The concert promotors and F1 teams also deal with non-EU traffic, and have people to sort the paperwork. It was again something the UK asked for movement on, but the EU chose to be dogmatic about. An arrangement similar to that for trusted traders, could have been set up. The UK was more worried about EU lorries doing internal UK jobs, and the EU linked this to temporary exports.
Generally the well funded teams in motorsport can cope with this because they have lackeys to deal with all of the paperwork. At lower levels where teams are run on a shoestring they can fall foul of the new regulations - Moto2 teams have had multiple riders and crew come a cropper over the 90 day rule.
Over time it's going to shift the motorsports centre of gravity out of the UK just because it's less hassle. Yamaha WSBK recently moved their technical centre to Italy splitting from the shared effort with the BSB team in Lancashire.
For me the honest answer I'd have to give is that Brexit has neither made "daily life" better or worse, its pretty indifferent to be honest.
But that wasn't the point of Brexit.
I assume you don't travel. Queues, pets, 90 day limit. All impact me, friends and family badly. 3 hour queue in Lisbon, cancelled trip to France as couldn't get dog documents in time, have to plan travelling with a dog weeks/months in advance, 90 day limit completely buggered two friends. One camped in motorhome on son's drive having had to return from EU, another having to go thru hoops re his villa in Portugal and travel limited.
In daily life I don't travel daily, no.
I haven't been abroad in a few years due to COVID restrictions but before then typically have one trip abroad per annum, and only a minority of those destinations have been in the EFTA anyway.
Although it is only a small part of Brexit I think this is what most people will experience as a direct impact of it. There may be invisible benefits of Brexit, but everyone who travels will witness those empty EU gates. I suspect that is why the poll came out with such a large 'worse' number. That may not be fair, but it is a fact of life. It is also clear from the chaos that travel has really kicked off again and the chaos is probably a combination of the leftovers of Covid as much as Brexit.
Many people are seeing benefits of brexit. The fact you and many on this board aren't is I suspect because most on this board were those that gained from being in the eu.
Being in the eu there were winners and losers Brexiting there are winners and losers
Some of the winners from being in the eu are now losers.
In my case I cite pay. Using my pay in 1997 as a baseline below is everytime I changed job and my %pay increase vs my 1997 pay. Many of my friends are seeing similar patterns.
What I would be earning if my pay had kept up with inflation since 1997 +97%
Can I prove its down to brexit....well no but the fact I am only seeing payrises when moving job since brexit happened while maybe coincidental is indicative and with others I know seeing a similar pattern something is happening
Don't you work in IT?
If so, I find it frankly unbelievable that your pay in 2014 was 8.25% below what it was in 1997.
Depends on the area in IT. High end stuff in London - definitely not. Lower level stuff outside London, I have seen some startlingly poorly paid IT jobs offered.
Morning all! With respect to the Brexit making people's lives better / worse and what does it matter now - it matters.
Quite simply comments like "nobody voted to make their daily lives better" are utterly ignorant of what so many red wall voters expected.
So it is a serious problem for the government that things have got worse and not better for many of these voters. Yes Covid and Ukraine etc etc but we are talking voters barely engaged with politics. They don't know or care about such details.
Brexit has failed because the NHS has got worse and prices have gone up and wages haven't. It's that simple. That we can't rejoin any time soon doesn't matter, people won't forget about it and move on. What they will do is hold their new Tory MPs to account...
Brexit is pretty special in that it hasn’t yet realised any benefit promised or otherwise. The rewriting of history to say that Brexit was never intended to yield benefits doesn’t really wash.
That simply isn't true.
We have a more sustainable agricultural and marine conservation policy now, public concern about immigration has a major issue has been killed off, we had a much better Covid vaccine programme, we've been able to adopt a more agile and flexible foreign policy on Ukraine with a firmer line, we've avoided any further drives to political union from Juncker or Von Der Leyen, or directives from Brussels that might target the City.
Personally, I take it as a huge relief that I don't have to worry about what nonsense comes out of the mouths of the EU Commission, or the integrationist political agenda for the European Council every 6 months, because it doesn't affect me anymore.
Agriculture is a mess. Immigration is not settled. The Poles and other Eastern European countries would argue they’ve shown robust support for Ukraine within the EU. UK Vaccine policy could have happened inside the EU There has been no further political union.
But I’m glad you feel better.
Agriculture is not a mess. Public concern about immigration has fallen drastically. We were able to put in place sanctions much earlier and adopt a robust line that influenced the EU in conjunction with Poland within. No it couldn't, this is pure "in theory" stuff whereas in political practice we'd absolutely have signed up to the same EU scheme Yes, us leaving has given them reason to pause (not in all areas, I hasten to add) and it would have continued had we stayed.
You need to get over your simplistic Brexit obsession and ridiculous partisanship.
Is that the best you have? Good grief, it's worse than I thought.
Remainers have never been able to answer the simplest questions despite maintaining frequently that we retained sovereignty while we were in the EU.
Like: If the UK is a democratic sovereign nation within the EU describe (omitting all whataboutery) by what process, involving only voting and democratic and democratically elected parliamentary processes the people of the UK could effect a change in how EU rules on FoM or VAT worked in the UK, or repeal any part of EU legislation insofar as it touches the interests of the UK.
Ooh me sir me sir pick me sir please.
Ans: because the UK voted to join the club and the club has rules. Like if I wanted to go to the Royal Meeting at Ascot in the Royal Enclosure and tried to wear jeans and a t-shirt when the requirement is for formal dress. I can unilaterally decide that I will accept those rules or not. As regards the EU it was the latter.
All the actions of a perfectly "democratic sovereign nation".
Your welcome.
Thanks. Very polite and elegant but you make my point precisely. pooled sovereignty is not the same as sovereignty.
"Pooled sovereignty" is not a thing and if it was, then it would of course be sovereignty and the clue is in the name. We as a sovereign nation decided to join a club with some rules which we as a sovereign nation were happy to follow until we as a sovereign nation were no longer happy to follow.
Or as the sage of Brexit put it; "we were always sovereign".
Unless you mean the North Korea model, which is an entirely legitimate desire. I don't believe North Korea is a member of any international groups such as the EU, NATO, etc, where sovereignty is "pooled".
Good luck:
"It is important to remember that at present the European Union is not a federation (like the United States of America), nor is it just an international organisation like the United Nations (UN) where governments merely cooperate together. The EU’s member states remain separate independent states that have ‘pooled sovereignty’ in certain policy areas. This is to say that they have decided to work collectively on particular matters."
Exactly. Even they put it in quotation marks because it is not an actual thing it is just convenient shorthand for agreeing together a set of rules.
The fact we could vote, trigger article 50 and leave the EU, proved without doubt we were sovereign all along and therefore didn't need to leave the EU to secure our sovereignty.
The idea that Britain was somehow less democratic in the EU, is the same argument to say that Cornwall and every other county is somehow less democratic if it remains in the UK.
We are sovereign because we can leave is a meaningless circle that leaves no way to exercise that sovereignty, apart from leaving. So all you're showing is that of course we should leave if we wanted to exercise our sovereignty.
Cornwall is less sovereign if it remains in the UK. If Cornwall wants to be an independent, and to determine its own laws, it would first need to leave the UK.
The concert promotors and F1 teams also deal with non-EU traffic, and have people to sort the paperwork. It was again something the UK asked for movement on, but the EU chose to be dogmatic about. An arrangement similar to that for trusted traders, could have been set up. The UK was more worried about EU lorries doing internal UK jobs, and the EU linked this to temporary exports.
Generally the well funded teams in motorsport can cope with this because they have lackeys to deal with all of the paperwork. At lower levels where teams are run on a shoestring they can fall foul of the new regulations - Moto2 teams have had multiple riders and crew come a cropper over the 90 day rule.
Over time it's going to shift the motorsports centre of gravity out of the UK just because it's less hassle. Yamaha WSBK recently moved their technical centre to Italy splitting from the shared effort with the BSB team in Lancashire.
I will be amazed if F1 teams don't open warehouses in the EU, similarly for big bands and exhibition companies.
Morning all! With respect to the Brexit making people's lives better / worse and what does it matter now - it matters.
Quite simply comments like "nobody voted to make their daily lives better" are utterly ignorant of what so many red wall voters expected.
So it is a serious problem for the government that things have got worse and not better for many of these voters. Yes Covid and Ukraine etc etc but we are talking voters barely engaged with politics. They don't know or care about such details.
Brexit has failed because the NHS has got worse and prices have gone up and wages haven't. It's that simple. That we can't rejoin any time soon doesn't matter, people won't forget about it and move on. What they will do is hold their new Tory MPs to account...
Brexit is pretty special in that it hasn’t yet realised any benefit promised or otherwise. The rewriting of history to say that Brexit was never intended to yield benefits doesn’t really wash.
That simply isn't true.
We have a more sustainable agricultural and marine conservation policy now, public concern about immigration has a major issue has been killed off, we had a much better Covid vaccine programme, we've been able to adopt a more agile and flexible foreign policy on Ukraine with a firmer line, we've avoided any further drives to political union from Juncker or Von Der Leyen, or directives from Brussels that might target the City.
Personally, I take it as a huge relief that I don't have to worry about what nonsense comes out of the mouths of the EU Commission, or the integrationist political agenda for the European Council every 6 months, because it doesn't affect me anymore.
Agriculture is a mess. Immigration is not settled. The Poles and other Eastern European countries would argue they’ve shown robust support for Ukraine within the EU. UK Vaccine policy could have happened inside the EU There has been no further political union.
But I’m glad you feel better.
Agriculture is not a mess. Public concern about immigration has fallen drastically. We were able to put in place sanctions much earlier and adopt a robust line that influenced the EU in conjunction with Poland within. No it couldn't, this is pure "in theory" stuff whereas in political practice we'd absolutely have signed up to the same EU scheme Yes, us leaving has given them reason to pause (not in all areas, I hasten to add) and it would have continued had we stayed.
You need to get over your simplistic Brexit obsession and ridiculous partisanship.
Is that the best you have? Good grief, it's worse than I thought.
Remainers have never been able to answer the simplest questions despite maintaining frequently that we retained sovereignty while we were in the EU.
Like: If the UK is a democratic sovereign nation within the EU describe (omitting all whataboutery) by what process, involving only voting and democratic and democratically elected parliamentary processes the people of the UK could effect a change in how EU rules on FoM or VAT worked in the UK, or repeal any part of EU legislation insofar as it touches the interests of the UK.
Ooh me sir me sir pick me sir please.
Ans: because the UK voted to join the club and the club has rules. Like if I wanted to go to the Royal Meeting at Ascot in the Royal Enclosure and tried to wear jeans and a t-shirt when the requirement is for formal dress. I can unilaterally decide that I will accept those rules or not. As regards the EU it was the latter.
All the actions of a perfectly "democratic sovereign nation".
Your welcome.
That didn't answer the question.
Without using Brexit as the answer, since you're anti-Brexit, how does the UK democratically cease to follow those rules?
If the answer is "well you need to leave the club to do so", then leaving the club was the correct decision. You can't have it both ways and say "you don't need to leave the club, because you were entitled to leave the club as an alternative to that".
If you didn't want to follow the rules, and in/by 2016 the UK didn't want to follow the rules, then of course Brexit was the solution.
But don't wail and moan about our lack of sovereignty because up until June 2016 we as a sovereign nation were perfectly happy to follow those rules.
Good, I'm glad we're agreed. Of course Brexit was the solution. 👍
Until June 2016 we weren't "perfectly happy" to follow those rules, which is why Europe has been a schism in British politics for as long as I've been politically aware, why repeated Parliament's reneged on their promises at the prior election to hold a referendum, and why when we finally had one in 2016 we voted to leave. But I'm glad that you've agreed that Brexit was the solution. Had we been happy to follow the rules and never be able to change them unilaterally then we could have remained, but we weren't, so that's that.
I'm not sure what your argument here is.
Sovereign nation: we want to follow the rules Sovereign nation: we don't want to follow the rules.
Fine, I'm delighted for everyone. Let their be queues at the airport for all. But leave out the bollocks about us not being sovereign.
Morning all! With respect to the Brexit making people's lives better / worse and what does it matter now - it matters.
Quite simply comments like "nobody voted to make their daily lives better" are utterly ignorant of what so many red wall voters expected.
So it is a serious problem for the government that things have got worse and not better for many of these voters. Yes Covid and Ukraine etc etc but we are talking voters barely engaged with politics. They don't know or care about such details.
Brexit has failed because the NHS has got worse and prices have gone up and wages haven't. It's that simple. That we can't rejoin any time soon doesn't matter, people won't forget about it and move on. What they will do is hold their new Tory MPs to account...
Brexit is pretty special in that it hasn’t yet realised any benefit promised or otherwise. The rewriting of history to say that Brexit was never intended to yield benefits doesn’t really wash.
That simply isn't true.
We have a more sustainable agricultural and marine conservation policy now, public concern about immigration has a major issue has been killed off, we had a much better Covid vaccine programme, we've been able to adopt a more agile and flexible foreign policy on Ukraine with a firmer line, we've avoided any further drives to political union from Juncker or Von Der Leyen, or directives from Brussels that might target the City.
Personally, I take it as a huge relief that I don't have to worry about what nonsense comes out of the mouths of the EU Commission, or the integrationist political agenda for the European Council every 6 months, because it doesn't affect me anymore.
Agriculture is a mess. Immigration is not settled. The Poles and other Eastern European countries would argue they’ve shown robust support for Ukraine within the EU. UK Vaccine policy could have happened inside the EU There has been no further political union.
But I’m glad you feel better.
Agriculture is not a mess. Public concern about immigration has fallen drastically. We were able to put in place sanctions much earlier and adopt a robust line that influenced the EU in conjunction with Poland within. No it couldn't, this is pure "in theory" stuff whereas in political practice we'd absolutely have signed up to the same EU scheme Yes, us leaving has given them reason to pause (not in all areas, I hasten to add) and it would have continued had we stayed.
You need to get over your simplistic Brexit obsession and ridiculous partisanship.
Is that the best you have? Good grief, it's worse than I thought.
Remainers have never been able to answer the simplest questions despite maintaining frequently that we retained sovereignty while we were in the EU.
Like: If the UK is a democratic sovereign nation within the EU describe (omitting all whataboutery) by what process, involving only voting and democratic and democratically elected parliamentary processes the people of the UK could effect a change in how EU rules on FoM or VAT worked in the UK, or repeal any part of EU legislation insofar as it touches the interests of the UK.
Ooh me sir me sir pick me sir please.
Ans: because the UK voted to join the club and the club has rules. Like if I wanted to go to the Royal Meeting at Ascot in the Royal Enclosure and tried to wear jeans and a t-shirt when the requirement is for formal dress. I can unilaterally decide that I will accept those rules or not. As regards the EU it was the latter.
All the actions of a perfectly "democratic sovereign nation".
Your welcome.
The infantile nature of the response reveals that there is, of course, no sensible answer to @algakirk’s question that does not admit his point
The EU is horribly and painfully undemocratic, it was designed that way. You can accept that this corrosion of our democracy is worth it in return for the benefits - single market, free movement, etc - but you cannot deny it, as many Remainers once tried to do
Exactly.
And there are two levels of de-democratisation. Within the EU the UK ceases to be in democratic control of increasing areas of life because of the legislating power of the EU; so the UK voters can't get stuff done by voting.
And secondly, less well understood, is that the EU parliament is Potemkin. Neither it, nor all the democratically elected governments of each EU state, have a process by which they can guarantee to effect a particular enactment. So even UK + others EU voters couldn't get stuff done by voting.
Those who think this is trivial might have a glance at the current state of US politics, Hong King, China and Russia.
Morning all! With respect to the Brexit making people's lives better / worse and what does it matter now - it matters.
Quite simply comments like "nobody voted to make their daily lives better" are utterly ignorant of what so many red wall voters expected.
So it is a serious problem for the government that things have got worse and not better for many of these voters. Yes Covid and Ukraine etc etc but we are talking voters barely engaged with politics. They don't know or care about such details.
Brexit has failed because the NHS has got worse and prices have gone up and wages haven't. It's that simple. That we can't rejoin any time soon doesn't matter, people won't forget about it and move on. What they will do is hold their new Tory MPs to account...
Brexit is pretty special in that it hasn’t yet realised any benefit promised or otherwise. The rewriting of history to say that Brexit was never intended to yield benefits doesn’t really wash.
That simply isn't true.
We have a more sustainable agricultural and marine conservation policy now, public concern about immigration has a major issue has been killed off, we had a much better Covid vaccine programme, we've been able to adopt a more agile and flexible foreign policy on Ukraine with a firmer line, we've avoided any further drives to political union from Juncker or Von Der Leyen, or directives from Brussels that might target the City.
Personally, I take it as a huge relief that I don't have to worry about what nonsense comes out of the mouths of the EU Commission, or the integrationist political agenda for the European Council every 6 months, because it doesn't affect me anymore.
Agriculture is a mess. Immigration is not settled. The Poles and other Eastern European countries would argue they’ve shown robust support for Ukraine within the EU. UK Vaccine policy could have happened inside the EU There has been no further political union.
But I’m glad you feel better.
Agriculture is not a mess. Public concern about immigration has fallen drastically. We were able to put in place sanctions much earlier and adopt a robust line that influenced the EU in conjunction with Poland within. No it couldn't, this is pure "in theory" stuff whereas in political practice we'd absolutely have signed up to the same EU scheme Yes, us leaving has given them reason to pause (not in all areas, I hasten to add) and it would have continued had we stayed.
You need to get over your simplistic Brexit obsession and ridiculous partisanship.
Is that the best you have? Good grief, it's worse than I thought.
Remainers have never been able to answer the simplest questions despite maintaining frequently that we retained sovereignty while we were in the EU.
Like: If the UK is a democratic sovereign nation within the EU describe (omitting all whataboutery) by what process, involving only voting and democratic and democratically elected parliamentary processes the people of the UK could effect a change in how EU rules on FoM or VAT worked in the UK, or repeal any part of EU legislation insofar as it touches the interests of the UK.
Ooh me sir me sir pick me sir please.
Ans: because the UK voted to join the club and the club has rules. Like if I wanted to go to the Royal Meeting at Ascot in the Royal Enclosure and tried to wear jeans and a t-shirt when the requirement is for formal dress. I can unilaterally decide that I will accept those rules or not. As regards the EU it was the latter.
All the actions of a perfectly "democratic sovereign nation".
Your welcome.
The infantile nature of the response reveals that there is, of course, no sensible answer to @algakirk’s question that does not admit his point
The EU is horribly and painfully undemocratic, it was designed that way. You can accept that this corrosion of our democracy is worth it in return for the benefits - single market, free movement, etc - but you cannot deny it, as many Remainers once tried to do
Is the Royal Enclosure at Ascot horribly and painfully undemocratic?
The fact we could vote, trigger article 50 and leave the EU, proved without doubt we were sovereign all along and therefore didn't need to leave the EU to secure our sovereignty.
The idea that Britain was somehow less democratic in the EU, is the same argument to say that Cornwall and every other county is somehow less democratic if it remains in the UK.
We are sovereign because we can leave is a meaningless circle that leaves no way to exercise that sovereignty, apart from leaving. So all you're showing is that of course we should leave if we wanted to exercise our sovereignty.
Cornwall is less sovereign if it remains in the UK. If Cornwall wants to be an independent, and to determine its own laws, it would first need to leave the UK.
For me the honest answer I'd have to give is that Brexit has neither made "daily life" better or worse, its pretty indifferent to be honest.
But that wasn't the point of Brexit.
I assume you don't travel. Queues, pets, 90 day limit. All impact me, friends and family badly. 3 hour queue in Lisbon, cancelled trip to France as couldn't get dog documents in time, have to plan travelling with a dog weeks/months in advance, 90 day limit completely buggered two friends. One camped in motorhome on son's drive having had to return from EU, another having to go thru hoops re his villa in Portugal and travel limited.
In daily life I don't travel daily, no.
I haven't been abroad in a few years due to COVID restrictions but before then typically have one trip abroad per annum, and only a minority of those destinations have been in the EFTA anyway.
Although it is only a small part of Brexit I think this is what most people will experience as a direct impact of it. There may be invisible benefits of Brexit, but everyone who travels will witness those empty EU gates. I suspect that is why the poll came out with such a large 'worse' number. That may not be fair, but it is a fact of life. It is also clear from the chaos that travel has really kicked off again and the chaos is probably a combination of the leftovers of Covid as much as Brexit.
Many people are seeing benefits of brexit. The fact you and many on this board aren't is I suspect because most on this board were those that gained from being in the eu.
Being in the eu there were winners and losers Brexiting there are winners and losers
Some of the winners from being in the eu are now losers.
In my case I cite pay. Using my pay in 1997 as a baseline below is everytime I changed job and my %pay increase vs my 1997 pay. Many of my friends are seeing similar patterns.
What I would be earning if my pay had kept up with inflation since 1997 +97%
Can I prove its down to brexit....well no but the fact I am only seeing payrises when moving job since brexit happened while maybe coincidental is indicative and with others I know seeing a similar pattern something is happening
Don't you work in IT?
If so, I find it frankly unbelievable that your pay in 2014 was 8.25% below what it was in 1997.
I didnt say it was all percentages are against what I earned in 1997. So in 2014 I was again earning the same as I was in 1997. Like most it workers I go through recruitment agents who try to get the most for their clients as their commission is based on it. Yes before you asked I was constantly updating skills in 1997 I was writing desktop apps using c++ in 2014 I was a full stack developer using .net jquery etc. Simply put the jobs being advertised were all in the same ball park figures so its what you got
The fact we could vote, trigger article 50 and leave the EU, proved without doubt we were sovereign all along and therefore didn't need to leave the EU to secure our sovereignty.
The idea that Britain was somehow less democratic in the EU, is the same argument to say that Cornwall and every other county is somehow less democratic if it remains in the UK.
We are sovereign because we can leave is a meaningless circle that leaves no way to exercise that sovereignty, apart from leaving. So all you're showing is that of course we should leave if we wanted to exercise our sovereignty.
Maybe, and this will blow your mind, you can remain sovereign and choose to work with others for your mutual benefit.
I can get a divorce any time I want. I have that freedom, but I choose to remain married because it is simply better. It does not impinge on my identity whatsoever. It's called confidence.
For me the honest answer I'd have to give is that Brexit has neither made "daily life" better or worse, its pretty indifferent to be honest.
But that wasn't the point of Brexit.
Wtf was the point then?
I am waiting on essential personal medical supplies which have now been delayed for the first time ever. They are made in Germany. Four weeks late and counting.
To be fair the UK distributor I use, who have been excellent all the time I have used them, are being rather reticent about the reason so we will have to see how it pans out and what they label as the reason. They have been studiously neutral about Brexit in all their comms over the past 6 or 7 years, which is fair enough.
Fortunately with all the uncertainty after the Brexit vote, I decided to build up and keep a couple of months' extra stock, so I am ok for a few weeks yet.
I guess that could be deemed an indirect benefit of Brexit?
Worrying though.
I've always used a hockey stick analogy for the benefits and costs of Brexit, I fully expect the most serious costs to be up-front, but the benefits will be virtually invisible up-front. Disruptions or changes normally are costly up-front.
I don't know what you do for a living but for some time some time ago I used to disburse funds to start-ups. The part in their business plan ppt presentation that had us all rolling in the aisles was when they got to the bit about their "hockey stick" view of their market.
Yes, markets are rarely hockey sticks.
But we aren't talking about a market here, businesses can be, just as countries can. If you have an opportunity in a market and a sound business plan then your cashflow would be hockey-stick shaped, which is precisely why start-ups seek funds to be disbursed in the first place. The up-front cost of investment is almost always a negative cash outlay at first, but with a desired return on investment in the long-term.
The concert promotors and F1 teams also deal with non-EU traffic, and have people to sort the paperwork. It was again something the UK asked for movement on, but the EU chose to be dogmatic about. An arrangement similar to that for trusted traders, could have been set up. The UK was more worried about EU lorries doing internal UK jobs, and the EU linked this to temporary exports.
Generally the well funded teams in motorsport can cope with this because they have lackeys to deal with all of the paperwork. At lower levels where teams are run on a shoestring they can fall foul of the new regulations - Moto2 teams have had multiple riders and crew come a cropper over the 90 day rule.
Over time it's going to shift the motorsports centre of gravity out of the UK just because it's less hassle. Yamaha WSBK recently moved their technical centre to Italy splitting from the shared effort with the BSB team in Lancashire.
Son and son-in-law, who were both concerned with Formula One at quite a high level particularly with regard to international transfers, are very glad they're out of it!
Morning all! With respect to the Brexit making people's lives better / worse and what does it matter now - it matters.
Quite simply comments like "nobody voted to make their daily lives better" are utterly ignorant of what so many red wall voters expected.
So it is a serious problem for the government that things have got worse and not better for many of these voters. Yes Covid and Ukraine etc etc but we are talking voters barely engaged with politics. They don't know or care about such details.
Brexit has failed because the NHS has got worse and prices have gone up and wages haven't. It's that simple. That we can't rejoin any time soon doesn't matter, people won't forget about it and move on. What they will do is hold their new Tory MPs to account...
Brexit is pretty special in that it hasn’t yet realised any benefit promised or otherwise. The rewriting of history to say that Brexit was never intended to yield benefits doesn’t really wash.
That simply isn't true.
We have a more sustainable agricultural and marine conservation policy now, public concern about immigration has a major issue has been killed off, we had a much better Covid vaccine programme, we've been able to adopt a more agile and flexible foreign policy on Ukraine with a firmer line, we've avoided any further drives to political union from Juncker or Von Der Leyen, or directives from Brussels that might target the City.
Personally, I take it as a huge relief that I don't have to worry about what nonsense comes out of the mouths of the EU Commission, or the integrationist political agenda for the European Council every 6 months, because it doesn't affect me anymore.
Agriculture is a mess. Immigration is not settled. The Poles and other Eastern European countries would argue they’ve shown robust support for Ukraine within the EU. UK Vaccine policy could have happened inside the EU There has been no further political union.
But I’m glad you feel better.
Agriculture is not a mess. Public concern about immigration has fallen drastically. We were able to put in place sanctions much earlier and adopt a robust line that influenced the EU in conjunction with Poland within. No it couldn't, this is pure "in theory" stuff whereas in political practice we'd absolutely have signed up to the same EU scheme Yes, us leaving has given them reason to pause (not in all areas, I hasten to add) and it would have continued had we stayed.
You need to get over your simplistic Brexit obsession and ridiculous partisanship.
Is that the best you have? Good grief, it's worse than I thought.
Remainers have never been able to answer the simplest questions despite maintaining frequently that we retained sovereignty while we were in the EU.
Like: If the UK is a democratic sovereign nation within the EU describe (omitting all whataboutery) by what process, involving only voting and democratic and democratically elected parliamentary processes the people of the UK could effect a change in how EU rules on FoM or VAT worked in the UK, or repeal any part of EU legislation insofar as it touches the interests of the UK.
Ooh me sir me sir pick me sir please.
Ans: because the UK voted to join the club and the club has rules. Like if I wanted to go to the Royal Meeting at Ascot in the Royal Enclosure and tried to wear jeans and a t-shirt when the requirement is for formal dress. I can unilaterally decide that I will accept those rules or not. As regards the EU it was the latter.
All the actions of a perfectly "democratic sovereign nation".
Your welcome.
The infantile nature of the response reveals that there is, of course, no sensible answer to @algakirk’s question that does not admit his point
The EU is horribly and painfully undemocratic, it was designed that way. You can accept that this corrosion of our democracy is worth it in return for the benefits - single market, free movement, etc - but you cannot deny it, as many Remainers once tried to do
Is the Royal Enclosure at Ascot horribly and painfully undemocratic?
It's not actually, despite appearances, part of the UK's constitutional settlement.
When u sit in reshuffle mtngs it's normal to go down a list like: Pervert Under investigation by NCA (he doesn't know) Drunk Sex pest Sex pest Dodgy donors Yes she's ok but she's useless Moron Moron He's Ok Sex pest She's actually good [laughter] Dodgepot... etc https://twitter.com/Dominic2306/status/1542792687119646720
For me the honest answer I'd have to give is that Brexit has neither made "daily life" better or worse, its pretty indifferent to be honest.
But that wasn't the point of Brexit.
Wtf was the point then?
I am waiting on essential personal medical supplies which have now been delayed for the first time ever. They are made in Germany. Four weeks late and counting.
To be fair the UK distributor I use, who have been excellent all the time I have used them, are being rather reticent about the reason so we will have to see how it pans out and what they label as the reason. They have been studiously neutral about Brexit in all their comms over the past 6 or 7 years, which is fair enough.
Fortunately with all the uncertainty after the Brexit vote, I decided to build up and keep a couple of months' extra stock, so I am ok for a few weeks yet.
I guess that could be deemed an indirect benefit of Brexit?
Worrying though.
I've always used a hockey stick analogy for the benefits and costs of Brexit, I fully expect the most serious costs to be up-front, but the benefits will be virtually invisible up-front. Disruptions or changes normally are costly up-front.
I don't know what you do for a living but for some time some time ago I used to disburse funds to start-ups. The part in their business plan ppt presentation that had us all rolling in the aisles was when they got to the bit about their "hockey stick" view of their market.
There's a TV programme where young people try their luck getting arguments like Philip's past Alan Sugar and his mates...
On the passports issue, the EU - especially tourist dependant countries in the south - will have to shape up or lose millions of British tourists, and billions of euros
For illustration take where I am now. Montenegro. The airport is tiny and pleasant. It takes 3 minutes to pass customs and migration. The coast is as beautiful and sunny as anywhere in the EU. It’s cheap safe and historic. It’s Greece with better toilets
Why would a Brit go on holiday to Corfu and risk 2 hour passport queues when they can fly here - which is nearer - and know there is no hassle at all? My view this morning from a luxury apartment costing £70 a night
If the EU persists in making travel a hassle for Brits then other countries around the EU - Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey, Montenegro, Switzerland, Morocco - will make it ever easier. Turkey especially could grab an enormous slice of the massive British tourist market
This process might take a few years to impact; in the end I predict countries like Portugal and Greece will wise up and make it a smooth process for UK travellers, as it is overwhelmingly in their interests to do so
🚨 David Warburton is “delighted” to confirm he’s under investigation by Independent Complaints and Grievances Scheme after two women alleged sexual misconduct
Morning all! With respect to the Brexit making people's lives better / worse and what does it matter now - it matters.
Quite simply comments like "nobody voted to make their daily lives better" are utterly ignorant of what so many red wall voters expected.
So it is a serious problem for the government that things have got worse and not better for many of these voters. Yes Covid and Ukraine etc etc but we are talking voters barely engaged with politics. They don't know or care about such details.
Brexit has failed because the NHS has got worse and prices have gone up and wages haven't. It's that simple. That we can't rejoin any time soon doesn't matter, people won't forget about it and move on. What they will do is hold their new Tory MPs to account...
Brexit is pretty special in that it hasn’t yet realised any benefit promised or otherwise. The rewriting of history to say that Brexit was never intended to yield benefits doesn’t really wash.
That simply isn't true.
We have a more sustainable agricultural and marine conservation policy now, public concern about immigration has a major issue has been killed off, we had a much better Covid vaccine programme, we've been able to adopt a more agile and flexible foreign policy on Ukraine with a firmer line, we've avoided any further drives to political union from Juncker or Von Der Leyen, or directives from Brussels that might target the City.
Personally, I take it as a huge relief that I don't have to worry about what nonsense comes out of the mouths of the EU Commission, or the integrationist political agenda for the European Council every 6 months, because it doesn't affect me anymore.
Agriculture is a mess. Immigration is not settled. The Poles and other Eastern European countries would argue they’ve shown robust support for Ukraine within the EU. UK Vaccine policy could have happened inside the EU There has been no further political union.
But I’m glad you feel better.
Agriculture is not a mess. Public concern about immigration has fallen drastically. We were able to put in place sanctions much earlier and adopt a robust line that influenced the EU in conjunction with Poland within. No it couldn't, this is pure "in theory" stuff whereas in political practice we'd absolutely have signed up to the same EU scheme Yes, us leaving has given them reason to pause (not in all areas, I hasten to add) and it would have continued had we stayed.
You need to get over your simplistic Brexit obsession and ridiculous partisanship.
Is that the best you have? Good grief, it's worse than I thought.
Remainers have never been able to answer the simplest questions despite maintaining frequently that we retained sovereignty while we were in the EU.
Like: If the UK is a democratic sovereign nation within the EU describe (omitting all whataboutery) by what process, involving only voting and democratic and democratically elected parliamentary processes the people of the UK could effect a change in how EU rules on FoM or VAT worked in the UK, or repeal any part of EU legislation insofar as it touches the interests of the UK.
Ooh me sir me sir pick me sir please.
Ans: because the UK voted to join the club and the club has rules. Like if I wanted to go to the Royal Meeting at Ascot in the Royal Enclosure and tried to wear jeans and a t-shirt when the requirement is for formal dress. I can unilaterally decide that I will accept those rules or not. As regards the EU it was the latter.
All the actions of a perfectly "democratic sovereign nation".
Your welcome.
The infantile nature of the response reveals that there is, of course, no sensible answer to @algakirk’s question that does not admit his point
The EU is horribly and painfully undemocratic, it was designed that way. You can accept that this corrosion of our democracy is worth it in return for the benefits - single market, free movement, etc - but you cannot deny it, as many Remainers once tried to do
Is the Royal Enclosure at Ascot horribly and painfully undemocratic?
The fact we could vote, trigger article 50 and leave the EU, proved without doubt we were sovereign all along and therefore didn't need to leave the EU to secure our sovereignty.
The idea that Britain was somehow less democratic in the EU, is the same argument to say that Cornwall and every other county is somehow less democratic if it remains in the UK.
We are sovereign because we can leave is a meaningless circle that leaves no way to exercise that sovereignty, apart from leaving. So all you're showing is that of course we should leave if we wanted to exercise our sovereignty.
Maybe, and this will blow your mind, you can remain sovereign and choose to work with others for your mutual benefit.
I can get a divorce any time I want. I have that freedom, but I choose to remain married because it is simply better. It does not impinge on my identity whatsoever. It's called confidence.
The italicised words above are where we are all agreed I think.
When u sit in reshuffle mtngs it's normal to go down a list like: Pervert Under investigation by NCA (he doesn't know) Drunk Sex pest Sex pest Dodgy donors Yes she's ok but she's useless Moron Moron He's Ok Sex pest She's actually good [laughter] Dodgepot... etc https://twitter.com/Dominic2306/status/1542792687119646720
The fact we could vote, trigger article 50 and leave the EU, proved without doubt we were sovereign all along and therefore didn't need to leave the EU to secure our sovereignty.
The idea that Britain was somehow less democratic in the EU, is the same argument to say that Cornwall and every other county is somehow less democratic if it remains in the UK.
I see that the US Supreme Court has decided to take up the case to test the insane legal theory that State Courts cannot rule on the actions of State Legislatures when it comes to Federal Elections.
Just to give you a taste of how fringe this theory is it holds that even if the actions of the state legislature explicitly violates the state's constitution the state courts cannot rule them illegal. That literally _any_ actions by the state legislature when it comes to Congressional and Presidential elections are legal.
This is _exactly_ the path that the John Eastmen memo was plotted out to overthrow the results of the election. Get state legislatures to throw out results. And it would be legal because of this wacky theory.
It'll be down to Barrett and Kavanaugh this one. Ol' Roberts is just as bad as Alito when it comes to voting rights. Gorsuch will be able to read the constitution in such a way that this comes to pass, and Thomas just hates the world so far as I can tell.
I know it's tangentially related, and mainly applies to Dobbs, but I've really soured on the concept of bills of rights, maybe even the concept of constitutional democracy entirely. Still, I shouldn't judge the concept by its worst example.
The Grundgesetz in Germany seems to work tolerably, though I'm not sure how it really works in the framework of the German judiciary. A cursory glance at Wikipedia seems to suggest that their constitutional court is split from their highest Civil and Criminal Court, which is interesting.
The seed for such an overmighty court (As SCOTUS currently is) was planted with the Marbury decision a few hundred years ago. We should be thankful that SCOTUK demured to parliament when it was presented with Miller II, it could have gone for a real power grab but thankfully didn't. A written constitution essentially turns your highest, ultimate powers to judges if they grant themselves the power of judicial review as it is their interpretation of the constitution which ultimately has weight over even parliament, POTUS or either house of congress. It's the reason you should never ever stick a 2/3rds bar on anything either.
Indeed, though the German Constitutional court also has powers of judicial review. The process to elect them is even political, albeit they have term limits and mandatory retirement, which seems to take the sting out confirmation. In fact, their confirmation requires, so far as I can see, 2/3rds of the Bundestag or Bundesrat. But, of course, there is not the hyperpartisanship that means any political decision is an existential fight to the death. From my time in Germany, they don't seem to have that in them (save for at the extremes).
Maybe there are other things in the Grundgesetz that help stop the Constitutional Court going all SCOTUS, or maybe Constitutional Courts are all ticking time bombs at the hearts of Constitutional Democracies.
As for UKSC, it's a different beast. It has a limited form of judicial review (often brought under the HRA?), as I understand it, but Parliament's role is much closer to our version of a constitutional court. Others will know better, but I don't think the House of Lords or UKSC has ever overturned primary legislation, and judicial review is limited to secondary legislation. Even in a Marbury situation, I can't really see a way that the UKSC could give itself powers of constitutional judicial review unless those powers are delegated to it by Parliament. Indeed, it seems the HRA is on its way out and will clip the wings of UKSC a fair bit (for better or worse).
I'm told at this morning's Downing Street meeting Guto Harri told staff Chris Pincher was vulnerable and had lost his career, so they should all "think about how he feels" today https://twitter.com/AlexofBrown/status/1542794063539310595
Morning all! With respect to the Brexit making people's lives better / worse and what does it matter now - it matters.
Quite simply comments like "nobody voted to make their daily lives better" are utterly ignorant of what so many red wall voters expected.
So it is a serious problem for the government that things have got worse and not better for many of these voters. Yes Covid and Ukraine etc etc but we are talking voters barely engaged with politics. They don't know or care about such details.
Brexit has failed because the NHS has got worse and prices have gone up and wages haven't. It's that simple. That we can't rejoin any time soon doesn't matter, people won't forget about it and move on. What they will do is hold their new Tory MPs to account...
Brexit is pretty special in that it hasn’t yet realised any benefit promised or otherwise. The rewriting of history to say that Brexit was never intended to yield benefits doesn’t really wash.
That simply isn't true.
We have a more sustainable agricultural and marine conservation policy now, public concern about immigration has a major issue has been killed off, we had a much better Covid vaccine programme, we've been able to adopt a more agile and flexible foreign policy on Ukraine with a firmer line, we've avoided any further drives to political union from Juncker or Von Der Leyen, or directives from Brussels that might target the City.
Personally, I take it as a huge relief that I don't have to worry about what nonsense comes out of the mouths of the EU Commission, or the integrationist political agenda for the European Council every 6 months, because it doesn't affect me anymore.
Agriculture is a mess. Immigration is not settled. The Poles and other Eastern European countries would argue they’ve shown robust support for Ukraine within the EU. UK Vaccine policy could have happened inside the EU There has been no further political union.
But I’m glad you feel better.
Agriculture is not a mess. Public concern about immigration has fallen drastically. We were able to put in place sanctions much earlier and adopt a robust line that influenced the EU in conjunction with Poland within. No it couldn't, this is pure "in theory" stuff whereas in political practice we'd absolutely have signed up to the same EU scheme Yes, us leaving has given them reason to pause (not in all areas, I hasten to add) and it would have continued had we stayed.
You need to get over your simplistic Brexit obsession and ridiculous partisanship.
Is that the best you have? Good grief, it's worse than I thought.
Remainers have never been able to answer the simplest questions despite maintaining frequently that we retained sovereignty while we were in the EU.
Like: If the UK is a democratic sovereign nation within the EU describe (omitting all whataboutery) by what process, involving only voting and democratic and democratically elected parliamentary processes the people of the UK could effect a change in how EU rules on FoM or VAT worked in the UK, or repeal any part of EU legislation insofar as it touches the interests of the UK.
Ooh me sir me sir pick me sir please.
Ans: because the UK voted to join the club and the club has rules. Like if I wanted to go to the Royal Meeting at Ascot in the Royal Enclosure and tried to wear jeans and a t-shirt when the requirement is for formal dress. I can unilaterally decide that I will accept those rules or not. As regards the EU it was the latter.
All the actions of a perfectly "democratic sovereign nation".
Your welcome.
Thanks. Very polite and elegant but you make my point precisely. pooled sovereignty is not the same as sovereignty.
"Pooled sovereignty" is not a thing and if it was, then it would of course be sovereignty and the clue is in the name. We as a sovereign nation decided to join a club with some rules which we as a sovereign nation were happy to follow until we as a sovereign nation were no longer happy to follow.
Or as the sage of Brexit put it; "we were always sovereign".
Unless you mean the North Korea model, which is an entirely legitimate desire. I don't believe North Korea is a member of any international groups such as the EU, NATO, etc, where sovereignty is "pooled".
Good luck:
"It is important to remember that at present the European Union is not a federation (like the United States of America), nor is it just an international organisation like the United Nations (UN) where governments merely cooperate together. The EU’s member states remain separate independent states that have ‘pooled sovereignty’ in certain policy areas. This is to say that they have decided to work collectively on particular matters."
Exactly. Even they put it in quotation marks because it is not an actual thing it is just convenient shorthand for agreeing together a set of rules.
The fact we could vote, trigger article 50 and leave the EU, proved without doubt we were sovereign all along and therefore didn't need to leave the EU to secure our sovereignty.
The idea that Britain was somehow less democratic in the EU, is the same argument to say that Cornwall and every other county is somehow less democratic if it remains in the UK.
We are sovereign because we can leave is a meaningless circle that leaves no way to exercise that sovereignty, apart from leaving. So all you're showing is that of course we should leave if we wanted to exercise our sovereignty.
Maybe, and this will blow your mind, you can remain sovereign and choose to work with others for your mutual benefit.
I can get a divorce any time I want. I have that freedom, but I choose to remain married because it is simply better. It does not impinge on my identity whatsoever. It's called confidence.
Confidence? I choose to remain married, but its because I love my wife.
If the love weren't there, then divorce becomes appropriate and isn't something to be afraid of. Divorce is a horrible thing at the time, but can be for the best of all concerned. I'm lucky to be in a happy marriage with my wife, and my parents have a happy marriage, but all of my grandparents got divorced. They were better off for it, they remarried and spent decades with someone they loved rather than someone they couldn't stand anymore - and I am in the fortunate position of having extra grandparents because my grandparents by marriage are every bit as much loved as those by blood.
Between Britain and the EU there was no love left, so divorce was appropriate. Even the pro-EU side couldn't really say why they loved the EU pre-Brexit, so if all the marriage is bringing is hatred and acrimony then "staying together for the kids" isn't that appropriate or sensible.
“I was always free to leave that Mafia gang, and the proof is that I have left it, despite losing an eye, an arm, and being shot three times as I tried to make my escape. And yes ok sure I now have to live in Newent under an assumed name, but I’m out of the mafia, that’s how free I always was”
“He [Pincher] was absolutely livid when he didn’t get made chief,” said one aide. “As soon as his name was in the running, people went into No. 10, including MPs, with new allegations about what he’d done.”
I see that the US Supreme Court has decided to take up the case to test the insane legal theory that State Courts cannot rule on the actions of State Legislatures when it comes to Federal Elections.
Just to give you a taste of how fringe this theory is it holds that even if the actions of the state legislature explicitly violates the state's constitution the state courts cannot rule them illegal. That literally _any_ actions by the state legislature when it comes to Congressional and Presidential elections are legal.
This is _exactly_ the path that the John Eastmen memo was plotted out to overthrow the results of the election. Get state legislatures to throw out results. And it would be legal because of this wacky theory.
Makes betting on the Democrats in 24 pretty difficult.
The fact we could vote, trigger article 50 and leave the EU, proved without doubt we were sovereign all along and therefore didn't need to leave the EU to secure our sovereignty.
The idea that Britain was somehow less democratic in the EU, is the same argument to say that Cornwall and every other county is somehow less democratic if it remains in the UK.
We are sovereign because we can leave is a meaningless circle that leaves no way to exercise that sovereignty, apart from leaving. So all you're showing is that of course we should leave if we wanted to exercise our sovereignty.
Maybe, and this will blow your mind, you can remain sovereign and choose to work with others for your mutual benefit.
I can get a divorce any time I want. I have that freedom, but I choose to remain married because it is simply better. It does not impinge on my identity whatsoever. It's called confidence.
Confidence? I choose to remain married, but its because I love my wife.
If the love weren't there, then divorce becomes appropriate and isn't something to be afraid of. Divorce is a horrible thing at the time, but can be for the best of all concerned. I'm lucky to be in a happy marriage with my wife, and my parents have a happy marriage, but all of my grandparents got divorced. They were better off for it, they remarried and spent decades with someone they loved rather than someone they couldn't stand anymore - and I am in the fortunate position of having extra grandparents because my grandparents by marriage are every bit as much loved as those by blood.
Between Britain and the EU there was no love left, so divorce was appropriate. Even the pro-EU side couldn't really say why they loved the EU pre-Brexit, so if all the marriage is bringing is hatred and acrimony then "staying together for the kids" isn't that appropriate or sensible.
On the passports issue, the EU - especially tourist dependant countries in the south - will have to shape up or lose millions of British tourists, and billions of euros
For illustration take where I am now. Montenegro. The airport is tiny and pleasant. It takes 3 minutes to pass customs and migration. The coast is as beautiful and sunny as anywhere in the EU. It’s cheap safe and historic. It’s Greece with better toilets
Why would a Brit go on holiday to Corfu and risk 2 hour passport queues when they can fly here - which is nearer - and know there is no hassle at all? My view this morning from a luxury apartment costing £70 a night
If the EU persists in making travel a hassle for Brits then other countries around the EU - Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey, Montenegro, Switzerland, Morocco - will make it ever easier. Turkey especially could grab an enormous slice of the massive British tourist market
This process might take a few years to impact; in the end I predict countries like Portugal and Greece will wise up and make it a smooth process for UK travellers, as it is overwhelmingly in their interests to do so
Are you drying out your skivvies on the table, after washing them in the sink?
Does look well-suited for that purpose on a sunny day.
“I was always free to leave that Mafia gang, and the proof is that I have left it, despite losing an eye, an arm, and being shot three times as I tried to make my escape. And yes ok sure I now have to live in Newent under an assumed name, but I’m out of the mafia, that’s how free I always was”
Even I don't think Brexit has turned out that badly....
Mr. Topping, the rules changed substantially in the decades after we joined.
And we proposed a lot of the changes. The Single Market was Mrs Thatcher's creation...
A SM, affirmed by a referendum, and shaped to UK domestic interests and without fundamentalist baggage allowing FoM to 500,000,000 people would be no problem in itself.
For me the honest answer I'd have to give is that Brexit has neither made "daily life" better or worse, its pretty indifferent to be honest.
But that wasn't the point of Brexit.
I assume you don't travel. Queues, pets, 90 day limit. All impact me, friends and family badly. 3 hour queue in Lisbon, cancelled trip to France as couldn't get dog documents in time, have to plan travelling with a dog weeks/months in advance, 90 day limit completely buggered two friends. One camped in motorhome on son's drive having had to return from EU, another having to go thru hoops re his villa in Portugal and travel limited.
In daily life I don't travel daily, no.
I haven't been abroad in a few years due to COVID restrictions but before then typically have one trip abroad per annum, and only a minority of those destinations have been in the EFTA anyway.
Although it is only a small part of Brexit I think this is what most people will experience as a direct impact of it. There may be invisible benefits of Brexit, but everyone who travels will witness those empty EU gates. I suspect that is why the poll came out with such a large 'worse' number. That may not be fair, but it is a fact of life. It is also clear from the chaos that travel has really kicked off again and the chaos is probably a combination of the leftovers of Covid as much as Brexit.
Many people are seeing benefits of brexit. The fact you and many on this board aren't is I suspect because most on this board were those that gained from being in the eu.
Being in the eu there were winners and losers Brexiting there are winners and losers
Some of the winners from being in the eu are now losers.
In my case I cite pay. Using my pay in 1997 as a baseline below is everytime I changed job and my %pay increase vs my 1997 pay. Many of my friends are seeing similar patterns.
What I would be earning if my pay had kept up with inflation since 1997 +97%
Can I prove its down to brexit....well no but the fact I am only seeing payrises when moving job since brexit happened while maybe coincidental is indicative and with others I know seeing a similar pattern something is happening
Don't you work in IT?
If so, I find it frankly unbelievable that your pay in 2014 was 8.25% below what it was in 1997.
I didnt say it was all percentages are against what I earned in 1997. So in 2014 I was again earning the same as I was in 1997. Like most it workers I go through recruitment agents who try to get the most for their clients as their commission is based on it. Yes before you asked I was constantly updating skills in 1997 I was writing desktop apps using c++ in 2014 I was a full stack developer using .net jquery etc. Simply put the jobs being advertised were all in the same ball park figures so its what you got
Well, I can only say I have been much luckier than you during that period.
My other question is about the impact of the EU. During the period you're talking about we (a retail bank) used a lot (and I mean a lot) of offshore developers in India for app development and I acknowledge that that led to pay being suppressed to a degree, although our in-house developers tended to do quite well because their business knowledge made them a key interface with offshore.
Use of Indian developers was feck-all to do with our membership of the EU, of course.
Just before I retired a few years ago, serious questions were being asked about the risk of reliance on offshore developers during times of geopolitical upheaval (this was before Covid and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, of course).
I am not sure how those discussions played out or whether the reliance on offshore has been reduced at all.
In any event, I am glad your salary situation has improved, whatever the reason.
On the passports issue, the EU - especially tourist dependant countries in the south - will have to shape up or lose millions of British tourists, and billions of euros
For illustration take where I am now. Montenegro. The airport is tiny and pleasant. It takes 3 minutes to pass customs and migration. The coast is as beautiful and sunny as anywhere in the EU. It’s cheap safe and historic. It’s Greece with better toilets
Why would a Brit go on holiday to Corfu and risk 2 hour passport queues when they can fly here - which is nearer - and know there is no hassle at all? My view this morning from a luxury apartment costing £70 a night
If the EU persists in making travel a hassle for Brits then other countries around the EU - Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey, Montenegro, Switzerland, Morocco - will make it ever easier. Turkey especially could grab an enormous slice of the massive British tourist market
This process might take a few years to impact; in the end I predict countries like Portugal and Greece will wise up and make it a smooth process for UK travellers, as it is overwhelmingly in their interests to do so
Are you drying out your skivvies on the table, after washing them in the sink?
Does look well-suited for that purpose on a sunny day.
That’s my swimmers
I love this place. I met my landlord on the beach last night. Everyone swims and chats in the sea in the early evening. It’s intensely civilised
We're getting close to the moment when the great political question of our age will be 'How do we solve Brexit?' For Lab and Con, for obvious though differing reasons, this is currently the problem that dare not speak its name, but this Trappist silence can't go on for ever. If the Tories elect a leader who isn't massively tainted by Leaveism - say the soft euro-phile Hunt - then he could make quite a name for himself as a fixer and pioneer.
For me the honest answer I'd have to give is that Brexit has neither made "daily life" better or worse, its pretty indifferent to be honest.
But that wasn't the point of Brexit.
Wtf was the point then?
I am waiting on essential personal medical supplies which have now been delayed for the first time ever. They are made in Germany. Four weeks late and counting.
To be fair the UK distributor I use, who have been excellent all the time I have used them, are being rather reticent about the reason so we will have to see how it pans out and what they label as the reason. They have been studiously neutral about Brexit in all their comms over the past 6 or 7 years, which is fair enough.
Fortunately with all the uncertainty after the Brexit vote, I decided to build up and keep a couple of months' extra stock, so I am ok for a few weeks yet.
I guess that could be deemed an indirect benefit of Brexit?
Worrying though.
I've always used a hockey stick analogy for the benefits and costs of Brexit, I fully expect the most serious costs to be up-front, but the benefits will be virtually invisible up-front. Disruptions or changes normally are costly up-front.
I don't know what you do for a living but for some time some time ago I used to disburse funds to start-ups. The part in their business plan ppt presentation that had us all rolling in the aisles was when they got to the bit about their "hockey stick" view of their market.
Yes, but it's not really a fair comparison.
You wouldn't be rolling in the aisles if you'd invested a the broad sunlit uplands plan, only to be told about the jolly hockey sticks after you'd signed the cheque and the startup had already blown the funds.
For me the honest answer I'd have to give is that Brexit has neither made "daily life" better or worse, its pretty indifferent to be honest.
But that wasn't the point of Brexit.
Wtf was the point then?
I am waiting on essential personal medical supplies which have now been delayed for the first time ever. They are made in Germany. Four weeks late and counting.
To be fair the UK distributor I use, who have been excellent all the time I have used them, are being rather reticent about the reason so we will have to see how it pans out and what they label as the reason. They have been studiously neutral about Brexit in all their comms over the past 6 or 7 years, which is fair enough.
Fortunately with all the uncertainty after the Brexit vote, I decided to build up and keep a couple of months' extra stock, so I am ok for a few weeks yet.
I guess that could be deemed an indirect benefit of Brexit?
Worrying though.
The point for me was for England (with or without the rest of the UK) to be an independent, sovereign country where our laws are determined at our elections. If we do badly, its possibly in part because we elect bad governments, but we have the option to kick them out. We don't have the option to reverse bad EU laws because the EU isn't a functional demos, and the EU Parliament elections are a bad joke.
I've always used a hockey stick analogy for the benefits and costs of Brexit, I fully expect the most serious costs to be up-front, but the benefits will be virtually invisible up-front. Disruptions or changes normally are costly up-front.
The benefit from being different and outside the EU will accumulate over decades, potentially centuries to come.
I expect England/UK to be like Europe's version of Canada, while the EU will be Europe's version of the USA. Some people think the only thing that matters is size, so America/EU must be best, but I would rather a more local English/British/Canadian style control over laws and ability to evolve differently than trying to force 50/28 at times very different states to all be under the same laws, under the same roof.
UK Parliament elections are a bad joke. Half of them aren't elected and half of them are elected from parties I don't like.
Everyone in the Commons is elected, and every single Commons MP (even those I can't stand) are the most desired candidate to represent their local constituency.
EPG said Parliament, which includes the Lords. I believe it remains Conservative party policy to oppose Lords reform.
I'm told at this morning's Downing Street meeting Guto Harri told staff Chris Pincher was vulnerable and had lost his career, so they should all "think about how he feels" today https://twitter.com/AlexofBrown/status/1542794063539310595
If UK politicians had been capable of an EU discussion beyond "We're agreed - it's lovely" and "Ah, you're a small-minded bigot" then they would have won the referendum. They almost won it even with a campaign arguably worse than May's 2017 effort.
I do wonder if the Baltic tigers and Poland are so enthusiastic about an EU Army now they've seen France and Germany's response to Ukraine...
For me the honest answer I'd have to give is that Brexit has neither made "daily life" better or worse, its pretty indifferent to be honest.
But that wasn't the point of Brexit.
Wtf was the point then?
I am waiting on essential personal medical supplies which have now been delayed for the first time ever. They are made in Germany. Four weeks late and counting.
To be fair the UK distributor I use, who have been excellent all the time I have used them, are being rather reticent about the reason so we will have to see how it pans out and what they label as the reason. They have been studiously neutral about Brexit in all their comms over the past 6 or 7 years, which is fair enough.
Fortunately with all the uncertainty after the Brexit vote, I decided to build up and keep a couple of months' extra stock, so I am ok for a few weeks yet.
I guess that could be deemed an indirect benefit of Brexit?
Worrying though.
The point for me was for England (with or without the rest of the UK) to be an independent, sovereign country where our laws are determined at our elections. If we do badly, its possibly in part because we elect bad governments, but we have the option to kick them out. We don't have the option to reverse bad EU laws because the EU isn't a functional demos, and the EU Parliament elections are a bad joke.
I've always used a hockey stick analogy for the benefits and costs of Brexit, I fully expect the most serious costs to be up-front, but the benefits will be virtually invisible up-front. Disruptions or changes normally are costly up-front.
The benefit from being different and outside the EU will accumulate over decades, potentially centuries to come.
I expect England/UK to be like Europe's version of Canada, while the EU will be Europe's version of the USA. Some people think the only thing that matters is size, so America/EU must be best, but I would rather a more local English/British/Canadian style control over laws and ability to evolve differently than trying to force 50/28 at times very different states to all be under the same laws, under the same roof.
UK Parliament elections are a bad joke. Half of them aren't elected and half of them are elected from parties I don't like.
Everyone in the Commons is elected, and every single Commons MP (even those I can't stand) are the most desired candidate to represent their local constituency.
EPG said Parliament, which includes the Lords. I believe it remains Conservative party policy to oppose Lords reform.
EPG did not say Parliament, he said "UK Parliament elections"
The Lords is a toothless revising chamber that can advise but not override the Commons. The Commons can and should get its way when the two are in dispute, via the Parliament Act if need be.
UK Parliament elections apply to the Commons, which is the Chamber that matters.
For me the honest answer I'd have to give is that Brexit has neither made "daily life" better or worse, its pretty indifferent to be honest.
But that wasn't the point of Brexit.
Wtf was the point then?
I am waiting on essential personal medical supplies which have now been delayed for the first time ever. They are made in Germany. Four weeks late and counting.
To be fair the UK distributor I use, who have been excellent all the time I have used them, are being rather reticent about the reason so we will have to see how it pans out and what they label as the reason. They have been studiously neutral about Brexit in all their comms over the past 6 or 7 years, which is fair enough.
Fortunately with all the uncertainty after the Brexit vote, I decided to build up and keep a couple of months' extra stock, so I am ok for a few weeks yet.
I guess that could be deemed an indirect benefit of Brexit?
Worrying though.
The point for me was for England (with or without the rest of the UK) to be an independent, sovereign country where our laws are determined at our elections. If we do badly, its possibly in part because we elect bad governments, but we have the option to kick them out. We don't have the option to reverse bad EU laws because the EU isn't a functional demos, and the EU Parliament elections are a bad joke.
I've always used a hockey stick analogy for the benefits and costs of Brexit, I fully expect the most serious costs to be up-front, but the benefits will be virtually invisible up-front. Disruptions or changes normally are costly up-front.
The benefit from being different and outside the EU will accumulate over decades, potentially centuries to come.
I expect England/UK to be like Europe's version of Canada, while the EU will be Europe's version of the USA. Some people think the only thing that matters is size, so America/EU must be best, but I would rather a more local English/British/Canadian style control over laws and ability to evolve differently than trying to force 50/28 at times very different states to all be under the same laws, under the same roof.
UK Parliament elections are a bad joke. Half of them aren't elected and half of them are elected from parties I don't like.
Everyone in the Commons is elected, and every single Commons MP (even those I can't stand) are the most desired candidate to represent their local constituency.
EPG said Parliament, which includes the Lords. I believe it remains Conservative party policy to oppose Lords reform.
EPG did not say Parliament, he said "UK Parliament elections"
The Lords is a toothless revising chamber that can advise but not override the Commons. The Commons can and should get its way when the two are in dispute, via the Parliament Act if need be.
UK Parliament elections apply to the Commons, which is the Chamber that matters.
I see that the US Supreme Court has decided to take up the case to test the insane legal theory that State Courts cannot rule on the actions of State Legislatures when it comes to Federal Elections.
Just to give you a taste of how fringe this theory is it holds that even if the actions of the state legislature explicitly violates the state's constitution the state courts cannot rule them illegal. That literally _any_ actions by the state legislature when it comes to Congressional and Presidential elections are legal.
This is _exactly_ the path that the John Eastmen memo was plotted out to overthrow the results of the election. Get state legislatures to throw out results. And it would be legal because of this wacky theory.
It'll be down to Barrett and Kavanaugh this one. Ol' Roberts is just as bad as Alito when it comes to voting rights. Gorsuch will be able to read the constitution in such a way that this comes to pass, and Thomas just hates the world so far as I can tell.
I know it's tangentially related, and mainly applies to Dobbs, but I've really soured on the concept of bills of rights, maybe even the concept of constitutional democracy entirely. Still, I shouldn't judge the concept by its worst example.
The Grundgesetz in Germany seems to work tolerably, though I'm not sure how it really works in the framework of the German judiciary. A cursory glance at Wikipedia seems to suggest that their constitutional court is split from their highest Civil and Criminal Court, which is interesting.
The trick is to think of rights that survive the test of time (freedom of opinion yes, ownership of slaves no). When you get "rights" that are specific to the culture of the time (right to bear arms is a good example, as it was intended as protection against Government, not for use on other citizens), you always get problems. But it's difficult. One generation's obvious eternal right (retention of property or full compensation if deprived) is another's oppressive restriction (should a wealth tax really be unconstitutional?).
Germany's constitution is fairly uncontroversial because it's quite a homogenous society, with few culture wars obscuring the basic questions of rights. But that too has proved tricky when the Government wants to sign EU agreements pooling power with other countries.
Late to the thread header but having just come back from France (flew out train back) travelling to the EU (I have only travelled to France and Greece) is unambiguously worse.
The posters at the Gare du Nord reminding people of maximum alcohol, etc volume allowed to be brought back to the UK but one minor irritating element.
I didn't notice any difference. Except my passport gets stamped, which I like.
The worst bit is always coming back into the UK, when you have to queue up to go through full passport control, and um.. that applies to British citizens who live here, and always did.
I would say it took about an hour plus extra each way. And so does every single person I have spoken to about it. Except you.
I make 2.
I’ve had one disaster (Spain) but Germany has been good while Sweden was quick 3/4 times (once took +30 mins). London has been fine on all occasions.
But improving this is entirely up to the EU. They are choosing to make individuals lives a little bit worse for no security benefit.
It's largely the remit of the individual countries rather than the EU I think. And things have probably been dramatically worsened by post covid labour shortages.
There’s something of a double standard here. Would Pincher have kept the whip if he tried to grope two women ?
That is a very good point. A gay sexual assault is quite as bad as one by a man on a woman.
Frankly, appointing someone with his record was stupid. And keeping him as a Tory MP despite what he has admitted is even more stupid.
But this is a government run by a man who had blow jobs in his office from his mistress.
So the standard of probity expected of Tory MPs seems to be no more than that they should be alive.
Do you actually care about blow jobs in the office from his mistress?
The best US President in the past three decades had blow jobs in the office from his mistress. Still better than everyone that came after him.
I am pointing out that if that is how the PM behaves he is hardly in a good position to demand or expect higher standards for his subordinates.
Do I care personally? No - in the sense that the PM is a complete stranger so his personal sexual morals do not affect me.
Do I care that the Foreign Secretary thought it appropriate to have sex in his office with his mistress during work hours? Yes - it is completely unprofessional. Were there any evidence of him being good at his job there would be something weighty to put in the balance. But there wasn't, was there?
And that complete disregard for rules, standards, for a sense of professionalism, of decorum or dignity was not a one off: it has shown itself time and time again, of which Partygate is the latest example.
People having affairs happens. Marriages fail. But it is possible to be discreet - and have some respect for the dignity of the office you hold. It is not necessary for Tory party MPs to behave as if they were in a competition to see who most resembles a rutting chimp.
Just read an interesting thought on Twitter, don't know how realistic a prospect it would be.
They're saying that if Starmer were to get the FPN and had to resign - and the tweeter posits the Tories are probably putting the pressure on behind the scenes for one to be issued - then the govt will go for an election whilst Labour are in the process of getting a new leader.
There’s something of a double standard here. Would Pincher have kept the whip if he tried to grope two women ?
That is a very good point. A gay sexual assault is quite as bad as one by a man on a woman.
Frankly, appointing someone with his record was stupid. And keeping him as a Tory MP despite what he has admitted is even more stupid.
But this is a government run by a man who had blow jobs in his office from his mistress.
So the standard of probity expected of Tory MPs seems to be no more than that they should be alive.
Do you actually care about blow jobs in the office from his mistress?
The best US President in the past three decades had blow jobs in the office from his mistress. Still better than everyone that came after him.
I am pointing out that if that is how the PM behaves he is hardly in a good position to demand or expect higher standards for his subordinates.
Do I care personally? No - in the sense that the PM is a complete stranger so his personal sexual morals do not affect me.
Do I care that the Foreign Secretary thought it appropriate to have sex in his office with his mistress during work hours? Yes - it is completely unprofessional. Were there any evidence of him being good at his job there would be something weighty to put in the balance. But there wasn't, was there?
And that complete disregard for rules, standards, for a sense of professionalism, of decorum or dignity was not a one off: it has shown itself time and time again, of which Partygate is the latest example.
People having affairs happens. Marriages fail. But it is possible to be discreet - and have some respect for the dignity of the office you hold. It is not necessary for Tory party MPs to behave as if they were in a competition to see who most resembles a rutting chimp.
You are missing the bit where he tried to repay Carrie's services with a £100 000 salary . He expects someone else to pick up the tab, always, from wallpaper to tree houses and even to blowjobs.
And the kicker is we're still completely cucked by the ol' ECHR court
You talk leave and right but funnily enough always tend to vote remain and left.
Eh ?
I voted conservative in 2017 and 2019.
You bottled the EU referendum and now say you want to join the euro, so I don't really take the ECHR stuff seriously.
You've since said you'd vote for Jacinda Ardern in a heartbeat as well as being tempted by Starmer, so I think your Tory votes were really just anti-Corbyn ones.
Morning all! With respect to the Brexit making people's lives better / worse and what does it matter now - it matters.
Quite simply comments like "nobody voted to make their daily lives better" are utterly ignorant of what so many red wall voters expected.
So it is a serious problem for the government that things have got worse and not better for many of these voters. Yes Covid and Ukraine etc etc but we are talking voters barely engaged with politics. They don't know or care about such details.
Brexit has failed because the NHS has got worse and prices have gone up and wages haven't. It's that simple. That we can't rejoin any time soon doesn't matter, people won't forget about it and move on. What they will do is hold their new Tory MPs to account...
Brexit is pretty special in that it hasn’t yet realised any benefit promised or otherwise. The rewriting of history to say that Brexit was never intended to yield benefits doesn’t really wash.
That simply isn't true.
We have a more sustainable agricultural and marine conservation policy now, public concern about immigration has a major issue has been killed off, we had a much better Covid vaccine programme, we've been able to adopt a more agile and flexible foreign policy on Ukraine with a firmer line, we've avoided any further drives to political union from Juncker or Von Der Leyen, or directives from Brussels that might target the City.
Personally, I take it as a huge relief that I don't have to worry about what nonsense comes out of the mouths of the EU Commission, or the integrationist political agenda for the European Council every 6 months, because it doesn't affect me anymore.
Agriculture is a mess. Immigration is not settled. The Poles and other Eastern European countries would argue they’ve shown robust support for Ukraine within the EU. UK Vaccine policy could have happened inside the EU There has been no further political union.
But I’m glad you feel better.
Agriculture is not a mess. Public concern about immigration has fallen drastically. We were able to put in place sanctions much earlier and adopt a robust line that influenced the EU in conjunction with Poland within. No it couldn't, this is pure "in theory" stuff whereas in political practice we'd absolutely have signed up to the same EU scheme Yes, us leaving has given them reason to pause (not in all areas, I hasten to add) and it would have continued had we stayed.
You need to get over your simplistic Brexit obsession and ridiculous partisanship.
Iirc Hungary had its own vaccine procurement plan (Sputnik V), and didn't get involved with the EU one, so it was certainly possible not to be involved and go your own way.
Whether that would have happened is another matter altogether.
I did wonder if the sensible course for her was not to talk about things she doesn't know about. But being a Secretary of State and a Trappist monk at the same time is a tricky operation, well beyond her intellect.
The reason Nads is a cabinet minister is to keep BoZo in his job.
She doesn't actually need to make any speeches to fulfil that role
And BJ doesn’t appreciate women who keep their mouths closed.
For me the honest answer I'd have to give is that Brexit has neither made "daily life" better or worse, its pretty indifferent to be honest.
But that wasn't the point of Brexit.
Brexit is an incremental burn of rising costs and bureaucracy. The costs of which slowly add up
I think Brexit is maybe causing 20% of our challenges at the moment - it's churlish to say it's zero, we all knew it would come with border friction costs - the rest is Covid, global supply chain issues, Ukraine and domestic policy, but it gets blamed for 150% of our problems because Brits love whinging and an easy scapegoat.
If we didn't have Brexit we'd need another one, and that would probably be the EU.
Oh really?
Except we have exactly what the spokesman said.
Free trade agreement? ✅ No free movement? ✅ No budget contributions? ✅ No supremacy of EU law? ✅*
Free trade still has frictions, since the Single Market goes well beyond traditional free trade agreements, but what we have now is a comprehensive free trade agreement.
* For GB. NI is currently under EU law on some issues of course, but the UK Parliament can unilaterally end that by passing Truss's excellent Bill.
Yes.
Free trade and the single market are different things. And free trade is not the same as unregulated trade (it does not for example require that a 3 year old in the UK can lawfully acquire a working machine gun from abroad).
The single market is an ultra free trade zone within it, but highly protectionist with regard to outsiders.
If, of course, we could have had the SM with minor derogations from FoM all this would never have happened.
I know its a bit of a shibboleth on here that the EU Single Market is uniquely protectionist, but it isn't really. Indeed, it's less protectionist - whether in terms of bureaucracy, FTAs, or tariffs - than any of the other big trading blocks.
Now, is it as open as the UK will hopefully be? Probably not, but it's not especially protectionist.
For me the honest answer I'd have to give is that Brexit has neither made "daily life" better or worse, its pretty indifferent to be honest.
But that wasn't the point of Brexit.
I assume you don't travel. Queues, pets, 90 day limit. All impact me, friends and family badly. 3 hour queue in Lisbon, cancelled trip to France as couldn't get dog documents in time, have to plan travelling with a dog weeks/months in advance, 90 day limit completely buggered two friends. One camped in motorhome on son's drive having had to return from EU, another having to go thru hoops re his villa in Portugal and travel limited.
In daily life I don't travel daily, no.
I haven't been abroad in a few years due to COVID restrictions but before then typically have one trip abroad per annum, and only a minority of those destinations have been in the EFTA anyway.
Although it is only a small part of Brexit I think this is what most people will experience as a direct impact of it. There may be invisible benefits of Brexit, but everyone who travels will witness those empty EU gates. I suspect that is why the poll came out with such a large 'worse' number. That may not be fair, but it is a fact of life. It is also clear from the chaos that travel has really kicked off again and the chaos is probably a combination of the leftovers of Covid as much as Brexit.
Many people are seeing benefits of brexit. The fact you and many on this board aren't is I suspect because most on this board were those that gained from being in the eu.
Being in the eu there were winners and losers Brexiting there are winners and losers
Some of the winners from being in the eu are now losers.
In my case I cite pay. Using my pay in 1997 as a baseline below is everytime I changed job and my %pay increase vs my 1997 pay. Many of my friends are seeing similar patterns.
What I would be earning if my pay had kept up with inflation since 1997 +97%
Can I prove its down to brexit....well no but the fact I am only seeing payrises when moving job since brexit happened while maybe coincidental is indicative and with others I know seeing a similar pattern something is happening
Wages are shooting up everywhere due to post-covid labour shortages, although the UK probably gets an extra fillip from the end of free movement.
Just read an interesting thought on Twitter, don't know how realistic a prospect it would be.
They're saying that if Starmer were to get the FPN and had to resign - and the tweeter posits the Tories are probably putting the pressure on behind the scenes for one to be issued - then the govt will go for an election whilst Labour are in the process of getting a new leader.
Machiavellian but I can imagine it happening.
Been thinking that for some time - IIRC I postulated it on PB weeks back. The critical bit is how much room Mr J has to actually force one on an unwilling monarch and party. The rest of us don't count.
There’s something of a double standard here. Would Pincher have kept the whip if he tried to grope two women ?
That is a very good point. A gay sexual assault is quite as bad as one by a man on a woman.
Frankly, appointing someone with his record was stupid. And keeping him as a Tory MP despite what he has admitted is even more stupid.
But this is a government run by a man who had blow jobs in his office from his mistress.
So the standard of probity expected of Tory MPs seems to be no more than that they should be alive.
Do you actually care about blow jobs in the office from his mistress?
The best US President in the past three decades had blow jobs in the office from his mistress. Still better than everyone that came after him.
I am pointing out that if that is how the PM behaves he is hardly in a good position to demand or expect higher standards for his subordinates.
Do I care personally? No - in the sense that the PM is a complete stranger so his personal sexual morals do not affect me.
Do I care that the Foreign Secretary thought it appropriate to have sex in his office with his mistress during work hours? Yes - it is completely unprofessional. Were there any evidence of him being good at his job there would be something weighty to put in the balance. But there wasn't, was there?
And that complete disregard for rules, standards, for a sense of professionalism, of decorum or dignity was not a one off: it has shown itself time and time again, of which Partygate is the latest example.
People having affairs happens. Marriages fail. But it is possible to be discreet - and have some respect for the dignity of the office you hold. It is not necessary for Tory party MPs to behave as if they were in a competition to see who most resembles a rutting chimp.
Bit unkind. You need to specify the species. Bonobos are very 1960s flower power types.
“I was always free to leave that Mafia gang, and the proof is that I have left it, despite losing an eye, an arm, and being shot three times as I tried to make my escape. And yes ok sure I now have to live in Newent under an assumed name, but I’m out of the mafia, that’s how free I always was”
Speaking as somebody who used to post under this assumed name from Newent, there is nothing wrong in that!
Comments
Over time it's going to shift the motorsports centre of gravity out of the UK just because it's less hassle. Yamaha WSBK recently moved their technical centre to Italy splitting from the shared effort with the BSB team in Lancashire.
Cornwall is less sovereign if it remains in the UK. If Cornwall wants to be an independent, and to determine its own laws, it would first need to leave the UK.
Sovereign nation: we want to follow the rules
Sovereign nation: we don't want to follow the rules.
Fine, I'm delighted for everyone. Let their be queues at the airport for all. But leave out the bollocks about us not being sovereign.
And there are two levels of de-democratisation. Within the EU the UK ceases to be in democratic control of increasing areas of life because of the legislating power of the EU; so the UK voters can't get stuff done by voting.
And secondly, less well understood, is that the EU parliament is Potemkin. Neither it, nor all the democratically elected governments of each EU state, have a process by which they can guarantee to effect a particular enactment. So even UK + others EU voters couldn't get stuff done by voting.
Those who think this is trivial might have a glance at the current state of US politics, Hong King, China and Russia.
I can get a divorce any time I want. I have that freedom, but I choose to remain married because it is simply better. It does not impinge on my identity whatsoever. It's called confidence.
But we aren't talking about a market here, businesses can be, just as countries can. If you have an opportunity in a market and a sound business plan then your cashflow would be hockey-stick shaped, which is precisely why start-ups seek funds to be disbursed in the first place. The up-front cost of investment is almost always a negative cash outlay at first, but with a desired return on investment in the long-term.
Pervert
Under investigation by NCA (he doesn't know)
Drunk
Sex pest
Sex pest
Dodgy donors
Yes she's ok but she's useless
Moron
Moron
He's Ok
Sex pest
She's actually good [laughter]
Dodgepot...
etc
https://twitter.com/Dominic2306/status/1542792687119646720
For illustration take where I am now. Montenegro. The airport is tiny and pleasant. It takes 3 minutes to pass customs and migration. The coast is as beautiful and sunny as anywhere in the EU. It’s cheap safe and historic. It’s Greece with better toilets
Why would a Brit go on holiday to Corfu and risk 2 hour passport queues when they can fly here - which is nearer - and know there is no hassle at all? My view this morning from a luxury apartment costing £70 a night
If the EU persists in making travel a hassle for Brits then other countries around the EU - Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey, Montenegro, Switzerland, Morocco - will make it ever easier. Turkey especially could grab an enormous slice of the massive British tourist market
This process might take a few years to impact; in the end I predict countries like Portugal and Greece will wise up and make it a smooth process for UK travellers, as it is overwhelmingly in their interests to do so
Suspended Tory MP also being investigated by Standards Commissioner after lobbying for Russian who gave him £150k loan https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1542792321787379713/photo/1
That sort of democratic you mean?
Maybe there are other things in the Grundgesetz that help stop the Constitutional Court going all SCOTUS, or maybe Constitutional Courts are all ticking time bombs at the hearts of Constitutional Democracies.
As for UKSC, it's a different beast. It has a limited form of judicial review (often brought under the HRA?), as I understand it, but Parliament's role is much closer to our version of a constitutional court. Others will know better, but I don't think the House of Lords or UKSC has ever overturned primary legislation, and judicial review is limited to secondary legislation. Even in a Marbury situation, I can't really see a way that the UKSC could give itself powers of constitutional judicial review unless those powers are delegated to it by Parliament. Indeed, it seems the HRA is on its way out and will clip the wings of UKSC a fair bit (for better or worse).
https://twitter.com/AlexofBrown/status/1542794063539310595
If the love weren't there, then divorce becomes appropriate and isn't something to be afraid of. Divorce is a horrible thing at the time, but can be for the best of all concerned. I'm lucky to be in a happy marriage with my wife, and my parents have a happy marriage, but all of my grandparents got divorced. They were better off for it, they remarried and spent decades with someone they loved rather than someone they couldn't stand anymore - and I am in the fortunate position of having extra grandparents because my grandparents by marriage are every bit as much loved as those by blood.
Between Britain and the EU there was no love left, so divorce was appropriate. Even the pro-EU side couldn't really say why they loved the EU pre-Brexit, so if all the marriage is bringing is hatred and acrimony then "staying together for the kids" isn't that appropriate or sensible.
Boris Johnson appointed Chris Pincher as deputy chief whip despite attempted intervention by MPs.
Full story by @EleniCourea and me: https://www.politico.eu/article/downing-street-appointed-tory-mp-top-job-despite-sexual-misconduct-allegation/
“He [Pincher] was absolutely livid when he didn’t get made chief,” said one aide. “As soon as his name was in the running, people went into No. 10, including MPs, with new allegations about what he’d done.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/downing-street-appointed-tory-mp-top-job-despite-sexual-misconduct-allegation/
Frankly, appointing someone with his record was stupid. And keeping him as a Tory MP despite what he has admitted is even more stupid.
But this is a government run by a man who had blow jobs in his office from his mistress.
So the standard of probity expected of Tory MPs seems to be no more than that they should be alive.
Does look well-suited for that purpose on a sunny day.
choose your side https://twitter.com/ottocrat/status/1542791238457376769/photo/1
My other question is about the impact of the EU. During the period you're talking about we (a retail bank) used a lot (and I mean a lot) of offshore developers in India for app development and I acknowledge that that led to pay being suppressed to a degree, although our in-house developers tended to do quite well because their business knowledge made them a key interface with offshore.
Use of Indian developers was feck-all to do with our membership of the EU, of course.
Just before I retired a few years ago, serious questions were being asked about the risk of reliance on offshore developers during times of geopolitical upheaval (this was before Covid and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, of course).
I am not sure how those discussions played out or whether the reliance on offshore has been reduced at all.
In any event, I am glad your salary situation has improved, whatever the reason.
The best US President in the past three decades had blow jobs in the office from his mistress. Still better than everyone that came after him.
I love this place. I met my landlord on the beach last night. Everyone swims and chats in the sea in the early evening. It’s intensely civilised
You wouldn't be rolling in the aisles if you'd invested a the broad sunlit uplands plan, only to be told about the jolly hockey sticks after you'd signed the cheque and the startup had already blown the funds.
Which is a bit more like where we are now.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1541792577082605568
Britons continue to think that Brexit is going badly
Going well: 16%
Going badly: 54%
Neither: 20%
Though no doubt Barty will tell us that's false consciousness.
If UK politicians had been capable of an EU discussion beyond "We're agreed - it's lovely" and "Ah, you're a small-minded bigot" then they would have won the referendum. They almost won it even with a campaign arguably worse than May's 2017 effort.
I do wonder if the Baltic tigers and Poland are so enthusiastic about an EU Army now they've seen France and Germany's response to Ukraine...
New thread
The Lords is a toothless revising chamber that can advise but not override the Commons. The Commons can and should get its way when the two are in dispute, via the Parliament Act if need be.
UK Parliament elections apply to the Commons, which is the Chamber that matters.
Germany's constitution is fairly uncontroversial because it's quite a homogenous society, with few culture wars obscuring the basic questions of rights. But that too has proved tricky when the Government wants to sign EU agreements pooling power with other countries.
Do I care personally? No - in the sense that the PM is a complete stranger so his personal sexual morals do not affect me.
Do I care that the Foreign Secretary thought it appropriate to have sex in his office with his mistress during work hours? Yes - it is completely unprofessional. Were there any evidence of him being good at his job there would be something weighty to put in the balance. But there wasn't, was there?
And that complete disregard for rules, standards, for a sense of professionalism, of decorum or dignity was not a one off: it has shown itself time and time again, of which Partygate is the latest example.
People having affairs happens. Marriages fail. But it is possible to be discreet - and have some respect for the dignity of the office you hold. It is not necessary for Tory party MPs to behave as if they were in a competition to see who most resembles a rutting chimp.
They're saying that if Starmer were to get the FPN and had to resign - and the tweeter posits the Tories are probably putting the pressure on behind the scenes for one to be issued - then the govt will go for an election whilst Labour are in the process of getting a new leader.
Machiavellian but I can imagine it happening.
He expects someone else to pick up the tab, always, from wallpaper to tree houses and even to blowjobs.
Whether that would have happened is another matter altogether.
Now, is it as open as the UK will hopefully be? Probably not, but it's not especially protectionist.