politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Speaker cornered. Time for John Bercow to stand down as Speake
Options
Comments
-
With all due respect, Charles, that’s utter hogwash.Charles said:
It’s doing it in public that’s inappropriatekle4 said:
That depends on what constitutes a threat in your eyes. Is 'If you carry out policy X you will be sorry' a threat? Is 'I will move my business/not vote for you if you carry out policy Y' a threat? Is 'I know you have a popular mandate for policy X, but it is a big mistake and you need to change tack' a threat?Charles said:
No individual or organisation can threaten the elected governmentviewcode said:
Perhaps if you issued a list of people you believe have the right to issue threats, we would know what to think. Unfortunately people speak without asking your permission first.Charles said:Business doesn’t have the right to issue threats.
They made a public statement, in relatively nuanced terms, as they were rightly concerned the government wasn’t taking their predicament very seriously, and there isn’t much time left.
And why on earth would a multinational organisation ‘get behind the government’ as Hunt’s original tweet suggested ?
0 -
That’s not threatening - they have a prescribed role to playSouthamObserver said:
Does the same apply to oppositions?Charles said:
No individual or organisation can threaten the elected governmentviewcode said:
Perhaps if you issued a list of people you believe have the right to issue threats, we would know what to think. Unfortunately people speak without asking your permission first.Charles said:Business doesn’t have the right to issue threats.
0 -
The decision to change has been made. The question now, is who’s up for being with the change and who’s about to be made irrelevant?williamglenn said:
Quite a good cartoon in that link from Sandpit.rottenborough said:Strikes me leave voting is becoming like people's view of tax rises. It's a good idea as long as the pain happens to someone else.
0 -
No. I just don’t like the way many MNCs behave to suborn public policy for private gainBenpointer said:
Crush the dissidents!Charles said:
It’s doing it in public that’s inappropriatekle4 said:
That depends on what constitutes a threat in your eyes. Is 'If you carry out policy X you will be sorry' a threat? Is 'I will move my business/not vote for you if you carry out policy Y' a threat? Is 'I know you have a popular mandate for policy X, but it is a big mistake and you need to change tack' a threat?Charles said:
No individual or organisation can threaten the elected governmentviewcode said:
Perhaps if you issued a list of people you believe have the right to issue threats, we would know what to think. Unfortunately people speak without asking your permission first.Charles said:Business doesn’t have the right to issue threats.
0 -
Australia learning that total cricket, 50 overs style, takes a bit of learning (as England did a while back).
Still, they should be a much improved side come the world cup.0 -
Neither the Tories nor Corbyn Labour will back rejoining the EU, indeed a majority of both parties MPs have refused to even back staying in the EEA (albeit over a 100 Labour MPs did rebel on the latter).. Unless the LDs win the next general election on a platform of a referendum on the deal or rejoining the EU there is no way we will avoid reversing BrexitRecidivist said:Important as Airbus and BMW stories are, I think the big thing was the "Where's Jeremy Corbyn" chants on the march yesterday. It only needs one of the main parties to come round to rejoining and to win an election on that policy and we are back in. There were obviously plenty of activists on the streets yesterday who will have worked that out.
0 -
Airbus has really put the cat among the pigeons. The real worry is that there'll be others. Surely the Leavers can't keep regurgitating the same old threats and dismissals on every occasion; that will just make them sound paranoid and trapped. No, Theresa needs to step in here and present some serious, grown-up ideas to assuage business's genuine concerns. Theresa needs to show there's still one pro-business, pro-investment and pro-innovation adult in town.0
-
More locally produced produce, I expect.....what happened to all those strawberries rotting in the fields?williamglenn said:
No I don't think that. Now think through the consequences of EU trucks not roaming around with supplies of food and goods.CarlottaVance said:But of course EU trucks would roam freely over British roads!
You think?
0 -
No, I meant should business leaders also not threaten oppositions, by - for example - saying that if certain policies were implemented it would cause capital flight and a run on the pound?Charles said:
That’s not threatening - they have a prescribed role to playSouthamObserver said:
Does the same apply to oppositions?Charles said:
No individual or organisation can threaten the elected governmentviewcode said:
Perhaps if you issued a list of people you believe have the right to issue threats, we would know what to think. Unfortunately people speak without asking your permission first.Charles said:Business doesn’t have the right to issue threats.
0 -
If John Bercow does go, my current MP, Eleanor Laing could well be an outside bet to succeed him0
-
And Buttler looks a half decent keeper, too.0
-
My God, if we're relying on Theresa for that we're truly f*cked!Stark_Dawning said:Airbus has really put the cat among the pigeons. The real worry is that there'll be others. Surely the Leavers can't keep regurgitating the same old threats and dismissals on every occasion; that will just make them sound paranoid and trapped. No, Theresa needs to step in here and present some serious, grown-up ideas to assuage business's genuine concerns. Theresa needs to show there's still one pro-business, pro-investment and pro-innovation adult in town.
0 -
They rotted.CarlottaVance said:
More locally produced produce, I expect.....what happened to all those strawberries rotting in the fields?williamglenn said:
No I don't think that. Now think through the consequences of EU trucks not roaming around with supplies of food and goods.CarlottaVance said:But of course EU trucks would roam freely over British roads!
You think?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/09/lack-of-migrant-workers-left-food-rotting-in-uk-fields-last-year-data-reveals0 -
Looks like President Trump will largely avoid London on his visit next month, arriving on Thursday July 12th at Stanstead he will fly to the US Embassy at Regent's Park then go for dinner at Blenheim Palace. He will then meet May and Chequers and the Queen at Windsor Castle the next day before playing golf at Turnberry on the final day of his visit before flying home
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/trump/details-of-donald-trumps-uk-visit-revealed-us-president-will-tour-country-for-three-days/ar-AAz4Gqg?ocid=spartanntp0 -
You really think they should take no public position when a government is about to make a decision whether to massively change their terms of trade ? And when the future of their business depends on making multi billion investments for the next decade ?Charles said:
No. I just don’t like the way many MNCs behave to suborn public policy for private gainBenpointer said:
Crush the dissidents!Charles said:
It’s doing it in public that’s inappropriatekle4 said:
That depends on what constitutes a threat in your eyes. Is 'If you carry out policy X you will be sorry' a threat? Is 'I will move my business/not vote for you if you carry out policy Y' a threat? Is 'I know you have a popular mandate for policy X, but it is a big mistake and you need to change tack' a threat?Charles said:
No individual or organisation can threaten the elected governmentviewcode said:
Perhaps if you issued a list of people you believe have the right to issue threats, we would know what to think. Unfortunately people speak without asking your permission first.Charles said:Business doesn’t have the right to issue threats.
0 -
"Nick Marston, the BSF chairman, said: “The industry is now threatened by lack of government action with regard to seasonal labour.”CarlottaVance said:
More locally produced produce, I expect.....what happened to all those strawberries rotting in the fields?williamglenn said:
No I don't think that. Now think through the consequences of EU trucks not roaming around with supplies of food and goods.CarlottaVance said:But of course EU trucks would roam freely over British roads!
You think?
He said more than three-quarters of British berry-growers were already scaling back production and trimming investment plans amid fears that fruit would be left rotting in the fields."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/19/british-fruit-growers-short-of-pickers-farming0 -
Indeed - these business would soon be harangued with "why didn't you warn us?" if they kept quiet.Nigelb said:
You really think they should take no public position when a government is about to make a decision whether to massively change their terms of trade ? And when the future of their business depends on making multi billion investments for the next decade ?Charles said:
No. I just don’t like the way many MNCs behave to suborn public policy for private gainBenpointer said:
Crush the dissidents!Charles said:
It’s doing it in public that’s inappropriatekle4 said:
That depends on what constitutes a threat in your eyes. Is 'If you carry out policy X you will be sorry' a threat? Is 'I will move my business/not vote for you if you carry out policy Y' a threat? Is 'I know you have a popular mandate for policy X, but it is a big mistake and you need to change tack' a threat?Charles said:
No individual or organisation can threaten the elected governmentviewcode said:
Perhaps if you issued a list of people you believe have the right to issue threats, we would know what to think. Unfortunately people speak without asking your permission first.Charles said:Business doesn’t have the right to issue threats.
0 -
Well we'll see. Nothing that has happened in politics since 2015 has matched anyone's predictions. But I think it is clear there's a viable cadre of highly motivated pro-EU activists. Okay they have the establishment and the media against them, but that doesn't mean they can't win.HYUFD said:
Neither the Tories nor Corbyn Labour will back rejoining the EU, indeed a majority of both parties MPs have refused to even back staying in the EEA (albeit over a 100 Labour MPs did rebel on the latter).. Unless the LDs win the next general election on a platform of a referendum on the deal or rejoining the EU there is no way we will avoid reversing BrexitRecidivist said:Important as Airbus and BMW stories are, I think the big thing was the "Where's Jeremy Corbyn" chants on the march yesterday. It only needs one of the main parties to come round to rejoining and to win an election on that policy and we are back in. There were obviously plenty of activists on the streets yesterday who will have worked that out.
0 -
Got on a Virgin train at Kings Cross this morning (as announced by the driver)
By Newark we were on a London North East Rail train
I don’t think anyone else noticed0 -
I don’t think business should involve themselves in party politicsSouthamObserver said:
No, I meant should business leaders also not threaten oppositions, by - for example - saying that if certain policies were implemented it would cause capital flight and a run on the pound?Charles said:
That’s not threatening - they have a prescribed role to playSouthamObserver said:
Does the same apply to oppositions?Charles said:
No individual or organisation can threaten the elected governmentviewcode said:
Perhaps if you issued a list of people you believe have the right to issue threats, we would know what to think. Unfortunately people speak without asking your permission first.Charles said:Business doesn’t have the right to issue threats.
0 -
You've just solved Brexit! Tell everyone it's already happened and nobody will be any the wiser (except you of course).Charles said:Got on a Virgin train at Kings Cross this morning (as announced by the driver)
By Newark we were on a London North East Rail train
I don’t think anyone else noticed0 -
Are they going to have to repaint all the trains? Presumably that will cost us the tax payer a fair amount now that its a public company.Charles said:Got on a Virgin train at Kings Cross this morning (as announced by the driver)
By Newark we were on a London North East Rail train
I don’t think anyone else noticed0 -
Yes - they know their place.Charles said:
That’s not threatening - they have a prescribed role to playSouthamObserver said:
Does the same apply to oppositions?Charles said:
No individual or organisation can threaten the elected governmentviewcode said:
Perhaps if you issued a list of people you believe have the right to issue threats, we would know what to think. Unfortunately people speak without asking your permission first.Charles said:Business doesn’t have the right to issue threats.
0 -
How will a man who likes big houses and lots of gilt react to Blenheim I wonder?HYUFD said:Looks like President Trump will largely avoid London on his visit next month, arriving on Thursday July 12th at Stanstead he will fly to the US Embassy at Regent's Park then go for dinner at Blenheim Palace. He will then meet May and Chequers and the Queen at Windsor Castle the next day before playing golf at Turnberry on the final day of his visit before flying home
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/trump/details-of-donald-trumps-uk-visit-revealed-us-president-will-tour-country-for-three-days/ar-AAz4Gqg?ocid=spartanntp0 -
They can't win unless they get a pro EU or even pro EEA Labour leader and there is no sign of Corbyn going anywhere anytime soon, especially with the Labour membership still firmly behind him.Recidivist said:
Well we'll see. Nothing that has happened in politics since 2015 has matched anyone's predictions. But I think it is clear there's a viable cadre of highly motivated pro-EU activists. Okay they have the establishment and the media against them, but that doesn't mean they can't win.HYUFD said:
Neither the Tories nor Corbyn Labour will back rejoining the EU, indeed a majority of both parties MPs have refused to even back staying in the EEA (albeit over a 100 Labour MPs did rebel on the latter).. Unless the LDs win the next general election on a platform of a referendum on the deal or rejoining the EU there is no way we will avoid reversing BrexitRecidivist said:Important as Airbus and BMW stories are, I think the big thing was the "Where's Jeremy Corbyn" chants on the march yesterday. It only needs one of the main parties to come round to rejoining and to win an election on that policy and we are back in. There were obviously plenty of activists on the streets yesterday who will have worked that out.
As for the 'establishment and media' the Evening Standard, the Times, the Guardian, the Mirror, the BBC, the House of Lords, the CBI, the TUC etc are all still Remain leaning to some degree0 -
Buy it and turn it into a clubhouse ?Charles said:
How will a man who likes big houses and lots of gilt react to Blenheim I wonder?HYUFD said:Looks like President Trump will largely avoid London on his visit next month, arriving on Thursday July 12th at Stanstead he will fly to the US Embassy at Regent's Park then go for dinner at Blenheim Palace. He will then meet May and Chequers and the Queen at Windsor Castle the next day before playing golf at Turnberry on the final day of his visit before flying home
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/trump/details-of-donald-trumps-uk-visit-revealed-us-president-will-tour-country-for-three-days/ar-AAz4Gqg?ocid=spartanntp0 -
kle4 said:
That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?justin124 said:kle4 said:
They might well be and legally are not required but politically it might be difficult to rejoin without one. As we all know not everyone who votes for a party agrees with all its proposals, even big ones, and even other rejoining parties might barely get over 50%.Recidivist said:
No referendum is necessary. We joined without a referendum first time. And there has already been an election, 1983, where a party included leaving the EU as part of its programme without any mention of a referendum. Also I can't be the only person who has come to the conclusion that holding any referendum on anything is a bad idea. I think you might find referendums are off the agenda for a generation.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Recidivist, given precedent, a referendum would have to be held first (unless a party won over 50% of the vote in an election, which seems unlikely).
Mr. Ace, maybe. That's fairly old, but he doesn't seem in ill health or doddery.
F1: still no more markets. It's rather odd.
It could be done, but it'd be very bold. I feel like the manifesto woukd need to be clear rejoining would be done without a referendum.
I know you love precedents, but they are simply not binding and surely that's the point of them when new precedents are established over time. I don't see this precedent being ignored, however.kle4 said:
At the time of Labour's 1983 Manifesto commitment to leave the EEC, we already had the precedents of the 1975 Referendum and the 1979 Devolution Referendums held in Scotland & Wales.Recidivist said:Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Recidivist, given precedent, a referendum would have to be held first (unless a party won over 50% of the vote in an election, which seems unlikely).
Mr. Ace, maybe. That's fairly old, but he doesn't seem in ill health or doddery.
F1: still no more markets. It's rather odd.0 -
justin124 said:
Sorry, misread your intentkle4 said:
That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?justin124 said:kle4 said:
They might well be and legally are not required but politically it might be difficult to rejoin without one. As we all know not everyone who votes for a party agrees with all its proposals, even big ones, and even other rejoining parties might barely get over 50%.Recidivist said:
No referendum is necessary. We joined without a referendum first time. And there has already been an election, 1983, where a party included leaving the EU as part of its programme without any mention of a referendum. Also I can't be the only person who has come to the conclusion that holding any referendum on anything is a bad idea. I think you might find referendums are off the agenda for a generation.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Recidivist, given precedent, a referendum would have to be held first (unless a party won over 50% of the vote in an election, which seems unlikely).
Mr. Ace, maybe. That's fairly old, but he doesn't seem in ill health or doddery.
F1: still no more markets. It's rather odd.
It could be done, but it'd be very bold. I feel like the manifesto woukd need to be clear rejoining would be done without a referendum.
I know you love precedents, but they are simply not binding and surely that's the point of them when new precedents are established over time. I don't see this precedent being ignored, however.kle4 said:
At the time of Labour's 1983 Manifesto commitment to leave the EEC, we already had the precedents of the 1975 Referendum and the 1979 Devolution Referendums held in Scotland & Wales.Recidivist said:Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Recidivist, given precedent, a referendum would have to be held first (unless a party won over 50% of the vote in an election, which seems unlikely).
Mr. Ace, maybe. That's fairly old, but he doesn't seem in ill health or doddery.
F1: still no more markets. It's rather odd.0 -
If he likes it Tottenham House now,has planning permission to be restored to a family residence for a billionaire complete with its own banqueting house so he could snap that one up.Charles said:
How will a man who likes big houses and lots of gilt react to Blenheim I wonder?HYUFD said:Looks like President Trump will largely avoid London on his visit next month, arriving on Thursday July 12th at Stanstead he will fly to the US Embassy at Regent's Park then go for dinner at Blenheim Palace. He will then meet May and Chequers and the Queen at Windsor Castle the next day before playing golf at Turnberry on the final day of his visit before flying home
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/trump/details-of-donald-trumps-uk-visit-revealed-us-president-will-tour-country-for-three-days/ar-AAz4Gqg?ocid=spartanntp0 -
The trains aren't painted in Virgin colours - they have vinyls applied. All they will do with the existing fleet is stick new LNER branding in place of the Virgin branding. The new Azuma trains will have a new colour scheme.Philip_Thompson said:
Are they going to have to repaint all the trains? Presumably that will cost us the tax payer a fair amount now that its a public company.Charles said:Got on a Virgin train at Kings Cross this morning (as announced by the driver)
By Newark we were on a London North East Rail train
I don’t think anyone else noticed0 -
Its not binding forever it can be overruled by a subsequent referendum seeking for us to rejoin.justin124 said:That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
The other 27 nations that need to unanimously approve our membership application would want to know this time we were serious and that would mean a referendum to approve our joining, the Euro, Schengen and everything else that goes with joining.0 -
Not unprecedented, surely, to find something is a virgin when you get on but not when you get off again?Charles said:Got on a Virgin train at Kings Cross this morning (as announced by the driver)
By Newark we were on a London North East Rail train
I don’t think anyone else noticed0 -
Never saw you as a defender of cheap exploited labour, but there you go....Benpointer said:
"Nick Marston, the BSF chairman, said: “The industry is now threatened by lack of government action with regard to seasonal labour.”CarlottaVance said:
More locally produced produce, I expect.....what happened to all those strawberries rotting in the fields?williamglenn said:
No I don't think that. Now think through the consequences of EU trucks not roaming around with supplies of food and goods.CarlottaVance said:But of course EU trucks would roam freely over British roads!
You think?
He said more than three-quarters of British berry-growers were already scaling back production and trimming investment plans amid fears that fruit would be left rotting in the fields."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/19/british-fruit-growers-short-of-pickers-farming0 -
Hmm, Schengen possibly and good luck getting the rebate back, but I don't think anyone's in a hurry to bring more peripheral members into the Eurozone.Philip_Thompson said:
Its not binding forever it can be overruled by a subsequent referendum seeking for us to rejoin.justin124 said:That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
The other 27 nations that need to unanimously approve our membership application would want to know this time we were serious and that would mean a referendum to approve our joining, the Euro, Schengen and everything else that goes with joining.0 -
The embassy is not at Regent's Park. That is where the ambassador lives, as fans of Silent Witness may recall. It looks from that like Trump is avoiding the embassy completely, having complained about it in the past.HYUFD said:Looks like President Trump will largely avoid London on his visit next month, arriving on Thursday July 12th at Stanstead he will fly to the US Embassy at Regent's Park then go for dinner at Blenheim Palace. He will then meet May and Chequers and the Queen at Windsor Castle the next day before playing golf at Turnberry on the final day of his visit before flying home
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/trump/details-of-donald-trumps-uk-visit-revealed-us-president-will-tour-country-for-three-days/ar-AAz4Gqg?ocid=spartanntp0 -
If we seek to rejoin they wouldn't want us to be a peripheral member. By making us join the Euro as a condition of re-entry it would ensure that a hokey-cokey re-Brexit becomes much tougher.edmundintokyo said:
Hmm, Schengen possibly and good luck getting the rebate back, but I don't think anyone's in a hurry to bring more peripheral members into the Eurozone.Philip_Thompson said:
Its not binding forever it can be overruled by a subsequent referendum seeking for us to rejoin.justin124 said:That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
The other 27 nations that need to unanimously approve our membership application would want to know this time we were serious and that would mean a referendum to approve our joining, the Euro, Schengen and everything else that goes with joining.0 -
Put in an offer?Charles said:
How will a man who likes big houses and lots of gilt react to Blenheim I wonder?HYUFD said:Looks like President Trump will largely avoid London on his visit next month, arriving on Thursday July 12th at Stanstead he will fly to the US Embassy at Regent's Park then go for dinner at Blenheim Palace. He will then meet May and Chequers and the Queen at Windsor Castle the next day before playing golf at Turnberry on the final day of his visit before flying home
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/trump/details-of-donald-trumps-uk-visit-revealed-us-president-will-tour-country-for-three-days/ar-AAz4Gqg?ocid=spartanntp0 -
Losing the opt-out wouldn't mean rushing the implementation, but it would cement the long-term vision of a single currency for the whole EU.edmundintokyo said:
Hmm, Schengen possibly and good luck getting the rebate back, but I don't think anyone's in a hurry to bring more peripheral members into the Eurozone.Philip_Thompson said:
Its not binding forever it can be overruled by a subsequent referendum seeking for us to rejoin.justin124 said:That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
The other 27 nations that need to unanimously approve our membership application would want to know this time we were serious and that would mean a referendum to approve our joining, the Euro, Schengen and everything else that goes with joining.0 -
Which would be rejected by a landslidePhilip_Thompson said:
Its not binding forever it can be overruled by a subsequent referendum seeking for us to rejoin.justin124 said:That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
The other 27 nations that need to unanimously approve our membership application would want to know this time we were serious and that would mean a referendum to approve our joining, the Euro, Schengen and everything else that goes with joining.0 -
Yes sorry the new Embassy is in 9 Elms Lane, the Ambassador's residence is in Regents ParkDecrepitJohnL said:
The embassy is not at Regent's Park. That is where the ambassador lives, as fans of Silent Witness may recall. It looks from that like Trump is avoiding the embassy completely, having complained about it in the past.HYUFD said:Looks like President Trump will largely avoid London on his visit next month, arriving on Thursday July 12th at Stanstead he will fly to the US Embassy at Regent's Park then go for dinner at Blenheim Palace. He will then meet May and Chequers and the Queen at Windsor Castle the next day before playing golf at Turnberry on the final day of his visit before flying home
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/trump/details-of-donald-trumps-uk-visit-revealed-us-president-will-tour-country-for-three-days/ar-AAz4Gqg?ocid=spartanntp0 -
It's true that joining the Eurozone would make it harder to leave, but the Eurozone is enough of a shit-show as it is, nobody wants to make it more complicated. And in any case if Brexit is disastrous enough that the UK decides to rejoin, it's not going to be a serious concern that the British will suddenly decide to repeat the exercise.Philip_Thompson said:
If we seek to rejoin they wouldn't want us to be a peripheral member. By making us join the Euro as a condition of re-entry it would ensure that a hokey-cokey re-Brexit becomes much tougher.edmundintokyo said:
Hmm, Schengen possibly and good luck getting the rebate back, but I don't think anyone's in a hurry to bring more peripheral members into the Eurozone.Philip_Thompson said:
Its not binding forever it can be overruled by a subsequent referendum seeking for us to rejoin.justin124 said:That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
The other 27 nations that need to unanimously approve our membership application would want to know this time we were serious and that would mean a referendum to approve our joining, the Euro, Schengen and everything else that goes with joining.0 -
Why has the anonymous top Tory called the Defence Secretary a weasel? It seems an odd term of abuse. The only association that comes to mind is with weasel words, and the complaint here is just the opposite: that Williamson has been far too blunt.kle4 said:
Yeah! Which fool overpromoted him anyway?rottenborough said:
And I know this government has gone through a lot of Cabinet ministers, but can we please save another reshuffle until May is ousted in 4-9 months?
Edit: And really, is it even worth listening to anonymous 'top Tories'?
Though this remark is a bit twattish
said to have told military chiefs: “I can make her and I can break her.”0 -
Which would just affirm the UK and Scandinavia and Switzerland belong in EFTA not the EUwilliamglenn said:
Losing the opt-out wouldn't mean rushing the implementation, but it would cement the long-term vision of a single currency for the whole EU.edmundintokyo said:
Hmm, Schengen possibly and good luck getting the rebate back, but I don't think anyone's in a hurry to bring more peripheral members into the Eurozone.Philip_Thompson said:
Its not binding forever it can be overruled by a subsequent referendum seeking for us to rejoin.justin124 said:That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
The other 27 nations that need to unanimously approve our membership application would want to know this time we were serious and that would mean a referendum to approve our joining, the Euro, Schengen and everything else that goes with joining.0 -
What the heck was going through Ashton Agar's head then! Pitched straight at middle and off.0
-
Perception of them being sneaky? Someone's a fan of Redwall novels perhaps.DecrepitJohnL said:
Why has the anonymous top Tory called the Defence Secretary a weasel? It seems an odd term of abuse. The only association that comes to mind is with weasel words, and the complaint here is just the opposite: that Williamson has been far too blunt.kle4 said:
Yeah! Which fool overpromoted him anyway?rottenborough said:
And I know this government has gone through a lot of Cabinet ministers, but can we please save another reshuffle until May is ousted in 4-9 months?
Edit: And really, is it even worth listening to anonymous 'top Tories'?
Though this remark is a bit twattish
said to have told military chiefs: “I can make her and I can break her.”0 -
Not defending the BSF, just pointing out what their chairman said.CarlottaVance said:
Never saw you as a defender of cheap exploited labour, but there you go....Benpointer said:
"Nick Marston, the BSF chairman, said: “The industry is now threatened by lack of government action with regard to seasonal labour.”CarlottaVance said:
More locally produced produce, I expect.....what happened to all those strawberries rotting in the fields?williamglenn said:
No I don't think that. Now think through the consequences of EU trucks not roaming around with supplies of food and goods.CarlottaVance said:But of course EU trucks would roam freely over British roads!
You think?
He said more than three-quarters of British berry-growers were already scaling back production and trimming investment plans amid fears that fruit would be left rotting in the fields."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/19/british-fruit-growers-short-of-pickers-farming0 -
Ironically the government has just a few days ago allowed more immigration -- of doctors, nurses, IT workers and pastry chefs -- and no-one has complained. Since everyone in government wants more immigration, there really ought to be a form of words that can be found to content both sides.CarlottaVance said:
Quite. Which, given the continuing importance of uncontrolled immigration (see yesterday’s Delta Poll) means the government should have been preparing for a WTO BREXIT from the start.kle4 said:
In fairness to Mr Barnier, the EU have been pretty unequivocal on this point from the start IIRC. If we wrangled a deal which even looked like they had bent on that point I'd think he'd become persona non grata pretty quick, so surely a no goer?CarlottaVance said:
Mr Barnier has also said that splitting up the single market and the “four freedoms” — free movement of goods, services, capital and labour — is unacceptable.williamglenn said:
The British public has few red lines. Uncontrolled Immigration is one of them0 -
Think England might just sneak this one.Philip_Thompson said:What the heck was going through Ashton Agar's head then! Pitched straight at middle and off.
0 -
It would be a serious concern if rejoining was only happening due to party politics and the other major party was still opposing our membership. That's why a referendum would be needed to settle the matter.edmundintokyo said:
It's true that joining the Eurozone would make it harder to leave, but the Eurozone is enough of a shit-show as it is, nobody wants to make it more complicated. And in any case if Brexit is disastrous enough that the UK decides to rejoin, it's not going to be a serious concern that the British will suddenly decide to repeat the exercise.Philip_Thompson said:
If we seek to rejoin they wouldn't want us to be a peripheral member. By making us join the Euro as a condition of re-entry it would ensure that a hokey-cokey re-Brexit becomes much tougher.edmundintokyo said:
Hmm, Schengen possibly and good luck getting the rebate back, but I don't think anyone's in a hurry to bring more peripheral members into the Eurozone.Philip_Thompson said:
Its not binding forever it can be overruled by a subsequent referendum seeking for us to rejoin.justin124 said:That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
The other 27 nations that need to unanimously approve our membership application would want to know this time we were serious and that would mean a referendum to approve our joining, the Euro, Schengen and everything else that goes with joining.0 -
-
The public is happy to have skilled immigration of doctors, that's never been contentious.DecrepitJohnL said:
Ironically the government has just a few days ago allowed more immigration -- of doctors, nurses, IT workers and pastry chefs -- and no-one has complained. Since everyone in government wants more immigration, there really ought to be a form of words that can be found to content both sides.CarlottaVance said:
Quite. Which, given the continuing importance of uncontrolled immigration (see yesterday’s Delta Poll) means the government should have been preparing for a WTO BREXIT from the start.kle4 said:
In fairness to Mr Barnier, the EU have been pretty unequivocal on this point from the start IIRC. If we wrangled a deal which even looked like they had bent on that point I'd think he'd become persona non grata pretty quick, so surely a no goer?CarlottaVance said:
Mr Barnier has also said that splitting up the single market and the “four freedoms” — free movement of goods, services, capital and labour — is unacceptable.williamglenn said:
The British public has few red lines. Uncontrolled Immigration is one of them
We have for decades been permitting unlimited unskilled migration so long as the person coming over is a [predominantly white] European but capping doctors etc from outside Europe. Are you proposing that continues?0 -
Business has every right to tell a nominally pro-business government what is needed for business to thrive and what the consequences may be if certain actions are not taken.Charles said:
Business doesn’t have the right to issue threats. It’s entirely reasonable to tell them where to goFF43 said:Jeremy Hunt on message with the Fuck Business policy
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1010809141235994624
The reason the Tories are now attacking business is because they don’t like the message which, bluntly, is that they if they don’t get their shit together and fast, a crash out Brexit next March is likely to have serious consequences.
They may also have an agenda. But that doesn’t mean that they’re wrong when they say that the uncertainty, the generall faffing around, the political game playing and the short time left are not conducive to creating the impression of a competently governed country open for business and in which it makes sense to invest. That is a message the government ought to listen to. The good of the country comes before protecting May’s arse from her own failings.0 -
Would love to see the Aussies bowled out before the footy kicks off.0
-
I agree, the other member states would be reluctant to let Britain back in without a referendum.Philip_Thompson said:
It would be a serious concern if rejoining was only happening due to party politics and the other major party was still opposing our membership. That's why a referendum would be needed to settle the matter.edmundintokyo said:
It's true that joining the Eurozone would make it harder to leave, but the Eurozone is enough of a shit-show as it is, nobody wants to make it more complicated. And in any case if Brexit is disastrous enough that the UK decides to rejoin, it's not going to be a serious concern that the British will suddenly decide to repeat the exercise.Philip_Thompson said:
If we seek to rejoin they wouldn't want us to be a peripheral member. By making us join the Euro as a condition of re-entry it would ensure that a hokey-cokey re-Brexit becomes much tougher.edmundintokyo said:
Hmm, Schengen possibly and good luck getting the rebate back, but I don't think anyone's in a hurry to bring more peripheral members into the Eurozone.Philip_Thompson said:
Its not binding forever it can be overruled by a subsequent referendum seeking for us to rejoin.justin124 said:That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
The other 27 nations that need to unanimously approve our membership application would want to know this time we were serious and that would mean a referendum to approve our joining, the Euro, Schengen and everything else that goes with joining.
But imposing Eurozone membership on reluctant nations isn't something anyone will be interested in doing in the near future, since they're having enough trouble with the members that joined of their own accord. Unless we're talking like twenty years or thirty down the line, in which case who knows.0 -
In retrospect I think it should have been obvious that Cameron's plan to settle the matter would always end up in a second referendum, either as one more heave for Leave or in the aftermath of a Leave win. The only way it could have been otherwise would have been a massive win for Remain, which wasn't seriously on the cards.Philip_Thompson said:
It would be a serious concern if rejoining was only happening due to party politics and the other major party was still opposing our membership. That's why a referendum would be needed to settle the matter.edmundintokyo said:
It's true that joining the Eurozone would make it harder to leave, but the Eurozone is enough of a shit-show as it is, nobody wants to make it more complicated. And in any case if Brexit is disastrous enough that the UK decides to rejoin, it's not going to be a serious concern that the British will suddenly decide to repeat the exercise.Philip_Thompson said:
If we seek to rejoin they wouldn't want us to be a peripheral member. By making us join the Euro as a condition of re-entry it would ensure that a hokey-cokey re-Brexit becomes much tougher.edmundintokyo said:
Hmm, Schengen possibly and good luck getting the rebate back, but I don't think anyone's in a hurry to bring more peripheral members into the Eurozone.Philip_Thompson said:
Its not binding forever it can be overruled by a subsequent referendum seeking for us to rejoin.justin124 said:That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
The other 27 nations that need to unanimously approve our membership application would want to know this time we were serious and that would mean a referendum to approve our joining, the Euro, Schengen and everything else that goes with joining.0 -
The most pressing Eurozone question for the UK regards the currency plan for Scottish independence rather than UK membership.edmundintokyo said:
I agree, the other member states would be reluctant to let Britain back in without a referendum.Philip_Thompson said:
It would be a serious concern if rejoining was only happening due to party politics and the other major party was still opposing our membership. That's why a referendum would be needed to settle the matter.edmundintokyo said:
It's true that joining the Eurozone would make it harder to leave, but the Eurozone is enough of a shit-show as it is, nobody wants to make it more complicated. And in any case if Brexit is disastrous enough that the UK decides to rejoin, it's not going to be a serious concern that the British will suddenly decide to repeat the exercise.Philip_Thompson said:
If we seek to rejoin they wouldn't want us to be a peripheral member. By making us join the Euro as a condition of re-entry it would ensure that a hokey-cokey re-Brexit becomes much tougher.edmundintokyo said:
Hmm, Schengen possibly and good luck getting the rebate back, but I don't think anyone's in a hurry to bring more peripheral members into the Eurozone.Philip_Thompson said:
Its not binding forever it can be overruled by a subsequent referendum seeking for us to rejoin.justin124 said:That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
The other 27 nations that need to unanimously approve our membership application would want to know this time we were serious and that would mean a referendum to approve our joining, the Euro, Schengen and everything else that goes with joining.
But imposing Eurozone membership on reluctant nations isn't something anyone will be interested in doing in the near future, since they're having enough trouble with the members that joined of their own accord. Unless we're talking like twenty years or thirty down the line, in which case who knows.0 -
Although they've not forced the matter for countries like Sweden, post-Maastricht not one nation has ever been granted an opt-out from the Euro.edmundintokyo said:
I agree, the other member states would be reluctant to let Britain back in without a referendum.Philip_Thompson said:
It would be a serious concern if rejoining was only happening due to party politics and the other major party was still opposing our membership. That's why a referendum would be needed to settle the matter.edmundintokyo said:
It's true that joining the Eurozone would make it harder to leave, but the Eurozone is enough of a shit-show as it is, nobody wants to make it more complicated. And in any case if Brexit is disastrous enough that the UK decides to rejoin, it's not going to be a serious concern that the British will suddenly decide to repeat the exercise.Philip_Thompson said:
If we seek to rejoin they wouldn't want us to be a peripheral member. By making us join the Euro as a condition of re-entry it would ensure that a hokey-cokey re-Brexit becomes much tougher.edmundintokyo said:
Hmm, Schengen possibly and good luck getting the rebate back, but I don't think anyone's in a hurry to bring more peripheral members into the Eurozone.Philip_Thompson said:
Its not binding forever it can be overruled by a subsequent referendum seeking for us to rejoin.justin124 said:That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
The other 27 nations that need to unanimously approve our membership application would want to know this time we were serious and that would mean a referendum to approve our joining, the Euro, Schengen and everything else that goes with joining.
But imposing Eurozone membership on reluctant nations isn't something anyone will be interested in doing in the near future, since they're having enough trouble with the members that joined of their own accord. Unless we're talking like twenty years or thirty down the line, in which case who knows.
I doubt we'd be given one either. If we join again they will be looking for us to commit to membership and not be half-hearted like before. We wouldn't join the Euro on day one (other nations haven't) but we'll sign up to join in the future without an opt-out. The principle will be there.0 -
The big game changer for any next Referendum on rejoining is that the NHS will be in play - against the Rejoiners. May, by playing the "Brexit Bonus" card for the NHS, has signed up the NHS as being a Friend Of Staying Out.HYUFD said:
Which would be rejected by a landslidePhilip_Thompson said:
Its not binding forever it can be overruled by a subsequent referendum seeking for us to rejoin.justin124 said:That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
The other 27 nations that need to unanimously approve our membership application would want to know this time we were serious and that would mean a referendum to approve our joining, the Euro, Schengen and everything else that goes with joining.
Rejoin would be crucified on a campaign that kept asking "So, which hospital wards are you going to close, to pay for the Membership Fees?" And there would be no answer....0 -
I'm not proposing anything, and note in passing that non-EU immigration also rose under Mrs May's hegemony. What I am suggesting is that some weasel words can be found to make it look like we are preserving freedom of movement at the same time as taking back control. The situation seems to be that Westminster and Brussels want in practice the same thing, even if hidden behind a facade to fool the voters.Philip_Thompson said:
The public is happy to have skilled immigration of doctors, that's never been contentious.DecrepitJohnL said:
Ironically the government has just a few days ago allowed more immigration -- of doctors, nurses, IT workers and pastry chefs -- and no-one has complained. Since everyone in government wants more immigration, there really ought to be a form of words that can be found to content both sides.CarlottaVance said:
Quite. Which, given the continuing importance of uncontrolled immigration (see yesterday’s Delta Poll) means the government should have been preparing for a WTO BREXIT from the start.kle4 said:
In fairness to Mr Barnier, the EU have been pretty unequivocal on this point from the start IIRC. If we wrangled a deal which even looked like they had bent on that point I'd think he'd become persona non grata pretty quick, so surely a no goer?CarlottaVance said:
Mr Barnier has also said that splitting up the single market and the “four freedoms” — free movement of goods, services, capital and labour — is unacceptable.williamglenn said:
The British public has few red lines. Uncontrolled Immigration is one of them
We have for decades been permitting unlimited unskilled migration so long as the person coming over is a [predominantly white] European but capping doctors etc from outside Europe. Are you proposing that continues?0 -
There's not going to be a second referendum, we're leaving and that's the end of the matter.williamglenn said:
In retrospect I think it should have been obvious that Cameron's plan to settle the matter would always end up in a second referendum, either as one more heave for Leave or in the aftermath of a Leave win. The only way it could have been otherwise would have been a massive win for Remain, which wasn't seriously on the cards.Philip_Thompson said:
It would be a serious concern if rejoining was only happening due to party politics and the other major party was still opposing our membership. That's why a referendum would be needed to settle the matter.edmundintokyo said:
It's true that joining the Eurozone would make it harder to leave, but the Eurozone is enough of a shit-show as it is, nobody wants to make it more complicated. And in any case if Brexit is disastrous enough that the UK decides to rejoin, it's not going to be a serious concern that the British will suddenly decide to repeat the exercise.Philip_Thompson said:
If we seek to rejoin they wouldn't want us to be a peripheral member. By making us join the Euro as a condition of re-entry it would ensure that a hokey-cokey re-Brexit becomes much tougher.edmundintokyo said:
Hmm, Schengen possibly and good luck getting the rebate back, but I don't think anyone's in a hurry to bring more peripheral members into the Eurozone.Philip_Thompson said:
Its not binding forever it can be overruled by a subsequent referendum seeking for us to rejoin.justin124 said:That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
The other 27 nations that need to unanimously approve our membership application would want to know this time we were serious and that would mean a referendum to approve our joining, the Euro, Schengen and everything else that goes with joining.
If we seek to rejoin in the distant future it will be a first referendum on that. Just like the 2016 referendum isn't referred to as the second referendum following the 1975 one.0 -
What will the membership fees be for the latest plan to be in the single market for goods?MarqueeMark said:
The big game changer for any next Referendum on rejoining is that the NHS will be in play - against the Rejoiners. May, by playing the "Brexit Bonus" card for the NHS, has signed up the NHS as being a Friend Of Staying Out.HYUFD said:
Which would be rejected by a landslidePhilip_Thompson said:
Its not binding forever it can be overruled by a subsequent referendum seeking for us to rejoin.justin124 said:That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
The other 27 nations that need to unanimously approve our membership application would want to know this time we were serious and that would mean a referendum to approve our joining, the Euro, Schengen and everything else that goes with joining.
Rejoin would be crucified on a campaign that kept asking "So, which hospital wards are you going to close, to pay for the Membership Fees?" And there would be no answer....0 -
I see no problem with non-EU immigration rising so long as it is skilled migration that we want. Do you?DecrepitJohnL said:
I'm not proposing anything, and note in passing that non-EU immigration also rose under Mrs May's hegemony. What I am suggesting is that some weasel words can be found to make it look like we are preserving freedom of movement at the same time as taking back control. The situation seems to be that Westminster and Brussels want in practice the same thing, even if hidden behind a facade to fool the voters.Philip_Thompson said:
The public is happy to have skilled immigration of doctors, that's never been contentious.DecrepitJohnL said:
Ironically the government has just a few days ago allowed more immigration -- of doctors, nurses, IT workers and pastry chefs -- and no-one has complained. Since everyone in government wants more immigration, there really ought to be a form of words that can be found to content both sides.CarlottaVance said:
Quite. Which, given the continuing importance of uncontrolled immigration (see yesterday’s Delta Poll) means the government should have been preparing for a WTO BREXIT from the start.kle4 said:
In fairness to Mr Barnier, the EU have been pretty unequivocal on this point from the start IIRC. If we wrangled a deal which even looked like they had bent on that point I'd think he'd become persona non grata pretty quick, so surely a no goer?CarlottaVance said:
Mr Barnier has also said that splitting up the single market and the “four freedoms” — free movement of goods, services, capital and labour — is unacceptable.williamglenn said:
The British public has few red lines. Uncontrolled Immigration is one of them
We have for decades been permitting unlimited unskilled migration so long as the person coming over is a [predominantly white] European but capping doctors etc from outside Europe. Are you proposing that continues?0 -
The MMT will provide.MarqueeMark said:
Rejoin would be crucified on a campaign that kept asking "So, which hospital wards are you going to close, to pay for the Membership Fees?" And there would be no answer....0 -
To understand this, let us imagine that the Brexit talks were to break down. The UK would crash out of the EU in March next year with no transitional deal in place. British goods entering the EU would be subject to EU tariffs, and vice versa. The EU levies a 10 per cent tax on car imports. The UK could levy reciprocal tariffs.
Now consider the position of German carmakers. According to the German association of the automotive industry, the country last year exported 769,000 cars to the UK, its single largest export market. The US came second with 494,000 cars. German carmakers also export 258,000 German-made vehicles to China, plus those produced in US and Chinese factories.
If the UK were forced into a cliff-edge Brexit in March, the German car industry would face tariffs in its two largest export markets within a few months of each other. Daimler-Benz issued a profit warning last week, and this only in relationship to the expected rise in Chinese tariffs on Mercedes cars made in the US.
https://www.ft.com/content/c06b1762-761d-11e8-b326-75a27d27ea5f0 -
You miss the point. If those in power want more immigration, and Brussels wants to preserve freedom of movement, then in practice both sides are not very far apart.Philip_Thompson said:
I see no problem with non-EU immigration rising so long as it is skilled migration that we want. Do you?DecrepitJohnL said:
I'm not proposing anything, and note in passing that non-EU immigration also rose under Mrs May's hegemony. What I am suggesting is that some weasel words can be found to make it look like we are preserving freedom of movement at the same time as taking back control. The situation seems to be that Westminster and Brussels want in practice the same thing, even if hidden behind a facade to fool the voters.Philip_Thompson said:
The public is happy to have skilled immigration of doctors, that's never been contentious.DecrepitJohnL said:
Ironically the government has just a few days ago allowed more immigration -- of doctors, nurses, IT workers and pastry chefs -- and no-one has complained. Since everyone in government wants more immigration, there really ought to be a form of words that can be found to content both sides.CarlottaVance said:
Quite. Which, given the continuing importance of uncontrolled immigration (see yesterday’s Delta Poll) means the government should have been preparing for a WTO BREXIT from the start.kle4 said:
In fairness to Mr Barnier, the EU have been pretty unequivocal on this point from the start IIRC. If we wrangled a deal which even looked like they had bent on that point I'd think he'd become persona non grata pretty quick, so surely a no goer?CarlottaVance said:
Mr Barnier has also said that splitting up the single market and the “four freedoms” — free movement of goods, services, capital and labour — is unacceptable.williamglenn said:
The British public has few red lines. Uncontrolled Immigration is one of them
We have for decades been permitting unlimited unskilled migration so long as the person coming over is a [predominantly white] European but capping doctors etc from outside Europe. Are you proposing that continues?0 -
For the EU to access the U.K.?williamglenn said:
What will the membership fees be for the latest plan to be in the single market for goods?MarqueeMark said:
The big game changer for any next Referendum on rejoining is that the NHS will be in play - against the Rejoiners. May, by playing the "Brexit Bonus" card for the NHS, has signed up the NHS as being a Friend Of Staying Out.HYUFD said:
Which would be rejected by a landslidePhilip_Thompson said:
Its not binding forever it can be overruled by a subsequent referendum seeking for us to rejoin.justin124 said:That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
The other 27 nations that need to unanimously approve our membership application would want to know this time we were serious and that would mean a referendum to approve our joining, the Euro, Schengen and everything else that goes with joining.
Rejoin would be crucified on a campaign that kept asking "So, which hospital wards are you going to close, to pay for the Membership Fees?" And there would be no answer....0 -
Wow, some of the penalty box grappling in this world cup has been ridiculous - some really blatant, shameless grabbing going on.0
-
Surely we can all agree that immigration of doctors, nurses and tech entrepreneurs is a good thing, and that immigration of Big Issue sellers and car washers accommodated in central London on tax credits and housing benefits is a bad thing for taxpayers?DecrepitJohnL said:
I'm not proposing anything, and note in passing that non-EU immigration also rose under Mrs May's hegemony. What I am suggesting is that some weasel words can be found to make it look like we are preserving freedom of movement at the same time as taking back control. The situation seems to be that Westminster and Brussels want in practice the same thing, even if hidden behind a facade to fool the voters.Philip_Thompson said:
The public is happy to have skilled immigration of doctors, that's never been contentious.DecrepitJohnL said:
Ironically the government has just a few days ago allowed more immigration -- of doctors, nurses, IT workers and pastry chefs -- and no-one has complained. Since everyone in government wants more immigration, there really ought to be a form of words that can be found to content both sides.CarlottaVance said:
Quite. Which, given the continuing importance of uncontrolled immigration (see yesterday’s Delta Poll) means the government should have been preparing for a WTO BREXIT from the start.kle4 said:
In fairness to Mr Barnier, the EU have been pretty unequivocal on this point from the start IIRC. If we wrangled a deal which even looked like they had bent on that point I'd think he'd become persona non grata pretty quick, so surely a no goer?CarlottaVance said:
Mr Barnier has also said that splitting up the single market and the “four freedoms” — free movement of goods, services, capital and labour — is unacceptable.williamglenn said:
The British public has few red lines. Uncontrolled Immigration is one of them
We have for decades been permitting unlimited unskilled migration so long as the person coming over is a [predominantly white] European but capping doctors etc from outside Europe. Are you proposing that continues?0 -
On topic.
I have mixed feelings about Bercow going half way through a Parliament.
On the one hand I agree with Mr Meeks that he has shown some foolish traits, not least with regard to his bumper stickers. In addition I don't like his style and the fact he has somehow managed to turn the Speaker's position into a third force and a form of entertainment in the Commons when his job is simply to represent the rights of all MPs.
On the other hand removing him against his will would really be a bad thing and would politicise the position in a way that even he has not managed to do so far. It sets a dangerous precedent. Better that he stays until the end of the Parliament and then steps down.
Like others here I think Hoyle would be the best eventual replacement.
0 -
He said he would resign by now.Richard_Tyndall said:removing him against his will would really be a bad thing
0 -
Nobody needs an opt-out, Sweden cracked the cheat codes.Philip_Thompson said:
Although they've not forced the matter for countries like Sweden, post-Maastricht not one nation has ever been granted an opt-out from the Euro.
I doubt we'd be given one either. If we join again they will be looking for us to commit to membership and not be half-hearted like before. We wouldn't join the Euro on day one (other nations haven't) but we'll sign up to join in the future without an opt-out. The principle will be there.0 -
Audi’s chairman was quite clear about this a couple of weeks ago:CarlottaVance said:To understand this, let us imagine that the Brexit talks were to break down. The UK would crash out of the EU in March next year with no transitional deal in place. British goods entering the EU would be subject to EU tariffs, and vice versa. The EU levies a 10 per cent tax on car imports. The UK could levy reciprocal tariffs.
Now consider the position of German carmakers. According to the German association of the automotive industry, the country last year exported 769,000 cars to the UK, its single largest export market. The US came second with 494,000 cars. German carmakers also export 258,000 German-made vehicles to China, plus those produced in US and Chinese factories.
If the UK were forced into a cliff-edge Brexit in March, the German car industry would face tariffs in its two largest export markets within a few months of each other. Daimler-Benz issued a profit warning last week, and this only in relationship to the expected rise in Chinese tariffs on Mercedes cars made in the US.
https://www.ft.com/content/c06b1762-761d-11e8-b326-75a27d27ea5f
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5810433/Audi-calls-tariff-free-trade-deal-UK-urging-EU-strike-deal.html
If the EU are determined to offer a binary choice whereby either they annex Northern Ireland or there’s no deal, then they’re going to have a lot of their own key businesses rather upset with the situation.0 -
Yes I know but he has apparently changed his mind. I don't necessarily think that is unreasonable. As Alastair has pointed out it is not exactly an ideal time for yet more disruption and division in Parliament.Scott_P said:
He said he would resign by now.Richard_Tyndall said:removing him against his will would really be a bad thing
And I come back to my original point. If he chooses to resign that is one thing. If he forced out that is quite another and sets a very disturbing precedent.0 -
While having made such a commitment when being first elected it is not a comment that should simply be disregarded, I do have some sympathy that even politicians should not be bounds to their past pronouncements when events can move so much in the intervening period.Scott_P said:
He said he would resign by now.Richard_Tyndall said:removing him against his will would really be a bad thing
However when taken alongside other factors I think there's perhaps good reason for him to go now, or soon, but as Alistair says it doesn't look like happening.0 -
Speakers have been forced out before. It doesn't set a precedent, so I don't see how it is disturbing.Richard_Tyndall said:
Yes I know but he has apparently changed his mind. I don't necessarily think that is unreasonable. As Alastair has pointed out it is not exactly an ideal time for yet more disruption and division in Parliament.Scott_P said:
He said he would resign by now.Richard_Tyndall said:removing him against his will would really be a bad thing
And I come back to my original point. If he chooses to resign that is one thing. If he forced out that is quite another and sets a very disturbing precedent.
It might still be a bad idea, however.0 -
Absolutely! That was a short-term masterstroke by Theresa. To state that rescinding Britain's EU membership will directly improve public health, indeed survival rates, bought her some precious time. It also did wonders for Hunt's career prospects. I mean, what's not to like?MarqueeMark said:
The big game changer for any next Referendum on rejoining is that the NHS will be in play - against the Rejoiners. May, by playing the "Brexit Bonus" card for the NHS, has signed up the NHS as being a Friend Of Staying Out.HYUFD said:
Which would be rejected by a landslidePhilip_Thompson said:
Its not binding forever it can be overruled by a subsequent referendum seeking for us to rejoin.justin124 said:That was really my point! Labour did not feel bound in 1983 by the 1975 and 1979 precedents. Ergo why should the 2016 Referendum be any more binding?
The other 27 nations that need to unanimously approve our membership application would want to know this time we were serious and that would mean a referendum to approve our joining, the Euro, Schengen and everything else that goes with joining.
Rejoin would be crucified on a campaign that kept asking "So, which hospital wards are you going to close, to pay for the Membership Fees?" And there would be no answer....0 -
0
-
Someone will say the EU don't need to because they are stronger, but if it is a negotiation it involves give and take, even if one side takes more than the other. If they are to make no concessions then it isn't a negotiation, and if everything is treated as a redline by supporters that is ridiculous. It is silly to rely on the UK simply capitulating. Sure it might happen, but it might also simply be politically impossible for it to do so.CarlottaVance said:Movement needed on both sides:
https://twitter.com/frde2059/status/1010070249838907392?s=210 -
And in the age of Trump is it wise to have a hostile resentful “Third Country” as your largest trading partner?kle4 said:
Someone will say the EU don't need to because they are stronger, but if it is a negotiation it involves give and take, even if one side takes more than the other. If they are to make no concessions then it isn't a negotiation, and if everything is treated as a redline by supporters that is ridiculous. It is silly to rely on the UK simply capitulating. Sure it might happen, but it might also simply be politically impossible for it to do so.CarlottaVance said:Movement needed on both sides:
https://twitter.com/frde2059/status/1010070249838907392?s=21
0 -
The latest pinch-point is fruit-pickers but again, this is not really the point, which is that the two sides are close enough for the whole thing to be fudged.Sandpit said:
Surely we can all agree that immigration of doctors, nurses and tech entrepreneurs is a good thing, and that immigration of Big Issue sellers and car washers accommodated in central London on tax credits and housing benefits is a bad thing for taxpayers?DecrepitJohnL said:
I'm not proposing anything, and note in passing that non-EU immigration also rose under Mrs May's hegemony. What I am suggesting is that some weasel words can be found to make it look like we are preserving freedom of movement at the same time as taking back control. The situation seems to be that Westminster and Brussels want in practice the same thing, even if hidden behind a facade to fool the voters.Philip_Thompson said:
The public is happy to have skilled immigration of doctors, that's never been contentious.DecrepitJohnL said:
Ironically the government has just a few days ago allowed more immigration -- of doctors, nurses, IT workers and pastry chefs -- and no-one has complained. Since everyone in government wants more immigration, there really ought to be a form of words that can be found to content both sides.CarlottaVance said:
Quite. Which, given the continuing importance of uncontrolled immigration (see yesterday’s Delta Poll) means the government should have been preparing for a WTO BREXIT from the start.kle4 said:
In fairness to Mr Barnier, the EU have been pretty unequivocal on this point from the start IIRC. If we wrangled a deal which even looked like they had bent on that point I'd think he'd become persona non grata pretty quick, so surely a no goer?CarlottaVance said:
Mr Barnier has also said that splitting up the single market and the “four freedoms” — free movement of goods, services, capital and labour — is unacceptable.williamglenn said:
The British public has few red lines. Uncontrolled Immigration is one of them
We have for decades been permitting unlimited unskilled migration so long as the person coming over is a [predominantly white] European but capping doctors etc from outside Europe. Are you proposing that continues?0 -
Good point. Better to aim for complete capitulation than let Britain fester in the mediocrity of Brexit.CarlottaVance said:
And in the age of Trump is it wise to have a hostile resentful “Third Country” as your largest trading partner?kle4 said:
Someone will say the EU don't need to because they are stronger, but if it is a negotiation it involves give and take, even if one side takes more than the other. If they are to make no concessions then it isn't a negotiation, and if everything is treated as a redline by supporters that is ridiculous. It is silly to rely on the UK simply capitulating. Sure it might happen, but it might also simply be politically impossible for it to do so.CarlottaVance said:Movement needed on both sides:
https://twitter.com/frde2059/status/1010070249838907392?s=21 0 -
In all seriousness even if that were the better option, and no deal is much worse, I don't see how total capitulation is possible. Hence why no deal is looking more plausible than a deal, since capitulation is being demanded in some areas(in fairness since we cannot agree what to ask for, why wouldn't that be the demand).williamglenn said:
Good point. Better to aim for complete capitulation than let Britain fester in the mediocrity of Brexit.CarlottaVance said:
And in the age of Trump is it wise to have a hostile resentful “Third Country” as your largest trading partner?kle4 said:
Someone will say the EU don't need to because they are stronger, but if it is a negotiation it involves give and take, even if one side takes more than the other. If they are to make no concessions then it isn't a negotiation, and if everything is treated as a redline by supporters that is ridiculous. It is silly to rely on the UK simply capitulating. Sure it might happen, but it might also simply be politically impossible for it to do so.CarlottaVance said:Movement needed on both sides:
https://twitter.com/frde2059/status/1010070249838907392?s=210 -
Bloody hell! Four.....0
-
John Stones for the Golden Boot? You could have named your own price. Tomorrow we'll be trying to work out if it is best to be top or second in the group.MarqueeMark said:Bloody hell! Four.....
0 -
Good to see the referee’s finally calling the rugby tackling in the penalty area...0
-
Jesus Christ I have never seen a team defend corners as bad as Panama - they're practically punching players in the back of the the head as they wrestle players while not even looking at the ball. How they get through this game without going down to 8-9 men I do not know.0
-
I think Mr Glenn believes voters will go “Airbus threats or Big Issue sellers” and opt for the Big Issue sellers....despite the polling....kle4 said:
In all seriousness even if that were the better option, and no deal is much worse, I don't see how total capitulation is possible. Hence why no deal is looking more plausible than a deal, since capitulation is being demanded in some areas(in fairness since we cannot agree what to ask for, why wouldn't that be the demand).williamglenn said:
Good point. Better to aim for complete capitulation than let Britain fester in the mediocrity of Brexit.CarlottaVance said:
And in the age of Trump is it wise to have a hostile resentful “Third Country” as your largest trading partner?kle4 said:
Someone will say the EU don't need to because they are stronger, but if it is a negotiation it involves give and take, even if one side takes more than the other. If they are to make no concessions then it isn't a negotiation, and if everything is treated as a redline by supporters that is ridiculous. It is silly to rely on the UK simply capitulating. Sure it might happen, but it might also simply be politically impossible for it to do so.CarlottaVance said:Movement needed on both sides:
https://twitter.com/frde2059/status/1010070249838907392?s=210 -
Brexit isn’t going to revolve around fruit pickers. There’s plenty of students and unemployed around, and I’m sure we can reinitiate the old guest worker program if it’s required.DecrepitJohnL said:
The latest pinch-point is fruit-pickers but again, this is not really the point, which is that the two sides are close enough for the whole thing to be fudged.Sandpit said:
Surely we can all agree that immigration of doctors, nurses and tech entrepreneurs is a good thing, and that immigration of Big Issue sellers and car washers accommodated in central London on tax credits and housing benefits is a bad thing for taxpayers?DecrepitJohnL said:
I'm not proposing anything, and note in passing that non-EU immigration also rose under Mrs May's hegemony. What I am suggesting is that some weasel words can be found to make it look like we are preserving freedom of movement at the same time as taking back control. The situation seems to be that Westminster and Brussels want in practice the same thing, even if hidden behind a facade to fool the voters.Philip_Thompson said:
The public is happy to have skilled immigration of doctors, that's never been contentious.DecrepitJohnL said:
Ironically the government has just a few days ago allowed more immigration -- of doctors, nurses, IT workers and pastry chefs -- and no-one has complained. Since everyone in government wants more immigration, there really ought to be a form of words that can be found to content both sides.CarlottaVance said:
Quite. Which, given the continuing importance of uncontrolled immigration (see yesterday’s Delta Poll) means the government should have been preparing for a WTO BREXIT from the start.kle4 said:
In fairness to Mr Barnier, the EU have been pretty unequivocal on this point from the start IIRC. If we wrangled a deal which even looked like they had bent on that point I'd think he'd become persona non grata pretty quick, so surely a no goer?CarlottaVance said:
Mr Barnier has also said that splitting up the single market and the “four freedoms” — free movement of goods, services, capital and labour — is unacceptable.williamglenn said:
The British public has few red lines. Uncontrolled Immigration is one of them
We have for decades been permitting unlimited unskilled migration so long as the person coming over is a [predominantly white] European but capping doctors etc from outside Europe. Are you proposing that continues?0 -
Voters will be too busy celebrating our World Cup win to care about abandoning Brexit.CarlottaVance said:
I think Mr Glenn believes voters will go “Airbus threats or Big Issue sellers” and opt for the Big Issue sellers....despite the polling....kle4 said:
In all seriousness even if that were the better option, and no deal is much worse, I don't see how total capitulation is possible. Hence why no deal is looking more plausible than a deal, since capitulation is being demanded in some areas(in fairness since we cannot agree what to ask for, why wouldn't that be the demand).williamglenn said:
Good point. Better to aim for complete capitulation than let Britain fester in the mediocrity of Brexit.CarlottaVance said:
And in the age of Trump is it wise to have a hostile resentful “Third Country” as your largest trading partner?kle4 said:
Someone will say the EU don't need to because they are stronger, but if it is a negotiation it involves give and take, even if one side takes more than the other. If they are to make no concessions then it isn't a negotiation, and if everything is treated as a redline by supporters that is ridiculous. It is silly to rely on the UK simply capitulating. Sure it might happen, but it might also simply be politically impossible for it to do so.CarlottaVance said:Movement needed on both sides:
https://twitter.com/frde2059/status/1010070249838907392?s=21
0 -
This is wrong. So wrong. England - qualifying for the next round after a game and a half......just wrong.......0
-
A couple of colleagues of mine were having a conversation last week about how emotional Brexit has made them, and they were finally hopeful that a few more Airbuses will finally make enough people see the problems to stop it all. I think that's overly hopeful.CarlottaVance said:
I think Mr Glenn believes voters will go “Airbus threats or Big Issue sellers” and opt for the Big Issue sellers....despite the polling....kle4 said:
In all seriousness even if that were the better option, and no deal is much worse, I don't see how total capitulation is possible. Hence why no deal is looking more plausible than a deal, since capitulation is being demanded in some areas(in fairness since we cannot agree what to ask for, why wouldn't that be the demand).williamglenn said:
Good point. Better to aim for complete capitulation than let Britain fester in the mediocrity of Brexit.CarlottaVance said:
And in the age of Trump is it wise to have a hostile resentful “Third Country” as your largest trading partner?kle4 said:
Someone will say the EU don't need to because they are stronger, but if it is a negotiation it involves give and take, even if one side takes more than the other. If they are to make no concessions then it isn't a negotiation, and if everything is treated as a redline by supporters that is ridiculous. It is silly to rely on the UK simply capitulating. Sure it might happen, but it might also simply be politically impossible for it to do so.CarlottaVance said:Movement needed on both sides:
https://twitter.com/frde2059/status/1010070249838907392?s=210 -
Those seeking to lay England, now might be the moment.
Caveat emptor: I've not seen a better team than this England first half display. A lay might be expensive.0 -
Panama are the worst team I have ever seen. Defenders who seem to have no idea how to even play football. Nothing but fouling and whinging at everything.0
-
Is now the best time to lay England for the World Cup?0
-
The best thing about this World Cup is that players who are being wankers are getting nowhere with the refs. Of course, that may be a function of VAR giving a chance to show they are just being wankers. But it is very much to be welcomed.kle4 said:Panama are the worst team I have ever seen. Defenders who seem to have no idea how to even play football. Nothing but fouling and whinging at everything.
0 -
If England win the EU will issue a press release "EU wins World Cup."williamglenn said:
Voters will be too busy celebrating our World Cup win to care about abandoning Brexit.CarlottaVance said:
I think Mr Glenn believes voters will go “Airbus threats or Big Issue sellers” and opt for the Big Issue sellers....despite the polling....kle4 said:
In all seriousness even if that were the better option, and no deal is much worse, I don't see how total capitulation is possible. Hence why no deal is looking more plausible than a deal, since capitulation is being demanded in some areas(in fairness since we cannot agree what to ask for, why wouldn't that be the demand).williamglenn said:
Good point. Better to aim for complete capitulation than let Britain fester in the mediocrity of Brexit.CarlottaVance said:
And in the age of Trump is it wise to have a hostile resentful “Third Country” as your largest trading partner?kle4 said:
Someone will say the EU don't need to because they are stronger, but if it is a negotiation it involves give and take, even if one side takes more than the other. If they are to make no concessions then it isn't a negotiation, and if everything is treated as a redline by supporters that is ridiculous. It is silly to rely on the UK simply capitulating. Sure it might happen, but it might also simply be politically impossible for it to do so.CarlottaVance said:Movement needed on both sides:
https://twitter.com/frde2059/status/1010070249838907392?s=210 -
Calm down everybody.
It's not coming home.
We're playing Panama, it is like getting excited about beating Australia in a one dayer.
Now is the optimal time to lay England for the World Cup.0 -
The football team seem to be taking the cricket team's fortune away from them!0
This discussion has been closed.