politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Moore remains odds-on favourite in Alabama even though the Dem
Options
Comments
-
Of course they'll pay out. They're not monsters! The TIME article (and indeed shortlist) is explicit that it is "The #MeToo movement" that is being recognised, regardless of the headline.tlg86 said:
Am I right in thinking that that is what has won just not using that specific phrase? Presumably the bookies won't be paying out?Tissue_Price said:
Yes, #MeToo was the favourite.Morris_Dancer said:Was that even an option for the markets for Time Person of the Year? Glad I avoided that market.
http://time.com/5045719/time-person-of-the-year-2017-shortlist/0 -
How? I'm not aware the DUP have any personal issues with David Davis. How do you rule out a hard border in Northern Ireland without a majority, being in the customs union, or allowing a different status for NI? Not sure how the identity of the Brexit minister affects that (apart from a very steep learning curve for the new incumbent.)TGOHF said:
Not so sure - just means a new Brexit minister - one the DUP have more faith in would strengthen the govt.tpfkar said:
In any normal world he should be, but I can't see how the EU negotiations could survive his loss. It feels to me that if he falls, the Government falls. And neither looks unlikely this lunchtime.TheScreamingEagles said:David Davis is toast isn't he?
0 -
No, that is the nub of it.rottenborough said:
i.e. Brexit can't be delivered.Scott_P said:@bbclaurak: Bernard Jenkin third Brexiteer to push PM on whether she’s giving away too much in negotiations
@SamCoatesTimes: Co-ordinated pressure from Brexiteers in this PMQ demanding that there isn’t partial or sectoral post Brexit alignment with the EU, after hints of such on Monday.
I think it was Tusk who said right after the referendum that the UK had two choices - hard Brexit or no Brexit.
Until recently I thought there was a good chance of hard Brexit, but now I think the odds have shifted to no Brexit.0 -
Anyone catch BoJo, commenting on the US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's Capital, coming within a hair's breadth of telling us what the "Final
SolutionSetttlement" should be?0 -
-
If its any help to DD, he could copy from here. Those swots at the EU Parliament have done their homework.rottenborough said:
Can anyone explain why you would make them up?Scott_P said:
It only makes sense that they were done, the results were so dire for UK economy, that they were 'undone'.
https://twitter.com/EPinUK/status/9355133555985612800 -
Labour equally has an Umunna+Starmer v Hoey, Skinner and Field problemScott_P said:0 -
All this over scenario C, what a shame!Scott_P said:0 -
Looks like a very sensible deal after all the posturing.Scott_P said:
Now we just need a heavy from within the EU to explain the facts of life to the Taoiseach.0 -
Oops
@davidallengreen: The @DExEUgov September FoI response to @SeemaMalhotra1 confirmed that analyses did exist.
"I can confirm that the Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU) holds the information you have requested."
If they did not, FoI non-disclosure letter could not have said this.0 -
They have already said they have done analyses, just not forecastsScott_P said:Oops
@davidallengreen: The @DExEUgov September FoI response to @SeemaMalhotra1 confirmed that analyses did exist.
"I can confirm that the Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU) holds the information you have requested."
If they did not, FoI non-disclosure letter could not have said this.0 -
No, I think scenario A was for a FTA.williamglenn said:0 -
Scenario B?tpfkar said:
How? I'm not aware the DUP have any personal issues with David Davis. How do you rule out a hard border in Northern Ireland without a majority, being in the customs union, or allowing a different status for NI? Not sure how the identity of the Brexit minister affects that (apart from a very steep learning curve for the new incumbent.)TGOHF said:
Not so sure - just means a new Brexit minister - one the DUP have more faith in would strengthen the govt.tpfkar said:
In any normal world he should be, but I can't see how the EU negotiations could survive his loss. It feels to me that if he falls, the Government falls. And neither looks unlikely this lunchtime.TheScreamingEagles said:David Davis is toast isn't he?
0 -
Hard Brexiteers are a tiny minority in the Labour Party - Hoey and Field are frankly embarrassing to most Labour members - they have no influence and are not a consideration in the policy-making process. Labour members do not see Brexit as a talismanic issue in the way that many Tories do.HYUFD said:
Labour equally has an Umunna+Starmer v Hoey, Skinner and Field problemScott_P said:0 -
Which would be fine by me if we got some concession on FOMwilliamglenn said:0 -
Hard Brexit creates highly dangerous situation in NI presumably.anothernick said:
No, that is the nub of it.rottenborough said:
i.e. Brexit can't be delivered.Scott_P said:@bbclaurak: Bernard Jenkin third Brexiteer to push PM on whether she’s giving away too much in negotiations
@SamCoatesTimes: Co-ordinated pressure from Brexiteers in this PMQ demanding that there isn’t partial or sectoral post Brexit alignment with the EU, after hints of such on Monday.
I think it was Tusk who said right after the referendum that the UK had two choices - hard Brexit or no Brexit.
Until recently I thought there was a good chance of hard Brexit, but now I think the odds have shifted to no Brexit.
I've always said Brexit wont happen, I didnt think it would be the NI who stopped it though, but that is how it is looking today. What a mess of dangerous proportions.0 -
Many Labour voters do though.anothernick said:
Hard Brexiteers are a tiny minority in the Labour Party - Hoey and Field are frankly embarrassing to most Labour members - they have no influence and are not a consideration in the policy-making process. Labour members do not see Brexit as a talismanic issue in the way that many Tories do.HYUFD said:
Labour equally has an Umunna+Starmer v Hoey, Skinner and Field problemScott_P said:
37% of 2015 Labour voters voted Leave and 20% of 2015 UKIP voters voted for Corbyn.
Corbyn cannot become PM without their votes.0 -
Oh, fair enough. When I looked at the market I assumed that would be the winner but I wasn't sure about the exact phrasing.Tissue_Price said:
Of course they'll pay out. They're not monsters! The TIME article (and indeed shortlist) is explicit that it is "The #MeToo movement" that is being recognised, regardless of the headline.tlg86 said:
Am I right in thinking that that is what has won just not using that specific phrase? Presumably the bookies won't be paying out?Tissue_Price said:
Yes, #MeToo was the favourite.Morris_Dancer said:Was that even an option for the markets for Time Person of the Year? Glad I avoided that market.
http://time.com/5045719/time-person-of-the-year-2017-shortlist/0 -
Yes but an FTA which facilitates an open border doesn't exist. It would have to be Norway plus.RobD said:
No, I think scenario A was for a FTA.williamglenn said:0 -
Out of interest, what makes you rule out EFTA/EEA?anothernick said:I think it was Tusk who said right after the referendum that the UK had two choices - hard Brexit or no Brexit.
Until recently I thought there was a good chance of hard Brexit, but now I think the odds have shifted to no Brexit.0 -
-
Norway+ is non negotiable for most Tory MPs, members and voters and a fair number of working class Labour voters too without some new FOM controlswilliamglenn said:
Yes but an FTA which facilitates an open border doesn't exist. It would have to be Norway plus.RobD said:
No, I think scenario A was for a FTA.williamglenn said:0 -
Does anyone have any experience of working at Macquarie? I've been contacted about an associate position in London, the pay is about the same as I have now, but it seems more interesting, their profile of investing directly in infrastructure is something that always seems appealing to me.0
-
Mr. Price, sorry for the slow response, and thanks for that answer.
Has #MeToo paid out as a winner, then?0 -
As far as I can see the deal which collapsed on Monday would not have guaranteed an open border. Only common tarrifs (CU) and common regulation and product standards (SM) would do that. Someone kindly correct me if that is wrong.williamglenn said:
Yes but an FTA which facilitates an open border doesn't exist. It would have to be Norway plus.RobD said:
No, I think scenario A was for a FTA.williamglenn said:0 -
The point is that no one on here knows. Everyone is just guessingPeterC said:
As far as I can see the deal which collapsed on Monday would not have guaranteed an open border. Only common tarrifs (CU) and common regulation and product standards (SM) would do that. Someone kindly correct me if that is wrong.williamglenn said:
Yes but an FTA which facilitates an open border doesn't exist. It would have to be Norway plus.RobD said:
No, I think scenario A was for a FTA.williamglenn said:0 -
The second scenario certainly didn't guarantee an open border (rather it prevented a hard border with checkpoints), yet all parties seemed to be happy with it.PeterC said:
As far as I can see the deal which collapsed on Monday would not have guaranteed an open border. Only common tarrifs (CU) and common regulation and product standards (SM) would do that. Someone kindly correct me if that is wrong.williamglenn said:
Yes but an FTA which facilitates an open border doesn't exist. It would have to be Norway plus.RobD said:
No, I think scenario A was for a FTA.williamglenn said:0 -
Why do we insist on using their funny language to describe this imbeciles job ?Richard_Nabavi said:
Looks like a very sensible deal after all the posturing.Scott_P said:
Now we just need a heavy from within the EU to explain the facts of life to the Taoiseach.
"Irish PM" should be compulsory.0 -
Off topic:
As someone who, when asked the question "Is the Pope Catholic?" answered "I don't know. Is he?" (Wearing my atheist credentials proudly) - What is the current issue with the US moving their embassy to Jerusalem? I'm vaguely aware it's a very religious city.... but.... don't understand what the problem is (seriously)?0 -
I use it because I'm still trying to learn to spell it, so far with no success. I have to look it up every single time.TGOHF said:
Why do we insist on using their funny language to describe this imbeciles job ?Richard_Nabavi said:
Looks like a very sensible deal after all the posturing.Scott_P said:
Now we just need a heavy from within the EU to explain the facts of life to the Taoiseach.
"Irish PM" should be compulsory.0 -
Why did anyone in the Uk group agree to the bizarre demand from the ROI not to show the draft to the DUP ?tpfkar said:
How? I'm not aware the DUP have any personal issues with David Davis. How do you rule out a hard border in Northern Ireland without a majority, being in the customs union, or allowing a different status for NI? Not sure how the identity of the Brexit minister affects that (apart from a very steep learning curve for the new incumbent.)TGOHF said:
Not so sure - just means a new Brexit minister - one the DUP have more faith in would strengthen the govt.tpfkar said:
In any normal world he should be, but I can't see how the EU negotiations could survive his loss. It feels to me that if he falls, the Government falls. And neither looks unlikely this lunchtime.TheScreamingEagles said:David Davis is toast isn't he?
No wonder they are cheesed off.
0 -
https://www.ft.com/content/18221a1e-da83-11e7-a039-c64b1c09b482
On Tuesday morning, Theresa May’s Brexit strategy was in crisis as she struggled to reconcile the rival demands of the Dublin government and the Democratic Unionist party over the Irish border. Then David Davis stood up in the Commons — and made the PM’s plight a great deal worse.
0 -
From the EU's perspective the second scenario is only there so they can continue to make fun of the UK for thinking drones and zeppelins could help. That's why the fall back position needs to be a cast-iron guarantee of regulatory and customs alignment.RobD said:
The second scenario certainly didn't guarantee an open border (rather it prevented a hard border with checkpoints), yet all parties seemed to be happy with it.PeterC said:
As far as I can see the deal which collapsed on Monday would not have guaranteed an open border. Only common tarrifs (CU) and common regulation and product standards (SM) would do that. Someone kindly correct me if that is wrong.williamglenn said:
Yes but an FTA which facilitates an open border doesn't exist. It would have to be Norway plus.RobD said:
No, I think scenario A was for a FTA.williamglenn said:0 -
Yeah, I'm sure that's the only reason it's in there.williamglenn said:
From the EU's perspective the second scenario is only there so they can continue to make fun of the UK for thinking drones and zeppelins could help. That's why the fall back position needs to be a cast-iron guarantee of regulatory and customs alignment.RobD said:
The second scenario certainly didn't guarantee an open border (rather it prevented a hard border with checkpoints), yet all parties seemed to be happy with it.PeterC said:
As far as I can see the deal which collapsed on Monday would not have guaranteed an open border. Only common tarrifs (CU) and common regulation and product standards (SM) would do that. Someone kindly correct me if that is wrong.williamglenn said:
Yes but an FTA which facilitates an open border doesn't exist. It would have to be Norway plus.RobD said:
No, I think scenario A was for a FTA.williamglenn said:0 -
I disagree - in general Labour voters do not see the EU as a major concern - the ones who voted leave did so out of a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government. I know it is hard for Tories who have spent their entire political lives obsessing about the EU to believe that there are people out there who don't care much about it either way and whose vote is determined by other factors. But there are. And in fact these people are a majority both amongst Labour Party members and the electorate at large.HYUFD said:
Many Labour voters do though.anothernick said:
Hard Brexiteers are a tiny minority in the Labour Party - Hoey and Field are frankly embarrassing to most Labour members - they have no influence and are not a consideration in the policy-making process. Labour members do not see Brexit as a talismanic issue in the way that many Tories do.HYUFD said:
Labour equally has an Umunna+Starmer v Hoey, Skinner and Field problemScott_P said:
.0 -
The Palestinians claim East Jerusalem as their capital tooTheValiant said:Off topic:
As someone who, when asked the question "Is the Pope Catholic?" answered "I don't know. Is he?" (Wearing my atheist credentials proudly) - What is the current issue with the US moving their embassy to Jerusalem? I'm vaguely aware it's a very religious city.... but.... don't understand what the problem is (seriously)?0 -
Perhaps T May should just appoint a member of the DUP as Brexit Secretary to see what solution they would negotiate!0
-
Next step is to use "Frau Bundeskanzlerin" for Merkel..Richard_Nabavi said:
I use it because I'm still trying to learn to spell it, so far with no success. I have to look it up every single time.TGOHF said:
Why do we insist on using their funny language to describe this imbeciles job ?Richard_Nabavi said:
Looks like a very sensible deal after all the posturing.Scott_P said:
Now we just need a heavy from within the EU to explain the facts of life to the Taoiseach.
"Irish PM" should be compulsory.
Surprised Nicola hasn't got a teuchter term for First Minister..0 -
Tea shop.Richard_Nabavi said:
I use it because I'm still trying to learn to spell it, so far with no success. I have to look it up every single time.TGOHF said:
Why do we insist on using their funny language to describe this imbeciles job ?Richard_Nabavi said:
Looks like a very sensible deal after all the posturing.Scott_P said:
Now we just need a heavy from within the EU to explain the facts of life to the Taoiseach.
"Irish PM" should be compulsory.0 -
That's the most plausible suggestion I've heard all week.MikeSole said:Perhaps T May should just appoint a member of the DUP as Brexit Secretary to see what solution they would negotiate!
Leo, meet Arlene. Arlene, Leo. I'll come back when you've an agreed proposal to present to me.0 -
No. The Labour voters who voted Leave and UKIP voters who voted Leave then voted for Corbyn did so because of concerns over immigration even if they were less concerned by widget directives from Brussels and as they were assured by Corbyn he would end FOM. That concern was exacerbated by Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004.anothernick said:
I disagree - in general Labour voters do not see the EU as a major concern - the ones who voted leave did so out of a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government. I know it is hard for Tories who have spent their entire political lives obsessing about the EU to believe that there are people out there who don't care much about it either way and whose vote is determined by other factors. But there are. And in fact these people are a majority both amongst Labour Party members and the electorate at large.HYUFD said:
Many Labour voters do though.anothernick said:
Hard Brexiteers are a tiny minority in the Labour Party - Hoey and Field are frankly embarrassing to most Labour members - they have no influence and are not a consideration in the policy-making process. Labour members do not see Brexit as a talismanic issue in the way that many Tories do.HYUFD said:
Labour equally has an Umunna+Starmer v Hoey, Skinner and Field problemScott_P said:
.
I know it is hard for metropolitan left liberal EUphiles to believe that there are people who care about immigration controls but in much of provincial and industrial town England and Wales that was the key reason they voted Leave and if FOM is left in place they will not be happy0 -
How much teaTheScreamingEagles said:
Tea shop.Richard_Nabavi said:
I use it because I'm still trying to learn to spell it, so far with no success. I have to look it up every single time.TGOHF said:
Why do we insist on using their funny language to describe this imbeciles job ?Richard_Nabavi said:
Looks like a very sensible deal after all the posturing.Scott_P said:
Now we just need a heavy from within the EU to explain the facts of life to the Taoiseach.
"Irish PM" should be compulsory.
Could a Taoiseach chuck
If a Taoiseach could chuck tea ?0 -
Heseltine has served this country well. The massive regeneration of London's Docklands alone means that he has had more positive effect on the country than the vast majority of politicians. And it would be hard to find another Conservative politician that would be made a Freeman of that well-known Conservative city, Liverpool.Richard_Tyndall said:
Hezza is a bitter, poisonous scumbag and a disgrace to Parliament. His despair when we finally leave will be particularly sweet.rural_voter said:
Hezza has already said that he'd vote Labour to stop Brexit, suggesting that he sees that as the more likely route.Elliot said:
And who is going to put forward this platform? Corbyn? The Conservatives?anothernick said:
There is no way an election could be won on the basis of a walkout - the consequences, not least for Ireland, do not bear thinking about.SouthamObserver said:
May has put herself and the country in an impossible place. The only way to get a deal done is for the UK to make significant concessions. But every option involves her dumping on a constituency whose support she needs to continue. I thought she might have a chance of winning a stuff the EU red, while and blue election on the back of a walkout. After the shambles of this week, I am not sure that is the case now. It could just be that the UK is going to be ungovernable for the foreseeable future. The first of the big parties to tack back to the centre will win a huge majority. But there is little sign that either is willing to.williamglenn said:Based on May's answers here, the chance of moving on to phase two in December looks slim.
However, I am beginning to think that an election could be won on the basis of freezing, or even reversing, Brexit. The events of this week make that more likely, since it is now clear that the UK government is not capable of delivering any form of Brexit apart from a cliff edge.
It's only 43 years since another Tory said 'vote Labour to get a referendum on continuing EU membership'.
You may disagree with his stance on the EU, but that doesn't alter the good he has done.0 -
Don't worry, Tyndall is just suffering from Post-Victory Shrill Bitterness Syndrome. Remainers were cowards this morning even Navy types who didn't stick to port.JosiasJessop said:
Heseltine has served this country well. The massive regeneration of London's Docklands alone means that he has had more positive effect on the country than the vast majority of politicians. And it would be hard to find another Conservative politician that would be made a Freeman of that well-known Conservative city, Liverpool.Richard_Tyndall said:
Hezza is a bitter, poisonous scumbag and a disgrace to Parliament. His despair when we finally leave will be particularly sweet.rural_voter said:
Hezza has already said that he'd vote Labour to stop Brexit, suggesting that he sees that as the more likely route.Elliot said:
And who is going to put forward this platform? Corbyn? The Conservatives?anothernick said:
There is no way an election could be won on the basis of a walkout - the consequences, not least for Ireland, do not bear thinking about.SouthamObserver said:
May has put herself and the country in an impossible place. The only way to get a deal done is for the UK to make significant concessions. But every option involves her dumping on a constituency whose support she needs to continue. I thought she might have a chance of winning a stuff the EU red, while and blue election on the back of a walkout. After the shambles of this week, I am not sure that is the case now. It could just be that the UK is going to be ungovernable for the foreseeable future. The first of the big parties to tack back to the centre will win a huge majority. But there is little sign that either is willing to.williamglenn said:Based on May's answers here, the chance of moving on to phase two in December looks slim.
However, I am beginning to think that an election could be won on the basis of freezing, or even reversing, Brexit. The events of this week make that more likely, since it is now clear that the UK government is not capable of delivering any form of Brexit apart from a cliff edge.
It's only 43 years since another Tory said 'vote Labour to get a referendum on continuing EU membership'.
You may disagree with his stance on the EU, but that doesn't alter the good he has done.0 -
Presumably this is an oblique reference to Bill Cash and John Redwood?Scott_P said:0 -
Impact assessments were introduced by the Tories in the mid-nineties (as Regulatory Impact Assessments) to slow up what they saw as red-tape. They are next to useless but seem to have acquired magical powers recently.
They are guesswork. If they had error-bars, they'd be from zero to infinity.
As I told my boss, these aren't jobs for scientists. they're not even jobs for grown-ups.
But Cameron (or Mr Eagles' bestie) blocking them showed they were never serious about Leave0 -
18 months on and almost no changewilliamglenn said:0 -
It requires abiding by the ECJ (Ie having other nations write our laws) and it requires Freedom of Movement.El_Capitano said:
Out of interest, what makes you rule out EFTA/EEA?anothernick said:I think it was Tusk who said right after the referendum that the UK had two choices - hard Brexit or no Brexit.
Until recently I thought there was a good chance of hard Brexit, but now I think the odds have shifted to no Brexit.
The issue that won the vote for Leave was "control" and there is no control in the EFTA/EEA.
Specifically the twin issues that mattered most for voting to leave were either taking back control of our laws for the more 'liberal' leavers like myself (which rules out ECJ etc) or controlling immigration for the more kippery leavers. EFTA/EEA achieves neither.0 -
From a 24% margin for Remain to a 36% margin for Remain?Brom said:
18 months on and almost no changewilliamglenn said:0 -
+1MikeSole said:Perhaps T May should just appoint a member of the DUP as Brexit Secretary to see what solution they would negotiate!
But seriously - I think a lot of people are looking at the latest developments right now and imagining pretty much anyone could make a better job of this.
Remainers are going to hate the Conservatives for dragging us out of the EU. Leavers are going to hate the Conservatives for doing it on the worst possible terms. And if the government should fall over this and we see a GE in 2018, the one thing that drives people to the Conservatives - a reputation for competence - will be in tatters.
Brexit isn't the thing that will let Corbyn in. Incompetence in handling Brexit is.0 -
6% more for Remain? Given Scotland's small population that's not exactly significant.williamglenn said:
From a 24% margin for Remain to a 36% margin for Remain?Brom said:
18 months on and almost no changewilliamglenn said:0 -
They will rapidly agree that London should pay more money across the Irish Sea.tpfkar said:
That's the most plausible suggestion I've heard all week.MikeSole said:Perhaps T May should just appoint a member of the DUP as Brexit Secretary to see what solution they would negotiate!
Leo, meet Arlene. Arlene, Leo. I'll come back when you've an agreed proposal to present to me.0 -
Except that is not true. The FTA that ends free movement deal the government is aiming for is the only way to bridge the Remainer and Leaver dividekyf_100 said:
+1MikeSole said:Perhaps T May should just appoint a member of the DUP as Brexit Secretary to see what solution they would negotiate!
But seriously - I think a lot of people are looking at the latest developments right now and imagining pretty much anyone could make a better job of this.
Remainers are going to hate the Conservatives for dragging us out of the EU. Leavers are going to hate the Conservatives for doing it on the worst possible terms. And if the government should fall over this and we see a GE in 2018, the one thing that drives people to the Conservatives - a reputation for competence - will be in tatters.
Brexit isn't the thing that will let Corbyn in. Incompetence in handling Brexit is.0 -
We will have to disagree on this. But since I have canvassed for the Labour Party since the 1970s and grew up in what was then a Nottinghamshire mining village I hope I am not being immodest if I claim a thorough knowledge of Labour voters of all types!HYUFD said:
No. The Labour voters who voted Leave and UKIP voters who voted Leave then voted for Corbyn did so because of concerns over immigration even if they were less concerned by widget directives from Brussels and as they were assured by Corbyn he would end FOM. That concern was exacerbated by Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004.anothernick said:
I disagree - in general Labour voters do not see the EU as a major concern - the ones who voted leave did so out of a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government. I know it is hard for Tories who have spent their entire political lives obsessing about the EU to believe that there are people out there who don't care much about it either way and whose vote is determined by other factors. But there are. And in fact these people are a majority both amongst Labour Party members and the electorate at large.HYUFD said:
Many Labour voters do though.anothernick said:
Hard Brexiteers are a tiny minority in the Labour Party - Hoey and Field are frankly embarrassing to most Labour members - they have no influence and are not a consideration in the policy-making process. Labour members do not see Brexit as a talismanic issue in the way that many Tories do.HYUFD said:
Labour equally has an Umunna+Starmer v Hoey, Skinner and Field problemScott_P said:
.
I know it is hard for metropolitan left liberal EUphiles to believe that there are people who care about immigration controls but in much of provincial and industrial town England and Wales that was the key reason they voted Leave and if FOM is left in place they will not be happy0 -
Symbollism. The Palestinians want their capital to be East Jerusalem. If Israel move their capital there, then that implies an exclusive claim on the whole city.TheValiant said:Off topic:
As someone who, when asked the question "Is the Pope Catholic?" answered "I don't know. Is he?" (Wearing my atheist credentials proudly) - What is the current issue with the US moving their embassy to Jerusalem? I'm vaguely aware it's a very religious city.... but.... don't understand what the problem is (seriously)?
I did wonder whether it would be (1) possible and (2) acceptable for a city to simultaneously be both a free city and capital of two countries (taking Palestine as a country, which it isn't necessarily universally recognised as such).0 -
But you said the only reason Labour voters voted to leave was out of "a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government". None of them wanted to end free movement? I find that hard to believe.anothernick said:
We will have to disagree on this. But since I have canvassed for the Labour Party since the 1970s and grew up in what was then a Nottinghamshire mining village I hope I am not being immodest if I claim a thorough knowledge of Labour voters of all types!HYUFD said:
No. The Labour voters who voted Leave and UKIP voters who voted Leave then voted for Corbyn did so because of concerns over immigration even if they were less concerned by widget directives from Brussels and as they were assured by Corbyn he would end FOM. That concern was exacerbated by Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004.anothernick said:
I disagree - in general Labour voters do not see the EU as a major concern - the ones who voted leave did so out of a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government. I know it is hard for Tories who have spent their entire political lives obsessing about the EU to believe that there are people out there who don't care much about it either way and whose vote is determined by other factors. But there are. And in fact these people are a majority both amongst Labour Party members and the electorate at large.HYUFD said:
Many Labour voters do though.anothernick said:
Hard Brexiteers are a tiny minority in the Labour Party - Hoey and Field are frankly embarrassing to most Labour members - they have no influence and are not a consideration in the policy-making process. Labour members do not see Brexit as a talismanic issue in the way that many Tories do.HYUFD said:
Labour equally has an Umunna+Starmer v Hoey, Skinner and Field problemScott_P said:
.
I know it is hard for metropolitan left liberal EUphiles to believe that there are people who care about immigration controls but in much of provincial and industrial town England and Wales that was the key reason they voted Leave and if FOM is left in place they will not be happy0 -
Well obviously not well enough. The gains the Tories made in Labour Leave seats like Mansfield and Stoke South, Copeland and Middlesborough South and Cleveland and Walsall North were only contained by Corbyn as he promised to end free movement, if he promised to leave free movement in place they are all in playanothernick said:
We will have to disagree on this. But since I have canvassed for the Labour Party since the 1970s and grew up in what was then a Nottinghamshire mining village I hope I am not being immodest if I claim a thorough knowledge of Labour voters of all types!HYUFD said:
No. The Labour voters who voted Leave and UKIP voters who voted Leave then voted for Corbyn did so because of concerns over immigration even if they were less concerned by widget directives from Brussels and as they were assured by Corbyn he would end FOM. That concern was exacerbated by Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004.anothernick said:
I disagree - in general Labour voters do not see the EU as a major concern - the ones who voted leave did so out of a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government. I know it is hard for Tories who have spent their entire political lives obsessing about the EU to believe that there are people out there who don't care much about it either way and whose vote is determined by other factors. But there are. And in fact these people are a majority both amongst Labour Party members and the electorate at large.HYUFD said:
Many Labour voters do though.anothernick said:
Hard Brexiteers are a tiny minority in the Labour Party - Hoey and Field are frankly embarrassing to most Labour members - they have no influence and are not a consideration in the policy-making process. Labour members do not see Brexit as a talismanic issue in the way that many Tories do.HYUFD said:
Labour equally has an Umunna+Starmer v Hoey, Skinner and Field problemScott_P said:
.
I know it is hard for metropolitan left liberal EUphiles to believe that there are people who care about immigration controls but in much of provincial and industrial town England and Wales that was the key reason they voted Leave and if FOM is left in place they will not be happy0 -
@TheValiant
I believe the main issue is that half of Jerusalem was illegally annexed by Israel and is still internationally recognised as Palestinian land.0 -
@SamCoatesTimes: Philip Hammond hints that UK may still pay exit bill even if there is no trade deal. “I find it inconceivable that we would walk away from obligations that we recognise as an obligation”0
-
Incidentally, how is this story a scoop?Richard_Nabavi said:
Looks like a very sensible deal after all the posturing.Scott_P said:
Now we just need a heavy from within the EU to explain the facts of life to the Taoiseach.
Wasn't there something on here about that c. 10 days ago???0 -
Hints? Surely that's the default position, that what is owed is paid?Scott_P said:@SamCoatesTimes: Philip Hammond hints that UK may still pay exit bill even if there is no trade deal. “I find it inconceivable that we would walk away from obligations that we recognise as an obligation”
0 -
Apart from pensions for Mandleson and the Kinnocks, there are no obligations. If there were, they’d be written in the Treaties.Scott_P said:@SamCoatesTimes: Philip Hammond hints that UK may still pay exit bill even if there is no trade deal. “I find it inconceivable that we would walk away from obligations that we recognise as an obligation”
0 -
Putin officially declares candidacy for 2018 elections.0
-
I think there's much more detail in this latest story, and it seems to be based on the final text (the one that the DUP scuppered).Mortimer said:Incidentally, how is this story a scoop?
Wasn't there something on here about that c. 10 days ago???0 -
Well I didn't say that - of course immigration is an issue. But in reality what the social conservatives amongst Labour voters - and there are many - want is to stop immigration. Full stop. But this is not realistic, and leaving the EU will certainly not deliver it. Getting rid of FOM and replacing it with something that just reduces immigration by a few tens of thousands will make no difference to them. They will not notice any change.RobD said:
But you said the only reason Labour voters voted to leave was out of "a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government". None of them wanted to end free movement? I find that hard to believe.0 -
To quote you exactly "the ones who voted leave did so out of a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government.". I'd suggest a lot of them didn't vote leave for that reason.anothernick said:
Well I didn't say that - of course immigration is an issue. But in reality what the social conservatives amongst Labour voters - and there are many - want is to stop immigration. Full stop. But this is not realistic, and leaving the EU will certainly not deliver it. Getting rid of FOM and replacing it with something that just reduces immigration by a few tens of thousands will make no difference to them. They will not notice any change.RobD said:
But you said the only reason Labour voters voted to leave was out of "a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government". None of them wanted to end free movement? I find that hard to believe.0 -
It's significant for Scotland - and may be for the UK too if it wants to stay United.Brom said:
6% more for Remain? Given Scotland's small population that's not exactly significant.williamglenn said:
From a 24% margin for Remain to a 36% margin for Remain?Brom said:
18 months on and almost no changewilliamglenn said:
Otherwise it's yet another straw in the wind.0 -
If the tens of thousands come from unskilled workers they will.anothernick said:
Well I didn't say that - of course immigration is an issue. But in reality what the social conservatives amongst Labour voters - and there are many - want is to stop immigration. Full stop. But this is not realistic, and leaving the EU will certainly not deliver it. Getting rid of FOM and replacing it with something that just reduces immigration by a few tens of thousands will make no difference to them. They will not notice any change.RobD said:
But you said the only reason Labour voters voted to leave was out of "a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government". None of them wanted to end free movement? I find that hard to believe.0 -
Weren't the articles a few days ago suggesting a ~20 year repayment? Sounded like a great deal.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think there's much more detail in this latest story, and it seems to be based on the final text (the one that the DUP scuppered).Mortimer said:Incidentally, how is this story a scoop?
Wasn't there something on here about that c. 10 days ago???0 -
Neither EFTA nor the EEA require abiding by the ECJ.Philip_Thompson said:
It requires abiding by the ECJ (Ie having other nations write our laws) and it requires Freedom of Movement.El_Capitano said:
Out of interest, what makes you rule out EFTA/EEA?anothernick said:I think it was Tusk who said right after the referendum that the UK had two choices - hard Brexit or no Brexit.
Until recently I thought there was a good chance of hard Brexit, but now I think the odds have shifted to no Brexit.
The issue that won the vote for Leave was "control" and there is no control in the EFTA/EEA.
Specifically the twin issues that mattered most for voting to leave were either taking back control of our laws for the more 'liberal' leavers like myself (which rules out ECJ etc) or controlling immigration for the more kippery leavers. EFTA/EEA achieves neither.
EEA membership does require acceptance of FoM. EFTA membership does not.0 -
I agree. A One Nation Tory in the era of Thatcher and Sons.JosiasJessop said:
Heseltine has served this country well. The massive regeneration of London's Docklands alone means that he has had more positive effect on the country than the vast majority of politicians. And it would be hard to find another Conservative politician that would be made a Freeman of that well-known Conservative city, Liverpool.Richard_Tyndall said:
Hezza is a bitter, poisonous scumbag and a disgrace to Parliament. His despair when we finally leave will be particularly sweet.rural_voter said:
Hezza has already said that he'd vote Labour to stop Brexit, suggesting that he sees that as the more likely route.Elliot said:
And who is going to put forward this platform? Corbyn? The Conservatives?anothernick said:
There is no way an election could be won on the basis of a walkout - the consequences, not least for Ireland, do not bear thinking about.SouthamObserver said:
May has put herself and the country in an impossible place. The only way to get a deal done is for the UK to make significant concessions. But every option involves her dumping on a constituency whose support she needs to continue. I thought she might have a chance of winning a stuff the EU red, while and blue election on the back of a walkout. After the shambles of this week, I am not sure that is the case now. It could just be that the UK is going to be ungovernable for the foreseeable future. The first of the big parties to tack back to the centre will win a huge majority. But there is little sign that either is willing to.williamglenn said:Based on May's answers here, the chance of moving on to phase two in December looks slim.
However, I am beginning to think that an election could be won on the basis of freezing, or even reversing, Brexit. The events of this week make that more likely, since it is now clear that the UK government is not capable of delivering any form of Brexit apart from a cliff edge.
It's only 43 years since another Tory said 'vote Labour to get a referendum on continuing EU membership'.
You may disagree with his stance on the EU, but that doesn't alter the good he has done.
He also deserves an award for services to horticulture, having planted about one tree every day since 1976. Or rather, his gardeners have.0 -
I grant you that some of the might have been expecting more money for the NHS and fewer foreign doctors (that's something that comes upon the doorstep from time to time....).RobD said:
To quote you exactly "the ones who voted leave did so out of a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government.". I'd suggest a lot of them didn't vote leave for that reason.anothernick said:
Well I didn't say that - of course immigration is an issue. But in reality what the social conservatives amongst Labour voters - and there are many - want is to stop immigration. Full stop. But this is not realistic, and leaving the EU will certainly not deliver it. Getting rid of FOM and replacing it with something that just reduces immigration by a few tens of thousands will make no difference to them. They will not notice any change.RobD said:
But you said the only reason Labour voters voted to leave was out of "a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government". None of them wanted to end free movement? I find that hard to believe.0 -
*williamglenn said:Putin officially declares candidacy for 2018 elections.
No chance. Don't know why he's bothering.0 -
And even then, EEA membership permits the FoM "emergency brake" to be activated unilaterally: http://leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=164Richard_Tyndall said:
Neither EFTA nor the EEA require abiding by the ECJ.Philip_Thompson said:
It requires abiding by the ECJ (Ie having other nations write our laws) and it requires Freedom of Movement.El_Capitano said:
Out of interest, what makes you rule out EFTA/EEA?anothernick said:I think it was Tusk who said right after the referendum that the UK had two choices - hard Brexit or no Brexit.
Until recently I thought there was a good chance of hard Brexit, but now I think the odds have shifted to no Brexit.
The issue that won the vote for Leave was "control" and there is no control in the EFTA/EEA.
Specifically the twin issues that mattered most for voting to leave were either taking back control of our laws for the more 'liberal' leavers like myself (which rules out ECJ etc) or controlling immigration for the more kippery leavers. EFTA/EEA achieves neither.
EEA membership does require acceptance of FoM. EFTA membership does not.0 -
Exactly right. I think people in much of the UK don't realise how much some working class communities have changed, and I say this as a second generation immigrant myself. It scares people in other working class communities that they will have the same thing happen to their estates. This cultural fear, combined with big changes to the labour market, put many lower income people in a state of perpetual worry, which causes them to be pessimistic and cynical about life and politics as a whole. That causes a lot of instability in politics and the inability to have reasoned debate. I genuinely think immigration is the reason sensible social democratic politics has collapsed in Europe, as many of our supporters have gone to the right or far left.MaxPB said:
If the tens of thousands come from unskilled workers they will.anothernick said:
Well I didn't say that - of course immigration is an issue. But in reality what the social conservatives amongst Labour voters - and there are many - want is to stop immigration. Full stop. But this is not realistic, and leaving the EU will certainly not deliver it. Getting rid of FOM and replacing it with something that just reduces immigration by a few tens of thousands will make no difference to them. They will not notice any change.RobD said:
But you said the only reason Labour voters voted to leave was out of "a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government". None of them wanted to end free movement? I find that hard to believe.0 -
Has it ever been activated? I wonder how contentious it would be, since it hinges on the definition of what serious difficulties means.El_Capitano said:
And even then, EEA membership permits the FoM "emergency brake" to be activated unilaterally: http://leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=164Richard_Tyndall said:
Neither EFTA nor the EEA require abiding by the ECJ.Philip_Thompson said:
It requires abiding by the ECJ (Ie having other nations write our laws) and it requires Freedom of Movement.El_Capitano said:
Out of interest, what makes you rule out EFTA/EEA?anothernick said:I think it was Tusk who said right after the referendum that the UK had two choices - hard Brexit or no Brexit.
Until recently I thought there was a good chance of hard Brexit, but now I think the odds have shifted to no Brexit.
The issue that won the vote for Leave was "control" and there is no control in the EFTA/EEA.
Specifically the twin issues that mattered most for voting to leave were either taking back control of our laws for the more 'liberal' leavers like myself (which rules out ECJ etc) or controlling immigration for the more kippery leavers. EFTA/EEA achieves neither.
EEA membership does require acceptance of FoM. EFTA membership does not.0 -
0
-
That, my friend, is life in the 21st Century. As the developing world catches up, as people around the globe aspire to a better standard of living, then there will be migration of peoples.Elliot said:
Exactly right. I think people in much of the UK don't realise how much some working class communities have changed, and I say this as a second generation immigrant myself. It scares people in other working class communities that they will have the same thing happen to their estates. This cultural fear, combined with big changes to the labour market, put many lower income people in a state of perpetual worry, which causes them to be pessimistic and cynical about life and politics as a whole. That causes a lot of instability in politics and the inability to have reasoned debate. I genuinely think immigration is the reason sensible social democratic politics has collapsed in Europe, as many of our supporters have gone to the right or far left.MaxPB said:
If the tens of thousands come from unskilled workers they will.anothernick said:
Well I didn't say that - of course immigration is an issue. But in reality what the social conservatives amongst Labour voters - and there are many - want is to stop immigration. Full stop. But this is not realistic, and leaving the EU will certainly not deliver it. Getting rid of FOM and replacing it with something that just reduces immigration by a few tens of thousands will make no difference to them. They will not notice any change.RobD said:
But you said the only reason Labour voters voted to leave was out of "a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government". None of them wanted to end free movement? I find that hard to believe.
We are the lucky ones, the lottery of life winners, and looked upon on a global scale, much as perhaps Jezza looks upon it on a local, national scale, then there is an argument for accepting that there will be a rebalance with those best off (ie us) losing out.0 -
Sounds awfully inevitable... after all, other non-EU countries have survived after restricting low-skilled migration.TOPPING said:
That, my friend, is life in the 21st Century. As the developing world catches up, as people around the globe aspire to a better standard of living, then there will be migration of peoples.Elliot said:
Exactly right. I think people in much of the UK don't realise how much some working class communities have changed, and I say this as a second generation immigrant myself. It scares people in other working class communities that they will have the same thing happen to their estates. This cultural fear, combined with big changes to the labour market, put many lower income people in a state of perpetual worry, which causes them to be pessimistic and cynical about life and politics as a whole. That causes a lot of instability in politics and the inability to have reasoned debate. I genuinely think immigration is the reason sensible social democratic politics has collapsed in Europe, as many of our supporters have gone to the right or far left.MaxPB said:
If the tens of thousands come from unskilled workers they will.anothernick said:
Well I didn't say that - of course immigration is an issue. But in reality what the social conservatives amongst Labour voters - and there are many - want is to stop immigration. Full stop. But this is not realistic, and leaving the EU will certainly not deliver it. Getting rid of FOM and replacing it with something that just reduces immigration by a few tens of thousands will make no difference to them. They will not notice any change.RobD said:
But you said the only reason Labour voters voted to leave was out of "a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government". None of them wanted to end free movement? I find that hard to believe.
We are the lucky ones, the lottery of life winners, and looked upon on a global scale, much as perhaps Jezza looks upon it on a local, national scale, then there is an argument for accepting that there will be a rebalance with those best off (ie us) losing out.0 -
Yes, for Liechtenstein. Lots at http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86122 , http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86137 .RobD said:
Has it ever been activated? I wonder how contentious it would be, since it hinges on the definition of what serious difficulties means.El_Capitano said:
And even then, EEA membership permits the FoM "emergency brake" to be activated unilaterally: http://leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=164Richard_Tyndall said:
Neither EFTA nor the EEA require abiding by the ECJ.Philip_Thompson said:
It requires abiding by the ECJ (Ie having other nations write our laws) and it requires Freedom of Movement.El_Capitano said:
Out of interest, what makes you rule out EFTA/EEA?anothernick said:I think it was Tusk who said right after the referendum that the UK had two choices - hard Brexit or no Brexit.
Until recently I thought there was a good chance of hard Brexit, but now I think the odds have shifted to no Brexit.
The issue that won the vote for Leave was "control" and there is no control in the EFTA/EEA.
Specifically the twin issues that mattered most for voting to leave were either taking back control of our laws for the more 'liberal' leavers like myself (which rules out ECJ etc) or controlling immigration for the more kippery leavers. EFTA/EEA achieves neither.
EEA membership does require acceptance of FoM. EFTA membership does not.0 -
While technically the ECJ doesn't have direct jurisdiction over the EEA, it does indirectly. The EFTA court by design follows a "homogeneity goal" to make sure that the court pays "due account to the principles laid down by the European Court of Justice's relevant case law". As Wiki says about the ECJ, EFTA and the General Court (EGC): "All three EEA courts (ECJ, EGC, EFTA Court) have not only emphasized the need for a uniform interpretation of EU and EEA law, but have actively seen to it that homogeneity is preserved."Richard_Tyndall said:
Neither EFTA nor the EEA require abiding by the ECJ.Philip_Thompson said:
It requires abiding by the ECJ (Ie having other nations write our laws) and it requires Freedom of Movement.El_Capitano said:
Out of interest, what makes you rule out EFTA/EEA?anothernick said:I think it was Tusk who said right after the referendum that the UK had two choices - hard Brexit or no Brexit.
Until recently I thought there was a good chance of hard Brexit, but now I think the odds have shifted to no Brexit.
The issue that won the vote for Leave was "control" and there is no control in the EFTA/EEA.
Specifically the twin issues that mattered most for voting to leave were either taking back control of our laws for the more 'liberal' leavers like myself (which rules out ECJ etc) or controlling immigration for the more kippery leavers. EFTA/EEA achieves neither.
EEA membership does require acceptance of FoM. EFTA membership does not.
So yes the ECJ would retain control over our laws even if the relevant court that stamps that is labelled the EFTA Court and is simply interpreting the law by following the ECJ's case law.
Your distinction is moot and falls under a rose by any other name ...0 -
Nope. This is nothing to do with Brexit. I detest Heseltine as a treacherous self serving scumbag who helped to bring down Thatcher, betrayed the Nottinghamshire miners and put his own ambition ahead of any loyalty to leader, party or country.TOPPING said:
Don't worry, Tyndall is just suffering from Post-Victory Shrill Bitterness Syndrome. Remainers were cowards this morning even Navy types who didn't stick to port.
Contrast with someone like Ken Clark who may be a terrible Remoaner but has always done his damndest to stay loyal to party and country.0 -
Do you not think there is a link between the UK's awful productivity and the ability of companies to just throw unskilled labour at any problem?TOPPING said:
That, my friend, is life in the 21st Century. As the developing world catches up, as people around the globe aspire to a better standard of living, then there will be migration of peoples.Elliot said:
Exactly right. I think people in much of the UK don't realise how much some working class communities have changed, and I say this as a second generation immigrant myself. It scares people in other working class communities that they will have the same thing happen to their estates. This cultural fear, combined with big changes to the labour market, put many lower income people in a state of perpetual worry, which causes them to be pessimistic and cynical about life and politics as a whole. That causes a lot of instability in politics and the inability to have reasoned debate. I genuinely think immigration is the reason sensible social democratic politics has collapsed in Europe, as many of our supporters have gone to the right or far left.MaxPB said:
If the tens of thousands come from unskilled workers they will.anothernick said:
Well I didn't say that - of course immigration is an issue. But in reality what the social conservatives amongst Labour voters - and there are many - want is to stop immigration. Full stop. But this is not realistic, and leaving the EU will certainly not deliver it. Getting rid of FOM and replacing it with something that just reduces immigration by a few tens of thousands will make no difference to them. They will not notice any change.RobD said:
But you said the only reason Labour voters voted to leave was out of "a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government". None of them wanted to end free movement? I find that hard to believe.
We are the lucky ones, the lottery of life winners, and looked upon on a global scale, much as perhaps Jezza looks upon it on a local, national scale, then there is an argument for accepting that there will be a rebalance with those best off (ie us) losing out.0 -
Hm, I wonder if they'd let the UK do that? I'd naively assume that Liechtenstein have a far more compelling argument as to why freedom of movement has to be suspended.El_Capitano said:
Yes, for Liechtenstein. Lots at http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86122 , http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86137 .RobD said:
Has it ever been activated? I wonder how contentious it would be, since it hinges on the definition of what serious difficulties means.El_Capitano said:
And even then, EEA membership permits the FoM "emergency brake" to be activated unilaterally: http://leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=164Richard_Tyndall said:
Neither EFTA nor the EEA require abiding by the ECJ.Philip_Thompson said:
It requires abiding by the ECJ (Ie having other nations write our laws) and it requires Freedom of Movement.El_Capitano said:
Out of interest, what makes you rule out EFTA/EEA?anothernick said:I think it was Tusk who said right after the referendum that the UK had two choices - hard Brexit or no Brexit.
Until recently I thought there was a good chance of hard Brexit, but now I think the odds have shifted to no Brexit.
The issue that won the vote for Leave was "control" and there is no control in the EFTA/EEA.
Specifically the twin issues that mattered most for voting to leave were either taking back control of our laws for the more 'liberal' leavers like myself (which rules out ECJ etc) or controlling immigration for the more kippery leavers. EFTA/EEA achieves neither.
EEA membership does require acceptance of FoM. EFTA membership does not.0 -
If the EU were really clever they might be able to seal the deal on that (much to my lifelong chagrin) if they put Dave's deal back on the table, but offered a one-off seven year emergency brake, or an agreement to talk if net EU migration to the UK exceeded 150k net per year for 4 consecutive years (or 5 out of a 7 year EU budgetary period) in future, in exchange, perhaps, for a little more of our rebate.anothernick said:
No, that is the nub of it.rottenborough said:
i.e. Brexit can't be delivered.Scott_P said:@bbclaurak: Bernard Jenkin third Brexiteer to push PM on whether she’s giving away too much in negotiations
@SamCoatesTimes: Co-ordinated pressure from Brexiteers in this PMQ demanding that there isn’t partial or sectoral post Brexit alignment with the EU, after hints of such on Monday.
I think it was Tusk who said right after the referendum that the UK had two choices - hard Brexit or no Brexit.
Until recently I thought there was a good chance of hard Brexit, but now I think the odds have shifted to no Brexit.
But, they're more interested in bringing Britain to heel as an example to others.0 -
And other countries have thrived on the back of low skill migrantion.RobD said:
Sounds awfully inevitable... after all, other non-EU countries have survived after restricting low-skilled migration.TOPPING said:
That, my friend, is life in the 21st Century. As the developing world catches up, as people around the globe aspire to a better standard of living, then there will be migration of peoples.Elliot said:
Exactly right. I think people in much of the UK don't realise how much some working class communities have changed, and I say this as a second generation immigrant myself. It scares people in other working class communities that they will have the same thing happen to their estates. This cultural fear, combined with big changes to the labour market, put many lower income people in a state of perpetual worry, which causes them to be pessimistic and cynical about life and politics as a whole. That causes a lot of instability in politics and the inability to have reasoned debate. I genuinely think immigration is the reason sensible social democratic politics has collapsed in Europe, as many of our supporters have gone to the right or far left.MaxPB said:
If the tens of thousands come from unskilled workers they will.anothernick said:
Well I didn't say that - of course immigration is an issue. But in reality what the social conservatives amongst Labour voters - and there are many - want is to stop immigration. Full stop. But this is not realistic, and leaving the EU will certainly not deliver it. Getting rid of FOM and replacing it with something that just reduces immigration by a few tens of thousands will make no difference to them. They will not notice any change.RobD said:
But you said the only reason Labour voters voted to leave was out of "a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government". None of them wanted to end free movement? I find that hard to believe.
We are the lucky ones, the lottery of life winners, and looked upon on a global scale, much as perhaps Jezza looks upon it on a local, national scale, then there is an argument for accepting that there will be a rebalance with those best off (ie us) losing out.
When you can find enough people to do all the jobs that migrants do with some left over then you might be on a position to start making an argument for restriction - although even then I would argue it is a false route to follow. But as long as we have a core of people who would rather claim benefits than do manual labour your arguments are not valid.0 -
I'm not sure why Liechtenstein's worried about FoM... Vaduz is an absolute dump and there's not much else.RobD said:
Hm, I wonder if they'd let the UK do that? I'd naively assume that Liechtenstein have a far more compelling argument as to why freedom of movement has to be suspended.El_Capitano said:
Yes, for Liechtenstein. Lots at http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86122 , http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86137 .RobD said:
Has it ever been activated? I wonder how contentious it would be, since it hinges on the definition of what serious difficulties means.El_Capitano said:
And even then, EEA membership permits the FoM "emergency brake" to be activated unilaterally: http://leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=164Richard_Tyndall said:
Neither EFTA nor the EEA require abiding by the ECJ.Philip_Thompson said:
It requires abiding by the ECJ (Ie having other nations write our laws) and it requires Freedom of Movement.El_Capitano said:
Out of interest, what makes you rule out EFTA/EEA?anothernick said:I think it was Tusk who said right after the referendum that the UK had two choices - hard Brexit or no Brexit.
Until recently I thought there was a good chance of hard Brexit, but now I think the odds have shifted to no Brexit.
The issue that won the vote for Leave was "control" and there is no control in the EFTA/EEA.
Specifically the twin issues that mattered most for voting to leave were either taking back control of our laws for the more 'liberal' leavers like myself (which rules out ECJ etc) or controlling immigration for the more kippery leavers. EFTA/EEA achieves neither.
EEA membership does require acceptance of FoM. EFTA membership does not.
More seriously - who knows? Maybe yes, maybe no. It's in the EEA Agreement so by definition any EEA country has a right to use it. At the very least it's an option that we could have explored had May not impetuously ruled out EEA membership.0 -
The interest Europe has is in stabilising Africa and the Middle East, not in deciding what to do with the migrants that arrive on its shores.TOPPING said:
That, my friend, is life in the 21st Century. As the developing world catches up, as people around the globe aspire to a better standard of living, then there will be migration of peoples.Elliot said:
Exactly right. I think people in much of the UK don't realise how much some working class communities have changed, and I say this as a second generation immigrant myself. It scares people in other working class communities that they will have the same thing happen to their estates. This cultural fear, combined with big changes to the labour market, put many lower income people in a state of perpetual worry, which causes them to be pessimistic and cynical about life and politics as a whole. That causes a lot of instability in politics and the inability to have reasoned debate. I genuinely think immigration is the reason sensible social democratic politics has collapsed in Europe, as many of our supporters have gone to the right or far left.MaxPB said:
If the tens of thousands come from unskilled workers they will.anothernick said:
Well I didn't say that - of course immigration is an issue. But in reality what the social conservatives amongst Labour voters - and there are many - want is to stop immigration. Full stop. But this is not realistic, and leaving the EU will certainly not deliver it. Getting rid of FOM and replacing it with something that just reduces immigration by a few tens of thousands will make no difference to them. They will not notice any change.RobD said:
But you said the only reason Labour voters voted to leave was out of "a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government". None of them wanted to end free movement? I find that hard to believe.
We are the lucky ones, the lottery of life winners, and looked upon on a global scale, much as perhaps Jezza looks upon it on a local, national scale, then there is an argument for accepting that there will be a rebalance with those best off (ie us) losing out.
All sorts of things could change (not least AI and tech replacing low-skilled jobs) but wealthier stable nations do not generate as many people, or migrants, and there isn't a mass exodus from China or India.0 -
I doubt if you are a loser.TOPPING said:
That, my friend, is life in the 21st Century. As the developing world catches up, as people around the globe aspire to a better standard of living, then there will be migration of peoples.Elliot said:
Exactly right. I think people in much of the UK don't realise how much some working class communities have changed, and I say this as a second generation immigrant myself. It scares people in other working class communities that they will have the same thing happen to their estates. This cultural fear, combined with big changes to the labour market, put many lower income people in a state of perpetual worry, which causes them to be pessimistic and cynical about life and politics as a whole. That causes a lot of instability in politics and the inability to have reasoned debate. I genuinely think immigration is the reason sensible social democratic politics has collapsed in Europe, as many of our supporters have gone to the right or far left.MaxPB said:
If the tens of thousands come from unskilled workers they will.anothernick said:
Well I didn't say that - of course immigration is an issue. But in reality what the social conservatives amongst Labour voters - and there are many - want is to stop immigration. Full stop. But this is not realistic, and leaving the EU will certainly not deliver it. Getting rid of FOM and replacing it with something that just reduces immigration by a few tens of thousands will make no difference to them. They will not notice any change.RobD said:
But you said the only reason Labour voters voted to leave was out of "a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government". None of them wanted to end free movement? I find that hard to believe.
We are the lucky ones, the lottery of life winners, and looked upon on a global scale, much as perhaps Jezza looks upon it on a local, national scale, then there is an argument for accepting that there will be a rebalance with those best off (ie us) losing out.
The losers see things differently.0 -
He's right. In the event of No Deal I'd expect the UK to honour what it legally owed, and perhaps fulfil the EU budget to 2020 as a gesture of goodwill, c.£18bn, plus put in places its own rights and protections for long-term EU residents here, plus do whatever is necessary to avoid hardening the Irish border.Scott_P said:@SamCoatesTimes: Philip Hammond hints that UK may still pay exit bill even if there is no trade deal. “I find it inconceivable that we would walk away from obligations that we recognise as an obligation”
But, we would be morally obliged to do no more than that, and would be free to recast our regulatory and tariff web strictly in our own interest as we saw fit.0 -
Here we have it; wisdom from on high, generously bestowed upon us by one of our betters. We should graciously accept becoming a minority in our own neighbourhood, city and eventually country, because the people who don't bear the brunt of it get to feel self-righteous. Rich countries that have not opened their borders to culturally alien migrants (Japan, South Korea) are clearly disaster zones.TOPPING said:
That, my friend, is life in the 21st Century. As the developing world catches up, as people around the globe aspire to a better standard of living, then there will be migration of peoples.Elliot said:
Exactly right. I think people in much of the UK don't realise how much some working class communities have changed, and I say this as a second generation immigrant myself. It scares people in other working class communities that they will have the same thing happen to their estates. This cultural fear, combined with big changes to the labour market, put many lower income people in a state of perpetual worry, which causes them to be pessimistic and cynical about life and politics as a whole. That causes a lot of instability in politics and the inability to have reasoned debate. I genuinely think immigration is the reason sensible social democratic politics has collapsed in Europe, as many of our supporters have gone to the right or far left.MaxPB said:
If the tens of thousands come from unskilled workers they will.anothernick said:
Well I didn't say that - of course immigration is an issue. But in reality what the social conservatives amongst Labour voters - and there are many - want is to stop immigration. Full stop. But this is not realistic, and leaving the EU will certainly not deliver it. Getting rid of FOM and replacing it with something that just reduces immigration by a few tens of thousands will make no difference to them. They will not notice any change.RobD said:
But you said the only reason Labour voters voted to leave was out of "a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government". None of them wanted to end free movement? I find that hard to believe.
We are the lucky ones, the lottery of life winners, and looked upon on a global scale, much as perhaps Jezza looks upon it on a local, national scale, then there is an argument for accepting that there will be a rebalance with those best off (ie us) losing out.
0 -
They absolutely don't get it. Nor do they care.Elliot said:
Exactly right. I think people in much of the UK don't realise how much some working class communities have changed, and I say this as a second generation immigrant myself. It scares people in other working class communities that they will have the same thing happen to their estates. This cultural fear, combined with big changes to the labour market, put many lower income people in a state of perpetual worry, which causes them to be pessimistic and cynical about life and politics as a whole. That causes a lot of instability in politics and the inability to have reasoned debate. I genuinely think immigration is the reason sensible social democratic politics has collapsed in Europe, as many of our supporters have gone to the right or far left.MaxPB said:
If the tens of thousands come from unskilled workers they will.anothernick said:
Well I didn't say that - of course immigration is an issue. But in reality what the social conservatives amongst Labour voters - and there are many - want is to stop immigration. Full stop. But this is not realistic, and leaving the EU will certainly not deliver it. Getting rid of FOM and replacing it with something that just reduces immigration by a few tens of thousands will make no difference to them. They will not notice any change.RobD said:
But you said the only reason Labour voters voted to leave was out of "a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government". None of them wanted to end free movement? I find that hard to believe.
I went round a housing association estate at the weekend, to drop off keys with my gas engineer. This is in a town in rural Hampshire.
I saw several Polish cars with Polish numberplates. And the twain do not mix.
It is a recipe for tension. The only solution they need is that the Government is listening and takes them seriously, and that the overall rate is controlled.0 -
And yet there are examples of countries managing while restricting it.Richard_Tyndall said:
And other countries have thrived on the back of low skill migrantion.RobD said:
Sounds awfully inevitable... after all, other non-EU countries have survived after restricting low-skilled migration.TOPPING said:
That, my friend, is life in the 21st Century. As the developing world catches up, as people around the globe aspire to a better standard of living, then there will be migration of peoples.Elliot said:
Exactly right. I think people in much of the UK don't realise how much some working class communities have changed, and I say this as a second generation immigrant myself. It scares people in other working class communities that they will have the same thing happen to their estates. This cultural fear, combined with big changes to the labour market, put many lower income people in a state of perpetual worry, which causes them to be pessimistic and cynical about life and politics as a whole. That causes a lot of instability in politics and the inability to have reasoned debate. I genuinely think immigration is the reason sensible social democratic politics has collapsed in Europe, as many of our supporters have gone to the right or far left.MaxPB said:
If the tens of thousands come from unskilled workers they will.anothernick said:
Well I didn't say that - of course immigration is an issue. But in reality what the social conservatives amongst Labour voters - and there are many - want is to stop immigration. Full stop. But this is not realistic, and leaving the EU will certainly not deliver it. Getting rid of FOM and replacing it with something that just reduces immigration by a few tens of thousands will make no difference to them. They will not notice any change.RobD said:
But you said the only reason Labour voters voted to leave was out of "a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government". None of them wanted to end free movement? I find that hard to believe.
We are the lucky ones, the lottery of life winners, and looked upon on a global scale, much as perhaps Jezza looks upon it on a local, national scale, then there is an argument for accepting that there will be a rebalance with those best off (ie us) losing out.
When you can find enough people to do all the jobs that migrants do with some left over then you might be on a position to start making an argument for restriction - although even then I would argue it is a false route to follow. But as long as we have a core of people who would rather claim benefits than do manual labour your arguments are not valid.0 -
I quite agree - for me it would absolutely be the responsible thing to do (I think there is some wiggle room on budget contributions to 2020 perhaps).Casino_Royale said:
He's right. In the event of No Deal I'd expect the UK to honour what it legally owed, and perhaps fulfil the EU budget to 2020 as a gesture of goodwill, c.£18bn, plus put in places its own rights and protections for long-term EU residents here, plus do whatever is necessary to avoid hardening the Irish border.Scott_P said:@SamCoatesTimes: Philip Hammond hints that UK may still pay exit bill even if there is no trade deal. “I find it inconceivable that we would walk away from obligations that we recognise as an obligation”
But, we would be morally obliged to do no more than that, and would be free to recast our regulatory and tariff web strictly in our own interest as we saw fit.
But it will be resolutely opposed by the likes of JRM who have consistently tried to link the divorce bill to a future trade deal and think we should pay nothing if we are not given a trade deal.
0 -
I thought it was Tea Sock?Pulpstar said:
How much teaTheScreamingEagles said:
Tea shop.Richard_Nabavi said:
I use it because I'm still trying to learn to spell it, so far with no success. I have to look it up every single time.TGOHF said:
Why do we insist on using their funny language to describe this imbeciles job ?Richard_Nabavi said:
Looks like a very sensible deal after all the posturing.Scott_P said:
Now we just need a heavy from within the EU to explain the facts of life to the Taoiseach.
"Irish PM" should be compulsory.
Could a Taoiseach chuck
If a Taoiseach could chuck tea ?0 -
Not if Topping is serious about the "ideal lunch" he planned.Sean_F said:
I doubt if you are a loser.TOPPING said:
That, my friend, is life in the 21st Century. As the developing world catches up, as people around the globe aspire to a better standard of living, then there will be migration of peoples.Elliot said:
Exactly right. I think people in much of the UK don't realise how much some working class communities have changed, and I say this as a second generation immigrant myself. It scares people in other working class communities that they will have the same thing happen to their estates. This cultural fear, combined with big changes to the labour market, put many lower income people in a state of perpetual worry, which causes them to be pessimistic and cynical about life and politics as a whole. That causes a lot of instability in politics and the inability to have reasoned debate. I genuinely think immigration is the reason sensible social democratic politics has collapsed in Europe, as many of our supporters have gone to the right or far left.MaxPB said:
If the tens of thousands come from unskilled workers they will.anothernick said:
Well I didn't say that - of course immigration is an issue. But in reality what the social conservatives amongst Labour voters - and there are many - want is to stop immigration. Full stop. But this is not realistic, and leaving the EU will certainly not deliver it. Getting rid of FOM and replacing it with something that just reduces immigration by a few tens of thousands will make no difference to them. They will not notice any change.RobD said:
But you said the only reason Labour voters voted to leave was out of "a general sense of discontent and desire to kick the government". None of them wanted to end free movement? I find that hard to believe.
We are the lucky ones, the lottery of life winners, and looked upon on a global scale, much as perhaps Jezza looks upon it on a local, national scale, then there is an argument for accepting that there will be a rebalance with those best off (ie us) losing out.
The losers see things differently.
I don't know anyone who could afford that.0 -
If you do not know where you want to go, how can you look at the map and decide which route to take?williamglenn said:0
This discussion has been closed.