It is a top team at UCL. I met Robert Hazell once, a few years ago. Deeply impressive knowledge.
I noticed this at the end: "The Unit is recruiting a Research Assistant to assist Meg in her work on parliament and Brexit. Applications close on 14 July. Additional details can be found here."
I'm sure there are a few people here who could teach them a thing or two ;-)
For example unlimited immigration from the EU. To focus on 3 impacts:
(1) increased
1 - blaming immigrants for government cuts
2 - blaming immigrants for government failures in education
3 - blaming immigrants for government failures to reform the welfare system
We will still have high-levels of immigration post-Brexit and immigrants will still be blamed for all the problems our own choices and our politicians create.
With the exception of the Fens, the areas that voted Leave are areas of low inward EU migration. They are either places like the Welsh valleys with net population decline or Northern towns where the migrants are nearly all non EU.
The idea that stopping EU migration would improve economic prospects in Ebbw Vale or Wigan is poppycock. The only way it would help would be if those Britons fancied pulling cabbages in the Fens or working in Social Care in the South East, by internally migrating.
The answers lie elsewhere, not least in the form of redistributive regional policies like those of the EU. There seems little enthusiasm for that amongst PB Brexiteers, and in any case it does not require Brexit.
So the thousands of Eastern European Roma who have migrated to Rotherham and other parts of South Yorkshire don't exist ?
Now you might be right that restricting immigration might not improve things in Ebbw Vale or Wigan but it might very well stop things from getting worse.
No but the Roma are numerically small compared with the Non EU migrants.
How will stopping EU migration slow the decline of Ebbw Vale? I do not follow.
I'm not saying that stopping EU migration will slow the decline of Ebbw Vale rather that not stopping it may speed the decline.
And the Roma are not numerically small in the areas they move to - have thousands of them moving to Rotherham benefited Rotherham or not ?
As I've said before immigration is a class issue.
How many of those earlier non-EU immigrants to northern mill towns were of low education working class origin ?
Now compare those immigrants who were of educated middle class background - the Ugandan Asians for example.
Which group of immigrants have been more successful in this country ?
So does allowing free migration of low educated deprived people to areas of the UK with problems of deprivation and low education help or not ?
People who say “Brexit won’t solve this” are both right and missing the point.
As things stand, our politicians are restricted in their ability to fix the problems and are insulated from the consequences of their failure (it’s very easy for them to blame “Europe”)
Post Brexit they will have nowhere to hide. I hope the voters will hold them accountable for their failures.
How are out politicians restricted in fixing the problems?
For example unlimited immigration from the EU. To focus on 3 impacts:
(1) increased from other uses
(2) limitation generation
(3) interplay to reform
1 - blaming
So wh
Nope - rights.
So how do thousands of East European Roma migrating to Rotherham put less strain on public services ?
And I'm not sure how many people take up the reciprocal right to migrate to Slovakia.
EU immigration is a class issue - the further up the socioeconomic scale the more advantages you receive from it while suffering the fewer disadvantages.
Support for it is a willingness for economic power to be transferred to the wealthy at the expenses of the deprived.
Very few migrate to Slovakia. Many migrate to other parts of Europe. That's the great thing, you see, the reciprocal right covers 30+ countries.
As for the class thing - a working class pensioner being looked after by a young migrant from Poland is benefiting hugely from EU immigration, as is the working class factory worker being treated by a Dutch doctor.
EU immigration is not all about gypsies and nannies. In fact, they are a vanishingly small part of the picture.
We have been extraordinary lucky to attract the best and brightest of migrants from across Europe.
Apart from anything else they have helped with our demographics. Without migrants, the country will age more rapidly and there’ll be less workers to support the retired.
Having said that, successive governments have shown no interest in addressing the “downsides”: the need for more infrastructure, the uptick in the “Roma with a Big Issue” syndrome, and the undoubted ease with which our non-contributory welfare system can be gamed by a very small minority.
I voted for an It’s indirect but that’s the way the system works here.
If I don’t like what Cecilia Malstrom does how do I change my vote to indicate that?
You voted for an MEP. In the same way as voting for an MP, voting for an MEP helps select the ultimate make-up of the European Parliament, which in turn has control over the next Commission president, who in turn chooses the Commissioners.
It’s a strikingly similar system. You just have an irrational visceral hostility to the EU which leads you to make such idiotic remarks.
Except that we do not have pan-European
So lay off the personal invective. It’s unpleasant and diminishes you.
It’s not clear whether you would prefer “pan European parties with single programmes”, but there’s nothing in the E.U. setup to prevent that.
I believe they don’t exist because we don’t have a single European demos.
We don’t. Which I think you’d suggest is a good thing?
So basically, you’re kvetching about something which follows from a condition of which you approve.
No - I’m saying that we don’t have effective democratic oversight of the Commission. I think that’s a problem, but the conditions don’t exist for an appropriate resolution
As pointed out above, we elect MEPs to do that.
Unfortunately, our media is totally uninterested in the goings on in Europe (unless myth-making about banana curvature) and we elect MEPs with the worst attendance records in Europe.
Lift the lid on any Brexit myth and it turns out the problem is actually in our own control.
(With the noted and significant exception of immigration, but even that is not a one-way story).
“Effective” is the key word.
If 100% of British voters voted for a Marxist government we could still end up with an EPP-led Commission.
That’s a problem in my view.
If we had a single demos then that wouldn’t arise. But we don’t, and without one I don’t see how that issue is resolved.
A convincing case for Scottish independence there.
This line stood out: The Commons could choose to hold a last-minute vote to change the summer recess, but it would be more sensible to face this reality now.
There aren't many certainties in politics at the moment, but I'm confident that the MPs will bury their heads in the sand for the next three weeks.
One of the complications is that the required later recess could be a day or two, if the new PM achieves confidence at least for the time being, or up to two weeks if he doesn’t.
The article goes on to suggest that confidence may be more likely to be granted in July because the MPs want their holidays. That's probably a fair assessment.
Yep. I was fully expecting Johnson not be given PMship because he doesn't command confidence, but I had not factored in the holiday issue. The never-Boris Tories will come up with an excuse, I think, to delay until the hols are over.
Loving Charles’ argument that we needed to leave the EU because it wasn’t integrated enough.
The smell of straws clutched. The truth is simpler, he (and many others) are nostalgic for a utopian view of the past. They want their country back. They want to take back control. They want to make Britain great again.
Sure. With the current set up there is a lack of democratic oversight. You either need to be much more integrated with greater oversight or to have a much looser relationship.
I wish we could have ended up with some form of associate membership but because of the failings of politicians on all sides that opportunity had been lost (for now)
Given the choice of complete integration or separation, I thought the latter was in the UK’s best interests
I never voted for her or the alternative candidate for the position
You believe there is a European demos. I disagree.
Did you vote for Liam Fox?
I voted for an MP
If a majority of MPs support an individual they become PM
The PM selects his/her government
If I don’t like what Liam Fox does then I vote against the MP who supported him.
It’s indirect but that’s the way the system works here.
If I don’t like what Cecilia Malstrom does how do I change my vote to indicate that?
You voted for an MEP. In the same way as voting for an MP, voting for an MEP helps select the ultimate make-up of the European Parliament, which in turn has control over the next Commission president, who in turn chooses the Commissioners.
It’s a strikingly similar system. You just have an irrational visceral hostility to the EU which leads you to make such idiotic remarks.
Except that we do not have pan-European parties with single programmes. I dislike coalitions because people don’t get to make an informed choice.
Incidentally, you claim I have a “visceral hatred of the EU”. I don’t - as it happens I don’t hate anything or anyone as it is an entirely negative emotion - I just don’t think it was the right political structure for the U.K. going forward
So lay off the personal invective. It’s unpleasant and diminishes you.
You don’t think it’s the right structure but just about everything you say about the EU is based on gross inaccuracies or lazy simplifications. eg your latest error is to ignore the fact that the European Parliament has pan-European groupings with common prospectuses. See, eg:
For a man who affects to be a desiccated calculating machine about the decision to Leave, you sure give the impression of someone working on irrational visceral feelings.
How many votes in the last E.U. election were cast on the basis of those manifestos in your view?
It would be more graceful to admit that you were wrong.
The other perceptive insight is the sense of euphoria the tory members must be feeling as they lurch right and tool up for the culture war. For decades the members, who are mainly old, white, fucked-in-the-head men, have seen their opinions on multi-multiculturalism, LGBTQ+ issues, feminism and whether the Rover 800 is a good car swept away by waves of progressive liberalism. Now they are free to dismiss such notions as the deliria of the woke.
So after brexit what is next? Obviously a war on red tape which limits rich people from getting richer by imposing standards. An excuse for dramatically lower personal and corporation tax in the name of stimulating the bank accounts of rich people probably ...and then what?
Your own prejudices are showing through
I’d expect a cut in DfID’s budget (although this can be funded through eliminating the c £1.5bn contribution to the E.U. international development aid, but who cares about double counting)
Probably increased defence spending, reform of business rates (to help small businesses), support for farmers, transport infrastructure investment that sort of thing.
Small town England is instinctively suspicious of “big ideas”
As for the class thing - a working class pensioner being looked after by a young migrant from Poland is benefiting hugely from EU immigration, as is the working class factory worker being treated by a Dutch doctor.
Though if we opened up our medical schools, the working class factory worker might become a doctor herself, and not need the Dutch quack.
One reason the NHS is so dependent on immigrant doctors and nurses is simply that we do not train enough of them here.
As the Cabinet Manual puts it, ‘governments are expected by convention to observe discretion in initiating any new action of a continuing or long-term character in the period immediately preceding an election’ (paragraph 2.27). Paragraph 2.29 explains that this means deferring major policy decisions. Since the only way to defer ‘no deal’ would be to ask the EU for an extension, convention would demand that the Prime Minister do this – even if he chose to go into the election campaigning for ‘no deal’.
I disagree with this. The Commons voted for No Deal by default when they voted to trigger A50. Requesting a further extension to A50 would be a major policy decision.
You voted for an MEP. In the same way as voting for an MP, voting for an MEP helps select the ultimate make-up of the European Parliament, which in turn has control over the next Commission president, who in turn chooses the Commissioners.
It’s a strikingly similar system. You just have an irrational visceral hostility to the EU which leads you to make such idiotic remarks.
Except that we do
So lay off the personal invective. It’s unpleasant and diminishes you.
It’s not clear whether you would prefer “pan European parties with single programmes”, but there’s nothing in the E.U. setup to prevent that.
I believe they don’t exist because we don’t have a single European demos.
We don’t. Which I think you’d suggest is a good thing?
So basically, you’re kvetching about something which follows from a condition of which you approve.
No - I’m saying that we don’t have effective democratic oversight of the Commission. I think that’s a problem, but the conditions don’t exist for an appropriate resolution
As pointed out above, we elect MEPs to do that.
Unfortunately, our media is totally uninterested in the goings on in Europe (unless myth-making about banana curvature) and we elect MEPs with the worst attendance records in Europe.
Lift the lid on any Brexit myth and it turns out the problem is actually in our own control.
(With the noted and significant exception of immigration, but even that is not a one-way story).
“Effective” is the key word.
If 100% of British voters voted for a Marxist government we could still end up with an EPP-led Commission.
That’s a problem in my view.
If we had a single demos then that wouldn’t arise. But we don’t, and without one I don’t see how that issue is resolved.
A convincing case for Scottish independence there.
As far as I’m concerned it’s the only argument for Scottish independence that matters.
I think we have a single GB wide demos (sometimes not sure about NI 😉) but ultimately that’s up to the Scots to decide.
As the Cabinet Manual puts it, ‘governments are expected by convention to observe discretion in initiating any new action of a continuing or long-term character in the period immediately preceding an election’ (paragraph 2.27). Paragraph 2.29 explains that this means deferring major policy decisions. Since the only way to defer ‘no deal’ would be to ask the EU for an extension, convention would demand that the Prime Minister do this – even if he chose to go into the election campaigning for ‘no deal’.
I disagree with this. The Commons voted for No Deal by default when they voted to trigger A50. Requesting a further extension to A50 would be a major policy decision.
One of those statements that reflects one view of the formal position but not the political or real world reality. Carrying on as we are for a little longer isn’t a major change; crashing out is.
You voted for an MEP. In the same way as voting for an MP, voting for an MEP helps select the ultimate make-up of the European Parliament, which in turn has control over the next Commission president, who in turn chooses the Commissioners.
It’s a strikingly similar system. You just have an irrational visceral hostility to the EU which leads you to make such idiotic remarks.
Except that we do not have pan-European parties with single programmes. I dislike coalitions because people don’t get to make an informed choice.
Incidentally, you claim I have a “visceral hatred of the EU”. I don’t - as it happens I don’t hate anything or anyone as it is an entirely negative emotion - I just don’t think it was the right political structure for the U.K. going forward
So lay off the personal invective. It’s unpleasant and diminishes you.
You don’t think it’s the right structure but just about everything you say about the EU is based on gross inaccuracies or lazy simplifications. eg your latest error is to ignore the fact that the European Parliament has pan-European groupings with common prospectuses. See, eg:
For a man who affects to be a desiccated calculating machine about the decision to Leave, you sure give the impression of someone working on irrational visceral feelings.
How many votes in the last E.U. election were cast on the basis of those manifestos in your view?
It would be more graceful to admit that you were wrong.
So, to conclude, the European executive is controlled in a strikingly similar way by the European Parliament to the way the UK Parliament controls the British executive (contrary to your first airy assertion) with groupings elected under pan-European manifestos (contrary to your second airy assertion). But because you don’t pay attention to any of this stuff, you’re justified in disregarding it.
So how do thousands of East European Roma migrating to Rotherham put less strain on public services ?
And I'm not sure how many people take up the reciprocal right to migrate to Slovakia.
EU immigration is a class issue - the further up the socioeconomic scale the more advantages you receive from it while suffering the fewer disadvantages.
Support for it is a willingness for economic power to be transferred to the wealthy at the expenses of the deprived.
Very few migrate to Slovakia. Many migrate to other parts of Europe. That's the great thing, you see, the reciprocal right covers 30+ countries.
As for the class thing - a working class pensioner being looked after by a young migrant from Poland is benefiting hugely from EU immigration, as is the working class factory worker being treated by a Dutch doctor.
EU immigration is not all about gypsies and nannies. In fact, they are a vanishingly small part of the picture.
We have been extraordinary lucky to attract the best and brightest of migrants from across Europe.
Apart from anything else they have helped with our demographics. Without migrants, the country will age more rapidly and there’ll be less workers to support the retired.
Having said that, successive governments have shown no interest in addressing the “downsides”: the need for more infrastructure, the uptick in the “Roma with a Big Issue” syndrome, and the undoubted ease with which our non-contributory welfare system can be gamed by a very small minority.
Are the thousands of Eastern European Roma who have migrated to Rotherham the 'best and brightest' ?
And though they are at the extreme end of the scale few of the working class areas of the UK will be seeing many of the 'best and brightest' either.
Make it easier for the 'best and brightest' from around the world to move to working class areas while restricting the less desirable immigrants and you'll see a changed view on immigration and an improvement in the economy in those areas.
As the Cabinet Manual puts it, ‘governments are expected by convention to observe discretion in initiating any new action of a continuing or long-term character in the period immediately preceding an election’ (paragraph 2.27). Paragraph 2.29 explains that this means deferring major policy decisions. Since the only way to defer ‘no deal’ would be to ask the EU for an extension, convention would demand that the Prime Minister do this – even if he chose to go into the election campaigning for ‘no deal’.
I disagree with this. The Commons voted for No Deal by default when they voted to trigger A50. Requesting a further extension to A50 would be a major policy decision.
I’m inclined to agree with you on this, which gives a very narrow window at the start of September for a late-October election.
An early-November election, with no clear direction indicated by Parliament of the extension question before dissolution, would be yet another constitutional nightmare - there might even be pressure on the opposition parties to abstain on the dissolution vote.
As the Cabinet Manual puts it, ‘governments are expected by convention to observe discretion in initiating any new action of a continuing or long-term character in the period immediately preceding an election’ (paragraph 2.27). Paragraph 2.29 explains that this means deferring major policy decisions. Since the only way to defer ‘no deal’ would be to ask the EU for an extension, convention would demand that the Prime Minister do this – even if he chose to go into the election campaigning for ‘no deal’.
I disagree with this. The Commons voted for No Deal by default when they voted to trigger A50. Requesting a further extension to A50 would be a major policy decision.
One of those statements that reflects one view of the formal position but not the political or real world reality. Carrying on as we are for a little longer isn’t a major change; crashing out is.
By September the MPs would have had over five months to "do something" that avoids No Deal on 31 October. They cannot complain if the incumbent PM lets the clock run out when they've had plenty of time to change the direction of travel.
So lay off the personal invective. It’s unpleasant and diminishes you.
hat.
I believe they don’t exist because we don’t have a single European demos.
We don’t. Which I think you’d suggest is a good thing?
So basically, you’re kvetching about something which follows from a condition of which you approve.
As pointed out above, we elect MEPs to do that.
Unfortunately, our media is totally uninterested in the goings on in Europe (unless myth-making about banana curvature) and we elect MEPs with the worst attendance records in Europe.
Lift the lid on any Brexit myth and it turns out the problem is actually in our own control.
(With the noted and significant exception of immigration, but even that is not a one-way story).
“Effective” is the key word.
If 100% of British voters voted for a Marxist government we could still end up with an EPP-led Commission.
That’s a problem in my view.
If we had a single demos then that wouldn’t arise. But we don’t, and without one I don’t see how that issue is resolved.
A convincing case for Scottish independence there.
As far as I’m concerned it’s the only argument for Scottish independence that matters.
I think we have a single GB wide demos (sometimes not sure about NI 😉) but ultimately that’s up to the Scots to decide.
The reality is that you can’t apply that logic by bundling all decisions into the same framework; some matters (a lot more, as it happens) should properly be decided at local or even hyper-local,level; other issues require international co-operation. At all levels, the more there is democratic accountability the better.
Our current setup is deficient principally because there are insufficient or flawed mechanisms for ensuring that accountability at both EU and national level, and because our system of local government remains under national government control in terms of its structure, governance and financing.
As for the class thing - a working class pensioner being looked after by a young migrant from Poland is benefiting hugely from EU immigration, as is the working class factory worker being treated by a Dutch doctor.
Though if we opened up our medical schools, the working class factory worker might become a doctor herself, and not need the Dutch quack.
One reason the NHS is so dependent on immigrant doctors and nurses is simply that we do not train enough of them here.
People who say “Brexit won’t solve this” are both right and missing the point.
As things stand, our politicians are restricted in their ability to fix the problems and are insulated from the consequences of their failure (it’s very easy for them to blame “Europe”)
Post Brexit they will have nowhere to hide. I hope the voters will hold them accountable for their failures.
How are out politicians restricted in fixing the problems?
For example unlimited immigration from the EU. To focus on 3 impacts:
(1) increased from other uses
(2) limitation generation
(3) interplay to reform
1 - blaming immigrants for government cuts
2 - blaming immigrants for government failures in education
3 - blaming immigrants for government failures to reform the welfare system
We will still have high-levels of immigration post-Brexit and immigrants will still be blamed for all the problems our own choices and our politicians create.
So what you're advocating is control of immigration and forcing UK governments to take responsibility for the failure of UK education and welfare systems.
You can add failures of housing policy as well.
Nope - rights.
So how do thousands of East European Roma migrating to Rotherham put less strain on public services ?
And I'm not sure how many people take up the reciprocal right to migrate to Slovakia.
EU immigration is a class issue - the further up the socioeconomic scale the more advantages you receive from it while suffering the fewer disadvantages.
Support for it is a willingness for economic power to be transferred to the wealthy at the expenses of the deprived.
Very few migrate to Slovakia. Many migrate to other parts of Europe. That's the great thing, you see, the reciprocal right covers 30+ countries.
As for the class thing - a working class pensioner being looked after by a young migrant from Poland is benefiting hugely from EU immigration, as is the working class factory worker being treated by a Dutch doctor.
EU immigration is not all about gypsies and nannies. In fact, they are a vanishingly small part of the picture.
I suspect that Dutch doctors migrating to the UK are an even smaller part of the picture.
And just because Eastern European Roma are a vanishingly small part of the picture from Royal Leamington Spa doesn't mean that applies in Rotherham.
As the Cabinet Manual puts it, ‘governments are expected by convention to observe discretion in initiating any new action of a continuing or long-term character in the period immediately preceding an election’ (paragraph 2.27). Paragraph 2.29 explains that this means deferring major policy decisions. Since the only way to defer ‘no deal’ would be to ask the EU for an extension, convention would demand that the Prime Minister do this – even if he chose to go into the election campaigning for ‘no deal’.
I disagree with this. The Commons voted for No Deal by default when they voted to trigger A50. Requesting a further extension to A50 would be a major policy decision.
One of those statements that reflects one view of the formal position but not the political or real world reality. Carrying on as we are for a little longer isn’t a major change; crashing out is.
By September the MPs would have had over five months to "do something" that avoids No Deal on 31 October. They cannot complain if the incumbent PM lets the clock run out when they've had plenty of time to change the direction of travel.
I don’t see that being relevant to the provisions of the cabinet manual at all? You have moved from trying to interpret the rules to pushing your personal viewpoint.
Don’t ignore the element of luck. Roy could have been out quite cheaply earlier on had India reviewed. We had a similar sliding doors moment against Australia when an appeal for a wicket early on went against us. Clearly the absence of Roy and the failure of Vince also unsettled things.
You can lay a 2022 next GE at 4.1 on BFE, which looks like an outstanding bet that covers quite a few angles. AFAICS the only scenario where we run to 2022 is if the Tories (and DUP) cling to Boris and Boris clings to office until the end, both for fear of the electorate.
I agree. I much prefer that bet to backing a 2019 GE at 2.5.
You voted for an MEP. In the same way as voting for an MP, voting for an MEP helps select the ultimate make-up of the European Parliament, which in turn has control over the next Commission president, who in turn chooses the Commissioners.
It’s a strikingly similar system. You just have an irrational visceral hostility to the EU which leads you to make such idiotic remarks.
Except that we do not have pan-European parties with single programmes. I dislike coalitions because people don’t get to make an informed choice.
Incidentally, you claim I have a “visceral hatred of the EU”. I don’t - as it happens I don’t hate anything or anyone as it is an entirely negative emotion - I just don’t think it was the right political structure for the U.K. going forward
So lay off the personal invective. It’s unpleasant and diminishes you.
You don’t think it’s the right structure but just about everything you say about the EU is based on gross inaccuracies or lazy simplifications. eg your latest error is to ignore the fact that the European Parliament has pan-European groupings with common prospectuses. See, eg:
For a man who affects to be a desiccated calculating machine about the decision to Leave, you sure give the impression of someone working on irrational visceral feelings.
How many votes in the last E.U. election were cast on the basis of those manifestos in your view?
It would be more graceful to admit that you were wrong.
So, to conclude, the European executive is controlled in a strikingly similar way by the European Parliament to the way the UK Parliament controls the British executive (contrary to your first airy assertion) with groupings elected under pan-European manifestos (contrary to your second airy assertion). But because you don’t pay attention to any of this stuff, you’re justified in disregarding it.
That's a deliberate misrepresentation of my position.
But, as I have learnt in the past, you are so smugly convinced of your own moral superiority that there is no point in debating with you.
Are the thousands of Eastern European Roma who have migrated to Rotherham the 'best and brightest' ?
And though they are at the extreme end of the scale few of the working class areas of the UK will be seeing many of the 'best and brightest' either.
Make it easier for the 'best and brightest' from around the world to move to working class areas while restricting the less desirable immigrants and you'll see a changed view on immigration and an improvement in the economy in those areas.
The best way to boost neglected regions is substantial state directed investment.
Money.
This is Labour policy. These people should be flocking to Corbyn. That they are not indicates that Brexit for them is more about identity than economic self-interest.
Not a criticism - just a logical deduction from the evidence.
September election is still 12 on Betfair. I think that’s huge value. October election is in to 4.7, which is probably too short now.
Yes, I think so. I dont think many MPs are looking forward to Conference. In any case even @HYUFD must realise that post a Boris landslide (joke!) some preparation time is needed before the Day of the Dead.
If @HYFUD is right and Boris intends to throw NI under the bus, then we’re going to get a VoNC called by Corbyn within hours of the Con leadership announcement if Boris wins, as the DUP withdraw their confidence.
Bercow will of course be happy to extend Parliament, or do anything else required to facilitate Parliament frustrating Boris.
There’s also the chance of Dominic Grieve, Ken Clarke and a couple of other older Tory remainers being happy to resign the whip, vote against a Boris government and retire at the election.
I think we get a massive constitutional mess in the last week of July, and have an election in September with Mrs May still PM.
For this reason, Jeremy Corbyn at 75 for next PM is also massive value on BF Ex.
Except Boris will only throw the DUP under the bus once he wins a Tory majority and then can pass the Withdrawal Agreement with the temporary Customs Union for GB removed and with the backstop for Northern Ireland still present (perhaps subject to confirmatory referendum in NI).
If Boris does it beforehand the Withdrawal Agreement still would not pass as the DUP would vote it down even if every Tory MP and a handful of Labour rebels like Flint voted for it.
If Grieve and Clarke etc VONC a Boris Government no bother as the only way now to deliver a real Brexit Deal or No Deal is with a Boris Tory majority on that ticket before October.
The current Commons as has been clear will not vote for the Withdrawal Agreement and will always vote for extension and most likely Revoke over No Deal
The reality is that you can’t apply that logic by bundling all decisions into the same framework; some matters (a lot more, as it happens) should properly be decided at local or even hyper-local,level; other issues require international co-operation. At all levels, the more there is democratic accountability the better.
Our current setup is deficient principally because there are insufficient or flawed mechanisms for ensuring that accountability at both EU and national level, and because our system of local government remains under national government control in terms of its structure, governance and financing.
I agree.
We should reform local government. There's a good case for a federal UK (at the risk of unleashing the wrath of @Morris_Dancer).
Certainly many issues require international cooperation.
However, in my view, with the established direction of travel, the only way to make the EU effective and democratically accountable is to integrate completely and form a new single state.
I don't think that the peoples of the EU are ready for that, and therefore we are better off being a friendly neighbour and cooperating where appropriate.
There was another path that could have been taken by the EU as a whole, but once the Euro was established the choice has been made for good or ill.
September election is still 12 on Betfair. I think that’s huge value. October election is in to 4.7, which is probably too short now.
Yes, I think so. I dont think many MPs are looking forward to Conference. In any case even @HYUFD must realise that post a Boris landslide (joke!) some preparation time is needed before the Day of the Dead.
If @HYFUD is right and Boris intends to throw NI under the bus, then we’re going to get a VoNC called by Corbyn within hours of the Con leadership announcement if Boris wins, as the DUP withdraw their confidence.
Bercow will of course be happy to extend Parliament, or do anything else required to facilitate Parliament frustrating Boris.
There’s also the chance of Dominic Grieve, Ken Clarke and a couple of other older Tory remainers being happy to resign the whip, vote against a Boris government and retire at the election.
I think we get a massive constitutional mess in the last week of July, and have an election in September with Mrs May still PM.
For this reason, Jeremy Corbyn at 75 for next PM is also massive value on BF Ex.
Except Boris will only throw the DUP under the bus once he wins a Tory majority and then can pass the Withdrawal Agreement with the temporary Customs Union for GB removed and with the backstop for Northern Ireland still present (perhaps subject to confirmatory referendum in NI).
If Boris does it beforehand the Withdrawal Agreement still would not pass as the DUP would vote it down even if every Tory MP and a handful of Labour rebels like Flint voted for it.
If Grieve and Clarke etc VONC a Boris Government no bother as the only way now to deliver a real Brexit Deal or No Deal is with a Boris Tory majority.
The current Commons as has been clear will not vote for the Withdrawal Agreement and will always vote for extension and most likely Revoke over No Deal
So 11/1 for an election in September is good value?
We should reform local government. There's a good case for a federal UK (at the risk of unleashing the wrath of @Morris_Dancer).
However, in my view, with the established direction of travel, the only way to make the EU effective and democratically accountable is to integrate completely and form a new single state.
Contradiction alert. Why can a federal UK work but a confederal EU cannot?
You voted for an MEP. In the same way as voting for an MP, voting for an MEP helps select the ultimate make-up of the European Parliament, which in turn has control over the next Commission president, who in turn chooses the Commissioners.
It’s a strikingly similar system. You just have an irrational visceral hostility to the EU which leads you to make such idiotic remarks.
Except that we do not have pan-European parties with single programmes. I dislike coalitions because people don’t get to make an informed choice.
Incidentally, you claim I have a “visceral hatred of the EU”. I don’t - as it happens I don’t hate anything or anyone as it is an entirely negative emotion - I just don’t think it was the right political structure for the U.K. going forward
So lay off the personal invective. It’s unpleasant and diminishes you.
You don’t think it’s the right structure but just about everything you say about the EU is based on gross inaccuracies or lazy simplifications. eg your latest error is to ignore the fact that the European Parliament has pan-European groupings with common prospectuses. See, eg:
For a man who affects to be a desiccated calculating machine about the decision to Leave, you sure give the impression of someone working on irrational visceral feelings.
How many votes in the last E.U. election were cast on the basis of those manifestos in your view?
It would be more graceful to admit that you were wrong.
So, to conclude, the European executive is controlled in a strikingly similar way by the European Parliament to the way the UK Parliament controls the British executive (contrary to your first airy assertion) with groupings elected under pan-European manifestos (contrary to your second airy assertion). But because you don’t pay attention to any of this stuff, you’re justified in disregarding it.
That's a deliberate misrepresentation of my position.
But, as I have learnt in the past, you are so smugly convinced of your own moral superiority that there is no point in debating with you.
Have a nice Sunday.
In what way is it an inaccurate representation of your position as you have developed it on here today?
Hunt says Fuck Business. Johnson believes in the Magic Money Tree. They do not seem to have worked out just what a gift this is to the Labour party. And the Labour party has yet to work out that to exploit such a gift it needs a new leader.
If Johnson was planning to borrow to invest in infrastructure that would be one thing. Bond rates are excellent for long term borrowing at moment. UK 50 year gilts at about 1.3%. Surely decent infrastructure projects would beat that as a return with increased productivity and knock on effects?
Borrowing for tax cuts and trying to out Ireland on corporation taxes is a different kettle of fish.
Absolutely - and that argument is the same one we had under Brown. Inflating borrowing for tax cuts is the same bad policy.
It was like listening to Shadow CoE Ed Balls. Thumbs up to “investment borrowing” that is what the Conservative party successfully argued in 2015 the same as “borrowing creating more debt”.
The key thing is what Boris didn’t say this morning. He didn’t say no.
"I don't want to prorogue parliament nor do I expect to. I don't think that's going to be necessary and I think that it's far more important that MPs focus on where we are."
Anyone think that = no?
Stopping Brexit, having a peoples vote, all that is dead in the water once we Brexit. Once we Brexit it’s a whole different ball game. Once Boris is in number ten his mission will be to take us out into that new ball game. Does anyone here think parliament is actually going to stop him? You really believe that?
On the basis of that Ridge interview Johnson has no meaningful strategy beyond unicorns and when it all goes pear-shaped he will take no responsibility whatsoever. A complete charlatan who will soon be deservedly exposed for the fraud he is.
It hasn't worked that way with Trump and it won't for Johnson.
Trump is working within a completely different system that shields him despite the large majority of Americans opposing him. The dynamics are different in the UK.
I don't think that they are. Johnson's back-story supports me too, from Darius Guppy, the zip wire, through the garden bridge to Carrie-gate. The chaotic personal life, the profligate Mayor, the dangerously incompetent Foreign Secretary.
Any one of these issues should sink a career, but Johnson gets a free pass. 'Boris will be Boris'!
This is the first time he has come under sustained and critical scrutiny. Trump can win despite being hugely unpopular. I doubt Johnson can because the UK system is very different. And Johnson is entirely dependent on Farage, so cannot pivot.
No, the UK system is exactly the same as the US system ie FPTP.
Boris could win even while losing the popular vote given 2/3 of constituencies voted Leave
Nope, there is no scope for tactical voting in the US system. Johnson is totally dependent on Farage.
What an absolutely ridiculous point. Hillary got 48% of the vote in 2016, far more than Labour or the LDs have ever got but Trump still won
I'm sorry you don't understand the point I'm making. Though I'm not surprised.
You clearly do not understand 2/3 of constituencies voted Leave even if only 52% of voters did
I think the point re tactical voting was in relation to the US has little opportunity for it as it is rare to have a significant third party.
Nader and the Greens arguably cost Gore the 2000 US presidential election and Perot arguably cost Bush Snr the 1992 presidential election
We should reform local government. There's a good case for a federal UK (at the risk of unleashing the wrath of @Morris_Dancer).
However, in my view, with the established direction of travel, the only way to make the EU effective and democratically accountable is to integrate completely and form a new single state.
Contradiction alert. Why can a federal UK work but a confederal EU cannot?
September election is still 12 on Betfair. I think that’s huge value. October election is in to 4.7, which is probably too short now.
Yes, I think so. I dont think many MPs are looking forward to Conference. In any case even @HYUFD must realise that post a Boris landslide (joke!) some preparation time is needed before the Day of the Dead.
If @HYFUD is right and Boris intends to throw NI under the bus, then we’re going to get a VoNC called by Corbyn within hours of the Con leadership announcement if Boris wins, as the DUP withdraw their confidence.
Bercow will of course be happy to extend Parliament, or do anything else required to facilitate Parliament frustrating Boris.
There’s also the chance of Dominic Grieve, Ken Clarke and a couple of other older Tory remainers being happy to resign the whip, vote against a Boris government and retire at the election.
I think we get a massive constitutional mess in the last week of July, and have an election in September with Mrs May still PM.
For this reason, Jeremy Corbyn at 75 for next PM is also massive value on BF Ex.
Except Boris will only throw the DUP under the bus once he wins a Tory majority and then can pass the Withdrawal Agreement with the temporary Customs Union for GB removed and with the backstop for Northern Ireland still present (perhaps subject to confirmatory referendum in NI).
If Boris does it beforehand the Withdrawal Agreement still would not pass as the DUP would vote it down even if every Tory MP and a handful of Labour rebels like Flint voted for it.
If Grieve and Clarke etc VONC a Boris Government no bother as the only way now to deliver a real Brexit Deal or No Deal is with a Boris Tory majority.
The current Commons as has been clear will not vote for the Withdrawal Agreement and will always vote for extension and most likely Revoke over No Deal
So 11/1 for an election in September is good value?
As the Cabinet Manual puts it, ‘governments are expected by convention to observe discretion in initiating any new action of a continuing or long-term character in the period immediately preceding an election’ (paragraph 2.27). Paragraph 2.29 explains that this means deferring major policy decisions. Since the only way to defer ‘no deal’ would be to ask the EU for an extension, convention would demand that the Prime Minister do this – even if he chose to go into the election campaigning for ‘no deal’.
I disagree with this. The Commons voted for No Deal by default when they voted to trigger A50. Requesting a further extension to A50 would be a major policy decision.
The Cabinet Manual was only drawn up during Gordon Brown's time as PM. As such , it is a Civil Service document of very recent years and is not obviously binding in constitutional terms. Essentialy it amounts to a series of recommendations in a range of possible scenarios.
The reality is that the EU will continue to wield outsize influence on us after we have left. In whatever manner.
We didn’t in the past
Define we.
Previous PMs representing the UK's interests. We've managed the occasional negative veto, but I'm not aware of any positive choice we've made since the days of Peter Smithers and Roy Jenkins.
We should reform local government. There's a good case for a federal UK (at the risk of unleashing the wrath of @Morris_Dancer).
However, in my view, with the established direction of travel, the only way to make the EU effective and democratically accountable is to integrate completely and form a new single state.
Contradiction alert. Why can a federal UK work but a confederal EU cannot?
A federal EU could work - I didn't mean "single state" to be interpreted as "unitary"
I don't think a confederation would work. Essentially with a single currency you need fiscal transfers - this requires a high level of democratic oversight which I don't believe would be possible with a voluntary confederation.
The reality is that you can’t apply that logic by bundling all decisions into the same framework; some matters (a lot more, as it happens) should properly be decided at local or even hyper-local,level; other issues require international co-operation. At all levels, the more there is democratic accountability the better.
Our current setup is deficient principally because there are insufficient or flawed mechanisms for ensuring that accountability at both EU and national level, and because our system of local government remains under national government control in terms of its structure, governance and financing.
I agree.
We should reform local government. There's a good case for a federal UK (at the risk of unleashing the wrath of @Morris_Dancer).
Certainly many issues require international cooperation.
However, in my view, with the established direction of travel, the only way to make the EU effective and democratically accountable is to integrate completely and form a new single state.
I don't think that the peoples of the EU are ready for that, and therefore we are better off being a friendly neighbour and cooperating where appropriate.
There was another path that could have been taken by the EU as a whole, but once the Euro was established the choice has been made for good or ill.
I am not sure you’re fully engaging with the point.
“We should reform local government”, although true, conjures up a government thrusting down its own view of how councils should be organised and managed, which has always been the British way. What is really needed is independence from central government, which necessitates a written constitution protecting the position and rights of local government, as most democracies have, together with an independent tax base, and fair voting to ensure accountability and avoid one-party states. Once the constitution has defined in which areas councils have autonomy, we let them get on with it.
Further, if the UK becomes federal there is no reason why the same logic cannot apply at EU level. The growing necessity for international co-operation on issues such as security and the environment cannot effectively be dealt with simply on an inter-governmental basis.
We should reform local government. There's a good case for a federal UK (at the risk of unleashing the wrath of @Morris_Dancer).
However, in my view, with the established direction of travel, the only way to make the EU effective and democratically accountable is to integrate completely and form a new single state.
Contradiction alert. Why can a federal UK work but a confederal EU cannot?
Demos.
The word 'demos' is misleading. I don't think it is even meaningful to apply it to a state like the UK, where the politics of Northern Ireland are a world away from the politics of Northern Essex.
The reality is that the EU will continue to wield outsize influence on us after we have left. In whatever manner.
We didn’t in the past
Define we.
Previous PMs representing the UK's interests. We've managed the occasional negative veto, but I'm not aware of any positive choice we've made since the days of Peter Smithers and Roy Jenkins.
Then you should learn about the great work of Arthur Cockfield under Thatcher for one thing. Peter Smithers was involved in the Council of Europe, not the EEC/EU.
The reality is that the EU will continue to wield outsize influence on us after we have left. In whatever manner.
We didn’t in the past
Define we.
Previous PMs representing the UK's interests. We've managed the occasional negative veto, but I'm not aware of any positive choice we've made since the days of Peter Smithers and Roy Jenkins.
You hugely underestimate the influence the Uk has had, particularly on shaping EU economic policy and trade.
The reality is that you can’t apply that logic by bundling all decisions into the same framework; some matters (a lot more, as it happens) should properly be decided at local or even hyper-local,level; other issues require international co-operation. At all levels, the more there is democratic accountability the better.
Our current setup is deficient principally because there are insufficient or flawed mechanisms for ensuring that accountability at both EU and national level, and because our system of local government remains under national government control in terms of its structure, governance and financing.
I agree.
We should reform local government. There's a good case for a federal UK (at the risk of unleashing the wrath of @Morris_Dancer).
Certainly many issues require international cooperation.
However, in my view, with the established direction of travel, the only way to make the EU effective and democratically accountable is to integrate completely and form a new single state.
I don't think that the peoples of the EU are ready for that, and therefore we are better off being a friendly neighbour and cooperating where appropriate.
There was another path that could have been taken by the EU as a whole, but once the Euro was established the choice has been made for good or ill.
I am not sure you’re fully engaging with the point.
“We should reform local government”, although true, conjures up a government thrusting down its own view of how councils should be organised and managed, which has always been the British way. What is really needed is independence from central government, which necessitates a written constitution protecting the position and rights of local government, as most democracies have, together with an independent tax base, and fair voting to ensure accountability and avoid one-party states. Once the constitution has defined in which areas councils have autonomy, we let them get on with it.
Further, if the UK becomes federal there is no reason why the same logic cannot apply at EU level. The growing necessity for international co-operation on issues such as security and the environment cannot effectively be dealt with simply on an inter-governmental basis.
I didn't want to get sidetracked onto local government, but I suspect that we would agree on a lot of the structural issues. I'm not convinced a written constitution is a good idea - I heard Lord Sumption give a great lecture on Radio 4 the other day on this. Essentially it would be a document of its time.
A federal government for the EU could work. I just don't believe it is necessary or desirable. I do see it as inevitable, so chose to get off the bus at this point.
We should reform local government. There's a good case for a federal UK (at the risk of unleashing the wrath of @Morris_Dancer).
However, in my view, with the established direction of travel, the only way to make the EU effective and democratically accountable is to integrate completely and form a new single state.
Contradiction alert. Why can a federal UK work but a confederal EU cannot?
Demos.
The word 'demos' is misleading. I don't think it is even meaningful to apply it to a state like the UK, where the politics of Northern Ireland are a world away from the politics of Northern Essex.
Okay then. The problem is that UK citizens don’t consider themselves to be primarily European, and don’t wish to be ruled from Brussels (and Strasbourg for one week a month).
Some people might say something similar about Scottish people not wanting to be ruled from London.
The reality is that the EU will continue to wield outsize influence on us after we have left. In whatever manner.
We didn’t in the past
Define we.
Previous PMs representing the UK's interests. We've managed the occasional negative veto, but I'm not aware of any positive choice we've made since the days of Peter Smithers and Roy Jenkins.
Then you should learn about the great work of Arthur Cockfield under Thatcher for one thing. Peter Smithers was involved in the Council of Europe, not the EEC/EU.
Cockfield was a Commissioner but not the top job, which is what we were discussing specifically.
The reality is that you can’t apply that logic by bundling all decisions into the same framework; some matters (a lot more, as it happens) should properly be decided at local or even hyper-local,level; other issues require international co-operation. At all levels, the more there is democratic accountability the better.
Our current setup is deficient principally because there are insufficient or flawed mechanisms for ensuring that accountability at both EU and national level, and because our system of local government remains under national government control in terms of its structure, governance and financing.
I agree.
We should reform local government. There's a good case for a federal UK (at the risk of unleashing the wrath of @Morris_Dancer).
Certainly many issues require international cooperation.
However, in my view, with the established direction of travel, the only way to make the EU effective and democratically accountable is to integrate completely and form a new single state.
I don't think that the peoples of the EU are ready for that, and therefore we are better off being a friendly neighbour and cooperating where appropriate.
There was another path that could have been taken by the EU as a whole, but once the Euro was established the choice has been made for good or ill.
I am not sure you’re fully engaging with the point.
“We should reform local government”, although true, conjures up a government thrusting down its own view of how councils should be organised and managed, which has always been the British way. What is really needed is independence from central government, which necessitates a written constitution protecting the position and rights of local government, as most democracies have, together with an independent tax base, and fair voting to ensure accountability and avoid one-party states. Once the constitution has defined in which areas councils have autonomy, we let them get on with it.
Further, if the UK becomes federal there is no reason why the same logic cannot apply at EU level. The growing necessity for international co-operation on issues such as security and the environment cannot effectively be dealt with simply on an inter-governmental basis.
Are people of the UK willing to accept that? Independence of tax base means a lot of winners and a lot of losers. Are our local councillors skilled enough to manage true autonomy? Making their own decisions rather than choosing from a carefully selected list of options...
Speaking as a current Deputy Council Leader, I'm not sure we have the necessary skills across the country in local representatives.
September election is still 12 on Betfair. I think that’s huge value. October election is in to 4.7, which is probably too short now.
Yes, I think so. I dont think many MPs are looking forward to Conference. In any case even @HYUFD must realise that post a Boris landslide (joke!) some preparation time is needed before the Day of the Dead.
If @HYFUD is right and Boris intends to throw NI under the bus, then we’re going to get a VoNC called by Corbyn within hours of the Con leadership announcement if Boris wins, as the DUP withdraw their confidence.
Bercow will of course be happy to extend Parliament, or do anything else required to facilitate Parliament frustrating Boris.
There’s also the chance of Dominic Grieve, Ken Clarke and a couple of other older Tory remainers being happy to resign the whip, vote against a Boris government and retire at the election.
I think we get a massive constitutional mess in the last week of July, and have an election in September with Mrs May still PM.
For this reason, Jeremy Corbyn at 75 for next PM is also massive value on BF Ex.
Except Boris will only throw the DUP under the bus once he wins a Tory majority and then can pass the Withdrawal Agreement with the temporary Customs Union for GB removed and with the backstop for Northern Ireland still present (perhaps subject to confirmatory referendum in NI).
If Boris does it beforehand the Withdrawal Agreement still would not pass as the DUP would vote it down even if every Tory MP and a handful of Labour rebels like Flint voted for it.
If Grieve and Clarke etc VONC a Boris Government no bother as the only way now to deliver a real Brexit Deal or No Deal is with a Boris Tory majority on that ticket before October.
The current Commons as has been clear will not vote for the Withdrawal Agreement and will always vote for extension and most likely Revoke over No Deal
Unpleasant though they are, the DUP don’t strike me as the innocent dupes as whom you paint them. The current parliamentary arrangement suits them hugely and I expect they’ll be thinking through the steps and threats they need to make to protect their current leverage.
The reality is that the EU will continue to wield outsize influence on us after we have left. In whatever manner.
We didn’t in the past
Define we.
Previous PMs representing the UK's interests. We've managed the occasional negative veto, but I'm not aware of any positive choice we've made since the days of Peter Smithers and Roy Jenkins.
You hugely underestimate the influence the Uk has had, particularly on shaping EU economic policy and trade.
we were discussing a relatively narrow point on the top jobs in the EU Commission
Are the thousands of Eastern European Roma who have migrated to Rotherham the 'best and brightest' ?
And though they are at the extreme end of the scale few of the working class areas of the UK will be seeing many of the 'best and brightest' either.
Make it easier for the 'best and brightest' from around the world to move to working class areas while restricting the less desirable immigrants and you'll see a changed view on immigration and an improvement in the economy in those areas.
The best way to boost neglected regions is substantial state directed investment.
Money.
This is Labour policy. These people should be flocking to Corbyn. That they are not indicates that Brexit for them is more about identity than economic self-interest.
Not a criticism - just a logical deduction from the evidence.
They've had Labour governments, they've had Labour councils, they've had Labour MPs ** and how much help did they get from them ?
Observing from one such area I can tell you that the Blair and Brown governments were far worse for manufacturing employment and road building than those which followed afterwards.
** who are often parachuted outsiders who show no interest in their constituencies
tablished direction of travel, the only way to make the EU effective and democratically accountable is to integrate completely and form a new single state.
I don't think that the peoples of the EU are ready for that, and therefore we are better off being a friendly neighbour and cooperating where appropriate.
There was another path that could have been taken by the EU as a whole, but once the Euro was established the choice has been made for good or ill.
I am not sure you’re fully engaging with the point.
“We should reform local government”, although true, conjures up a government thrusting down its own view of how councils should be organised and managed, which has always been the British way. What is really needed is independence from central government, which necessitates a written constitution protecting the position and rights of local government, as most democracies have, together with an independent tax base, and fair voting to ensure accountability and avoid one-party states. Once the constitution has defined in which areas councils have autonomy, we let them get on with it.
Further, if the UK becomes federal there is no reason why the same logic cannot apply at EU level. The growing necessity for international co-operation on issues such as security and the environment cannot effectively be dealt with simply on an inter-governmental basis.
Are people of the UK willing to accept that? Independence of tax base means a lot of winners and a lot of losers. Are our local councillors skilled enough to manage true autonomy? Making their own decisions rather than choosing from a carefully selected list of options...
Speaking as a current Deputy Council Leader, I'm not sure we have.
You’re right to identify that one of the obstacles to financial independence has always been the need for redistribution between richer and poorer areas; even within a ‘rich’ area like London, funds are redistributed from Westminster to other Boroughs, given the former’s massive business rate base.
One option is that the government would continue to manage this, as it does now through the local government grant process. A better option is that this be put in the hands of the LGA, which has a good track record of advocating in the interests of all authorities and less likely than government to bias the formula one way or the other depending on which party is dominant.
On this basis it would be possible to devolve the tax base to local government without any winners or losers - they take over the current council tax and business rate tax bases as is.
One of the challenges to my suggestion is of course that it would be better to replace both with some sort of land value tax.
I've long thought the only two coherent positions are fully autonomous nation states co-operating and collaborating as and when desirable and practical and a fully integrated European Federation (EuroFed) with the big issues settled at European level but devolution for other issues to much lower levels.
Except Boris will only throw the DUP under the bus once he wins a Tory majority and then can pass the Withdrawal Agreement with the temporary Customs Union for GB removed and with the backstop for Northern Ireland still present (perhaps subject to confirmatory referendum in NI).
We're back to this "Tory majority" theory - it's true, some polls have predicted this but only, and this needs repeating, once we have left the EU on 31/10. Given the EU have said they won't change the WA it seems odd to assert that even with a majority the WA will be changed. It won't. It may pass with a Boris majority but it will pass as it is not as an amended document.
Back to the "majority" - it occurs only once Brexit has been achieved so in other words we have to leave in order to vote in a majority which will enable us to leave - yes, I'm confused too.
If Boris does it beforehand the Withdrawal Agreement still would not pass as the DUP would vote it down even if every Tory MP and a handful of Labour rebels like Flint voted for it.
If Grieve and Clarke etc VONC a Boris Government no bother as the only way now to deliver a real Brexit Deal or No Deal is with a Boris Tory majority on that ticket before October.
The current Commons as has been clear will not vote for the Withdrawal Agreement and will always vote for extension and most likely Revoke over No Deal
If the current WA goes through the current Commons even with Boris as PM, it'll likely fail. I don't know if a Johnson led Government will fall to a Vote of No Confidence - the numbers are not clear and it's not even clear a VoNC will be proposed as early as July 25th and especially not if the House votes to rise for the summer recess.
I don't know the strength of anti-No Deal feeling in the Conservative Party - it clearly exists but whether it will manifest in anything other than noise by the usual suspects remains to be seen.
So Boris has to change the parliamentary arithmetic or do nothing and hope the EU don't offer another extension. If the EU offer an extension and Boris refuses it the endgame will begin as he is outvoted by the Commons and compelled either to break his word, agree to an extension and perhaps end the Conservative Party in its current form or seek a GE. That election will be a huge gamble but it will be the last throw of the dice.
The reality is that you can’t apply that logic by bundling all decisions into the same framework; some matters (a lot more, as it happens) should properly be decided at local or even hyper-local,level; other issues require international co-operation. At all levels, ng.
I agree.
We should reform local government. There's a good case for a federal UK (at the risk of unleashing the wrath of @Morris_Dancer).
Certainly many issues require international cooperation.
However, in my view, with the established direction of travel, the only way to make the EU effective and democratically accountable is to integrate completely and form a new single state.
I don't think that the peoples of the EU are ready for that, and therefore we are better off being a friendly neighbour and cooperating where appropriate.
There was another path that could have been taken by the EU as a whole, but once the Euro was established the choice has been made for good or ill.
I am not sure you’re fully engaging with the point.
“We should reform local government”, although true, conjures up a government thrusting down its own view of how councils should be organised and managed, which has always been the British way. What is really needed is independence from central government, which necessitates a written constitution protecting the position and rights of local government, as most democracies have, together with an independent tax base, and fair voting to ensure accountability and avoid one-party states. Once the constitution has defined in which areas councils have autonomy, we let them get on with it.
Further, if the UK becomes federal there is no reason why the same logic cannot apply at EU level. The growing necessity for international co-operation on issues such as security and the environment cannot effectively be dealt with simply on an inter-governmental basis.
I didn't want to get sidetracked onto local government, but I suspect that we would agree on a lot of the structural issues. I'm not convinced a written constitution is a good idea - I heard Lord Sumption give a great lecture on Radio 4 the other day on this. Essentially it would be a document of its time.
A federal government for the EU could work. I just don't believe it is necessary or desirable. I do see it as inevitable, so chose to get off the bus at this point.
A constitution protects local government in other democracies from the whim of central government; in the UK the government is able to merge or abolish councils, change their funding, remove or curtail their powers, direct their internal organisation, all at whim of whichever party has a majority based on 35%+ of the popular vote at the time.
As far as local Government is concerned, the one indefensible now is the two-tier system of counties and boroughs/districts. We have seen Councils merge and amalgamate but in some areas the ludicrous anomaly persists. The next round of local Government re-organisation needs to challenge this.
The city isn’t working Westminster isn’t working Whitehall isn’t working The party system isn’t working The regions aren’t working.
Apart from that, the British political system is in rude health and primed for the challenges ahead.
Yet the country just chugs along nicely. It's working.
Unless you take the view that the growing crisis we find ourselves in is evidence that, actually, it hasn’t been “working” for some time.
What crisis? We have a parliament that doesnt wish to honour the obligation it agreed to impose upon itself when triggering our leaving the EU. That is the start and end of it.
A paralysed government and parliament is a quirk that we are not used to in the UK. But a function of pretty much every parliament in the world, handling a fractured bickering legislature is a skill every european leader learns early on. Even other FPTP electoral systems can create paralysis. The US system is a perpetual paralysis but seems to function fairly well as the world's super power.
We should reform local government. There's a good case for a federal UK (at the risk of unleashing the wrath of @Morris_Dancer).
However, in my view, with the established direction of travel, the only way to make the EU effective and democratically accountable is to integrate completely and form a new single state.
Contradiction alert. Why can a federal UK work but a confederal EU cannot?
Demos.
The word 'demos' is misleading. I don't think it is even meaningful to apply it to a state like the UK, where the politics of Northern Ireland are a world away from the politics of Northern Essex.
Okay then. The problem is that UK citizens don’t consider themselves to be primarily European, and don’t wish to be ruled from Brussels (and Strasbourg for one week a month).
Some people might say something similar about Scottish people not wanting to be ruled from London.
Houston we have a problem...
If only people who considered themselves to be primarily British voted in the referendum, Remain would have won. Brexit was carried by people who don't think of themselves primarily as British but as English.
We should reform local government. There's a good case for a federal UK (at the risk of unleashing the wrath of @Morris_Dancer).
However, in my view, with the established direction of travel, the only way to make the EU effective and democratically accountable is to integrate completely and form a new single state.
Contradiction alert. Why can a federal UK work but a confederal EU cannot?
Demos.
The word 'demos' is misleading. I don't think it is even meaningful to apply it to a state like the UK, where the politics of Northern Ireland are a world away from the politics of Northern Essex.
Okay then. The problem is that UK citizens don’t consider themselves to be primarily European, and don’t wish to be ruled from Brussels (and Strasbourg for one week a month).
Some people might say something similar about Scottish people not wanting to be ruled from London.
Houston we have a problem...
If only people who considered themselves to be primarily British voted in the referendum, Remain would have won. Brexit was carried by people who don't think of themselves primarily as British but as English.
We should reform local government. There's a good case for a federal UK (at the risk of unleashing the wrath of @Morris_Dancer).
However, in my view, with the established direction of travel, the only way to make the EU effective and democratically accountable is to integrate completely and form a new single state.
Contradiction alert. Why can a federal UK work but a confederal EU cannot?
Demos.
The word 'demos' is misleading. I don't think it is even meaningful to apply it to a state like the UK, where the politics of Northern Ireland are a world away from the politics of Northern Essex.
Okay then. The problem is that UK citizens don’t consider themselves to be primarily European, and don’t wish to be ruled from Brussels (and Strasbourg for one week a month).
Some people might say something similar about Scottish people not wanting to be ruled from London.
Houston we have a problem...
If only people who considered themselves to be primarily British voted in the referendum, Remain would have won. Brexit was carried by people who don't think of themselves primarily as British but as English.
Which in no way changes the truth of what Sandpit was saying.
As far as local Government is concerned, the one indefensible now is the two-tier system of counties and boroughs/districts. We have seen Councils merge and amalgamate but in some areas the ludicrous anomaly persists. The next round of local Government re-organisation needs to challenge this.
Having sat at both county and district level, it is indeed a wasteful system... The absence of a wide scale social housing responsibility has left the districts them twiddling their thumbs.
We should reform local government. There's a good case for a federal UK (at the risk of unleashing the wrath of @Morris_Dancer).
However, in my view, with the established direction of travel, the only way to make the EU effective and democratically accountable is to integrate completely and form a new single state.
Contradiction alert. Why can a federal UK work but a confederal EU cannot?
Demos.
The word 'demos' is misleading. I don't think it is even meaningful to apply it to a state like the UK, where the politics of Northern Ireland are a world away from the politics of Northern Essex.
Okay then. The problem is that UK citizens don’t consider themselves to be primarily European, and don’t wish to be ruled from Brussels (and Strasbourg for one week a month).
Some people might say something similar about Scottish people not wanting to be ruled from London.
Houston we have a problem...
If only people who considered themselves to be primarily British voted in the referendum, Remain would have won. Brexit was carried by people who don't think of themselves primarily as British but as English.
and welsh.
I don’t think that’s right. People identifying as Welsh voted Remain.
We should reform local government. There's a good case for a federal UK (at the risk of unleashing the wrath of @Morris_Dancer).
However, in my view, with the established direction of travel, the only way to make the EU effective and democratically accountable is to integrate completely and form a new single state.
Contradiction alert. Why can a federal UK work but a confederal EU cannot?
Demos.
The word 'demos' is misleading. I don't think it is even meaningful to apply it to a state like the UK, where the politics of Northern Ireland are a world away from the politics of Northern Essex.
Okay then. The problem is that UK citizens don’t consider themselves to be primarily European, and don’t wish to be ruled from Brussels (and Strasbourg for one week a month).
Some people might say something similar about Scottish people not wanting to be ruled from London.
Houston we have a problem...
If only people who considered themselves to be primarily British voted in the referendum, Remain would have won. Brexit was carried by people who don't think of themselves primarily as British but as English.
Who mentioned British, or English (or Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish?). I was talking about UK citizens not seeing themselves as primarily European and not wanting to be ruled by Europe.
I've long thought the only two coherent positions are fully autonomous nation states co-operating and collaborating as and when desirable and practical and a fully integrated European Federation (EuroFed) with the big issues settled at European level but devolution for other issues to much lower levels.
Except Boris will only throw the DUP under the bus once he wins a Tory majority and then can pass the Withdrawal Agreement with the temporary Customs Union for GB removed and with the backstop for Northern Ireland still present (perhaps subject to confirmatory referendum in NI).
If Boris does it beforehand the Withdrawal Agreement still would not pass as the DUP it Deal or No Deal is with a Boris Tory majority on that ticket before October.
The current Commons as has been clear will not vote for the Withdrawal Agreement and will always vote for extension and most likely Revoke over No Deal
If the current WA goes through the current Commons even with Boris as PM, it'll likely fail. I don't know if a Johnson led Government will fall to a Vote of No Confidence - the numbers are not clear and it's not even clear a VoNC will be proposed as early as July 25th and especially not if the House votes to rise for the summer recess.
I don't know the strength of anti-No Deal feeling in the Conservative Party - it clearly exists but whether it will manifest in anything other than noise by the usual suspects remains to be seen.
So Boris has to change the parliamentary arithmetic or do nothing and hope the EU don't offer another extension. If the EU offer an extension and Boris refuses it the endgame will begin as he is outvoted by the Commons and compelled either to break his word, agree to an extension and perhaps end the Conservative Party in its current form or seek a GE. That election will be a huge gamble but it will be the last throw of the dice.
Loath as I am to play devil’s advocate for the site yurodivy, the challenges to your conclusion appear to be:
- the WA might get through if the 26 Labour leavers who signed that recent letter support it and the ERG is willing to eat some humble pie and give Boris the benefit of the doubt; - the Tories could do well in a GE where there is some understanding between them and the BXP and the opposition parties don’t co-operate or tactical voting fails.
I regard these both as long shots and hence am as amused at HY’s overexuberance as the rest of you; nevertheless this isn’t to say that they can’t happen.
In particular it is frightening that so much hangs on what exactly Farage is aiming to achieve and whether he is playing for the short or longer term.
We should reform local government. There's a good case for a federal UK (at the risk of unleashing the wrath of @Morris_Dancer).
However, in my view, with the established direction of travel, the only way to make the EU effective and democratically accountable is to integrate completely and form a new single state.
Contradiction alert. Why can a federal UK work but a confederal EU cannot?
Demos.
The word 'demos' is misleading. I don't think it is even meaningful to apply it to a state like the UK, where the politics of Northern Ireland are a world away from the politics of Northern Essex.
Okay then. The problem is that UK citizens don’t consider themselves to be primarily European, and don’t wish to be ruled from Brussels (and Strasbourg for one week a month).
Some people might say something similar about Scottish people not wanting to be ruled from London.
Houston we have a problem...
If only people who considered themselves to be primarily British voted in the referendum, Remain would have won. Brexit was carried by people who don't think of themselves primarily as British but as English.
Who mentioned British, or English (or Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish?). I was talking about UK citizens not seeing themselves as primarily European and not wanting to be ruled by Europe.
I mentioned it... because if the logic applies to the EU, it also applies to the UK. The only way to deliver what they voted for, if you are right, is for the UK to break up.
We should reform local government. There's a good case for a federal UK (at the risk of unleashing the wrath of @Morris_Dancer).
However, in my view, with the established direction of travel, the only way to make the EU effective and democratically accountable is to integrate completely and form a new single state.
Contradiction alert. Why can a federal UK work but a confederal EU cannot?
Demos.
The word 'demos' is misleading. I don't think it is even meaningful to apply it to a state like the UK, where the politics of Northern Ireland are a world away from the politics of Northern Essex.
Okay then. The problem is that UK citizens don’t consider themselves to be primarily European, and don’t wish to be ruled from Brussels (and Strasbourg for one week a month).
Some people might say something similar about Scottish people not wanting to be ruled from London.
Houston we have a problem...
If only people who considered themselves to be primarily British voted in the referendum, Remain would have won. Brexit was carried by people who don't think of themselves primarily as British but as English.
Who mentioned British, or English (or Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish?). I was talking about UK citizens not seeing themselves as primarily European and not wanting to be ruled by Europe.
I mentioned it... because if the logic applies to the EU, it also applies to the UK. The only way to deliver what they voted for, if you are right, is for the UK to break up.
Not at all. It’s up to the people to decide who rules them.
I believe one part of the UK might even have attempted such a change in the last few years.
We should reform local government. There's a good case for a federal UK (at the risk of unleashing the wrath of @Morris_Dancer).
However, in my view, with the established direction of travel, the only way to make the EU effective and democratically accountable is to integrate completely and form a new single state.
Contradiction alert. Why can a federal UK work but a confederal EU cannot?
Demos.
The word 'demos' is misleading. I don't think it is even meaningful to apply it to a state like the UK, where the politics of Northern Ireland are a world away from the politics of Northern Essex.
Okay then. The problem is that UK citizens don’t consider themselves to be primarily European, and don’t wish to be ruled from Brussels (and Strasbourg for one week a month).
Some people might say something similar about Scottish people not wanting to be ruled from London.
Houston we have a problem...
If only people who considered themselves to be primarily British voted in the referendum, Remain would have won. Brexit was carried by people who don't think of themselves primarily as British but as English.
and welsh.
I don’t think that’s right. People identifying as Welsh voted Remain.
We should reform local government. There's a good case for a federal UK (at the risk of unleashing the wrath of @Morris_Dancer).
However, in my view, with the established direction of travel, the only way to make the EU effective and democratically accountable is to integrate completely and form a new single state.
Contradiction alert. Why can a federal UK work but a confederal EU cannot?
Demos.
The word 'demos' is misleading. I don't think it is even meaningful to apply it to a state like the UK, where the politics of Northern Ireland are a world away from the politics of Northern Essex.
Okay then. The problem is that UK citizens don’t consider themselves to be primarily European, and don’t wish to be ruled from Brussels (and Strasbourg for one week a month).
Some people might say something similar about Scottish people not wanting to be ruled from London.
Houston we have a problem...
If only people who considered themselves to be primarily British voted in the referendum, Remain would have won. Brexit was carried by people who don't think of themselves primarily as British but as English.
and welsh.
I don’t think that’s right. People identifying as Welsh voted Remain.
Anthony Hopkins identifies as Welsh but lives in LA, so what?
I've long thought the only two coherent positions are fully autonomous nation states co-operating and collaborating as and when desirable and practical and a fully integrated European Federation (EuroFed) with the big issues settled at European level but devolution for other issues to much lower levels.
Except Boris will only throw the DUP under the bus once he wins a Tory majority and then can pass the Withdrawal Agreement with the temporary Customs Union for GB removed and with the backstop for Northern Ireland still present (perhaps subject to confirmatory referendum in NI).
We're back to this "Tory majority" theory - it's true, some polls have predicted this but only, and this needs repeating, once we have left the EU on 31/10. Given the EU have said they won't change the WA it seems odd to assert that even with a majority the WA will be changed. It won't. It may pass with a Boris majority but it will pass as it is not as an amended document.
Back to the "majority" - it occurs only once Brexit has been achieved so in other words we have to leave in order to vote in a majority which will enable us to leave - yes, I'm confused too.
If Boris does it beforehand the Withdrawal Agreement still would not pass as the DUP would vote it down even if every Tory MP and a handful of Labour rebels like Flint voted for it.
If Grieve and Clarke etc VONC a Boris Government no bother as the only way now to deliver a real Brexit Deal or No Deal is with a Boris Tory majority on that ticket before October.
The current Commons as has been clear will not vote for the Withdrawal Agreement and will always vote for extension and most likely Revoke over No Deal
If the current WA goes through the current Commons even with Boris as PM, it'll likely fail. I don't know if a Johnson led Government will fall to a Vote of No Confidence - the numbers are not clear and it's not even clear a VoNC will be proposed as early as July 25th and especially not if the House votes to rise for the summer recess.
I don't know the strength of anti-No Deal feeling in the Conservative Party - it clearly exists but whether it will manifest in anything other than noise by the usual suspects remains to be seen.
So Boris has to change the parliamentary arithmetic or do nothing and hope the EU don't offer another extension. If the EU offer an extension and Boris refuses it the endgame will begin as he is outvoted by the Commons and compelled either to break his word, agree to an extension and perhaps end the Conservative Party in its current form or seek a GE. That election will be a huge gamble but it will be the last throw of the dice.
You’re right to identify that one of the obstacles to financial independence has always been the need for redistribution between richer and poorer areas; even within a ‘rich’ area like London, funds are redistributed from Westminster to other Boroughs, given the former’s massive business rate base.
One option is that the government would continue to manage this, as it does now through the local government grant process. A better option is that this be put in the hands of the LGA, which has a good track record of advocating in the interests of all authorities and less likely than government to bias the formula one way or the other depending on which party is dominant.
On this basis it would be possible to devolve the tax base to local government without any winners or losers - they take over the current council tax and business rate tax bases as is.
One of the challenges to my suggestion is of course that it would be better to replace both with some sort of land value tax.
The trick is to allocate responsibilities and resources appropriately.
It seems to me that local councils should be largely about local service delivery - bins etc - plus mandated service delivery (e.g. social care).
Where it is local service delivery they should set council tax (or whatever) to fund this. If they want to have any pet projects they should justify them and fund them through tax. Mandated service delivery should be funded in full by central government.
If you are going down a federal route, you need to have an interim government level as well, which is much more challenging. But that could be funded by things like business rates and a local sales tax (replacing VAT). You can have a mechanism for redistribution as well from business rates.
And then regions could choose the balance of tax and spending that suits their needs and desires best.
A constitution protects local government in other democracies from the whim of central government; in the UK the government is able to merge or abolish councils, change their funding, remove or curtail their powers, direct their internal organisation, all at whim of whichever party has a majority based on 35%+ of the popular vote at the time.
I would go for a much more narrow technical document with supermajority or dual consent provisions to change it. A broader document is going to end up reflecting the concerns of the day and will cause no end of trouble in future.
An example would be the right to bear arms in the US constitution. It was a very important issue when it was passed, but today it is less appropriate but very difficult to change
A constitution protects local government in other democracies from the whim of central government; in the UK the government is able to merge or abolish councils, change their funding, remove or curtail their powers, direct their internal organisation, all at whim of whichever party has a majority based on 35%+ of the popular vote at the time.
I would go for a much more narrow technical document with supermajority or dual consent provisions to change it. A broader document is going to end up reflecting the concerns of the day and will cause no end of trouble in future.
An example would be the right to bear arms in the US constitution. It was a very important issue when it was passed, but today it is less appropriate but very difficult to change
The “narrow technical” bits of the US Constitution (Arts 1-7) do protect the rights of the States. It was broadened by the first 10 amendments (the Bill of Rights) which does, as you say, contain the problematic 2nd Amendment, which I am convinced is missing a comma.
Comments
"The Unit is recruiting a Research Assistant to assist Meg in her work on parliament and Brexit. Applications close on 14 July. Additional details can be found here."
I'm sure there are a few people here who could teach them a thing or two ;-)
And the Roma are not numerically small in the areas they move to - have thousands of them moving to Rotherham benefited Rotherham or not ?
As I've said before immigration is a class issue.
How many of those earlier non-EU immigrants to northern mill towns were of low education working class origin ?
Now compare those immigrants who were of educated middle class background - the Ugandan Asians for example.
Which group of immigrants have been more successful in this country ?
So does allowing free migration of low educated deprived people to areas of the UK with problems of deprivation and low education help or not ?
Apart from anything else they have helped with our demographics. Without migrants, the country will age more rapidly and there’ll be less workers to support the retired.
Having said that, successive governments have shown no interest in addressing the “downsides”: the need for more infrastructure, the uptick in the “Roma with a Big Issue” syndrome, and the undoubted ease with which our non-contributory welfare system can be gamed by a very small minority.
I wish we could have ended up with some form of associate membership but because of the failings of politicians on all sides that opportunity had been lost (for now)
Given the choice of complete integration or separation, I thought the latter was in the UK’s best interests
I’m not. You’re arguing form. I’m arguing reality.
One reason the NHS is so dependent on immigrant doctors and nurses is simply that we do not train enough of them here.
As the Cabinet Manual puts it, ‘governments are expected by convention to observe discretion in initiating any new action of a continuing or long-term character in the period immediately preceding an election’ (paragraph 2.27). Paragraph 2.29 explains that this means deferring major policy decisions. Since the only way to defer ‘no deal’ would be to ask the EU for an extension, convention would demand that the Prime Minister do this – even if he chose to go into the election campaigning for ‘no deal’.
I disagree with this. The Commons voted for No Deal by default when they voted to trigger A50. Requesting a further extension to A50 would be a major policy decision.
I think we have a single GB wide demos (sometimes not sure about NI 😉) but ultimately that’s up to the Scots to decide.
England 202/1, 30 overs.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/47483578
https://www.politico.eu/article/merkel-backs-real-lead-candidates-tipping-timmermans-and-weber-for-top-eu-jobs/
The reality is that the EU will continue to wield outsize influence on us after we have left. In whatever manner.
And though they are at the extreme end of the scale few of the working class areas of the UK will be seeing many of the 'best and brightest' either.
Make it easier for the 'best and brightest' from around the world to move to working class areas while restricting the less desirable immigrants and you'll see a changed view on immigration and an improvement in the economy in those areas.
An early-November election, with no clear direction indicated by Parliament of the extension question before dissolution, would be yet another constitutional nightmare - there might even be pressure on the opposition parties to abstain on the dissolution vote.
India have realised how to bowl on this pitch.
Jonny out...pack your bags...
Our current setup is deficient principally because there are insufficient or flawed mechanisms for ensuring that accountability at both EU and national level, and because our system of local government remains under national government control in terms of its structure, governance and financing.
And just because Eastern European Roma are a vanishingly small part of the picture from Royal Leamington Spa doesn't mean that applies in Rotherham.
Clearly the absence of Roy and the failure of Vince also unsettled things.
But, as I have learnt in the past, you are so smugly convinced of your own moral superiority that there is no point in debating with you.
Have a nice Sunday.
Money.
This is Labour policy. These people should be flocking to Corbyn. That they are not indicates that Brexit for them is more about identity than economic self-interest.
Not a criticism - just a logical deduction from the evidence.
If Boris does it beforehand the Withdrawal Agreement still would not pass as the DUP would vote it down even if every Tory MP and a handful of Labour rebels like Flint voted for it.
If Grieve and Clarke etc VONC a Boris Government no bother as the only way now to deliver a real Brexit Deal or No Deal is with a Boris Tory majority on that ticket before October.
The current Commons as has been clear will not vote for the Withdrawal Agreement and will always vote for extension and most likely Revoke over No Deal
We should reform local government. There's a good case for a federal UK (at the risk of unleashing the wrath of @Morris_Dancer).
Certainly many issues require international cooperation.
However, in my view, with the established direction of travel, the only way to make the EU effective and democratically accountable is to integrate completely and form a new single state.
I don't think that the peoples of the EU are ready for that, and therefore we are better off being a friendly neighbour and cooperating where appropriate.
There was another path that could have been taken by the EU as a whole, but once the Euro was established the choice has been made for good or ill.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48816458
The key thing is what Boris didn’t say this morning. He didn’t say no.
"I don't want to prorogue parliament nor do I expect to. I don't think that's going to be necessary and I think that it's far more important that MPs focus on where we are."
Anyone think that = no?
Stopping Brexit, having a peoples vote, all that is dead in the water once we Brexit. Once we Brexit it’s a whole different ball game. Once Boris is in number ten his mission will be to take us out into that new ball game. Does anyone here think parliament is actually going to stop him? You really believe that?
I don't think a confederation would work. Essentially with a single currency you need fiscal transfers - this requires a high level of democratic oversight which I don't believe would be possible with a voluntary confederation.
“We should reform local government”, although true, conjures up a government thrusting down its own view of how councils should be organised and managed, which has always been the British way. What is really needed is independence from central government, which necessitates a written constitution protecting the position and rights of local government, as most democracies have, together with an independent tax base, and fair voting to ensure accountability and avoid one-party states. Once the constitution has defined in which areas councils have autonomy, we let them get on with it.
Further, if the UK becomes federal there is no reason why the same logic cannot apply at EU level. The growing necessity for international co-operation on issues such as security and the environment cannot effectively be dealt with simply on an inter-governmental basis.
A federal government for the EU could work. I just don't believe it is necessary or desirable. I do see it as inevitable, so chose to get off the bus at this point.
Some people might say something similar about Scottish people not wanting to be ruled from London.
Speaking as a current Deputy Council Leader, I'm not sure we have the necessary skills across the country in local representatives.
Westminster isn’t working
Whitehall isn’t working
The party system isn’t working
The regions aren’t working.
Apart from that, the British political system is in rude health and primed for the challenges ahead.
Observing from one such area I can tell you that the Blair and Brown governments were far worse for manufacturing employment and road building than those which followed afterwards.
** who are often parachuted outsiders who show no interest in their constituencies
One option is that the government would continue to manage this, as it does now through the local government grant process. A better option is that this be put in the hands of the LGA, which has a good track record of advocating in the interests of all authorities and less likely than government to bias the formula one way or the other depending on which party is dominant.
On this basis it would be possible to devolve the tax base to local government without any winners or losers - they take over the current council tax and business rate tax bases as is.
One of the challenges to my suggestion is of course that it would be better to replace both with some sort of land value tax.
I've long thought the only two coherent positions are fully autonomous nation states co-operating and collaborating as and when desirable and practical and a fully integrated European Federation (EuroFed) with the big issues settled at European level but devolution for other issues to much lower levels.
Anyway, that matters little if at all. We're back to this "Tory majority" theory - it's true, some polls have predicted this but only, and this needs repeating, once we have left the EU on 31/10. Given the EU have said they won't change the WA it seems odd to assert that even with a majority the WA will be changed. It won't. It may pass with a Boris majority but it will pass as it is not as an amended document.
Back to the "majority" - it occurs only once Brexit has been achieved so in other words we have to leave in order to vote in a majority which will enable us to leave - yes, I'm confused too. If the current WA goes through the current Commons even with Boris as PM, it'll likely fail. I don't know if a Johnson led Government will fall to a Vote of No Confidence - the numbers are not clear and it's not even clear a VoNC will be proposed as early as July 25th and especially not if the House votes to rise for the summer recess.
I don't know the strength of anti-No Deal feeling in the Conservative Party - it clearly exists but whether it will manifest in anything other than noise by the usual suspects remains to be seen.
So Boris has to change the parliamentary arithmetic or do nothing and hope the EU don't offer another extension. If the EU offer an extension and Boris refuses it the endgame will begin as he is outvoted by the Commons and compelled either to break his word, agree to an extension and perhaps end the Conservative Party in its current form or seek a GE. That election will be a huge gamble but it will be the last throw of the dice.
We have a parliament that doesnt wish to honour the obligation it agreed to impose upon itself when triggering our leaving the EU. That is the start and end of it.
A paralysed government and parliament is a quirk that we are not used to in the UK. But a function of pretty much every parliament in the world, handling a fractured bickering legislature is a skill every european leader learns early on. Even other FPTP electoral systems can create paralysis. The US system is a perpetual paralysis but seems to function fairly well as the world's super power.
If only people who considered themselves to be primarily British voted in the referendum, Remain would have won. Brexit was carried by people who don't think of themselves primarily as British but as English.
- the WA might get through if the 26 Labour leavers who signed that recent letter support it and the ERG is willing to eat some humble pie and give Boris the benefit of the doubt;
- the Tories could do well in a GE where there is some understanding between them and the BXP and the opposition parties don’t co-operate or tactical voting fails.
I regard these both as long shots and hence am as amused at HY’s overexuberance as the rest of you; nevertheless this isn’t to say that they can’t happen.
In particular it is frightening that so much hangs on what exactly Farage is aiming to achieve and whether he is playing for the short or longer term.
I believe one part of the UK might even have attempted such a change in the last few years.
(Grand Prix to watch. Laters).
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/93518.html
NEW THREAD
A majority of voters living in Wales voted Leave
It seems to me that local councils should be largely about local service delivery - bins etc - plus mandated service delivery (e.g. social care).
Where it is local service delivery they should set council tax (or whatever) to fund this. If they want to have any pet projects they should justify them and fund them through tax. Mandated service delivery should be funded in full by central government.
If you are going down a federal route, you need to have an interim government level as well, which is much more challenging. But that could be funded by things like business rates and a local sales tax (replacing VAT). You can have a mechanism for redistribution as well from business rates.
And then regions could choose the balance of tax and spending that suits their needs and desires best.
An example would be the right to bear arms in the US constitution. It was a very important issue when it was passed, but today it is less appropriate but very difficult to change