But no - the sovereignty argument didn't really hold water for me; it was like arguing we're locked in a cell when the door was unlocked and there were instructions to operate the handle printed on the door. We were in the room because we chose to be in the room; we were never incarcerated.
you don't for one moment think the mad Brexiters will accept this do you?
And I like the analogy of the cell.
That was true so long as we were in a position where we could select which standards/commitments made sense.
The introduction of QMV (for good reasons) and the emerging signs of block voting by the Eurozone members changed this dynamic: we were in a position where we were committed to abiding by things that we didn't necessarily choose or vote for. A good example of this could be the attempt by the Eurozone to move clearing away from London. Yes, that was overturned by the European courts but - bluntly speaking - it was a huge red flag that an organisation of which we are a member ever tried to take it in the first place. That, for me, was a clear indication that the interests of the UK and the EU were diverging
The Euro changed everything. The UK could have stayed in the EEC long-term (forever) up until about 1988.
For all the insults thrown at Brexiters ("mad", "foaming", "swivel-eyed" etc.) the most ardent Remainers never concede that most Britons and only a handful of MPs started that way, most went that way due to the evolution of the EU and its behaviour.
If we had joined the euro - I think leaving would have been almost impossible without economic turmoil.
That's why the EU pushes euro membership. Makes integration one way and forever.
How quickly Leavers abandon the need to control immigration when they realise that the current path of the Brexit negotiations is leading down a very unpromising path.
Perhaps they should have thought about it before pandering to xenophobia.
Be fair Alastair. There are a fair few of us on here who made it absolutely clear from the very start that we were not interested in immigration controls. Maybe few who go as far as I do in wanting open borders for all nationalities but still plenty who did not in any way campaign on the basis of ending freedom of movement.
Being entirely fair, far too many Leavers - and I would exempt you from this criticism - were far far far too relaxed about the stoking up of hostility to immigration. And now they find themselves trapped by the way in which they secured victory.
The hardest part is when people come back with what Remain said about it in the campaign - most of which was hopelessly misleading.They'll have to take it all back and admit that people like Dan Hannan and Richard North were correct.
Yep. It's a shame they are not listened to.more. Richard North was directly communicating with the Secretary General of EFTA to get an understanding of the legal.position of the UK vis a vis EFTA and EEA membership. I wonder if anyone actually in a position of authority in the UK actually bothered to do that.
A lot of Dr North's research was very good, and Flexcit had a lot of good info in it. I ended up disagreeing with him quite strongly on both his final 'Lichtenstein' solution and his approach to campaigning. He can be a little prickly too, which is why sometimes his ideas find less favour than they might with some people. But set that aside, a lot of what he writes is worth reading.
He can certainly be caustic to anyone who doesn't follow his strict party line.
And like you I think his 'Lichtenstein' solution was fanciful. It was never intended to be used in the way he tried to suggest and would have met with fierce opposition from both the EU and EFTA I believe.
I think Brexiters are panicking too much and Remainers excitedly overreaching themselves, but I detect an emerging consensus that EFTA-EEA is something that both Brexiters and Remainers could live with. It's better than a hard exit that backfires, or this very slippery conniving attempt to sell a permanent transition state that amounts to a BINO. Which would just ensure the poison rumbled on forever.
I don't agree EEA-EFTA offers "nothing" on immigration.
It does offer an emergency brake, welfare and benefit qualifications and additional reserved occupations that are permitted to be offered to nationals only. None of that was in Dave's deal. There was a transitional (temporary) brake on welfare benefits, and that was it.
I also think that free movement would be lower just by virtue of us not being members of the EU politically, as the UK would have a different economic and political European dynamic. And if it did spike, we could pull the brake.
I also think there'd be benefits to Europe as a whole by forming a solid non-EU European alternative for nation states to consider, which I why I could see Ireland, Sweden, and perhaps Denmark joining as well in the long-term.
Of course, the EU also know this, so will be wary of releasing the UK into such an arrangement, but political competition and economic alternatives would force them to up their game.
Which would be to everyone's benefit.
I think this has always been the case - that the 'Implementation period' that May talked about in January was a disguise for EEA (or a shadow EEA type agreement). However. via EFTA it is a very different agreement, because it dramatically changes the balance of power between EFTA and the EU. It makes EFTA the 4th largest 'trader' in the world after the USA, China and the EU, and might revive the pressure in Norway and Switzerland to come to a better EU -EFTA than the current Swiss bilateral and EEA - a true EFTA-EU FTA.
EFTA gives British leadership of an alternative power centre within Europe. It causes minimal economic fallout in the short-term, it can be completed by 2022 (easily), it will be good for the quality of governance in both the EU and EFTA as they offer rival offerings to European nation states, and it firms up a good chunk of ongoing British influence in Europe.
I'm not sure if the EU and EFTA will grant it, but I hope they would.
I doubt EFTA will allow UK membership.
A Swiss style EEA agreement surely is on the cards.
But no - the sovereignty argument didn't really hold water for me; it was like arguing we're locked in a cell when the door was unlocked and there were instructions to operate the handle printed on the door. We were in the room because we chose to be in the room; we were never incarcerated.
you don't for one moment think the mad Brexiters will accept this do you?
And I like the analogy of the cell.
That was true so long as we were in a position where we could select which standards/commitments made sense.
The introduction of QMV (for good reasons) and the emerging signs of block voting by the Eurozone members changed this dynamic: we were in a position where we were committed to abiding by things that we didn't necessarily choose or vote for. A good example of this could be the attempt by the Eurozone to move clearing away from London. Yes, that was overturned by the European courts but - bluntly speaking - it was a huge red flag that an organisation of which we are a member ever tried to take it in the first place. That, for me, was a clear indication that the interests of the UK and the EU were diverging
The Euro changed everything. The UK could have stayed in the EEC long-term (forever) up until about 1988.
For all the insults thrown at Brexiters ("mad", "foaming", "swivel-eyed" etc.) the most ardent Remainers never concede that most Britons and only a handful of MPs started that way, most went that way due to the evolution of the EU and its behaviour.
Certainly losing the argument over the design of the Euro was the key moment of departure within the Tory party. It's incredible to look back and see Bill Cash making approving comments about the counter-proposal of a hard ECU. Nevertheless, having lost the argument we should have pressed on instead of sitting on the sidelines in ever more sullen resignation.
I think Brexiters are panicking too much and Remainers excitedly overreaching themselves, but I detect an emerging consensus that EFTA-EEA is something that both Brexiters and Remainers could live with. It's better than a hard exit that backfires, or this very slippery conniving attempt to sell a permanent transition state that amounts to a BINO. Which would just ensure the poison rumbled on forever.
I don't agree EEA-EFTA offers "nothing" on immigration.
It does offer an emergency brake, welfare and benefit qualifications and additional reserved occupations that are permitted to be offered to nationals only. None of that was in Dave's deal. There was a transitional (temporary) brake on welfare benefits, and that was it.
I also think that free movement would be lower just by virtue of us not being members of the EU politically, as the UK would have a different economic and political European dynamic. And if it did spike, we could pull the brake.
I also think there'd be benefits to Europe as a whole by forming a solid non-EU European alternative for nation states to consider, which I why I could see Ireland, Sweden, and perhaps Denmark joining as well in the long-term.
Of course, the EU also know this, so will be wary of releasing the UK into such an arrangement, but political competition and economic alternatives would force them to up their game.
Which would be to everyone's benefit.
I think this has always been the case - that the 'Implementation period' that May talked about in January was a disguise for EEA (or a shadow EEA type agreement). However. via EFTA it is a very different agreement, because it dramatically changes the balance of power between EFTA and the EU. It makes EFTA the 4th largest 'trader' in the world after the USA, China and the EU, and might revive the pressure in Norway and Switzerland to come to a better EU -EFTA than the current Swiss bilateral and EEA - a true EFTA-EU FTA.
EFTA gives British leadership of an alternative power centre within Europe. It causes minimal economic fallout in the short-term, it can be completed by 2022 (easily), it will be good for the quality of governance in both the EU and EFTA as they offer rival offerings to European nation states, and it firms up a good chunk of ongoing British influence in Europe.
I'm not sure if the EU and EFTA will grant it, but I hope they would.
I doubt EFTA will allow UK membership.
A Swiss style EEA agreement surely is on the cards.
You have your alphabet soup mixed up. Switzerland is in EFTA but not the EEA and instead has a range of bilateral treaties with the EU.
But no - the sovereignty argument didn't really hold water for me; it was like arguing we're locked in a cell when the door was unlocked and there were instructions to operate the handle printed on the door. We were in the room because we chose to be in the room; we were never incarcerated.
you don't for one moment think the mad Brexiters will accept this do you?
And I like the analogy of the cell.
That was true so long as we were in a position where we could select which standards/commitments made sense.
The introduction of QMV (for good reasons) and the emerging signs of block voting by the Eurozone members changed this dynamic: we were in a position where we were committed to abiding by things that we didn't necessarily choose or vote for. A good example of this could be the attempt by the Eurozone to move clearing away from London. Yes, that was overturned by the European courts but - bluntly speaking - it was a huge red flag that an organisation of which we are a member ever tried to take it in the first place. That, for me, was a clear indication that the interests of the UK and the EU were diverging
The Euro changed everything. The UK could have stayed in the EEC long-term (forever) up until about 1988.
For all the insults thrown at Brexiters ("mad", "foaming", "swivel-eyed" etc.) the most ardent Remainers never concede that most Britons and only a handful of MPs started that way, most went that way due to the evolution of the EU and its behaviour.
Certainly losing the argument over the design of the Euro was the key moment of departure within the Tory party. It's incredible to look back and see Bill Cash making approving comments about the counter-proposal of a hard ECU. Nevertheless, having lost the argument we should have pressed on instead of sitting on the sidelines in ever more sullen resignation.
We were living in a fools paradise, politically speaking, because we had the illusion of the best of both worlds. That has now been shattered forever by the Brexit vote.
But no - the sovereignty argument didn't really hold water for me; it was like arguing we're locked in a cell when the door was unlocked and there were instructions to operate the handle printed on the door. We were in the room because we chose to be in the room; we were never incarcerated.
you don't for one moment think the mad Brexiters will accept this do you?
And I like the analogy of the cell.
That was true so long as we were in a position where we could select which standards/commitments made sense.
The introduction of QMV (for good reasons) and the emerging signs of block voting by the Eurozone members changed this dynamic: we were in a position where we were committed to abiding by things that we didn't necessarily choose or vote for. A good example of this could be the attempt by the Eurozone to move clearing away from London. Yes, that was overturned by the European courts but - bluntly speaking - it was a huge red flag that an organisation of which we are a member ever tried to take it in the first place. That, for me, was a clear indication that the interests of the UK and the EU were diverging
The Euro changed everything. The UK could have stayed in the EEC long-term (forever) up until about 1988.
For all the insults thrown at Brexiters ("mad", "foaming", "swivel-eyed" etc.) the most ardent Remainers never concede that most Britons and only a handful of MPs started that way, most went that way due to the evolution of the EU and its behaviour.
Certainly losing the argument over the design of the Euro was the key moment of departure within the Tory party. It's incredible to look back and see Bill Cash making approving comments about the counter-proposal of a hard ECU. Nevertheless, having lost the argument we should have pressed on instead of sitting on the sidelines in ever more sullen resignation.
We were living in a fools paradise, politically speaking, because we had the illusion of the best of both worlds. That has now been shattered forever by the Brexit vote.
I think Brexiters are panicking too much and Remainers excitedly overreaching themselves, but I detect an emerging consensus that EFTA-EEA is something that both Brexiters and Remainers could live with. It's better than a hard exit that backfires, or this very slippery conniving attempt to sell a permanent transition state that amounts to a BINO. Which would just ensure the poison rumbled on forever.
I don't agree EEA-EFTA offers "nothing" on immigration.
It does offer an emergency brake, welfare and benefit qualifications and additional reserved occupations that are permitted to be offered to nationals only. None of that was in Dave's deal. There was a transitional (temporary) brake on welfare benefits, and that was it.
I also think that free movement would be lower just by virtue of us not being members of the EU politically, as the UK would have a different economic and political European dynamic. And if it did spike, we could pull the brake.
I also think there'd be benefits to Europe as a whole by forming a solid non-EU European alternative for nation states to consider, which I why I could see Ireland, Sweden, and perhaps Denmark joining as well in the
Which would be to everyone's benefit.
I think this has always been the case - that the 'Implementation period' that May talked about in January was a disguise for EEA (or a shadow EEA type agreement). However. via EFTA it is a very different agreement, because it dramatically changes the balance of power between EFTA and the EU. It makes EFTA the 4th largest 'trader' in the world after the USA, China and the EU, and might revive the pressure in Norway and Switzerland to come to a better EU -EFTA than the current Swiss bilateral and EEA - a true EFTA-EU FTA.
EFTA gives British leadership of an alternative power centre within Europe. It causes minimal economic fallout in the short-term, it can be completed by 2022 (easily), it will be good for the quality of governance in both the EU and EFTA as they offer rival offerings to European nation states, and it firms up a good chunk of ongoing British influence in Europe.
I'm not sure if the EU and EFTA will grant it, but I hope they would.
Geopolitically, EFTA + Britain is still utterly dwarfed by the EU. I don't think they'll be particularly keen for us to join if they think we'll always expect them to agree with us, merely by virtue of population and GDP.
On reflection, the EU has rendered our traditional foreign policy utterly out of date. We cannot 'balance' with those outside the EU without totally rejecting our traditional alliances, and we can't hope to influence the continental countries once we're out.
Thank you for the link. 'Slapped down immediately' doesn't exactly come across as 'careful analysis of arguments' does it? As he points out, the Irish political class are refusing to engage in the topic - which is a pity, because if any country stands to be royally fecked over in Brexit its blameless Ireland.
Eire
GDP Growth rate 2.5% GDP Annual Growth Rate 7.2% GDP per capita $ 65,249 GDP per capita PPP $ 61,378 Median wage 2015 Euros 21,688
UK
GDP Growth Rate 0.2% GDP Annual Growth Rate 2.0% GDP per capita $ 41,182 GDP per capita PPP $ 38,509 Median wage 2015 Euros 20,945
Why on earth would Ireland wish to follow their poorer by far neighbours out of the EU , they do not have a death wish like Brexiteers here .
Brexit is still popular. Polls may fluctuate, but there are millions that want thus to happen. There are a serious number of people who will not put up with a fudge or retreat.
How quickly Leavers abandon the need to control immigration when they realise that the current path of the Brexit negotiations is leading down a very unpromising path.
Perhaps they should have thought about it before pandering to xenophobia.
Be fair Alastair. There are a fair few of us on here who made it absolutely clear from the very start that we were not interested in immigration controls. Maybe few who go as far as I do in wanting open borders for all nationalities but still plenty who did not in any way campaign on the basis of ending freedom of movement.
Being entirely fair, far too many Leavers - and I would exempt you from this criticism - were far far far too relaxed about the stoking up of hostility to immigration. And now they find themselves trapped by the way in which they secured victory.
But at the same time, too many remainers were less than honest abut the 'Norway' position, the PM at the time went to Iceland to give the 'Norway option' a good kicking right upfront. Cummings then totally rejected it instantly, possibly because of that, opting for a different tactical approach. Now remainers want to adopt it, they have to get past their own campaign rhetoric, which leavers tended to believe.
@Richard_Tyndall: Get well soon. If you think it well help you, feel free to hurl abuse at me.
Thanks TSE and thanks for all the other kind words from everyone.
I need to revise my criticism of the NHS slightly, not because I am any nearer to help per se nor because I don't think it is a monolithic institution in need of complete reform.
But rather because my issue over the last few days has been a peculiar one which I don't believe is directly related to the NHS.
I have been working away in Aberdeen on a contract which has another couple of weeks to run. Being in a key safety critical position it is not something I can easily walk away from so when I discovered my little problem my first thought was to try and get it sorted in Aberdeen. I contacted the local GPs surgery up there who also has a private practice under the same roof. Told him my problem and asked to get an appointment. This was on a ring back from the doctor himself. He told me that there was no point seeing a GP in Aberdeen because they would have to run tests and they didn't know how long it would take to get the results and by then I might well have gone home.
Given that one of the most likely reasons for my problem is an infection which can be dealt with by antibiotics (I hope that is the cause anyway as it is the least nasty outcome) I really don't want to be waiting two more weeks before getting back to my GP to get an initial diagnosis and some possible treatment. Apparently there was no facility to send the results to my GP at home which seems simply ridiculous.
So today I have had to withdraw from my contract and am currently at Edinburgh heading back to Lincolnshire for an appointment with my doctor tomorrow.
Now I have worked all over Europe and the Middle East. I have had a few accidents and some illnesses over the years in various parts of the world and I have never, ever had a problem with getting treatment or with my records, x-rays or test results being sent back to my GP in the UK. That is not just in the EU but anywhere I have worked and had to have treatment.
So why the hell can't a GP see me and if necessary send my results from Aberdeen to Grantham? It may not even have taken that. If I have an infection he should be able to deal with it there and then. Instead I have a long journey home and a very significant loss of income so I can see my own GP.
On another subject, I've not been especially pessimistic about Trump, who struck me as more egotistical than malevolent, but he appears to have said that we have to choose whether we want to defend our faith, our culture, our borders and our freedom from bureaucracy, as defined by him. The answer, as far as I'm concerned, is "No". (That doesn't mean that I automatically support opponents of these things either. It's not a bilateral choice.)
My opinions are neither here nor there, but if he poses questions in Manichean "with me or against me" fashion, he may find he stacks up the odds against him. I wonder if he risks overestimating his level of sympathy abroad, by choosing to go to places where a crowd can be assembled to support him?
I don't agree EEA-EFTA offers "nothing" on immigration.
It does offer an emergency brake, welfare and benefit qualifications and additional reserved occupations that are permitted to be offered to nationals only. None of that was in Dave's deal. There was a transitional (temporary) brake on welfare benefits, and that was it.
I also think that free movement would be lower just by virtue of us not being members of the EU politically, as the UK would have a different economic and political European dynamic. And if it did spike, we could pull the brake.
I also think there'd be benefits to Europe as a whole by forming a solid non-EU European alternative for nation states to consider, which I why I could see Ireland, Sweden, and perhaps Denmark joining as well in the long-term.
I don't disagree with much of this and recognise you and I are pretty close on this.
I do think you're wrong on two key points - first, Britain will always be a draw for migrants. We have the English language and even if we lose ground on Germany and France, we will still be prosperous in comparison to many prospective migrants have originated. Did the 2008 crash stop the flow of EU citizens ?
Second, and this is something not often talked about, there will be those who, on the basis of history, will find the pledges to reduce migration less than credible or convincing and may even want to see a reduction in the current numbers. Once the parameters for residency have become clearer, the question is how many will ignore the law, carry on working in the black economy living cash in hand and fail to integrate ?
How quickly Leavers abandon the need to control immigration when they realise that the current path of the Brexit negotiations is leading down a very unpromising path.
Perhaps they should have thought about it before pandering to xenophobia.
Be fair Alastair. There are a fair few of us on here who made it absolutely clear from the very start that we were not interested in immigration controls. Maybe few who go as far as I do in wanting open borders for all nationalities but still plenty who did not in any way campaign on the basis of ending freedom of movement.
Being entirely fair, far too many Leavers - and I would exempt you from this criticism - were far far far too relaxed about the stoking up of hostility to immigration. And now they find themselves trapped by the way in which they secured victory.
But at the same time, too many remainers were less than honest abut the 'Norway' position, the PM at the time went to Iceland to give the 'Norway option' a good kicking right upfront. Cummings then totally rejected it instantly, possibly because of that, opting for a different tactical approach. Now remainers want to adopt it, they have to get past their own campaign rhetoric, which leavers tended to believe.
I have no wish to adopt the Norway option. It would be a fraud on the electorate, which made its views abundantly known. Unlike the EEA Leavers, I believe in respecting the vote.
How quickly Leavers abandon the need to control immigration when they realise that the current path of the Brexit negotiations is leading down a very unpromising path.
Perhaps they should have thought about it before pandering to xenophobia.
Be fair Alastair. There are a fair few of us on here who made it absolutely clear from the very start that we were not interested in immigration controls. Maybe few who go as far as I do in wanting open borders for all nationalities but still plenty who did not in any way campaign on the basis of ending freedom of movement.
I think it's time for both sides to move beyond bitterness about the way the campaigns were fought and have the open and honest debate about our place in Europe and the world that we have been lacking.
I think it's time for both sides to move beyond bitterness about the way the campaigns were fought and have the open and honest debate about our place in Europe and the world that we have been lacking.
Any open and honest debate about our place in Europe has been poisoned by the campaigns.
Those things can't be unsaid
EDIT
Also, any open and honest debate cannot include
Boris £350m for the NHS Johnson Michael We have had enough of experts Gove
@Richard_Tyndall: Get well soon. If you think it well help you, feel free to hurl abuse at me.
Thanks TSE and thanks for all the other kind words from everyone.
I need to revise my criticism of the NHS slightly, not because I am any nearer to help per se nor because I don't think it is a monolithic institution in need of complete reform.
But rather because my issue over the last few days has been a peculiar one which I don't believe is directly related to the NHS.
I have been working away in Aberdeen on a contract which has another couple of weeks to run. Being in a key safety critical position it is not something I can easily walk away from so when I discovered my little problem my first thought was to try and get it sorted in Aberdeen. I contacted the local GPs surgery up there who also has a private practice under the same roof. Told him my problem and asked to get an appointment. This was on a ring back from the doctor himself. He told me that there was no point seeing a GP in Aberdeen because they would have to run tests and they didn't know how long it would take to get the results and by then I might well have gone home.
Given that one of the most likely reasons for my problem is an infection which can be dealt with by antibiotics (I hope that is the cause anyway as it is the least nasty outcome) I really don't want to be waiting two more weeks before getting back to my GP to get an initial diagnosis and some possible treatment. Apparently there was no facility to send the results to my GP at home which seems simply ridiculous.
So today I have had to withdraw from my contract and am currently at Edinburgh heading back to Lincolnshire for an appointment with my doctor tomorrow.
Now I have worked all over Europe and the Middle East. I have had a few accidents and some illnesses over the years in various parts of the world and I have never, ever had a problem with getting treatment or with my records, x-rays or test results being sent back to my GP in the UK. That is not just in the EU but anywhere I have worked and had to have treatment.
So why the hell can't a GP see me and if necessary send my results from Aberdeen to Grantham? It may not even have taken that. If I have an infection he should be able to deal with it there and then. Instead I have a long journey home and a very significant loss of income so I can see my own GP.
Apologies for the moan. It does actually help
Quite apart from the option of private treatment, it is possible to be seen by any GP as a temporary resident.
In other words, 'having your cake and eating it' for Corbyn.
You don't think the EU wants tariff free access to the UK market?
They are not desperate and will not give away the EU for it , only UK has a begging bowl. How many times do you loons need to be told you ain't getting free market access standalone.
I think Brexiters are panicking too much and Remainers excitedly overreaching themselves, but I detect an emerging consensus that EFTA-EEA is something that both Brexiters and Remainers could live with. It's better than a hard exit that backfires, or this very slippery conniving attempt to sell a permanent transition state that amounts to a BINO. Which would just ensure the poison rumbled on forever.
I don't agree EEA-EFTA offers "nothing" on immigration.
It does offer an emergency brake, welfare and benefit qualifications and additional reserved occupations that are permitted to be offered to nationals only. None of that was in Dave's deal. There was a transitional (temporary) brake on welfare benefits, and that was it.
I also think that free movement would be lower just by virtue of us not being members of the EU politically, as the UK would have a different economic and political European dynamic. And if it did spike, we could pull the brake.
I also think there'd be benefits to Europe as a whole by forming a solid non-EU European alternative for nation states to consider, which I why I could see Ireland, Sweden, and perhaps Denmark joining as well in the long-term.
Of course, the EU also know this, so will be wary of releasing the UK into such an arrangement, but political competition and economic alternatives would force them to up their game.
Which would be to everyone's benefit.
I think this has always been the case - that the 'Implementation period' that May talked about in January was a disguise for EEA (or a shadow EEA type etween EFTA and the EU. It makes EFTA the 4th largest 'trader' in the world after the USA, China and the EU, and might revive the pressure in Norway and Switzerland to come to a better EU -EFTA than the current Swiss bilateral and EEA - a true EFTA-EU FTA.
EFTA gives British leadership of an alternative power centre within Europe. It causes minimal economic fallout in the short-term, it can be completed by 2022 (easily), it will be good for the quality of governance in both the EU and EFTA as they offer rival offerings to European nation states, and it firms up a good chunk of ongoing British influence in Europe.
I'm not sure if the EU and EFTA will grant it, but I hope they would.
I doubt EFTA will allow UK membership.
A Swiss style EEA agreement surely is on the cards.
You have your alphabet soup mixed up. Switzerland is in EFTA but not the EEA and instead has a range of bilateral treaties with the EU.
I know that.
Without EFTA membership there is no EEA membership (the EEA is EU and EFTA only). So we'd have to go the Swiss way (they could be in the EEA but choose not to).
Momentum lists 100 Labour MPs who should join the Liberals, including Chuka Umunna, Ben Bradshaw, Luciana Berger, Wes Streeting, Mike Gapes, Chris Bryant, Jess Phillips, Maria Eagle and David Lammy
I think Brexiters are panicking too much and Remainers excitedly overreaching themselves, but I detect an emerging consensus that EFTA-EEA is something that both Brexiters and Remainers could live with. It's better than a hard exit that backfires, or this very slippery conniving attempt to sell a permanent transition state that amounts to a BINO. Which would just ensure the poison rumbled on forever.
I don't agree EEA-EFTA offers "nothing" on immigration.
It does offer an emergency brake, welfare and benefit qualifications and additional reserved occupations that are permitted to be offered to nationals only. None of that was in Dave's deal. There was a transitional (temporary) brake on welfare benefits, and that was it.
I also think that free movement would be lower just by virtue of us not being members of the EU politically, as the UK would have a different economic and political European dynamic. And if it did spike, we could pull the brake.
I also think there'd be benefits to Europe as a whole by forming a solid non-EU European alternative for nation states to consider, which I why I could see Ireland, Sweden, and perhaps Denmark joining as well in the
Which would be to everyone's benefit.
I think this has always been the case - that the 'Implementation period' that May talked about in January was a disguise for EEA (or a shadow EEA type agreement). However. via EFTA it is a very different agreement, because it dramatically changes the balance of power between EFTA and the EU. It makes EFTA the 4th largest 'trader' in the world after the USA, China and the EU, and might revive the pressure in Norway and Switzerland to come to a better EU -EFTA than the current Swiss bilateral and EEA - a true EFTA-EU FTA.
EFTA gives British leadership of an alternative power centre within Europe. It causes minimal economic fallout in the short-term, it can be completed by 2022 (easily), it will be good for the quality of governance in both the EU and EFTA as they offer rival offerings to European nation states, and it firms up a good chunk of ongoing British influence in Europe.
I'm not sure if the EU and EFTA will grant it, but I hope they would.
Geopolitically, EFTA + Britain is still utterly dwarfed by the EU. I don't think they'll be particularly keen for us to join if they think we'll always expect them to agree with us, merely by virtue of population and GDP.
On reflection, the EU has rendered our traditional foreign policy utterly out of date. We cannot 'balance' with those outside the EU without totally rejecting our traditional alliances, and we can't hope to influence the continental countries once we're out.
Thank you for the link. 'Slapped down immediately' doesn't exactly come across as 'careful analysis of arguments' does it? As he points out, the Irish political class are refusing to engage in the topic - which is a pity, because if any country stands to be royally fecked over in Brexit its blameless Ireland.
Why on earth would Ireland wish to follow their poorer by far neighbours out of the EU , they do not have a death wish like Brexiteers here .
It may be their 'least worst' option.
Did you read the 'Policy Exchange' paper?
The challenges facing Ireland are non-trivial, and 'the EU will see us right' a grossly inadequate response from the Irish political class.
80% of Ireland’s total exports pass through the UK transport system..... No Irish authority has yet indicated how this can be maintained without disruption both at the point of entry into the UK, and later when the exports bound for Mainland Europe, re-emerge into the EU customs Union.
There is a danger for people who do want a transitional deal in general, that if their cause is seen to be being hijacked, or being used as a front, by those who want to sneak Britain into a permanent deal. This may make a genuinely transitional deal less politically feasible.
And it doesn't provide an easy way out of the difficult Article 50 negotiations which is how some seem to present it.
If the hardline Brexiteers buy into 'Norway for now' as a solution, why should the EU trust that anything they agree to will endure when 'for now' runs out? There will need to be cast-iron guarantees on all the issues being discussed at the moment, and that will not be painless for the UK.
I know some are suggesting it but I am not advocating a Norway for now solution. I would see it as a settled end point.
But no - the sovereignty argument didn't really hold water for me; it was like arguing we're locked in a cell when the door was unlocked and there were instructions to operate the handle printed on the door. We were in the room because we chose to be in the room; we were never incarcerated.
you don't for one moment think the mad Brexiters will accept this do you?
And I like the analogy of the cell.
That was true so long as we were in a position where we could select which standards/commitments made sense.
The introduction of QMV (for good reasons) and the emerging signs of block voting by the Eurozone members changed this dynamic: we were in a position where we were committed to abiding by things that we didn't necessarily choose or vote for. A good example of this could be the attempt by the Eurozone to move clearing away from London. Yes, that was overturned by the European courts but - bluntly speaking - it was a huge red flag that an organisation of which we are a member ever tried to take it in the first place. That, for me, was a clear indication that the interests of the UK and the EU were diverging
The Euro changed everything. The UK could have stayed in the EEC long-term (forever) up until about 1988.
For all the insults thrown at Brexiters ("mad", "foaming", "swivel-eyed" etc.) the most ardent Remainers never concede that most Britons and only a handful of MPs started that way, most went that way due to the evolution of the EU and its behaviour.
If we had joined the euro - I think leaving would have been almost impossible without economic turmoil.
That's why the EU pushes euro membership. Makes integration one way and forever.
Yet poor old Gordon Brown gets so little credit for this... If you believe the Brexiteers he basically saved our sovereignty!
Not infrequently, I see patients for follow up of conditions initially treated elsewhere. Results can be simply given to the patient.
Thanks Dr Fox. I have used temporary registration before and have also gone private. I simply wasn't given the option in this case and being rather disturbed by my condition I decided just to cut and run. It should be so much simpler than this though.
But no - the sovereignty argument didn't really hold water for me; it was like arguing we're locked in a cell when the door was unlocked and there were instructions to operate the handle printed on the door. We were in the room because we chose to be in the room; we were never incarcerated.
you don't for one moment think the mad Brexiters will accept this do you?
And I like the analogy of the cell.
That was true so long as we were in a position where we could select which standards/commitments made sense.
The introduction of QMV (for good reasons) and the emerging signs of block voting by the Eurozone members changed this dynamic: we were in a position where we were committed to abiding by things that we didn't necessarily choose or vote for. A good example of this could be the attempt by the Eurozone to move clearing away from London. Yes, that was overturned by the European courts but - bluntly speaking - it was a huge red flag that an organisation of which we are a member ever tried to take it in the first place. That, for me, was a clear indication that the interests of the UK and the EU were diverging
The Euro changed everything. The UK could have stayed in the EEC long-term (forever) up until about 1988.
For all the insults thrown at Brexiters ("mad", "foaming", "swivel-eyed" etc.) the most ardent Remainers never concede that most Britons and only a handful of MPs started that way, most went that way due to the evolution of the EU and its behaviour.
If we had joined the euro - I think leaving would have been almost impossible without economic turmoil.
That's why the EU pushes euro membership. Makes integration one way and forever.
Yet poor old Gordon Brown gets so little credit for this... If you believe the Brexiteers he basically saved our sovereignty!
It's one of few entries on the credit side of the ledger.
How quickly Leavers abandon the need to control immigration when they realise that the current path of the Brexit negotiations is leading down a very unpromising path.
Perhaps they should have thought about it before pandering to xenophobia.
It was immigration which got Leave 52% certainly and that is all down to Blair's failure to impose transition controls on migration from the new accession countries in 2004
But no - the sovereignty argument didn't really hold water for me; it was like arguing we're locked in a cell when the door was unlocked and there were instructions to operate the handle printed on the door. We were in the room because we chose to be in the room; we were never incarcerated.
you don't for one moment think the mad Brexiters will accept this do you?
And I like the analogy of the cell.
That was true so long as we were in a position where we could select which standards/commitments made sense.
The introduction of QMV (for good reasons) and the emerging signs of block voting by the Eurozone members changed this dynamic: we were in a position where we were committed to abiding by things that we didn't necessarily choose or vote for. A good example of this could be the attempt by the Eurozone to move clearing away from London. Yes, that was overturned by the European courts but - bluntly speaking - it was a huge red flag that an organisation of which we are a member ever tried to take it in the first place. That, for me, was a clear indication that the interests of the UK and the EU were diverging
The Euro changed everything. The UK could have stayed in the EEC long-term (forever) up until about 1988.
For all the insults thrown at Brexiters ("mad", "foaming", "swivel-eyed" etc.) the most ardent Remainers never concede that most Britons and only a handful of MPs started that way, most went that way due to the evolution of the EU and its behaviour.
If we had joined the euro - I think leaving would have been almost impossible without economic turmoil.
That's why the EU pushes euro membership. Makes integration one way and forever.
Yet poor old Gordon Brown gets so little credit for this... If you believe the Brexiteers he basically saved our sovereignty!
It's one of few entries on the credit side of the ledger.
Nationalising the banks and persuading other World Leaders to act similarly resolved the banking crisis and counts as a pretty big tick on the credit side.
In fairness, there isn't much else and plenty on the debit side, but his role in rescuing the banking system was pretty big and even his severest critics (and no, I'm not a fan) have to give him that.
Ireland will never leave the EU. There is no point even discussing it!
Up until now they have been a nett recipient, and that has kept them enthusiastic for the project. Once they become a nett contributor, we will have to see if their enthusiasm wanes.
But no - the sovereignty argument didn't really hold water for me; it was like arguing we're locked in a cell when the door was unlocked and there were instructions to operate the handle printed on the door. We were in the room because we chose to be in the room; we were never incarcerated.
you don't for one moment think the mad Brexiters will accept this do you?
And I like the analogy of the cell.
That was true so long as we were in a position where we could select which standards/commitments made sense.
The introduction of QMV (for good reasons) and the emerging signs of block voting by the Eurozone members changed this dynamic: we were in a position where we were committed to abiding by things that we didn't necessarily choose or vote for. A good example of this could be the attempt by the Eurozone to move clearing away from London. Yes, that was overturned by the European courts but - bluntly speaking - it was a huge red flag that an organisation of which we are a member ever tried to take it in the first place. That, for me, was a clear indication that the interests of the UK and the EU were diverging
The Euro changed everything. The UK could have stayed in the EEC long-term (forever) up until about 1988.
For all the insults thrown at Brexiters ("mad", "foaming", "swivel-eyed" etc.) the most ardent Remainers never concede that most Britons and only a handful of MPs started that way, most went that way due to the evolution of the EU and its behaviour.
If we had joined the euro - I think leaving would have been almost impossible without economic turmoil.
That's why the EU pushes euro membership. Makes integration one way and forever.
Yet poor old Gordon Brown gets so little credit for this... If you believe the Brexiteers he basically saved our sovereignty!
It's one of few entries on the credit side of the ledger.
Nationalising the banks and persuading other World Leaders to act similarly resolved the banking crisis and counts as a pretty big tick on the credit side.
In fairness, there isn't much else and plenty on the debit side, but his role in rescuing the banking system was pretty big and even his severest critics (and no, I'm not a fan) have to give him that.
Net neutral since it (and the conditions that led up to it) happened on his watch
Yet poor old Gordon Brown gets so little credit for this... If you believe the Brexiteers he basically saved our sovereignty!
It's one of few entries on the credit side of the ledger.
Nationalising the banks and persuading other World Leaders to act similarly resolved the banking crisis and counts as a pretty big tick on the credit side.
In fairness, there isn't much else and plenty on the debit side, but his role in rescuing the banking system was pretty big and even his severest critics (and no, I'm not a fan) have to give him that.
Even without considering that nations like Iceland that let their banks go to the wall ended up recovering better than nations with endemic and on-going problems like Greece . . . how much was that actually Brown's decision? Did he persuade other World Leaders to act similarly?
Ireland will never leave the EU. There is no point even discussing it!
Up until now they have been a nett recipient, and that has kept them enthusiastic for the project. Once they become a nett contributor, we will have to see if their enthusiasm wanes.
I think it's time for both sides to move beyond bitterness about the way the campaigns were fought and have the open and honest debate about our place in Europe and the world that we have been lacking.
Any open and honest debate about our place in Europe has been poisoned by the campaigns.
Those things can't be unsaid
EDIT
Also, any open and honest debate cannot include
Boris £350m for the NHS Johnson Michael We have had enough of experts Gove
Or for that matter
Jeremy I campaigned for Remain Corbyn
It's true.
If some of these people were to own up to the fibs to which they have been a party, there might be some chance of peace and reconciliation. As it is, we're stuck with anger and bitterness.
Momentum lists 100 Labour MPs who should join the Liberals, including Chuka Umunna, Ben Bradshaw, Luciana Berger, Wes Streeting, Mike Gapes, Chris Bryant, Jess Phillips, Maria Eagle and David Lammy
In other words, 'having your cake and eating it' for Corbyn.
You don't think the EU wants tariff free access to the UK market?
They are not desperate and will not give away the EU for it , only UK has a begging bowl. How many times do you loons need to be told you ain't getting free market access standalone.
Tariff free access isn't even the real issue - it's simply about reducing friction to the lowest possible from outside the SM. So that's customs procedures agreements, standardisation agreements (based on international standards), basically the Non Tariff Barrier issues. Tariffs would hurt a little, but would also bring in quite a lot. It's not entirely neutral, but as a large scale importer it's not the killer blow.
Yet poor old Gordon Brown gets so little credit for this... If you believe the Brexiteers he basically saved our sovereignty!
It's one of few entries on the credit side of the ledger.
Nationalising the banks and persuading other World Leaders to act similarly resolved the banking crisis and counts as a pretty big tick on the credit side.
In fairness, there isn't much else and plenty on the debit side, but his role in rescuing the banking system was pretty big and even his severest critics (and no, I'm not a fan) have to give him that.
Even without considering that nations like Iceland that let their banks go to the wall ended up recovering better than nations with endemic and on-going problems like Greece . . . how much was that actually Brown's decision? Did he persuade other World Leaders to act similarly?
Yes, I believe he did. He was particularly persuasive of a newly elected Barack Obama.
You need to read Andrew Rawnseley's excellent 'The End Of The Party' for the details - of this and much else of interest, especially the Blair/Brown civil war within Labour.
Ireland will never leave the EU. There is no point even discussing it!
Up until now they have been a nett recipient, and that has kept them enthusiastic for the project. Once they become a nett contributor, we will have to see if their enthusiasm wanes.
Ireland will never leave the EU. There is no point even discussing it!
We'll hold you to that when it happens......and I think it will at some point when the EU collapses. Lets just have a look at some of the troubles in the EU right now:
Greek debt problem unresolved, with potential to ripple across the rest of the Eurozone. Eurozone still not consolidated the debts of the member states - no common currency stands the test of times under those conditions. 2 Italian banks announced bail-ins last week, with a whole number of banks to follow across the eurozone. Visegrad 4 completely at loggerheads with the EU over the migration crisis. Austrian troops on the Italian border to stop immigrants crossing the border. Italian elections next year where Beppe Grillo and 5 star movement leading in most current polls, Italeave discussed by most political parties there. 1st October referendum on Catalonian independence, I think that was announced on the day of GE to virtual MSM silence here. EU accounts not signed off for the umpteemth year in a row. Ireland starting to discuss the ludicrous nature of being in the Euro when most of its trade with the UK and the US. And then anyone watching Juncker and the Maltese PM in the Strasbourg parliament earlier this week with around 30 MEP's virtually empty - they're already taking off the 6 or 7 weeks for the summer - well that just about summed it up. Had to laugh when Juncker was slagging off the parliament, but such contempt for democracy is one of the cornerstones of the EU.
The lazy assumption being made is that the EU is going to be in the same state as it is now at the end of the Article 50 negotiations in March 2019. I beg to differ. The arrogance of EU Council, the Commission and the Parliament that nothing needs to change is staggering. After Brexit and Trump, there is a completely misplaced smugness that the Dutch and French elections went 'their' way. Well I'd hardly say the French elections went their way after the dominant parties from left and right post WW2 both got crushed, and it took an outsider to defeat Le Pen. Meanwhile the problems afflicting the EU remain unresolved, and ready to rear their ugly head into something much worse as far as the future of the EU is concerned.
How quickly Leavers abandon the need to control immigration when they realise that the current path of the Brexit negotiations is leading down a very unpromising path.
Perhaps they should have thought about it before pandering to xenophobia.
Be fair Alastair. There are a fair few of us on here who made it absolutely clear from the very start that we were not interested in immigration controls. Maybe few who go as far as I do in wanting open borders for all nationalities but still plenty who did not in any way campaign on the basis of ending freedom of movement.
Being entirely fair, far too many Leavers - and I would exempt you from this criticism - were far far far too relaxed about the stoking up of hostility to immigration. And now they find themselves trapped by the way in which they secured victory.
But at the same time, too many remainers were less than honest abut the 'Norway' position, the PM at the time went to Iceland to give the 'Norway option' a good kicking right upfront. Cummings then totally rejected it instantly, possibly because of that, opting for a different tactical approach. Now remainers want to adopt it, they have to get past their own campaign rhetoric, which leavers tended to believe.
I am in favour of EEA membership having agonised about it since the night of the referendum. I am sure it's not going to work. We're not Norway, happy to outsource the main part of our foreign relations to a body we're not a part of and have no direct influence over. But as Rochdale Pioneer set out downthread there really are only two viable options - full membership of the EU and EEA. As we rejected the sensible option in that stupid referendum, we're left with the nonsensical but viable option of the EEA. Democracy must be respected.
Ireland will never leave the EU. There is no point even discussing it!
Up until now they have been a nett recipient, and that has kept them enthusiastic for the project. Once they become a nett contributor, we will have to see if their enthusiasm wanes.
Crossover has occurred....a small contribution for now, but bound to increase dramatically. that will be interesting to watch.
Quite right, and to think of all the Remainers that wish to think that the EU is utterly united on its approach to Brexit. Will take away our £10 billion net contribution, and lets see how the 27 bicker over how to fill the hole........and not to mention the simmering rows over the migration crisis. The EU 27 are anything but united.
Momentum lists 100 Labour MPs who should join the Liberals, including Chuka Umunna, Ben Bradshaw, Luciana Berger, Wes Streeting, Mike Gapes, Chris Bryant, Jess Phillips, Maria Eagle and David Lammy
One of the strange things I sometimes see is people posting articles about the internal workings of the Labour party with sources from conservative home, the telegraph and the daily mail.
In this case - it seems the highly influential momentum group for South Tyneside followed by 135 people has posted a list of MPs it doesn't like. Feels a bit of a stretch to see this as a nefarious coup but let's see what happens.
Of course he is absolutely right. A large multinational with its roots in another country is not going to be interested in anything except the bottom line. They will always go for the option that improves their profits rather than what might be in the best interests of the host country. I am surprised this is news to you.
Net neutral since it (and the conditions that led up to it) happened on his watch
That's a little unfair, and if you want to be taken seriously you have to give credit where it's due as well as handing out easy hits.
He was right when he said the Banking Crisis started in America. This is now well documented, particularly so in Nate Silver's 'The Signal and the Noise'. He was less honest about the fact that he had rather recklessly inflated the UK economy just at the wrong time, despite warnings from Alastair Darling and others.
In his early years as Chancellor he was truly prudent, and respected in the City for it. He gradually became more 'political' in his economic policy, and a worse chancellor as a result. By the time he became PM, his economic policy was heavily subordinated to his political objectives, and rarely in a good way.
He did however play a pivotal role in resolving the banking crisis. It was economics, he understood it and had the necessary credibility to pull it off. Considering the catastrophic consequences that would have ensued had the world banking system collapsed - and it was a near miss - you have to give him a pretty big tick in the credit box for this achievement, like it or not.
How quickly Leavers abandon the need to control immigration when they realise that the current path of the Brexit negotiations is leading down a very unpromising path.
Perhaps they should have thought about it before pandering to xenophobia.
Be fair Alastair. There are a fair few of us on here who made it absolutely clear from the very start that we were not interested in immigration controls. Maybe few who go as far as I do in wanting open borders for all nationalities but still plenty who did not in any way campaign on the basis of ending freedom of movement.
Being entirely fair, far too many Leavers - and I would exempt you from this criticism - were far far far too relaxed about the stoking up of hostility to immigration. And now they find themselves trapped by the way in which they secured victory.
But at the same time, too many remainers were less than honest abut the 'Norway' position, the PM at the time went to Iceland to give the 'Norway option' a good kicking right upfront. Cummings then totally rejected it instantly, possibly because of that, opting for a different tactical approach. Now remainers want to adopt it, they have to get past their own campaign rhetoric, which leavers tended to believe.
I am in favour of EEA membership having agonised about it since the night of the referendum. I am sure it's not going to work. We're not Norway, happy to outsource the main part of our foreign relations to a body we're not a part of and have no direct influence over. But as Rochdale Pioneer set out downthread there really are only two viable options - full membership of the EU and EEA. As we rejected the sensible option in that stupid referendum, we're left with the nonsensical but viable option of the EEA. Democracy must be respected.
There is now no way out that avoids humiliation for the UK. Either we go for the EEA which would be Suez 2.0 in terms of signalling to the world that we do not have the capacity to run an independent policy, or we face reality and stay in the EU.
The only option that offers anything like an inspiring vision is to accept the electorate's rejection of 'Dave's Deal' and the failed attempt at a half-in, half-out arrangement and go all in. Join the Euro and retake our seat at the top table of European affairs.
@Richard_Tyndall: Get well soon. If you think it well help you, feel free to hurl abuse at me.
Thanks TSE and thanks for all the other kind words from everyone.
I need to revise my criticism of the NHS slightly, not because I am any nearer to help per se nor because I don't think it is a monolithic institution in need of complete reform.
But rather because my issue over the last few days has been a peculiar one which I don't believe is directly related to the NHS.
I have been working away in Aberdeen on a contract which has another couple of weeks to run. Being in a key safety critical position it is not something I can easily walk away from so when I discovered my little problem my first thought was to try and get it sorted in Aberdeen. I contacted the local GPs surgery up there who also has a private practice under the same roof. Told him my problem and asked to get an appointment. This was on a ring back from the doctor himself. He told me that there was no point seeing a GP in Aberdeen because they would have to run tests and they didn't know how long it would take to get the results and by then I might well have gone home.
Given that one of the most likely reasons for my problem is an infection which can be dealt with by antibiotics (I hope that is the cause anyway as it is the least nasty outcome) I really don't want to be waiting two more weeks before getting back to my GP to get an initial diagnosis and some possible treatment. Apparently there was no facility to send the results to my GP at home which seems simply ridiculous.
So today I have had to withdraw from my contract and am currently at Edinburgh heading back to Lincolnshire for an appointment with my doctor tomorrow.
Now I have worked all over Europe and the Middle East. I have had a few accidents and some illnesses over the years in various parts of the world and I have never, ever had a problem with getting treatment or with my records, x-rays or test results being sent back to my GP in the UK. That is not just in the EU but anywhere I have worked and had to have treatment.
So why the hell can't a GP see me and if necessary send my results from Aberdeen to Grantham? It may not even have taken that. If I have an infection he should be able to deal with it there and then. Instead I have a long journey home and a very significant loss of income so I can see my own GP.
Apologies for the moan. It does actually help
Richard, was there no way to get a private appointment. I had a similar thing and was all done quickly and luckily turned out to be infection, which is most common outcome. PS: Mind you I had to have an overnight in hospital and get the camera check up which proved challenging on first tinkle next day.
Ireland will never leave the EU. There is no point even discussing it!
Up until now they have been a nett recipient, and that has kept them enthusiastic for the project. Once they become a nett contributor, we will have to see if their enthusiasm wanes.
Crossover has occurred....a small contribution for now, but bound to increase dramatically. that will be interesting to watch.
Quite right, and to think of all the Remainers that wish to think that the EU is utterly united on its approach to Brexit. Will take away our £10 billion net contribution, and lets see how the 27 bicker over how to fill the hole........and not to mention the simmering rows over the migration crisis. The EU 27 are anything but united.
That's right, Hunch, the 27 are anything but united, which is going to make agreeing anything with them kind of tricky.
Nationalising the banks and persuading other World Leaders to act similarly resolved the banking crisis and counts as a pretty big tick on the credit side.
In fairness, there isn't much else and plenty on the debit side, but his role in rescuing the banking system was pretty big and even his severest critics (and no, I'm not a fan) have to give him that.
I think Northern Rock was a huge wake-up call. The social, political and economic consequences of a major bank failure such as RBS were incalculable and stretched into the field of public order.
If one of the big banks had collapsed there would have been panic - Northern Rock showed how vulnerable the rest of society and governance was to financial systems failure.
Nationalisation and guarantee of personal deposits were the only options - as long as people thought and believed their money was safe the Government would be fine.
Momentum lists 100 Labour MPs who should join the Liberals, including Chuka Umunna, Ben Bradshaw, Luciana Berger, Wes Streeting, Mike Gapes, Chris Bryant, Jess Phillips, Maria Eagle and David Lammy
One of the strange things I sometimes see is people posting articles about the internal workings of the Labour party with sources from conservative home, the telegraph and the daily mail.
In this case - it seems the highly influential momentum group for South Tyneside followed by 135 people has posted a list of MPs it doesn't like. Feels a bit of a stretch to see this as a nefarious coup but let's see what happens.
Yes lets see what happens. What would be the realistic timetable for an attempt to de-select Luciana Berger? I wouldn't try to second guess the thought process right now of the Labour moderates. I do find it hilarious that there are Labour MP's a couple of weeks in Parliament and already in the shadow cabinet. And that for me was one of the great paradoxes of the 2017 election - we're constantly told that the electorate dislikes voting for disunited parties. Well Labour 2015-2017 could hardly have been more disunited. 2017 well and truly broke the mould in that regard.
Nationalising the banks and persuading other World Leaders to act similarly resolved the banking crisis and counts as a pretty big tick on the credit side.
In fairness, there isn't much else and plenty on the debit side, but his role in rescuing the banking system was pretty big and even his severest critics (and no, I'm not a fan) have to give him that.
I think Northern Rock was a huge wake-up call. The social, political and economic consequences of a major bank failure such as RBS were incalculable and stretched into the field of public order.
If one of the big banks had collapsed there would have been panic - Northern Rock showed how vulnerable the rest of society and governance was to financial systems failure.
Nationalisation and guarantee of personal deposits were the only options - as long as people thought and believed their money was safe the Government would be fine.
I personally think history will be much kinder to Gordon than current opinion of him.
We have just had an election which has seen a return to the two party system, as the hard Brexit supporting parties consolidated votes from the EEA-oriented parties. Yet the media interprets this as a rejection of Hard Brexit. It just goes to show the overwhelming dominance of Remain supporters in the media that they can get away with spinning this yarn. If the government turns round and announces a deal whereby we maintain unlimited immigration, and stay under EU law, the Conservatives will lose a major chunk of its vote and most of its activist base. We would not get back into the high 30s for 20 years, let alone get 42%.
Ireland will never leave the EU. There is no point even discussing it!
Up until now they have been a nett recipient, and that has kept them enthusiastic for the project. Once they become a nett contributor, we will have to see if their enthusiasm wanes.
Crossover has occurred....a small contribution for now, but bound to increase dramatically. that will be interesting to watch.
Quite right, and to think of all the Remainers that wish to think that the EU is utterly united on its approach to Brexit. Will take away our £10 billion net contribution, and lets see how the 27 bicker over how to fill the hole........and not to mention the simmering rows over the migration crisis. The EU 27 are anything but united.
That's right, Hunch, the 27 are anything but united, which is going to make agreeing anything with them kind of tricky.
I expect they'll be extremely preoccupied with the EU Sovereign debt crisis when it finally arrives........which will make any agreement reached likely ill thought through. Not as though that was not a reason for voting for leave last year given the comprehensive shortcomings of the EU. Trading under WTO rules with a common 4% external tariff wouldn't be a disaster. Currencies frequently move 10 to 15% with little underlying effect on the volume of trade conducted. What does get impacted in the real world is export / import companies profit margins. Yes it would probably be a hit of around 1.5% to GDP by most credible estimates, but you could easily make that up with a much smaller state / lower taxes to encourage growth.
Of course he is absolutely right. A large multinational with its roots in another country is not going to be interested in anything except the bottom line. They will always go for the option that improves their profits rather than what might be in the best interests of the host country. I am surprised this is news to you.
The other bias the large multinationals have is towards the next few years of profit, as that's how long CEOs typically stay in their jobs. This obviously makes them dislike Brexit, where there will be some disruption in the short term for more beneficial gains from trade agreements in the longer term.
How quickly Leavers abandon the need to control immigration when they realise that the current path of the Brexit negotiations is leading down a very unpromising path.
Perhaps they should have thought about it before pandering to xenophobia.
Be fair Alastair. There are a fair few of us on here who made it absolutely clear from the very start that we were not interested in immigration controls. Maybe few who go as far as I do in wanting open borders for all nationalities but still plenty who did not in any way campaign on the basis of ending freedom of movement.
Being entirely fair, far too many Leavers - and I would exempt you from this criticism - were far far far too relaxed about the stoking up of hostility to immigration. And now they find themselves trapped by the way in which they secured victory.
But at the same time, too many remainers were less than honest abut the 'Norway' position, the PM at the time went to Iceland to give the 'Norway option' a good kicking right upfront. Cummings then totally rejected it instantly, possibly because of that, opting for a different tactical approach. Now remainers want to adopt it, they have to get past their own campaign rhetoric, which leavers tended to believe.
I am in favour of EEA membership having agonised about it since the night of the repected.
There is now no way out that avoids humiliation for the UK. Either we go for the EEA which would be Suez 2.0 in terms of signalling to the world that we do not have the capacity to run an independent policy, or we face reality and stay in the EU.
The only option that offers anything like an inspiring vision is to accept the electorate's rejection of 'Dave's Deal' and the failed attempt at a half-in, half-out arrangement and go all in. Join the Euro and retake our seat at the top table of European affairs.
We have NEVER been at the top of European affairs. It was Italy, France, West Germany and the Benelux countries who founded the EEC NOT the UK. We were in EFTA with Scandinavia, Portugal, Switzerland and Austria. We also never joined the Eurozone even once we had joined the EEC, as it morphed into the EU we became more detached and should rejoin EFTA at most if we ever rejoin a European institution again. With over 50% of UK trade going outside the EEA we are a global trading nation not a nation at the heart of Europe as De Gaulle correctly concludes when he vetoed our first attempt to enter the EEC
We have just had an election which has seen a return to the two party system, as the hard Brexit supporting parties consolidated votes from the EEA-oriented parties. Yet the media interprets this as a rejection of Hard Brexit. It just goes to show the overwhelming dominance of Remain supporters in the media that they can get away with spinning this yarn. If the government turns round and announces a deal whereby we maintain unlimited immigration, and stay under EU law, the Conservatives will lose a major chunk of its vote and most of its activist base. We would not get back into the high 30s for 20 years, let alone get 42%.
You can write this drivel as much as you like. You know very well the game is up. Brexit cannot happen because the numbers aren't there and the 52% were sold a pig in a poke and now the reality has begun to kick in.
Nationalising the banks and persuading other World Leaders to act similarly resolved the banking crisis and counts as a pretty big tick on the credit side.
In fairness, there isn't much else and plenty on the debit side, but his role in rescuing the banking system was pretty big and even his severest critics (and no, I'm not a fan) have to give him that.
I think Northern Rock was a huge wake-up call. The social, political and economic consequences of a major bank failure such as RBS were incalculable and stretched into the field of public order.
If one of the big banks had collapsed there would have been panic - Northern Rock showed how vulnerable the rest of society and governance was to financial systems failure.
Nationalisation and guarantee of personal deposits were the only options - as long as people thought and believed their money was safe the Government would be fine.
The US allowed Lehman Brothers to go bust, one of its oldest and biggest investment banks
I think it's time for both sides to move beyond bitterness about the way the campaigns were fought and have the open and honest debate about our place in Europe and the world that we have been lacking.
Any open and honest debate about our place in Europe has been poisoned by the campaigns.
Those things can't be unsaid
EDIT
Also, any open and honest debate cannot include
Boris £350m for the NHS Johnson Michael We have had enough of experts Gove
Or for that matter
Jeremy I campaigned for Remain Corbyn
It's true.
If some of these people were to own up to the fibs to which they have been a party, there might be some chance of peace and reconciliation. As it is, we're stuck with anger and bitterness.
Taint healthy.
I've yet to hear anyone on the Remain side apologise for their intentionally incorrect economic forecasts. We were told we would face the "immediate" loss of 500,000 jobs. That hasn't happened, has it?
We have just had an election which has seen a return to the two party system, as the hard Brexit supporting parties consolidated votes from the EEA-oriented parties. Yet the media interprets this as a rejection of Hard Brexit. It just goes to show the overwhelming dominance of Remain supporters in the media that they can get away with spinning this yarn. If the government turns round and announces a deal whereby we maintain unlimited immigration, and stay under EU law, the Conservatives will lose a major chunk of its vote and most of its activist base. We would not get back into the high 30s for 20 years, let alone get 42%.
You can write this drivel as much as you like. You know very well the game is up. Brexit cannot happen because the numbers aren't there and the 52% were sold a pig in a poke and now the reality has begun to kick in.
Momentum lists 100 Labour MPs who should join the Liberals, including Chuka Umunna, Ben Bradshaw, Luciana Berger, Wes Streeting, Mike Gapes, Chris Bryant, Jess Phillips, Maria Eagle and David Lammy
One of the strange things I sometimes see is people posting articles about the internal workings of the Labour party with sources from conservative home, the telegraph and the daily mail.
In this case - it seems the highly influential momentum group for South Tyneside followed by 135 people has posted a list of MPs it doesn't like. Feels a bit of a stretch to see this as a nefarious coup but let's see what happens.
Yes lets see what happens. What would be the realistic timetable for an attempt to de-select Luciana Berger? I wouldn't try to second guess the thought process right now of the Labour moderates. I do find it hilarious that there are Labour MP's a couple of weeks in Parliament and already in the shadow cabinet. And that for me was one of the great paradoxes of the 2017 election - we're constantly told that the electorate dislikes voting for disunited parties. Well Labour 2015-2017 could hardly have been more disunited. 2017 well and truly broke the mould in that regard.
Not sure on timescale. Someone like Nick Palmer will probably know how it works. How do other parties do it I wonder?
Good point on disunited party. Public didny seem to care. If Labour had actually split though - that would have had a massive electoral impact o think.
We have just had an election which has seen a return to the two party system, as the hard Brexit supporting parties consolidated votes from the EEA-oriented parties. Yet the media interprets this as a rejection of Hard Brexit. It just goes to show the overwhelming dominance of Remain supporters in the media that they can get away with spinning this yarn. If the government turns round and announces a deal whereby we maintain unlimited immigration, and stay under EU law, the Conservatives will lose a major chunk of its vote and most of its activist base. We would not get back into the high 30s for 20 years, let alone get 42%.
Completely wrong interpretation of the election. The EEA-supporting parties stood still in terms of vote share and gained seats. The hard-Brexit UKIP party lost 80% of its vote.
We have just had an election which has seen a return to the two party system, as the hard Brexit supporting parties consolidated votes from the EEA-oriented parties. Yet the media interprets this as a rejection of Hard Brexit. It just goes to show the overwhelming dominance of Remain supporters in the media that they can get away with spinning this yarn. If the government turns round and announces a deal whereby we maintain unlimited immigration, and stay under EU law, the Conservatives will lose a major chunk of its vote and most of its activist base. We would not get back into the high 30s for 20 years, let alone get 42%.
That's an extra incentive to Remain supporters in the media.
We have just had an election which has seen a return to the two party system, as the hard Brexit supporting parties consolidated votes from the EEA-oriented parties. Yet the media interprets this as a rejection of Hard Brexit. It just goes to show the overwhelming dominance of Remain supporters in the media that they can get away with spinning this yarn. If the government turns round and announces a deal whereby we maintain unlimited immigration, and stay under EU law, the Conservatives will lose a major chunk of its vote and most of its activist base. We would not get back into the high 30s for 20 years, let alone get 42%.
You can write this drivel as much as you like. You know very well the game is up. Brexit cannot happen because the numbers aren't there and the 52% were sold a pig in a poke and now the reality has begun to kick in.
You may both be right!
BREXIT may or may not happen - it could be stopped. But to say it "cannot" happen is simply untrue. Now that A50 is activated hard BREXIT is the default. Parliament has already voted for it and it requires no further vote.
We have just had an election which has seen a return to the two party system, as the hard Brexit supporting parties consolidated votes from the EEA-oriented parties. Yet the media interprets this as a rejection of Hard Brexit. It just goes to show the overwhelming dominance of Remain supporters in the media that they can get away with spinning this yarn. If the government turns round and announces a deal whereby we maintain unlimited immigration, and stay under EU law, the Conservatives will lose a major chunk of its vote and most of its activist base. We would not get back into the high 30s for 20 years, let alone get 42%.
You can write this drivel as much as you like. You know very well the game is up. Brexit cannot happen because the numbers aren't there and the 52% were sold a pig in a poke and now the reality has begun to kick in.
The reality has been a growing economy and record employment. Despite the framing of the Remain media, the EU have backed down from their demand about no trade talks until the divorce fee was agreed. Yesterday we found out that the big EU capture of economic activity in Euro-clearing isn't actually possible because they don't have the basic infrastructure in place.
Many Remainers continue posting the same sort of links from arch-Remainers announcing anew they think Brexit is a disaster as if it's some sort of revelation. It is neither news, nor interesting.
We have just had an election which has seen a return to the two party system, as the hard Brexit supporting parties consolidated votes from the EEA-oriented parties. Yet the media interprets this as a rejection of Hard Brexit. It just goes to show the overwhelming dominance of Remain supporters in the media that they can get away with spinning this yarn. If the government turns round and announces a deal whereby we maintain unlimited immigration, and stay under EU law, the Conservatives will lose a major chunk of its vote and most of its activist base. We would not get back into the high 30s for 20 years, let alone get 42%.
You can write this drivel as much as you like. You know very well the game is up. Brexit cannot happen because the numbers aren't there and the 52% were sold a pig in a poke and now the reality has begun to kick in.
You may both be right!
BREXIT may or may not happen - it could be stopped. But to say it "cannot" happen is simply untrue. Now that A50 is activated hard BREXIT is the default. Parliament has already voted for it and it requires no further vote.
That's correct, although I would have thought No Deal and therefore WTO terms would be the default position, no?
We have just had an election which has seen a return to the two party system, as the hard Brexit supporting parties consolidated votes from the EEA-oriented parties. Yet the media interprets this as a rejection of Hard Brexit. It just goes to show the overwhelming dominance of Remain supporters in the media that they can get away with spinning this yarn. If the government turns round and announces a deal whereby we maintain unlimited immigration, and stay under EU law, the Conservatives will lose a major chunk of its vote and most of its activist base. We would not get back into the high 30s for 20 years, let alone get 42%.
Completely wrong interpretation of the election. The EEA-supporting parties stood still in terms of vote share and gained seats. The hard-Brexit UKIP party lost 80% of its vote.
These are the biggest four parliamentary parties.
The Conservatives, hard Brexit, +6 Labour, hard Brexit, +10 The SNP, soft Brexit, -2 The Liberal democrats, pro-Remain, -1
I think it's time for both sides to move beyond bitterness about the way the campaigns were fought and have the open and honest debate about our place in Europe and the world that we have been lacking.
Any open and honest debate about our place in Europe has been poisoned by the campaigns.
Those things can't be unsaid
EDIT
Also, any open and honest debate cannot include
Boris £350m for the NHS Johnson Michael We have had enough of experts Gove
Or for that matter
Jeremy I campaigned for Remain Corbyn
Rich, coming from Scott I couldn't be arsed to campaign for Remain P.
The true figure for our net contributions seems to have been a bit north of 250m. The numbers aren't just of the same OOM, they actually round to the same number under a fairly aggressive rounding regime. If votes were stolen, it wasn't the votes of everybody who was swayed by the £350m claim, it was the votes of those who were swayed by that claim but who would have said, faced with a £260m claim, "naah, that's chicken feed, not worth leaving just for that, let's Remain", which I would guess is much too tiny a number to have changed the outcome. Bear in mind that these people are, in your view, thick proles; how can you credit them with the ability to discriminate between the effects of a 350m a week subvention to the nhs vs a 260m one? You can't, given that you probably believe that half of them would have to rely on guesswork if asked to arrange 260 and 350 in ascending order of size.
The referendum wasn't won by the unfathomably evil mendacity of BoJo, it was lost by the apathy, complacence and stupidity of Remain.
We have just had an election which has seen a return to the two party system, as the hard Brexit supporting parties consolidated votes from the EEA-oriented parties. Yet the media interprets this as a rejection of Hard Brexit. It just goes to show the overwhelming dominance of Remain supporters in the media that they can get away with spinning this yarn. If the government turns round and announces a deal whereby we maintain unlimited immigration, and stay under EU law, the Conservatives will lose a major chunk of its vote and most of its activist base. We would not get back into the high 30s for 20 years, let alone get 42%.
You can write this drivel as much as you like. You know very well the game is up. Brexit cannot happen because the numbers aren't there and the 52% were sold a pig in a poke and now the reality has begun to kick in.
You may both be right!
BREXIT may or may not happen - it could be stopped. But to say it "cannot" happen is simply untrue. Now that A50 is activated hard BREXIT is the default. Parliament has already voted for it and it requires no further vote.
That's correct, although I would have thought No Deal and therefore WTO terms would be the default position, no?
We have just had an election which has seen a return to the two party system, as the hard Brexit supporting parties consolidated votes from the EEA-oriented parties. Yet the media interprets this as a rejection of Hard Brexit. It just goes to show the overwhelming dominance of Remain supporters in the media that they can get away with spinning this yarn. If the government turns round and announces a deal whereby we maintain unlimited immigration, and stay under EU law, the Conservatives will lose a major chunk of its vote and most of its activist base. We would not get back into the high 30s for 20 years, let alone get 42%.
You can write this drivel as much as you like. You know very well the game is up. Brexit cannot happen because the numbers aren't there and the 52% were sold a pig in a poke and now the reality has begun to kick in.
The numbers are certainly there.
There does seem to be an odd belief that those of us who voted for Brexit did not really mean it.
I think it's time for both sides to move beyond bitterness about the way the campaigns were fought and have the open and honest debate about our place in Europe and the world that we have been lacking.
Any open and honest debate about our place in Europe has been poisoned by the campaigns.
Those things can't be unsaid
EDIT
Also, any open and honest debate cannot include
Boris £350m for the NHS Johnson Michael We have had enough of experts Gove
Or for that matter
Jeremy I campaigned for Remain Corbyn
Rich, coming from Scott I couldn't be arsed to campaign for Remain P.
The true figure for our net contributions seems to have been a bit north of 250m. The numbers aren't just of the same OOM, they actually round to the same number under a fairly aggressive rounding regime. If votes were stolen, it wasn't the votes of everybody who was swayed by the £350m claim, it was the votes of those who were swayed by that claim but who would have said, faced with a £260m claim, "naah, that's chicken feed, not worth leaving just for that, let's Remain", which I would guess is much too tiny a number to have changed the outcome. Bear in mind that these people are, in your view, thick proles; how can you credit them with the ability to discriminate between the effects of a 350m a week subvention to the nhs vs a 260m one? You can't, given that you probably believe that half of them would have to rely on guesswork if asked to arrange 260 and 350 in ascending order of size.
The referendum wasn't won by the unfathomably evil mendacity of BoJo, it was lost by the apathy, complacence and stupidity of Remain.
Surely, Ishmael, it was won by all those things, and more.
We have just had an election which has seen a return to the two party system, as the hard Brexit supporting parties consolidated votes from the EEA-oriented parties. Yet the media interprets this as a rejection of Hard Brexit. It just goes to show the overwhelming dominance of Remain supporters in the media that they can get away with spinning this yarn. If the government turns round and announces a deal whereby we maintain unlimited immigration, and stay under EU law, the Conservatives will lose a major chunk of its vote and most of its activist base. We would not get back into the high 30s for 20 years, let alone get 42%.
You can write this drivel as much as you like. You know very well the game is up. Brexit cannot happen because the numbers aren't there and the 52% were sold a pig in a poke and now the reality has begun to kick in.
There are no numbers needed. The votes are already done, both inside Parliament and in the country. If Parliament votes against any of the bills put forward in the QS it doesn't mean Brexit will not happen. It just means it will happen without an agreement. But it will never the less happen.
The US allowed Lehman Brothers to go bust, one of its oldest and biggest investment banks
Well, no one, even Barclays, would buy it. Second, it was an Investment Bank so there was presumably less public exposure.
However, the nature of its collapse became iconic, symbolic and psychologically significant and started a process.
I suspect with hindsight many people wish it had been saved. I doubt its collapse helped McCain in the 2008 election but Obama would probably have won anyway.
We have just had an election which has seen a return to the two party system, as the hard Brexit supporting parties consolidated votes from the EEA-oriented parties. Yet the media interprets this as a rejection of Hard Brexit. It just goes to show the overwhelming dominance of Remain supporters in the media that they can get away with spinning this yarn. If the government turns round and announces a deal whereby we maintain unlimited immigration, and stay under EU law, the Conservatives will lose a major chunk of its vote and most of its activist base. We would not get back into the high 30s for 20 years, let alone get 42%.
You can write this drivel as much as you like. You know very well the game is up. Brexit cannot happen because the numbers aren't there and the 52% were sold a pig in a poke and now the reality has begun to kick in.
There are no numbers needed. The votes are already done, both inside Parliament and in the country. If Parliament votes against any of the bills put forward in the QS it doesn't mean Brexit will not happen. It just means it will happen without an agreement. But it will never the less happen.
How quickly Leavers abandon the need to control immigration when they realise that the current path of the Brexit negotiations is leading down a very unpromising path.
Perhaps they should have thought about it before pandering to xenophobia.
It was immigration which got Leave 52% certainly and that is all down to Blair's failure to impose transition controls on migration from the new accession countries in 2004
Reading this thread has been an education. In the event of Brexit being a woeful catastrophe it is now clear who is to blame for the ultimate fiasco! Blair for his mismanagement of pan-European migration. Brown for crashing the world economy and Corbyn for his hatred of multi-nation trading blocs (except for the Soviet Union).
Please note, Brexit looking calamitous has absolutely nothing to do with a vanity referendum, a vanity bids to become leader of the Conservative Party and hence PM or a vanity General Election.
We have NEVER been at the top of European affairs.
Well that's an eccentric view of history, even by your standards.
True though. It is France and Germany or Spain who have been at the top of European affairs since the Romans, we have been outsiders trying to ensure none of them got too dominant and then later expanding our global trade and empire which of all the European nations we were most successful at
We have just had an election which has seen a return to the two party system, as the hard Brexit supporting parties consolidated votes from the EEA-oriented parties. Yet the media interprets this as a rejection of Hard Brexit. It just goes to show the overwhelming dominance of Remain supporters in the media that they can get away with spinning this yarn. If the government turns round and announces a deal whereby we maintain unlimited immigration, and stay under EU law, the Conservatives will lose a major chunk of its vote and most of its activist base. We would not get back into the high 30s for 20 years, let alone get 42%.
Completely wrong interpretation of the election. The EEA-supporting parties stood still in terms of vote share and gained seats. The hard-Brexit UKIP party lost 80% of its vote.
These are the biggest four parliamentary parties.
The Conservatives, hard Brexit, +6 Labour, hard Brexit, +10 The SNP, soft Brexit, -2 The Liberal democrats, pro-Remain, -1
We have just had an election which has seen a return to the two party system, as the hard Brexit supporting parties consolidated votes from the EEA-oriented parties. Yet the media interprets this as a rejection of Hard Brexit. It just goes to show the overwhelming dominance of Remain supporters in the media that they can get away with spinning this yarn. If the government turns round and announces a deal whereby we maintain unlimited immigration, and stay under EU law, the Conservatives will lose a major chunk of its vote and most of its activist base. We would not get back into the high 30s for 20 years, let alone get 42%.
You can write this drivel as much as you like. You know very well the game is up. Brexit cannot happen because the numbers aren't there and the 52% were sold a pig in a poke and now the reality has begun to kick in.
You may both be right!
BREXIT may or may not happen - it could be stopped. But to say it "cannot" happen is simply untrue. Now that A50 is activated hard BREXIT is the default. Parliament has already voted for it and it requires no further vote.
That's correct, although I would have thought No Deal and therefore WTO terms would be the default position, no?
That's right. Parliament has legislated that we leave in March 2019 come what may, without conditiion. Any 'deal' is incidental to that. No deal means WTO.
To stop this I guess parliament would have to repeal the A50 enabling legislation and the EU would have to agree to the revoking of A50.
We have just had an election which has seen a return to the two party system, as the hard Brexit supporting parties consolidated votes from the EEA-oriented parties. Yet the media interprets this as a rejection of Hard Brexit. It just goes to show the overwhelming dominance of Remain supporters in the media that they can get away with spinning this yarn. If the government turns round and announces a deal whereby we maintain unlimited immigration, and stay under EU law, the Conservatives will lose a major chunk of its vote and most of its activist base. We would not get back into the high 30s for 20 years, let alone get 42%.
Completely wrong interpretation of the election. The EEA-supporting parties stood still in terms of vote share and gained seats. The hard-Brexit UKIP party lost 80% of its vote.
These are the biggest four parliamentary parties.
The Conservatives, hard Brexit, +6 Labour, hard Brexit, +10 The SNP, soft Brexit, -2 The Liberal democrats, pro-Remain, -1
UKIP, hard Brexit, -12
I'm sure you accidentally left that one out
I did the big four, but we can add them in if you'd like. That gives us +7 swing towards hard Brexit parties overall.
We have just had an election which has seen a return to the two party system, as the hard Brexit supporting parties consolidated votes from the EEA-oriented parties. Yet the media interprets this as a rejection of Hard Brexit. It just goes to show the overwhelming dominance of Remain supporters in the media that they can get away with spinning this yarn. If the government turns round and announces a deal whereby we maintain unlimited immigration, and stay under EU law, the Conservatives will lose a major chunk of its vote and most of its activist base. We would not get back into the high 30s for 20 years, let alone get 42%.
You can write this drivel as much as you like. You know very well the game is up. Brexit cannot happen because the numbers aren't there and the 52% were sold a pig in a poke and now the reality has begun to kick in.
The reality has been a growing economy and record employment. Despite the framing of the Remain media, the EU have backed down from their demand about no trade talks until the divorce fee was agreed. Yesterday we found out that the big EU capture of economic activity in Euro-clearing isn't actually possible because they don't have the basic infrastructure in place.
Many Remainers continue posting the same sort of links from arch-Remainers announcing anew they think Brexit is a disaster as if it's some sort of revelation. It is neither news, nor interesting.
We have just had an election which has seen a return to the two party system, as the hard Brexit supporting parties consolidated votes from the EEA-oriented parties. Yet the media interprets this as a rejection of Hard Brexit. It just goes to show the overwhelming dominance of Remain supporters in the media that they can get away with spinning this yarn. If the government turns round and announces a deal whereby we maintain unlimited immigration, and stay under EU law, the Conservatives will lose a major chunk of its vote and most of its activist base. We would not get back into the high 30s for 20 years, let alone get 42%.
Completely wrong interpretation of the election. The EEA-supporting parties stood still in terms of vote share and gained seats. The hard-Brexit UKIP party lost 80% of its vote.
These are the biggest four parliamentary parties.
The Conservatives, hard Brexit, +6 Labour, hard Brexit, +10 The SNP, soft Brexit, -2 The Liberal democrats, pro-Remain, -1
Con figure is actually +4.5 and LD -0.5. Oh, and you forgot...
We have just had an election which has seen a return to the two party system, as the hard Brexit supporting parties consolidated votes from the EEA-oriented parties. Yet the media interprets this as a rejection of Hard Brexit. It just goes to show the overwhelming dominance of Remain supporters in the media that they can get away with spinning this yarn. If the government turns round and announces a deal whereby we maintain unlimited immigration, and stay under EU law, the Conservatives will lose a major chunk of its vote and most of its activist base. We would not get back into the high 30s for 20 years, let alone get 42%.
Completely wrong interpretation of the election. The EEA-supporting parties stood still in terms of vote share and gained seats. The hard-Brexit UKIP party lost 80% of its vote.
These are the biggest four parliamentary parties.
The Conservatives, hard Brexit, +6 Labour, hard Brexit, +10 The SNP, soft Brexit, -2 The Liberal democrats, pro-Remain, -1
UKIP, hard Brexit, -12
I'm sure you accidentally left that one out
I did the big four, but we can add them in if you'd like. That gives us +7 swing towards hard Brexit parties overall.
Labour are not really in favour of Hard Brexit; it's just convenient cover for now. Expect a full embrace of EEA when the mood turns further against hard Brexit
We have just had an election which has seen a return to the two party system, as the hard Brexit supporting parties consolidated votes from the EEA-oriented parties. Yet the media interprets this as a rejection of Hard Brexit. It just goes to show the overwhelming dominance of Remain supporters in the media that they can get away with spinning this yarn. If the government turns round and announces a deal whereby we maintain unlimited immigration, and stay under EU law, the Conservatives will lose a major chunk of its vote and most of its activist base. We would not get back into the high 30s for 20 years, let alone get 42%.
Completely wrong interpretation of the election. The EEA-supporting parties stood still in terms of vote share and gained seats. The hard-Brexit UKIP party lost 80% of its vote.
These are the biggest four parliamentary parties.
The Conservatives, hard Brexit, +6 Labour, hard Brexit, +10 The SNP, soft Brexit, -2 The Liberal democrats, pro-Remain, -1
Oh, you forgot...
UKIP, hard Brexit, -12
I'm sure you accidentally left that one out
Since you are being pedantic it was actually UKIP -10.8% not -12%
Completely wrong interpretation of the election. The EEA-supporting parties stood still in terms of vote share and gained seats. The hard-Brexit UKIP party lost 80% of its vote.
These are the biggest four parliamentary parties.
The Conservatives, hard Brexit, +6 Labour, hard Brexit, +10 The SNP, soft Brexit, -2 The Liberal democrats, pro-Remain, -1
Oh, you forgot... UKIP, hard Brexit, -12 I'm sure you accidentally left that one out
The problem is that in the last election Labour stood for Hard Brexit, and for Soft Brexit, and for No Brexit. That is why they did so well this year.
Next time, everybody will vote against them. Corbyn`s Labour cannot be relied upon.
Momentum lists 100 Labour MPs who should join the Liberals, including Chuka Umunna, Ben Bradshaw, Luciana Berger, Wes Streeting, Mike Gapes, Chris Bryant, Jess Phillips, Maria Eagle and David Lammy
One of the strange things I sometimes see is people posting articles about the internal workings of the Labour party with sources from conservative home, the telegraph and the daily mail.
In this case - it seems the highly influential momentum group for South Tyneside followed by 135 people has posted a list of MPs it doesn't like. Feels a bit of a stretch to see this as a nefarious coup but let's see what happens.
Yes lets see what happens. What would be the realistic timetable for an attempt to de-select Luciana Berger? I wouldn't try to second guess the thought process right now of the Labour moderates. I do find it hilarious that there are Labour MP's a couple of weeks in Parliament and already in the shadow cabinet. And that for me was one of the great paradoxes of the 2017 election - we're constantly told that the electorate dislikes voting for disunited parties. Well Labour 2015-2017 could hardly have been more disunited. 2017 well and truly broke the mould in that regard.
Not sure on timescale. Someone like Nick Palmer will probably know how it works. How do other parties do it I wonder?
Good point on disunited party. Public didny seem to care. If Labour had actually split though - that would have had a massive electoral impact o think.
Nothing galvanises a Party like a GE though, or even the threat of one.
Remember Gordon Brown and his bottled election call? The Tories were on the verge of self-destruction as the Party Conference approached, when GB and his ill-disciplined Spads teased the Opposition once too often. The result was a sudden closing of Tory ranks, a successful Conference and a newly energised Leader, David Cameron.
Comments
And like you I think his 'Lichtenstein' solution was fanciful. It was never intended to be used in the way he tried to suggest and would have met with fierce opposition from both the EU and EFTA I believe.
A Swiss style EEA agreement surely is on the cards.
On reflection, the EU has rendered our traditional foreign policy utterly out of date. We cannot 'balance' with those outside the EU without totally rejecting our traditional alliances, and we can't hope to influence the continental countries once we're out.
Perhaps we really have made a mistake.
GDP Growth rate 2.5%
GDP Annual Growth Rate 7.2%
GDP per capita $ 65,249
GDP per capita PPP $ 61,378
Median wage 2015 Euros 21,688
UK
GDP Growth Rate 0.2%
GDP Annual Growth Rate 2.0%
GDP per capita $ 41,182
GDP per capita PPP $ 38,509
Median wage 2015 Euros 20,945
Why on earth would Ireland wish to follow their poorer by far neighbours out of the EU , they do not have a death wish like Brexiteers here .
Brexit is still popular. Polls may fluctuate, but there are millions that want thus to happen. There are a serious number of people who will not put up with a fudge or retreat.
Could be nasty and messy.
I need to revise my criticism of the NHS slightly, not because I am any nearer to help per se nor because I don't think it is a monolithic institution in need of complete reform.
But rather because my issue over the last few days has been a peculiar one which I don't believe is directly related to the NHS.
I have been working away in Aberdeen on a contract which has another couple of weeks to run. Being in a key safety critical position it is not something I can easily walk away from so when I discovered my little problem my first thought was to try and get it sorted in Aberdeen. I contacted the local GPs surgery up there who also has a private practice under the same roof. Told him my problem and asked to get an appointment. This was on a ring back from the doctor himself. He told me that there was no point seeing a GP in Aberdeen because they would have to run tests and they didn't know how long it would take to get the results and by then I might well have gone home.
Given that one of the most likely reasons for my problem is an infection which can be dealt with by antibiotics (I hope that is the cause anyway as it is the least nasty outcome) I really don't want to be waiting two more weeks before getting back to my GP to get an initial diagnosis and some possible treatment. Apparently there was no facility to send the results to my GP at home which seems simply ridiculous.
So today I have had to withdraw from my contract and am currently at Edinburgh heading back to Lincolnshire for an appointment with my doctor tomorrow.
Now I have worked all over Europe and the Middle East. I have had a few accidents and some illnesses over the years in various parts of the world and I have never, ever had a problem with getting treatment or with my records, x-rays or test results being sent back to my GP in the UK. That is not just in the EU but anywhere I have worked and had to have treatment.
So why the hell can't a GP see me and if necessary send my results from Aberdeen to Grantham? It may not even have taken that. If I have an infection he should be able to deal with it there and then. Instead I have a long journey home and a very significant loss of income so I can see my own GP.
Apologies for the moan. It does actually help
My opinions are neither here nor there, but if he poses questions in Manichean "with me or against me" fashion, he may find he stacks up the odds against him. I wonder if he risks overestimating his level of sympathy abroad, by choosing to go to places where a crowd can be assembled to support him?
I do think you're wrong on two key points - first, Britain will always be a draw for migrants. We have the English language and even if we lose ground on Germany and France, we will still be prosperous in comparison to many prospective migrants have originated. Did the 2008 crash stop the flow of EU citizens ?
Second, and this is something not often talked about, there will be those who, on the basis of history, will find the pledges to reduce migration less than credible or convincing and may even want to see a reduction in the current numbers. Once the parameters for residency have become clearer, the question is how many will ignore the law, carry on working in the black economy living cash in hand and fail to integrate ?
Those things can't be unsaid
EDIT
Also, any open and honest debate cannot include
Boris £350m for the NHS Johnson
Michael We have had enough of experts Gove
Or for that matter
Jeremy I campaigned for Remain Corbyn
http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/how-can-i-see-a-gp-if-im-away-from-home.aspx?CategoryID=68
Not infrequently, I see patients for follow up of conditions initially treated elsewhere. Results can be simply given to the patient.
Without EFTA membership there is no EEA membership (the EEA is EU and EFTA only). So we'd have to go the Swiss way (they could be in the EEA but choose not to).
http://www.conservativehome.com/leftwatch/2017/07/momentums-hounding-of-berger-is-a-test-for-anti-corbynite-mps.html
Did you read the 'Policy Exchange' paper?
The challenges facing Ireland are non-trivial, and 'the EU will see us right' a grossly inadequate response from the Irish political class.
80% of Ireland’s total exports pass through the UK transport system.....
No Irish authority has yet indicated how this can be maintained without disruption both at the point of entry into the UK, and later when the exports bound for Mainland Europe, re-emerge into the EU customs Union.
If you believe the Brexiteers he basically saved our sovereignty!
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/06/hinkley-point-c-uk-censured-german-public-edf
In fairness, there isn't much else and plenty on the debit side, but his role in rescuing the banking system was pretty big and even his severest critics (and no, I'm not a fan) have to give him that.
https://amp.independent.ie/business/irish/ireland-contributes-more-money-than-it-gets-to-eu-for-first-time-34815450.html
If some of these people were to own up to the fibs to which they have been a party, there might be some chance of peace and reconciliation. As it is, we're stuck with anger and bitterness.
Taint healthy.
https://twitter.com/NewsInBrie/status/882868265260900352
You need to read Andrew Rawnseley's excellent 'The End Of The Party' for the details - of this and much else of interest, especially the Blair/Brown civil war within Labour.
Greek debt problem unresolved, with potential to ripple across the rest of the Eurozone. Eurozone still not consolidated the debts of the member states - no common currency stands the test of times under those conditions. 2 Italian banks announced bail-ins last week, with a whole number of banks to follow across the eurozone. Visegrad 4 completely at loggerheads with the EU over the migration crisis. Austrian troops on the Italian border to stop immigrants crossing the border. Italian elections next year where Beppe Grillo and 5 star movement leading in most current polls, Italeave discussed by most political parties there. 1st October referendum on Catalonian independence, I think that was announced on the day of GE to virtual MSM silence here. EU accounts not signed off for the umpteemth year in a row. Ireland starting to discuss the ludicrous nature of being in the Euro when most of its trade with the UK and the US. And then anyone watching Juncker and the Maltese PM in the Strasbourg parliament earlier this week with around 30 MEP's virtually empty - they're already taking off the 6 or 7 weeks for the summer - well that just about summed it up. Had to laugh when Juncker was slagging off the parliament, but such contempt for democracy is one of the cornerstones of the EU.
The lazy assumption being made is that the EU is going to be in the same state as it is now at the end of the Article 50 negotiations in March 2019. I beg to differ. The arrogance of EU Council, the Commission and the Parliament that nothing needs to change is staggering. After Brexit and Trump, there is a completely misplaced smugness that the Dutch and French elections went 'their' way. Well I'd hardly say the French elections went their way after the dominant parties from left and right post WW2 both got crushed, and it took an outsider to defeat Le Pen. Meanwhile the problems afflicting the EU remain unresolved, and ready to rear their ugly head into something much worse as far as the future of the EU is concerned.
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/883026600559882244
In this case - it seems the highly influential momentum group for South Tyneside followed by 135 people has posted a list of MPs it doesn't like. Feels a bit of a stretch to see this as a nefarious coup but let's see what happens.
The only option that offers anything like an inspiring vision is to accept the electorate's rejection of 'Dave's Deal' and the failed attempt at a half-in, half-out arrangement and go all in. Join the Euro and retake our seat at the top table of European affairs.
PS: Mind you I had to have an overnight in hospital and get the camera check up which proved challenging on first tinkle next day.
If one of the big banks had collapsed there would have been panic - Northern Rock showed how vulnerable the rest of society and governance was to financial systems failure.
Nationalisation and guarantee of personal deposits were the only options - as long as people thought and believed their money was safe the Government would be fine.
http://mailchi.mp/398d75c7cae9/lfi-key-issues-palestinian-prisoners-hunger-strike-continues-26-april-615825?e=26f49e83ef
How do other parties do it I wonder?
Good point on disunited party. Public didny seem to care.
If Labour had actually split though - that would have had a massive electoral impact o think.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-could-boost-londons-status-as-worlds-legal-centre-britains-top-judge-says-a3579146.html
The Irish would be free of EU rule and Beverley_C would have to discover a Greek aunt so she can move there instead.
Many Remainers continue posting the same sort of links from arch-Remainers announcing anew they think Brexit is a disaster as if it's some sort of revelation. It is neither news, nor interesting.
The Conservatives, hard Brexit, +6
Labour, hard Brexit, +10
The SNP, soft Brexit, -2
The Liberal democrats, pro-Remain, -1
The true figure for our net contributions seems to have been a bit north of 250m. The numbers aren't just of the same OOM, they actually round to the same number under a fairly aggressive rounding regime. If votes were stolen, it wasn't the votes of everybody who was swayed by the £350m claim, it was the votes of those who were swayed by that claim but who would have said, faced with a £260m claim, "naah, that's chicken feed, not worth leaving just for that, let's Remain", which I would guess is much too tiny a number to have changed the outcome. Bear in mind that these people are, in your view, thick proles; how can you credit them with the ability to discriminate between the effects of a 350m a week subvention to the nhs vs a 260m one? You can't, given that you probably believe that half of them would have to rely on guesswork if asked to arrange 260 and 350 in ascending order of size.
The referendum wasn't won by the unfathomably evil mendacity of BoJo, it was lost by the apathy, complacence and stupidity of Remain.
There does seem to be an odd belief that those of us who voted for Brexit did not really mean it.
However, the nature of its collapse became iconic, symbolic and psychologically significant and started a process.
I suspect with hindsight many people wish it had been saved. I doubt its collapse helped McCain in the 2008 election but Obama would probably have won anyway.
Please note, Brexit looking calamitous has absolutely nothing to do with a vanity referendum, a vanity bids to become leader of the Conservative Party and hence PM or a vanity General Election.
UKIP, hard Brexit, -12
I'm sure you accidentally left that one out
To stop this I guess parliament would have to repeal the A50 enabling legislation and the EU would have to agree to the revoking of A50.
See the flags of many European nations fluttering in the breeze.
Look for the butcher's apron.
You won't see it.
UKIP, hard Brexit, -12
I'm sure you accidentally left that one out
The problem is that in the last election Labour stood for Hard Brexit, and for Soft Brexit, and for No Brexit. That is why they did so well this year.
Next time, everybody will vote against them. Corbyn`s Labour cannot be relied upon.
Remember Gordon Brown and his bottled election call? The Tories were on the verge of self-destruction as the Party Conference approached, when GB and his ill-disciplined Spads teased the Opposition once too often. The result was a sudden closing of Tory ranks, a successful Conference and a newly energised Leader, David Cameron.
The rest you surely know.