsight in the General Election he has got this one badly wrong.
No. If you look at the seats the Tories won, Aberdeen South, Stirling, Ayr, East Renfrewshire (formerly Eastwood), Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine, Dumfries and Galloway, Moray, Banff and Buchan, Angus etc all were held by the Tories in either 1983 or 1992 and Gordon was a notional Tory seat in 1992. So yes the independence issue may have focused minds but these were also seats the Tories used to win so they were not coming from nowhere. The other seats they won like Ochil and South Perthshire contained either part of a seat they won in 1992 (Perth and Kinross) or like Roxburgh and Berwickshire or Dumfriesshire, Ettrick and Lauderdale have moved to the Tories following the collapse of the LDs and were formerly Liberal held
But 6000 Labour voters in Aberdeen South voted Tory from their lowest watermark for decades in 2015
They may well have done but if they could vote many of those 2015 Labour voters would have been 1992 Tory voters too so their 2017 Tory vote was not their first
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
Brexit is going to be a messy stalemate that gives us no say over what happens in the EU, which also affects us, while leaving us largely at the whim of the EU. We all might as well get used to it.
So we need foreigners to pick our strawberries now because we're too fat and lazy to do it ourselves. My mum worked on the fields for years, so did I in school holidays. These articles enrage me, the Independent would have you think we're all going to starve to death because of Brexit.
Automation will end many of these jobs within the next few years anyway.
The drive for a $15 minimum wage in the US is having the opposite effect and McDonald's share price is rocketing at the moment as they roll out robot kiosks. And at the other end of the scale every train will be automated within a decade. And every Airbus wing will be built by pushing a few buttons.
We're going to need to look elsewhere for new industries and different jobs right across the spectrum - and very soon. Luddites will not be able to hold back the tide.
So, what you're saying is that regulation is spurring technological change. Maybe we should have more of it.
Actually aggressive deregulation is where we need to be at.
It's going to be a pain to test all these new machines and get them past unnecessary "health and safety" nonsense. Mostly imposed by the unions to prevent innovation.
Instead we should do it the old fashioned way. Use the machines as quickly as we can, safe or not, and be prepared to step over a couple of dead bodies on the road to cutting edge tech. It's a price worth paying to get there first.
after a year remainers have moved on from anger to bargaining, only two to go
We all know it's an unfolding and unmitigated disaster so we're not wasting any mental energy on it. Watching Leavers tie themselves in knots as they writhe in their self-contradictions is a harmless amusement.
What is really being trashed over the next 18 months is Britains reputation as a pragmatic and competent government and civil service. I never thohght it a justified reputation, but the witless incompetence that we exhibit to the world is astonishing.
So we need foreigners to pick our strawberries now because we're too fat and lazy to do it ourselves. My mum worked on the fields for years, so did I in school holidays. These articles enrage me, the Independent would have you think we're all going to starve to death because of Brexit.
Automation will end many of these jobs within the next few years anyway.
The drive for a $15 minimum wage in the US is having the opposite effect and McDonald's share price is rocketing at the moment as they roll out robot kiosks. And at the other end of the scale every train will be automated within a decade. And every Airbus wing will be built by pushing a few buttons.
We're going to need to look elsewhere for new industries and different jobs right across the spectrum - and very soon. Luddites will not be able to hold back the tide.
So, what you're saying is that regulation is spurring technological change. Maybe we should have more of it.
Actually aggressive deregulation is where we need to be at.
It's going to be a pain to test all these new machines and get them past unnecessary "health and safety" nonsense. Mostly imposed by the unions to prevent innovation.
Instead we should do it the old fashioned way. Use the machines as quickly as we can, safe or not, and be prepared to step over a couple of dead bodies on the road to cutting edge tech. It's a price worth paying to get there first.
So i can put you down as test operator in chief then to be first to try them out?
The first part of the SNP's vast, rickety coalition of voters came on board in 2007 with the collapse of the Scottish Socialist Party. I'd expected them to defect to Labour as soon as Jeremy Corbyn was elected and was surprised when this didn't happen. That they went over as soon as Corbyn started to make headway during the campaign seems perfectly natural in hindsight.
Socialists defecting from the SNP to Labour almost certainly masked committed unionists who were abandoning Labour to vote tactically for the Conservatives in the figures above.
The Tories might pick up one or two more seats in Scotland next time, but I'd expect Labour to take the lion's share of the next tranche of SNP seats to fall as central belt voters' minds focus on getting the Tory government out.
Tactical voting certainly did do it for the Tories in Aberdeen South. A relative of mine who I have just visited voted Tory for the first time in her life and indeed campaigned with other like minded Labour supporters who were anti nationalist to do the same.
Fuuny how easy it is for people like Roger to debunk Mr Herdson's carefully worked analysis supported by the stats with the irrefutable evidence of " a relative of mine" !
So we need foreigners to pick our strawberries now because we're too fat and lazy to do it ourselves. My mum worked on the fields for years, so did I in school holidays. These articles enrage me, the Independent would have you think we're all going to starve to death because of Brexit.
Automation will end many of these jobs within the next few years anyway.
The drive for a $15 minimum wage in the US is having the opposite effect and McDonald's share price is rocketing at the moment as they roll out robot kiosks. And at the other end of the scale every train will be automated within a decade. And every Airbus wing will be built by pushing a few buttons.
We're going to need to look elsewhere for new industries and different jobs right across the spectrum - and very soon. Luddites will not be able to hold back the tide.
So, what you're saying is that regulation is spurring technological change. Maybe we should have more of it.
Actually aggressive deregulation is where we need to be at.
It's going to be a pain to test all these new machines and get them past unnecessary "health and safety" nonsense. Mostly imposed by the unions to prevent innovation.
Instead we should do it the old fashioned way. Use the machines as quickly as we can, safe or not, and be prepared to step over a couple of dead bodies on the road to cutting edge tech. It's a price worth paying to get there first.
So i can put you down as test operator in chief then to be first to try them out?
Definitely. There's no progress without experimentation and risk.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Interestingly this is leading the news. This would be strange if it wasn't that James Chapman is now a partner at Bell Pottinger one of the most powerful PR agencies in the City. Not a company to be trifled with. I wonder who they're working for?
after a year remainers have moved on from anger to bargaining, only two to go
We all know it's an unfolding and unmitigated disaster so we're not wasting any mental energy on it. Watching Leavers tie themselves in knots as they writhe in their self-contradictions is a harmless amusement.
What is really being trashed over the next 18 months is Britains reputation as a pragmatic and competent government and civil service. I never thohght it a justified reputation, but the witless incompetence that we exhibit to the world is astonishing.
after a year remainers have moved on from anger to bargaining, only two to go
We all know it's an unfolding and unmitigated disaster so we're not wasting any mental energy on it. Watching Leavers tie themselves in knots as they writhe in their self-contradictions is a harmless amusement.
What is really being trashed over the next 18 months is Britains reputation as a pragmatic and competent government and civil service. I never thohght it a justified reputation, but the witless incompetence that we exhibit to the world is astonishing.
I agree - leaving the EU should not necessarily be so problematic. After all, there are plenty of countries not in the EU... what is the problem is a mixture of incompetence, poor leadership and half the country wishing ill on the future of the country!
Britain simply cannot govern itself. It's gone full pathetic.
after a year remainers have moved on from anger to bargaining, only two to go
We all know it's an unfolding and unmitigated disaster so we're not wasting any mental energy on it. Watching Leavers tie themselves in knots as they writhe in their self-contradictions is a harmless amusement.
What is really being trashed over the next 18 months is Britains reputation as a pragmatic and competent government and civil service. I never thohght it a justified reputation, but the witless incompetence that we exhibit to the world is astonishing.
after a year remainers have moved on from anger to bargaining, only two to go
We all know it's an unfolding and unmitigated disaster so we're not wasting any mental energy on it. Watching Leavers tie themselves in knots as they writhe in their self-contradictions is a harmless amusement.
What is really being trashed over the next 18 months is Britains reputation as a pragmatic and competent government and civil service. I never thohght it a justified reputation, but the witless incompetence that we exhibit to the world is astonishing.
Frankly, we're becoming a laughing stock.
Given the US just elected Trump and almost saw Sanders beat Hillary, a third of the French voted for Marine Le Pen and a comedian may well be elected PM of Italy next year on current polls I don't think the rest of the western world is in much position to laugh at the UK at the moment either!
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
This is what I find so amusing. After months of saying "it's not up to us, guv, to determine what Brexit looks like, there was no Leave Manifesto; it's up to the government", Brexiters can't wait to say exactly what Brexit should or shouldn't be.
There is partial Brexit (with only 1 or 2 of my points a/b/c being implemented), but remaining in the single market, as advocated by the likes of the despicable Umunna, is not Brexit at all.
Thankfully we have the Supreme Brexit Mole (Agent Corbyn) doing his best.
We are leaving the single market and will have a customs arrangement (not union). Rather than fight this the Remainiacs should do more productive things with their lives. Like perhaps moving to their beloved Eurozone.
The first part of the SNP's vast, rickety coalition of voters came on board in 2007 with the collapse of the Scottish Socialist Party. I'd expected them to defect to Labour as soon as Jeremy Corbyn was elected and was surprised when this didn't happen. That they went over as soon as Corbyn started to make headway during the campaign seems perfectly natural in hindsight.
Socialists defecting from the SNP to Labour almost certainly masked committed unionists who were abandoning Labour to vote tactically for the Conservatives in the figures above.
The Tories might pick up one or two more seats in Scotland next time, but I'd expect Labour to take the lion's share of the next tranche of SNP seats to fall as central belt voters' minds focus on getting the Tory government out.
Indeed Kezia Dugdale may well be First Minister by the end of 2021 which would be the final nail in the coffin for indyref2 for the foreseeable future
Tactical voting certainly made a difference in my seat, Stirling, with local Labour stalwarts like Alistair Weir openly supporting SCON, no doubt believing a Tory landslide was inevitable !
26 May 2017 - A senior Labour figure in Stirling has endorsed the Conservatives after ... Alistair Weir, vicechairman of Labour's Stirling constituency party, said the ... only way to defeat the SNP at this General Election is to vote Labour
after a year remainers have moved on from anger to bargaining, only two to go
We all know it's an unfolding and unmitigated disaster so we're not wasting any mental energy on it. Watching Leavers tie themselves in knots as they writhe in their self-contradictions is a harmless amusement.
What is really being trashed over the next 18 months is Britains reputation as a pragmatic and competent government and civil service. I never thohght it a justified reputation, but the witless incompetence that we exhibit to the world is astonishing.
I agree - leaving the EU should not necessarily be so problematic. After all, there are plenty of countries not in the EU... what is the problem is a mixture of incompetence, poor leadership and half the country wishing ill on the future of the country!
Britain simply cannot govern itself. It's gone full pathetic.
I knew that Remainers would be to blame for Leavers' inadequacies somehow.
after a year remainers have moved on from anger to bargaining, only two to go
We all know it's an unfolding and unmitigated disaster so we're not wasting any mental energy on it. Watching Leavers tie themselves in knots as they writhe in their self-contradictions is a harmless amusement.
What is really being trashed over the next 18 months is Britains reputation as a pragmatic and competent government and civil service. I never thohght it a justified reputation, but the witless incompetence that we exhibit to the world is astonishing.
With its education, housing, immigration, credit-card consumption economy failures plus its EU negotiating and Middle-Eastern meddling disasters I'd be amazed if anyone thought that Britain had pragmatic and competent government and civil service.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
This is what I find so amusing. After months of saying "it's not up to us, guv, to determine what Brexit looks like, there was no Leave Manifesto; it's up to the government", Brexiters can't wait to say exactly what Brexit should or shouldn't be.
What I find so amusing is how people like you can't grasp what Brexit requires. That list is implicit in LEAVING THE EU. If any of those items is not the case then Brexit simply has not occured. Other matters of policy are another thing, a matter for HM Gov / Parliament.
The ballot paper implied nothing. It asked a direct question, 'in or out.' So if it's Out, it's out whetever, regardless of consequences or conditions. Doesn't matter if Brexit is hard, soft, or half-baked - as long as we are no longer in the EU at the end of it, job done.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
This is what I find so amusing. After months of saying "it's not up to us, guv, to determine what Brexit looks like, there was no Leave Manifesto; it's up to the government", Brexiters can't wait to say exactly what Brexit should or shouldn't be.
What I find so amusing is how people like you can't grasp what Brexit requires. That list is implicit in LEAVING THE EU. If any of those items is not the case then Brexit simply has not occured. Other matters of policy are another thing, a matter for HM Gov / Parliament.
The ballot paper implied nothing. It asked a direct question, 'in or out.' So if it's Out, it's out whetever, regardless of consequences or conditions. Doesn't matter if Brexit is hard, soft, or half-baked - as long as we are no longer in the EU at the end of it, job done.
Tactical voting certainly made a difference in my seat, Stirling, with local Labour stalwarts like Alistair Weir openly supporting SCON, no doubt believing a Tory landslide was inevitable !
26 May 2017 - A senior Labour figure in Stirling has endorsed the Conservatives after ... Alistair Weir, vicechairman of Labour's Stirling constituency party, said the ... only way to defeat the SNP at this General Election is to vote Labour
As an aside, there was a question raised earlier about countries outside the EU that fell under the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
Firstly, you need to separate two separate issues:
1. Is about the rights of (say) EU citizens in the UK and whether they would enjoy extra privileges due to being EU rather than UK citizens, and whether the ECJ would opine on those.
2. Is about compliance with treaty agreements, in particular regarding trade.
I think when we talk about the ECJ, there is a tendency to think it's all about 1. Now, 1 is clearly politically unacceptable in the UK, and no British government would be able to ram a Brexit through that included allowing the ECJ to rule on the rights of non-British citizens in the UK.
The second question is rather more nuanced. All treaties have dispute resolution mechanisms. So, NAFTA members submit to the jurisdiction of ISDS tribunals. EFTA states submit to rulings from the EFTA court. There's even a NATO court that opines on cases where members are felt to have breached their treaty obligations.
In a number of EU FTA's, the ECJ does opine on whether countries (or the EU itself) are complying with treaty obligations.
However, there is a very important difference between the role of the ECJ here, and as it is enshrined in UK law regarding the EU. The ECJ cannot overrule a government, it's only force is that it can suspend an agreement due to the non compliance of one of the parties.
Now, I'm not saying that being subject to ECJ rulings on UK-EU trade is a good thing. But it is clearly a very different magnitude of issue to being subject to ECJ rulings on EU citizens in the UK. I certainly think it is something we could live with, while we negotiated an arrangement similar to the CETA deal between Canada and the EU.
Tactical voting certainly did do it for the Tories in Aberdeen South. A relative of mine who I have just visited voted Tory for the first time in her life and indeed campaigned with other like minded Labour supporters who were anti nationalist to do the same.
Fuuny how easy it is for people like Roger to debunk Mr Herdson's carefully worked analysis supported by the stats with the irrefutable evidence of " a relative of mine" !
Normally I'd agree with you but in this instance I've got a lot of inside knowledge. I knew for example before the vote that it was very likely to go Tory when the polls were saying something different.
after a year remainers have moved on from anger to bargaining, only two to go
We all know it's an unfolding and unmitigated disaster so we're not wasting any mental energy on it. Watching Leavers tie themselves in knots as they writhe in their self-contradictions is a harmless amusement.
What is really being trashed over the next 18 months is Britains reputation as a pragmatic and competent government and civil service. I never thohght it a justified reputation, but the witless incompetence that we exhibit to the world is astonishing.
Frankly, we're becoming a laughing stock.
Are we? Because we're all highly politicised, we think the country is going to hell in a handcart because the other side is in power, or because a political decision has gone against us, but I don't think that's how most people see things.
after a year remainers have moved on from anger to bargaining, only two to go
We all know it's an unfolding and unmitigated disaster so we're not wasting any mental energy on it. Watching Leavers tie themselves in knots as they writhe in their self-contradictions is a harmless amusement.
What is really being trashed over the next 18 months is Britains reputation as a pragmatic and competent government and civil service. I never thohght it a justified reputation, but the witless incompetence that we exhibit to the world is astonishing.
I agree - leaving the EU should not necessarily be so problematic. After all, there are plenty of countries not in the EU... what is the problem is a mixture of incompetence, poor leadership and half the country wishing ill on the future of the country!
Britain simply cannot govern itself. It's gone full pathetic.
I knew that Remainers would be to blame for Leavers' inadequacies somehow.
Do you deny that having a sizeable chunk of the political and media elites constantly trying to derail the negotiations and siding with the other side has a detrimental impact on the future of this country?
Actually you of course don't. You think the country can only exist as part of a European superstate.
The Tolpuddle Martyrs were agricultural labourers. They are celebrated by the labour movement as trade union heroes and their efforts hailed. Yet now agricultural labourers are fascist dinosaurs, wanting to take away the jobs of more diverse people from abroad.
How dare they want better condition and higher wages. Think of the effect on the poor consumers? There's a delicious irony here, and I can't help being amused. Am I living in an alternate universe?
No, the Labour Party has changed, it is now the party of the middle class, metropolitan elite. Bring me your posho, your advantaged journalist, your sociology lecturer, your gap-year student, your class-war warrior.
And the animals looked from pig to man ...
I thought of the Tolpuddle Martyrs myself recently in relation to metropolitan leftist hypocrisy.
Of course those same metropolitan leftists would also prefer to wear a sweat shop made T-shirt proclaiming their self-righteousness rather than one made in a British factory paying a living wage.
In December, when the European Commission responded to terrorist attacks by passing stricter gun laws, only three countries stood against their impotent actions.
Now, one of them is taking matters into their own hands with a proposition to put the right to bear arms back into their Constitution and put guns into the hands of its citizens for protection.
On Wednesday, the lower house of the Czech parliament voted in favor of adding gun rights to their constitution.
“This constitutional bill is in reaction to the recent increase of security threats, especially the danger of violent acts such as isolated terrorist attacks … active attackers or other violent hybrid threats,” a draft of the bill reads.
“We don’t want to disarm our citizens at a time when the security situation in Europe is getting worse,” Interior Minister Milan Chovanec told parliament before Wednesday’s vote. “Show me a single terrorist attack in Europe perpetrated using a legally-owned weapon.”
I can actually think of one terrorist attack with a legally owned weapon ... but that just means that if those around that attack had been armed too it wouldn't have been as bad.
Anyway, good on the Czechs, I've always liked the place.
I've always said that 9/11 would probably not have happened if, instead of screening for weapons before boarding, you handed every passenger their own large knife.
That's a wonderful idea! Why don't you start your own carrier with just that policy?
after a year remainers have moved on from anger to bargaining, only two to go
We all know it's an unfolding and unmitigated disaster so we're not wasting any mental energy on it. Watching Leavers tie themselves in knots as they writhe in their self-contradictions is a harmless amusement.
What is really being trashed over the next 18 months is Britains reputation as a pragmatic and competent government and civil service. I never thohght it a justified reputation, but the witless incompetence that we exhibit to the world is astonishing.
I agree - leaving the EU should not necessarily be so problematic. After all, there are plenty of countries not in the EU... what is the problem is a mixture of incompetence, poor leadership and half the country wishing ill on the future of the country!
Britain simply cannot govern itself. It's gone full pathetic.
I knew that Remainers would be to blame for Leavers' inadequacies somehow.
and yet Remain with that huge mental energy you keep promising still got beat by a bunch of Neandertals with a can of paint and a bus
I mean when are you going to unleash the huge brain of the Meekon ?
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
This is what I find so amusing. After months of saying "it's not up to us, guv, to determine what Brexit looks like, there was no Leave Manifesto; it's up to the government", Brexiters can't wait to say exactly what Brexit should or shouldn't be.
What I find so amusing is how people like you can't grasp what Brexit requires. That list is implicit in LEAVING THE EU. If any of those items is not the case then Brexit simply has not occured. Other matters of policy are another thing, a matter for HM Gov / Parliament.
The ballot paper implied nothing. It asked a direct question, 'in or out.' So if it's Out, it's out whetever, regardless of consequences or conditions. Doesn't matter if Brexit is hard, soft, or half-baked - as long as we are no longer in the EU at the end of it, job done.
Leaving the EU **requires** those three things daodao wrote. Without them we are not truly leaving and the referendum result will not be honoured. Forget the rubbish about hard, soft etc.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
This is what I find so amusing. After months of saying "it's not up to us, guv, to determine what Brexit looks like, there was no Leave Manifesto; it's up to the government", Brexiters can't wait to say exactly what Brexit should or shouldn't be.
What I find so amusing is how people like you can't grasp what Brexit requires. That list is implicit in LEAVING THE EU. If any of those items is not the case then Brexit simply has not occured. Other matters of policy are another thing, a matter for HM Gov / Parliament.
The ballot paper implied nothing. It asked a direct question, 'in or out.' So if it's Out, it's out whetever, regardless of consequences or conditions. Doesn't matter if Brexit is hard, soft, or half-baked - as long as we are no longer in the EU at the end of it, job done.
Leaving the EU **requires** those three things daodao wrote. Without them we are not truly leaving and the referendum result will not be honoured. Forget the rubbish about hard, soft etc.
Mr. Borough, I think that ship has pretty much sailed. The PLP need to either do it now, or resign themselves to the glorious People's Following of Jezbollah.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
This is what I find so amusing. After months of saying "it's not up to us, guv, to determine what Brexit looks like, there was no Leave Manifesto; it's up to the government", Brexiters can't wait to say exactly what Brexit should or shouldn't be.
What I find so amusing is how people like you can't grasp what Brexit requires. That list is implicit in LEAVING THE EU. If any of those items is not the case then Brexit simply has not occured. Other matters of policy are another thing, a matter for HM Gov / Parliament.
The ballot paper implied nothing. It asked a direct question, 'in or out.' So if it's Out, it's out whetever, regardless of consequences or conditions. Doesn't matter if Brexit is hard, soft, or half-baked - as long as we are no longer in the EU at the end of it, job done.
Leaving the EU **requires** those three things daodao wrote. Without them we are not truly leaving and the referendum result will not be honoured. Forget the rubbish about hard, soft etc.
That's funny. Don't recall seeing them on the ballot paper.
after a year remainers have moved on from anger to bargaining, only two to go
We all know it's an unfolding and unmitigated disaster so we're not wasting any mental energy on it. Watching Leavers tie themselves in knots as they writhe in their self-contradictions is a harmless amusement.
What is really being trashed over the next 18 months is Britains reputation as a pragmatic and competent government and civil service. I never thohght it a justified reputation, but the witless incompetence that we exhibit to the world is astonishing.
I agree - leaving the EU should not necessarily be so problematic. After all, there are plenty of countries not in the EU... what is the problem is a mixture of incompetence, poor leadership and half the country wishing ill on the future of the country!
Britain simply cannot govern itself. It's gone full pathetic.
I knew that Remainers would be to blame for Leavers' inadequacies somehow.
Do you deny that having a sizeable chunk of the political and media elites constantly trying to derail the negotiations and siding with the other side has a detrimental impact on the future of this country?
Actually you of course don't. You think the country can only exist as part of a European superstate.
A European superstate existed only in the demented imaginations of monomaniac obsessives. It's unsurprising that those same monomaniac obsessives now see quislings and saboteurs everywhere rather than confront their own shortcomings.
after a year remainers have moved on from anger to bargaining, only two to go
We all know it's an unfolding and unmitigated disaster so we're not wasting any mental energy on it. Watching Leavers tie themselves in knots as they writhe in their self-contradictions is a harmless amusement.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
This is what I find so amusing. After months of saying "it's not up to us, guv, to determine what Brexit looks like, there was no Leave Manifesto; it's up to the government", Brexiters can't wait to say exactly what Brexit should or shouldn't be.
What I find so amusing is how people like you can't grasp what Brexit requires. That list is implicit in LEAVING THE EU. If any of those items is not the case then Brexit simply has not occured. Other matters of policy are another thing, a matter for HM Gov / Parliament.
The ballot paper implied nothing. It asked a direct question, 'in or out.' So if it's Out, it's out whetever, regardless of consequences or conditions. Doesn't matter if Brexit is hard, soft, or half-baked - as long as we are no longer in the EU at the end of it, job done.
Leave or Remain, actually. But either way - the Hokey Cokey Brexit favoured by Remainers won't wash. Unless we have control of our borders and sovereignty to make laws (including on trade standards) then how will we have put anymore than our Right Leg Out, and how are we to be reassured that a future inept Remainer government won't put it back in again?
Tactical voting certainly made a difference in my seat, Stirling, with local Labour stalwarts like Alistair Weir openly supporting SCON, no doubt believing a Tory landslide was inevitable !
26 May 2017 - A senior Labour figure in Stirling has endorsed the Conservatives after ... Alistair Weir, vicechairman of Labour's Stirling constituency party, said the ... only way to defeat the SNP at this General Election is to vote Labour
Stirling too was also Tory in 1992
Indeed, although SLAB tactical voting probably swung it for SCON, many of them Corbynistas as well to sweeten the Tory victory !
Tactical voting certainly did do it for the Tories in Aberdeen South. A relative of mine who I have just visited voted Tory for the first time in her life and indeed campaigned with other like minded Labour supporters who were anti nationalist to do the same.
Fuuny how easy it is for people like Roger to debunk Mr Herdson's carefully worked analysis supported by the stats with the irrefutable evidence of " a relative of mine" !
Normally I'd agree with you but in this instance I've got a lot of inside knowledge. I knew for example before the vote that it was very likely to go Tory when the polls were saying something different.
Hmmmmm. Never mind - at least living in the south of France with the bulwark of Macron to protect against all and sundry you are insulated from all of the world's demagogues. Are you planning to join president Trump in attending the July 14 celebrations this year?
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
This is what I find so amusing. After months of saying "it's not up to us, guv, to determine what Brexit looks like, there was no Leave Manifesto; it's up to the government", Brexiters can't wait to say exactly what Brexit should or shouldn't be.
What I find so amusing is how people like you can't grasp what Brexit requires. That list is implicit in LEAVING THE EU. If any of those items is not the case then Brexit simply has not occured. Other matters of policy are another thing, a matter for HM Gov / Parliament.
The ballot paper implied nothing. It asked a direct question, 'in or out.' So if it's Out, it's out whetever, regardless of consequences or conditions. Doesn't matter if Brexit is hard, soft, or half-baked - as long as we are no longer in the EU at the end of it, job done.
Leaving the EU **requires** those three things daodao wrote. Without them we are not truly leaving and the referendum result will not be honoured. Forget the rubbish about hard, soft etc.
Are Norway and Switzerland in the EU, then?
No, but they're not 'leaving' it - they have effectively half-joined it (just not the political union) and are content with that position. Leaving does not mean "part leaving" it means leaving (in full).
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
Brexit "requires" nothing other than we leave the EU
Strange how you guys couldn't give us any details of what Brexit meant during the referendum - I remember that "it's up mot the government to decide" coming up a lot - but now you seem to know exactly what it all means.
Another step closer to the new En Marche party emerging...
Moderate Labour MPs have clearly not been able to come for Corbyn, if Corbyn comes for them they may have no choice. Chuka Umunna would be the likely leader of any breakaway party, his pro single market amendment this week was the first step in that direction
after a year remainers have moved on from anger to bargaining, only two to go
We all know it's an unfolding and unmitigated disaster so we're not wasting any mental energy on it. Watching Leavers tie themselves in knots as they writhe in their self-contradictions is a harmless amusement.
What is really being trashed over the next 18 months is Britains reputation as a pragmatic and competent government and civil service. I never thohght it a justified reputation, but the witless incompetence that we exhibit to the world is astonishing.
Frankly, we're becoming a laughing stock.
Are we? Because we're all highly politicised, we think the country is going to hell in a handcart because the other side is in power, or because a political decision has gone against us, but I don't think that's how most people see things.
Sean, I was thinking in particular of our reputation abroad. Just browse the international Press and MSM and you cannot escape the conclusion. They don't dislike us, they don't want bad things happening to us, but there is a widespread incredulity at our peculiar stupidity.
after a year remainers have moved on from anger to bargaining, only two to go
We all know it's an unfolding and unmitigated disaster so we're not wasting any mental energy on it. Watching Leavers tie themselves in knots as they writhe in their self-contradictions is a harmless amusement.
What is really being trashed over the next 18 months is Britains reputation as a pragmatic and competent government and civil service. I never thohght it a justified reputation, but the witless incompetence that we exhibit to the world is astonishing.
I agree - leaving the EU should not necessarily be so problematic. After all, there are plenty of countries not in the EU... what is the problem is a mixture of incompetence, poor leadership and half the country wishing ill on the future of the country!
Britain simply cannot govern itself. It's gone full pathetic.
I knew that Remainers would be to blame for Leavers' inadequacies somehow.
Do you deny that having a sizeable chunk of the political and media elites constantly trying to derail the negotiations and siding with the other side has a detrimental impact on the future of this country?
Actually you of course don't. You think the country can only exist as part of a European superstate.
A European superstate existed only in the demented imaginations of monomaniac obsessives.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
This is what I find so amusing. After months of saying "it's not up to us, guv, to determine what Brexit looks like, there was no Leave Manifesto; it's up to the government", Brexiters can't wait to say exactly what Brexit should or shouldn't be.
What I find so amusing is how people like you can't grasp what Brexit requires. That list is implicit in LEAVING THE EU. If any of those items is not the case then Brexit simply has not occured. Other matters of policy are another thing, a matter for HM Gov / Parliament.
The ballot paper implied nothing. It asked a direct question, 'in or out.' So if it's Out, it's out whetever, regardless of consequences or conditions. Doesn't matter if Brexit is hard, soft, or half-baked - as long as we are no longer in the EU at the end of it, job done.
Leave or Remain, actually. But either way - the Hokey Cokey Brexit favoured by Remainers won't wash. Unless we have control of our borders and sovereignty to make laws (including on trade standards) then how will we have put anymore than our Right Leg Out, and how are we to be reassured that a future inept Remainer government won't put it back in again?
Peter's fundamental point is correct, though. The referendum ballot merely asked whether we should be in the EU or not. Countries like Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU. Some of those who vote for Out - including SeanT, Richard Tyndall and myself from this site - wanted a relationship with the EU like that enjoyed by those countries.
Ultimately, we need to find a relationship with the EU that works for 70% of the population, not the 52% or the 48%. Right now I think we're floundering. And the consequences of that floundering are increasing by the day as Dr Fox fails even to make the basic progress required to put us on parity with the rest of the world post April 2019.
after a year remainers have moved on from anger to bargaining, only two to go
We all know it's an unfolding and unmitigated disaster so we're not wasting any mental energy on it. Watching Leavers tie themselves in knots as they writhe in their self-contradictions is a harmless amusement.
What is really being trashed over the next 18 months is Britains reputation as a pragmatic and competent government and civil service. I never thohght it a justified reputation, but the witless incompetence that we exhibit to the world is astonishing.
Frankly, we're becoming a laughing stock.
Are we? Because we're all highly politicised, we think the country is going to hell in a handcart because the other side is in power, or because a political decision has gone against us, but I don't think that's how most people see things.
Sean, I was thinking in particular of our reputation abroad. Just browse the international Press and MSM and you cannot escape the conclusion. They don't dislike us, they don't want bad things happening to us, but there is a widespread incredulity at our peculiar stupidity.
Oh, I thought you meant our reputation with the people of the world, not their press.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
Brexit "requires" nothing other than we leave the EU
Strange how you guys couldn't give us any details of what Brexit meant during the referendum - I remember that "it's up mot the government to decide" coming up a lot - but now you seem to know exactly what it all means.
Oh not this bull again. It was made clear by most political leaders on both sides of the referendum - including the Prime Minister who called the referendum - that leaving meant leaving the single market. Do I have to bring up the classic clip demonstrating this from Politics Today?
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
Brexit "requires" nothing other than we leave the EU
Strange how you guys couldn't give us any details of what Brexit meant during the referendum - I remember that "it's up mot the government to decide" coming up a lot - but now you seem to know exactly what it all means.
A fair point. It's an interesting question how large a percentage of the electorate actually share the views of the kamikaze Brexiteers here.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
This is what I find so amusing. After months of saying "it's not up to us, guv, to determine what Brexit looks like, there was no Leave Manifesto; it's up to the government", Brexiters can't wait to say exactly what Brexit should or shouldn't be.
What I find so amusing is how people like you can't grasp what Brexit requires. That list is implicit in LEAVING THE EU. If any of those items is not the case then Brexit simply has not occured. Other matters of policy are another thing, a matter for HM Gov / Parliament.
The ballot paper implied nothing. It asked a direct question, 'in or out.' So if it's Out, it's out whetever, regardless of consequences or conditions. Doesn't matter if Brexit is hard, soft, or half-baked - as long as we are no longer in the EU at the end of it, job done.
Leaving the EU **requires** those three things daodao wrote. Without them we are not truly leaving and the referendum result will not be honoured. Forget the rubbish about hard, soft etc.
Are Norway and Switzerland in the EU, then?
No, but they're not 'leaving' it - they have effectively half-joined it (just not the political union) and are content with that position. Leaving does not mean "part leaving" it means leaving (in full).
That's simply not true.
Leaving the EU means not being a member of the EU, nothing more, nothing less.
Tactical voting certainly made a difference in my seat, Stirling, with local Labour stalwarts like Alistair Weir openly supporting SCON, no doubt believing a Tory landslide was inevitable !
26 May 2017 - A senior Labour figure in Stirling has endorsed the Conservatives after ... Alistair Weir, vicechairman of Labour's Stirling constituency party, said the ... only way to defeat the SNP at this General Election is to vote Labour
Stirling too was also Tory in 1992
Indeed, although SLAB tactical voting probably swung it for SCON, many of them Corbynistas as well to sweeten the Tory victory !
Perhaps but the Tories got 40% in Stirling in 1992 in 2017 they got 37%, so actually slightly less
So we need foreigners to pick our strawberries now because we're too fat and lazy to do it ourselves. My mum worked on the fields for years, so did I in school holidays. These articles enrage me, the Independent would have you think we're all going to starve to death because of Brexit.
Automation will end many of these jobs within the next few years anyway.
The drive for a $15 minimum wage in the US is having the opposite effect and McDonald's share price is rocketing at the moment as they roll out robot kiosks. And at the other end of the scale every train will be automated within a decade. And every Airbus wing will be built by pushing a few buttons.
We're going to need to look elsewhere for new industries and different jobs right across the spectrum - and very soon. Luddites will not be able to hold back the tide.
So, what you're saying is that regulation is spurring technological change. Maybe we should have more of it.
Actually aggressive deregulation is where we need to be at.
It's going to be a pain to test all these new machines and get them past unnecessary "health and safety" nonsense. Mostly imposed by the unions to prevent innovation.
Instead we should do it the old fashioned way. Use the machines as quickly as we can, safe or not, and be prepared to step over a couple of dead bodies on the road to cutting edge tech. It's a price worth paying to get there first.
But you said that the regulation (higher minimum wages) was spurring technological change. I'm confused.
after a year remainers have moved on from anger to bargaining, only two to go
We all know it's an unfolding and unmitigated disaster so we're not wasting any mental energy on it. Watching Leavers tie themselves in knots as they writhe in their self-contradictions is a harmless amusement.
What is really being trashed over the next 18 months is Britains reputation as a pragmatic and competent government and civil service. I never thohght it a justified reputation, but the witless incompetence that we exhibit to the world is astonishing.
I agree - leaving the EU should not necessarily be so problematic. After all, there are plenty of countries not in the EU... what is the problem is a mixture of incompetence, poor leadership and half the country wishing ill on the future of the country!
Britain simply cannot govern itself. It's gone full pathetic.
I knew that Remainers would be to blame for Leavers' inadequacies somehow.
Do you deny that having a sizeable chunk of the political and media elites constantly trying to derail the negotiations and siding with the other side has a detrimental impact on the future of this country?
Actually you of course don't. You think the country can only exist as part of a European superstate.
A European superstate existed only in the demented imaginations of monomaniac obsessives. It's unsurprising that those same monomaniac obsessives now see quislings and saboteurs everywhere rather than confront their own shortcomings.
Is this williamglenn that you're referring to ?
Though the Helmut Kohl funeral suggests that EverCloserUnion was supported by leading European politicians.
after a year remainers have moved on from anger to bargaining, only two to go
We all know it's an unfolding and unmitigated disaster so we're not wasting any mental energy on it. Watching Leavers tie themselves in knots as they writhe in their self-contradictions is a harmless amusement.
What is really being trashed over the next 18 months is Britains reputation as a pragmatic and competent government and civil service. I never thohght it a justified reputation, but the witless incompetence that we exhibit to the world is astonishing.
I agree - leaving the EU should not necessarily be so problematic. After all, there are plenty of countries not in the EU... what is the problem is a mixture of incompetence, poor leadership and half the country wishing ill on the future of the country!
Britain simply cannot govern itself. It's gone full pathetic.
I knew that Remainers would be to blame for Leavers' inadequacies somehow.
Do you deny that having a sizeable chunk of the political and media elites constantly trying to derail the negotiations and siding with the other side has a detrimental impact on the future of this country?
Actually you of course don't. You think the country can only exist as part of a European superstate.
A European superstate existed only in the demented imaginations of monomaniac obsessives. It's unsurprising that those same monomaniac obsessives now see quislings and saboteurs everywhere rather than confront their own shortcomings.
Hmm. EU Army that was assured not to happen? Then immediately after the referendum was happening?
Just for starters.
Since 1973 people like you have been lying to the British people about the intent and destination of The Project.
after a year remainers have moved on from anger to bargaining, only two to go
We all know it's an unfolding and unmitigated disaster so we're not wasting any mental energy on it. Watching Leavers tie themselves in knots as they writhe in their self-contradictions is a harmless amusement.
What is really being trashed over the next 18 months is Britains reputation as a pragmatic and competent government and civil service. I never thohght it a justified reputation, but the witless incompetence that we exhibit to the world is astonishing.
Frankly, we're becoming a laughing stock.
Are we? Because we're all highly politicised, we think the country is going to hell in a handcart because the other side is in power, or because a political decision has gone against us, but I don't think that's how most people see things.
Sean, I was thinking in particular of our reputation abroad. Just browse the international Press and MSM and you cannot escape the conclusion. They don't dislike us, they don't want bad things happening to us, but there is a widespread incredulity at our peculiar stupidity.
All that says is that you read a particular and aligned set of sources. You refer to "the press" and "they" and "widespread" which is merely a reflection of the bubble you collect your opinions from.
Rather like ScottnPaste we can all see the limit of your reading by the fact you think your opinions are universally shared rather than just within the echo chambers that you self-select.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
What I find so amusing is how people like you can't grasp what Brexit requires. That list is implicit in LEAVING THE EU. If any of those items is not the case then Brexit simply has not occured. Other matters of policy are another thing, a matter for HM Gov / Parliament.
The ballot paper implied nothing. It asked a direct question, 'in or out.' So if it's Out, it's out whetever, regardless of consequences or conditions. Doesn't matter if Brexit is hard, soft, or half-baked - as long as we are no longer in the EU at the end of it, job done.
Leave or Remain, actually. But either way - the Hokey Cokey Brexit favoured by Remainers won't wash. Unless we have control of our borders and sovereignty to make laws (including on trade standards) then how will we have put anymore than our Right Leg Out, and how are we to be reassured that a future inept Remainer government won't put it back in again?
Peter's fundamental point is correct, though. The referendum ballot merely asked whether we should be in the EU or not. Countries like Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU. Some of those who vote for Out - including SeanT, Richard Tyndall and myself from this site - wanted a relationship with the EU like that enjoyed by those countries.
Ultimately, we need to find a relationship with the EU that works for 70% of the population, not the 52% or the 48%. Right now I think we're floundering. And the consequences of that floundering are increasing by the day as Dr Fox fails even to make the basic progress required to put us on parity with the rest of the world post April 2019.
It's a conundrum that I fear* will only be solved by the EU realising that we don't back down; and that a trade deal and customs arrangement is the closest thing to the status quo they'll get us to sign up too.
It's bespoke; as befits the second largest contributor to the budget and one of the most signifdnwt economies in the world.
*Fear because I'm not sure they get that we won't be talked down to; it's their current default position. As demonstrated by their way of dealing with Greece, Ireland, Cyprus etc
after a year remainers have moved on from anger to bargaining, only two to go
We all know it's an unfolding and unmitigated disaster so we're not wasting any mental energy on it. Watching Leavers tie themselves in knots as they writhe in their self-contradictions is a harmless amusement.
What is really being trashed over the next 18 months is Britains reputation as a pragmatic and competent government and civil service. I never thohght it a justified reputation, but the witless incompetence that we exhibit to the world is astonishing.
Frankly, we're becoming a laughing stock.
Are we? Because we're all highly politicised, we think the country is going to hell in a handcart because the other side is in power, or because a political decision has gone against us, but I don't think that's how most people see things.
Sean, I was thinking in particular of our reputation abroad. Just browse the international Press and MSM and you cannot escape the conclusion. They don't dislike us, they don't want bad things happening to us, but there is a widespread incredulity at our peculiar stupidity.
But, again, these are very politicised people, who would regard it as obviously correct and sensible for all European nations to integrate politically and economically, and find it incomprehensible that anybody would object to it. So, they report affairs from that viewpoint.
Tactical voting certainly made a difference in my seat, Stirling, with local Labour stalwarts like Alistair Weir openly supporting SCON, no doubt believing a Tory landslide was inevitable !
26 May 2017 - A senior Labour figure in Stirling has endorsed the Conservatives after ... Alistair Weir, vicechairman of Labour's Stirling constituency party, said the ... only way to defeat the SNP at this General Election is to vote Labour
Stirling too was also Tory in 1992
Indeed, although SLAB tactical voting probably swung it for SCON, many of them Corbynistas as well to sweeten the Tory victory !
Perhaps but the Tories got 40% in Stirling in 1992 in 2017 they got 37%, so actually slightly less
That's interesting do you have the 2017 and notional 1992 Conservative votes for other Scottish constituencies ?
I would imagine the pattern would be like Wales - stronger in industrial areas and in former LibDem seats but weaker in cities.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
This is what I find so amusing. After months of saying "it's not up to us, guv, to determine what Brexit looks like, there was no Leave Manifesto; it's up to the government", Brexiters can't wait to say exactly what Brexit should or shouldn't be.
What I find so amusing is how people like you can't grasp what Brexit requires. That list is implicit in LEAVING THE EU. If any of those items is not the case then Brexit simply has not occured. Other matters of policy are another thing, a matter for HM Gov / Parliament.
The ballot paper implied nothing. It asked a direct question, 'in or out.' So if it's Out, it's out whetever, regardless of consequences or conditions. Doesn't matter if Brexit is hard, soft, or half-baked - as long as we are no longer in the EU at the end of it, job done.
Leave or Remain, actually. But either way - the Hokey Cokey Brexit favoured by Remainers won't wash. Unless we have control of our borders and sovereignty to make laws (including on trade standards) then how will we have put anymore than our Right Leg Out, and how are we to be reassured that a future inept Remainer government won't put it back in again?
I'm a Remainer but there's nothing Hokey-Cokey about me, mate. We voted Out, we leave, we stay out, and we live with it as best we can. That is also the view of a great many who voted like me.
You do incidently however draw attention to a major problem with referendums, and populist government generally. The electorate tends to change its mind rather a lot, so when you are trying to plot an economic and foreign policy course for the decades ahead, how do you cope with regular changes of opinion along the way?
You can't keep calling referendums to test whether the temparture of the water has changed.
after a year remainers have moved on from anger to bargaining, only two to go
We all know it's an unfolding and unmitigated disaster so we're not wasting any mental energy on it. Watching Leavers tie themselves in knots as they writhe in their self-contradictions is a harmless amusement.
What is really being trashed over the next 18 months is Britains reputation as a pragmatic and competent government and civil service. I never thohght it a justified reputation, but the witless incompetence that we exhibit to the world is astonishing.
I agree - leaving the EU should not necessarily be so problematic. After all, there are plenty of countries not in the EU... what is the problem is a mixture of incompetence, poor leadership and half the country wishing ill on the future of the country!
Britain simply cannot govern itself. It's gone full pathetic.
I knew that Remainers would be to blame for Leavers' inadequacies somehow.
Do you deny that having a sizeable chunk of the political and media elites constantly trying to derail the negotiations and siding with the other side has a detrimental impact on the future of this country?
Actually you of course don't. You think the country can only exist as part of a European superstate.
A European superstate existed only in the demented imaginations of monomaniac obsessives. It's unsurprising that those same monomaniac obsessives now see quislings and saboteurs everywhere rather than confront their own shortcomings.
Is this williamglenn that you're referring to ?
Though the Helmut Kohl funeral suggests that EverCloserUnion was supported by leading European politicians.
I think that's more to do with the fact that Kohl was so ashamed of his country's past that he wanted it to disappear!
I see the monomaniac obsessives came out in force to respond to my last post. Curiously, none of them chose to address their own shortcomings or dissociate themselves from the idea that Britain is teeming with quislings and saboteurs.
The hard Leavers seem to be showing signs of panic this morning. That's understandable - with Corbyn as the latest and most high-profile recruit to their ranks, it's made their position much less of any easy sell. I'm feeling rather chipper though. The emerging Remain/soft-Brexit alliance should be able to vanquish the likes of Corbyn, Farage and Leadsom to the political fringes whence they came. The Centre is fighting back!
I'm beginning to think that the only way out of this unholy mess that Cameron left us with is to suspend the exit process and have a second referendum. There would need to be a range of options and AV ranking in order to get some kind of clarity on what the British people actually do want.
So we need foreigners to pick our strawberries now because we're too fat and lazy to do it ourselves. My mum worked on the fields for years, so did I in school holidays. These articles enrage me, the Independent would have you think we're all going to starve to death because of Brexit.
Automation will end many of these jobs within the next few years anyway.
The drive for a $15 minimum wage in the US is having the opposite effect and McDonald's share price is rocketing at the moment as they roll out robot kiosks. And at the other end of the scale every train will be automated within a decade. And every Airbus wing will be built by pushing a few buttons.
We're going to need to look elsewhere for new industries and different jobs right across the spectrum - and very soon. Luddites will not be able to hold back the tide.
So, what you're saying is that regulation is spurring technological change. Maybe we should have more of it.
Actually aggressive deregulation is where we need to be at.
It's going to be a pain to test all these new machines and get them past unnecessary "health and safety" nonsense. Mostly imposed by the unions to prevent innovation.
Instead we should do it the old fashioned way. Use the machines as quickly as we can, safe or not, and be prepared to step over a couple of dead bodies on the road to cutting edge tech. It's a price worth paying to get there first.
But you said that the regulation (higher minimum wages) was spurring technological change. I'm confused.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
Brexit "requires" nothing other than we leave the EU
Strange how you guys couldn't give us any details of what Brexit meant during the referendum - I remember that "it's up mot the government to decide" coming up a lot - but now you seem to know exactly what it all means.
Oh not this bull again. It was made clear by most political leaders on both sides of the referendum - including the Prime Minister who called the referendum - that leaving meant leaving the single market. Do I have to bring up the classic clip demonstrating this from Politics Today?
Doesn't matter how many times you state it you are wrong.
There was only one simple question on the ballot paper and any outcome that technically complies with that question fulfils the mandate to leave.
You can argue that this outcome or that outcome is what people want but that is a political issue. As RCS points out considerable numbers of leavers voted to leave on the basis that they wanted the Norway option and you are trying to tell them that was never an option. I will repeat - you are wrong.
after a year remainers have moved on from anger to bargaining, only two to go
We all know it's an unfolding and unmitigated disaster so we're not wasting any mental energy on it. Watching Leavers tie themselves in knots as they writhe in their self-contradictions is a harmless amusement.
What is really being trashed over the next 18 months is Britains reputation as a pragmatic and competent government and civil service. I never thohght it a justified reputation, but the witless incompetence that we exhibit to the world is astonishing.
I agree - leaving the EU should not necessarily be so problematic. After all, there are plenty of countries not in the EU... what is the problem is a mixture of incompetence, poor leadership and half the country wishing ill on the future of the country!
Britain simply cannot govern itself. It's gone full pathetic.
I knew that Remainers would be to blame for Leavers' inadequacies somehow.
Do you deny that having a sizeable chunk of the political and media elites constantly trying to derail the negotiations and siding with the other side has a detrimental impact on the future of this country?
Actually you of course don't. You think the country can only exist as part of a European superstate.
A European superstate existed only in the demented imaginations of monomaniac obsessives. It's unsurprising that those same monomaniac obsessives now see quislings and saboteurs everywhere rather than confront their own shortcomings.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
Brexit "requires" nothing other than we leave the EU
Strange how you guys couldn't give us any details of what Brexit meant during the referendum - I remember that "it's up mot the government to decide" coming up a lot - but now you seem to know exactly what it all means.
even stranger how the cream of Britain's politicians couldnt get details from them
I guess maybe they werent that good after all
outwitted by a cut price George Formby impersonator
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
This is what I find so amusing. After months of saying "it's not up to us, guv, to determine what Brexit looks like, there was no Leave Manifesto; it's up to the government", Brexiters can't wait to say exactly what Brexit should or shouldn't be.
What I find so amusing is how people like you can't grasp what Brexit requires. That list is implicit in LEAVING THE EU. If any of those items is not the case then Brexit simply has not occured. Other matters of policy are another thing, a matter for HM Gov / Parliament.
The ballot paper implied nothing. It asked a direct question, 'in or out.' So if it's Out, it's out whetever, regardless of consequences or conditions. Doesn't matter if Brexit is hard, soft, or half-baked - as long as we are no longer in the EU at the end of it, job done.
snip
I'm a Remainer but there's nothing Hokey-Cokey about me, mate. We voted Out, we leave, we stay out, and we live with it as best we can. That is also the view of a great many who voted like me.
You do incidently however draw attention to a major problem with referendums, and populist government generally. The electorate tends to change its mind rather a lot, so when you are trying to plot an economic and foreign policy course for the decades ahead, how do you cope with regular changes of opinion along the way?
You can't keep calling referendums to test whether the temparture of the water has changed.
This is my problem with the whole referendum thing. There is no way that the 52-48 split represents the settled will of the people, in the way the Scottish devolution referendum did.
after a year remainers have moved on from anger to bargaining, only two to go
We all know it's an unfolding and unmitigated disaster so we're not wasting any mental energy on it. Watching Leavers tie themselves in knots as they writhe in their self-contradictions is a harmless amusement.
What is really being trashed over the next 18 months is Britains reputation as a pragmatic and competent government and civil service. I never thohght it a justified reputation, but the witless incompetence that we exhibit to the world is astonishing.
Frankly, we're becoming a laughing stock.
Are we? Because we're all highly politicised, we think the country is going to hell in a handcart because the other side is in power, or because a political decision has gone against us, but I don't think that's how most people see things.
Sean, I was thinking in particular of our reputation abroad. Just browse the international Press and MSM and you cannot escape the conclusion. They don't dislike us, they don't want bad things happening to us, but there is a widespread incredulity at our peculiar stupidity.
But, again, these are very politicised people, who would regard it as obviously correct and sensible for all European nations to integrate politically and economically, and find it incomprehensible that anybody would object to it. So, they report affairs from that viewpoint.
Absolutely. And we are all free to disagree. All I'm saying is that that is what they think, and in my not so humble opinion they have good reason to think it.
I see the monomaniac obsessives came out in force to respond to my last post. Curiously, none of them chose to address their own shortcomings or dissociate themselves from the idea that Britain is teeming with quislings and saboteurs.
I don't think Britain is teeming with such people. The public in general are more relaxed about the issue than we are.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
This is what I find so amusing. After months of saying "it's not up to us, guv, to determine what Brexit looks like, there was no Leave Manifesto; it's up to the government", Brexiters can't wait to say exactly what Brexit should or shouldn't be.
r thing, a matter for HM Gov / Parliament.
The ballot paper implied nothing. It asked a direct question, 'in or out.' So if it's Out, it's out whetever, regardless of consequences or conditions. Doesn't matter if Brexit is hard, soft, or half-baked - as long as we are no longer in the EU at the end of it, job done.
snip
I'm a Remainer but there's nothing Hokey-Cokey about me, mate. We voted Out, we leave, we stay out, and we live with it as best we can. That is also the view of a great many who voted like me.
You do incidently however draw attention to a major problem with referendums, and populist government generally. The electorate tends to change its mind rather a lot, so when you are trying to plot an economic and foreign policy course for the decades ahead, how do you cope with regular changes of opinion along the way?
You can't keep calling referendums to test whether the temparture of the water has changed.
This is my problem with the whole referendum thing. There is no way that the 52-48 split represents the settled will of the people, in the way the Scottish devolution referendum did.
There should have been a threshold.
Well, would have been better but best would have been for our elected representatives to do what they were elected to do and govern in what they perceived to be our best interests.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
This is what I find so amusing. After months of saying "it's not up to us, guv, to determine what Brexit looks like, there was no Leave Manifesto; it's up to the government", Brexiters can't wait to say exactly what Brexit should or shouldn't be.
What I find so amusing is how people like you can't grasp what Brexit requires. That list is implicit in LEAVING THE EU. If any of those items is not the case then Brexit simply has not occured. Other matters of policy are another thing, a matter for HM Gov / Parliament.
The ballot paper implied nothing. It asked a direct question, 'in or out.' So if it's Out, it's out whetever, regardless of consequences or conditions. Doesn't matter if Brexit is hard, soft, or half-baked - as long as we are no longer in the EU at the end of it, job done.
Leave or Remain, actually. But either way - the Hokey Cokey Brexit favoured by Remainers won't wash. Unless we have control of our borders and sovereignty to make laws (including on trade standards) then how will we have put anymore than our Right Leg Out, and how are we to be reassured that a future inept Remainer government won't put it back in again?
I'm a Remainer but there's nothing Hokey-Cokey about me, mate. We voted Out, we leave, we stay out, and we live with it as best we can. That is also the view of a great many who voted like me.
You do incidently however draw attention to a major problem with referendums, and populist government generally. The electorate tends to change its mind rather a lot, so when you are trying to plot an economic and foreign policy course for the decades ahead, how do you cope with regular changes of opinion along the way?
You can't keep calling referendums to test whether the temparture of the water has changed.
Glad to hear that Peter. But you must see that the lesser extent to which we are divorced, the more likely a future rejoining would become?
I'm not a huge fan of referenda either; but in my lifetime no-one has offered the way forward to an exit through any other way. You play the game by the rules laid out.
I see the monomaniac obsessives came out in force to respond to my last post. Curiously, none of them chose to address their own shortcomings or dissociate themselves from the idea that Britain is teeming with quislings and saboteurs.
I don't think Britain is teeming with such people. The public in general are more relaxed about the issue than we are.
Yes, that's true, although I suspect it may not remain the case.
I see the monomaniac obsessives came out in force to respond to my last post. Curiously, none of them chose to address their own shortcomings or dissociate themselves from the idea that Britain is teeming with quislings and saboteurs.
I don't think Britain is teeming with such people. The public in general are more relaxed about the issue than we are.
The hard Leavers seem to be showing signs of panic this morning. That's understandable - with Corbyn as the latest and most high-profile recruit to their ranks, it's made their position much less of any easy sell. I'm feeling rather chipper though. The emerging Remain/soft-Brexit alliance should be able to vanquish the likes of Corbyn, Farage and Leadsom to the political fringes whence they came. The Centre is fighting back!
Panic?
I campaigned to leave the EU and couldn't be happier.
I listened to Farage on R2 yesterday with 27 people from the EU, if that's what you call the fringe you're more deluded than I thought.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
Brexit "requires" nothing other than we leave the EU
Strange how you guys couldn't give us any details of what Brexit meant during the referendum - I remember that "it's up mot the government to decide" coming up a lot - but now you seem to know exactly what it all means.
even stranger how the cream of Britain's politicians couldnt get details from them
I guess maybe they werent that good after all
outwitted by a cut price George Formby impersonator
Why don't you occasionally address the point instead of shouting "look squirrel" ?
Mr. Punter, I have some sympathy with that view on holding a referendum, and it chimes somewhat with my own view of debates (distilling complex matters down to a media soundbite).
However, presumably you'd agree that for certain matters (changing the voting system, for example) a referendum is necessary for a decision to have democratic legitimacy?
Do you think, on a purely theoretical basis, that leaving the EU would've been done better had it been a straight manifesto commitment? (Ie Party A says "Vote for us and we leave, no referendum", then gets a majority).
I also share your view about populism, and that's one of the reasons I think entrenching political divisions by proposed regional assemblies in England is the work of Satan.
The ECJ won't judge on purely domestic law. The question is how our relationship with the EU will be redressed and how these three issues get resolved:
1. The same law is applied in the same way both in the UK and in the EU. 2. The EU won't change the way it does things to accommodate the UK. They will decide their own law and it will be regulated by the ECJ. 3. There is no extraterritorial reach of the ECJ into UK law.
The three requirements are strictly incompatible. Theresa May would prefer to do without the relationship than compromise on 3.
James Chapman is running into the Brexit patriots early this morning by having the temerity to point out that some of Theresa May's red lines may be actively counterproductive. It's that kind of willingness to consider unwelcome points by the Leavers that enables the rest of us to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood that Brexit will be successful.
Brexit requires that: a) The ECJ & ECHR have absolutely no control/influence over UK laws or people residing in the UK. b) The UK has full control over its borders (including immigration) without any interference by the EU. c) The UK determines its own tariffs and trading arrangements without any interference by the EU.
If that is considered a hard Brexit, so be it.
This is what I find so amusing. After months of saying "it's not up to us, guv, to determine what Brexit looks like, there was no Leave Manifesto; it's up to the government", Brexiters can't wait to say exactly what Brexit should or shouldn't be.
r thing, a matter for HM Gov / Parliament.
The ballot paper implied nothing. It asked a direct question, 'in or out.' So if it's Out, it's out whetever, regardless of consequences or conditions. Doesn't matter if Brexit is hard, soft, or half-baked - as long as we are no longer in the EU at the end of it, job done.
snip
I'm a Remainer but there's nothing Hokey-Cokey about me, mate. We voted Out, we leave, we stay out, and we live with it as best we can. That is also the view of a great many who voted like me.
You do incidently however draw attention to a major problem with referendums, and populist government generally. The electorate tends to change its mind rather a lot, so when you are trying to plot an economic and foreign policy course for the decades ahead, how do you cope with regular changes of opinion along the way?
You can't keep calling referendums to test whether the temparture of the water has changed.
This is my problem with the whole referendum thing. There is no way that the 52-48 split represents the settled will of the people, in the way the Scottish devolution referendum did.
There should have been a threshold.
Well, would have been better but best would have been for our elected representatives to do what they were elected to do and govern in what they perceived to be our best interests.
F1: I was just skimming my Austrian blogs from the last few races (remarkable there have been so many, feels like it was only added last year). Mildly amused one included a line about not much passing, and another that there was tons of passing.
Still feel like I don't know the circuit very well, although straight line speed is king.
I can also recommend playing F1 videogames to get a feel for circuits. Very good for giving impressions of run-off, elevation changes and so on, much better than TV viewing. I haven't played one for a few years, as I tend to knacker controllers (my thumbs are evidently too powerful) but when I did it was very useful indeed.
after a year remainers have moved on from anger to bargaining, only two to go
We all know it's an unfolding and unmitigated disaster so we're not wasting any mental energy on it. Watching Leavers tie themselves in knots as they writhe in their self-contradictions is a harmless amusement.
What is really being trashed over the next 18 months is Britains reputation as a pragmatic and competent government and civil service. I never thohght it a justified reputation, but the witless incompetence that we exhibit to the world is astonishing.
Frankly, we're becoming a laughing stock.
Are we? Because we're all highly politicised, we think the country is going to hell in a handcart because the other side is in power, or because a political decision has gone against us, but I don't think that's how most people see things.
Sean, I was thinking in particular of our reputation abroad. Just browse the international Press and MSM and you cannot escape the conclusion. They don't dislike us, they don't want bad things happening to us, but there is a widespread incredulity at our peculiar stupidity.
Oh, I thought you meant our reputation with the people of the world, not their press.
I really hate to mention this, most people in the world, and that is a heck of a lot more than the 65 million or so in the UK, do not give a sh*t about us and our over inflated opinion of our own importance.
They have their own problems to deal with, and their own politicians recognise this. There are 27 other countries in the EU, each with their own governments worrying about staying in power. For them Brexit means that "Sorry to see you go, but just F Off now and leave us to get on with it".
What have we got to offer? A financial services industry which too many others think is corrupt, a negligible manufacturing base, oil at a price which is controlled by the supply of shale oil in the US. while non carbon fuel power supplies are increasing, the kit for which we buy in, and a hell of a lot of elderly people who are now realising that the foreign care workers that would have wiped their arses, are not there, while the UK taxes those carers and foreign workers would have paid into the pension funds, is not there either.
Tactical voting certainly made a difference in my seat, Stirling, with local Labour stalwarts like Alistair Weir openly supporting SCON, no doubt believing a Tory landslide was inevitable !
26 May 2017 - A senior Labour figure in Stirling has endorsed the Conservatives after ... Alistair Weir, vicechairman of Labour's Stirling constituency party, said the ... only way to defeat the SNP at this General Election is to vote Labour
Stirling too was also Tory in 1992
Indeed, although SLAB tactical voting probably swung it for SCON, many of them Corbynistas as well to sweeten the Tory victory !
Perhaps but the Tories got 40% in Stirling in 1992 in 2017 they got 37%, so actually slightly less
That's interesting do you have the 2017 and notional 1992 Conservative votes for other Scottish constituencies ?
I would imagine the pattern would be like Wales - stronger in industrial areas and in former LibDem seats but weaker in cities.
In Scotland the pattern was stronger in rural areas, in Moray the Tories got 47% in 2017 and 38% in 1992 and former LD areas on the borders but weaker in cities and urban areas (the Tories failed to take a seat in Edinburgh for instance while they won 2 in 1992). In Scotland industrial areas are still SNP with now a few patches of Corbyn Labour
Comments
https://bellpottinger.com/news/queens-speech-2017/
It's going to be a pain to test all these new machines and get them past unnecessary "health and safety" nonsense. Mostly imposed by the unions to prevent innovation.
Instead we should do it the old fashioned way. Use the machines as quickly as we can, safe or not, and be prepared to step over a couple of dead bodies on the road to cutting edge tech. It's a price worth paying to get there first.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/30/jeremy-corbyn-developing-cult-personality-terrifying/
Socialists defecting from the SNP to Labour almost certainly masked committed unionists who were abandoning Labour to vote tactically for the Conservatives in the figures above.
The Tories might pick up one or two more seats in Scotland next time, but I'd expect Labour to take the lion's share of the next tranche of SNP seats to fall as central belt voters' minds focus on getting the Tory government out.
You're all nutters and we're staying in the EU to
You're all nutters and it won't happen because we'll have another referendum to
You're all nutters and it won't happen anyway to
You're all nutters it will be a disaster
Britain simply cannot govern itself. It's gone full pathetic.
https://amp.ft.com/content/32cd1e87-c7d1-3026-86fc-bce5229711d1
https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2016/02/09/cavalier-with-our-constitution-a-charter-too-far/
I'm still angry, thanks very much.
We are leaving the single market and will have a customs arrangement (not union). Rather than fight this the Remainiacs should do more productive things with their lives. Like perhaps moving to their beloved Eurozone.
PressReader - Stirling Observer: 2017-05-26 - Blow to Labour as ...
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/stirling-observer/20170526/281556585773581
26 May 2017 - A senior Labour figure in Stirling has endorsed the Conservatives after ... Alistair Weir, vicechairman of Labour's Stirling constituency party, said the ... only way to defeat the SNP at this General Election is to vote Labour
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_59562e36e4b0da2c7322c70f?ncid=engmodushpmg00000003
Firstly, you need to separate two separate issues:
1. Is about the rights of (say) EU citizens in the UK and whether they would enjoy extra privileges due to being EU rather than UK citizens, and whether the ECJ would opine on those.
2. Is about compliance with treaty agreements, in particular regarding trade.
I think when we talk about the ECJ, there is a tendency to think it's all about 1. Now, 1 is clearly politically unacceptable in the UK, and no British government would be able to ram a Brexit through that included allowing the ECJ to rule on the rights of non-British citizens in the UK.
The second question is rather more nuanced. All treaties have dispute resolution mechanisms. So, NAFTA members submit to the jurisdiction of ISDS tribunals. EFTA states submit to rulings from the EFTA court. There's even a NATO court that opines on cases where members are felt to have breached their treaty obligations.
In a number of EU FTA's, the ECJ does opine on whether countries (or the EU itself) are complying with treaty obligations.
However, there is a very important difference between the role of the ECJ here, and as it is enshrined in UK law regarding the EU. The ECJ cannot overrule a government, it's only force is that it can suspend an agreement due to the non compliance of one of the parties.
Now, I'm not saying that being subject to ECJ rulings on UK-EU trade is a good thing. But it is clearly a very different magnitude of issue to being subject to ECJ rulings on EU citizens in the UK. I certainly think it is something we could live with, while we negotiated an arrangement similar to the CETA deal between Canada and the EU.
Actually you of course don't. You think the country can only exist as part of a European superstate.
Of course those same metropolitan leftists would also prefer to wear a sweat shop made T-shirt proclaiming their self-righteousness rather than one made in a British factory paying a living wage.
You could call it Armageddon Airlines.
I mean when are you going to unleash the huge brain of the Meekon ?
You're all nutters and you're lucky it's not gone wrong yet
You're all nutters and you're lucky it's working so far
You're all nutters and it's only working because we're helping
All this winning was our idea from the start.
Strange how you guys couldn't give us any details of what Brexit meant during the referendum - I remember that "it's up mot the government to decide" coming up a lot - but now you seem to know exactly what it all means.
Ultimately, we need to find a relationship with the EU that works for 70% of the population, not the 52% or the 48%. Right now I think we're floundering. And the consequences of that floundering are increasing by the day as Dr Fox fails even to make the basic progress required to put us on parity with the rest of the world post April 2019.
Leaving the EU means not being a member of the EU, nothing more, nothing less.
Ever heard the expression "He who laughs last laughs longest" ?
You might want to hold off on your gloating for a little while yet.
Though the Helmut Kohl funeral suggests that EverCloserUnion was supported by leading European politicians.
Just for starters.
Since 1973 people like you have been lying to the British people about the intent and destination of The Project.
All that says is that you read a particular and aligned set of sources. You refer to "the press" and "they" and "widespread" which is merely a reflection of the bubble you collect your opinions from.
Rather like ScottnPaste we can all see the limit of your reading by the fact you think your opinions are universally shared rather than just within the echo chambers that you self-select.
It's bespoke; as befits the second largest contributor to the budget and one of the most signifdnwt economies in the world.
*Fear because I'm not sure they get that we won't be talked down to; it's their current default position. As demonstrated by their way of dealing with Greece, Ireland, Cyprus etc
I would imagine the pattern would be like Wales - stronger in industrial areas and in former LibDem seats but weaker in cities.
You do incidently however draw attention to a major problem with referendums, and populist government generally. The electorate tends to change its mind rather a lot, so when you are trying to plot an economic and foreign policy course for the decades ahead, how do you cope with regular changes of opinion along the way?
You can't keep calling referendums to test whether the temparture of the water has changed.
What a truly beautiful unintended consequence.
There was only one simple question on the ballot paper and any outcome that technically complies with that question fulfils the mandate to leave.
You can argue that this outcome or that outcome is what people want but that is a political issue. As RCS points out considerable numbers of leavers voted to leave on the basis that they wanted the Norway option and you are trying to tell them that was never an option. I will repeat - you are wrong.
I guess maybe they werent that good after all
outwitted by a cut price George Formby impersonator
There should have been a threshold.
https://twitter.com/GreaterGlasgPol/status/880711432416919552
I'm not a huge fan of referenda either; but in my lifetime no-one has offered the way forward to an exit through any other way. You play the game by the rules laid out.
I campaigned to leave the EU and couldn't be happier.
I listened to Farage on R2 yesterday with 27 people from the EU, if that's what you call the fringe you're more deluded than I thought.
However, presumably you'd agree that for certain matters (changing the voting system, for example) a referendum is necessary for a decision to have democratic legitimacy?
Do you think, on a purely theoretical basis, that leaving the EU would've been done better had it been a straight manifesto commitment? (Ie Party A says "Vote for us and we leave, no referendum", then gets a majority).
I also share your view about populism, and that's one of the reasons I think entrenching political divisions by proposed regional assemblies in England is the work of Satan.
1. The same law is applied in the same way both in the UK and in the EU.
2. The EU won't change the way it does things to accommodate the UK. They will decide their own law and it will be regulated by the ECJ.
3. There is no extraterritorial reach of the ECJ into UK law.
The three requirements are strictly incompatible. Theresa May would prefer to do without the relationship than compromise on 3.
Please be specific
Still feel like I don't know the circuit very well, although straight line speed is king.
I can also recommend playing F1 videogames to get a feel for circuits. Very good for giving impressions of run-off, elevation changes and so on, much better than TV viewing. I haven't played one for a few years, as I tend to knacker controllers (my thumbs are evidently too powerful) but when I did it was very useful indeed.
They have their own problems to deal with, and their own politicians recognise this. There are 27 other countries in the EU, each with their own governments worrying about staying in power. For them Brexit means that "Sorry to see you go, but just F Off now and leave us to get on with it".
What have we got to offer? A financial services industry which too many others think is corrupt, a negligible manufacturing base, oil at a price which is controlled by the supply of shale oil in the US. while non carbon fuel power supplies are increasing, the kit for which we buy in, and a hell of a lot of elderly people who are now realising that the foreign care workers that would have wiped their arses, are not there, while the UK taxes those carers and foreign workers would have paid into the pension funds, is not there either.